Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Things not looking too good for Iranian president
Topic Started: Jan 18 2007, 05:31 AM (3,701 Views)
DirkNL
Member Avatar
Horrific poster
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Falcon
Feb 6 2007, 11:02 PM
Quote:
 

Basically, you're now saying that people have always been cappies.
I disagree - ever heard of primitive communism?


I love it how you expect me to make your argument for you and of course to ignore that you didn't even really respond to my point, but rather just picked up and moved to your new argument since the old one was busted. You claimed that humanity couldn't join communities if it were egotist. I assume you've abandoned that claim?

I'm not saying that people have always been capitalists, but I am saying that capitalism is the economic system which is most compatible with human nature. Read your own source and take note of a few critical differences between the small hunter gatherer tribes of our distant ancestors and modern society. They had no private property because they had no surplus; the entire effort of the tribe was consumed in providing food. All of the members of the tribe were critical to the survival of each other member of the tribe, plus many of the tribe members were family most of the time. If one hunter slacked off on his hunting the effects were immediate and obvious. If one worker slacks off in a huge manufacturing system the effects are not so immediately apparent. Since the communist worker doesn't get to keep his surplus he has no reason to put forth his full effort, unlike the hunter who has no choice but to put forth his full effort or starve because his full effort is the bare minimum needed for survival.

Let's see, everyone hates him because (literally) everyone else doesn't get what he needs, and thus instead of just him losing, it's everyone (including him) losing. Then people start fights against him and society will make him work.
Falcon
Feb 6 2007, 11:02 PM

Quote:
 
Did you even have a fucking point? I'm not going to kill myself, of course not. But that doesn't mean I ain't going to give something back to society and help the poor.


I didn't mention you killing yourself; what are you reading? You said that there hasn't been a communist state. My reply is that it isn't for the lack of trying, but rather because the implementation of communism ideology inevitably requires tryanny and repression to make people work, but even then that work is substandard because there is no incentive to work if you don't get to keep your surplus value.
You complained that I wouldn't work for free, letting someone else steal my value, but rather simply work to some minimal standard which would inevitably be required at the point of a gun. You claim that you're going to give something back to society and help the poor, but you don't say how much or how we should decide how much. What if I think you should give back more to society and help the poor more than you do? Should I have the right to compel you to give back to society and help the poor more than you want to? You presume to take upon yourself the power to sit in judgment that other's are not giving enough, but what if someone decides to judge you?

1. That killing myself was for the good of society. I was using a metaphore which you clearly didn't understand.
2. I never said you should be working for free. I also never said that you should take less then the minimum.
3. Stop putting words in my mouth just in order to win an arguement.
Falcon
Feb 6 2007, 11:02 PM

Quote:
 

Oh, so you actually like having to work yourself nearly to death in order to be able to live (unless of course, you lied about the social class you're in and you are the upper class snob I assumed you are). And BTW, you don't even have a fucking point. Let's sum up all you've said on this forum which had a so-called point:
"Christianity is the best if you ain't christian damn you and if you're a communist go to fucking hell." There ya go.

-Dirk


I don't like having to work hard to be able to live and better myself, but it is the only just thing to do. I'm not going to steal from my neighbor like some common thief just so that I don't have to work as hard. Likewise, I want to be able to dispose of the things I earn at my own discretion without being compelled to by the government to dispose of them in a way unproductive to the government's legitimate function of securing liberty. You still didn't address my points and even more laughably you drug a wholly unrelated topic, religion, into the matter.

One word: read. Here are your so-called points again:
from my post you quoted
 
"Christianity is the best if you ain't christian damn you and if you're a communist go to fucking hell."

Oh, and since the fact that you're a Christian Klanconservative, all your politics are made by religion. And if you don't like working too hard in order to be able to live, than why the hel lare you a supporter of capitalism? In a communist system needless jobs (fashion designer, musician, these would be continued as hobbies, enough people who want to do it) and you'll get less work.

-Dirk
Posted Image
Posted ImageHail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingyPosted Image
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
DirkNL
Feb 7 2007, 12:44 PM
Oh, and since the fact that you're a Christian Klanconservative, all your politics are made by religion.

Dirk, Falcon has said numerous times that he separates his religious and political views.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DirkNL
Member Avatar
Horrific poster
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
piercehawkeye45
Feb 7 2007, 06:52 PM
DirkNL
Feb 7 2007, 12:44 PM
Oh, and since the fact that you're a Christian Klanconservative, all your politics are made by religion.

Dirk, Falcon has said numerous times that he separates his religious and political views.

When for example? (quote+topic where it came from)

-Dirk
Posted Image
Posted ImageHail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingyPosted Image
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
DirkNL
Feb 7 2007, 01:04 PM
piercehawkeye45
Feb 7 2007, 06:52 PM
DirkNL
Feb 7 2007, 12:44 PM
Oh, and since the fact that you're a Christian Klanconservative, all your politics are made by religion.

Dirk, Falcon has said numerous times that he separates his religious and political views.

When for example? (quote+topic where it came from)

-Dirk

He said it in his religious debates before and I'm not looking through them to find it.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 

Let's see, everyone hates him because (literally) everyone else doesn't get what he needs, and thus instead of just him losing, it's everyone (including him) losing. Then people start fights against him and society will make him work.


Do you ever respond to an entire post? Shall I just assume you admit defeat on all the parts you don't acknowledge?

Your basic premise is that workers in a communist society will be forced to work by society. You're right insofar as workers in communist societies are forced to work at the point of a gun, the government's gun, but you're mostly wrong because you're trying to make it seem as if all the other little communist workers will apply peer pressure, in essence, to make him work. Sorry, it doesn't work like that in the real world as every major, and thus measurable, attempt at communism thus far has demonstrated to us. Instead of one worker slacking off, all the workers slack off and do the minimum they can get away with and still keep from getting shot. They do this because they won't reap any benefit from working harder. People won't work without reaping a benefit, be that a financial benefit or some kind of personal benefit like self-satisfaction. You're not going to find enough people who are self satisfied by working their fullest for something as abstract as king and country on a daily basis. You might get that kind of effort if there is a time of national crisis like war, but in general you won't (and even then you might not).

