Kubrickfan

Welcome!!!

Agreed as to the staff and dancers, didn't mean to imply otherwise.

When they did the renovations to the CR, that happened very quickly ... hopefully this will too.

Hmmmm .... $150,000 from insurance for damage, eh?

Maybe the arsonist was "hired help."

Wasn't the California energy crisis all about the disastrous consequences of letting private industry run the production and sale of energy? They had people shutting down power plants for "maintenance" in order to reduce the supply of energy, jack up the price accordingly, and reap astronomical profits from the public who had nowhere else to buy power. And that's just the first example that comes to mind. Then there's privatization of the water supply in Bolivia...

 

Private industry can possibly do a better job than government with utilities, but only if there's competition. With a monopoly, you just create another California. And how to ensure there's no monopoly, or simple collusion between profit-oriented corporations? I'd rather have the government running utilities inefficiently, than monopolies running them to maximize profit.

 

I don't have figures handy, but I seem to recall that the Canadian healthcare system is cheaper and more efficient than the American one. That probably depends how we frame the question and measure efficiency/cheapness, though -- I'm not sure offhand.

 

 

Somewhat true. A nation of slaveowners might achieve great economic output but not necessarily a good overall standard of living, right? So the one doesn't automatically lead to the other, but I agree it's a necessary precondition. But... I don't think anyone has disputed this, right? Is anyone here advocating less industry, production, or national prosperity?

 

 

I thought Loopie took a pretty good stab at the answer. Definitions of "socialism" (like "capitalism") vary, but nothing about capitalism is antithetical to socialism. Socialism as a political philosophy ("we should all contribute somewhat to our collective interests") works perfectly well with capitalism as I defined it earlier in the thread. Capitalism is about how a society generates wealth. Socialism is about how a society employs that wealth.

 

I'll be honest though, I'm approaching the limit of how deeply I want to pursue this issue on CERB. It's fun and rewarding to throw ideas out there, but it's not something we're all likely to agree on in the end. We could waste a lot of letters without coming close to a resolution. :)

 

Thanks to everyone for their contributions -- it's been interesting.

If I recall correctly, the California energy crisis was caused directly by the state government (headed by Gov. Gray Davis ... at the time called "Grayout" Davis) and the state Public Utilities Commission not allowing the utilities in question to raise rates in accordance with increases in energy costs that the utilities had to absorb. That caused the utilities to be unable to supply sufficient quantities of energy without rolling blackouts. The utilities first ran out of money and, due to the failure to increase rates, couldn't borrow money to buy the power. Those power companies had to file for reorganzation and bankruptcy and Gray Davis was recalled and thrown out of office in the middle of his term. This is a perfect example of what I was referring to by the concept of the government trying to control prices ... it may work in the very short term, but its doomed to failure.

And socialism does not work well with capitalism ... I think for the most part, the more socialism exists the less free markets and capitalism you will have. The reason is simple ... the innocent concept of "everyone should share" comes with it the inimical concept of others, including the government, saying that thing I worked hard to produce, or invested my money in, now belongs to someone else who never did anything to earn it. My grandma, grandpa, mom and dad taught me that was stealing. Even when the government does it.

The funny thing is that there is room for anyone, either in the US or Canada, to be part of that 1%. With respect to everyone on this board, I am fortunate enought to be there as well and I definitely wasn't born into it. I have had to work my butt off for everything I've gotten and I guarantee you that I haven't screwed anyone (pun intended ... smile) in the process. You are doing yourself a disservice thinking otherwise, and the harder you work to achieve that, by making good decisions, investing wisely, working hard, and making the most of yourselves benefits everyone else as well as that's the intrinsic nature of free markets and capitalism. Dont sell yourselves short!

I respect everyone on this forum, but I just get annoyed when I see discussions of topics such as socialism as if its a good thing. Its not, and I work with a lot of people that have suffered through its abuses.

