You guys like banging your heads against walls or something? You can't argue with people brainwashed in the socialist mentality... They are immune to logic. Feeling good despite the cost to you or me is much more important to them. The only way to combat this, unfotunatly, is to let it come to a head, and when everyone has been pushed enough... viva la revolution! Then we start all over again...
I don't buy that. Is much of the public unable to buy food? The more we rely on markets, the CHEAPER things are, the MORE people are able to get them. Force is never the best way to get things to the people -- that is why government fails. Why are provate schools so expensive? Because, like health care, the dominant force in the market is the government. You ask for guarantees -- there ARE NONE. And government is no better guarantor than the market. Therefore, logic says go with the one that has a better record -=- the market. That is my point, actually. It is a guarantee that the government will mess it up -- they already have -- no matter how much we spend. Let us try the way that has always worked best in all times and all places -- let the people be free.
Food is heavily subsidized, in many ways. There are also safety nets to prevent people from starving. There's enough extra food around that a huge amount of discarded food can be scavenged in a pinch. Even so, plenty of people have trouble maintaining optimal nutrition.
Education is a very different commodity though. It's not essential to immediate survival, so it's more likely to be neglected for short term gain, and it can't be stolen or scavenged (at least not usually). I'm not to clear on the history, but before the public school system, do you think literacy was higher then than it is now? I doubt it. I seem to recall child labor being rather common at some points.
I'd like to go back to my metaphor of medicine. The human immune system has a much, MUCH better record than any sort of artificial medicine. Does that mean we should abandon its study and practice? Get rid of all the doctors and hospitals, since our natural immune system is better?
Usually it's best to just let the body do it's thing, but once in awhile, it messes up and you see the opportunity to set it back on the right track. You take that opportunity, right?
I do not think it's logical to always go with the better record. Where in life is repeating a mantra and always reacting to diverse situations the same way helpful? Isn't it better to gather information about each individual situation and make a rational decision based on the particulars? Make decisions based on the future, not the past.
What DO you think the role of the government is, and why shouldn't that be privatized as well?
the fact is the subsidies are there to keep prices HIGH, and we would be better off if it were not sub subsidized as well. As America becomes more and more socialist, it gets harder and harder to find examples of free markets. I used food because it was a PRIMARILY market system, and does MUCH BETTER than health care or education which are now dominated by socialism, and are therefore failing.
Basically all you are saying is because YOU believe in government and force, it's the better choice. No amount of evidence will convince you otherwise because your faith tells you so.
The role of government is the protection of liberty and human rights; and the reason it should not be privatized is because it is the one thing that government is good at, and the one thing worth shooting people over -- which is all that government is for.
Since government is how we will use force in our lives, we should only use it in those areas where force is a good thing.
You guys like banging your heads against walls or something? You can't argue with people brainwashed in the socialist mentality... They are immune to logic. Feeling good despite the cost to you or me is much more important to them. The only way to combat this, unfotunatly, is to let it come to a head, and when everyone has been pushed enough... viva la revolution! Then we start all over again...
Well, I'm not doing this to change brainwashed people. I am doing this to give good arguments for those unbrainwashed out there reading this, to challenge myself, to listen to the best arguments of the opposition, and to clarify everyone's views.
If I didn't enjoy being challenged and discussing things I wouldn't do it.
You guys like banging your heads against walls or something? You can't argue with people brainwashed in the socialist mentality... They are immune to logic. Feeling good despite the cost to you or me is much more important to them. The only way to combat this, unfotunatly, is to let it come to a head, and when everyone has been pushed enough... viva la revolution! Then we start all over again...
Well, I'm not doing this to change brainwashed people. I am doing this to give good arguments for those unbrainwashed out there reading this, to challenge myself, to listen to the best arguments of the opposition, and to clarify everyone's views.
If I didn't enjoy being challenged and discussing things I wouldn't do it.
your whole argument is based on you don't like paying taxes and you don't trust anyone to handle your money except yourself.
my whole argument is that I trust my representaive president to handle my money properly (let's say 99% of the time which is enough for me) and I like where the taxes are being allocated to (since I stand by social programs such as health care and education - I think they for the most part are very helpful for people in need), and I don't mind sacrificing my money for the greater good. and yes, I beleive my tax money is going towards the greater good at least 95% of the time. I liked where Obama wanted to put our tax dollars more than McCain, and you can call it bigger government because he supports social programs that help people and whatnot, but I support that k?
the fact is the subsidies are there to keep prices HIGH, and we would be better off if it were not sub subsidized as well. As America becomes more and more socialist, it gets harder and harder to find examples of free markets. I used food because it was a PRIMARILY market system, and does MUCH BETTER than health care or education which are now dominated by socialism, and are therefore failing.
How are you measuring this?
Basically all you are saying is because YOU believe in government and force, it's the better choice. No amount of evidence will convince you otherwise because your faith tells you so.
You're the one preaching a faith, not me. You've basically declared that logic is over and we already have the answer to life's problems. You've decided that the private sector is better because it is. That the government is always bad because it is.
Believe it or not, I used to believe something similar. It's only later that I realized nothing in life is ever that simple.
I'll ask you again, in light of the fact the human body has a much better record than artificial medicine, do you still go to the doctor?
If it were as easy as you say it is, the entire world would be capitalist by now. As it is, there are plenty of relatively successful countries that you would consider socialist, and countries where the government is too weak and/or ineffective to control commerce are almost invariably in poverty.
I don't believe in socialism or capitalism. I believe in effective, rational decision making, whatever that concludes.
The role of government is the protection of liberty and human rights; and the reason it should not be privatized is because it is the one thing that government is good at, and the one thing worth shooting people over -- which is all that government is for.
Since government is how we will use force in our lives, we should only use it in those areas where force is a good thing.
So why should my tax dollars go towards defending my neighbor's liberty? If I want to spend money on that, I'll hire some private mercenaries.
Has it occurred to you that capitalism as we know it comes from government? For one thing, there's a body of civil law that make contracts possible, without which banking or running a business would be much more difficult.
Furthermore, I've often heard the philosophical argument that no one has the right to take wealth from anyone else. Sounds good in theory, but where does wealth come from? Ultimately from land, whether the physical location or the natural resources. Where does land come from? The free market didn't make it. So how did some people end up owning it? Maybe they bought it from someone else, who bought it from someone else and so on. Ultimately though, it was probably stolen, usually by a government, who in turn decides who can use it for what. Land rights, the basis of all wealth, come from the government.
If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.
my friends say they aren't racist but if they agree that they could never marry a black woman then yes they are closet racist. I'm not gonna drop them from being my friend because most southerners are closet racist. Not much I can do about that. They have racist parents. We just try to avoid politics and race when we hang out, and we can still be friends.
Hell yeah, a lot of southerners are closet racists. They will say anything to act like they arent but the truth is well known.
Well I certainly wouldn't be friends with racists no matter where I lived.
would you marry a black chick? lol (I can't beleive anything you say but go ahead and tell me)
I wouldn't.
It would statistically raise my chances of getting HIV.
I read in college that 84% of new HIV cases are african american women. This was back in 2004.
I imagine this is because the women have mandatory STD tests when they get pregnant, and the men aren't getting tested.
But back on subject, I have a good job, healthcare and 401k.
I worked hard 40 hours a week for what I have. Explain to me why I should have to pay taxes to support people who refuse to work.
If their job doesn't offer healthcare, why can't they find a different job? Even Walmart offers healthcare.
Why can't they pay $200 per month to get private healthcare?
Children are already covered, so why does it have to be free for the loser adults?
I wouldn't. It would statistically raise my chances of getting HIV. I read in college that 84% of new HIV cases are african american women. This was back in 2004. I imagine this is because the women have mandatory STD tests when they get pregnant, and the men aren't getting tested.
Wow. You managed to even identify why your response is racist in the response, and apparently skipped over it.
You don't marry 'black woman.' You marry a woman who happens to be black. And they make STD tests quite cheaply, and they're very easy to get.
It's amazing the logical convolutions people will torque themselves into to justify their racism.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
because education is something that government is not very good at, and it is best left to the market, which will deliver it better and at a lower cost -- AND most important won't raise the ignorant little socialist 'bots it is currently producing.
If you want people to have a better education -- GIVE THEM ONE. No reason to force others into your plan. Plus, every year we have increased the money for education and it hasn't made it better yet.
Ok, I don't understand this. I do understand the principle that competition can make private institutions perform better than public ones.
