Comments by "Ōkami-san" (@mweibleii) on "Thom Hartmann Program"
channel.
-
19
-
17
-
13
-
12
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
accordio13 Firstly, in high concentrations, Hg is poisonous and it's a neurotoxin. Children should not have high exposures of Hg. Or Pb for that matter.
That said, Hg is normally found in low concentrations in: eggs, beef, rain water, soil, chicken, fish, and others.
Here's the preservative molecule that contains an element of Hg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#mediaviewer/File:Thiomersal-Skeletal-Structure-SVG.svg
Much like eggs or rainwater, there's no good evidence to form a strong cogent argument Hg in the flu vaccine causes autism. It may. I mean, it is possible. It's reasonable to test. It's reasonable to limit exposure. What Thom is doing is a violation of reason. He and other's like him are causing hysteria.
Secondly, I'm certainly more than supportive of ongoing testing and, if the company can make a dose without Hg, simply price the non Hg containing vaccine double and sell that side by side. If you do not want the Hg containing vaccine, then pay more. If you don't care, pay less.
They truth is, no one knows what's causing the increase in autism. It may be an ion, it may be pesticides, it may be long term day care during formative years, it maybe modern society and plastics, or a combination of any or all and others.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
Heads Tails You're going to cherry pick ONE data point? Jesus, you call THAT a reasoned argument? Can you tell me how many Teacher Unions there were in 1940? How about Blacks voting? How many Blacks could vote in 1940? How about Welfare? How much generational welfare was their in 1940? Or a LONG list of a million other things - not to mention WWII! Secondly, tax doesn't create goods and services you dolt. The USA has NO PROBLEM raising capital, it raises over a trillion dollars a year. That money can redistribute WHO gets what, but it doesn't create goods or services. Those require productive investment and production. Which, according to YOUR logic, should be taxed at a higher rate - thereby limiting goods and reducing services, which will raise their price due to the reduced supply. Tax is a means to an end, not the end. Someone has to produce the good or service you want to consume. It doesn't just POOF in out of the ether because someone prints off some zeros on the end of a dollar, or prints more dollars, or collects more tax, or sells more bonds. Starting to see how it works? There's a reason WHY the tax rate was dramatically lowered and if you think people were living high on the hog during the War or immediate thereafter, you are smoking crack. Life was god damn tough on people in 1940 and they often went without and sometimes went hungry. So, my advice is you pick up a book and read first next time.
2
-
Midas Snap Just who made your PC? An American? How about your smart phone? How about your modem? Your TV? Americans choose what they want to buy and consistently choose lower quality that is cheap over higher quality that is more expensive. Don't blame companies for meeting the market demand. I've known company owners who WANTED to keep their company in the USA but couldn't because Americans refuse to buy a higher quality product at a higher price - even when they'd save money in the long run as the lower quality made in China will often need replaced in a year whereas made in the USA may last a lifetime. Blame the consumer, do NOT blame the person who is providing the goods and services you want. Further, if you have high level skills (medical, coding, engineering, biotech, ...) there is PLENTY of jobs in the USA. If you don't, then go retrain because low skilled are never ever going to pay much money. This is a fact of life, and has been for 5000 years.
That aside, let's take YOUR argument. Soon we will have 3D Printers that will eliminate ALL mass production. There will BE NO factories. Or not many. Right now NEC has a PC that is 100% made by automation, it costs a little more than a normal PC but has a much lower default rate. So, when that day comes, and 3D printing becomes the norm, will Americans be LESS prosperous or MORE prosperous? Because, according to your logic, it's not the goods and services that is important, but the jobs. According to your logic, if we went back to digging holes by hand, we'd all be so much richer because MY GOD think of all the jobs.
The fact is, Americans live more prosperous now than any previous generation in history. The main things that effect Americans is their use of drugs and bad eating habits. Americans don't die of starvation, they die of boredom overeating while watching Netflicks. As for how to create more jobs, see the list at the top of the thread.
2
-
Has Comcast or any other network provider charged $0.10 cents a post, listened in on your Skype conversation (outside of NSA forced recordings), or ANY of these other "possibilities"? No. They haven't. Because people will go to a different provider.
Now that the FCC has control over the internet, expect a Government issued logon ID. This is exactly what our Progressive Socialists want. To be your Internet Nanny.
Oh, and the FCC isn't cheap. We have to pay for more bloated bureaucrat salaries. Expect your monthly Internet tax to fit in nicely with your logon ID and NSA monitored usage fees.
And to ensure your not using up more than your "fair share" of the internet / The Commons, no more video game streaming, etc... no more torrent sites, no more anything Progressive Nanny doesn't like. You'll see. This'll turn out just like everything else the State F#@%$ up: public schools, financial regulations, FDA pink slime, police speed traps, etc....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Rick's Channel Yes, that's correct. Let me phrase your question a different way: Do you think less regulatory-capture and less rent-seeking on the part of the current market participants and an increase in competition would bring in value and provide better healthcare goods and services? Or do you think using regulatory capture to limit healthcare goods and services to rent-seek and monopolize the healthcare market, with no need to provide fair price or value is going to provide better goods and services?
Further, suppose this: You can still obtain all of the current 'regulated' goods and services BUT allow for unregulated market participants to, within common law and contract law, also offer goods and services under the strict legal signage stating clearly "Unregulated". Then you can let people choose which they would like.
Do you currently have an fMRI scan done yearly? Probably not, as time on a machine is expensive. I know MDs who have scans once every 6 months (for free) because they simply say, make room for me. Would you like that option? Would you like an fMRI scan by an unlicensed unregulated professionally trained fMRI tech who could tell you if there were any abnormalities on your scan? Say you pay out of pocket $100.
Or, would you rather just take your chances with no scan. Will you give those of us who would, the opportunity to do so? I mean, it has nothing to do with you.
The fact is, regulations are there to ensure lion's share of the profit go to the current market participants. It has nothing at all to do with making things safer. It's actually making medicine less safe. I'm sure you would be quite shocked to learn how poor the quality currently is in terms of training. It's really low. I mean, shockingly low. I expect we'll see healthcare deaths due to negligence increase to a million a year by 2025. The only thing I see, that may change this, is some high level of technology that puts healthcare into hands of the tech companies. Other than that, expect quality to go down and price to go up. All thanks to over-regulation and rent-seeking through licencing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
LOl
Bernie Sanders and Thom are clueless. Yes, EVERYONE wants to ensure no one goes without good affordable healthcare. Turing our crony low quality high cost DiseaseCare into a Public scheme is NOT going to do that. I've live in multiple countries, some with 'free' public healthcare.
I can safely say this much: Most (not all) aspects of 'free' healthcare is crap and you would never want to be treated in those public hospitals. Most people, who can afford to, either go to Private or go overseas for treatment. This is particularly true in Western countries were the public hospitals are staffed with the bottom of the barrel surgeons who weren't successful enough to open a private practice or the ones being trained on the 'free' patients. In some rare instances Public was better than Private. Particular when providing some forms of care for the elderly and children. In general, no, it's horrible care. In Japan, Public healthcare is pretty decent. But, this is due to the Japanese system of shaming people who suck.
Since most of you lap up the Demagoguery, have zero experience with any aspect of healthcare (other than you want it for free), I'll leave you to mull these ideas over with your magic thought of Progressive Paradise:
1. If you have some money, you ARE FREE to leave your tax farm and go overseas. We actually did this (went to Japan 4 years ago, great treatment in a Japanese PRIVATE hospital, cheap too). Why don't we allow for this freedom INSIDE the USA? Why not allow so called 'free' Americans the 'freedom' to buy and sell medical care without the need of the AMA licences? Americans can go to Mexico for unlicensed care, most don't. Most don't need a Nanny to tell them not to.
2. Medical care is blowing out the budgets of many Western nations (ours included). What happens, in the real world, is less money is spent on other social services like Universities and K-12. Which means a lower quality medical doctor. I've personally seen this happen.
3. If you think Private Monopolies are bad now, wait until we give the Government a total Public Monopoly. ALL of the evil little monopolists that would be working in a company, simply swim over to the State and run the agencies - they pay themselves sweet 6 figure salaries with massive benefits (the likes of which you couldn't imagine) for providing the lowest quality crap healthcare you could imagine. They aren't just as bad as these Crony CEOs - they ARE the same people!
The care will be worse - much worse.
Bernie can spin you promises of 'free' high quality cheap healthcare all day long - of course, he's not actually DOING anything medical related himself.... no no no, that's hard work. It's so much easier to spin bullshit promises to the unwashed masses tales of how the Great Redistribution machine is going to magically make cheap high quality healthcare happen - well, sorry, not going to happen.
You'll see.
Note: Currently, in our AMA regulated healthcare (they'll also 'regulate' the Government Care - and do) about 80,000 Americans die each year due to medical error and another 3 - 5 million suffer life long injuries. Once the Government has a total monopoly, expect these numbers to increase 10 x in the next generation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I have no problems with private Unions. I do have a problem with public unions - as we the public are forced to pay them, not the market. As an example, all of my family at my father's age and above were in the UAW and lived like kings, helped to destroy GM (no one wants to pay $30,000 for a Union made peace of crap car) and eventually the company went bankrupt - most of my family my age are working on minimum wage. Not all, I was smart enough to leave the State over a decade ago and worked my arse off, lived in share house and share rooms for a decade and have a pretty high paying job, but I'm 15 years behind most people.
Again, I have no problem with UAW. But I saw the union from the inside. I saw the functional illiterate who couldn't be fired. I hear the retired UAW workers (in my family, all my aunts, uncles, father, etc...) and they're on $4000 a month minimum pension and retired at aged 47! That's more than most of their kids made WORKING and those kids will be working right up until they die. AND worse of all GM went bankrupt and was bailed out BY the millennials! These same unioned retirees are working to get 'disability' (if they didn't already when they were in the shop) and are looking into ObamaCare - AGAIN, paid for by their kids who have piss poor jobs.
