| 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: |
| Things not looking too good for Iranian president | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 18 2007, 05:31 AM (3,700 Views) | |
| piercehawkeye45 | Feb 8 2007, 03:56 AM Post #166 |
|
Franklin Pierce
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is because they jumped into it. How many times do I have to say it, you can not jump into a left wing economy and expect it to work. It just won't happen.
That is because the USSR and them never raised them to work in a left winged economy. I'm not going to say it can happen, but you can not deny it because I have seen people change from selfish to unselfish in weeks just from getting new friends. Like I said before, it is extremely hard for us to imagine because we have never expierenced it.
If you grow up in a selfish society (America) it would tear a left winged economy apart. It works extremely well for a right winged economy but not left.
No, it will come down to what school looks the nice and is appealing. I just got out of high school, they don't give a shit about good teachers and actually have students actually..........learn.
Making sure people can live without getting into major debt should be our first goal. Comfort can come after that.
I'm pretty sure there is enough room for every family in America to live in a small apartment or a community house. If there are shortages you will have to resort to capitalism until we get back on track. There will most likely be a cycle of a left then right then left then right before an initial switch.
Other countries are doing fine a more left economy, I think we will be fine. |
|
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. | |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Feb 8 2007, 04:07 AM Post #167 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They had 70 years to raise up new generations didn't they?
If you introduced more liberty and autonomy into a left wing society it wouldn't tear it up is my contention here.
You honestly believe that parents are going to select flashy over a good education? I doubt it, but even if it were true its their decision. As long as the education system is providing what the consumer wants I'm satisfied even if I don't personally believe that the consumers are making good choices.
People can already live without getting into debt if they work and don't squander their money. What happens though is that people make bad decisions, have kids, buy houses they can't afford, etc, and then get into trouble. Don't make other people pay for those mistakes. As an aside, the point of my post was that the line between comfort and necessity is a vague ill defined one. I don't think that the government should be deciding where that line falls.
If your system requires capitalism to generate enough wealth so that it has something to squander then there is your first big hint that your system is a failure. Capitalism won't work if people know that its just a temporary thing designed to trick them into working so that they can be robbed.
No they're not, they're doing noticably worse, on the whole, and they're going in the wrong direction. Your own words indicate that you realize the economy performs worse the more "left" you go, but yet you think that we can get away with it. Its like someone arguing that a little cancer will probably "be fine." It isn't fine, its a cancer, and its slowly killing you. Not to mention that this particular cancer is an authoritarian system that robs its producers to give to anyone deemed needy. |
![]() |
|
| piercehawkeye45 | Feb 8 2007, 04:32 AM Post #168 |
|
Franklin Pierce
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, autonomy would destroy a left winged economy. That is why Communism has failed and that is something that would have to be avoided if you wanted a successful left winged economy. Can you give some examples of liberty because that depends on what you think it is.
Yes.
So you admit that education wouldn't be the main goal of privatized education?
A full time minimum wage is below the poverty line. We don't do anything to prevent these mistakes either so it is our fault too.
Not if you don't tell them .
You find something that stabilizes. That is why you ease into it. If it doesn't work you can always go back. |
|
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. | |
![]() |
|
| agafaba | Feb 8 2007, 06:01 AM Post #169 |
|
douchebagga
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When you remove the lumber it is gone... normally forests use old lumber to fertilize the forest and help grow new trees. When a forest burns it does not just dissapear... there are the remains of the trees still there, and those trees will decompose to help grow a new forest. That being said i fully realize we cannot simply stop using wood, but that clear cutting is not a good solution. You can see the difference from space that clear cutting has caused (no link as I am going from memory). If forest fires cause the same effect then after all these years there would be no forest left to chop down. |
![]() |
|
| Killer Bee | Feb 8 2007, 05:40 PM Post #170 |
![]()
|
Having kids is not a mistake. It's what we get married to a life long mate for. How about the people who's jobs don't offer any kind of medical benefits? After getting sick, you're stuck with staggering hospital bills and they don't care that your job doesn't provide healthcare. All they want is payment for medical services. That's not right.
Neither do I, but I do think the government should offer a program(s)(outside of welfare) that keeps people from being swallowed up by the system.
It's worked pretty good in America for centuries..... |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Feb 8 2007, 07:38 PM Post #171 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"negative liberty" in the Locke\Founding Father tradition
I admit no such thing, I think that the notion that people wouldn't attempt to pick the best education possible is rediculous. However, if people don't want to for whatever reason then that is their choice and not my problem.
The poverty line is just something we made up and what are you talking about, "preventing [other people's] mistakes?" Just how paternalistic are you?
They'll figure it out after you do it the first time. I can't believe you even suggested such a thing in the first place.