But if education was completely privatized, much of the population would not be able to afford it. How would it do our country or economy any good to suddenly have a generation that can't read? Education gives people life skills that they can use to improve themselves and their community, and makes them more valuable as workers, which can open up the opportunity for new types of industries to establish themselves. I would expect education greatly improves the economy of a country, and removing it would have very disastrous effects.
Maybe the people who could afford it would get a better education than we're getting now, but I would expect the net result to be negative. Besides, if we had no public schools, what would the children of poor parents do all day? Work in coal mines and textile mills like the old days?
I do not understand how anyone can be sure that one way of approaching the diverse problems a country may face is the best one. You keep repeating that free market is best at everything, and eventually you're not making decisions based on what works, but on what's free market. Maybe government intervention has failed you where free market has succeeded, but unless there's some cosmic entity making it so, where's the guarantee that's how it will always be? Having no medicine is better than bad medicine, but good medicine is better than no medicine.
I don't buy that. Is much of the public unable to buy food? The more we rely on markets, the CHEAPER things are, the MORE people are able to get them.
Force is never the best way to get things to the people -- that is why government fails. Why are provate schools so expensive? Because, like health care, the dominant force in the market is the government.
You ask for guarantees -- there ARE NONE. And government is no better guarantor than the market. Therefore, logic says go with the one that has a better record -=- the market.
That is my point, actually. It is a guarantee that the government will mess it up -- they already have -- no matter how much we spend.
Let us try the way that has always worked best in all times and all places -- let the people be free.
As I can see it's not the freedom that is the problem,
it's the lack of responsibility.
To 'govern' your own freedom you need to be responsible enough to handle it.
This does not seem to be the case in US, hence financial crisis.
Now the majority of the people seems to have voted for more regulations.
Which is natural considering the situation.
They did that in a free election, so there's where your freedom is at...
Even if there were no government, there would still be a majority for all kinds of things, and there is no suggestion that disagreeing groups would use any less force than with a big strong government.
I wouldn't. It would statistically raise my chances of getting HIV. I read in college that 84% of new HIV cases are african american women. This was back in 2004. I imagine this is because the women have mandatory STD tests when they get pregnant, and the men aren't getting tested.
Wow. You managed to even identify why your response is racist in the response, and apparently skipped over it.
You don't marry 'black woman.' You marry a woman who happens to be black. And they make STD tests quite cheaply, and they're very easy to get.
It's amazing the logical convolutions people will torque themselves into to justify their racism.
Well, marrying a black woman would increase the odds that she would cheat on me with a black man, and increase my odds of getting HIV.
I wouldn't date a white girl who has been with black men.
I have black friends, but I don't sleep with them.
If that offends you, then I am sorry. But I won't lose sleep over it.
You guys like banging your heads against walls or something? You can't argue with people brainwashed in the socialist mentality... They are immune to logic. Feeling good despite the cost to you or me is much more important to them. The only way to combat this, unfotunatly, is to let it come to a head, and when everyone has been pushed enough... viva la revolution! Then we start all over again...
Well, I'm not doing this to change brainwashed people. I am doing this to give good arguments for those unbrainwashed out there reading this, to challenge myself, to listen to the best arguments of the opposition, and to clarify everyone's views.
If I didn't enjoy being challenged and discussing things I wouldn't do it.
your whole argument is based on you don't like paying taxes and you don't trust anyone to handle your money except yourself.
my whole argument is that I trust my representative president to handle my money properly (let's say 99% of the time which is enough for me) and I like where the taxes are being allocated to (since I stand by social programs such as health care and education - I think they are for the most part very helpful for people in need), and I don't mind sacrificing my money for the greater good. and yes, I believe my tax money is going towards the greater good at least 95% of the time. I liked where Obama wanted to put our tax dollars more than McCain, and you can call it bigger government because he supports social programs that help people and whatnot, but I support that k?
I wouldn't mind you all responding to this post ^^^ it seems to sum up the main reasons why people voted for mccain vs. obama (or obama vs. mccain) - and I rather not talk about racism reasons.
Originally posted by Lustmord But back on subject, I have a good job, healthcare and 401k. I worked hard 40 hours a week for what I have. Explain to me why I should have to pay taxes to support people who refuse to work. If their job doesn't offer healthcare, why can't they find a different job? Even Walmart offers healthcare. Why can't they pay $200 per month to get private healthcare? Children are already covered, so why does it have to be free for the loser adults?
Originally posted by Lustmord But back on subject, I have a good job, healthcare and 401k. I worked hard 40 hours a week for what I have. Explain to me why I should have to pay taxes to support people who refuse to work. If their job doesn't offer healthcare, why can't they find a different job? Even Walmart offers healthcare. Why can't they pay $200 per month to get private healthcare? Children are already covered, so why does it have to be free for the loser adults?
Still waiting for a reply.
it goes both ways - some losers get help and you're like "dang I hate helping losers", and then there are some people who definitely need help, and can receive the help they need with universal healthcare.
take one for the team - help that freeloader you hate. but the team is mostly not losers but good people that deserve health care. and just as there are losers out there, there is also the occasional person who can't afford all the medicine they need, even though they have worked a blue collar job at ford for most their life.
I go back to take one for the team or don't be a team player. the team supports the wretched but most importantly those who deserve to be helped. and most people aren't the wretched good for nothing losers like you mentioned. universal healthcare supports tons more good people.
and education, that's just a good thing to invest in.
Originally posted by Lustmord But back on subject, I have a good job, healthcare and 401k. I worked hard 40 hours a week for what I have. Explain to me why I should have to pay taxes to support people who refuse to work. If their job doesn't offer healthcare, why can't they find a different job? Even Walmart offers healthcare. Why can't they pay $200 per month to get private healthcare? Children are already covered, so why does it have to be free for the loser adults?
Still waiting for a reply.
it goes both ways - some losers get help and you're like "dang I hate helping losers", and then there are some people who definitely need help, and can get it with universal healthcare.
take one for the team - help a loser. but the team is mostly not losers but good people that deserve health care. and just as there are losers out there, there is also the occasional person who can't afford all the medicine they need, even though they have worked a blue collar job at ford for most their life.
I go back to take one for the team or don't be a team player. the team supports the wretched and those who deserve to be helped. mostly those who deserve to be helped. mostly good american people.
But there is no reason why they cannot have healthcare. Get a job that offers it, or buy it yourself.
Maybe money is tight? Well, disconnect the cable internet, TV, and cell phone.
Stop eating take out every day.
Manage your own money, and manage your own future. Stop looking for handouts from hard working citizens.
Every dollar I pay to help these people, is a dollar being taken from my kid's futures.
If I didn't have to pay all the taxes I pay, I could save $20,000 over 20 years to pay for my kid's college.
And at the end of the day, all I care about it my kids. Not some crack head mother working 20 hours a week a Popeye's Chicken complaining that she can't afford to support her 4 illegitimate children.
America was built on the backs of hard working men and women who were personally responsible for themselves and their own.
Welfare is an enabler. It devalues the role of the American father, and encourages women to breed as an occupation.
you single out the couple bad seeds vs. the hundred good seeds. health care reform makes things easier for these good people. no system is perfect - you have to take one for the team, but the reward is plentiful. you seem to only focus on the bad things that your tax dollars are going to, instead of the good things, and there is a lot more good things (good american people).
(I edited my previous post that you quoted so that it makes more sense - pardon my dyslexia)
you single out the couple bad seeds vs. the hundred good seeds. health care reform makes things easier for these good people. no system is perfect - you have to take one for the team, but the reward is plentiful. you seem to only focus on the bad things that your tax dollars are going to, instead of the good things, and there is a lot more good things (good american people). (I edited my previous post that you quoted so that it makes more sense - pardon my dyslexia)
But you are under the assumption that good seeds look for a handout.
I am arguing that good seeds take personal responsibility and make it happen for themselves.
There are so many ways to get healthcare in this country.
Walmart offers it. Temp Services offer it. Tons of jobs offer it. If they don't you can buy it privately.
But people don't want to prioritize their budgets to get it.
They would rather have cable, cell phones, brand new clothes, fast food, overpriced cars, etc.
There are way too many people in this country commiting welfare fraud.
If we did away with welfare, we would see alot less babies born. Women would simply say No like they did 50 years ago.
People would work harder, to keep their jobs. We would see less FMLA fraud, and higher productivity.
John Mccain was right. We do need a hatchet to get this country back on track.
you single out the couple bad seeds vs. the hundred good seeds. health care reform makes things easier for these good people. no system is perfect - you have to take one for the team, but the reward is plentiful. you seem to only focus on the bad things that your tax dollars are going to, instead of the good things, and there is a lot more good things (good american people). (I edited my previous post that you quoted so that it makes more sense - pardon my dyslexia)
But you are under the assumption that good seeds look for a handout.