The nation is going into the toilet. Society is sick IMO. Just sick. Everyone looking to screw over everyone else. TBTF oligarchs. Central Banksters and our Central Planners and Political Masters. Cops who are insane. Literally, I had a State cope drive right up on my car's arse the other day. Was probably 2 foot off my bumper, I about got in a wreck and I had a 1 year old in the back seat. I can't stand the USA.
2
-
2
-
0:45
"How can these people in the poorest" (Public Housing) "neighbors be against Scott Walker when he's against everything (the State) has done to help them" .......
...........like those Publicly Funded Welfare ghettos that have made your life a living hell. Or the Publicly Funded Government Ghetto Schools where 1 in 3 kids who graduate, do so as a functional illiterate. Or the millions of Progressive licencing scams, rent-seeking laws, and regulatory capture that has ensured the ONLY jobs for you is Welfare Queen, Cannon Fodder or Hood Thug. Oh, don't dare think about trying to start a business either, the State will come down on your throat with its Jackboot and crush your windpipe.
And then this Progressive Socialistic idiot has the gall to suggest these people (read: Black People) are too ignorant to know any better. Yes, she's their NANNY and she knows better then they. You know, because once she got off at the wrong turnpike and ended up in a Publicly funded Welfare Ghetto and saw a GASP black person once.
Typical middle class clueless Progressive Socialist. Guess what? Those 'poorest houses, poorest schools, poorest neighborhoods are all Publicly funded Welfare Ghettos suffocating under a fog of poisonous Public Services. Most of these people have NEVER in their lives come in contact with the FREE markets. They live in Public Housing, are shot and killed by Public Police, take Public buses on Public roads, to their Public schools where they're taught by functionally illiterate overpaid Public teachers, learn little and then graduate with no skills into a hyper-regulated unfree market, RINSE AND REPEAT.
Want to know why they support Scott Walker? The answer is simple: 100 years of FAILED Progressive Central Planning has destroyed their lives. The answer isn't MORE crap Public services - the answer is LESS. Much less.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
bohemianwriter1
(a) The Pledge of Allegiance is TO THE STATE. It's a pledge to die in defense of the State as symbolized by a pretty peace of cloth on a pole (aka: a Flag).
It starts out "I pledge allegiance to THE FLAG of the United States of America." I mean, how myopic can a person be?! Jesus H Christ, your own example shows YOUR level of conditioning. Which is pretty much reflected in 99.9999% of the people around you.
That said, Government Schools have, for the most part, been banned from forcing children to Pledge themselves to the State. But, make no mistake, Government schools used to force children into pledging themselves to the State because Government schools are in actuality propagandizing labor-cog factories.
(b) Government Schools overwhelmingly do not teach that a God or Gods or Goddess or Goddesses created the Universe (aka: Creationism). That said, some of the BEST schools in the USA are Private Religious Schools. As a matter of fact, I know of Catholic schools that costs $30,000 per year that have a line about 10 years long with a $1000 a year retaining fee paid for 10 years before your application is even considered. And get this, those students that graduate - they're not functionally illiterate. As a matter of fact, they are some of the best students that enter the best Universities. And there's tons of these Private Religious schools.
Just to make sure you understand that I am a strong atheists, I'll quickly commit the so-called unforgivable sin: I damn the Holy Ghost. If there is a God, please send me to Hell right now. Oh, gee, didn't happen. Maybe because Gods and other magic-people do not exist.
See? It's quite simple. You're a State-bot. Your god/superstition IS the State. The POTUS is your Pope. The Senators are your Bishops. Now, like a good little "Citizen" do your duty and pull the magic voting lever to the Right or to the Left. And Believe in "Hope and Change". Maybe even get our stupid flag (made in China) and wave it for whichever politician promises you whatever it is you hope to steal from some other citizen in the Great Society you're a cog in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
technatezin There's no need to 'give out' grades at all. As a matter of fact, formative assessment is only required by the student, the instructor doesn't require this information. Summative assessment can be performed by private organizations along with their particular certificate. This is effectively what the AMA does, and I'm sure you have little to no problem with MD's being qualified by the AMA.
I'm not sure why you think grades are all that important. If a child wants to be an artist, and they learn graphic design, what do they care if they are given a low grade? What's important to them, is if they learned the skills needed to provide a good or service to the free market / others in society.
It may be true in the short term that kids with genetics that select for scholastic activity are chosen to attend specific schools, but this is okay, if there is a demand, then others will similarly offer educational services. "The Poor" certainly do not lack smart phones as good as "The Rich". Why? Because companies make a lot more profit selling to the poor. And when they are in competition, the poor get as good as the rich. Compare this to highly regulated (by Government) markets like Medicine. Thanks to Government regulation, market players (like the AMA) are given a regulatory monopoly and use this to enforce rent-seeking on their part and that of their members. What happens is the quality of education goes down (and it has) while the cost goes up (and it has). Thus, places into medical school have wait-lists miles long, while at the same time, medical error is the number 2 killers of Americans (after heart disease).
1
-
technatezin as for profits, there's many examples of Chartered School out performing Government Schools using 2/3rds the resources.
However, I think we need to use two differnt words. Profit should be used to refer to virtuous activity (efficient use of limited resources to ensure good education) whereas Spoils can refer to making money through cheating (example: rent-seeking). In this way, we can see Private Schools are often Profitable (even when run as non-profits) and act virtuously whereas Government Schools are sometimes Profitable, but do so through vice and rent-seeking, and therefor are actually Spoilable. They make Spoils.
The best way to ensure kids are given access to good education is free-markets, sound money, and laws that protect private property and uphold contract.
Let"s remember, the DoED itself publishes statistics showing ZERO improvement since it's inception (late 1970s) and if anything, things might be getting worse! They also publish statistics showing 1 in 5 of their "High" school graduates cannot competently read and write. The only other place where you see this level of stagnation and regression are the industries found in the old Socialistic Republics of USSR and China. And, I promise, for the same reasons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheSpiritOfTheTimes Actually, I Japan and Korea both outperform Finland. Therefor, according to your logic, we should actually adopt their pedagogical standards. Incidentally, Japan spends less per student in terms of GDP. Therefor, again, according to your reasoning, we should also spend less. Koreans attend school 7 days a week. Japanese usually attend cram-school for 4 hours after normal school. I know, I've lived in Japan. Therefor, according to your reasoning, we should too. Oh, and no summer's off. As a matter of fact, the US Government would be legally bound to choose the best performing pedagogy - which is not the Finish one. Sound good to you? Probably not. Because you prefer the Finish program. You probably want the SCHOOL CHOICE don't you? You probably think it's a bad idea to send kids to school year around, 7 days a week including evenings. Isn't it nice HAVING THAT CHOICE? Or would you prefer someone in Government make that choice for you?
1
-
1
-
TheSpiritOfTheTimes I just posted two recent ranking showing Korea out performs Finland. As a matter of fact, Finland will probably continue to drop as Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai surpass them. But, I do find it interesting you still would like to utilize the Finish system. Well, sorry, that's not how Government agencies work. They would be legally obligated to use the Korea model. That's the way Government bureaucracy works. If Korea is better, then it will be chosen. If Japan can do more with a smaller budget, then that will be chosen.
It'd be nice to have School CHOICE wouldn't it be? That way you can pick the pedagogy you think works best for your children.
Of course, no thanks to people like you.
Incidentally, Japan has a thriving private school system. But hey, I've only lived there, so what would I know.
Regardless, and one more time for good measure, it's nice knowing you have the CHOICE of pedagogy. That way, if YOU want the Finish model, then YOU can take your tax-credits and pay for it from a private provider of that pedagogy. See how nice it works? If more and more people do likewise, then that becomes the norm.
Good, then we can agree to that much :)
1
-
1
-
TheSpiritOfTheTimes A decent civil society doesn't need the State to force people to pay for education. Therefor a decent civilized society will by default use Private Schools. The goal is to privatize all education. This will ensure the poor have access to good education in the same way they can easily afford a good super computer that fits in their pocket / smart phone.
The truth is, you prefer the Finish model and if given the choice you would choose the Finish model. And you would not be happy to be forced to instead put your children through the hell that is the Japan/Korean model.
You want choice.
Your choice.
Which is why you continue to push the Finish model even when evidence shows the Finish will be lucky to remain in the top 10 and will soon be superseded by other Asian countries. Why? Because the Asian model works better in our current system. Now, that said, I would personally choose the Finish model. Why? Because I like that pedagogy.
I lived in Japan, part of my family is Japanese, and I may move there again. In Japan, if you do not choose the Japanese system, you will NOT be attending high school and University. Sure, you can attend a private school (even alternative schools like Montessori or Democratic) in Japan, but you will fail in their higher educational system. Which requires 12 hours a day 7 days a week dedication to study. This means many many many Japanese children will buckle under the mental stress of studying so hard they end up developing all sorts of stress related problems - but that's okay to the Japanese AND people like YOU. Because what is NOT important is the individual and their personal choices. No, what is important is the "Social Good'. You know "Society" (whatever that is). Thank the GODS you people are in the minority in the USA. And you're losing the battle. Government schools will compete with Public Charter Schools and eventually all education will become Private. Then we will reach that 'decent' "society" you want to live in.
1
-
1
-
technatezin "With a government run school operation the left side of the equation can be at zero since the government can run the school as a break even non-profit operation indefinitely with no problems." This is so far from the truth as to be laughable. Have you ever run anything? Anything at all? I've worked in both private industry and public institutions and this, again, is literally laughable.
(A) The world has limits, thus there are budgets. As an example, see the mass starvation of Government run Communist China. About 30 - 50 million humans statrved to death - the Government couldn't even provide the basics / food, let alone education.
