Breaking rules makes you seem powerful

May 20, 2011, SAGE Publications

When people have power, they act the part. Powerful people smile less, interrupt others, and speak in a louder voice. When people do not respect the basic rules of social behavior, they lead others to believe that they have power, according to a study in the current Social Psychological and Personality Science.

People with have a very different experience of the world than without it. The powerful have fewer rules to follow, and they live in environments of money, knowledge and support. People without power live with threats of punishment and firm limits according to the research team lead by Gerben Van Kleef of the University of Amsterdam. Because the powerful are freer to break the rules—does breaking the rules seem more powerful?

People read about a visitor to an office who took a cup of employee coffee without asking or about a bookkeeper that bent accounting rules. The rule breakers were seen as more in control, and powerful compared to people who didn't steal the coffee, or didn't break bookkeeping rules.

Acting rudely also leads people to see power. People who saw a video of a man at a sidewalk café put his feet on another chair, drop cigarette ashes on the ground and order a meal brusquely thought the man was more likely to "get to make decisions" and able to "get people to listen to what he says" than the people who saw a video of the same man behaving politely.

What happens when people interact with a rule breaker? Van Kleef and colleagues had people come to the lab, and interact with a rule follower and a rule breaker. The rule follower was polite and acted normally, while the rule breaker arrived late, threw down his bag on a table and put up his feet. After the interaction, people thought the rule breaker had more power and was more likely to "get others to do what he wants."

"Norm violators are perceived as having the capacity to act as they please" write the researchers. Power may be corrupting, but showing the outward signs of corruption makes people think you're powerful.

Explore further: Partners who had powerful faces in college lead profitable law firms

More information: The article "Breaking the Rules to Rise to Power: How Norm Violators Gain Power in the Eyes of Others" in Social Psychological and Personality Science is available free for a limited time at: spp.sagepub.com/content/early/ … 398416.full.pdf+html

Related Stories

Partners who had powerful faces in college lead profitable law firms

October 22, 2010
Law firms are more profitable when they are led by managing partners who have faces that look powerful, according to a study in the current Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Facial features predictor of future success, says researcher

December 1, 2010
(PhysOrg.com) -- Psychologists at the University of Toronto and Tufts University have shown that law firms are more profitable when led by managing partners with powerful looking faces. Further, an individual's career success ...

EU tightens rules for chemical industry

October 11, 2006
The European Union plans to tighten environmental regulations for the bloc's $680 billion chemical industry, setting the stage for a bitter fight.

Judge not lest ye be judged? Researchers explore 'moral hypocrisy' in powerful people

December 29, 2009
2009 may well be remembered for its scandal-ridden headlines, from admissions of extramarital affairs by governors and senators, to corporate executives flying private jets while cutting employee benefits, and most recently, ...

Briefs: India reviews rule on telecom expatriates

January 17, 2006
India is reviewing provisions in its foreign direct investment rules that currently bar foreigners from top jobs in the telecom sector.

EPA: Clean-air rule would overturn Bush-era plan

July 6, 2010
(AP) -- The Obama administration is proposing new rules to tighten restrictions on pollution from coal-burning power plants in the eastern half of the country, a key step to cut emissions that cause smog.

Recommended for you

Parent-child bond predicts depression, anxiety in teens attending high-achieving schools

October 25, 2018
What causes some adolescents to thrive while other teenagers struggle with substance abuse and mental health? Through years of research, the scientists who study development and the clinicians who treat troubled teenagers ...

A decade of data reveals that heavy multitaskers have reduced memory

October 25, 2018
The smartphones that are now ubiquitous were just gaining popularity when Anthony Wagner became interested in the research of his Stanford colleague, Clifford Nass, on the effects of media multitasking and attention. Though ...

Binary bias distorts how we integrate information

October 25, 2018
When we evaluate and compare a range of data points—whether that data is related to health outcomes, head counts, or menu prices—we tend to neglect the relative strength of the evidence and treat it as simply binary, ...

Individual stress susceptibility and glucose metabolism are linked to brain function

October 25, 2018
Chronic stress is a well-known risk factor for the development of psychiatric illnesses including depression disorders. The brain requires a great deal of glucose, and stress is known to alter glucose metabolism. However, ...

Tetris: It could be the salve for a worried mind

October 25, 2018
The venerable video game was used in a recent experiment to create a state of "flow—the term psychologists use to describe a state of mind so engaged it makes the rest of the world fall away, and time pass more quickly. ...

Digital device overload linked to how first impressions are formed

October 24, 2018
Beware, media multitaskers: New research from Rice University researchers has found a link between spending too much time on digital devices and how first impression are formed.

155 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1 / 5 (11) May 20, 2011
That explains progressives.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (9) May 20, 2011
Those with real power control themselves and follow rules of civilized behavior.
Jesus was feared by the Romans and Jewish state for his power.
Jesus did break from the Law but not in an aggressive manner.
Some rules need to be disobeyed. The power is in how to disobey and what rules don't merit obeying.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) May 20, 2011
That explains progressives.

Like John Edwards, Arnold, the former IMF charman, Bill Clinton, the Kennedy's, .....Charlie Sheen, ...
emsquared
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2011
So this pretty much explains why some girls go for the "bad-boy" too, right?
chthonic
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2011
Jeez, there's a whole sub-field of psychoanalysis devoted to people with disorders of narcissism. The study's authors speak as if they've never heard of it--and certainly don't approach the subject with any subtlety of mind. Talk about ignoring (or not giving credit to) nearly 100 years of research and thought: (Freud wrote "On Narcissism" in 1914).
axemaster
5 / 5 (6) May 20, 2011
That explains progressives.


Oh yes, because conservatives haven't been horrible at all...

Let's just agree: politicians of all stripes are a$$holes.
bewertow
4.3 / 5 (8) May 20, 2011
Those with real power control themselves and follow rules of civilized behavior.
Jesus was feared by the Romans and Jewish state for his power.
Jesus did break from the Law but not in an aggressive manner.
Some rules need to be disobeyed. The power is in how to disobey and what rules don't merit obeying.


Jesus is fictional.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (10) May 20, 2011
Those with real power control themselves and follow rules of civilized behavior.
Jesus was feared by the Romans and Jewish state for his power.
Jesus did break from the Law but not in an aggressive manner.
Some rules need to be disobeyed. The power is in how to disobey and what rules don't merit obeying.


Jesus is fictional.

People who believe and follow the example set by Jesus are not fictional.
TAz00
4 / 5 (4) May 21, 2011

People who believe and follow the example set by Jesus are not fictional.


Unfortunately not fictional, you mean.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2011

People who believe and follow the example set by Jesus are not fictional.


Unfortunately not fictional, you mean.
No.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2011
"Whatever the head of the IMF did or didn't do, the reaction of the French elites is most instructive. "We and the Americans do not belong to the same civilization," sniffed Jean Daniel, editor of Le Nouvel Observateur, insisting that the police should have known that Strauss-Kahn was "not like other men" and wondering why "this chambermaid was regarded as worthy and beyond any suspicion.""
http://www.ocregi...6--.html
"How did Jesus look at weak, frail people? He did not despise them. Jesus, among the weak, despised or outcasts, showed patience and sympathy. He identified with them, treated them with respect and lifted them to a higher plane. "
http://www.thebib...eek.html
Fortunately, many follow the example set by Jesus.
FrankHerbert
1.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2011
Unfortunately, many claim to follow the example supposedly set by Jesus, but fall so far short I can't even say they tried.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2011
It's better to aim high and fall short than to aim low and succeed.
One reason Christianity has been so successful is that WHEN people fall short of the example set by Jesus, they are forgiven and encouraged to keep trying.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (9) May 21, 2011
It's not that they aim low. They don't aim at all. They just claim to.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) May 21, 2011
It's not that they aim low. They don't aim at all. They just claim to.