Quote:
 

1. That killing myself was for the good of society. I was using a metaphore which you clearly didn't understand.
2. I never said you should be working for free. I also never said that you should take less then the minimum.
3. Stop putting words in my mouth just in order to win an arguement.


[1]A metaphor is saying "he's as strong as a rock" not "I won't kill myself" when discussing something where killing one's self (for the benefit of the state) might be a position the other side would consider that you might hold. Regardless,
[2] If I don't get to keep everything I produce then some of my work is done for free. Similarly, how do you decide what the minimum is and how do you ensure that the minimum is always supplied? In this world everything has limits and sometimes those limits means that not everyone gets some "minimum" share of every resource. How do you want to allocate those resources, by who deserves them (aka, who produces the value to buy them), or by some arbitrary mechanism such as soup lines (first come first serve), or worse yet, some subjective value judgment issued by an authority figure (Bob deserves resource X because he's a scientists, but Ted is just some worker so he get's none). [3] I haven't put a single word in your mouth, I've merely explained the implications of your partially thought out arguments. If you don't like those implications then you should rethink your positions.

Quote:
 

One word: read. Here are your so-called points again:
QUOTE (from my post you quoted)
"Christianity is the best if you ain't christian damn you and if you're a communist go to fucking hell."


I have never and would never make such a shallow minded argument. Religion isn't even a part of this discussion. Incidently, didn't you just rail at me for putting words in your mouth?

Quote:
 
Oh, and since the fact that you're a Christian Klanconservative, all your politics are made by religion. And if you don't like working too hard in order to be able to live, than why the hel lare you a supporter of capitalism? In a communist system needless jobs (fashion designer, musician, these would be continued as hobbies, enough people who want to do it) and you'll get less work.

-Dirk


Character defamation and petty insults are the last desperate straw of someone with an intellectually bankrupt argument. I'm in favor of capitalism because I believe in each person owning themselves and thus owning the product of their activities. I'm a capitalist because I'm not arrogent or narrow minded enough to tell someone else that their job and the things they produce are "needless." I'm capitalist because I don't want some communist overlord forcing me to work at the point of a gun and then taking anything excess that I manage to produce.



Concerning your exchange with Pierce... Surely you can tell by now that I don't use religious arguments to support political policies?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DirkNL
Member Avatar
Horrific poster
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Delete this, post got screwed up.

-Dirk
Posted Image
Posted ImageHail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingyPosted Image
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't believe true Communism can ever work because if you are raised in a non-communist atmosphere and suddenly change you will always become lazy and do the minimum for you to survive, not to mention major corruption up top.

Even though true capitalism is very efficient for an economy I think the US is too advanced for us to embrace it. There is no one size fits all economic model. Newer countries should start with capitalism and then slowly move more and more to the left to ensure civil liberties. The US is not even close to equilibrium so we still need capitalism but we should make an effort to move closer to the right, the next step being fair education and needs. No one should die from capitalism in America and no one should get a below par education in America.

The [e]utopian societies are the ones to the very far left (Anarchism, Communism, and Dr. Jim's society with a few tweaks) but you can not suddenly jump into those economic models without everything falling apart. You need to ease into them so capitalism greed doesn't tear it apart.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
Even though true capitalism is very efficient for an economy I think the US is too advanced for us to embrace it. There is no one size fits all economic model. Newer countries should start with capitalism and then slowly move more and more to the left to ensure civil liberties. The US is not even close to equilibrium so we still need capitalism but we should make an effort to move closer to the right, the next step being fair education and needs. No one should die from capitalism in America and no one should get a below par education in America.


I agree with you, to a point, Pierce. The problem is moving more towards the right. The capitalism America embraces is now controlled by far too many corrupt factors to be easily changed. Nobody should die from capitalism in America, but the big dogs at the top could care less about the little dogs at the bottom. As long as the market makes them money, to hell with the rest of society. It's supply and demand and unfortunatley that means individuals needs aren't factored into the whole equation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Killer Bee
Feb 7 2007, 03:43 PM
I agree with you, to a point, Pierce. The problem is moving more towards the right. The capitalism America embraces is now controlled by far too many corrupt factors to be easily changed. Nobody should die from capitalism in America, but the big dogs at the top could care less about the little dogs at the bottom. As long as the market makes them money, to hell with the rest of society. It's supply and demand and unfortunatley that means individuals needs aren't factored into the whole equation.


That is why I think we should move more to the left. Our economy can handle the shift, even if it may slow it down a bit, and it will give a better life the guys on the bottom.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
piercehawkeye45
Feb 7 2007, 09:10 PM
Killer Bee
Feb 7 2007, 03:43 PM
I agree with you, to a point, Pierce.  The problem is moving more towards the right.  The capitalism America embraces is now controlled by far too many corrupt factors to be easily changed.  Nobody should die from capitalism in America, but the big dogs at the top could care less about the little dogs at the bottom.  As long as the market makes them money, to hell with the rest of society.  It's supply and demand and unfortunatley that means individuals needs aren't factored into the whole equation.


That is why I think we should move more to the left. Our economy can handle the shift, even if it may slow it down a bit, and it will give a better life the guys on the bottom.

I agree with you Pierce, but getting the big guys at the top to shift will be quite the task. Instead of being able to pocket a huge 10 million dollar profit, they'll have to deal with 5 million and the rest going to the state. This kind of goes with something that Falcon was saying in an earlier post. Who will determine how much one can keep as a profit, and how much will go towards every one else.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katastrof
Member Avatar
One Of The Four Horseman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Damn I'm getting tired of writting these long posts. ..*sigh* oh well...

First up to bat global warming:

Falcon
 
I've seen areas that have been cleared off too. Then I've seen them a few years later. The land doesn't have any scars, you can't tell it from some other field. If the trees had of been replanted then it would look like a five year old forest (I've seen those too).