(B) Government isn't something 'magical' that poof provides education by pulling it in out of the ether. Government redistributes the goods and services of the private sector. Thus is buys educational products and then provides that service after levying a tax to pay for it. Of course, levying a tax is LESS efficient than paying directly becuase you also have to pay for the IRS and prisons to hold tax evadors as well as agencies to write tax code and etc... etc... etc... vs just paying directly for private education. Thus, Government School costs more / wastes more Earth limited resources.
(C) "Government" is a collection of humans. Many humans in Government work in education AND could NOT give two shits about if children are educated. Because Government doesn't go bankrupt, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of these people - and they are in the MAJORITY. Most of the people I have worked at in Government - don't care much about education and focus instead on their public 'career'. Whereas, when I work in the Private Sector, they do care. Why? Because in the Private Sector they will lose their jobs if they do not provide VALUE (which again, is subjective). A person working in Government on the other hand, has NO NEED to provide value - and most don't or very very very little compared to those in Private Industry.
Again, this seems to be a case you missing a key point, that being subjective value, as well as presenting an argument in the Platonic Perfect Forms which frankly cannot and will never be able to measure our subjective experiences AND ALSO cannot ever know the true supply of goods and services available. The only known means of measuring both subjective value and supply is the price mechanism. These aren't 'side issues' they are CORE issues. There's also a good Ehtical argument for why private school is moral and Government school is immoral, but I have to leave it here.
1
-
technatezin The most important thing is to satisfy your customers. If you don't do that, you won't be making a profit. However, making a profit in a FREE competitive market is virtuous and signals a couple of things to society
(a) you are indeed providing a good or service of value to society, we know this because people are paying for it and
(b) you are doing so in a manner that is efficient and thus are able to make a profit - IOWs, you are not wasting the Earth's limited resources. One of the worse things about Government, is how inefficient and wasteful it is. The US Government, for example, wastes more energy than any other institution (in history) and likewise creates the most pollution (in history). Go start a business with your own money, see if you don't want to make some of it back - if anything, just to live on.
Most companies are small and do not have investors outside of the people who start the business and bank who lent them the money.
Also, most people start a business because they WANT to provide something of value. Almost no one starts a business just to make a profit - that's asinine. If you're not the type of person who likes people and thinks about their needs, you won't make a good entrepreneur (but would probably make a good public servant).
Again, I doubt you've ever had any real experience opening a business. Everything you suggest sounds like a talking point from some political hacks memo. So, my advice is, do it. Go offer a great pedagogy and see if people are willing to pay you for it.
See how far you go with an attitude of only trying to make profit. I promise, with that attitude you will be bankrupt in a month. People aren't idiots, they can see value and most can smell a bullshitter when they have to part with money. Not to mention contract and fraud laws will ensure you live up to your end of the deal or go to jail. So, again, do it. Start a business with your own money. Put some skin in the game. Then talk to me. I promise, you'll have a completely different attitude. One based on Empirical reality as opposed to belly button lint and counting the number of angles on the head of a pin.
1
-
1
-
technatezin RE: "You can still sell for a profit by selling goods of dubious quality and still remain in business by selling something of expected average quality to the customer."
And?
Microsoft was one of the largest companies in the world, they marketed Zune, it was of 'dubious value', some people bought it, most decided they wanted an iPod. That's competition in a free market (or at least close to one). They we have Apple and a thriving smart phone market.
If the Government was "selling" Zune (providing a 'free' MP3 player as a public service) then we'd still have Zune. Apple probably would have went out of business and there'd be no iPhone and possibly no smart phone market.
See the difference? This is why Government school monopolies are bad for society. Which is why our Government Schools are being replaced by Charter and Private Schools. Which is GOOD for society.
Sadly, thanks to Government School monopolies, for 100 years, we have no idea of all the great pedagogical ideas that just never happened due to unfair Government monopolization of this market. However, in a free market, good Government Schools (of which there must be some) can compete and if they truly provide value, then people will pay for those services.
Hypothetical aside, I've personally worked in a Medical School that removed human anatomy laboratories. Why? Because they said the MD's didn't need that training. Because Government regulatory capture ensures AMA rent-seeking status, only Government approved medical schools can issue licences. Thus, without competition, students just think getting an MD and having no anatomy is fair value. Not that they care, they just want the MD. This is some serious 'dubious value' here. You do understand medical error is the #2 killer of Americans? You'll likely die of it. You can thank Government School monopoly and Government enforced regulatory capture and rent-seeking. The fact is, in the REAL world, the objective world, this is happening.
1
-
1
-
@celestialmorpho I sent my daughter to an extremely small private school. K to 6 was a total of 32 students.
The pros: teachers know students attributes extremely well, all the kids know one another, music teacher was very good, kids naturally took in leadership roles, most kids were quite engaged.
The Cons: Small number of kids could lead to some sense of bullying as there are only so many "best friends" to go around. Although the school did have some strategies in place, if a bully was dominating, that is an issue. Sports teams was not a thing, instead kids did swimming at a university pool, played tennis, and had competitions with other small schools.
Overall: Graduating kids have a very good reputation for taking initiative, being better at music (being able to play and read sheet music for multiple instruments), and generally being good natured. The biggest drawbacks were if you wanted team sports and some bullying around having a best friend.
Compared with better funded public schools, small private schools (which also get some public funding incidentally), are probably better in many ways. But, I can see that it also comes down to the teachers. Probably small schools attract and keep good teachers and don't have the resources to put up with bad teachers – and get rid of them. So, that's also worth thinking about.
1
-
@celestialmorpho
In addition: private vs public
My feeling is, having 8 years more experience, that is not necessary for public institutions to be horrible and it's not natural for private institutions to be superior. What I think is that both are so-so, and that over time private institutions that are so-so often go bankrupt. Where as public institutions don't. This means that the people who work in public institutions can engage is "politics" and get promoted while not providing value. Hence the term: "Institutionalised". But, this probably happens at very large companies too. Because they're nearly too big to fail (many secure government contracts – Amazon for example).
Thus, one factor that probably helps society is having poorly run private institutions go bankrupt.
However, there's another issue at play, and that's the fact that private, public, and society are not separate and overlap in both positive and negative ways. Sometimes public money goes to competent people at public institutions. And sometimes private institutions get the inside track or act devious or just get lucky. Also, people themselves are a player. People are supposed to act as a check on poorly functioning public institutions. But they don't seem to care. I recently volunteered at a new private school (that gets a lot of public money) and it seemed that ONLY me and two other people where there. No one comes to these meetings. But "society" requires that members of society get involved and do these things. Yet they don't want to.
Any thoughts or questions?
1
-
1
-
elvenbread191 What do you mean 'eliminate manufacturing'? Firstly, me being able to buy a made in Japan car is my business. GM in the USA may or may not like my choice, but that's on me. Secondly, suppose one day 3D printing comes along and eliminated 85% need for mass manufacturing. Are you going to suggest we'd be worse off? Think about how the tractor put 85% of farm hands out of work, were we worse off? Yes, it may eliminate millions of jobs - so what? That's a good thing. Imagine all the doctors put out of work when we cure cancer. Again, this is a GOOD thing.
I think you'll falling for a number of talking points. If I own a business, and I want to build my items in China, that's my decision, There's no 'WE' shipping manufacturing overseas. There's individuals. Those jobs are gone, and good riddance. The problem is the fact people are looking FOR a job, instead of looking to create a job.
1
-
1
-
BramSLI1 The 1950s was much LOWER regulation, less rules, wages were generally running higher than minimum wage, and while labor had rights, it was nothing like today. Also, the 70s were not all that prosperous (inflation was bad) and at the end of the 1960s we were at war, again, not that great for a lot of people.
As an example, the AMA did not have near the monopoly on Rx they do now.There was no Drug War. Regulations to open a business were low. There was no Department of Energy, Department of Education, Homeland Security, TSA, and etc... they simply didn't exist. You didn't need a licence to cut hair, or sell flowers, or etc.. all of these have either come into existence or massively expanded.They are strangling our economy. Also, there was no such thing as Too Big To Fail. All of these problems were and are being created BY the government. Or government hand in glove with various crony capitalistic corporations.
I remember listening to an interview of a Russian who immigrated to the USA in the 1960s and he said he was dumb struck with how everyone wanted to start a business. It was as if every single person he met had and idea and was giving it a go. Compare that with today.
The ONLY way we're getting more jobs is if we're allowed to create them.
1
-
BramSLI1 Which is a very very very inefficient means to fund research and one of the reasons we make such slow progress. For example, I've seen liars write great grants and get awarded hundreds of millions of dollars, up to a billion dollars if you count infrastructure, and have next to nothing - sometimes even going backwards, then before all that tax money was blown through. Anyone with half a brain would know a politician, some of whom think the earth is 6000 years old, others who have degrees in social sciences or are lawyers - are completely clueless as to who to fund or how to equitably allocate research funding. When left up to the Scientists themselves, they fund their colleagues projects, In short, you are again, clueless. Further, because resources are directed towards some projects, those same resources (including human talent) are not used in more efficient and beneficial manner. Many of the institutions today, are worse than they were in the 1980s in terms of organization. The Public ones are the worse of the lot, crammed to the rim with crony-bootlickers. Which is why you don't see your standard of living rising as quickly as it should given the massive gains in productive capacity. If you think you're going to pin the loss of your standard of living on a few corporate CEOs, you're smoking crank with your crack. The biggest more corrupt corporation in our country is the US Federal Government.
1
-
1
-
silat13 It's not a monopoly, if it were a monopoly then the solution would be to break up the monopoly. Although, in general, monopolies benefit the buyer and are usually bad only for the competitor. History shows monopolies generally align with a low cost point to keep competition from entering the market. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of Progressive magic thinking. Never mind that everything the State has touched turns to shit: See Public Welfare ghettos. Government schools with their 1 in 5 functionally illiterate graduation rate, the NSA and it's spying on Citizens, the never ending wars the State continues to lose year after year, the FDA regulated pink slime or the Central Bank bailing out the top 0.01% to the tune of trillions and etc...