You find something that stabilizes? Again with the power of wishing? Further, you can't always go back. Once you've given that kind of power to the government you don't wrest it away easily or, in most cases, bloodlessly. Killer Bee
If you have kids you can't pay for its a mistake. If you don't have a job that pays medical care then buy your own. You aren't entitled to anything just because you need it because someone else has to produce those things. Your need doesn't entitle you to someone else's life (and that's what property is, a little piece of your life that you've given up to earn it).
How would this system differ from welfare if the government is doing it?
What are you talking about? Your system, as you described it, has not been working in America for "centuries" |
![]() |
|
| Killer Bee | Feb 8 2007, 08:10 PM Post #172 |
![]()
|
So, what determines whether you can afford kids or not? The government? Should we just go around to the poor areas in the country and starting spading women like dogs? Your judgement on peoples financial status doesn't give you the right to determine whether they should have kids or not. Plain and simple.
For starters, training these people with a more valuable skill to help them get a decent job. Maybe then, welfare might not be the over abused system it is right now.
Look up the word "sarcasm". |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Feb 8 2007, 08:16 PM Post #173 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They can have kids all they want, they just can't make someone else pay for them.
We already have such training programs available. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pdf/Labor-07.pdf "Most of the State grant would finance Career Advancement Accounts (CAAs), self-managed accounts of up to $3,000 for training and education. Career Advancement Accounts would support training opportunities for 800,000 workers annually."
I think the person needing to look it up is you, specifically so you can figure out when sarcasm is appropriate and when it doesn't make sense. |
![]() |
|
| Killer Bee | Feb 8 2007, 08:23 PM Post #174 |
![]()
|
Who's kids are you paying for? Until you can answer this, don't worry about someone elses business. Also, you didn't answer my question, what determines when someone is financially able to have kids.
$3,000 for training? That would almost train someone to be the best telemarketer they could be.
Maybe so. But, you need to also grow a sense of humor, since whoever programmed you obviously forgot to give you one. |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Feb 8 2007, 09:22 PM Post #175 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Anyone who has kids, can't afford them, and ends up on government assistance.
Public 2 year education institution (typically vocational) is on average $1,000 in tuition. Public 4 year institutions cost $4,200 on average nationwide. http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/tables_listings/2006186.asp (Table 1.1; 2003-2004 numbers) $3,000 is not insignificant.
I have a sense of humor, just not your sense of humor apparently. |
![]() |
|
| Killer Bee | Feb 8 2007, 09:48 PM Post #176 |
![]()
|
So, would the guy that loses his job at the local steel mill because of cheap foreign competition qualify as someone who doesn't deserve to have kids because he can't afford to feed his family? Should we just steralize him because he's a burdeon to your financial freedom? You still don't have the right to determine when someone deserves to have kids or not. You're not thinking of ever running for an elected office, are you?
Hey, try looking over at the next couple of column's after the first ones. Need help? They're called "Average Price of Attendance" and "Average Amount". See how the little figures skyrocket? That's just the average, and for someone who can't afford their kids(by your standards) they obviously can't afford to pay the difference of what our generous government offers in their programs.
You apparently do, with the way you made me laugh with this post. |
![]() |
|
| piercehawkeye45 | Feb 8 2007, 10:06 PM Post #177 |
|
Franklin Pierce
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The problem with positive and negative liberty is where do two lines cross? For example, it is your right to smoke a cigarette but it is my right not to inhale second-hand smoke. Do we allow or outlaw smoking? The same thing goes for economics. It is your right to own as much property as you want but it is also my liberty to own a little bit of property. Should we take away a little bit of yours so I can have some or do we let me live on the street? I believe we everyone should have the minimum for right now and no one has the right to deny a person of this and other needs.
It is in the best interests of the state for each student to get an education run by the state so they can do what is best for the student, not what makes the most profit. I don't like the feeling of corportations running my education either.
Well whatever, paying rent and buying food with anything extra to save is extremely hard with a minimum wage job.
We have to educate them. I wasn't talking about watching over them.
It was sarcasm....
Giving the state power to equal education and giving them other powers isn't going to start a power craze. |
|
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. | |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Feb 8 2007, 11:33 PM Post #178 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, I'm not for steralization or government controls on who can have kids or how many kids they can have. I'm strictly against having society pay for someone else's kids. You don't have the right to take my money to raise someone else's kids anymore than I have the right to tell them that they can't have kids. I need to run for elected office, this country is really messed up apparently.
Average price of attendance, as I understand it, factors in cost of living. News flash, you have to live whether you're going to school or not. Even if you go by the cost of attendance column (which is silly) they are still being helped significantly. If you still can't afford to go to school (because you had kids when you couldn't afford them) then its still not my problem.