You obivously haven't. Clear-cutting without replanting defenitly shows scars. I mean come on. Without any trees to shade the soil it becomes dry quickly. Dry soil poses a problem for water absorbtion and for forest fires.(Since you know dry wood is better at starting fires) Any roots or small trees die as the soil chokes off nessesary nutrients and water. Any rain that hits the soil is quickly lost as the dry soil is septible to soil erosion. The water instead of being absorbed by the soil is washed away along with the topsoil, exposing subsoil and sometimes bedrock. If you think a tree can grow in bedrock you're nuts.
However we have to be clear about what time of clear cutting we are talking about. Clear cutting to me, means a not one tree is left exsept for very young trees. This is the clear cutting I am talking about above. If you are talking about clearcutting that only picks select trees, than its different but still harmful to the environment. Selective cutting creates a monoculture of trees because the logging company only picks one seed to plant and cuts down only one type of tree. Monoculutre have little biodiversity (hence mono) making that environment only habitble to only a few fauna and flora. (Clearcutting, the one above, destroys animal habitat no matter what.) This low biodivercity is a haven for pest. These pests infect the local fauna or flora and kill it off. Low biodiversity also leaves the habitat vurnerable to being destroyed by any one factor, like drought, fire, floods, or decreased nutrients. (That is why the tundra is considered to be the bioindicater of global warming, its biodivercity is so low that increased warming could destroy and is destroying it as we speak.)

Falcon
 
Please, quote accurately or don't quote at all.


I DID!! That link you gave me lead me to that page! My God you didn't even care to check the link! I'm dead serious I didn't change or alter that! I copyied and pasted exactly what was on that page. I only copyed the introduction but that was exactly what the intro was! I said in my post that was the intro! You don't read well do you? I admit that you are wrong for once because its glarringly obvouis now that you don't even read your links! I do relize that the whole article was on people who were against global warming but the intro clearly stated:

Quote:
 
Each scientist's views are stated without comment as to their factual accuracy.


That really makes your link impressive Falcon, when the intro warns the reader that the claims may not be factual!

Falcon
 
I don't see where you got this from the wiki page I gave you at all. Don't tell me you went to the wiki page containing the other side. Here's what it does say:


I did! Is this not your link?! Read the intro, READ THE DAMN INTRO!!!

READ THE INTRO!!!

Falcon
 
No they're not, they help establish a scholarly history. Unless their findings are overturned by better or additional data then they still stand.


Look up "Global Warming", its all there. You're bias, that's all. If you find any proof for the opposite side you claim it factual and ignore all other evidence that does not support your side.

Falcon
 
He was using an analogy; science isn't bad because its funded by either Greenpiece or an oil company. Science stands or falls on its merits.


It's more of the double standerd. You can use an analogy but I can not. I don't understand this at all. You can't say one thing and do another thing. That's sadly hypocritical.

And he was not using an analogy he was rebuting Mr. David Suzuki on just because he is funded by an oil company doesn't mean he has a bias opinion. He rebuts with that David Suzuki is funded by Greenpeace so shouldn't David be scrutinized just like him? (Reading Comprehension skills...). It's the equivelent of a child saying,"Well even though I did it he does it too!!!" Even though science stands or falls on its merits scientific debats stand or fall on there creditability...

Falcon
 
I can't see how fingerprints or the quote have anything to do with science. Glaciers come and go; net glacier volume is what matters.


... Are you kidding me? You didn't even click them did you? *sigh* Not suprising really...They were captions not summaries of the material. The quote was one of the flash quotes on AL Gore's site but it wasn't the point. The point was that was the inconvient truth site which had gallons of info that you again chose to ignore. I can't explain global warming in one post (it would take too long; I have a life and I have homework, you're asking me to do a frikin research project on a topic I have no time for. I'm not going to waste my life over one sad individual...If you don't believe me that's your decision, but at least try to rebut my links like I rebutted yours...)

Yes you are correct that glaciers come and go but I was just responding on how you wanted images of global warming. Again glaciers retreat if the globe warms (hence global warming). Even if global warming isn;t caused by humans (which it is) it's happening...

Falcon
 
According to the IPN report, the IPCC, which meets next week in Geneva (28-30 May 2004), appears to have intentionally exaggerated its estimates of temperature increases by using highly implausible scenarios of future growth in emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’. The IPCC uses sloppy assumptions for its estimates of economic growth and the technologies that are likely to be available in years to come. Worse, the IPCC’s reports are used as justification for taking actions – such as the Kyoto Protocol – that will have little or no effect on our climate, but will deeply affect our economic, social and environmental development.

In spite of a stream of criticisms from some of the world’s most highly regarded economists, the IPCC continues to utilise the same flawed methodology. It is now time for the governments that fund the IPCC to call it to account.

The evidence suggests that it will be difficult to reform the IPCC. Short of scrapping the organisation, then, the best governments can do is to require their economic ministries evaluate its work and to require the IPCC to rely more heavily on the work of economic historians and economists who understand how to use statistics."

http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=5


Didn't think I was going to look it up eh? Fool me once shame on me fool me twice shame on you. I am not going to be fooled twice. This International Policy Network looked a little supicious to me so I looked it up on Google and found this very intresting article on your article that you presented me:


Proof: READ the WHOLE thing Falcon

Here's an important part, so if you don't read it at least I can show the rest of the forum:
Falcon
 
For years, the tobacco companies blocked action on smoking by sowing doubt about the science. Esso and its friends have done the same thing in the US on climate change and now they're busy in Britain. Global warming is the biggest threat we face, the science is certain.'

Environmentalists believe this week's report will provoke a similar storm to that inspired by Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who maintains climate change is not the greatest threat facing mankind and resources should be spent on more pressing issues, such as tackling HIV.

Tomorrow's findings echo a number of Lomborg's themes, as well as maintaining that 'extreme weather' is more likely caused by a natural cycle rather than man-made. It also challenges assumptions that climate change will lead to a rise in malaria along with more positive effects, such as increasing fish stocks in the north Atlantic and reducing the incidence of temperature-related deaths among vulnerable people.