Don't worry, by the time the FCC is done, you'll be paying much MUCH more and getting a much slower, much more regulated internet with a Logon ID and daily limit - you know, for the Good of the Commons. Would want you using more than your fair-share of the Commons. Thank you Progressives, another industry you've destroyed. The LAST tiny bit of freedom snuffed out thanks to our Central Planning Progressive Socialists.
1
-
ckildegaard There's no need for the FCC, simply use contract law to deal with companies that slow speeds to certain websites. If you sign a contract with Provider X that says they will not slow down speeds, and they do, then they get sued. It's that simple.
But don't worry, the FCC "protecting" you from something that isn't happening but might, maybe, could, someday, happen - is just the camels nose under tent. We'll pay more for a slower internet and eventually require an internet ID to logon to the internet. The Government will continue to regulate every aspect of the internet until programmers are required a State licence and to open an internet site will requite a licence. You know, so your State Nanny can protect you from something that might happen one day.
And thus, you Regressive Socialists will have destroyed the last free-market left on Earth. By the Gods it sucks having to live in a country with pathetic people who need a Nanny. Oh well, to anyone out there who isn't in need of a Nanny, my suggestion is to become one. Because there's plenty of American's who need looking after.
1
-
1
-
silat13 Libertarians are for a limited government. It's what the USA was founded on. The first 10 amendments to the US Constitution are to protect us FROM government. The US Constitution is to protect FROM government.
LIMITED government, not no government. Libertarians want a Government, just a small one. Libertarians support: sound free market money, ending labor tax, support contract law and laws that protect private property. All of which requite a small amount of government.
In the past, because the US government was limited, Americans were forced to work WITH one another. Not so in modern America where the US Government is now the largest single entity in human history. The US Government can be used AGAINST other Americans - even, as in this case, just because 'maybe' a company 'could', 'maybe' one day slow speeds to a site, even though this has never been a problem in the USA.
Yes, humans work best together with a non-violent social structure. Which is why we need LIMITED government. Because the humans who work in Government, are the one's with the most power to use violence against innocent humans. We need protected against them - the ones working in Government, the most. Contract law and competition will deal with corporations.
ONLY a Public Official can strangle an innocent man to death for trying to break up a fight. ONLY the Government can tell you who you can legally marry. The US Government is the largest polluter in the history of humanity, it uses the most of our limited energy, it spends trillions of dollars killing people in phony wars and has been doing so since the 1950s. The US government just bailed out the richest 0.1% and you keep blaming the Koch brothers? What planet do you live on??? The US Government has killed over a million people in Asian and the ME, and you keep blaming the Koch brothers? You are a State-bot. You worship the State just like a religious fundamentalist worships their religious institution. The POTUS is your Pope. Our Senators are your Bishops. The State is your religion.
Don't worry, we're getting more government, and unless you're a Regulator or in the top 0.1%, then your life will probably get worse.
Note: The Koch brothers might make a good boogeyman story for children or Progressive Socialists, but in the real world they provide hundreds of thousands of people with good paying jobs and have absolutely nothing to do with why 1 in 5 Government school graduates are functional illiterates. Oh, and it doesn't matter who you vote in as POTUS, this isn't going to alter the fact that 1 in 7 Americans are illiterate, 1 in 5 Government school graduates are functionally illiterate and of those that can read, most do so at the level of a 7th grader. Vote in for whomever you like, it's not going to change this fact.
1
-
The AMA started out regulating medicine for "The Good of Society" because maybe, just maybe someone would sell someone else medicine that wasn't what they claimed. While we could have used contract law to deal with this, we instead gave the AMA a monopoly over Rx. This then meant only State licensed practitioners could prescribe Rx.
What was the fallout of government having this power?
1) Today over 450,000 Americans are killed by medical error each year, up from 80,000 in 1990.
2) Our prisons are filled with millions of non-violent drug dealers. Some for selling marijuana which is now legal in many States.
3) Our cities are littered with drug gang ghettos.
4) Heroin derivatives make up the drug of choice for middle class America, even though it's not legal to take recreationally, most easily get a Rx script for their drug of choice turning Physicians into drug pushers and Pharama into pain-pill manufacturers.
5) Tens of millions of students waste their lives hoping to get into a limited spot to become a Rent-Seeker in the medical field.
6) Medicine is now way over priced and falling in quality year in and year out. The MD qualification today is barely worth the paper it's printed on.
You think the FCC is going to stop here? No way. The will do what all Government agencies do, grow and this means more regulation (to keep us safe from one another) and over time all of this will become normal, eventually we'll need to pay an Internet Tax (for the Good of Society) and this will require a Log-On ID (issued by the State when you pay your fee).
When this happens, and it will, remember it was demagogues like Thom the Progressive Social Justice Warrior that killed off the last true Free Market in the world: The Internet. It may take 10 years, but our Internet Tax and ID is coming. Then you'll need a State Licence and State permission to build a website. The biggest players like Google, will buy off Government and be nearly impossible to compete against.
You'll see.
1
-
ckildegaard Like I said, in the USSA the new norm, one could say "The American Way" isn't to deal with social problems (or in this case, total lack of any problem) using free-markets and freedom, but to turn to the use of State violence to solve any and every perceived potential social problem (or, in this case, total lack of a problem).
Like I said, IF this problem would have arisen, and by all account it wouldn't have ever occurred, it could have been easily solved using contract law and free-markets. But this isn't what Americans want. No, that would require thinking and maybe getting involved in the markets. Nope. Americans, with their collective 6th grade reading comprehension, want a State Nanny to solve any existing or potentially existing problems.
Talk about pathetic.
Don't worry, soon we'll have an Internet Tax, regulatory capture, rent-seeking and slower internet. You'll log onto your Government managed slow-net with your Government issued ID to slowly visit Government licensed websites that have been approved and issued a permit by the State.
If you ever wonder why nations rise, peak and then collapse, just look in the mirror for your answer. It's because of people like you. I was recently reading a novel written in the late 1800s in Japan about Japan's golden age, and there you were. A whiny little 17th century Japanese peasant too worried about their own shadow and more than happy to give more power to their Lord to protect them from non-existent danger. Well, let tell you how it ends, not too good for the little functionally illiterate piss-in-his-pants at his own shadow peasant.
1
-
1
-
ckildegaard The AMA is given State privilege to licence practitioners. What? You think YOU are allowed to practice without AMA approval?!? Give me a break. The AMA has a Government granted near-monopoly on medicine. Yes, it's a Private fraternity. AND? Welcome to Fascist America where private interests use the State to control the hyper-regulated markets. Which is exactly what will happen to the Internet. It's called regulatory capture, licencing schemes and rent-seeking.
Don't worry, there'll come a day when you'll need a State Internet ID "For the Good of Society" to log on to the Internet. And you'll of course be required to pay an Internet Tax. And, to ensure you don't use up too much of "The Commons" / aka: use too much internet, your access will be measured and limited "For the Good of Society". Oh, and to develop software you'll need a degree and licence from a University. You know, for the "Good of Society" and to keep you safe from some non-danger, like a webpage that doesn't load.
The State and the Corporate interest that own it, have wanted to regulate the Internet since it became such a large FREE MARKET. The Progressives just gave it to them. They just gave the last free-market over to the State.
Don't worry, the State will destroy the free-market internet with millions and millions of regulations just as it has destroyed medicine, education, finance - everything. And when it does, remember today. The day you whined you wanted the FCC to protect you from the big scary 'free-market'.
1
-
1
-
Expect the FCC to regulate the Internet the way the FDA regulates boiled in ammonia, snout, foot, ear, tail, skin and other off cuts colored and sold as Human "food". The Internet we enjoy today is a (nearly) free-market - which is why it's so great. The FCC Government regulated Internet of tomorrow will be a functionally illiterate pink slime welfare ghetto.
Oh, and if you think Government regulation comes cheap - think again. Once the Internet becomes part of the so-called "Commons" we will have an internet tax. Eventually, we will need an official State internet log-on ID. Much like the FCC 'regulates' what's legal to show on TV or legal to hear on the radio - that's going to happen to the Internet. Oh, and no more live-game streams or other innovative ideas. No torrents. No freedom to open up a website not needing a State issued licence. Nope, that's using up too much of the "Commons" and is taking away from the functionally illiterate Progressives' share of The Commons.
So, thank you Progressives (Social Regressives) you've just destroyed the last shred of somewhat free-markets left in the world. Just like everything else your ilk touches from Education to caring for the poor. You literally turn everything you touch into the Public welfare ghettos. There goes the last chance humanity had at (nearly) Government free communication.
Good on you.
Oh, and do enjoy your shitty Netflicks and old FCC approved re-runs. It pretty much cost us all our only free space/free-market/freedom we had left.
Progressive Socialism: Regulating your life, so you don't have to.
1
-
For anyone who wants to know the real story and not the BS fairytale / State-worship the Regressive Socialists sold us: http://www.techpolicydaily.com/internet/caused-web-slow-down-comcast-twc-verizon/
Excerpt:
"Network analyst George Ou offered his perspective of what had happened: “Cogent purchased on the order of 1 terabit of capacity from Comcast and got 4 terabits from Comcast. When I say ‘purchased’, I mean bartered. Then they turned around and sold 100 terabits of capacity to [their] own customers. That’s why Cogent customers are suffering slow performance. Then they demanded 8x the bandwidth from Comcast at no extra cost and when Comcast refused, they blamed their slow service on Comcast.”
Note 1: As I stated, all of this COULD have been handled quick, legally, and with no need of violence using voluntarily agreed to contract law.