How do you know the hearts and souls of hundreds of millions of Christians?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (9) May 21, 2011
I see what they do versus what they claim to believe.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 21, 2011
It's not that they aim low. They don't aim at all. They just claim to.

How do you know the hearts and souls of hundreds of millions of Christians?

Christians are anything but Christ-like in most cases.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2011
It's not that they aim low. They don't aim at all. They just claim to.

How do you know the hearts and souls of hundreds of millions of Christians?

Christians are anything but Christ-like in most cases.

How do you know the hearts and souls of hundreds of millions of Christians?

"Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test -- and how completely it failed that test."
http://www.realcl...res.html
that_guy
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2011
@rygg - While I believe you are right about people who are striving to be true christians, and have taken the message to heart - Frank is venting his frustration about the many 'christians' who wear their religion like a badge, acting pious when being watched, but truly stoop to the lowest levels when your back is turned. Pharisees if you will. There are many in any age.

It's unfortunate that just like politicians, the loudest christians are usually the most disgusting ones, and they overshadow the peaceful, meek, honest, true christians.

Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2011
How do you know the hearts and souls of hundreds of millions of Christians?
By their actions and words.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 22, 2011
acting pious when being watched, but truly stoop to the lowest levels when your back is turned.

And people like Frank and SH accept this behavior in their socialist political 'leaders'.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) May 22, 2011
And people like Frank and SH accept this behavior in their socialist political 'leaders'.
No, it's unacceptable in any leader, regardless of their preferred resource distribution ideology. Speaking of pious, how'd that rapture work out for you Mr. e-fellowship?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 22, 2011
No, it's unacceptable in any leader,

Don't hear many complaints from SH about hypocritical, lying politicians. But then, they run his Regulatory State.
tjcoop3
3.7 / 5 (3) May 22, 2011
Those with real power control themselves and follow rules of civilized behavior.
Jesus was feared by the Romans and Jewish state for his power.
Jesus did break from the Law but not in an aggressive manner.
Some rules need to be disobeyed. The power is in how to disobey and what rules don't merit obeying.


Jesus never broke the Law he broke with the traditions of men that were an addition to the Law.

I do agree that knowing which rules to break is important. Breaking a boss' rules involves a contract you have made that is made null when you break the rules of the contract.

Society's rules are more problematic and government laws even more so. The real issues is how I perceive myself. If I believe I have power in my person that is projected to others. It is all about perceptions.

No one has power over me unless I inwardly believe they do. Jesus knew that all power belongs to His God so no one and no system could have power over Him including death and the grave.
Birger
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2011
Lyndon Johnson was a real S.O.B. to people around him. And senior company executives are not known for being nice.

"Norm violators are perceived as having the capacity to act as they please" which is why gangsters are often perceived as role models for marginalised people, such as teenagers growing up in decaying urban areas.

As a European I care little for the American Republican/Democrats debate except as an example of "selective perception". The own team is always best, and any accusations of wrongdoing are by definition false and slanderous...
I am told that a presidential contender who views himself as a guardian of morals once divorced his cancer-sick wife. And his fellow partisans do not speak out. You do not want to go against an alpha male in the pack, morals be damned.

Finally: Religious people tend to interpret their icons as having the same views as themselves on issues. And if Jesus agrees with me I have no reason to be ashamed. "Gott mit uns" as the Germans said
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 23, 2011
"Clearly, if you have friends at the White House and pay your dues, you, too, can be exempt from Obamacare's rules.

This is crony capitalism at its worst as people and companies seek special favors to escape the destructive 2,800-page law.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washington...NCD0eBVh
"
This is a fine example of the 'progressive' Regulatory State which is well supported by many here.
The govt has the power and one must pay to gain favor.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 23, 2011
No, it's unacceptable in any leader,

Don't hear many complaints from SH about hypocritical, lying politicians. But then, they run his Regulatory State.

You must not be paying attention, especially considering you're a lying hypocritical politician.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 23, 2011
No, it's unacceptable in any leader,

Don't hear many complaints from SH about hypocritical, lying politicians. But then, they run his Regulatory State.

You must not be paying attention, especially considering you're a lying hypocritical politician.

I don't stalk you like you do me so I don't follow your every word. You defend the govt and attack those who try to limit its power every chance you get.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 23, 2011
SH's tactics are like other 'progressives'.
Here are the details:
"Other Interests:

Marjon alternate Screennames: Bigjon, ryggesogn2

Contact Information:

Physorg League of Christian Misology(beware their idiocy): mabarker, kevinrtrs, quantum conundrum, getgoa, freethinking, marjon, jjoensuu, RIL, Twitch"
http://www.physor..._Heretic

And, like other 'progressives', frequently lies and misrepresents facts. So it it no surprise 'skeptical heretic' is not very skeptical nor much of a heretic.
that_guy
3 / 5 (2) May 24, 2011
No, it's unacceptable in any leader,

Don't hear many complaints from SH about hypocritical, lying politicians. But then, they run his Regulatory State.

You must not be paying attention, especially considering you're a lying hypocritical politician.

I don't stalk you like you do me so I don't follow your every word. You defend the govt and attack those who try to limit its power every chance you get.

I can't say i would honestly know if SH stalks around you to counterpoint your arguments, but what I can say is that I get bored at work so I try to comment every interesting article out there...and you comment with the same tune on almost every article on physorg. Long story short - how can you tell if someone is putting that much effort to stalk you, instead of responding every time they see one of your self righteous religious tea party views on everything they read?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 24, 2011
how can you tell if someone is putting that much effort to stalk you

It is stated publicly, see above, and he has made personal threats.
What is self righteous about supporting limited govt power
and responding to attacks on religion from atheists?
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2011
That Guy are you a sock puppet for SH? If not I apologize, however, you sure sounds like one kissing up to SH like you do.

BTW, SH has threatened to find me as well. I told him, if threaten, I'll follow up with appropriate and legal action, which stopped his threats against me.

However SH is following the Progressives template of using lies, threats and violence when they cant win an argument. Problem that progressives now face is that conservatives no longer fall for Progressives distorting the truth and conservatives are now more than ever willing to stand up for what they believe.

A conservative said to me that Obama being elected is the best thing that could have happened for America because Obama will show how corrupt progressives are, how destructive progressive thought and policy is, and how biased the main stream media is. Obama will be thanked in 2012 for ushering in the largest conservative majority ever elected. With Obamas pol numbers, I think my friend was correct.
that_guy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 24, 2011
how can you tell if someone is putting that much effort to stalk you

It is stated publicly, see above, and he has made personal threats.
What is self righteous about supporting limited govt power
and responding to attacks on religion from atheists?

I'll admit to it if I'm wrong...but where did SH say he was following rygg? All I see is where rygg said SH was stalking him. Not any proof or admission. So my question still stands.

And yes self righteous. Rygg has one view on anything and sees no reason to modify it based on facts. He believes that his one view is superior to every other view. No one is right 100% of the time, expecially when they aren't interested in reality.

and free, you are a hypocrite at best. I never see you in civil logical discourse.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2011
That guy, are you a sock puppet for SH?

Progressives like you and SH complain that conservatives don't have civil discourse, are hypocritical, intolerant, etc. Have you ever heard the phrase if you live in a glass house don't throw stones.

Progressives say conservatives should use civil discourse, (ie. conservatives shouldn't say targeting districts, or I'll hammer my opponent or any other rhetorical speech) yet it is perfectly ok for a progressive to say (rhetorically of course) if they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun.

BTW I've stayed away from making fun of Obama when he banged his head, got locked out of the Whitehouse, put the wrong year on a visitor log, or said he visited all 57 states. Why? Because everyone slips up. Did Progressives let any mistake Bush did go or did they ridicule him, what about Palin?

