JustARandomPanda

It is my understanding that Ayn Rand had to live off of Social Security in her old age. The royalties from her books were just too tiny to support her and she had no family or relatives (that I know of) to turn to as an alternative. So at least in Ayn Rand's case Social Security did what it was designed to do - keep a Senior Citizen out of poverty. I do not fault Ayn Rand in this like many do. As she was ALSO right in that it is designed to let you recoup the money the Government originally took from you (and then some). She saw such taxation as theft - an assertion I believe Libertarians have not yet made an ironclad case for yet. But in the interests of fairness I provide this link. Rand on the Dole

Where are you getting this dichotomy? It's like it's an either/or situation in your head. If you are agitating against the Gaming of Society it means you can't do Peaceful actions to help those around you too? Only Peaceful actions count in creating social change? Too bad you weren't around when Mohammed was alive. It might have convinced him to question Allah's commands about bringing Holy War to the Infidels. Yes it does. But no one is saying that that can't and isn't happening at a grassroots level. But again where is this dichotomy coming from?

Really? Protesting gaming of the system is trite? So which of the stuff I've been providing is non-trite to you? Any of it? None of it? I'll give you just one example of what I personally find quite non-trite. The gaming of our Contract Law. This gaming has been going on in our legal system since before Capitalism even evolved. You can't blame THAT one at least on 'spoiled middle-class kids'. You can't even blame it on the desire for non-essential-to-life goods. No where have I seen these Middle Class Kids (something I don't agree with as I think it's more diverse than just "spoiled" middle class kids) saying they insist everyone have huge amounts of wealth (which is the gist of your insinuation). Another leap in logic that does not follow. Equating protesting an ever increasing rate of asset accrual to a tiny minority does not equate to elimination of the top 1% completely. It does not even equate with getting rid of Capitalism and being a Socialist (though lotsa Libertarians love to shout you down otherwise). I agree as long as it's the 1% that doesn't game the system. But the burden of proof is on the person who thinks such gaming is minimal or doesn't affect society disproportionately. Otherwise I strongly disagree with this '1% is not the problem'. For one thing (unless we're talking about organized crime, violent crime, etc) a poor or middle class person simply doesn't have command of as much resources to assist in being venal, spiteful, greedy, scheming, backstabbing and bastardly. At least his/her bastardly ways are limited in scope to the reach of the resources under his/her command. As control of resources increases the damage done when under the Dark Side of the Force increases as well. This is exactly why Libertarians and Conservatives argue against getting rid of the 1% too - because their command of vast resources disproportionately influences the good they can do for society too. And they'd be right in that regard imo. I've never lived with terminal Pancreatic Cancer either. Doesn't mean I have no idea what it might be like to have to live with that depressing reality.

Sounds good except for one thing. There's a huge faction in the general U.S. populace that are in favor of the Military Industrial Complex. I should know. My mom and dad are two of them. Very pro "international engagement" and "pro military" (so long as it means they're taxes aren't raised ). No one much remembers that there actually used to be an influential wing in the oldtime Republican party that was Isolationist. But that went the way of the Dinosaur after the 1920s. *heavy sigh* One small problem. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in a landmark case exactly the opposite.

More things that make you go Hmmm... Copy of the letter Source article

I know I've been critical of the Small Gov mentality but in many ways I'm highly sympathetic to their aims. I just think the vast majority of 'Big Government is the Problem' people have not thought through some of the unintended consequences of their aim (like the fact litigation would increase, not decrease - and that's only one example). Like their reliance on contracts as one of their three guarantors of preserving individual freedom. Sounds good in theory but in real life contract law is gamed too and gamed hard. Because most tweeters and message board protestors are not familiar with contract law even at a cursory level they put a lot higher faith in it that I do. Because of my classes I was disabused of that notion in a hurry. The Powers that Be know how to game our Contract Law too just like they game our Legislatures and our Regulatory Agencies. Some things I think about: I would like to see government's role reduced. But it needs to be counterbalanced by an equal emphasis on reducing the huge influence of corporations and their networks as well - something that frustrates me mightily with most Libertarians as I would otherwise be a lot more sympathetic to them than I am at the moment. One start would be by repealing corporate personhood. However I have very little hope of that ever happening. Too few people are even aware of it and it's legal ramifications would be so great that huge constituencies would begin to aggregate to have it defeated. Another thing I've never seen and wondered why not. Why do we not have a check box on our yearly tax returns that one could voluntarily mark that would dedicate $3 dollars (or some other amount) solely toward reducing federal debt? It would be optional. Would work exactly like the checkbox of dedicating money to federal campaigns but this second box would be toward reducing the debt. I wonder why no one has introduced a bill or championed such an idea to the general public. I actually DO have a consistent voting record of not voting for a main candidate in either party. Haven't voted for a main party candidate in decades. Not many people I know in RL have the kind of voting record I have. I have a consistent decades-long voting record of useless protest votes.