Note 2: If the CONgress, POTUS or the FCC were honest, then they'd also see no need for more Government regulation. But, this isn't about providing service - this is about voting buying off a largely Government schooled and functionally illiterate voting public (DoED found the average reading comprehension is 7-8th grade in the USSA) by O-blah-ma and other crooked politicians and is a power grab by the FCC so that middle and upper management can gun for high paid positions at Comcast dealing with FCC regulation - that they themselves are rapidly creating by the thousands and thousands of pages as you read this. Not only will we get to pay for the FCC, but we'll get to pay more for Internet access as the ISP providers will be required to waste more time on useless FCC made-up-red-tape.
Note 3: For any recent Government schooled graduate, an 'excerpt' is a short extract from the writing cited.
Note 4: Expect more Regulatory Capture, and now Rent Seeking on the parts of the big players as people in the FCC begin to use their State-given power as leverage over various businesses and those businesses fight back.
And thus Progressive Socialism will come full circle as the State Fascism it, in reality, already is.
Don't worry, we're getting slower, more expensive internet and we'll need a State licence and log-on ID in order to access it. You know "For the Good of Society".
Again, thank you Regressives, you're doing such a wonderful job destroying Civil Society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ckildegaard I provided actual evidence that no ISP provider was slowing Netflicks or any other site - yet, this doesn't matter to the State-bots. Nope. MAYBE, an ISP provider might, could, possibly will one day slow speeds AND even though this can be addressed without using the State (through contract law) our Regressive Socialists instead demand that the State (which was purposely LIMITED by the founders of the nation) expand it's size and scope even larger.... just in case.
You Regressives made the same argument in support of the decades long War on Terror. We all have to get used to the TSA, The Patriot Act, the NSA spying, the never-ending-trillion dollars wasted on Warfare - all because maybe a "Terrorist" might, could, possibly one day kill more Americans. Never mind 480,000 needlessly die every single year due to Medical Error.
Don't worry, you're in luck. Almost everyone in society thinks just you. Religious kooks who cling to their security blanket, be it their Sky-Daddy and/or their State-Nanny.
So, we get to lose yet more Civil Rights and Personal Privacy and live in a Police State where never ending Wars and bailing out the top 0.01% by the Progressive Central Bank is the norm.
My advice to you is to pay your taxes, get used to the lower standard of living and keep pulling the magic voting lever to the right or left.
Enjoy your weekend.
1
-
1
-
In the minds of our so-called Progressive Socialists, State violence IS Progress. That's how demented these people are. They're insane. Even when provided evidence their insane delusions are just that - delusions, they still demand more State expansion and more intrusion into our lives. They will never stop until every single aspect of our lives are controlled and regulated for by the State. It's in their DNA. It's what they are.
Thus we get to live with Internet Nanny-Overlords at the FCC deciding which websites are "Legal" and have met all the FCC "Standards" and "Guidelines" and are deemed fit for Public Display just as the FCC does for television and radio.
You know, "For the Good of Society". Because in Progressive's mind, voluntarism and free-markets equals to BAD, whereas State violence and regulation equals to GOOD.
So, one day we'll see that any images, words, or ideas not-approved by the FCC / Government will be cause to revoke your Government Issued Internet ID. Exactly as the FCC controls what we hear or see via radio, tv, film, etc.... they will do this to the internet.
Then we can all live in our Progressive Socialist Paradise where the Government Regulates every single aspect of our lives, from who we can legally marry, to which herbs we can legally smoke to what ideas we can legally access to read, to which video games we're allowed to play.
Don't color out of the lines, or the FCC/Government will remove your State issued Internet ID access and if you dare to use the Internet without using your NSA issued State-Internet-ID then you get to go to jail with the other 10s of millions of Americans who committed non-violent thought crimes or dared to smoke a fricken weed.
Welcome to the Progressive State's of America.
So, again, a BIG THANK YOU Progressives for helping to destroy the last free-market in the world. All because MAYBE an ISP might, maybe, could one day, slow your God damn speed to shitty FCC approved re-runs from the 1970s. Jesus H Christ you people suck. You destroy everything you touch.
1
-
ckildegaard
You just watch as the FCC guts the Internet. The people at the FCC couldn't give two flying shits about 'Protecting the Internet'. What a childish simpleton thing to suggest. The people running the FCC are like people anywhere else. They want power and more of it. And you Regressives just handed these sociopaths the Internet.
FACT #1) There was NO problem with the internet.
Thus, the FCC isn't protecting shit - because there was nothing wrong with the internet. But don't worry, now that the FCC has the power to 'Regulate' the internet it will not stop until it regulates the Internet just as it does TV, radio and any other form of communication.
So, again, THANK YOU REGRESSIVES for destroying the last Free-Market left on earth. You should be happy with yourselves - given how much you hate free-markets, aka: free people.
FACT #2) There is NO evidence ISP were slowing internet speeds. Actually, the opposite, the evidence shows ISPs were NOT slowing speeds - exactly the opposite of your deluded fantasy land where FCC and Government violence 'for the good of society' comes and 'saves' the day by regulating the hell out of everything.
FACT #3) YOU little State-bots are the ones who live in a fantasy land.
Even when the State outright lies us into a trillion(S) dollar Phony war that is loses year after year, guts our civil liberties with the Orwellian named Patriot Act and bails out the richest 0.1% - there you Regressives are, first in line to wave your stupid flags like the Religious State-bot kooks you are! I feel sorry for you. You must really think the world is such a horrible place that only a Police State can give you the 'freedom' you want. That's sad. Really sad.
Yup, the free-market Internet had to go all because one day, somewhere, just maybe, someday, someone might, could, maybe do slow the internet like the big bad free-market boogey man that lives under your bed.
You Regressive Socialists destroy everything you touch. E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. And now you've just handed over the Internet to the Government - and destroyed the last vestige of free communication and free-markets left to human society. Which is exactly what you wanted because you hate free-markets. Regressive Socialists are positively repulsive.
Like I said, you will see. Watch across the next 10-15 years as the FCC guts the Internet. As it stands, the Internet is pretty much done for. It'll become another Government Hyper-regulated stagnate market where you'll be required to have a State-issued NSA Log-On ID and fill in forms and pay fees to open a FCC approved website. You'll need to 'demonstrate there's a need for such a website' (which is common for many business licences) and if you publish something that tarnishes the FCC or the Government, you'll have your ID revoked.
You just wait and see.
1
-
1
-
ckildegaard
I posted a link showing that ISP were not purposely slowing the internet. The empirical evidence is staring at you in the face.
The very fact that this information was available to the FCC showing they were not needed at all, AND yet these people running the FCC still (happily) accepted a new and powerful (profitable) role 'Regulating' the Internet - should at least give you pause for thought.
You do understand the State you worship is spending $600 billion dollars this year alone, fighting and losing a way it made-up? You do understand that 1 in 5 Government schooled Americans have a reading comprehension at the 6th grade level? (which explains a lot)
Anyway, being a State-bot, you cannot question your God. It's simply impossible.
So, you should instead try and image how frustrating it is for people like me, to have to be surrounded by 49.99% Theo-bot imbeciles and with the other 49.99% being State-bot imbeciles. As much as I cannot stand Religious superstition, I'll take it over State-worship any damn day of the week. State-bots have murdered 100s of millions of humans across the last 100 years.
Enjoy the FCC 'regulated' Internet along with the loss of freedom to interact freely with others in a free-market open space. That's what 6th grade level Idiocracy wanted, so that's what we get, because maybe, someday, possibly Shit-flicks may slow a little. And it only cost of our last free-market left on earth. You Regressives should be proud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Keith Voltaire
1) I find it interesting you claim that as societies become more complex, that more central force is required. I on the other hand think exactly the opposite is true. As societies become complex, it becomes harder for central authorities to model and manage said complex societies - which is why, as States become more 'socialistic' they simultaneously lose more liberty and privacy. It's one of the reasons we all must lose our right to privacy as the State's central planners attempt to model our behaviours. As this fails (and it always does) the State then restricts our behaviours. All of which is happening currently.
I have a tea cup sitting next to me. You don't need to see it, other than to know it's mine - I own it. How much is it worth to me? How can the State discover this? It can't. The ONLY way anyone, perhaps even me, can determine the value of my tea cup is if I'm allowed to trade it for a sound currency.
Thus, a free society with sound money is the most efficient means to maintain (and develop) a complex society. Not a central authority.
2) RE: The State (as defined by Max Weber, see Princeton University: .http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force.html)
*The monopoly on legitimate violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates) is the definition of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation, which has been predominant in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century.
It defines a single entity, the state, exercising authority on violence over a given territory, as territory was also deemed by Weber to be a characteristic of state. Importantly, such a monopoly must occur via a process of legitimation, wherein a claim is laid to legitimise the state's use of violence.*
--
Anyone can legally use violence in defence against aggression. ONLY the State can initiate force against an innocent person. Examples of State violence include income tax (labor tax) and drug laws. The first one is used to force workers to pay to maintain value of the State's fiat paper. When Chinese buy 30 year T-bonds - they're buying labor from children not yet born, let alone given a vote - which makes a mockery of democracy. When Rx monopoly was given to the AMA, it initiated the legal use of force against everyone attempting to take ownership of their own body - this small act of violence of the State has ended up in the largest prison population in history as well as hellishly violent inner cities that would make bootleggers look like angles, not to mention ruined healthcare. Currently 480,000 Americans die each year due to medical error. Up from 90,000 in 1990.
Violence doesn't work in ANY society. Larger State is a return to the jungle. Government is ANTI-society. It's a return to might makes right.
The State is by definition immoral. Public institutions are based on violence. Private enterprise on the other hand is virtuous. Because the ONLY way a private group of people can interact with you is by your voluntarily agreeing to do so. Apple Inc is the largest corporation in the world, yet you feel no fear at telling them to piss off and buying Samsung. Try that with a police officer or the IRS. You'll quickly see the difference between Private and Public.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
vedant varma LOL
Most people agree with all politicians, that's WHY they're politicians.