Morris admitted receiving money from a number of companies, including $50,000 from Exxon, but denied the organisation was a front for neo-conservative opinion. 'I have written about these issues for many years. If a company wants to provide money, then I'd be happy to accept it.'


As you see the editor [Morris] of the IPN was given a big fat check by Exxon Mobile to publish this story but since the IPN is charity based they did not break the law. (Funny how that works out eh? Exxon sure knows which spots to target...) Exxon Mobile if you do not remeber is an oil company and if we go back to my paradox it seems to fit the pattern. The 50,000 was less money to buy out a paper than it is to research new energy without reducing profit. I can say that this "myth" is busted!

Falcon
 
So? Corporations produce more per person than ordinary citizens.


Exactly. I'm happy you are beginning to understand. So if they already produce more revenue for themselves why do they get extra leverage in politics when they don't have as much votes as every opther average citizen? Seems a little unfair. Seems alot unfair since myself, I need petitions to change a law while a corporation just needs to give money to influence a policy maker. See if an ordinary citizen did that it would be called bribery but if a corporation does that its called "lobbying". Seems sure as hell smells like a big fat steamy load of BS....

Falcon
 
I went through and addressed your accusation of corporations being pyschopaths point by point. You replied to my response once, then I replied back again. Now you're claiming that I didn't address your argument? Come on, everyone can see for themselves that I did. What are you playing at? I've also addressed the substance of each of your posts head on so your charge of nitpicking is similarly false (unless you call demanding factual accuracy a nitpick).


No you didn't, you didn't rebut all my points. The ones you couldn't you just said that they were ancodotal or too general. That's not much of a rebuttal...

Falcon
 
Un-American Activities and Samuel Dickstein New York, Vice Chairman. Evidence was later shown from the Soviet archives that Dickstein was a Soviet spy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot


He was only ONE memeber of the commitie that investigated it...And the Un American Activities look at INTERIOR breaches of secruity fore runner of DOHD.

Falcon
 
Who decides what you need or deserve? Do you need a computer? Do you need any more food than bread and water? Is the drive to work hard to acquire more wrong if you're providing services or goods that society demands?


Essential Goods/Services and Luxury Goods/Services: Essential Goods/Services are nessissary for survival such as shelter, food, clothing, utilities. Luxury Good/Services are enjoyable but not nessisary for survival. These include pools, sports cars, computers, et cetera. - Nelson Fourth Edition: The World of Business A Canadain Profile (It's my buisness textbook...I'm taking buisness this semester)

It's called seperating your wants from needs. You need to have a basic shelter but you do not need to have a 200 room mansion for 4 people. You need to have a balanced diet (not just bread and water, nice try.) and you need to have adequete water but you do not need to have caviar or 6 types of an endangered tiger. You need to have clothing but you do not need a $100 pair of jeans from American Eagle. You need to have basic utilities but you do not need a 500 channels on your tv. See a pattern? You do not need to live in exsses. Material goods do not make people happy they just make them greedy for more. People may know how much something costs but they don't know what it's really "worth".

Falcon
 
When corporations break the law they're punished just like everyone else; by the law. Not all corporations break the law, nor has it been shown that they frequently break the law. There isn't a shred of evidence that corporations as a whole tend to act less ethically than anyone else.


*Ahem* My paradox...

Falcon
 
The board of directors, which can be made up of top shareholders, usually hires the CEO, but of course the people who create and own the company can structure it however they want. The CEO doesn't decide what he is paid, but rather his bosses decide (whoever they are in a particular company's governance structure). The CEO is just another employee typically who is attracted to his job just like anyone else, via pay and benefits. If having a good CEO that makes a company profitable and successful is worth what the company decides to pay then so be it, no one is coercing the company to pay the CEO more than it wants to. How would you like it if someone busted in and told you that you were getting paid too much?


You are correct good sir. CEOs are infact hired by board directors. So if the CEOs are not to blame for the corporation's deeds than who is?

And the last part to answer your question I would be pissed no doubt but I would know that he is right.
Posted Image

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero"(Seize the day put no trust in tomorrow)
~ Horace
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I don't believe true Communism can ever work because if you are raised in a non-communist atmosphere and suddenly change you will always become lazy and do the minimum for you to survive, not to mention major corruption up top.


Even if you are raised in a communist nation, or in any nation that triumphs the state over the individual and takes the individual's excess for the state or society, you still won't have the mindset necessary to make the system work. Heck, some people won't work even when they are allowed to keep their excess, so why would anyone think that they would absent that incentive?

Quote:
 

Even though true capitalism is very efficient for an economy I think the US is too advanced for us to embrace it. There is no one size fits all economic model. Newer countries should start with capitalism and then slowly move more and more to the left to ensure civil liberties. The US is not even close to equilibrium so we still need capitalism but we should make an effort to move closer to the right, the next step being fair education and needs. No one should die from capitalism in America and no one should get a below par education in America.


How exactly are you going to ensure civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion + the constructed civil liberty of privacy + free trial) by moving away from capitalism? What does economics have to do with civil liberties at all? A pennyless man can still have all his civil liberties.

Everyone has access to a basic K-12 education in America. It is poor in some areas, mostly due to inept government management, but fixing that system doesn't require that we move away from capitalism, but rather toward capitalism by using government funds to purchase education from private providers in a free market so that competition can produce a cheaper, more effective education.

How are we supposed to ensure everyone access to basic needs? First you need to define what basic needs are. If they include some baseline entitlement to some resource then you need to explain how we're supposed to redistribute the wealth in the country to spread that resources out to everyone in sufficient quantities and what happens when there isn't enough of that resource to meet everyone's need. Secondly, you need to explain on what basis you think it is acceptable to steal one American's property to bestow upon another American. We used to understand how repellant such a concept is to the Constitution and the very idea of individual liberty. How can one person's need, or want, entitle them automatically to another person's property?