Well then the follow up question becomes how to "jam" the war machine. Any suggestions as to how individuals can do that?

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with Zeitgeist but this was so funny I had to share it. Yo! Check it yall!

No one is a practicing contract lawyer or student? Sigh... Fine. Then I'll step up to the plate and offer what little I understand. Let's take a look at one part of the Holy Trinity of the Small Government Conservatives (and some Libertarians) solution for a freerer society. Let's look at Contracts because contracts are supposedly superior in preserving freedom and justice. I decided to do so. Beyond the Blogosphere and Social Media. I actually took classes in Contract Law and classes in Arbitration. So what to do about disputes and 'enhance the realm of freedom' for the individual/companies without Gov interference? Small Gov Conservatives and most Libertarians proudly point to Contracts. This can solve many of the problems we see in society today. Contract Law is one of the most ancient branches of law in existence. There are laws on the books in the U.S. that reach back to the days of the Roman Empire. When you exchange money you are actually in a contractual situation. I am making an Offer and you can either accept or reject. Therefore most transactions fall under Contract Law. To qualify as a valid contract it must fulfill certain conditions. My prof was a partner of one of the most successful contract law firms in the country. His firm has many famous multinational corporations as clients. Names you would recognize. Proctor and Gamble, Alcoa, Most Hollywood studios, etc. He also happened to be an old, grizzled Ex-Marine from the Vietnam era. Therefore when he taught Contract Law he often taught it using military analogies and terminology (on the side we also got an excellent introduction to military strategies/tactics when engaging in battles!). He regularly advises corporate Boards on strategies or tactics they are considering implementing that will fall under Contract Law. Here is just one real life on-the-books example of what one of his own hugely multinational clients did. Turns out they were considering entering into a contract with another equally huge multinational. However, they'd done some calculations, preliminary research, etc and immediately saw that it would be quite advantageous to breech the contract. Mind you this was BEFORE they had engaged in Day 1 of any contract negotiations at all with the other multinational corporation. He sat in that boardroom and watched as all Board members agreed to knowingly and willingly deceive this other multinational corporation. They strategized exactly as to how they were going to do this. It was just simply way too profitable - even after factoring in all the court costs, legal fees, time, etc - not to do it. So that's what they proceeded to do. They knew they were going to be sued. They knew they were going to lose (and they did). But in the end it didn't matter - they made out like bandits anyway by breeching the contract. Contract Law breeches do not permit punitive damages to discourage this kind of blatantly immoral and unethical behavior like Tort does. The costs imposed for breech of contract that our 1000+ year old Contract Law allows are very low (for reasons which would take a textbook chapter to explain but just trust me it's got the force of hundreds of years of history of interpreting things this way). OK. I'll give just one example. Opportunity Cost is a principle familiar to everyone from Economics 101. The true cost of doing something or buying something is not just what I pay for it. It's true cost includes what I had to give up - what else did I forgo that I otherwise could have had if I'd not gone with the thing I bought? Contract Law does not permit this kind of calculation when it's deciding between aggrieved parties. It is simply not permitted. Economists have to account for this but Contract Law can not. This has the force of 100s of years of stare decisis ("let the decision stand") case law behind it. Another example of one of his clients/court cases he regaled us with: There was an author with a small press publisher who happened to have his book turned into a movie. Naturally he and his small press publisher wanted to give the hardcover a certain period of time (especially around the time of the movie release) to be on the shelves by itself. Hardcovers are more profitable than paperbacks. And this small publishing company was very dependent on the sales this hardback would generate. A large publishing corporation entered into a contract with the author and his small publisher. It was agreed in writing that the large publisher would wait 8 months after the movie was gone from the theaters before they could issue a paperback of his novel. Within 3 weeks of the movie's release the big publisher rushed the paperback to the shelves. They made well over $350,000 on the paperback sales. Naturally the hardcover sales that the tiny publisher and author were depending upon did not materialize. They sued the large publisher for breech of contract. The author pointed out how he had been hurt financially because he and his small publisher lost all those hardcover sales that otherwise would have