Politician: Free education for everyone, housing for the poor, drugs off the street and a turkey in every pot.
Electorate: Yay, we want that.
Reality: Government schools graduate functional illiterates in the USA at a rate of 1 in 5. Further, the average reading level in the USA for an adult is grade 6, those going to University is grade 7. Housing for the poor is welfare ghettos filled with violence and crime. Drugs are worse than ever and laws against them ushered in the prison industrial complex. FDA approves boiled in ammonia off cuts of snout, hooves, ear, ground together with bone meal and wood pulp with food coloring (pink slime look it up) but makes raw organic milk illegal and raids farms with guns.
Yes, I do agree with you, most people probably agree with Bernie Sanders. And? So what? They agree with most Politicians - it's why they're elected. They're bullshit artists. Bernie Sanders is no exception.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
vedant varma Greece is a socialist state.
As for Norway, it's an oil rich nation. Can 'socialism' work well while oil profits are rolling in? Sure. But only because non-oil rich nations have to pay for the oil and in exchange produce goods and services Norwegians enjoy. It's why the Norwegians use the Krone. Which is something to think about. Norwegians are so 'socialist' that they refused to joy the Euro and share their wealth.
Thus, "Socialism" doesn't even work in Norway. Norway is really Nationalist. If Norwegians really felt 'Socialism' was so wonderful, they'd share their wealth with the other Scandinavian countries. Something you may want to consider.
Oh, Norway (like the other Scandinavian countries) also doesn't have a State mandated minimum wage. My questions are:
1) Is NOT having a minimum wage "Socialistic"? You just gave Norway as an example of so-called "Socialism:, they don't have a minimum wage.
2) So, given Norway was your example, you'd also like to eliminate the minimum wage in the USA?
Yes, Norway does have a really great educational system. If we were to model ours on theirs, most Government schools would be shut down as inadequate and most Government school teachers would have to be fired as they wouldn't have the qualifications nor the aptitude to be a teacher. Are you in favor of firing 99% of the public school teachers in the USA? IF Bernie wasn't just a bullshitter, he'd say as much. Is he going to? No. DO you have any idea what the Teacher's Unions would do to him? If not out-right put a hit on him. So, no, don't expect Bernie to say anything other than we need to give more money to a failing system.
Note: Japanese spends less PER Student than the USA. Having a smaller or larger population has nothing to do with it. We spend about 20% more per student with MUCH LOWER outcomes (See: The 1 in 5 functional illiteracy rates of students who graduate from a Government "High" schools). Yes, Norway spends more, and they can afford to, they have a lot of oil.
Lastly, Norway is nothing like the USA in terms of people. They don't have the huge Government welfare ghettos. They don't have the massive regulations - in most ways, they're freer Capitalists than Americans. So are Japanese. While both Japan (where I've lived) and Norway are nothing like the USA socially. What works there does not work in the USA.
As an example: Japanese save a ton of money NOT having a Police State. Japanese kids can walk through any area of any city with no fear of being harmed. It's NORMAL in Japan to see school kids walking home. Japan has a ton of trains and this saves them a ton of money. The cities are close to one another. They work very hard and are very honest people. Japanese sit their iPhone on a table to 'save' their seat and go buy coffee knowing their phone will still be there.
No, the example from Europe that best represents the USA is Greece.
As for Bernie, he's no different than Obama - just full of bullshit. If he wasn't, he'd have attacked the Teacher's Unions decades ago as this is the single biggest problem in the USA. He'd have attacked regulations in the USA as this is the second largest problem. He doesn't, because he knows he'll be kicked out of office the next day. So, like any other politician, he bullshits the public with airy fairy "Socialism" and other magic thinking nonsense.
There's no magic bullet. Electing a person as a Civil Servant, POTUS or otherwise, is NOT going to fix anything. We need LESS public servants and more personal freedom - particularity monetary freedom and freedom to trade (free trade). We also need freedom FROM Government schools (see: Charter Schools).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
boutchie06 People like Bernie are the reason we're in the mess we are in. Outside of electing God herself, no politician is going to give you what you want.
No one.
1) Manufacturing
Bernie isn't going to stop the jobs from going to China, because Americans WANT their cheap throwaways made in China or other cheap nations. Putting up a tariff may mean you pay $2000 for an iPhone, and then Americans stop buying as many smart phones. It doesn't mean Apple will open a plant here to make phones. That is asinine.
Those kinds of jobs are NOT coming back. It's that simple. Has Bernie made this clear to you?
2) Education
Government has a near-monopoly on education. Our $100 billion a year DoED itself has released statistics showing 1 in 5 of its own graduates are functionally illiterate after 12 YEARS of 'education'. The average reading level of a college freshman is 7th grade. The average reading level of an American adult is 6th grade. Has Bernie made it clear that we need Charter Schools and to end Teacher's Unions? No.
We could go on, but why bother? What you really like about Bernie is he treats you like children. He tells you what you want to hear. He blames the right people using simple analogy that simple minded people like to hear. Usually slips a 'Government is failing the middle class' and then it's yes yes yes, I agree, yes.
Re: Anime all day. I'd love to watch Anime, at least part of the day. But, I'm too busy to do that.
Re: Big Pharma. LOL. Yeah, that's what 'Big Pharma" does with it's time and money? Hahaha... lay off the Alex Jones. That aside, do you have ANY idea how much time and effort and money it costs to bring a drug to market? No. You don't. I do agree pharmaceuticals seem to be morphing into pill pushers, working with many AMA licensed GPs.
8 Years ago half of you were waving your flags for Hillary. What happened? She didn't turn out to be a 'Real' Progressive. Speaking of which, how'd Obama turn out? Or what about Bill 'I like raping my interns' Clinton? He signed deregulation into Law - he Progressive enough? You're no different than the Religious Conservatives who voting that idiot Bush I and II into office. Exactly the same. Haha... they'll probably vote for that idiot with the toupee. Good ole' 6th grader America.
1
-
dm9910 1) The European country you're looking for is Greece, not the Scandinavian countries. We are nothing like Scandinavia.
2) Communism is NOT full of good ideals or ideas. It's immoral. The underlying premise of Communism is the use of State violence against innocent humans 'for the good of Society'.
Communism is an oxymoron.
It should be noted here that Progressive Socialism is the SAME in this regard. The underlying premise is to use violence to take from one group of people and give to another group of people. It is, by definition, immoral.
3) Communism wasn't undermined by greed. Communism doesn't and did not work because there's no price mechanism. Therefor it's impossible to have the information needed to produce the goods and services needed. This has nothing to do with greed. As a matter of fact, personal disposition has nothing to do with it.
4) Chinese factories are NOT slave labor. But what was slave labor, was Communist farms. China will soon be the richest nation in the world. Two decades ago, Socialist Chinese were starving to death. Now Capitalist Chinese have a problem with too much food - obesity. It should be noted Chinese bought 1 in 4 properties in the USA in 2014.
Chinese line up around the block at a chance to work in a factory like FoxComm and here's a FACT, the suicide rate in comparable industries in the USA is HIGHER than in China.
Here's another FACT. The USA spends more than most countries on education and the DoED itself released data showing 1 in 5 (20%) of Government high school graduates are functionally illiterate.
You go on ahead and vote for Bernie the Bullshitter. I honestly would LOVE to see hom elected for 8 years. So that, finally, after 16 years of failed Statism, Americans might be forced to face up to reality.
When that happens, remember this: The solution is MORE freedom. Not less. More.
Freedom to trade INSIDE the USA
Free markets INSIDE the USA
An end to Labor tax.
Elimination of most regulations and replacement with simple Law that protects property (body and land).
Sound money.
Until then, enjoy WWIII or whatever never ending War our Progressive Socialists on the LEFT and RIGHT drum up for us.
1
-
1
-
dm9910 Preface: I believe most people (not all) want the same things. A rewarding life, security, love. You think using State violence is the way (i.e: Progressive Socialism). I don't. You're in luck. We're going YOUR way. We have been for over 100 years. Let's see where we end up. Oh, and just remember. The Police State you see springing to life all around us - that's the force needed to provide for Progressive Socialism. Don't forget that.
1) "Your opening statement is ad hominem". Hey, we can agree. That doesn't mean it isn't true.
2) Re: Kant
I didn't say anything about 'justified' I said 'immoral'. Kant uses the word 'justified' because the action of stealing is immoral. Of course Kant also believed the only society we could live in is an immoral one because he couldn't imagine how humans could live morally. So, instead of using google, try reading Kant.
3) "Taxation" isn't always immoral. Gas tax is voluntary, paying a toll is voluntary, paying to enter a fair is voluntary. Being forced to work for someone as a slave is involuntary (example: Progressive Income/Labor tax) thus it is by definition immoral. If you think it's 'Justified' - then that's your 'opinion', it's still immoral. I'm sure plenty of Slave owners 'justified' Slavery (See: Thomas Jefferson). It's still immoral.
4) No, you are insane to think that free people will go on a rampage and murder and rape. Unfree, enslaved people do this when there is a break down in system that rules over them. As an example see your own example of Zimbabwe or closer to home, New Orleans.
Freedom is NOT the same as free-for-all. Free people have Law and a police to enforce it. You simply don't understand what freedom is. Just like you don't understand what immoral and moral means. You also don't understand what valid or sound, cogent or strong means. My guess is you simply want to 'believe'. You want to hope that someone, preferably in the position of 'alpha male' (see: Pope, God, POTUS, King, Emperor, whatever) is going to fix everything for you. You'll get out our Made-In-China flag and wave it for Bernie, just like all the other zombies. Well, it's simply not going to happen. Sorry.
Take a good look at Detroit or Greece. This is the end result of the Progressive oxymoron that thinking the use violence against innocent people is 'justified'. Enjoy our hyper-regulated Progressive Police State. Where we need a State licence to cut hair, sell arranged flowers, fix a PC. Where we have to pay the State to work. Where we have never ending Wars. Where the Progressive Central Bank sells T-bonds on you and your children's labor to bail out the Banking criminals stealing the most. So, again, take a good look at Detroit or Greece. This is the end result of Progressive Socialism.
