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 (3,700 Views)
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Falcon
Feb 7 2007, 08:16 PM
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.

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.

Quote:
 
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.

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.

Quote:
 
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.

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.

Quote:
 
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.

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.

Quote:
 
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?

Making sure people can live without getting into major debt should be our first goal. Comfort can come after that.

Quote:
 
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.

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.

Quote:
 
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 


Quote:
 
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.

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.


They had 70 years to raise up new generations didn't they?

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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.

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.


If you introduced more liberty and autonomy into a left wing society it wouldn't tear it up is my contention here.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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.

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.


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.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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?

Making sure people can live without getting into major debt should be our first goal. Comfort can come after that.


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.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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.

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.


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.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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.

Other countries are doing fine a more left economy, I think we will be fine.


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Falcon
Feb 7 2007, 11:07 PM
If you introduced more liberty and autonomy into a left wing society it wouldn't tear it up is my contention here.

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.

Quote:
 
You honestly believe that parents are going to select flashy over a good education?

Yes.

Quote:
 
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.

So you admit that education wouldn't be the main goal of privatized education?

Quote:
 
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.

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.

Quote:
 
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.

Not if you don't tell them ;) .

Quote:
 
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
agafaba
Member Avatar
douchebagga
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
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.


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
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.


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.

Quote:
 
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.


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.

Quote:
 
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.


It's worked pretty good in America for centuries.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Falcon
Feb 7 2007, 11:07 PM
If you introduced more liberty and autonomy into a left wing society it wouldn't tear it up is my contention here.

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.


"negative liberty" in the Locke\Founding Father tradition

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
You honestly believe that parents are going to select flashy over a good education?

Yes.

Quote:
 
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.

So you admit that education wouldn't be the main goal of privatized education?


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.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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.

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.


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?

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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.

Not if you don't tell them ;) .


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.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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.

You find something that stabilizes. That is why you ease into it. If it doesn't work you can always go back.


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
Quote:
 

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.


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).

Quote:
 

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.


How would this system differ from welfare if the government is doing it?

Quote:
 

It's worked pretty good in America for centuries.....


What are you talking about? Your system, as you described it, has not been working in America for "centuries"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
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).


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.

Quote:
 
How would this system differ from welfare if the government is doing it?


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.

Quote:
 
What are you talking about?  Your system, as you described it, has not been working in America for "centuries"


Look up the word "sarcasm".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
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).


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.


They can have kids all they want, they just can't make someone else pay for them.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
How would this system differ from welfare if the government is doing it?


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.


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."

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
What are you talking about?  Your system, as you described it, has not been working in America for "centuries"


Look up the word "sarcasm".


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
They can have kids all they want, they just can't make someone else pay for them.


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.

Quote:
 
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."


$3,000 for training? That would almost train someone to be the best telemarketer they could be.

Quote:
 
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.


Maybe so. But, you need to also grow a sense of humor, since whoever programmed you obviously forgot to give you one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
They can have kids all they want, they just can't make someone else pay for them.


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.


Anyone who has kids, can't afford them, and ends up on government assistance.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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."


$3,000 for training? That would almost train someone to be the best telemarketer they could be.


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.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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.


Maybe so. But, you need to also grow a sense of humor, since whoever programmed you obviously forgot to give you one.


I have a sense of humor, just not your sense of humor apparently.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
Anyone who has kids, can't afford them, and ends up on government assistance.


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?

Quote:
 
Public 2 year education institution (typically vocational) is on average $1,000 in tuition.  Public 4 year institutions cost $4,200 on average nationwide.


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.

Quote:
 
I have a sense of humor, just not your sense of humor apparently.


You apparently do, with the way you made me laugh with this post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
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.

Quote:
 
However, if people don't want to for whatever reason then that is their choice and not my problem.

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.

Quote:
 
The poverty line is just something we made up

Well whatever, paying rent and buying food with anything extra to save is extremely hard with a minimum wage job.

Quote:
 
"preventing [other people's] mistakes?" Just how paternalistic are you?

We have to educate them. I wasn't talking about watching over them.

Quote:
 
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.

It was sarcasm....

Quote:
 
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Anyone who has kids, can't afford them, and ends up on government assistance.


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?


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.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Public 2 year education institution (typically vocational) is on average $1,000 in tuition.  Public 4 year institutions cost $4,200 on average nationwide.


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.


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.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
I have a sense of humor, just not your sense of humor apparently.


You apparently do, with the way you made me laugh with this post.


Always glad to amuse.

piercehawkeye45
Quote:
 

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?


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).

Quote:
 

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.


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 B) 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.

Quote:
 

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.


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.

Quote:
 

Well whatever, paying rent and buying food with anything extra to save is extremely hard with a minimum wage job.


Life is hard, get over it.

Quote:
 

We have to educate them. I wasn't talking about watching over them.


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.

Quote:
 

It was sarcasm....


I'm glad, but it was concerning because I could see someone really suggesting such a thing.

Quote:
 

Giving the state power to equal education and giving them other powers isn't going to start a power craze.


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
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.

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?

Quote:
 
Let the state set the criteria (what is learned) and the standards (performance); then let the private sector handle the rest.

That I can live with, I just don't want corporations determining how I will learn.

Quote:
 
Life is hard, get over it.

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.

Quote:
 
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.

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?

Quote:
 
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
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.

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?


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).

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Let the state set the criteria (what is learned) and the standards (performance); then let the private sector handle the rest.

That I can live with, I just don't want corporations determining how I will learn.

Quote:
 
Life is hard, get over it.

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.


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.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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.

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?


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."

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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.

Yes, but that will happen with any government.


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.
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.