I do agree that we will never all agree and I care too much for for the people around this forum to keep debating the point ... so I'm done too.

At least in the US, water, electricity and other utililties are already, from a price standpoint, controlled by the government as any price increases need to be approved by the respective public utilities commissions. But those commissions cant control all of the "inputs" (for instance, coal, gas or uranium) needed to produce those utilities... its simply less efficient from an economic standpoint. I think most governments that have tried to nationalize those sorts of things have found it doesn't work and actually costs more, not less, and results in a poorer delivery of those goods or services. Same thing for socialized medicine and the other things. When you try to control those things, even with the best of intents, it will have the opposite effect, as certain as gravity.

The standard of living for a society, or a country, is going to be directly related to the amount of economic activity occuring in that society. Without that activity, there is no "1%" ... or at least a much smaller 1% ... and therefore less tax revenue from that 1% that has to be borne by the balance of the population. Again, as certain as gravity.

And I'm still trying to figure out how socialism is like regulated capitalism, but out of respect to roaminguy and the subject of his original post,

I'll drop the question.

But modern Socialism is just regulated capitalism, which I do think is the best way to go.

Please, do explain.

:icon_rolleyes:

To quote a previous post, it isn't capitalism that should be railed against, but unchecked capitalism. Current capitalism is creating a class system and rewarding illegal behaviour. The 2008 economic meltdown was the result of unchecked and unregulated markets and what has the world learned as a result? Nothing. There are no new checks and regulations to prevent another collapse on the same scale, mostly because the interested parties have blocked it through the politicans they own. That is the objection. Not the body of capitalism, but the greedy cancer that has invaded it.

 

And while communism may be a politically reprehensbile system, it must have its economic perks. Last time I checked, China, the world's largest Communist state, owns the majority of the U.S.'s staggering debt.

The markets are quite regulated, but I would admit that there have definitely been abuses. The problem is that the government swooped in to protect those companies rather than the companies having to deal with the consequences of their actions. If the government had stayed out of it, the markets would have finally "cleared," in an economic sense, and we woudl all be better off. Also, the people who caused the problem, be they a*holes or idiots, would have been held accountable for their actions.

And you cant really believe that China's communism has anything to do with its current economic success (which is probably being highly overstated). It has everything to do with highly un-regulated free markets and the availability of cheap and reasonably-educated labor.

I agree completely with baileydog except that he's being too apologetic for "capitalism." Its not perfect, but if anyone has a better solution it certainly hasn't proven itself yet.

Any economic system has its faults, but to paraphrase Milton Friedman, no other economic system has ever brought so much wealth and prosperity to so many. Nothing else even comes close. Ignore this, belittle this, quote Lenin (how did Communism work out for you, btw?), etc., etc. at your own economic risk.

Now everybody stop yer whining and get back to work!! :icon_smile: :icon_smile:

Congrats Pete ... hope to see you back!

I had the opportunity to visit with Isabella on a recent trip to Ottawa. She is a wonderful lady! I find her to be very attractive (almost a spinner?) with beautiful eyes. We had been planning the visit for a while and Isabella is very good at responding to PMs. We had a great conversation on a wide variety of topics involving cerb, life, politics, etc., etc., etc ... all great fun, and she is very well spoken.

Isabella is very sensuous in bed with moments of humor ... very relaxing! She seems to really enjoy being stimulated and returning the favor. Things were a tiny bit reserved as we were getting to know each other (our first visit together), but thats normal on a first visit. All in all, a very enjoyable experience and I look forward to seeing Isabella again on my next trip!

Congratulations Isabella ... keep up the great work!

Cato -- Congrats and keep up the good work!

That would definitely not have been good news!

I did confirm this evening, via one of the "alpha female" dancers at Barbs, that the club is not closing anytime soon. I guess anything is possible though.