Progressives like SH are the hypocrites and are the ones not rooted in logic.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) May 25, 2011
I don't stalk you like you do me so I don't follow your every word.
Your comments certainly do on this site.
You defend the govt and attack those who try to limit its power every chance you get.
No, that's your perception. It's difficult to hear an accurate statement with your head that far up your ass.
Progressives like you and SH complain that conservatives don't have civil discourse, are hypocritical, intolerant, etc.
No, I complain that YOU don't have civil discourse. You are not representative of all conservatives. You and your little buddy Jon are fundamentalist wackos.

Obama will be thanked in 2012 for ushering in the largest conservative majority ever elected.
Want to put some cash on it?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) May 25, 2011
I think the best part of you two jokers is how quickly you just toe the party line.

I remember watching you two spaz over the medicare cuts for the democrat healthcare bill. Now you're supporting people who want to whole cloth eliminate medicare. You two must have failing memories, the rest of us don't.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 25, 2011
No, that's your perception. It's difficult to hear an accurate statement with your head that far up your ass.

SH has stated he is a populists and does not beleive that human rights are inherent and inalienable. Which means he believes that govt is the giver and taker of rights, not the protector of rights.
Have I mispercieved your position?
I remember watching you two spaz over the medicare cuts for the democrat healthcare bill.

No me. I oppose Obama care and Medicare as they are failing and they encourage the rising cost of health care.

I never see you in civil logical discourse.

But everyone else here engages in civil discourse? So it is civil discourse to accuse you of having your head up your arse?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 25, 2011
This demonstrates the failure of Obamacare and a corrupt govt:
"If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?
More specifically, why are more than half of those 3,095,593 in plans run by labor unions, which were among Obamacare's biggest political supporters? Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers.

On its website HHS pledges that the waiver process will be transparent. But it doesn't list those whose requests for waivers have been denied.
One basic principle of the rule of law is that laws apply to everybody. If the sign says "No Parking," you're not supposed to park there even if you're a pal of the alderman.

Another principle of the rule of law is that government can't make up new rules to help its cronies and hurt its adversaries except through due process, such as getting a legislature to pass a new law."
http://washington...rd-pals-
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2011
Progressive definition of civil discourse. Agree with everything progressives say and think and call anyone who disagrees with progressive thought, racist, homophob, hater, stupid, lier, religious nut, (SH what else do you call people who disagree with you). After insulting them if they don't toe the line or shutup threaten them, harrass them. If that doesn't work the next set is real violence.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) May 25, 2011
Have I mispercieved your position?
As usual, yes.
After insulting them if they don't toe the line or shutup threaten them, harrass them. If that doesn't work the next set is real violence.
Just watch what FOX has been doing to Newt Gingrich and blame it on progressives eh?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) May 25, 2011
As usual, yes

Once again, SH provides no supporting data.
He is on record as being a populist, denying the inherent rights of humans and lying.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2011
Progressives :)
http://www.thebla...-remark/

http://www.telegr...ama.html

First come name calling, then come threats.... If a conservative made that threat, they would be in jail (rightfully so)
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) May 26, 2011
Progressives :) ...First come name calling, then come threats....
I think it was you two gents who cast the first stone here. Perhaps you two should go back and work on your scripts again.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 26, 2011
If anyone knows how to search historical posts we can demonstrate SH's threats and vulgar language.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2011
If anyone knows how to search historical post
Not being an idiot I know how. So who does your searches for you since that question shows you as clearly way too inept to have hunted down those wacked out papers from Brasil you have posted?

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 27, 2011
Prove it.

Show everyone how 'smart' you are.

BTW, Ethel is another fine example of a 'progressive'.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) May 27, 2011
Powerful people smile less, interrupt others, and speak in a louder voice. When people do not respect the basic rules of social behavior, they lead others to believe that they have power


There's a similar effect when a person has impaired hearing. They tend to not hear what people say, so they talk less and don't laugh at jokes, leaving people to believe they are more serious and wise.

An aged appearance and a large physical appearance project power and wisdom as well.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2011
Show everyone how 'smart' you are.
Very well.

No I am NOT stupid enough to tell you how to do things I have done on this site. Such as track down posts by Oliver or myself from over a year ago. Without using bookmarks. I do have bookmarks for Oliver. You are not worth that sort of effort. Keep in mind that hitting CONTROL D isn't much effort.

And that refusal to teach you how to cause trouble is ample evidence that I am smarter than you.

Progressive is only a bad thing to idiots like you. The very use of progressive as a pejorative proves you are an idiot.

Oh yes. When are you moving to Somalia to take part in that wonderful AnnRandFantasyLand you want so desperately? I eagerly await your posts from Paradise.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 27, 2011
No I am NOT stupid enough to tell you how to do things I have done on this site.

Science is about supporting your theories with data. If there is no data to support the theory it remains an assertion.

It is amusing how the 'progressives' need to keep changing their name as people discover what they want to 'progress' to.
Stand up, be proud of being a socialist. Don't hide behind propaganda.

GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) May 27, 2011
Progressive is only a bad thing to idiots like you. The very use of progressive as a pejorative proves you are an idiot


That prompted me to look up the history of the term 'progressive'. Interesting reading. I didn't know the US Progressive Party was formed from a split in the Republican Party. The term has a lot of different contextual meanings in different places around the world and at different times.

from wiki:

In the United States there have been several periods where progressive political parties have developed


I didn't know that.

The modern day US progressive political leaders are basically the complete list of the most extreme left leaning politicians in Washington. They even oppose centrist democrats according to the wiki article.

That would explain why a person on the far right would think of them as 'bad'.

Personally, I think it's bad to be an extremist on either side. Most people are in the middle and don't care that much.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2011
If there is no data to support the theory it remains an assertion
The data is on the site. You want it you can look for it. Just like I did. Not my fault you cant do it. I do it several times a month at least. Just did it in another thread.

http://www.physor...on-.html

And telling lies isn't going to get me to tell how I do it. Some idiots learn. You don't seem to be one of them but surprises happen.

It is amusing how the 'progressives' need to keep changing their name as people discover what they want to 'progress' to.
It is amazing the way you lie about things.

Stand up, be proud of being a socialist. Don't hide behind propaganda.
You want labels OK. You think Somalia has a great economy. You tried to justify piracy. You post stuff you modified and pretended it was the real thing. You were stupid enough you could get away with it. More than once. That qualifies as an idiot.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2011
Ethel, still an assertion.
Come on, defend your support for socialism. Why lie about that?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 27, 2011
Personally, I think it's bad to be an extremist on either side. Most people are in the middle and don't care that much.

Those in the middle of a road are likely to be run over.
So how much evil will you tolerate Swifty?
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater

Read more: http://www.brainy...NZamE1FD
"
Not caring is what 'progressives' count on.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) May 27, 2011
Ethel, still an assertion.
Come on, defend your support for socialism. Why lie about that?

You support socialism. Everyone is a socialist in one shape or another, the only other option is anarchy.
Progressives :) ...First come name calling, then come threats....
I think it was you two gents who cast the first stone here. Perhaps you two should go back and work on your scripts again.
It is amusing how the 'progressives' need to keep changing their name as people discover what they want to 'progress' to.
Stand up, be proud of being a socialist. Don't hide behind propaganda.
Just keep proving yourself a hypocrite. We'll stand back and watch.

Cue the 40 posts that are direct copy paste rips from blogs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2011
Everyone is a socialist in one shape or another

Speak for yourself.

What's wrong with anarchy? It's much better that the tyranny of the Regulatory State.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (3) May 27, 2011
Those in the middle of a road are likely to be run over.
So how much evil will you tolerate Swifty?


You are driving on the sidewalk. I will be safe here in the middle of the road.

define evil. I'm not a very religious person.

What's wrong with anarchy?


