Chalk one up for the good guys....

[Beendare]

Holy crap...how did the Tea Party get mixed up in this? grin

Daniel M.... thx for that update.....

 

[Billinsd]

The definition from Webster's has been modernized. If you study the history of socialism and where it came from, what it meant when it first appeared, it has nothing to do with government control or state ownership like we know today. It was about the elimination of class struggle and egalitarianism. Workers would all be owners of their companies, government would really only play the role of distribution not actually enforcing it's will on citizens. The core notion of traditional socialism is that working people have to be in control of their lives.

Right!! But where and when in the entire world has there been a society like this? I can't think of anywhere?

 

[Billinsd]

If it is a nanny state, it is not socialism in the truest sense of the word. Nanny state = State capitalism, modern state socialism, or corporatism.

right!! But are there any true socialist states, have there ever been?

 

[brocksw]

right!! But are there any true socialist states, have there ever been?

There were conscious socialist movements in the late 1700s and early 1800s. I believe the first real socialist "government" was in 1871 Paris, I could be wrong on that. Most remnants of traditional socialism were eliminated by the early 20th century, maybe even before that.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

There were conscious socialist movements in the late 1700s and early 1800s. I believe the first real socialist "government" was in 1871 Paris, I could be wrong on that. Most remnants of traditional socialism were eliminated by the early 20th century, maybe even before that.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

thanks

 

[5MilesBack]

So you support the privatization of public lands? The privatization of the department of education? The privatization of prisons? You support deregulation to the point of market failure? You support crony capitalism and insider trading? You support more overseas business and manufacturing? You don't support democracy? You support wage labor? You oppose labor unions, credit unions, ESOPs?

I could write a 10 page response but I'll just say I believe in the right to private property and private property rights. I don't believe people in general have a "right" to communal property, which is also completely different that privatizing public lands. I believe that the government has no business in the education of our citizens, so the Department of Education should cease to exist. Which goes for many, many other areas that the government doesn't belong in either. I believe in a justice and judicial system that deters crimes against society, which eliminates the need for so many prisons. I believe in free markets and allowing those market dynamics to regulate themselves. I don't believe we need unions, but I believe people have the right to form whatever groups makes them feel good. I also believe that businesses have the right to hire whomever they want to hire, and run their businesses the way they want to run them......which makes unions kind of useless. And I fully support the market setting the wages.

The problem we have here, is that government has taken over so much of this that we are so far from what is an actual free market system. The government is involved in EVERYTHING. I'm also against governmental welfare......not there job or purpose. I am for individual independence, autonomy, hard work, responsibility, and accountability for one's self without the government or anyone else dictating every breath of air we breathe.

This kind of stuff just seems simple and obvious to me. But what makes it impossible to work, fix, or function these days is that the government is so intertwined with it all that it fails to operate in any kind of logical or even functional manner.

 

[brocksw]

I could write a 10 page response but I'll just say I believe in the right to private property and private property rights. ....