You'll see.
1
-
1
-
C/Gw You stated you want to use State coercion to redistribute other individual human's private property. That is, by definition, immoral. Using violence (of any kind) against innocent people is immoral. It's why "Progressive" Socialism is an Oxymoron. Violence against innocent people is NOT "Progressive" and is actually ANTI-social.
Try and 'justify' the initiation of violence any which way you like. By definition, it is immoral. There's no "Argument" here. It's a definition. Taken as axiomatic.
Further, I gave you an out - as in offering the option of instead non-violently creating money as needed (as an example: See Bitcoin). Then leaving it up to free people to decide IF and WHEN they choose to use that money. But you don't like that do you? No. You prefer to steal. You'll call it 'Tax' and make yourself feel good. But in the real world it's actually stealing. Thus, the only person here who's attempting to make a false argument is you. If you find my pointing this out to you insufferable, good. It's still the truth.
Oh, and your misuse of the word 'freedom' to suggest 'free for all' is, quite frankly, disturbing. There's a reason why the US Constitution was written, and that reason was to LIMIT government. In addition, the first 10 amendments were to further protect us FROM government. Not the rich. Not the British. Not cheaply made Chinese goods. Not internet providers. But from the US Government itself. A lesson it appears society must learn once every 250 years or so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Simon Mortensen The USA is NOT a free-market. The USA is hyper-regulated.
Depending on the State, you will be required to obtain a State licences to cut hair, sell flowers, drive a taxi, fix a computer, sell BBQ chicken, etc... etc... etc... The USA has some of the biggest restrictions on starting a company and pays some of the highest tax rates. A FREE society is (in a sense) Darwinian - it's a survival of the most empathetic and kindest. Why? Because in a free society you make money by selling to people the things they want, to be successful you have to understand what people want and figure out how to get it to them legally and without using violence (basically the opposite of State socialism which uses the State to force you into buying something or simply steals it from someone and gives it to you).
Anyway, you needn't worry. We are NOT getting more freedom. We're getting less freedom. And, we'll become poorer as a result. National Socialism here we come.
Let me just be clear: What I support is freedom, sound money and laws that protect private property and uphold contract. This means people must work with one another if they want society to advance - because they are not able to use the State to steal from those around them (which is how Socialism works and why it fails).
1
-
Simon Mortensen I didn't say in a Darwinian society full-stop. I said in a Free society. As in, the freedom to trade with people with sound money and within the law. In other words, a FREE market. In a free market there is a 'Darwinian' aspect to the people who succeed. The people who succeed are those people who provide other people with what they want, thus other's WANT to do business with (trade with) them. Examples would be Apple, Google, Toyota, Ben and Jerry's, etc....
Socialism OTOH is the use of State violence against innocent people who happened to, through no fault of their own, be born a Citizen of a country at a particular time and place. At the center of "Socialism" is violence. Violence against innocent people. It often goes hand in glove with Nationalism.
If I do not want to buy an Apple phone, I'm FREE not to. If I do not want to pay a tax on my hourly wage to the State, and I keep working - I can be imprisoned and even shot. That is NOT socialism - THAT is the "Darwinism" you referred to. With the State playing the part of Predator and Citizens the role of Prey.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Simon Mortensen Let me make sure I have your position correctly: You're against giving a select few the opportunity to be too powerful in society, and therefor you want to give a select fewer even more power to ensure this doesn't happen? That doesn't make sense.
In a FREE society, 'powerful people' either serve the needs of society, or they go bust. In our society, they get bailed out by the Governmental Political Elites who wield much more power. The Democratic Socialists always bailout the Crony Capitalists because that's who pays the bill.
As an example: The Koch brothers have about $ 120 billion. That's a lot of money and power. But get this, they also provide people will a lot of goods and services - including high paying jobs. And if they don't keep provinding society with goods and services, they would have gone bust. Now compare with the DoED. It has about $80 billion - that it spends each year. Each year. That's the lifetime of wealth the Koch brothers, and it's spent in a year. What do we get? Well, the average reading level in the USA is grade 6, the average incoming university freshman reads at grade 7/8 and 1 in 5 (20%) of Government school graduates are functionally illiterate. This is LOWER than it was in 1910. Oh, and as for pedagogical innovation ... there is none. NONE. ZERO. If anything Government schools get worse each year.
Also, the Government just BAILED OUT those elites you worry about. They're richer under Obama than at any point in HUMAN history, and getting richer.
So, if you want the powerful called to heel. Then you want MORE freedom and LESS government. Particularly, a LIMITED government that is not able to bailout crony capitalists. What you do NOT want is Democratic Socialism. It doesn't work. It just leads to Nationalistic Socialism. Which is where the USA is headed towards. Along with more Wars... never ending Democratic Socialistic Wars, like the War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Privacy, etc....
It's simple: Freedom (free-markets), sound money and laws that protect property and uphold contract. That's what's needed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Simon Mortensen
1) We both agree that the Government doesn't pay for anything itself, it only redistributes other people's wealth?
2) We also agree hospitals are not 'free'? Someone provides a service (say a nurse) and someone pays for the service.
I think these first two points are very important you get clear in your mind. The government doesn't create wealth - it redistributes other people's wealth. Medicine is not 'free'. Someone pays. If a tax is levied, then that item costs more. If it's an income tax, then the laborer has less money to spend. If it's GST, then the buyer pays more. If it's currency expansion, then everyone pays through inflation (which hurts the poor more than the rich). Nothing is 'free'.
3) Re: Go to jail.
And there you have Socialism in a nutshell. Violence. She's a morally innocent person. On top of that she made a medicine that saved lives! The government's use of violence against her is immoral. It may be legal, it may be the will of the people - it is still immoral. I happen to think a moral society is preferable to an immoral one. The initiation of violence against morally innocent people is immoral by definition.
Finland is oil-rich. I wouldn't compare them to the USA. A more accurate social democracy would be Greece. See Detroit as an example of Greek style socialism in the USA.
While we both want the same ends, I want to get there without resorting to violence whenever possible. See, I think providing the medicine is itself a virtue. I think it's great if that scientists keeps are her money. All that happens is it's put in a bank and lent out to other people in society. Which is a good thing and much more efficient than using a Police State to redistribute it. Money doesn't sit in vaults collecting dust. The majority of it is 0s and 1s. And the internal motivation of the person is irrespective. Who knows? Maybe she would have donated much of it to a charity? Or maybe most of it would be in stocks? Who cares? It's being put to use one way or another and it is HER property.
Now imagine if this woman was from a different country and she charged that same amount per pill. Well, now I'm sure you think she doesn't "owe" anything in tax - do you? That's the interesting thing about in-group normality bias. As soon as she's not in your 'country' suddenly she owes you nothing. Even if that country is only 0.1 mile away. Just down the street. Whereas if she lives 2000 miles away but in the same country - you feel she 'owes' you something and she should pay 'tax'. And you're even willing to use violence against her - and if she resists, the government, they'd kill her. That's sick. That is NOT pro-social.
That is ANTI-social.
If you want to know what's wrong with society, this is your answer.
1
-
Socialism: USA vs Finland and Norway
Finland has one of the world's best government run schools. The USA, could in theory attempt to replicate this pedagogy, but we do not. Why? Teacher's Unions. As a matter of fact, the ONLY schools that attempt to replicate the Finnish system are Private and Charter schools (both of whom are viciously attacked both through the media and even legal attempts to make it impossible for parents to even choose them!).
Also, look at Norway's sovereign wealth fund it is the largest in the world. Each citizen in Norway is (in theory) a millionaire. In the USA, each Citizen is born about $60,000 in DEBT obligations and these are expected to balloon 500% as the next generation retires with it's expected 'Social" benefits. Some States have passed Laws making it illegal for the voters NOT to pay these debt obligations (of course, Judges are directly the benefits).
Compare the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund with the oil revenues in Alaska. Each Alaskan gets $1800 a year from the Alaska Permanent Fund. THAT is the American way. Not to save and invest, but to take now. Not to go without so that the next generation has more, but to sell Debt obligations (T-bonds and Municipals) STICKING the next generation with bills for goods and services LONG AGO GONE.
What works in the USA is Capitalism and free market private enterprise. Neither of which exists any longer. We don't save capital, but take on debt. Free markets are LONG GONE. You can't even cut hair without a State licence. In some States you need a licence to sell flowers or fix a PC.
We're not like the Finnish and Norwegians (and we don't sit atop an oil supply making us all millionaires). We are instead a broke nation of functional illiterates who haven't seen a free handout they didn't like. We are a nation of warmongers. And we're scared of our own shadow thus are happy to trade away our privacy and freedom for a police state and NSA.
National Socialists like Bernie Scammers can be expected to make huge political gains in the coming decades - IF history is anything to go by. Only a Demagogue claims they want to help the poor, while at the same time trying to prevent the poor (Chinese) from being lifted out of poverty. Bernie will BOTH claim the Chinese are 'stealing' your job AND are slaves in factories. Neither of which is true. Keep that in mind as his story begins to unravel leaving only the promise of 'free' government handouts. A message perfectly suited to the Americans voter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
imaginepeace63 And others were Jewish, Muslim, Animalists, Buddhists, Shinto, Hindo, RomanGrecco polytheists, Shaman, Taoist, and etc.... Yet, the people who ended Slavery were Christians, primarily white male Christian abolitionists in international trade hub England.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
joe jarden . RE:
"Unbridled capitalism leading to income inequality"
1) Why should I care about income inequality? I don't. Guess what, if you live in the USA, you're probably making much much MUCH MORE income relative to some poor peasant in Africa.... AND?!? So what? You're not stealing from them, you have nothing to do with them. The same is true for the USA.