I dont mean to overstate the point, but most things that are found to be constitutional rights, or some other type of fundamental right, have to be provided by someone else if they are tangible things. After all, picking up on Alexandra Sky's point, we cant say that someone has a constitutional right to something like food and water unless we are willing to provide it if they are unable to supply it for themselves, cant we? After all, we just said it was a human/constitutional right, didn't we (smile)?

Alexandra, you're right as to your last post ... we can't use goverment funding as a basis for declaring something a right. But you necessarily have to consider whether funding is feasible before declaring something tangible (whether it be food, water, sex or health care) as a human right as someone else has to provide those things, and they're not going to do it for free.

That's why, at least in the U.S., our Founders declared only three things as fundamental rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (economic welfare). That's because all of those things can be pursued by individuals on their own without having anyone else providing anything for free.

I know things are a bit different in Canada, but that's a U.S. analogy.

Berlin --

I told you this would be a good discussion!

Everyone is raising a lot of good points here. Two additional thoughts:

1. I dont think that the right to "life" as stated has to do with how you live your life, but instead ... literally ... that the government does not have the right to take that life.

2. In addition to the right of liberty there also appears to exist in Canada a right of association ... that might be helpful as well although that right is usually associated with assembly for political purposes.

I hope Berlin doesn't think I was trying to set her up (smile), but I would argue that the answer is no. However, you do (even up in Canada ... smile) have a right to "liberty" which generally means a right to act, believe in something, and express yourself without government interference as long as you are not interfering with the rights of someone else or are creating a danger to yourself or someone else. Laws are enacted to balance your right of liberty against whever society (or at least a majority of lawmakers at the time) decides is proper and not proper.

For sex to be a basic human right, which would normally be construed to be a constitutional right, the government could not interfere in your exercise of that right, and the government would also be responsible to provide you with sex if you were not able to obtain it on your own. That cant be the case with sex, can it? A whole new branch of government! And if the goverment has to provide it, who is going to be drafted or hired to actually provide it?

No, I think sex is a lot more complicated than that and it falls somewhere within your liberties under the Canadian constitution; as such, its subject to the laws are enacted to regulate it, subject maybe to an exception for sex in marriage. Everything else is up for grabs (no pun intended).

In my mind, sex is a basic human right,...

Berlin -- This would be a great topic in and of itself ... as you asserted it, I will leave it up to you to decide whether to post it.

Also surprised not to see Sharon Mitchell on the list with her Ph.D. ... wonder how much of this had to do with number of appearances or making a lot of money in the business itself versus doing other things.

Sure, but this is going to depend a lot on the lurker factor.

Dixon --

First and foremost, I agree with my fellow cerb members and roamingguy and icebreaker nicely summarized the issues. For me, its all about making some type of mental connection as to me that's the most important aspect of sexual activity. It could be very romantic, or almost comical or funny, or anything in between. I could tell stories of what I mean but that would sound too much like Penthouse Letters ... beyond the scope of your inquiry!

One suggestion, though, based on your comments, is to put the necessary time into researching on cerb (or other sites) to find a lady you would like to meet and send her a pm or communicate with her however she prefers. But (from someone who has tried) dont try to package this up too perfectly with your online work ... just find someone whose posts you like and take a look at their profile. Then go for it.

I wonder if the reaction would have been as positive if it was a male couple. :icon_eek:

Just food for thought.

Very extremely late to this thread ...

For singles, this could definitely work and the boundries are kept clear. However, for married folks, this is a freshly iced, very steep slippery slope with sharp poison-covered sticks at the bottom.

Would not recommend if married unless ... maybe ... its with an old friend or something like that where you can trust the other person with your life and your current status in your family. Because that is what you are risking.

Congratulations Malika!

Great idea! Thanks.

I've often thought that we need a cerb tie or T-shirt or something LOL, so we can identify each other in the clubs. :)

I think, in honor of Cato, we should all wear togas or tunics or something like that. :icon_wink:

The bouncer wouldn't have trouble with that, would they???