Quote:
 

The [e]utopian societies are the ones to the very far left (Anarchism, Communism, and Dr. Jim's society with a few tweaks) but you can not suddenly jump into those economic models without everything falling apart. You need to ease into them so capitalism greed doesn't tear it apart.


How would more liberty and individual autonomy tear an economy apart?

Katastrof
Quote:
 

You obivously haven't. Clear-cutting without replanting defenitly shows scars. I mean come on.


Once the ground has grown back over you can't tell. I used to live around places where all the trees had been logged off for cattle. Within two years at the most you couldn't tell that there had ever been trees there if you didn't know; the land looked like any other grassy field.

Quote:
 

Without any trees to shade the soil it becomes dry quickly. Dry soil poses a problem for water absorbtion and for forest fires.(Since you know dry wood is better at starting fires) roots or small trees die as the soil chokes off nessesary nutrients and water. Any rain that hits the soil is quickly lost as the dry soil is septible to soil erosion. The water instead of being absorbed by the soil is washed away along with the topsoil, exposing subsoil and sometimes bedrock. If you think a tree can grow in bedrock you're nuts.


Grass grows quickly; when its properly done there isn't any erosion\absorption\fire hazard. Fire hazard is lessened generally, or, if it burns, nothing valuable burned because you already got the good lumber out. Untouched forests burn all the time, we might as well be using that lumber instead of wasting it. You clearly don't let the land waste away, you use selective cutting or replant quickly to prevent land loss.

Quote:
 
However we have to be clear about what time of clear cutting we are talking about. Clear cutting to me, means a not one tree is left exsept for very young trees. This is the clear cutting I am talking about above. If you are talking about clearcutting that only picks select trees, than its different but still harmful to the environment. Selective cutting creates a monoculture of trees because the logging company only picks one seed to plant and cuts down only one type of tree. Monoculutre have little biodiversity (hence mono) making that environment only habitble to only a few fauna and flora. (Clearcutting, the one above, destroys animal habitat no matter what.) This low biodivercity is a haven for pest. These pests infect the local fauna or flora and kill it off. Low biodiversity also leaves the habitat vurnerable to being destroyed by any one factor, like drought, fire, floods, or decreased nutrients. (That is why the tundra is considered to be the bioindicater of global warming, its biodivercity is so low that increased warming could destroy and is destroying it as we speak.)


That's true to an extent, but its also true of any mass crop growing undertaking. There probably isn't much biodiversity in a cornfield or grazeland comparied to whatever was there naturally. The key is to find crops and techniques that will allow us to sustain our crop growing activities indefinately, whether those crops be trees or something else. Also, this is still no commentary on my baseline point which is that we should harvest wood that is going to burn anyway.

Quote:
 

I DID!! That link you gave me lead me to that page, *snip longwinded redundent protests for space*


No it didn't, you had to go back to the main article on global warming to get to that page. The link I gave you was for the global warming dissenters.

Quote:
 

That really makes your link impressive Falcon, when the intro warns the reader that the claims may not be factual!


That's a common disclaimer that should go in front of either side of the global warming argument. To my knowledge Wikipedia commonly has such disclaimers when discussing an issue in hot contention.

Quote:
 

I did! Is this not your link?! Read the intro, READ THE DAMN INTRO!!!

READ THE INTRO!!!


The intro summarizes the other side to give perspective to the dissenter's claims relative to the proponent's claims.

Quote:
 


Look up "Global Warming", its all there. You're bias, that's all. If you find any proof for the opposite side you claim it factual and ignore all other evidence that does not support your side.


Wrong and wrong. If you want to make an argument you'll have to do better than merely telling me to go make your arugment for you.

Quote:
 
It's more of the double standerd. You can use an analogy but I can not. I don't understand this at all. You can't say one thing and do another thing. That's sadly hypocritical.


You can use an analogy all you want. What on earth are you talking about?

Quote:
 
And he was not using an analogy he was rebuting Mr. David Suzuki on just because he is funded by an oil company doesn't mean he has a bias opinion. He rebuts with that David Suzuki is funded by Greenpeace so shouldn't David be scrutinized just like him? (Reading Comprehension skills...). It's the equivelent of a child saying,"Well even though I did it he does it too!!!" Even though science stands or falls on its merits scientific debats stand or fall on there creditability...


That is the very function of an analogy; to point out similarity or to make a comparison. The analogy, and it is an apt analogy, is that it is no more legitimate to accuse someone of bias because they are funded by an oil company than if they are funded by an environmentalist group. People funded by environmentalists should be subject to the same scrutiny as people funded by oil companies, or people in general.

You're right about one thing though, scientific debates stand or fall on credibility, which is why the environmentalists engage in character smears against their opponents instead of confronting them on the science. They know that they'll lose in a purely intellectual debate.

Quote:
 
... Are you kidding me? You didn't even click them did you? *sigh* Not suprising really...They were captions not summaries of the material. The quote was one of the flash quotes on AL Gore's site but it wasn't the point. The point was that was the inconvient truth site which had gallons of info that you again chose to ignore.


I didn't ignore them, I looked at them and saw no merit to them because they're not science webpages, but rather the typical trendy "sky is falling" hysteria websites that push slogans instead of science.

Gore even admits that he is "overrepresenting" the facts. Gore isn't alone.

"So here's what Al told Grist Magazine about global warming: "I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."

"Consider NASA's James Hansen...Here's what he wrote in 2003 from his Broadway office, in the online journal Natural Science: "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decisionmakers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue." In fact, in 1989, he told The Washington Post he felt it was his duty to bring global warming to the attention of the political process. Apparently it was also "appropriate" to exaggerate it for political effect."

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/200605...05312-2838r.htm

Quote:
 

can't explain global warming in one post (it would take too long; I have a life and I have homework, you're asking me to do a frikin research project on a topic I have no time for. I'm not going to waste my life over one sad individual...If you don't believe me that's your decision, but at least try to rebut my links like I rebutted yours...)