I know you stated you “fully support capitalism”, but by your response, you are only in partial support. If you fully support capitalism, you would fully support the privatization of nearly everything. That is, after all, the entire basis of capitalism, privatization for profit. In an imaginary, 100% capitalist country, we would not have public anything; everything would be privately owned and operated for profit. This would include the lands we now call public, whether they are parks or forests, and is why many of the Republicans have always been for any legislation that will allow industry to gain more control over public lands. I’m not sure what your definition of communal property is, but I can assure you by all accords that your National Parks, Forest Service land, BLM land, WMA, and refuges are community property. I believe as a citizen of the USA that it is my right to have them, use them, and protect them; they are one of the true gems of our country. If you stand against the privatization of those lands, the very lands that were reserved with the intent for public access then you stand against capitalism in some form or fashion.
As for education, you are probably alluding to your disappointment and shortcomings of the American educational system. I would agree with that sentiment, unfortunately, I will not support the privatization of our educational system and in turn, allow my children’s knowledge to be assigned a monetary value for the profit of some company. I am sure you can see the corruption and problems that would occur in an entire for profit educational system. Furthermore, there is no solid evidence in all of the world that privatized education benefits test scores, assimilation into the work force, or the children’s wellbeing overall. Not to mention the fact that many people can’t afford healthcare or college, how would they afford 13 years of primary education? Surely, any in depth look at economics would allow you to understand that the free market cannot fix this in the real world.
Your stance on the justice system is an interesting one because it is largely a liberal view. You believe in a justice system that does not need as many prisons, a justice system that deters crimes against society, and then you turn around and support the capitalist fundamentals, which by all accounts would be for the privatization of prisons for profit. Tell me, if you were in the business of running a prison for profit, would it not be in your best interest to have more people incarcerated so that you can expand your prison and thus expand your profits?
If you believe the market will regulate itself than you must support deregulation of said market. I urge to look at the history books and examine what happens to the US economy after deregulation, you will find a grim outlook for your retirement fund. If you believe in free markets than you must be truly against Donald Trump’s wall on the Mexico border and against his restriction of immigration. After all, these are fundamental necessities to any capitalist market, a market where a steady flow of cheap labor is beneficial to profit maximization and growth of your business. We see this in the freest markets in the history of the world.
If you are against unions than you must be, essentially in support of slavery. You can thank unions and other labor movements who fought for better wages, better working conditions, and benefits, all of which I’m sure you so gladly take advantage of today.
I agree with you that there is too much government, unnecessary government poking into our lives and telling us what we can and cannot do, what we should believe and how we should operate our lives. However, I am under no foolish belief that it is all the fault of left wing politics or right wing politics. In order to look at the current situation in the country, which you seem to be so unhappy with, you will have to look at both sides and acknowledge the flaws with each. If it improvement that you seek, you will have to take an honest look at the country and acknowledge that not everyone thinks like you, and compromise must be held in the highest regard. The problem with being a republican or democrat and holding to those ideologies so tightly, thinking they’ll work “if we just give them a chance”, is that not every agrees with you, no matter the side which your reside on. They only work in theory; they only work if that side is given complete control to enforce their beliefs on those that disagree. This is why centrism is the only way forward. A beautiful mix of both socialism and free markets. If you don’t like socialism, the idea of welfare, then you should look at your beloved capitalism honestly in the mirror. Capitalism, by its very nature produces socialist movements, Capitalism needs wage slaves, and not everyone wants to be one of those, but there are only so many people who can own a business or run a company.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Interesting discussion.

Still, hunting bears over bait gives hunters everywhere a black eye. If the Feds don't regulate it, then the State should step up and do it. This issue easy falls into the bucket labeled "if hunters don't regulate themselves then the voters certainly will."

 

[5MilesBack]

You see, that's the problem with so many today. You're tying too many things together and calling it an absolute......when some are independent of others and not required by the others. Kind of like saying "Pie is good, steak is good......therefore pie on steak is good". That's not good logic.

If you are against unions than you must be, essentially in support of slavery. You can thank unions and other labor movements who fought for better wages, better working conditions, and benefits, all of which I’m sure you so gladly take advantage of today.

There you go again with that horrible logic. Nobody forces anyone to work at a specific company in our country. The market would take care of all those things if the government would allow it to.

You sound very bitter about Capitalism. Perhaps another country to live in would be a better choice instead of jumping on board with the millions of others that are dead set on ruining ours.

 

[5MilesBack]

Still, hunting bears over bait gives hunters everywhere a black eye. If the Feds don't regulate it, then the State should step up and do it.

Or........allow the F&G departments to regulate it, since they are the ones that over see it. Another option is just to do away with hunting bears at all, and then the F&G folks can kill bears at will to control population levels. That's another option.

 

[brocksw]

You see, that's the problem with so many today. You're tying too many things together and calling it an absolute......when some are independent of others and not required by the others. Kind of like saying "Pie is good, steak is good......therefore pie on steak is good". That's not good logic.



There you go again with that horrible logic. Nobody forces anyone to work at a specific company in our country. The market would take care of all those things if the government would allow it to.

You sound very bitter about Capitalism. Perhaps another country to live in would be a better choice instead of jumping on board with the millions of others that are dead set on ruining ours.

Unfortunately, good logic has nothing to do with it. You said you fully support capitalism, capitalism is essentially a ideological doctrine. In order to fully support capitalism you can't cherry pick what parts you believe or accept as a part of that doctrine and than disregard everything else, then turn around and say you fully support it. What kind of logic is that?

My logic is based on historical events, not on 5milesback's economic theory. I would urge you to study the labor movements, where they came from, what they stood for, why they had to fight for what they fought for and who opposed them. Study the Spanish Civil war in the early 20th century, study the libertarian socialist and socialist movements in Europe in the 1800s, study Adam smith and his criticisms of capitalism, study his book "the wealth of nations". There are many resources available to you to look at history and see what effect capitalism has and what can be expected of "free markets", what they produce. There are many historical documents and accounts of the flaws in left wing ideology as well. You must read them both, understand them both, and consider them objectively. Only then can you see that what is proposed in theory by the left and the right does not work with actual humans on planet earth in the reality that we live in.