happened. Now remember what I said about Contract Law earlier? Contract Law for 100s of years has not been allowed to take lost revenues into account when deciding cases (there may be some rare exceptions to this but if so we never discussed them in class). The result is that - due to other reasons - the court did find in favor of the Plaintiffs - the author/publisher and awarded him actual damages. You know how much he got from what Contract Law is permitted to calculate in awarding damages? $17,000. Yes, that's all he got. So the big publisher lost $17,000 but they made over $350,000 in return. Not a bad Return-on-Investment for breeching a contract. It made total economic sense to do this. In fact, from a MACROECONOMIC sense it made sense to do this. This is only one small example of what Contract Law allows. Here's another one. This one is recent. 2006. State of Texas. I know because I had to give this presentation to the class. A young man with his young family took a week long vacation. When he got home, to his shock he discovered his old house had a fresh coat of paint. He didn't know what to make of it but didn't give it much further thought. Turns out a Paint Contractor's crew mistakenly painted the wrong house. The house they were supposed to paint was several houses down. Ok. Well it's a screw up. Sometimes stuff like this happens. Then he got a notice in the mail from the Paint contractor stating he owed $15000 for the paint job. Now he was steaming mad. He stated it was the crews fuck up, he wasn't responsible for paying for something he'd never ordered. He got another notice in the mail stating he was being sued. A service had been delivered and he was refusing to pay. He had to go to court to defend himself. It took about 4.5 years to wind it's way through the court system and meanwhile he's paying lawyer fees through the nose. Money that could have been used to fund his retirement, his children's college education, etc, invest in real estate or a start up business instead had to go toward paying law firm fees and court costs. He also argued that he could not afford to pay this $15000. He would be forced to take out a loan if he had to pay for someone else's screw up. This case fell under Contract Law. Going by our history of Contract law one of the things the court had to look at whether he had been damaged by having his house painted. The fact was he had not. In fact, the market value of his house increased because of the fresh coat of paint. The fact that it was a mix up didn't enter into it. The fact that he would not be able to pay for this mix up was not allowed to be considered either. The courts are only permitted to look at very specific things. He LOST. My class (as was I) was horrified. How could this be? It was a slam dunk case in our minds that this was an utterly unjust judgment. The courts are not supposed to be instruments of injustice. It's supposed to be the opposite. Yet here is a recent case on the books of exactly that - injustice being served. Here's something else my Prof taught us. One way you can breech a contract without losing is if you can show the contract was no contract at all. A possible example to bring it home: You and I are a divorcing couple. We hate each other's guts. But I am dancing all the way home because my lawyer just proved to the Judge that this Pre-Nupt contract you insist was legal was in fact no contract at all. Because it did not fulfill one of the necessary conditions of what Contract Law says must be present to be legally enforceable I got you where I want you. And now I'm gonna have my lawyer nail your balls to the wall. Because when the Pre-Nupt is ruled unenforceable then Family Law (another branch of law that is also ancient) takes over. I'm grinning from ear to ear cause there's a better than decent chance I may end up with a sweeter deal under traditional Family Law than I would with that "Unenforceable" Pre-Nupt. Another counter intuitive example: Let's say we are in negotiations over the price of some service. You make an offer and I refuse. I make a counter offer and you refuse. This goes back and forth for days. We both grow weary. I finally realize that your very first offer was the best deal out of all the offers made. I want to go back to that very first offer. Under Contract Law you can not. You simply can not. Well, ok I suppose in real life you could - however, if a dispute then arises and a lawyer takes a look at it? He will not take the case because by going back to that very first offer you violated 100s of years of enforcible contract law. Once you refuse an offer it is REFUSED. FOREVER. You can not go back. You simply can not. Something must change even if the change is exceedingly tiny in order to bring it back under enforcible contract law. It can not be identical to a formerly refused offer. Now as I stated earlier my Law Prof was an old, grizzled Ex-Marine. He loved to couch Contract Law negotiations in military terms. So we got a good look at the underbelly of contract law negotiations between corporations. Here's some other examples: A good contract lawyer will know how to pepper a contract with "gotcha" clauses, "booby traps", "get out of jail free" clauses and other assorted tactics. They're all different but they