You didn't rebut my links, you declared that they were too old (some of them) and ignored them. I've got newer links too, though the science is the same, but I'm sure you'll ignore..ahem, I mean "rebutt" these too. Don't claim you've done things that you haven't though, it just looks bad.

http://www.cato.org/research/nat-studies/global-warming.html
http://www.cei.org/gencon/004,04691.cfm
http://www.sepp.org/research/scirsrch/scirsrch.html (atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer's website)
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energyand...nment/BG896.cfm

However, since you weren't satisfied with how I addressed your links, which was at least as effective as anything you replied regarding mine, let me explain why your links are worthless as evidence.

Fingerprints: It purports to show global warming by citing examples of temperatures that were supposedly "unusual." It talks about things like "Edmonton, Canada -- Warmest summer on record, 1998. Temperatures were more than 5.4?F (3?C) higher than the 116-year average." Holy smokes, do these people know what an average is? It's a bunch of higher and lower temperatures added together and divided by the number of years. For temperatures to be 5.4 degrees higher than average one year doesn't allow us to infer anything useful in determining if the globe is getting warmer because of man's activity. "Florida -- Worst wildfires in 50 years, 1998. Fires burned 485,000 acres (196,272 hectares) and destroyed more than 300 homes and structures." Gee, could that be because we don't cut down forests and clear underbrush due to environmental regulation? The whole thing is full of things such as this (though you'll no doubt accuse me of cherry picking at least once before quitely dropping this and moving on)

I love the quote in this one: (Gore's convenient lie): What quote would you happen to love in this one, it keeps slamming trite little quotes at me one after another in such a way that I can just hear Gore's pretensious droning voice whining in the background. Wouldn't it have been easier just to post the quote instead of asking me to go read you mind? Could this have anything less to do with showing man caused global warming? Do you really want to use Mr. It's Okay to Exaggerate for Political Effect as a credible source anyway?

Shows the IRCC report: Finally, here's the first remotely scientific link in your fearsome foursome. Here was my rebuttal, which you ignored:

["The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which advises governments on the causes and consequences of climate change, was accused by Lord Lawson this week of operating “an environmentalist closed shop that is unsullied by any acquaintance with economics, statistics or, indeed, economic history.”* This view is upheld by a new report from International Policy Network, which assesses the way in which the IPCC predicts future climate change.** Lord Lawson, a former British Chancellor, has described the situation as “potentially a major scandal”.

According to the IPN report, the IPCC, which meets next week in Geneva (28-30 May 2004), appears to have intentionally exaggerated its estimates of temperature increases by using highly implausible scenarios of future growth in emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’. The IPCC uses sloppy assumptions for its estimates of economic growth and the technologies that are likely to be available in years to come. Worse, the IPCC’s reports are used as justification for taking actions – such as the Kyoto Protocol – that will have little or no effect on our climate, but will deeply affect our economic, social and environmental development.

In spite of a stream of criticisms from some of the world’s most highly regarded economists, the IPCC continues to utilise the same flawed methodology. It is now time for the governments that fund the IPCC to call it to account.

The evidence suggests that it will be difficult to reform the IPCC. Short of scrapping the organisation, then, the best governments can do is to require their economic ministries evaluate its work and to require the IPCC to rely more heavily on the work of economic historians and economists who understand how to use statistics."

http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=5]

Some pics of GLacier retreat...: Glaciers go back and forth; I assume you're trying to show that sea levels will rise. Well, not so much.

Global sea level (SL) has undergone a rising trend for at least a century; its cause is believed to be unrelated to climate change [1]. We observe, however, that fluctuations (anomalies) from a linear SL rise show a pronounced anti-correlation with global average temperature--and even more so with tropical average sea surface temperature. We also find a suggestive correlation between negative sea-level rise anomalies and the occurrence of El Nino events. These findings suggest that--under current conditions-- evaporation from the ocean with subsequent deposition on the ice caps, principally in the Antarctic, is more important in determining sea-level changes than the melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of ocean water. It also suggests that any future moderate warming, from whatever cause, will slow down the ongoing sea-level rise, rather than speed it up. Support for this conclusion comes from theoretical studies of precipitation increases [2] and from results of General Circulation Models (GCMs) [3,4]. Further support comes from the (albeit limited) record of annual ice accumulation in polar ice sheets [5].

1. A. Trupin and J. Wahr. Geophys J. Int., 100, 441-453 (1990)
2. D. Bromwich. "Ice sheets and sea level" Nature, 373, 18 (1995)
3. S.L. Thompson, and D. Pollard. Eos 76, No. 46 Suppl.(1995); J. Clim. (1997)
4. H. Ye and J.R. Mather, Int. J. Climatol., 17, 155-162 (1997)
5. D.A. Meese et al., Science 266, 1680-1682 (1994)

http://www.sepp.org/research/scirsrch/slr-agu.html

Quote:
 

Yes you are correct that glaciers come and go but I was just responding on how you wanted images of global warming. Again glaciers retreat if the globe warms (hence global warming). Even if global warming isn;t caused by humans (which it is) it's happening...


I don't want images of global warming, I want evidence. Data, statistics, and the reasoning therefrom. It isn't even conclusive that the globe is getting warmer, let alone that people are causing it.

While the surface record was registering a global warming of +0.4°C between 1979 and the present, the satellite MSU record was showing a quite different trend. It was also showing a warming, but less than +0.1°C, not the +0.4°C claimed for the surface. Even this small trend was not evenly spread across the full 21 years, nor was it truly global. Instead it resulted from the warmth of 1998 caused by the big El Niño of 1997-98. Up to that time, the satellites were actually registering a slight global cooling. After the effect of 1998 is included, the Southern Hemisphere still shows a slight cooling, only the Northern Hemisphere showing a small warming for the full 21 years.

http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

Quote:
 

Didn't think I was going to look it up eh? Fool me once shame on me fool me twice shame on you. I am not going to be fooled twice. This International Policy Network looked a little supicious to me so I looked it up on Google and found this very intresting article on your article that you presented me:


Proof: READ the WHOLE thing Falcon


I haven't attempted to hide anything; as I've already pointed out, receiving money from oil companies doesn't disqualify the science at single bit. Great job on ignoring their points and going straight to the smear campaign though. Typical of someone with an intellectually bankrupt position, but then, you're always using such tactics.