I am arguing that good seeds take personal responsibility and make it happen for themselves.
There are so many ways to get healthcare in this country.
Walmart offers it. Temp Services offer it. Tons of jobs offer it. If they don't you can buy it privately.
But people don't want to prioritize their budgets to get it.
They would rather have cable, cell phones, brand new clothes, fast food, overpriced cars, etc.
There are way too many people in this country commiting welfare fraud.
If we did away with welfare, we would see alot less babies born. Women would simply say No like they did 50 years ago.
People would work harder, to keep their jobs. We would see less FMLA fraud, and higher productivity.
John Mccain was right. We do need a hatchet to get this country back on track.
And no, I am not a registered Republican.
I agree with lots of your points
Also, legalized abortion makes for smarter people and less crime - because lots of poor people are stupid and violent and they have more abortions
Originally posted by Lustmord But back on subject, I have a good job, healthcare and 401k. I worked hard 40 hours a week for what I have. Explain to me why I should have to pay taxes to support people who refuse to work. If their job doesn't offer healthcare, why can't they find a different job? Even Walmart offers healthcare. Why can't they pay $200 per month to get private healthcare? Children are already covered, so why does it have to be free for the loser adults?
Still waiting for a reply.
Okay, despite the fact I'm feeding a racist, here we go:
Your taxes do NOT just support people who do not work. The largest single chunk of your taxes goes to protecting your fat ass from people who would happily kill you. If you don't like that, I suggest you go tell one of those government paid leeches with an M-16 exactly how little you need them. My feeling is that because they're good people they won't actually beat the snot out of you. Everyone near you, on the other hand...
Why should you offer welfare? Well, lets consider the effects of a society that doesn't. Even ignoring the human effects of allowing people to starve to death (those sorts of callous societies don't last long or do well, in the long run) there are a lot of negatives to having a large class of unemployed who will literally do ANYTHING to get the food and housing they need to survive. That's more or less why they instituted debtor's prison back in the day. So, you're paying for it one way or the other.
Second, consider the nature of poverty. The only difference between a poor black child and you or your kid (assuming anyone stomachs you long enough to breed, and hell, Mississippi is proving that stupidity, meanness, and racism can sustain itself long after Darwin would like all those people dead) is an accident of birth. The single MOST valuable thing that humanity has ever produced, and ever will produce, is human thought. Great thinkers have given us back thousands of times the cost of their upbringing. If even one Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla, or Albert Einstein is saved from poverty, the net impact to human civilization is a great step forward in wealth and knowledge. This is net value to our society.
Third, our healthcare system. The US healthcare system is vastly inefficient. With the most expensive healthcare system in the world, we are behind many public healthcare systems that spend a lot less. If your suggestion is that each person pay $200 to insurance companies, why not send that to the government? EVIDENCE suggests that they will be more efficient and less wasteful with it than megacorps. Public healthcare is more fair, more logical, and better.
Your shortsighted attitude ignores the fact that you rely on a network of people to survive. Growing and supporting that network benefits everyone. Back when people were self-sufficient and didn't need to help others, they lived in mud huts. Don't think this is a coincidence.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Originally posted by Lustmord But back on subject, I have a good job, healthcare and 401k. I worked hard 40 hours a week for what I have. Explain to me why I should have to pay taxes to support people who refuse to work. If their job doesn't offer healthcare, why can't they find a different job? Even Walmart offers healthcare. Why can't they pay $200 per month to get private healthcare? Children are already covered, so why does it have to be free for the loser adults?
Still waiting for a reply.
it goes both ways - some losers get help and you're like "dang I hate helping losers", and then there are some people who definitely need help, and can receive the help they need with universal healthcare.
If I want to help someone I will decide how I help them. I will donate to charity, help a public school, help the homeless, or mabye donate to things like food stamps, yada yada. I'm not completely against universal healthcare, but I am against that someone is paying more because they make more money, while the lazy guy who has no job gets his taxes lowered for being lazy; and on top I help pay for his healthcare, of which he is too lazy to pay.
take one for the team - help that freeloader you hate. but the team is mostly not losers but good people that deserve health care. and just as there are losers out there, there is also the occasional person who can't afford all the medicine they need, even though they have worked a blue collar job at ford for most their life.
I'm all for helping people; but why is it that since someone makes more money they should have to pay more?
In fact, I was arguing with a kid in my school the other day about how Obama was inserting socialism, and how it is wrong to make people who make more money have to pay for others benefits. His response "Well, if you make enough money why can't you spend more?" Which is basically what you are saying. The thing is, I don't want to pay for other people. I'll donate to a charity, but I'm not going to help other people benefit off of the money that I make.
I';m sure there are charities for this stuff, where you choose to help instead of it beign forced upon you. You just don't "spread the wealth;" it's not that easy.
Rich people won't stay if they are taxed too much; they have the money and the ability to GTFO whenever they want to. No matter how much you don't want to believe it, when you throw rediculous taxes at people, some are bound to leave.
and education, that's just a good thing to invest in.
Oh, I agree 100%; that should be taxed.
__________________________________________________ In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
You guys like banging your heads against walls or something? You can't argue with people brainwashed in the socialist mentality... They are immune to logic. Feeling good despite the cost to you or me is much more important to them. The only way to combat this, unfotunatly, is to let it come to a head, and when everyone has been pushed enough... viva la revolution! Then we start all over again...
Well, I'm not doing this to change brainwashed people. I am doing this to give good arguments for those unbrainwashed out there reading this, to challenge myself, to listen to the best arguments of the opposition, and to clarify everyone's views.
If I didn't enjoy being challenged and discussing things I wouldn't do it.
your whole argument is based on you don't like paying taxes and you don't trust anyone to handle your money except yourself.
my whole argument is that I trust my representaive president to handle my money properly (let's say 99% of the time which is enough for me) and I like where the taxes are being allocated to (since I stand by social programs such as health care and education - I think they for the most part are very helpful for people in need), and I don't mind sacrificing my money for the greater good. and yes, I beleive my tax money is going towards the greater good at least 95% of the time. I liked where Obama wanted to put our tax dollars more than McCain, and you can call it bigger government because he supports social programs that help people and whatnot, but I support that k?
No My whole argument is based on turning charity into a system of force is wrong and doesn't work. Your whole argument is based on the idea that it is good for force others to be enslaved by others. I disagree.
the fact is the subsidies are there to keep prices HIGH, and we would be better off if it were not sub subsidized as well. As America becomes more and more socialist, it gets harder and harder to find examples of free markets. I used food because it was a PRIMARILY market system, and does MUCH BETTER than health care or education which are now dominated by socialism, and are therefore failing.
How are you measuring this?
Basically all you are saying is because YOU believe in government and force, it's the better choice. No amount of evidence will convince you otherwise because your faith tells you so.
You're the one preaching a faith, not me. You've basically declared that logic is over and we already have the answer to life's problems. You've decided that the private sector is better because it is. That the government is always bad because it is.
Believe it or not, I used to believe something similar. It's only later that I realized nothing in life is ever that simple.
I'll ask you again, in light of the fact the human body has a much better record than artificial medicine, do you still go to the doctor?
If it were as easy as you say it is, the entire world would be capitalist by now. As it is, there are plenty of relatively successful countries that you would consider socialist, and countries where the government is too weak and/or ineffective to control commerce are almost invariably in poverty.
I don't believe in socialism or capitalism. I believe in effective, rational decision making, whatever that concludes.
The role of government is the protection of liberty and human rights; and the reason it should not be privatized is because it is the one thing that government is good at, and the one thing worth shooting people over -- which is all that government is for.
Since government is how we will use force in our lives, we should only use it in those areas where force is a good thing.
So why should my tax dollars go towards defending my neighbor's liberty? If I want to spend money on that, I'll hire some private mercenaries.
Has it occurred to you that capitalism as we know it comes from government? For one thing, there's a body of civil law that make contracts possible, without which banking or running a business would be much more difficult.
Furthermore, I've often heard the philosophical argument that no one has the right to take wealth from anyone else. Sounds good in theory, but where does wealth come from? Ultimately from land, whether the physical location or the natural resources. Where does land come from? The free market didn't make it. So how did some people end up owning it? Maybe they bought it from someone else, who bought it from someone else and so on. Ultimately though, it was probably stolen, usually by a government, who in turn decides who can use it for what. Land rights, the basis of all wealth, come from the government.
Please don't chop up my words.
Are food costs spiralling out of control? Are people cryng for universal food service? no. That proves my point.