Move to Somalia or Darfur and find out.
freethinking
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2011
I disagree with ryq (gasp I know)... anarchy is worse than even the worst of a dictatorship. After the great progressive leader Hitler was defeated, a democracy was established on the western side of Germany. The Eastern side had to wait for democracy till the Progressive Government of Russia fell.

Afgahastan - is a anarchy and will take a very long time before it will ever move to a democracy.
that_guy
5 / 5 (2) May 27, 2011
Everyone is a socialist in one shape or another

Speak for yourself.

What's wrong with anarchy? It's much better that the tyranny of the Regulatory State.

You would want to live in somalia??

oh...damn I see swift beat me to that one.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2011
Afgahastan - is a anarchy and will take a very long time before it will ever move to a democracy.


No, it is not. It has a tribal govt.

Somalia is/was not in anarchy either. They have a tribal govt system that has been in use for generations.

The problems in many regions have been the result of the imposition of nation-states the local people don't want.

BTW, the piracy problem in Somalia is partly the fault of the world govts that do not allow commercial ships to be armed.
When people are not prevented by govts from protecting their lives and property, crime is no longer profitable.
that_guy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2011
Afgahastan - is a anarchy and will take a very long time before it will ever move to a democracy.


Somalia is/was not in anarchy either. They have a tribal govt system that has been in use for generations.

BTW, the piracy problem in Somalia is partly the fault of the world govts that do not allow commercial ships to be armed.
When people are not prevented by govts from protecting their lives and property, crime is no longer profitable.

The piracy problem is because there is no government to reign the pirates in. Ships are allowed to be armed to a degree, but shipping companies prefer not to take on the liability or expense and insurance.

Somalia is the most dysfunctional country in the world, and it is the closest thing to anarchy. There is some tribal rule, but that is because humans need to organize in some fashion to be able to work together. period.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2011
How many artificial states have either violently or peacefully dissolved since the 'progressives' started creating nation-states?
Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Timor, India/Pakistan/Bangledesh, Trans Jordan, ....
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2011
Ethel, still an assertion.
Lying like that isn't going to make me give you what you need. I gave a link that had the evidence. That is all you get.

Come on, defend your support for socialism. Why lie about that?
Straw man straw man
lying all the time
No body cares what the straw man says

Please massa tell us more stories about the wonders of Somalia.
Our families were so downtrodden by evil Swedes before the wonderful pirates on the good ship Atlas Jerked sold us to the salt mines in Timbuktu.

It's much better that the tyranny of the Regulatory State.
If that was so you would be a pirate in Somalia instead of a politician in New England.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2011
Somalia is the most dysfunctional country in the world, and it is the closest thing to anarchy.

Do some research, you may find they are no worse, and in some ways better off than their stated neighbors.
www.peterleeson.c...less.pdf
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) May 27, 2011
Thanks ryqq, I'll read the article when I have time.

One thing came to mind as I was skimming over the article. Contrary to what people are led to believe, Africa has the fewest guns to population of the world. Problem is, only the bad guys have guns in Africa.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2011
"Most ports severely restrict vessels from having weapons on board, and changing those regulations in each country would be difficult, Mr. Flynn said. The United States Coast Guard has been especially wary, fearing that the weapons could be used for terrorist attacks."
"Poor fishermen know now that hijacking ships is far more lucrative than hauling up a half-empty fishing net, Mr. Burnett said in a telephone interview from Zurich. The Internet, he said, has ensured that word of the success of some pirates in collecting large ransoms has spread to the entire fishing community, whose livelihood has already been threatened by overfishing. "
http://www.nytime...ing.html
I recall it was Chinese ships that were overfishing.
How does an 'anarchy' have the internet?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) May 28, 2011
How many artificial states have either violently or peacefully dissolved since the 'progressives' started creating nation-states?
Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Timor, India/Pakistan/Bangledesh, Trans Jordan, ....

Typically due to fundamentalist religion and economic failures brought on by rigid adherance to "Constitutional Provisions"

Your prefered method of governance destroys countries and makes then into third world dictatorships. No surprise there.
Everyone is a socialist in one shape or another
Speak for yourself.
So we should disband the military and the court systems in your opinion?

Socialism is merely the thought that some aspects of society should be run by the government. That includes having an army. Are you telling us you want to be a citizen of Reebok, or Pepsi?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 28, 2011

Are you telling us you want to be a citizen of Reebok, or Pepsi?

A sovereign individual is not a citizen of any state. No state monopoly on force is required.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2011
"The hyper-regulatory state is unrepublican. It strikes at one of the most basic pillars of free society: equality before the law. When you replace "law" with "regulation," equality before it is one of the first casualties. In such a world, there is no law, only a hierarchy of privilege more suited to a sultan's court than a self-governing republic. If you don't want to be subject to "tooth-level surveillance," you better know who to call in Washington. Teamsters Local 522 did, and the United Federation of Teachers, and the Chicago Plastering Institute. And as a result they've all been "granted" ObamaCare "waivers." Rule, Obama! Obama, waive the rules! If only for his cronies. Americans are being transferred remorselessly from the rule of law to rule by an unaccountable bureaucracy of micro-regulatory preferences, subsidies, entitlements and incentives that determine which of the multiple categories of Unequal-Before-The-Law Second-Class (or Third-Class, or Fourth-Class) Citizenship yo
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 28, 2011
"the regulatory state sucks up about a quarter-trillion dollars more than the entire GDP of India. As fast as India's growing its economy, we're growing our regulations faster. Oh, well, you shrug, it would be unreasonable to expect the bloated, somnolent hyperpower to match those wiry little fellows back at the call center in Bangalore. Okay. It's also about a quarter-trillion dollars more than the GDP of Canada. Every year we're dumping the equivalent of a G7 economy into ever more ludicrous and wasteful regulation."
http://www.ocregi...ein.html
SH's Regulatory State is so much better.
FrankHerbert
2.2 / 5 (10) May 28, 2011
A sovereign individual is not a citizen of any state. No state monopoly on force is required.


Holy shit, you're a sovereign citizen. I should have guessed, but damn that's crazy. You're nuts man. I can see the headline now. "After gunning down two officers in a routine traffic stop, Mr. Swenson was found in his truck muttering incoherently about gold bullion and socialists."

The hyper-regulatory state

It fascinates me how we can have such different interpretations of reality. Hyper-regulatory, lol.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) May 28, 2011
Marjon, who hates California, is quoting one of the lunatics that has a column in the Orange Country(California)Regiser. A newspaper so insane that it was against George Bush SENIOR for being too liberal. The paper is the reason Orange County has so many lunatic RightWingNuts.

They once had an IDIOT on the editorial board that wanted to write to an opinion that was too loony for the OFFICIAL editorials so it was printed on the op-ed page. It actually pretended that the ENTIRE Democratic was PERFECTLY represented by two idiots that were as radical left as he was right. It would be like pretending Marjon represented the Republicans and even most Libertarians must find him insane.

The fun part is Reagan the god of idiots like that created record numbers of regulations.

And before the Idiot starts lying about me no I don't care for Obama extending the Patriot Act. He has been a poor President so far except in comparison to President Dumbass who created the evil thing.

Ethelred

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2011
Instead of defending the Regulatory State, Ethel attacks a news paper and a writer who lives in NH.

And for Frank,
"In The Sovereign Individual, Davidson and Rees-Mogg explore the greatest economic and political transition in centuries -- the shift from an industrial to an information-based society. This transition, which they have termed "the fourth stage of human society," will liberate individuals as never before, irrevocably altering the power of government. This outstanding book will replace false hopes and fictions with new understanding and clarified values."
http://www.sovere...ual.html
The authors note that nation-states will likely be opposed to losing power and will impose more tyranny on their people.

But maybe Frank is one of those who like to control people as Heinlein noted.
blob
5 / 5 (1) May 28, 2011
Hm... there are so many aspect not even mentioned in this article. And there are so many of you not even considering them... Let's leave out religion for now, because people who gain power usually follow a different set of rules.