Quote:
 

As you see the editor [Morris] of the IPN was given a big fat check by Exxon Mobile to publish this story but since the IPN is charity based they did not break the law. (Funny how that works out eh? Exxon sure knows which spots to target...) Exxon Mobile if you do not remeber is an oil company and if we go back to my paradox it seems to fit the pattern. The 50,000 was less money to buy out a paper than it is to research new energy without reducing profit. I can say that this "myth" is busted!


"Myth busted" is just too funny for words. You ignored their points and smeared them mindlessly like some kind of koolaid drinking sheep. Global warming proponents receive billions in dollars on an annual basis from the government to do their research. I guess you'll be crowing "myth busted" on all their opinions too, right?

federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Quote:
 

Exactly. I'm happy you are beginning to understand. So if they already produce more revenue for themselves why do they get extra leverage in politics when they don't have as much votes as every opther average citizen? Seems a little unfair. Seems alot unfair since myself, I need petitions to change a law while a corporation just needs to give money to influence a policy maker. See if an ordinary citizen did that it would be called bribery but if a corporation does that its called "lobbying". Seems sure as hell smells like a big fat steamy load of BS....


I already understood that corporations had more money than the average person. They get to leverage government more because the people have allowed it, not only by approving of government policy with their votes, but by allowing the government to exercise power in such a way that it would be profitable for businesses to lobby them. If the government didn't have the power to bestow favortism, which it shouldn't, then there would be no basis for any special interest group to lobby like they do.
Citizen groups lobby Congress just like corporations do, haven't you seen the AARP or the Sierra Club in action? Corporations are at a disadvantage to these groups because they can only deliver money, where as citizen groups deliver money and the all important votes. It should be stopped, not only for corporations, but for citizen groups too.

Quote:
 

No you didn't, you didn't rebut all my points. The ones you couldn't you just said that they were ancodotal or too general. That's not much of a rebuttal...


Its a perfect rebuttal. When you give generalities with no evidence you haven't made a point. When you give an ancedotal example that is too narrow to generalize a conclusion from you haven't made a point.

Quote:
 
He was only ONE memeber of the commitie that investigated it...And the Un American Activities look at INTERIOR breaches of secruity fore runner of DOHD.


So its okay to have one Soviet Spy on your little conspiracy committee which will one day turn into the HUACC? Your other point doen't make any sense, a coup would be an INTERIOR breach of security. My source clearly states that the committee that investigated your little conspiracy was the one that turned into the HUACC. No one was prosecuted, charged, or otherwise convicted of anything. Nothing was ever proven. You've got nothing. Blustering about it won't help you.

Quote:
 

Essential Goods/Services and Luxury Goods/Services: Essential Goods/Services are nessissary for survival such as shelter, food, clothing, utilities. Luxury Good/Services are enjoyable but not nessisary for survival. These include pools, sports cars, computers, et cetera. - Nelson Fourth Edition: The World of Business A Canadain Profile (It's my buisness textbook...I'm taking buisness this semester
It's called seperating your wants from needs. You need to have a basic shelter but you do not need to have a 200 room mansion for 4 people.
You need to have a balanced diet (not just bread and water, nice try.) and you need to have adequete water but you do not need to have caviar or 6 types of an endangered tiger. You need to have clothing but you do not need a $100 pair of jeans from American Eagle. You need to have basic utilities but you do not need a 500 channels on your tv. See a pattern? You do not need to live in exsses. Material goods do not make people happy they just make them greedy for more. People may know how much something costs but they don't know what it's really "worth".


Is a car a luxury when you could take the bus to work, but it would add time to your trip? Is a three room house a luxury when you could put all your kids in one room and settle for two rooms? Luxury vs. necessity isn't as clear cut as you want to make it out to be. You're using extreme examples, but most of life isn't lived on the extremes. Is eating out a luxury to be abolished? Eating out a a diner that costs $150 per meal? $50 per meal? $10 per meal? Why do you get to decide what an excess is? Maybe I like to live as a miser 6 days a week so I can eat out for $150 on the 7th? Who are you to judge what makes people happy and what doesn't? Who are you to decide the "true" worth of something instead of the person buying that something? You're just a dictator in the waiting aren't you; sitting in your ivory tower judging how people run their lives, finding them wanting, and then presuming to dictate to them how they should live their lives to suit your desires. What a sickening display of tyranny.

Quote:
 
*Ahem* My paradox...


I've explained why it isn't a paradox more than once now.

Quote:
 
You are correct good sir. CEOs are infact hired by board directors. So if the CEOs are not to blame for the corporation's deeds than who is? And the last part to answer your question I would be pissed no doubt but I would know that he is right.


The CEOs are responsible for the corporation's actions, but they're just employees who goven at the pleasure of the people who hire them. The rest just boggles my mind. You would "know that he is right?" It's like you're trying to cram as much authoritarianism as possible into one post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katastrof
Member Avatar
One Of The Four Horseman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Look at the post above you Falcon...
Posted Image

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero"(Seize the day put no trust in tomorrow)
~ Horace
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Falcon
Feb 7 2007, 06:03 PM
Even if you are raised in a communist nation, or in any nation that triumphs the state over the individual and takes the individual's excess for the state or society, you still won't have the mindset necessary to make the system work.  Heck, some people won't work even when they are allowed to keep their excess, so why would anyone think that they would absent that incentive?

It is extremely hard to imagine but if you were taught not to be competitive and do a certain amount before you are finished then Communism would work. We are raised completely different then what is needed to live in a far left society.

Quote:
 
How exactly are you going to ensure civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion + the constructed civil liberty of privacy + free trial) by moving away from capitalism? What does economics have to do with civil liberties at all? A pennyless man can still have all his civil liberties.