Always glad to amuse. piercehawkeye45
If you want to outlaw smoking on public property then that is a function for the representative process (Congressional regulation). If you want to outlaw smoking on private property then that is a function for the private process (each property owner decides whether to allow or bar smoking on his\her own property).
You can own all the property that you earn. We shouldn't take away a little bit of anyone's so that someone else can live off the street (which is a broken scenario, the choices in life are not either A) be homeless or steal, but even if those were the only two choices taking other people's property is a violation of their liberty). You believe that we should have institutionalized theft, because it feels good to you presumably, but you haven't articulated a coherent policy about how we should go about doing something so inherently tyrannical or any sort of theory about why we should engage in such tyranny beyond your own personal morals. Sorry, personal morals make lousy public policy.
The state has failed though, the bureaucracy sucks up the money and lavishes it on teachers\buildings\etc... Let the state set the criteria (what is learned) and the standards (performance); then let the private sector handle the rest.
Life is hard, get over it.
People with lots of education still make mistakes. Some people don't want to be educated. If you want to be free then you're going to have to let people be free to live their lives even when you don't approve.
I'm glad, but it was concerning because I could see someone really suggesting such a thing.
In order to give them those "other powers" you have to give them the power to tax, to regulate, to weild both carrot and stick, both purse and sword. Those powers are easily misused and not easily excluded from the hands that control them, once that control is had. |
![]() |
|
| piercehawkeye45 | Feb 8 2007, 11:50 PM Post #179 |
|
Franklin Pierce
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
See, we have a different view on what people's rights are. If someone is born into a family that owns a lot of property and own it for his or her whole life and someone else is born into poverty where all the land is taken up (this is theoretical), why does the first person deserve that land instead of the second guy? Everyone should start with a clean slate, mommies and daddies shouldn't determine their status. Should we just go back to a caste system?
That I can live with, I just don't want corporations determining how I will learn.
That is all you have to say? I'm not saying they should live a good life on your paycheck, just that they get an equal chance to succeed.
We will end up paying for their mistakes either way so wouldn't you rather make it cheaper and easier and try to prevent them instead of just letting them happen unchecked?
Yes, but that will happen with any government. |
|
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. | |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Feb 9 2007, 12:30 AM Post #180 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The person born into a wealthy family deserves the wealth because the parents, who own the property, get to decide what they want to do with it. Respecting people's rights to do what they want with their own property isn't a caste system. A caste system is usually characterized by a system of low social mobility where one's prospects for marriage and jobs are determined by birth. That kind of system is usually enforced by the government through some kind of mechanism. That is clearly dissimilar from merely respecting people's liberty. The poor are not damaged by someone else being rich when wealth is earned instead of bestowed (you know, by government, like what you want to do).
They have equality under the law and yes you are saying that they should live off my paycheck. Ten cents or ten thousand dollars, its all still just taking what they haven't earned and don't deserve.
No, because I'm not paternalistic and arrogent enough to attempt to use government force to live someone else's life for them. I'm not going to pay for their mistakes either, unless I want to of my own free will. Or are you talking about something obscure like increased crime or something? Sorry, there is no link between crime and poverty. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/BG1026.cfm "The central proposition in official Washington's thinking about crime is that poverty is the primary cause of crime. In its simplest form, this contention is absurd; if it were true, there would have been more crime in the past, when more people were poorer. And in poorer nations, the crime rates would be higher than in the United States. More significantly, history defies the assumption that deteriorating economic circumstances breed crime (and improving conditions reduce it). Instead, America's crime rate gradually rose during the long period of real economic growth: 1905 to 1933. As the Great Depression set in and incomes dropped, the crime rate also dropped. It rose again between 1965 and 1974 when incomes rose steadily. Most recently, during the recession of 1982, there was a slight dip in crime, not an increase. What is true of the general population is also true of black Americans. For example, between 1950 and 1974 black income in Philadelphia almost doubled, and homicides more than doubled. Even the Reverend Jesse Jackson, whose prescriptions for social reform mirror conventional liberal ideology, admits that black-on-black homicide is not an issue of poverty. The crime rate in other communities also shows no link between low incomes and crime. The Chinese in San Francisco in the mid- 1960s, for instance, had the lowest family income of any ethnic group (less than $4,000 per year) but next to no crime: only 5 Chinese in all of California were then in prison."
Not when the government is denied the power to begin with. That's what I want to do; deny government the power to transfer money from one person to a person of some favored class. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



.
steal, but even if those were the only two choices taking other people's property is a violation of their liberty). You believe that we should have institutionalized theft, because it feels good to you presumably, but you haven't articulated a coherent policy about how we should go about doing something so inherently tyrannical or any sort of theory about why we should engage in such tyranny beyond your own personal morals. Sorry, personal morals make lousy public policy.
12:31 AM Jul 11