Powerful people smile less: True. Reason? They have seen too many things that they probably never thought of seeing before /frauds, thefts, ... too many situations/... therefore it's rather logical that their personality would change (I've seen a person change from being absolutely altruistic to /seemingly/ cold bastard. Tbh... I understand him. If all of my so-called friends tried to take advantage of my hard work, I'd tell them off as well.

Powerful people bend/break more rules and more frequently: Simple... they know from experience how to break the rules. And honestly, each and every one of you would do the same with their knowledge and experience.
Also... rule breaking/bending can't be too obvious or public /only to a certain degree/
blob
5 / 5 (2) May 28, 2011
As for religious people: I'm personally catholic... /or I used to be (?) / And I can tell you this:
1. What you learned about Jesus is mostly bullcrap. He had to have siblings /They were a jewish family ffs. Learn about old customs/
- He was sort of a nobleman /King David's family... Jews always sticked to traditions... And I'm pretty sure that 2000 years ago it had to be even more strict/
- He had to have been engaged. Whether he got married is difficult to say /to my knowledge/
- He was a bloody rebel, a punk. He went against the traditions in so many ways, he was lucky not to have been stoned to death. And I mean LUCKY.

2. Most Christians have a real problem understanding what god actually CAN be. And I'm rather sure that should ever anyone prove that God exists /And I mean a real proof/ the christians would be the first trying to kill the person, because they believe differently and it's insulting their faith.
blob
5 / 5 (3) May 28, 2011
... ending:
3. Let's admit for a second that we're God's creation /humans/... we are so messed up in so many ways. So defective, ineficient compared to other species it's almost better to complain about God instead of worshipping him /just a sidenote btw/

And finaly :) if you believe in theory of creationism, fine... It actually is possible according to a certain theory :) just the dates don't match; the hypothesis says that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a result of genetic manipulation. Funny thing... this theory actually corresponds with christianity as such quite a lot.

And if any of religious people still insist on the no-evolution theory, here's a newsflash: The cold virus mutates / EVOLVES / a few times every YEAR. Now if that isn't a real-life proof of evolution for you, I do suggest you give up your right to vote and move into an asylum.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 28, 2011
Frank, the leaders of several sovereign states are attacking the leader of another sovereign state, Libya. How many individuals have be indiscriminately killed in the process? Who will be brought to justice for such killings?
Instead of sovereign states those leaders were sovereign individuals? They could not force others to kill or die for them as they can now.
Can sovereign states attack each other without consequence? Why do you think sovereign individuals could attack each other without consequence?

Blob, people create computer programs that evolve.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2011
A sovereign individual is not a citizen of any state. No state monopoly on force is required.
Yeah good luck with that. Considering your proximity to Lowell I'm sure you'd rather have a socialist police force, as you have now, rather than having to hire your own private security.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 29, 2011
The govt (SCOTUS) states that police are not obligated to protect anyone.
I guess that's why the Chelmsford Chief of Police readily signs off on class A firearms permits. The Lowell chief does not. Maybe that is why crime is more a problem in Lowell.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2011
The govt (SCOTUS) states that police are not obligated to protect anyone.
Go right ahead and give us a source for that statement.
I guess that's why the Chelmsford Chief of Police readily signs off on class A firearms permits. The Lowell chief does not. Maybe that is why crime is more a problem in Lowell.
Nah, it's probably because people in Lowell got laid off by the people in Chelmsford. Jobs reduce crime. Education increases jobs, tax revenue pays for public education.

Let's increase taxes on the rich, like you, to address the problem.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) May 29, 2011
"By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband."
"In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

Later court decisions have concurred."
http://www.allsaf...tect.htm
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) May 29, 2011
What a brutal misread of the judgements. It could only come from an ill-informed opinion piece.

South v Maryland- states there is no TORT liability for non-malicious failure to enforce law.

Bowers v DeVito- establishes that police do not have the right to apprehend someone on suspicion of future crime.

What's the docket for the first case (Gonzales)

So do you want people to be able to sue the police for not establishing a police state in your house a la South vMaryland?
Would you prefer that the police can arrest you because someone thinks you might commit a crime a la Bowers v DeVito?

Idiot, you're arguing for a chinese style police state.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 29, 2011
If I hire a security company to protect me, and they fail, I can sue.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2011
If I hire a security company to protect me, and they fail, I can sue.

Can't sue if you're dead.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) May 29, 2011
If I hire a security company to protect me, and they fail, I can sue.

Can't sue if you're dead.

Family can.
Your life insurance company can.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2011
If I hire a security company to protect me, and they fail, I can sue.

Can't sue if you're dead.

Family can.
Your life insurance company can.

Because that's what we need to do, give banks another way to profit of the death of their customers. If you want to live in feudal Europe, good for you. There's a glut of countries in Africa that satisfy your wills and wants.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 29, 2011
When your Regulatory State lets someone murder you, you can't sue your state. And since your are dead, who will change your Regulatory State?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2011
When your Regulatory State lets someone murder you, you can't sue your state.
The state isn't "letting someone murder you". To make this statement is merely an appeal to emotion, and somewhat psychopathic and paranoid.
And since your dead, who will change your Regulatory State?
Well the banks wouldn't if they're making profit off your death. If anything you're giving them a reason to have you murdered.

You should probably sit down and have a think on the rammifications of your proposed changes before you continue posting. You'll be able to construct a better argument and this conversation might actually become enjoyable.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 29, 2011
The state isn't "letting someone murder you". To make this statement is merely an appeal to emotion, and somewhat psychopathic and paranoid.

The Regulatory State has no legal obligation to prevent anyone from murdering you. That's is the law, not emotion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 29, 2011
SH:
Jobs reduce crime.

"When the FBI announced last week that violent crime in the U.S. had reached a 40-year low in 2010, many criminologists were perplexed. It had been a dismal year economically, and the standard view in the field, echoed for decades by the media, is that unemployment and poverty are strongly linked to crime"
"But there have long been difficulties with the notion that unemployment causes crime." {Doesn't bother SH, though}
"At the deepest level, many of these shifts, taken together, suggest that crime in the United States is falling even through the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression because of a big improvement in the culture."
http://online.wsj...S_News_6
Don't bother SH with facts that don't fit his world view.
FrankHerbert
1.4 / 5 (9) May 29, 2011
Kind of like how you believe the French Revolution influenced the US Constitution even though this is temporally impossible?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 29, 2011
I can acknowledge I made an error recalling something I read about the French Revolution. What is correct is the French Revolution spawned socialism and direct democracy leads to tyranny.
Will Frank defend his support of socialism?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
"But there have long been difficulties with the notion that unemployment causes crime."
Unemployment doesn't necessarily cause crime, however, employment does reduce crime. If you don't understand how direct and indirect relationships work, you're too uneducated to understand the majority of what I said.
The Regulatory State has no legal obligation to prevent anyone from murdering you. That's is the law, not emotion.
If you can prove a significant danger, you will receive police assistance. As I said, you're an idiot, and you're supporting a police state. You're a fascist.
What is correct is the French Revolution spawned socialism and direct democracy leads to tyranny.
Far from correct.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
The 'Rights of Man' is not the same as the rights of men.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
The 'Rights of Man' is not the same as the rights of men.
Correct, one is a book title, the other is an aspect of the western world society.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
The 'Rights of Man' is not the same as the rights of men.
Correct, one is a book title, the other is an aspect of the western world society.

I am not surprised SH wouldn't understand inherent individual rights.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 30, 2011
I am not surprised SH wouldn't understand inherent individual rights.
They don't exist.