ultimately rest upon one thing. Convincing the opposing Corporation's law team that this or that clause is saying one thing when in fact it is really saying something quite different. He would regale us with story after story of exactly these kinds of things going on. He would pick a particular section of a contract, we would then (based on what we had learned from the prior classes reading assignments, supplementary material, online material, etc) have to figure out what that clause was actually saying. As I type this out it sounds easy. Trust me - there's a reason lawyers are paid obscene amounts of money. It was fricking hard as hell. Even with our open textbooks, the sup material, studying for days pouring over this stuff the *vast* majority of the time we got it wrong. The average grade in that class was a D. You were one of the *lucky* ones if you made a C. And I don't recall anyone in that class making a B or A. It was hands down - of all the preliminary law classes I took - the hardest class I ever took. It was exhausting. BTW - despite his rep of being a tough prof his classes were so damn popular they would close in less than 30 minutes after registration opened. I remember one class where we were examining a particular clause and it turned out to be a very damaging covert 'booby trap'. We were flabbergasted when we finally figured out what it was *really* saying. Why would anyone sign such an agreement?! Yet the other corporation had. And now they were trapped and tried desperately to convince the courts to let them out (which they couldn't alas). I raised my hand. "Which chapters in our textbooks will begin teaching us these things?" I asked. I remember it to this day. He flashed me a big grin and said, "Ah Padawan. You will not find anywhere in your textbooks or class materials the things I am teaching you. That's why I'm paid the big bucks." He was right. You see. The textbooks, supp material, etc all teach the rules of the game. But he was teaching us something far more valuable. He was teaching us HOW contract lawyers play the game. And a good lawyer plays HARD BALL. The better you can do it the better your firm is - the more renown you achieve and thus more clients and money you make. He was showing us how the Game of Contract Law itself is "weaponized" and has been for centuries. I remember one class in particular early in the semester we were all walking around in a daze about how contract law is played out in real life. This is unethical! It's immoral! How can this be? How can a democracy permit these clearly unethical things to be? He agreed. It can be. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. But he's not payed to be a corporation's Conscience. He's paid to negotiate and write (or examine other company's) contracts to give his client the best possible position and widest latitude he possibly can all the while keeping an eagle eye out out for the stealth 'booby traps', 'gotcha' clauses, etc the other corporation's law team is trying to insert while trying to insert his own. Another interesting thing he told us. Going strictly off his own decades long career as a Contract Lawyer with a diverse cross-section of Industries. He said some industries definitely engage in more of these seemingly unethical and immoral tactics than others. For example, to the classes shock he said Hollywood was one of the least likely industries to engage in Contract tactics the average citizen would deem as immoral or unethical. Hollywood is surprisingly clean and upfront. Things move very fast in Hollywood and so word-of-mouth trust has a very high importance there. And so the Industry is one of the cleanest he's had to work with. Other industries you would never guess would be are much more inclined to play dirty in contract law. These kind of games are played out in corporate life frequently. Sometimes it's ethical. Sometimes it's not. It just is what it is. And if multinational corporations do this to *each other* why do we think they would refrain from acting this way when dealing with anyone else? Be assured Citibank and Goldman Sachs have their own versions of my Law Prof on retainer. Now...let's come back around to the Small Gov Conservative's love affair with Contracts. Ultimately Free Markets and Private Property rest upon the legitimacy of Contracts. Realize that in moving along the line away from legislative bodies and regulatory bureaucracies the closer we move in practice toward courts and judges. This is the real life end point of advocating for minimizing the role of Legislative bodies to a bare minimum. It is replacing Rule by democratically elected Legislatures with Rule by (typically) unelected Judges (whether public or private - aka Arbitrators). It's taking 'gaming the system' out of the sunlight of open lobbying (whether in a legislature or with a regulatory agency) where we can at least all see it going on and moving it to the more private, arcane backroom of courts. And our courts are already strained. Under many proposals of the Holy Trinity proponents (Contracts/Free Markets/Private Property Uber Alles) litigation would increase - dramatically so the more success was obtained in hacking away at Government. Energy in the system is never lost. It will merely find another outlet.