I am not "bitter", I have done my homework, put in my time and studied history objectively. I can dismantle left wing ideoloy and policy just as easily as the right, but that would be inappropriate when discussing capitalist ideas with someone who is already against left wing ideology. Unless of course I'm like most Americans and am only willing to engage in conversation with those that believe in what believe in and those that speak of this thing like I speak of this thing. To that, I would tell you, I don't need confirmation from anyone to affirm what I already know, and history is on my side.

 

[Beendare]

Interesting discussion.

Still, hunting bears over bait gives hunters everywhere a black eye. If the Feds don't regulate it, then the State should step up and do it. This issue easy falls into the bucket labeled "if hunters don't regulate themselves then the voters certainly will."

I disagree.

Did you read the AK F&G response in Daniels post? Bears on bait is a management tool. Its hard to fathom if you live in an area with a low bear population but where they are heavily populated in thick cover....you can't kill enough bears spot and stalk to dent the population enough for control.

Hunting in its different forms are tools the F&G use as control. so just as they use limited draw tags to help the animal species in certain units/states/areas....they use different hunting techniques...or more tag allocations. When I first started hunting Alaska decades ago, we could shoot 5 deer....something like 3-4 caribou [I actually can't remember back 30 years ago on that!] All of those are mgmt tools.

i think we have to be careful as hunters to diss other forms of hunting. So for example, I HATE crossbows....but I don't rail against hunters using them as the antis love to divide and conquer.

 

[Daniel_M]

Holy crap...how did the Tea Party get mixed up in this? grin

Daniel M.... thx for that update.....

Right? LOL

Yeah I'm shocked at how up in arms the US is over this, as all it did was return the power back to the state.

Bear baiting is crucial to population management here in Alaska and I'm glad to see grizz taken over bait considering it's benefits to the ungulate populations.

I frequent an area that (I) believe to have legit coastal brown bears migrating into, past the 30-mile geographically species line. Their bigger, and the sows have 3-4 cubs in tow. Density makes spot n stalk almost impossible. Calf survival rates are pretty low with a 30% chance of survival in the first 3-4 months.

My best day of glassing we spotted 17 bears, 9 of which were brown/grizz. 2 sows and 7 cubs.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

I disagree.

Did you read the AK F&G response in Daniels post? Bears on bait is a management tool. Its hard to fathom if you live in an area with a low bear population but where they are heavily populated in thick cover....you can't kill enough bears spot and stalk to dent the population enough for control.

Hunting in its different forms are tools the F&G use as control. so just as they use limited draw tags to help the animal species in certain units/states/areas....they use different hunting techniques...or more tag allocations. When I first started hunting Alaska decades ago, we could shoot 5 deer....something like 3-4 caribou [I actually can't remember back 30 years ago on that!] All of those are mgmt tools.

i think we have to be careful as hunters to diss other forms of hunting. So for example, I HATE crossbows....but I don't rail against hunters using them as the antis love to divide and conquer.

All forms of hunting are not equal or the same. I don't mind giving another hunter a black eye if he's doing something lazy, unethical, etc.

 

[Daniel_M]

All forms of hunting are not equal or the same. I don't mind giving another hunter a black eye if he's doing something lazy, unethical, etc.

So are you saying bear baiting is lazy and unethical? If so by what standards and definition? I personally base my standards and practice on the game regulations.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

So are you saying bear baiting is lazy and unethical? If so by what standards and definition? I personally base my standards and practice on the game regulations.

A man can certainly aspire to a higher personal code than that written by the state legislature.

 

[Daniel_M]

A man can certainly aspire to a higher personal code than that written by the state legislature.

Agreed, and I respect that. Not all areas are privy to baiting, and those that allow it for bears other than black do so for good reason, typically the terrain density, lack of access and abundant bear population which has led to extremely low moose populations.

As hunters and conservationists, all we do when we disagree is cause divisiveness among ourselves.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Daniel, I respect your thoughts here. I'm just saying I will not support every hunter's practice in the field. We can police ourselves or someone else will. I do hope it's the former, so my future grandchildren have the privilege of hunting like I do.

 

[Daniel_M]

I guess my hang up is that...it's a form of hunting allowed by the state, so there's really no policing needed. It's regulated, enforced with training criteria required as well as licensing.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Well again, the regs aren't an aspirational moral code. I can do a lot of things legally that most reasonable people would agree are reprehensible.