Hey, why don't you tell us that you want to restrict the vote again. That's always good for a laugh, especially when you start talking about rights.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
Which means SH does not accept the Declaration of Independence. By not acknowledging inherent rights SH can then believe in his socialist Regulatory State.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
Only 5 people get to vote on controlling the internet in the USA for hundreds of millions of people. Those hundred of millions of people don't get to vote for the FCC commissioners or get to vote to kick them off.
A fine example of SH's Regulatory State.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
The US restricts the vote to citizens 18 and older. Except in some 'progressives' areas, the dead can vote, non-citizens can vote and some can vote more than once.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
Does SH believe in axioms in science?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
Which means SH does not accept the Declaration of Independence. By not acknowledging inherent rights SH can then believe in his socialist Regulatory State.
The Declaration of Independence establishes a socialist state, moron. Try reading it.
Except in some 'progressives' areas, the dead can vote, non-citizens can vote and some can vote more than once.
Go right ahead and show us a law allowing the dead to vote. More Marjon lies.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) May 30, 2011
SH, in Washington State it is well known that the dead, criminals, criminal aliens, vote more for the democrats than any other party. Also in Washington state, If the democrats don't have enough votes to win an election, they keep finding them till they do.

SH are you as stupid as you sound, or are you on the payroll of the DNC and you repeat their talking point to perfection.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) May 31, 2011
The 'Rights of Man' is not the same as the rights of men.
Nor can either be protected without laws and governments to enforce them.

Ethelred
IMRight
not rated yet May 31, 2011
Breaking wind does make you more powerfull. This fact filled post proves it.

I love to read the Bible in the morning
That wonderful section on how to treat slaves
And the part the tells me when it is OK to murder everyone in a village
Its a wonderful education on how I will act in Somalia
On the pirate ship Atlas Jerked
Right after I quit being a socialist politician
And move to Somalia to live on my goverment pension

Marjon the Troll
From

ttp://blog.catoasylum.so/marjon/truthfortheday.html

A great site for all the truth all the time. Never an opinion, only facts written by briliant psychop.. economists who never eat peoples liver. No realy they never do. Those cuts are always sold on the open market at the Ann Rand Farmers Market in downtown RandsBurg where laws never get in the way of a good deal.

With Kind Regards
I. M. Right@Black-Press.so
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2011
The 'Rights of Man' is not the same as the rights of men.
Nor can either be protected without laws and governments to enforce them.

Ethelred

What kind of laws? Laws that legalize plunder or laws that prevent injustice by protecting everyone's individual property rights?
Go right ahead and show us a law allowing the dead to vote.

Why do 'progressives' need laws? When their power is threatened, laws just get in the way.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (7) May 31, 2011
Atlas Jerked, LMAO! I'm going to start using that one! Thanks!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) May 31, 2011
Still, no defense of socialism from Frank or SH.
They must agree it IS indefensible.
FrankHerbert
1.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2011
Well sure we could show you examples of how it has worked but you'll just plug your ears and scream "USSR, STALIN, MAO" ad infinitum. How many times has the French Republic failed? IIRC, the United States is on its second government.

Where would we be today had we spent the last century eliminating poverty instead of concentrating wealth in the hands of the few?

Socialism has been a boogeyman used by the right-wing to scare "children" since the end of WW2. The power of the USSR was vastly overstated. When the Cuban Missile Crisis happened, do you know how many ICBMs USSR had capable of reaching the US? Four. That's it. That's why they were putting the missiles in Cuba in the first place. It was the only way they could retaliate in case of nuclear war.

The fact is Socialism can't succeed currently because Capitalism won't allow it to and anyone with a cursory knowledge of Marxist literature knows this. Capitalism has to fail first, and we are quickly approaching this impasse.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2011
Still, no defense of socialism from Frank or SH.
They must agree it IS indefensible.

Why would I have to defend the priciple that some functions of society shouldn't be run for profit? If you require a defense of it, perhaps it is you who needs to take a look at the society in which you live. Do you think the court system should be privatized? The military? The police?

When you dissolve the state, you dissolve the only protectorate of your rights. Don't think so? Join a Housing Community Association and tell me how free you feel when you want to paint your house.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
Join a Housing Community Association and tell me how free you feel when you want to paint your house.

I don't feel free, but it would be my choice to join.
eliminating poverty

When did the war on poverty end?
do you know how many ICBMs USSR had capable of reaching the US?

I don't believe you, but if true, ONE 500 megaton nuclear explosion could ruin your day.
Capitalism hasn't failed. It is the only way socialism is being propped up. The failure in the real estate markets was CAUSED by socialist policies.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2011
Capitalism hasn't failed. It is the only way socialism is being propped up. The failure in the real estate markets was CAUSED by socialist policies.
Go ahead and tell us which policies those would be. There was nothing socialist about the housing crash. It was purely profit driven, that's capitalism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
nothing socialist about the housing crash.

It is when the govt is guaranteeing and buying bad mortgages.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2011
nothing socialist about the housing crash.

It is when the govt is guaranteeing and buying bad mortgages.
That was an act of investment in sub-prime mortgages, it was a profit driven decision. A bad decision, but still profit driven. That would make it capitalist.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
Govt purchases and guarantees of mortgages were not profit motivated. They were politically motivated by the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to lend to bad credit risks.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2011
Govt purchases and guarantees of mortgages were not profit motivated. They were politically motivated by the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to lend to bad credit risks.
No, the investment by Fannie and Fredie into sub-primes was driven by the imaginary profits recorded and implied by the banking industry.

If you're going to try to debate a topic, you might want to actually know about it. Or in this case, pay attention to the very things you, yourself, have said on the topic.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
"RESEARCH SHOWED that the turning point came in 1992, with the enactment by Congress of what were called "affordable housing goals" for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
"From the beginning, Fannie and Freddie's congressional charters required them to buy only mortgages that would be acceptable to institutional investors -- in other words, prime mortgages." {Not very free}
"The 1992 affordable housing goals required that, of all mortgages Fannie and Freddie bought in any year, at least 30 percent had to be loans made to borrowers who were at or below the median income in the places where they lived. Over succeeding years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) increased this requirement, first to 42 percent in 1995, to 50 percent in 2000, and finally to 55 percent in 2007. "

http://spectator....nancia/1
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
"But this was not by any means the full extent of the problem. HUD took Congress's enactment of the affordable housing goals as an expression of a congressional policy to reduce underwriting standards so that low-income borrowers would have greater access to mortgage credit. As outlined in my dissent, by tightening the affordable housing goals, HUD put Fannie and Freddie into competition with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a government agency with an explicit mission to provide credit to low-income borrowers, and with subprime lenders such as Countrywide, that had pledged to reduce underwriting standards in order to make more mortgage credit available to low-income borrowers. Moreover, all these organizations were joined by insured banks and S&Ls, which as noted above were required under the CRA to make mortgage credit available to borrowers who are at or below 80 percent of the median income in the areas where they live."
http://spectator....-true-st
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2011
"CHARLOTTE - First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans."
"CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

""First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating."
https://www.wacho...1872RCRD
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
And? All of your little snippets there are showing profit incentive, ie: capitalism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2011
What profit?
Fannie and Freddie are REQUIRED to buy certain mortgages by Congress.
Maybe that's why they have LOST billions had have bailed out by taxpayers.
The only way banks could make any profit was to securitize the mortgages and sell them off. But banks were forced by CRA to make the mortgage in the first place.
Trying make a profit by responding to govt mandates is not capitalistic.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
What profit?
Fannie and Freddie are REQUIRED to buy certain mortgages by Congress.
Go ahead and give us the section and line that casts this regulation. It doesn't exist, you're listening to idiots on the radio again.
Maybe that's why they have LOST billions had have bailed out by taxpayers.
No, that'd be about as far from accurate as can be.
The only way banks could make any profit was to securitize the mortgages and sell them off.
Right, and since they'd take the docs on at a cost, then inflate it and pass it to another bank, the Capitalist system created fake money.
But banks were forced by CRA to make the mortgage in the first place.
No they weren't. They were forced to make a certain percentage of loans to local communities. If they didn't want to take on the risk, they could do less loan business.
Trying make a profit by responding to govt mandates is not capitalistic.
Trying to make a profit by subverting mandates is.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2011
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, during the 2-year period beginning on January 1, 1993, the annual target under this section for low- and moderate-income mortgage purchases for each enterprise shall be 30 percent of the total number of dwelling units financed by mortgage purchases of the enterprise."
"The special affordable housing goals established under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall provide that, of mortgages on single family housing that are purchased and contribute to the achievement of such goals

(i) 45 percent shall be mortgages of low-income families who live in census tracts in which the median income does not exceed 80 percent of the area median income; and
(ii) 55 percent shall be mortgages of very low-income families. "
http://en.wikisou...ubpart_B
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2011
The entire act you cite depends on percentage of total business.