I'm not saying anything is that simple. Socialism however, to the extent that it is used anywhere, fails. The more socialistic, the worse things are. That works everywhere at all times and all places, without exception.
I decided that the private sector is better because in every place in every country in the history of earth, and we have hundreds of examples, it's better every time.
The reason the entire world isn't capitalism is because only socialism keeps the people at the top on top, and that's what we have, more and more socialism, and more and more oligarchies taking control. Capitalism is a threat to the rich and powerful, so it is being killed by them wherever they can kill it.
As far as successful socialist countries there are NONE. The on;y successful countries are capitalist countries, and they all have mixed economies, parasites that they support with the wealth produced by capitalism. The more capitalistic they are, the better they are doing -- and in some sense the more socialism they can support -- like a successful family can support the ne'er do well brother.
The problemwith the private mercanary argument is, that MIGHT work, but we HAVE a constritutional liberal society, so I want to move forward from there. If we were starting out fresh I'd be willing to experiment with private security firms, but i like how the rule of law and constitutionalism evolved and feel it is best to stick with that UNTIL we start forming interpplanetary economies -- then we can experiment with full anarcho-capitalist systems. For now that is unrealistic. I am a pragmatist.
Capitalism as we know it definitly comes from government and rule of law and constitutionalism. I love all of that. I am not an anarchist. I am a liberal.
In the united states land came from government distribution of it -- again, the product of a liberal constitutional order. I know it came from government. I am a believer in liberal democracy, just not socialism.
I am a believer in liberal democracy, just not socialism.
Then you might wanna move out of the US right away. In case you havent noticed, youve been living in a Democratic Socialist government your whole life to a great extent already.
All police, fire and emergency services in this country are socialist government constructs. They sure aren't democratic. No one votes them in there. They are paid for, salaries, health benefits etc, by US taxpayer dollars. Tax money taken and provided for your protection. There is no "private capitalist" police or fire in this country.
Like getting mail? Good, cause guess what that is? Sure isn't a capitalist venture when its subsidized by the government. You don't get the government helping it out with YOUR tax dollars, you don't get your mail.
Want to take a train ride? Try Amtrak. Again, socialized and propped up by the US government for decades.
You have been living under democratic socialism pretty much your whole life. Youve just been told its something else. Freedom or some other such nonsense. So why you and other people are suddenly crying about bank bailouts and auto bailouts.. its just THEIR turn now. Just socialize the medicine, drop out some insurance companies and well be just fine. One health claim form, one rate. Simple and fair for all.
This country WILL eventually go full democratic socialism at some point in the future. It will happen during the population shift when more minorities are no longer the minority. Its the only way this country will survive. Capitalists are greedy, morally void animals that would eventually cannibalize each other without government intervention. Again, if things were left up to the "American businessman", slavery and child labor would still be in vogue, as well as lower pay for women.
I like the US very much, born, raised and fought for it. But I don't like my government very much or the scumbag business lobbyists who prostitute it.
I am a believer in liberal democracy, just not socialism.
Then you might wanna move out of the US right away. In case you havent noticed, youve been living in a Democratic Socialist government your whole life to a great extent already.
All police, fire and emergency services in this country are socialist government constructs. They sure aren't democratic. No one votes them in there. They are paid for, salaries, health benefits etc, by US taxpayer dollars. Tax money taken and provided for your protection. There is no "private capitalist" police or fire in this country.
Like getting mail? Good, cause guess what that is? Sure isn't a capitalist venture when its subsidized by the government. You don't get the government helping it out with YOUR tax dollars, you don't get your mail.
Want to take a train ride? Try Amtrak. Again, socialized and propped up by the US government for decades.
You have been living under democratic socialism pretty much your whole life. Youve just been told its something else. Freedom or some other such nonsense. So why you and other people are suddenly crying about bank bailouts and auto bailouts.. its just THEIR turn now. Just socialize the medicine, drop out some insurance companies and well be just fine. One health claim form, one rate. Simple and fair for all.
This country WILL eventually go full democratic socialism at some point in the future. It will happen during the population shift when more minorities are no longer the minority. Its the only way this country will survive. Capitalists are greedy, morally void animals that would eventually cannibalize each other without government intervention. Again, if things were left up to the "American businessman", slavery and child labor would still be in vogue, as well as lower pay for women.
I like the US very much, born, raised and fought for it. But I don't like my government very much or the scumbag business lobbyists who prostitute it.
59% agree with me and not you.
Socialism is morakl cannibalism by its very nature, it is universal slavery -- capitalism is loving thy neighbor enough to know that force and theft are not the proper way for humans to deal with one another.
Obama won by running as a tax cutter, and had he run as a socialist, he would have lost.
You socialists on;y get into power by disgusing yourselves. Sorry, you are obviously losing.
You guys like banging your heads against walls or something? You can't argue with people brainwashed in the socialist mentality... They are immune to logic. Feeling good despite the cost to you or me is much more important to them. The only way to combat this, unfotunatly, is to let it come to a head, and when everyone has been pushed enough... viva la revolution! Then we start all over again...
Well, I'm not doing this to change brainwashed people. I am doing this to give good arguments for those unbrainwashed out there reading this, to challenge myself, to listen to the best arguments of the opposition, and to clarify everyone's views.
If I didn't enjoy being challenged and discussing things I wouldn't do it.
your whole argument is based on you don't like paying taxes and you don't trust anyone to handle your money except yourself.
my whole argument is that I trust my representaive president to handle my money properly (let's say 99% of the time which is enough for me) and I like where the taxes are being allocated to (since I stand by social programs such as health care and education - I think they for the most part are very helpful for people in need), and I don't mind sacrificing my money for the greater good. and yes, I beleive my tax money is going towards the greater good at least 95% of the time. I liked where Obama wanted to put our tax dollars more than McCain, and you can call it bigger government because he supports social programs that help people and whatnot, but I support that k?
No My whole argument is based on turning charity into a system of force is wrong and doesn't work. Your whole argument is based on the idea that it is good for force others to be enslaved by others. I disagree.
if taxing means enslaving others than we have done it since FOREVER.
anyways, your system of charity sounds nice in theory but so does NOT HAVING AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE or a 2 PARTY SYSTEM, and lots of other things that aren't going to happen. kapeesh?
Originally posted by Lustmord But back on subject, I have a good job, healthcare and 401k. I worked hard 40 hours a week for what I have. Explain to me why I should have to pay taxes to support people who refuse to work. If their job doesn't offer healthcare, why can't they find a different job? Even Walmart offers healthcare. Why can't they pay $200 per month to get private healthcare? Children are already covered, so why does it have to be free for the loser adults?
Still waiting for a reply.
Okay, despite the fact I'm feeding a racist, here we go:
Your taxes do NOT just support people who do not work. The largest single chunk of your taxes goes to protecting your fat ass from people who would happily kill you. If you don't like that, I suggest you go tell one of those government paid leeches with an M-16 exactly how little you need them. My feeling is that because they're good people they won't actually beat the snot out of you. Everyone near you, on the other hand...
Why should you offer welfare? Well, lets consider the effects of a society that doesn't. Even ignoring the human effects of allowing people to starve to death (those sorts of callous societies don't last long or do well, in the long run) there are a lot of negatives to having a large class of unemployed who will literally do ANYTHING to get the food and housing they need to survive. That's more or less why they instituted debtor's prison back in the day. So, you're paying for it one way or the other.
Second, consider the nature of poverty. The only difference between a poor black child and you or your kid (assuming anyone stomachs you long enough to breed, and hell, Mississippi is proving that stupidity, meanness, and racism can sustain itself long after Darwin would like all those people dead) is an accident of birth. The single MOST valuable thing that humanity has ever produced, and ever will produce, is human thought. Great thinkers have given us back thousands of times the cost of their upbringing. If even one Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla, or Albert Einstein is saved from poverty, the net impact to human civilization is a great step forward in wealth and knowledge. This is net value to our society.
Third, our healthcare system. The US healthcare system is vastly inefficient. With the most expensive healthcare system in the world, we are behind many public healthcare systems that spend a lot less. If your suggestion is that each person pay $200 to insurance companies, why not send that to the government? EVIDENCE suggests that they will be more efficient and less wasteful with it than megacorps. Public healthcare is more fair, more logical, and better.
Your shortsighted attitude ignores the fact that you rely on a network of people to survive. Growing and supporting that network benefits everyone. Back when people were self-sufficient and didn't need to help others, they lived in mud huts. Don't think this is a coincidence.