Whoops, I didn't mean to talk about libertarianism.

I meant equality, with a lesser gap in wealth. We shouldn't make everyone equal right now but we should work on closing the gap.

Quote:
 
Everyone has access to a basic K-12 education in America.

That means well above 12 in some places and 8th in others. We need those to equal out. Not to mention the fact that there is little motivation to graduate in the inner city.

Quote:
 
It is poor in some areas, mostly due to inept government management, but fixing that system doesn't require that we move away from capitalism, but rather toward capitalism by using government funds to purchase education from private providers in a free market so that competition can produce a cheaper, more effective education.

Capitalism makes decisions on what makes the most profit. Schools should be run on what is best for the students, not the investors.

Quote:
 
How are we supposed to ensure everyone access to basic needs? First you need to define what basic needs are.

What you need to stay alive. Food, water, heat, shelter, and medical attention.

Quote:
 
If they include some baseline entitlement to some resource then you need to explain how we're supposed to redistribute the wealth in the country to spread that resources out to everyone in sufficient quantities and what happens when there isn't enough of that resource to meet everyone's need.

We have enough of the above to keep our nation alive. If we do have a problem, that is why we ease into it and find our problems before it is too late so we can change it early.

Quote:
 
Secondly, you need to explain on what basis you think it is acceptable to steal one American's property to bestow upon another American.

Once again, if we ease into it then it shouldn't be a problem. I don't not think everyone should have the same amount of property right now, just that everyone gets something first, then we can work on equalizing it, if we even do that, later.

Quote:
 
How would more liberty and individual autonomy tear an economy apart?

Stop with that damn right winged wording. If you raise people differently than right now you will end up with a population that can work better in different economic models. Like you said before, we could never work in a Communist state because we would just do the minimum but if we are raised not to do that, then it wouldn't be a problem.
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Falcon
Feb 7 2007, 06:03 PM
Even if you are raised in a communist nation, or in any nation that triumphs the state over the individual and takes the individual's excess for the state or society, you still won't have the mindset necessary to make the system work.  Heck, some people won't work even when they are allowed to keep their excess, so why would anyone think that they would absent that incentive?

It is extremely hard to imagine but if you were taught not to be competitive and do a certain amount before you are finished then Communism would work. We are raised completely different then what is needed to live in a far left society.


The Soviets, Cuba, N. Korea, China, Vietnam, etc... never made it work. They had to either slide toward capitalism or be mired in poverty until they nearly disappeared or in fact did disappear.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
How exactly are you going to ensure civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion + the constructed civil liberty of privacy + free trial) by moving away from capitalism? What does economics have to do with civil liberties at all? A pennyless man can still have all his civil liberties.

Whoops, I didn't mean to talk about libertarianism.

I meant equality, with a lesser gap in wealth. We shouldn't make everyone equal right now but we should work on closing the gap.


Libertarianism is what I'm in favor of. It maintains that everyone is the absolute owner of their own life and should be free to do whatever they want with their person and property as long as that liberty is respected in others. Redistribution of wealth is directly opposed to libertarianism because it infringes on your freedom to dispose of your own property.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Everyone has access to a basic K-12 education in America.

That means well above 12 in some places and 8th in others. We need those to equal out. Not to mention the fact that there is little motivation to graduate in the inner city.


Sure, even that out, but don't redistribute wealth.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
It is poor in some areas, mostly due to inept government management, but fixing that system doesn't require that we move away from capitalism, but rather toward capitalism by using government funds to purchase education from private providers in a free market so that competition can produce a cheaper, more effective education.

Capitalism makes decisions on what makes the most profit. Schools should be run on what is best for the students, not the investors.


What is best for investors is what is best for students. Investors won't make money unless they can attract students. They can't attract students unless they have a good education program. Their profits are linked to student success.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
How are we supposed to ensure everyone access to basic needs? First you need to define what basic needs are.

What you need to stay alive. Food, water, heat, shelter, and medical attention.


Air conditioning in the summer? Transportation? How much food, what kind of food, how much shelter, what kind of shelter, how much and what kind of medical attention. Shall we put everyone up in a condo with steak and access to kidney transplants?

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
If they include some baseline entitlement to some resource then you need to explain how we're supposed to redistribute the wealth in the country to spread that resources out to everyone in sufficient quantities and what happens when there isn't enough of that resource to meet everyone's need.

We have enough of the above to keep our nation alive. If we do have a problem, that is why we ease into it and find our problems before it is too late so we can change it early.


So your answer is that everything will work out in the end, through the power of wishing I suppose? Also, we don't have enough medical care or housing to provide an unlimited amount to anyone who wants it. What happens when things don't work out and you do have shortages. You will have to decide who gets what on some basis other than who earned those scarce supplies. Such a mechanism will be inherently unjust because it doesn't reward those who earn, but those who need.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Secondly, you need to explain on what basis you think it is acceptable to steal one American's property to bestow upon another American.

Once again, if we ease into it then it shouldn't be a problem. I don't not think everyone should have the same amount of property right now, just that everyone gets something first, then we can work on equalizing it, if we even do that, later.


The nation has had a long cycle of boom and bust, there's no reason for it to stop now, especially with the government in charge of things like you seem to want. You also didn't explain why you think it is acceptable to take by force the property of one American to bestow it upon another who has not earned it and who is not entitled to it.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
How would more liberty and individual autonomy tear an economy apart?

Stop with that damn right winged wording. If you raise people differently than right now you will end up with a population that can work better in different economic models. Like you said before, we could never work in a Communist state because we would just do the minimum but if we are raised not to do that, then it wouldn't be a problem.


You can't raise people to work their hardest for no personal reward. Its never been successfully done, there's no evidence that it can be done. The USSR would have loved to pull off such a feat, but it instead imploded in the face of capitalism due to its inherent inferiority. Again, how does liberty and individual autonomy tear an economy apart? It isn't "right wing wording" its an accurate characterization. Being able to direct your own life and resources is fundamental to liberty and individual autonomy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.