Let's say I run Physorg bank, and I want to make home loans.

This bill, that you cite, states that if I make 10 million dollars in loans, 30% of that amount must be to the local community to prevent the creation of underserved districts.

So if I make 10 million in loans, 3 million must be to "underserved" demographics.

If I want to do 100 million in loans, to make greater profit, I must assume an equally large risk by extending 30 million in loans to underserved demographics.

So If I'm a greedy cunt, I'll bankrupt my organization.

Guess what happened, Mr. Capitalist, the bankers proved themselves to be a bunch of greedy cunts.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
So If I'm a greedy cunt, I'll bankrupt my organization.


I think that remark counts as sexist. Greedy bastards is not sexist. Shits is also not sexist.

Idiots
Marjons
Morons
Retards
Dumbfucks
Assholes
Bleeding vile rapacious antihuman monsters

None of those are sexist.

Prick
Dick
Cunt
Snatch
Boob
Breast
Bristol yes bristol
Bitch
and for those that know what the words actually mean
Putz
Schmuck and hordes of other Yiddish words

Those are sexists as only one of the usual two sexes is equipped with them.

Barring guys that have screwed up genetics. I am not aware of any XX women with a penis but there are XY people that haven't got the normal set. Even then the above words would still be sexually based and thus potentially sexist.

This is not a suggestion that you should never be other than PC but may I recommend using gender neutral non PC insults such as I listed above.

Despite that I am not going to give up Putz and Schmuck as the implied meanings are useful.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
"Democratic power brokers stoked the housing bubble and turned a blind eye to the increasingly rampant corruption and incompetence at Fannie Mae and the associated predatory lenders who sheltered under its umbrella; core Democratic ideas may well be at fault."
"What is especially shocking in this story is that the higher up and more powerful people are usually the most venal and corrupt. Low level researchers and bureaucrats are constantly raising questions and preparing devastating reports that expose the flawed premises behind Fannie Maes policies. They are being constantly slapped down by the well connected and the well paid. The American establishment does not have the necessary moral strength and intellectual acuity to run the affairs of this country;"
http://blogs.the-...the-gop/
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
When your source link starts with "blogs...." it can easily be ignored. Get yourself some actual data, rather than some idiot's opinion that matches your own.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
When govt fails its most basic job, security, others step up.
"The Guardian Angels will be doing what Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy is not doing; stepping up patrols in the Gold Coast and Streeterville neighborhoods following an increase in mob attacks."
http://wlsam.com/...mp;spid=
And don't forget all the non-federal govt activity to secure the US-Mexican border.

SH, why don't you provide ANY support for your Regulatory State. And don't forget to follow your own strict standards and provide sources.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
When your source link starts with "blogs...." it can easily be ignored. Get yourself some actual data, rather than some idiot's opinion that matches your own.

When the source is SH it is quite easy to ignore as it is just some idiot's opinion.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
SH, why don't you provide ANY support for your Regulatory State
I pay my taxes.
And don't forget to follow your own strict standards and provide sources.
You want a copy of my tax return? What are you looking for proof of? That public police departments exist? That public firemen show up to fires? That mail gets delivered?
When the source is SH it is quite easy to ignore as it is just some idiot's opinion.
How does it feel to continually lose arguments to someone you consider an idiot?

When govt fails its most basic job, security, others step up.
You're the one against socialism, police, fire, and military are exact representations of socialism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
What does SH expect from a Regulatory State, individual prosperity or communal mediocrity?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
What does SH expect from a Regulatory State, individual prosperity or communal mediocrity?

Neither. I expect a fair market place based on meritocracy and compliance to necessary regulations for the protection of the public. Not exactly a wild proposition.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
What does SH expect from a Regulatory State, individual prosperity or communal mediocrity?

Neither. I expect a fair market place based on meritocracy and compliance to necessary regulations for the protection of the public. Not exactly a wild proposition.

That's not what you are getting now, because of the Regulatory State, yet you continue to support and defend the Regulatory State.
So once again, SH must be lying.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
That's not what you are getting now, because of the Regulatory State,
No, that would be due to the machinations of corporate tampering with the regulations through proxy voting and buying politicians.
yet you continue to support and defend the Regulatory State.
The politicians aren't the state, one would expect you of all people to understand that.
So once again, SH must be lying.
Exactly what is the imaginary lie you're claiming now?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2011
No, that would be due to the machinations of corporate tampering with the regulations through proxy voting and buying politicians.

This is a consequence of your Regulatory State.
If the Regulatory State had limited power, limited authority, say the RS couldn't coerce banks to loan money to bad credit risks, all businesses associated with housing and mortgages could not buy influence with any politician because the govt would not have the authority.
The socialists response is the RS would work IFF you had 'good/perfect' people in charge of the state.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2011
This is a consequence of your Regulatory State.
If the Regulatory State had limited power, limited authority, say the RS couldn't coerce banks to loan money to bad credit risks, all businesses associated with housing and mortgages could not buy influence with any politician because the govt would not have the authority.
The socialists response is the RS would work IFF you had 'good/perfect' people in charge of the state.
You seem to forget, the state is the enforcer of all contracts. If you limit their power over corporations, contracts become invalid, creating a new form of monarchy based on marketting.

So what's you're defense of a stateless plutocracy, ryggesogn?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2011
You seem to forget, the state is the enforcer of all contracts

The state can be the enforcer of contracts. It is not a requirement.
However, enforcing contracts, protecting private property, IS a legitimate function of govt as I have stated often.
In SH's Regulatory State all property belongs to the state, including the subjects/serfs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2011
Under the current Obama regime, the govt is refusing to enforce contracts.
Banks are restricted from foreclosing on properties.

A free market process for enforcing contracts is the credit score.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2011
The state can be the enforcer of contracts. It is not a requirement.
Of course Tr. Marjon prefers a full starboard broadside from the Somali Pirate Ship Atlas Jerked SPS. Full freedom to ignore or accept contracts based on who had the bigger guns. No vile commie nazi progressive fascist pinko RATIONALIST gummint is going to tell the Capt. of the Atlas Jerked SPS how contracts should be handled.

'If you don't shoot one your business partners now and then people will think you are weak' Said Capt. Marjon as he cleaned his wheelock pistol. 'Without useless commie gummints butting in we Capitalist Captains can contract to do any damn thing we please as contracts are all that Manly Men need amongst each other.'
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2011
Capt. Marjon continued 'Of course a contract and gun will get you more than just a contract. Some silly pencil necked idiots came to sign a contract without being fully armed like Manly Men should so we have them down in the hold and will be selling them at a fair market price tomorrow at the AnnRand Slave dock in downtown AnnRandFantasyLand Somalia.'