Hey Lustmord, still waiting for a reply.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Please don't chop up my words. Are food costs spiralling out of control? Are people cryng for universal food service? no. That proves my point. I'm not saying anything is that simple. Socialism however, to the extent that it is used anywhere, fails. The more socialistic, the worse things are. That works everywhere at all times and all places, without exception. I decided that the private sector is better because in every place in every country in the history of earth, and we have hundreds of examples, it's better every time. The reason the entire world isn't capitalism is because only socialism keeps the people at the top on top, and that's what we have, more and more socialism, and more and more oligarchies taking control. Capitalism is a threat to the rich and powerful, so it is being killed by them wherever they can kill it. As far as successful socialist countries there are NONE. The on;y successful countries are capitalist countries, and they all have mixed economies, parasites that they support with the wealth produced by capitalism. The more capitalistic they are, the better they are doing -- and in some sense the more socialism they can support -- like a successful family can support the ne'er do well brother. The problemwith the private mercanary argument is, that MIGHT work, but we HAVE a constritutional liberal society, so I want to move forward from there. If we were starting out fresh I'd be willing to experiment with private security firms, but i like how the rule of law and constitutionalism evolved and feel it is best to stick with that UNTIL we start forming interpplanetary economies -- then we can experiment with full anarcho-capitalist systems. For now that is unrealistic. I am a pragmatist. Capitalism as we know it definitly comes from government and rule of law and constitutionalism. I love all of that. I am not an anarchist. I am a liberal. In the united states land came from government distribution of it -- again, the product of a liberal constitutional order. I know it came from government. I am a believer in liberal democracy, just not socialism.
Why not? You're responding point by point just like me. The only thing that chopping up the post does is make it easier for the reader to understand which point a given section is responding to. If you want to do it this way, fine, but if I have to waste time clarifying something to you that would have been obvious otherwise, I'm going back to section by section.
You must be aware of the differences between food and healthcare/education as commodities. Food has finite demand and requires relatively low skilled labor, to name a couple of differences.
I suppose it's too much to ask for you to back up your claims about the relative success rates of the two systems. Actually, your claims are in a way unfalsifiable, since you'll attribute any success in a country to market elements and blame any failure on the government. However, could you at least try to explain the mechanism by which this phenomenon occurs?
What is a government besides a large, powerful corporation? What is a corporation besides a small government? What is so different about their natures that you have absolute faith in the success of one and the failure of the other?
In fact, if you have the kind of free market that allows monopolies and makes them the only thing between a worker and starvation, they have basically as much power as a government. Perhaps more than a democratic government, since they're not accountable to the voters. So what's so different about them that makes them superior?
If capitalism was the magic national panacaea you claim it to be, I'm sure most leaders would embrace it. It would be much better to be the leader of a rich, advanced, and successful country than a poor and dying one. Even if only a minority of leaders went this way, the socialist countries would not have survived in the more warlike eras.
I think you're being rather inconsistant with your terminology. One minute the US and Europe are socialist, the next they're capitalistic with mixed economies?
So why is security different than any other industry? You've been insisting this whole time that the private sector always does everything better than the government, why not put it in charge of defense, if you're so sure? Why is there any doubt that it would work better, when you have none when it comes to other industries? You're basically saying you want to use the less effective option out of tradition.
So if you acknowledge that wealth began with the government re-distributing stolen land, isn't property itself force? The only thing that makes a piece of creation yours and not someone else's is if you have the force to keep them off it. You didn't make that land, you didn't buy it from the creator, only force makes it yours. This doesn't mean anything in the real world, of course, but philosophically, I don't see how taking the use of land away from others is any less theft than taxation.
You're really setting up a false dichotomy with capitalism vs. socialism. It is, like I keep saying but you refuse to acknowledge, like arguing whether it's better to have modern medicine or an immune system. You can have both. They're not necessarily at odds with each other.
Would it ever be a rational economic decision for anyone but the government to build large scale infrastructure? A road and highway network benefits almost everyone, but only a little bit in the short term. As I see it, it's not worth the investment unless you directly benefit from everyone else's success, the way the government does through taxation.
Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of putting an end to road building and maintenance? Repealing child labor laws? Anti employment discrimination laws? Getting rid of the FDA?
This doesn't have much to do with this discussion, but I think it's pretty demonstrably false that everyone has the same opportunity regardless of class. Yes, once in awhile you see someone from a poor family get rich, but the vast majority of the poor stay poor, and the rich tend to say rich. If it was truly equal, wouldn't the background of each social class contain proportional numbers of rich and poor?
If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.
Comments
You guys like banging your heads against walls or something? You can't argue with people brainwashed in the socialist mentality... They are immune to logic. Feeling good despite the cost to you or me is much more important to them. The only way to combat this, unfotunatly, is to let it come to a head, and when everyone has been pushed enough... viva la revolution! Then we start all over again...
Food is heavily subsidized, in many ways. There are also safety nets to prevent people from starving. There's enough extra food around that a huge amount of discarded food can be scavenged in a pinch. Even so, plenty of people have trouble maintaining optimal nutrition.
Education is a very different commodity though. It's not essential to immediate survival, so it's more likely to be neglected for short term gain, and it can't be stolen or scavenged (at least not usually). I'm not to clear on the history, but before the public school system, do you think literacy was higher then than it is now? I doubt it. I seem to recall child labor being rather common at some points.
I'd like to go back to my metaphor of medicine. The human immune system has a much, MUCH better record than any sort of artificial medicine. Does that mean we should abandon its study and practice? Get rid of all the doctors and hospitals, since our natural immune system is better?
Usually it's best to just let the body do it's thing, but once in awhile, it messes up and you see the opportunity to set it back on the right track. You take that opportunity, right?
I do not think it's logical to always go with the better record. Where in life is repeating a mantra and always reacting to diverse situations the same way helpful? Isn't it better to gather information about each individual situation and make a rational decision based on the particulars? Make decisions based on the future, not the past.
What DO you think the role of the government is, and why shouldn't that be privatized as well?
the fact is the subsidies are there to keep prices HIGH, and we would be better off if it were not sub subsidized as well. As America becomes more and more socialist, it gets harder and harder to find examples of free markets. I used food because it was a PRIMARILY market system, and does MUCH BETTER than health care or education which are now dominated by socialism, and are therefore failing.
Basically all you are saying is because YOU believe in government and force, it's the better choice. No amount of evidence will convince you otherwise because your faith tells you so.
The role of government is the protection of liberty and human rights; and the reason it should not be privatized is because it is the one thing that government is good at, and the one thing worth shooting people over -- which is all that government is for.
Since government is how we will use force in our lives, we should only use it in those areas where force is a good thing.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well, I'm not doing this to change brainwashed people. I am doing this to give good arguments for those unbrainwashed out there reading this, to challenge myself, to listen to the best arguments of the opposition, and to clarify everyone's views.
If I didn't enjoy being challenged and discussing things I wouldn't do it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well, I'm not doing this to change brainwashed people. I am doing this to give good arguments for those unbrainwashed out there reading this, to challenge myself, to listen to the best arguments of the opposition, and to clarify everyone's views.
If I didn't enjoy being challenged and discussing things I wouldn't do it.
your whole argument is based on you don't like paying taxes and you don't trust anyone to handle your money except yourself.
my whole argument is that I trust my representaive president to handle my money properly (let's say 99% of the time which is enough for me) and I like where the taxes are being allocated to (since I stand by social programs such as health care and education - I think they for the most part are very helpful for people in need), and I don't mind sacrificing my money for the greater good. and yes, I beleive my tax money is going towards the greater good at least 95% of the time. I liked where Obama wanted to put our tax dollars more than McCain, and you can call it bigger government because he supports social programs that help people and whatnot, but I support that k?
and here is a link for people with an earmark obsession: blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9908
Has it occurred to you that capitalism as we know it comes from government? For one thing, there's a body of civil law that make contracts possible, without which banking or running a business would be much more difficult.
Furthermore, I've often heard the philosophical argument that no one has the right to take wealth from anyone else. Sounds good in theory, but where does wealth come from? Ultimately from land, whether the physical location or the natural resources. Where does land come from? The free market didn't make it. So how did some people end up owning it? Maybe they bought it from someone else, who bought it from someone else and so on. Ultimately though, it was probably stolen, usually by a government, who in turn decides who can use it for what. Land rights, the basis of all wealth, come from the government.
If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.
Well I certainly wouldn't be friends with racists no matter where I lived.
would you marry a black chick? lol (I can't beleive anything you say but go ahead and tell me)
I wouldn't.
It would statistically raise my chances of getting HIV.