It is not necessarily the case that an unemployed person is lazy or has some other character flaw or work ethic defect that prevents him/her from getting a job. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-ads-exclude-the-long-term-jobless.html http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2011-01-23-longterm-unemployed_N.htm http://minnesotaindependent.com/60314/age-discrimination-plagues-the-long-term-unemployed

Who here of the participants in this thread is a practicing Contract Lawyer? Or at least a law student studying Contract Law? A paralegal/student for a Contract Law firm? Anybody?

Interesting article with accompanying map on where unemployment is/is not

Thanks Everything. I was doing a search on Michio Kaku when that came up. On a lark clicked on it and OMG! Fell in love. Be sure to check out the second vid too I edited in. We really ARE all connected. I sure hope the planet wakes up to that fact soon.

Yes, this is true. Many, many poor people do not pay taxes at all. That's why many of the current Republican presidential candidates (with the notable exception of Ron Paul) are agitating to change that. Republicans Want to Increase Taxes on the Poor

LOL!!!! I loved this! The Zeitgeist Movement should do this.

Here is an interesting article by The Atlantic Monthly The author later expanded it into this book Jihad vs. McWorld

Enjoy Edit: Isaac Asimov's Foundation series is about a Type 3 Civilization. I loved it. Highly recommended.

This is what Democracy is all about

I skipped over a lot of pages with very interesting info. But I wanted to share this part More of Chang's thoughts:

Let me share some excerpts from a book I have checked out from the library. That book is Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism I hope you enjoy the excerpts whether you agree or disagree with the author. My hope is that it will encourage people to read this book and most importantly - think for yourself.

Thank you Ralis I appreciate your participation in this thread and Taobums in general too.

It's cool TM. All I ask is for people to provide sources (or search words). I'll do lotsa hunting on my own.

LOL Gotta luv them Marbles. *Hugs MH*

Ah! I suspected there was a reasonable noodle in there somewhere. And having just read what you typed I strongly urge you to get The Lost Science of Money. I think you will enjoy it quite a bit - even if you end up disagreeing and think Zarlenga is smoking crack. Honestly, you don't have to have exhaustive explanations of why you believe what you do. I urge you to post links in part so you cut down on your time spent on this too. Nor do I think you and I agree on everything. I certainly don't expect us to. I do confess I am quite suspicious the "Holy Trinity" (Contracts/Private Property/Free Markets) isn't the panacea many Small Gov peeps believe it to be. Of course when pressed most admit life is not that simple. But their de facto behavior online presents the Holy Trinity as humanity's cure for what ails us. And far too many engage in the exact same blaming behavior they accuse of the left. viciously so. Look at how they turned the word Liberal into a put-down (and if you aren't aware of that I confess I see you as having lived under a rock with your head in the sand to boot with regard to that word). And that is the least of the attacks. I've seen far, far uglier. I don't believe in the Holy Trinity defacto anymore...sigh... Seen way too much convincing evidence both supporting it and not supporting it.

To give yet another source one can check for one's self: Here is a book that looks at how Social Networks change the game when it comes society and equality/inequality: Unanticipated Gains: Origins of Network Inequality in Everyday Life Portfolios of the Poor: How the World's Poor Live on $2 a Day BTW - here is one example of how a foundation set up by a wealthy couple (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) is helping to improve our understanding of the world. Bill Gates is also deeply involved in several philanthropic endeavors. Not the least of which is bringing life-saving vaccines to desperately poor countries.