Fair and true reporting of actual facts from
http://blogs.the-...erclips/

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2011
You seem to forget, the state is the enforcer of all contracts

The state can be the enforcer of contracts. It is not a requirement.
If the state does not do it, then you have no unilateral enforcement. You effectively open the doors to enforcement for hire, creating a society in which those without a majority control of force do not receive their property. You've defiled your own ideals.
However, enforcing contracts, protecting private property, IS a legitimate function of govt as I have stated often.
That would be socialism. Defend your socialism.
In SH's Regulatory State all property belongs to the state, including the subjects/serfs.
No, and if you'd like to create an interesting argument I'd be happy to hear it, but as so far you've done nothing but slander and lie.
A free market process for enforcing contracts is the credit score.
LOL, no it isn't, idiot.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2011
If the state does not do it, then you have no unilateral enforcement.

Some people still practice what is called self-govt. They shake hands on a deal and their word is enough. The contract is self enforced.
That is done because they want to have a good reputation in 'society'.
Somalia is ridiculed here but they enforce contracts and justice with their clans. If members of two clans are in dispute and mutually agreed to third clan is selected as arbiters. Verdicts are enforced within clans.
You effectively open the doors to enforcement for hire,

The current regime is doing that by failing to do their job of protecting the border and invalidating contracts. FDR did this as well.
Socialism is state control of property. Respecting and protecting private property is NOT socialism.
SH supports the govt control (ownership) of the internet.
A bad credit score limits your opportunities to obtain another contract to borrow money.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2011
Some people still practice what is called self-govt. They shake hands on a deal and their word is enough. The contract is self enforced.
The would be a lack of enforcement due to a lack of need of enforcement. You don't need the government to enforce a contract when all parties adhere to it, you need it when they don't, idiot.
That is done because they want to have a good reputation in 'society'.
Yeah, why don't you tell us what percentage of the population follows the golden rule, after all, you refuse to do it.
Somalia is ridiculed here but they enforce contracts and justice with their clans. If members of two clans are in dispute and mutually agreed to third clan is selected as arbiters. Verdicts are enforced within clans.
Uh no, they shoot the shit out of each other most of the time.
Socialism is state control of property.
No it isn't. Go read a book.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2011
Now the govt is abrogating contracts, not enforcing them.

Following the Golden Rule doesn't matter to Experian. Maintaining your contracts does.

Read a book about Somalia.
Read Socialism by von Mises, The Road to Serfdom, The Law, all define socialism quite well.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2011
Now the govt is abrogating contracts, not enforcing them.
What, by forcing the banks to adhere to the paperwork requirements of their contracts? Why do you side with companies that are performing actions contrary to their contracts with citizens?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2011
"Many foreclosed homes lack a marketable title. In other words, nobody knows for certain who owns them. It's a by-product of massive securitization, with now-collapsed secondary mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac serving as conduits between lenders and investors. Court documents in a number of states show that much of the paperwork transferring ownership of individual mortgages to investor-controlled financial pools has been lost, ignored or even forged. "
"If the basic principles of property law have been violated here...it may be extremely difficult to fix,"
"a foreclosure ban effectively would sever legal obligations between borrower and lender, providing distressed borrowers with the equivalent of amnesty. "
"A mortgage, in the end, is a contract. Eliminating liability for upholding a contract is the antithesis of sound law and sound economics."
http://nlpc.org/s...closures
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2011
So the govt created the mess with securitized mortgages and CRA and now prevents contracts from being enforced.
What a fine product of SH's Regulatory State!
Another fine example of socialist planning are the unintended consequences brought about by the incomplete knowledge of the planners.
I liken it to the squeezing of a balloon. Govt squeezes with regulations and a different part of the balloon is distorted.
What a tangled web the 'progressives' weave....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2011
"Despite aggressive homeownership promotion by Washington, the housing market remains in recession. Mortgage applications have reached their lowest point in more than a dozen years despite fixed-rate, 30-year mortgage interest rates now having dropped below 4.5 percent. Home occupancy costs have fallen from around 25 percent to 15 percent of family income. Median existing home price nationwide fell from $217,900 to $166,400 during 2007 through First Quarter 2010."
"The ongoing mortgage industry rescue, whether focused on the supply or the demand side, reflects a lack of understanding of the natural reality that eliminating the consequences of risky behavior unwittingly encourages similar behavior. "
http://nlpc.org/s...g-market
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2011
"By 2007 HUD stipulated that at least 55 percent of loans acquired by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to meet low- and moderate-income affordability standards. The two GSEs complied rather than lose advantages contained in their respective congressional charters, such as exemption from state and local taxes and a $2.25 billion credit line from the Treasury Department. In addition, Congress and OFHEO (superseded in 2008 by the Federal Housing Finance Agency) allowed them to be undercapitalized. The GSE figure averaged about $1 in capital for every $20 in assets, whereas the commercial bank standard was $1 per $12. Safety and soundness took a back seat to raising the homeownership rate among minorities to the level of "Anglos." And if the risk of failure was higher, the unwritten rule of "too big to fail" still applied. Washington would come to the rescue in a pinch."
http://nlpc.org/s...meltdown
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2011
"Crony capitalists love to take foolish risks, dependent as they are on government's rigged markets, often to the point that they would not be able to cope with free markets if they do." This rigging inevitably moves credit allocation away from risk-based approval criteria, making future bailouts likely.
http://nlpc.org/s...meltdown
So many here say they are opposed to crony 'capitalism' and blame the corporation not the govt that enables it.
Why?
I suspect is ultimately comes down to the arrogance and hubris of those who believe they can control.
AGWites must believe humans cause GCC so they can empower themselves to 'save' the world and be powerful.
Most religions teach humility and I suspect this is what motivates many to be atheists. These atheists feel empowered, banishing humility.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2011
A book to read:

"Perhaps the most harmful misconception ever held is that of legal positivism, that rulers must conceive and enforce laws. Michael Van Notten, a Dutch lawyer who married into the Samaron clan, living with them for the last twelve years of his life, demolishes this position at the same time offering a positive prescription on how to achieve economic development under a system of customary law while still living in a statist world. In his book, Law of the Somalis, Van Notten first describes how customary law operates in Somalia. Then he contrasts it with natural law. Finally, he describes how economic development could occur within current legal environment in Somalia."
http://athousandn...somalis/
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2011
So the govt created the mess with securitized mortgages and CRA and now prevents contracts from being enforced.
You can simply scroll up to see the prior refutation of the CRA being involved. Once again, you're supporting banks, which are the architects of the current economic crisis. One would think that you of all people would have a hard time seeing the merit of organizations that can promise to protect your money, then turn around and tell you that you can't have it on withdrawl.

Beyond that, on the Somalia topic: Are you really going to suggest we adopt laws that codify honor killing?

Seriously, how far off the reservation can you roam?
FrankHerbert
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2011
Wow holy quote bombs batman! I guess I know how the Iraqis felt when we dropped all those pamphlets on them.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2011
"Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), said the bank probably wont keep mortgages on its books under a plan requiring the largest lenders to hold extra capital.

The proposal will distort U.S. markets, what consumers pay for credit and the types of risk banks would be willing to retain on their balance sheets, Dimon said today at a Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. investor conference in New York.

Its got consequences that I dont think theyve really thought about, Dimon said of regulators. "
http://www.bloomb...les.html
Another consequence of the Regulatory State.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2011
"As detailed below, beginning in the late 1980s--but particularly during the Clinton administration--the CRA was used to pressure banks into making loans they would not otherwise have made and to adopt looser lending standards that would make mortgage loans possible for individuals who could not meet the down payment and other standards that had previously been applied routinely by banks and other housing lenders. The same pressures were brought to bear on the GSEs, which adapted their underwriting standards so they could accept the loans made under the CRA"
http://www.aei.or...ok/29015

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie." Barney Frank
http://www.realcl...s_home_t
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2011
As detailed below, beginning in the late 1980s--but particularly during the Clinton administration
Read: during Republican congresses.
The same pressures were brought to bear on the GSEs
When republicans attempted to privatize them.

You're a dolt.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.