I read in college that 84% of new HIV cases are african american women. This was back in 2004.
I imagine this is because the women have mandatory STD tests when they get pregnant, and the men aren't getting tested.
But back on subject, I have a good job, healthcare and 401k.
I worked hard 40 hours a week for what I have. Explain to me why I should have to pay taxes to support people who refuse to work.
If their job doesn't offer healthcare, why can't they find a different job? Even Walmart offers healthcare.
Why can't they pay $200 per month to get private healthcare?
Children are already covered, so why does it have to be free for the loser adults?
Oh wait, it's not free. I'll be paying for it.
Wow. You managed to even identify why your response is racist in the response, and apparently skipped over it.
You don't marry 'black woman.' You marry a woman who happens to be black. And they make STD tests quite cheaply, and they're very easy to get.
It's amazing the logical convolutions people will torque themselves into to justify their racism.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Ok, I don't understand this. I do understand the principle that competition can make private institutions perform better than public ones.
But if education was completely privatized, much of the population would not be able to afford it. How would it do our country or economy any good to suddenly have a generation that can't read? Education gives people life skills that they can use to improve themselves and their community, and makes them more valuable as workers, which can open up the opportunity for new types of industries to establish themselves. I would expect education greatly improves the economy of a country, and removing it would have very disastrous effects.
Maybe the people who could afford it would get a better education than we're getting now, but I would expect the net result to be negative. Besides, if we had no public schools, what would the children of poor parents do all day? Work in coal mines and textile mills like the old days?
I do not understand how anyone can be sure that one way of approaching the diverse problems a country may face is the best one. You keep repeating that free market is best at everything, and eventually you're not making decisions based on what works, but on what's free market. Maybe government intervention has failed you where free market has succeeded, but unless there's some cosmic entity making it so, where's the guarantee that's how it will always be? Having no medicine is better than bad medicine, but good medicine is better than no medicine.
I don't buy that. Is much of the public unable to buy food? The more we rely on markets, the CHEAPER things are, the MORE people are able to get them.
Force is never the best way to get things to the people -- that is why government fails. Why are provate schools so expensive? Because, like health care, the dominant force in the market is the government.
You ask for guarantees -- there ARE NONE. And government is no better guarantor than the market. Therefore, logic says go with the one that has a better record -=- the market.
That is my point, actually. It is a guarantee that the government will mess it up -- they already have -- no matter how much we spend.
Let us try the way that has always worked best in all times and all places -- let the people be free.
As I can see it's not the freedom that is the problem,
it's the lack of responsibility.
To 'govern' your own freedom you need to be responsible enough to handle it.
This does not seem to be the case in US, hence financial crisis.
Now the majority of the people seems to have voted for more regulations.
Which is natural considering the situation.
They did that in a free election, so there's where your freedom is at...
Even if there were no government, there would still be a majority for all kinds of things, and there is no suggestion that disagreeing groups would use any less force than with a big strong government.
Wow. You managed to even identify why your response is racist in the response, and apparently skipped over it.
You don't marry 'black woman.' You marry a woman who happens to be black. And they make STD tests quite cheaply, and they're very easy to get.
It's amazing the logical convolutions people will torque themselves into to justify their racism.
Well, marrying a black woman would increase the odds that she would cheat on me with a black man, and increase my odds of getting HIV.
I wouldn't date a white girl who has been with black men.
I have black friends, but I don't sleep with them.
If that offends you, then I am sorry. But I won't lose sleep over it.
Now please answer the second part of my post.
Well, I'm not doing this to change brainwashed people. I am doing this to give good arguments for those unbrainwashed out there reading this, to challenge myself, to listen to the best arguments of the opposition, and to clarify everyone's views.
If I didn't enjoy being challenged and discussing things I wouldn't do it.
your whole argument is based on you don't like paying taxes and you don't trust anyone to handle your money except yourself.
my whole argument is that I trust my representative president to handle my money properly (let's say 99% of the time which is enough for me) and I like where the taxes are being allocated to (since I stand by social programs such as health care and education - I think they are for the most part very helpful for people in need), and I don't mind sacrificing my money for the greater good. and yes, I believe my tax money is going towards the greater good at least 95% of the time. I liked where Obama wanted to put our tax dollars more than McCain, and you can call it bigger government because he supports social programs that help people and whatnot, but I support that k?
and here is a link for people with an earmark obsession: blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9908
I wouldn't mind you all responding to this post ^^^ it seems to sum up the main reasons why people voted for mccain vs. obama (or obama vs. mccain) - and I rather not talk about racism reasons.
Still waiting for a reply.
Still waiting for a reply.
it goes both ways - some losers get help and you're like "dang I hate helping losers", and then there are some people who definitely need help, and can receive the help they need with universal healthcare.
take one for the team - help that freeloader you hate. but the team is mostly not losers but good people that deserve health care. and just as there are losers out there, there is also the occasional person who can't afford all the medicine they need, even though they have worked a blue collar job at ford for most their life.
I go back to take one for the team or don't be a team player. the team supports the wretched but most importantly those who deserve to be helped. and most people aren't the wretched good for nothing losers like you mentioned. universal healthcare supports tons more good people.
and education, that's just a good thing to invest in.
Still waiting for a reply.
it goes both ways - some losers get help and you're like "dang I hate helping losers", and then there are some people who definitely need help, and can get it with universal healthcare.
take one for the team - help a loser. but the team is mostly not losers but good people that deserve health care. and just as there are losers out there, there is also the occasional person who can't afford all the medicine they need, even though they have worked a blue collar job at ford for most their life.
I go back to take one for the team or don't be a team player. the team supports the wretched and those who deserve to be helped. mostly those who deserve to be helped. mostly good american people.
But there is no reason why they cannot have healthcare. Get a job that offers it, or buy it yourself.
Maybe money is tight? Well, disconnect the cable internet, TV, and cell phone.
Stop eating take out every day.
Manage your own money, and manage your own future. Stop looking for handouts from hard working citizens.
Every dollar I pay to help these people, is a dollar being taken from my kid's futures.
If I didn't have to pay all the taxes I pay, I could save $20,000 over 20 years to pay for my kid's college.
And at the end of the day, all I care about it my kids. Not some crack head mother working 20 hours a week a Popeye's Chicken complaining that she can't afford to support her 4 illegitimate children.
America was built on the backs of hard working men and women who were personally responsible for themselves and their own.
Welfare is an enabler. It devalues the role of the American father, and encourages women to breed as an occupation.
you single out the couple bad seeds vs. the hundred good seeds. health care reform makes things easier for these good people. no system is perfect - you have to take one for the team, but the reward is plentiful. you seem to only focus on the bad things that your tax dollars are going to, instead of the good things, and there is a lot more good things (good american people).
(I edited my previous post that you quoted so that it makes more sense - pardon my dyslexia)
But you are under the assumption that good seeds look for a handout.
I am arguing that good seeds take personal responsibility and make it happen for themselves.
There are so many ways to get healthcare in this country.
Walmart offers it. Temp Services offer it. Tons of jobs offer it. If they don't you can buy it privately.
But people don't want to prioritize their budgets to get it.
They would rather have cable, cell phones, brand new clothes, fast food, overpriced cars, etc.
There are way too many people in this country commiting welfare fraud.
If we did away with welfare, we would see alot less babies born. Women would simply say No like they did 50 years ago.
People would work harder, to keep their jobs. We would see less FMLA fraud, and higher productivity.
John Mccain was right. We do need a hatchet to get this country back on track.
And no, I am not a registered Republican.
But you are under the assumption that good seeds look for a handout.
I am arguing that good seeds take personal responsibility and make it happen for themselves.
There are so many ways to get healthcare in this country.
Walmart offers it. Temp Services offer it. Tons of jobs offer it. If they don't you can buy it privately.
But people don't want to prioritize their budgets to get it.
They would rather have cable, cell phones, brand new clothes, fast food, overpriced cars, etc.
There are way too many people in this country commiting welfare fraud.
If we did away with welfare, we would see alot less babies born. Women would simply say No like they did 50 years ago.
People would work harder, to keep their jobs. We would see less FMLA fraud, and higher productivity.
John Mccain was right. We do need a hatchet to get this country back on track.
And no, I am not a registered Republican.
I agree with lots of your points
Also, legalized abortion makes for smarter people and less crime - because lots of poor people are stupid and violent and they have more abortions
Still waiting for a reply.
Okay, despite the fact I'm feeding a racist, here we go:
Your taxes do NOT just support people who do not work. The largest single chunk of your taxes goes to protecting your fat ass from people who would happily kill you. If you don't like that, I suggest you go tell one of those government paid leeches with an M-16 exactly how little you need them. My feeling is that because they're good people they won't actually beat the snot out of you. Everyone near you, on the other hand...
Why should you offer welfare? Well, lets consider the effects of a society that doesn't. Even ignoring the human effects of allowing people to starve to death (those sorts of callous societies don't last long or do well, in the long run) there are a lot of negatives to having a large class of unemployed who will literally do ANYTHING to get the food and housing they need to survive. That's more or less why they instituted debtor's prison back in the day. So, you're paying for it one way or the other.
Second, consider the nature of poverty. The only difference between a poor black child and you or your kid (assuming anyone stomachs you long enough to breed, and hell, Mississippi is proving that stupidity, meanness, and racism can sustain itself long after Darwin would like all those people dead) is an accident of birth. The single MOST valuable thing that humanity has ever produced, and ever will produce, is human thought. Great thinkers have given us back thousands of times the cost of their upbringing. If even one Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla, or Albert Einstein is saved from poverty, the net impact to human civilization is a great step forward in wealth and knowledge. This is net value to our society.
Third, our healthcare system. The US healthcare system is vastly inefficient. With the most expensive healthcare system in the world, we are behind many public healthcare systems that spend a lot less. If your suggestion is that each person pay $200 to insurance companies, why not send that to the government? EVIDENCE suggests that they will be more efficient and less wasteful with it than megacorps. Public healthcare is more fair, more logical, and better.
Your shortsighted attitude ignores the fact that you rely on a network of people to survive. Growing and supporting that network benefits everyone. Back when people were self-sufficient and didn't need to help others, they lived in mud huts. Don't think this is a coincidence.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Still waiting for a reply.
it goes both ways - some losers get help and you're like "dang I hate helping losers", and then there are some people who definitely need help, and can receive the help they need with universal healthcare.
If I want to help someone I will decide how I help them. I will donate to charity, help a public school, help the homeless, or mabye donate to things like food stamps, yada yada. I'm not completely against universal healthcare, but I am against that someone is paying more because they make more money, while the lazy guy who has no job gets his taxes lowered for being lazy; and on top I help pay for his healthcare, of which he is too lazy to pay.
take one for the team - help that freeloader you hate. but the team is mostly not losers but good people that deserve health care. and just as there are losers out there, there is also the occasional person who can't afford all the medicine they need, even though they have worked a blue collar job at ford for most their life.
I'm all for helping people; but why is it that since someone makes more money they should have to pay more?
In fact, I was arguing with a kid in my school the other day about how Obama was inserting socialism, and how it is wrong to make people who make more money have to pay for others benefits. His response "Well, if you make enough money why can't you spend more?" Which is basically what you are saying. The thing is, I don't want to pay for other people. I'll donate to a charity, but I'm not going to help other people benefit off of the money that I make.
I';m sure there are charities for this stuff, where you choose to help instead of it beign forced upon you. You just don't "spread the wealth;" it's not that easy.
Rich people won't stay if they are taxed too much; they have the money and the ability to GTFO whenever they want to. No matter how much you don't want to believe it, when you throw rediculous taxes at people, some are bound to leave.
and education, that's just a good thing to invest in.
Oh, I agree 100%; that should be taxed.
__________________________________________________
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08 - Rest In Peace; you will not be forgotten
Well, I'm not doing this to change brainwashed people. I am doing this to give good arguments for those unbrainwashed out there reading this, to challenge myself, to listen to the best arguments of the opposition, and to clarify everyone's views.
If I didn't enjoy being challenged and discussing things I wouldn't do it.
your whole argument is based on you don't like paying taxes and you don't trust anyone to handle your money except yourself.
my whole argument is that I trust my representaive president to handle my money properly (let's say 99% of the time which is enough for me) and I like where the taxes are being allocated to (since I stand by social programs such as health care and education - I think they for the most part are very helpful for people in need), and I don't mind sacrificing my money for the greater good. and yes, I beleive my tax money is going towards the greater good at least 95% of the time. I liked where Obama wanted to put our tax dollars more than McCain, and you can call it bigger government because he supports social programs that help people and whatnot, but I support that k?
and here is a link for people with an earmark obsession: blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9908
No My whole argument is based on turning charity into a system of force is wrong and doesn't work. Your whole argument is based on the idea that it is good for force others to be enslaved by others. I disagree.
fishermage.blogspot.com
the fact is the subsidies are there to keep prices HIGH, and we would be better off if it were not sub subsidized as well. As America becomes more and more socialist, it gets harder and harder to find examples of free markets. I used food because it was a PRIMARILY market system, and does MUCH BETTER than health care or education which are now dominated by socialism, and are therefore failing.
How are you measuring this?
Basically all you are saying is because YOU believe in government and force, it's the better choice. No amount of evidence will convince you otherwise because your faith tells you so.
You're the one preaching a faith, not me. You've basically declared that logic is over and we already have the answer to life's problems. You've decided that the private sector is better because it is. That the government is always bad because it is.
Believe it or not, I used to believe something similar. It's only later that I realized nothing in life is ever that simple.
I'll ask you again, in light of the fact the human body has a much better record than artificial medicine, do you still go to the doctor?
If it were as easy as you say it is, the entire world would be capitalist by now. As it is, there are plenty of relatively successful countries that you would consider socialist, and countries where the government is too weak and/or ineffective to control commerce are almost invariably in poverty.
I don't believe in socialism or capitalism. I believe in effective, rational decision making, whatever that concludes.
The role of government is the protection of liberty and human rights; and the reason it should not be privatized is because it is the one thing that government is good at, and the one thing worth shooting people over -- which is all that government is for.
Since government is how we will use force in our lives, we should only use it in those areas where force is a good thing.
So why should my tax dollars go towards defending my neighbor's liberty? If I want to spend money on that, I'll hire some private mercenaries.
Has it occurred to you that capitalism as we know it comes from government? For one thing, there's a body of civil law that make contracts possible, without which banking or running a business would be much more difficult.
Furthermore, I've often heard the philosophical argument that no one has the right to take wealth from anyone else. Sounds good in theory, but where does wealth come from? Ultimately from land, whether the physical location or the natural resources. Where does land come from? The free market didn't make it. So how did some people end up owning it? Maybe they bought it from someone else, who bought it from someone else and so on. Ultimately though, it was probably stolen, usually by a government, who in turn decides who can use it for what. Land rights, the basis of all wealth, come from the government.
Please don't chop up my words.
Are food costs spiralling out of control? Are people cryng for universal food service? no. That proves my point.
I'm not saying anything is that simple. Socialism however, to the extent that it is used anywhere, fails. The more socialistic, the worse things are. That works everywhere at all times and all places, without exception.
I decided that the private sector is better because in every place in every country in the history of earth, and we have hundreds of examples, it's better every time.
The reason the entire world isn't capitalism is because only socialism keeps the people at the top on top, and that's what we have, more and more socialism, and more and more oligarchies taking control. Capitalism is a threat to the rich and powerful, so it is being killed by them wherever they can kill it.
As far as successful socialist countries there are NONE. The on;y successful countries are capitalist countries, and they all have mixed economies, parasites that they support with the wealth produced by capitalism. The more capitalistic they are, the better they are doing -- and in some sense the more socialism they can support -- like a successful family can support the ne'er do well brother.
The problemwith the private mercanary argument is, that MIGHT work, but we HAVE a constritutional liberal society, so I want to move forward from there. If we were starting out fresh I'd be willing to experiment with private security firms, but i like how the rule of law and constitutionalism evolved and feel it is best to stick with that UNTIL we start forming interpplanetary economies -- then we can experiment with full anarcho-capitalist systems. For now that is unrealistic. I am a pragmatist.
Capitalism as we know it definitly comes from government and rule of law and constitutionalism. I love all of that. I am not an anarchist. I am a liberal.
In the united states land came from government distribution of it -- again, the product of a liberal constitutional order. I know it came from government. I am a believer in liberal democracy, just not socialism.
fishermage.blogspot.com
All police, fire and emergency services in this country are socialist government constructs. They sure aren't democratic. No one votes them in there. They are paid for, salaries, health benefits etc, by US taxpayer dollars. Tax money taken and provided for your protection. There is no "private capitalist" police or fire in this country.
Like getting mail? Good, cause guess what that is? Sure isn't a capitalist venture when its subsidized by the government. You don't get the government helping it out with YOUR tax dollars, you don't get your mail.
Want to take a train ride? Try Amtrak. Again, socialized and propped up by the US government for decades.
You have been living under democratic socialism pretty much your whole life. Youve just been told its something else. Freedom or some other such nonsense. So why you and other people are suddenly crying about bank bailouts and auto bailouts.. its just THEIR turn now. Just socialize the medicine, drop out some insurance companies and well be just fine. One health claim form, one rate. Simple and fair for all.
This country WILL eventually go full democratic socialism at some point in the future. It will happen during the population shift when more minorities are no longer the minority. Its the only way this country will survive. Capitalists are greedy, morally void animals that would eventually cannibalize each other without government intervention. Again, if things were left up to the "American businessman", slavery and child labor would still be in vogue, as well as lower pay for women.
I like the US very much, born, raised and fought for it. But I don't like my government very much or the scumbag business lobbyists who prostitute it.
"TO MICHAEL!"
All police, fire and emergency services in this country are socialist government constructs. They sure aren't democratic. No one votes them in there. They are paid for, salaries, health benefits etc, by US taxpayer dollars. Tax money taken and provided for your protection. There is no "private capitalist" police or fire in this country.
Like getting mail? Good, cause guess what that is? Sure isn't a capitalist venture when its subsidized by the government. You don't get the government helping it out with YOUR tax dollars, you don't get your mail.
Want to take a train ride? Try Amtrak. Again, socialized and propped up by the US government for decades.
You have been living under democratic socialism pretty much your whole life. Youve just been told its something else. Freedom or some other such nonsense. So why you and other people are suddenly crying about bank bailouts and auto bailouts.. its just THEIR turn now. Just socialize the medicine, drop out some insurance companies and well be just fine. One health claim form, one rate. Simple and fair for all.
This country WILL eventually go full democratic socialism at some point in the future. It will happen during the population shift when more minorities are no longer the minority. Its the only way this country will survive. Capitalists are greedy, morally void animals that would eventually cannibalize each other without government intervention. Again, if things were left up to the "American businessman", slavery and child labor would still be in vogue, as well as lower pay for women.
I like the US very much, born, raised and fought for it. But I don't like my government very much or the scumbag business lobbyists who prostitute it.
59% agree with me and not you.
Socialism is morakl cannibalism by its very nature, it is universal slavery -- capitalism is loving thy neighbor enough to know that force and theft are not the proper way for humans to deal with one another.
Obama won by running as a tax cutter, and had he run as a socialist, he would have lost.
You socialists on;y get into power by disgusing yourselves. Sorry, you are obviously losing.
History is against you.
www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/59_agree_with_ronald_reagan_government_is_the_problem
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well, I'm not doing this to change brainwashed people. I am doing this to give good arguments for those unbrainwashed out there reading this, to challenge myself, to listen to the best arguments of the opposition, and to clarify everyone's views.
If I didn't enjoy being challenged and discussing things I wouldn't do it.
your whole argument is based on you don't like paying taxes and you don't trust anyone to handle your money except yourself.
my whole argument is that I trust my representaive president to handle my money properly (let's say 99% of the time which is enough for me) and I like where the taxes are being allocated to (since I stand by social programs such as health care and education - I think they for the most part are very helpful for people in need), and I don't mind sacrificing my money for the greater good. and yes, I beleive my tax money is going towards the greater good at least 95% of the time. I liked where Obama wanted to put our tax dollars more than McCain, and you can call it bigger government because he supports social programs that help people and whatnot, but I support that k?
and here is a link for people with an earmark obsession: blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9908
No My whole argument is based on turning charity into a system of force is wrong and doesn't work. Your whole argument is based on the idea that it is good for force others to be enslaved by others. I disagree.
if taxing means enslaving others than we have done it since FOREVER.
anyways, your system of charity sounds nice in theory but so does NOT HAVING AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE or a 2 PARTY SYSTEM, and lots of other things that aren't going to happen. kapeesh?
Still waiting for a reply.
Okay, despite the fact I'm feeding a racist, here we go:
Your taxes do NOT just support people who do not work. The largest single chunk of your taxes goes to protecting your fat ass from people who would happily kill you. If you don't like that, I suggest you go tell one of those government paid leeches with an M-16 exactly how little you need them. My feeling is that because they're good people they won't actually beat the snot out of you. Everyone near you, on the other hand...
Why should you offer welfare? Well, lets consider the effects of a society that doesn't. Even ignoring the human effects of allowing people to starve to death (those sorts of callous societies don't last long or do well, in the long run) there are a lot of negatives to having a large class of unemployed who will literally do ANYTHING to get the food and housing they need to survive. That's more or less why they instituted debtor's prison back in the day. So, you're paying for it one way or the other.
Second, consider the nature of poverty. The only difference between a poor black child and you or your kid (assuming anyone stomachs you long enough to breed, and hell, Mississippi is proving that stupidity, meanness, and racism can sustain itself long after Darwin would like all those people dead) is an accident of birth. The single MOST valuable thing that humanity has ever produced, and ever will produce, is human thought. Great thinkers have given us back thousands of times the cost of their upbringing. If even one Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla, or Albert Einstein is saved from poverty, the net impact to human civilization is a great step forward in wealth and knowledge. This is net value to our society.
Third, our healthcare system. The US healthcare system is vastly inefficient. With the most expensive healthcare system in the world, we are behind many public healthcare systems that spend a lot less. If your suggestion is that each person pay $200 to insurance companies, why not send that to the government? EVIDENCE suggests that they will be more efficient and less wasteful with it than megacorps. Public healthcare is more fair, more logical, and better.
Your shortsighted attitude ignores the fact that you rely on a network of people to survive. Growing and supporting that network benefits everyone. Back when people were self-sufficient and didn't need to help others, they lived in mud huts. Don't think this is a coincidence.
Hey Lustmord, still waiting for a reply.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Why not? You're responding point by point just like me. The only thing that chopping up the post does is make it easier for the reader to understand which point a given section is responding to. If you want to do it this way, fine, but if I have to waste time clarifying something to you that would have been obvious otherwise, I'm going back to section by section.
You must be aware of the differences between food and healthcare/education as commodities. Food has finite demand and requires relatively low skilled labor, to name a couple of differences.
I suppose it's too much to ask for you to back up your claims about the relative success rates of the two systems. Actually, your claims are in a way unfalsifiable, since you'll attribute any success in a country to market elements and blame any failure on the government. However, could you at least try to explain the mechanism by which this phenomenon occurs?
What is a government besides a large, powerful corporation? What is a corporation besides a small government? What is so different about their natures that you have absolute faith in the success of one and the failure of the other?
In fact, if you have the kind of free market that allows monopolies and makes them the only thing between a worker and starvation, they have basically as much power as a government. Perhaps more than a democratic government, since they're not accountable to the voters. So what's so different about them that makes them superior?
If capitalism was the magic national panacaea you claim it to be, I'm sure most leaders would embrace it. It would be much better to be the leader of a rich, advanced, and successful country than a poor and dying one. Even if only a minority of leaders went this way, the socialist countries would not have survived in the more warlike eras.
I think you're being rather inconsistant with your terminology. One minute the US and Europe are socialist, the next they're capitalistic with mixed economies?
So why is security different than any other industry? You've been insisting this whole time that the private sector always does everything better than the government, why not put it in charge of defense, if you're so sure? Why is there any doubt that it would work better, when you have none when it comes to other industries? You're basically saying you want to use the less effective option out of tradition.
So if you acknowledge that wealth began with the government re-distributing stolen land, isn't property itself force? The only thing that makes a piece of creation yours and not someone else's is if you have the force to keep them off it. You didn't make that land, you didn't buy it from the creator, only force makes it yours. This doesn't mean anything in the real world, of course, but philosophically, I don't see how taking the use of land away from others is any less theft than taxation.
You're really setting up a false dichotomy with capitalism vs. socialism. It is, like I keep saying but you refuse to acknowledge, like arguing whether it's better to have modern medicine or an immune system. You can have both. They're not necessarily at odds with each other.
Would it ever be a rational economic decision for anyone but the government to build large scale infrastructure? A road and highway network benefits almost everyone, but only a little bit in the short term. As I see it, it's not worth the investment unless you directly benefit from everyone else's success, the way the government does through taxation.
Just out of curiosity, would you be in favor of putting an end to road building and maintenance? Repealing child labor laws? Anti employment discrimination laws? Getting rid of the FDA?
This doesn't have much to do with this discussion, but I think it's pretty demonstrably false that everyone has the same opportunity regardless of class. Yes, once in awhile you see someone from a poor family get rich, but the vast majority of the poor stay poor, and the rich tend to say rich. If it was truly equal, wouldn't the background of each social class contain proportional numbers of rich and poor?
If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.