Even stop to think about the Honda or Toyota families in Japan - does it matter to ME if they are rich? No, I couldn't give two flying figs. So long as they offer me a car I want at value - that's the END of our relationship. I'm not jealous of them, I couldn't care.
2) . Unbridled capitalism?!? What planet do you live on??? Certainly not Earth. Every f*cking aspect of our lives are regulated. From the Central Banks/Central Planners to the roads, food, drugs, beer, toilet paper, toilet height, water, even gawd damn marriage! There's NOTHING the State doesn't try to regulated in the USSA. . Unbridled capitalism my arse. Hell, in some States you need a State licence to sell Gawd damn arranged flowers!
....Unbridled capitalism what a f*cking joke. We live in a Progressive Socialist Nanny Welfare/Warfare State, and it's a shithole.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BramSLI1 You are insane and you have no idea what I do or do not believe. Yes, CEO's are paid a lot of money, many are probably paid too much. But, how can YOU know that? Do you sit on the board of directors? Do you run a company? So what if Steve Jobs was paid billions? What's it to you? If you buy Apple all that matter is if the product is worth your money or not. If you work at Apple, all you care about is your job. Therefor, the ONLY way we know is a CEO is paid too much is when they bankrupt their companies. As a matter of fact, the same is true of ALL employees. One last point you may want to consider, CEO's of publicly traded companies are often elected by shareholder, so it's up to them if that person is worth the money or not. What would it matter to you? If you work for Apple and you don't like how much the CEO is paid, the answer is easy, quit. Other than that, it has nothing to do with YOU personally. I'll give you another example. Do you know how much the Toyota family makes? Does it matter to you? No and No. But you can buy Toyota cars and trucks. What would it matter to you if the Toyota family makes $100 a year ot $100,000,000. It doesn't matter to you. Because you have no idea what you are crapping on about. You're just reiterating who that douche Sanders told you to blame. That's HOW he gets elected. Other than hot air, Sander has never actually produced anything in his life.
1
-
Rusty Mckee Slave Labor, what an oxymoron. You mean like the Chinese? The Chinese who are getting rich? China, who will soon be a richer nation than the USA. I find it funny that in one side of your mouth you crap out one-liner's like Slave-Labor and out of the other side of your mouth you whine those same Slaves are stealing all of the good jobs. Your argument is literally a joke. Surely you can see how Chinese are not BOTH Slave-Laborers AND becoming immensely rich AND stealing your jobs. Now, let's stop and think about what it means to be a Slave, seeing as in you like to abuse this term. A Slave is FORCED to work, in China, Chinese stand in LONG LINES at the opportunity to work in a factory. No one is a Slave-Laborer in China or in the USA. Secondly 'Stealing Jobs'. Um, no. Someone wants to buy labor and other people want to sell labor. The Pizza Hut that moves in is NOT stealing business away from Subway, people are voluntarily spending their money. Thus, as you can see, you need to go and read a book and stop listening to lying politicians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BramSLI1 Care to name some so-called 'Free-Markets'? They certainly do not exist anywhere in the USA where 30% of the occupations require a licence and the other 70% are heavily regulated. And where the regulation is the most, the markets are the most crony and corrupt, as an example see Finance (has the most regulations by number) and Health Services (runs neck and neck with Finance and may take #1 position depending on the year). In the USA where selling raw milk, that humans have drank for 1 million years, is illegal but selling Pink Slime made of ground snout, hooves, skin, teeth, ears and tail mixed with wood pulp, died pink is 'Regulated' as safe to eat 'food'.
As of now, the ONLY place we see semi-free markets is the Internet, and it's probably the best place for someone to attempt to start a business and get anywhere in life. All the other markets are so hyper-regulated that I wouldn't waste my time bothering with them unless you have a very highly in demand skill and/or the money to buy off politicians / Regulators / Law-Makers in your favor.
So, again, please name this time and place where these FREE markets exist. It certainly isn't in the USA for the last 115 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
RE: Robber Barrons. So, let's clearly state the argument. In the 1800s a few Americans got lucky and capitalized on the second industrial revolution and got rich providing other Americans with goods and services. Like electricity, radios, trains, planes and automobiles. Okay, so their crime was they GASP got rich.
Now, let's compare that 'Crime' of the GASP Robber Barron's against today's HYPER REGULATED MARKETS. You know, the ones where you need a licence to cut god damn hair, to legally marry someone, to sell alcohol, to drive a cab and in some states to sell arranged flowers. You know, where selling raw milk will send you to prison but selling FDA Regulated Pink Slime is A-Okay. The one where the State makes our currency by fiat and then charges us an income tax to use it - forcing us to us it. THIS ONE. Let's see now. HAS 100 years of REGULATION WORKED for us? The richer are even RICHER!!! They'd make those Robber Barron's blush they're so god damn rich. The mansions of a Robber Barron wouldn't house the cleaning staff for these rich f$ckers. AND get this, 2015 was a RECORD BREAKING year for number of regulations - how's it working out??? Why don't YOU apply YOUR same god damn logic? If you didn't think free-markets worked in the 1800s because a few guys got rich, well that isn't shit compared to what the Regulated-Markets and the State have done in the last 100. Korean War ring a bell? How about napalm set alight and dropped on children over Vietnam? How about the phony war on terror that has killed a million children in Iraq? NSA wire tapping? And you have the god damn GALL to sit over their and whine about a few fat rich old industrialists over 100 years ago!? Give me a f*cking break.You are clueless.
No wonder Sanders wins the likes of you over to his side, all he has to do is off you Moar Free. Because, at the end of the day, that's really all it is for people like you. You sit there and say Robber Barrons 'proves' free-markets can NEVER EVER work while Regulated Markets have literally destroyed entire civilizations. 100s of million of humans have died due to State regulations. Oh, but but but, Robber Barron's got rich. The Ford Family was rich. The Rockefeller's made some money. Jesus H Christ, what load of crap are they teaching at Universities now-a-days. Not like I'd know, I'm only a doctor, but hey, you have an undergraduate in business. While I was doing Physical Chemistry you were probably playing cards and watching TV.
And, if you made it this far, I'll end on this note. LOOK UP the word Argument, because you don't appear to have a clue what that word means. I'll clue you in, there's two big families, deductive and inductive, try not confusing them next time you attempt to make one.
Good Day
1
-
1
-
Heads Tails You listed crony capitalists of the 20th century. Robber Barron's refers to Industrialists of the 1800s. Two totally different groups of people. Do I think removing regulations that protect crony capitalists and provide regulatory-capture for rent-seekers by replacing them basic common LAWS that protect property right and contract? Yes, that's correct. As an example: FDA regulates ground pig snout, hooves, skin, tail, anus, hair, boiled in ammonia, mixed with filler (wood pulp) and dyed pink as FOOD and raw milk as POISON. You understand how insane this is? Today, thanks to regulatory capture (primarily Rx) by the AMA, we have the largest population of non-violent humans in prison (Drug War) AND at the same time a heroin epidemic! Oh, and medicine is now the most expensive its ever been - due to AMA enforced limitations on supply side of the curve. Oh, and to boot, Government Regulated Medicine now has Medical Error as the #2 reason you will die in the USA. How's that for 'Regulations'? You do understand out Regulators BAILED OUT the criminal bankers and then fed them trillion MORE in money. And that doesn't even begin to mention the MIC. You'd literally have to be insane to think Government Regulated markets are in ANYWAY better than free-markets, lawful markets. Notice I said LAWFUL. We were NOT an anarchy in the 1800s and we would not be one if we had free-markets. Yes, some people got rich - so what? No where near as rich as the crony crooks of today's hyper-regulated markets.
1
-
Rusty Mckee The only person who doesn't live in the real world is you Statists. Here's some facts: In 2015 the US Government passed the most regulations ON RECORD. The US Government has invaded numerous countries and killed millions of innocent people and is doing so again, today, over phony made up reasons. They did it in Vietnam and did it again in Iraq (WMD). The US Government is the largest polluter in history. The US Government consumes the most energy in the world. The US Government imprisons the most non-violent humans in all of history. We imprison MORE total humans than China, and China has 1.3 billion people AND is Communist. So, again, it is YOU people that do not live in the real world.
A few more FACTS you can look up. The two most regulated markets by number of regulations written are finance and healthcare. Oh, and geee, which are the two most broken markets? Finance, which is in the process of destroying society, and healthcare, which is now the number #2 reason you will die in the USA, Medical Error - feel free to look up that Stats.
In addition, I have lived in 5 different countries. And by lived, I mean, LIVED. Not visited, not attended school at, but lived in. Some in the West, some in the East. The problems we face are due to Governments - ALL Governments. How do I know? Because they arise in Government that do not have Congressmen and POTUS and they arise in societies where there are no Koch Brothers to blame.
1
-
BramSLI1 We need a Bernie Sanders. Jesus H Christ we Americans have become so f#cking pathetic. You remind me of an Iranian I knew who said, The Ayatollah is trying his best it's just bla bla blah. Seriously, you sound like her. Or a Chinese I knew who just knew Dear Leader was trying his best - if only he had some help from blah blah blah....
News Flash, thanks to the DoED regulated Government Schools 1 in 5 (20%) of Americans graduate from high school FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE. You do understand that electing Bernie Sanders will do NOTHING to change this. His wife is part of that problem by the way, and she has done NOTHING to fix it. How do we know? Again, look up the DoED own stats on functional illiteracy rates. If anything he'll make it worse. You do understand that Government regulated healthcare is f&cked. More regulations are not going to fix it. Take a look at Government run welfare ghettos - you think Sanders is going to magically fix State sponsored generational dependency?? The Government created the problem and you want it to now fix it?! Are you insane.
You Statists are no different from Theists. Seriously, the only difference is you worship the State. Instead of Bishops you praise your Senators. Instead of the Pope you pray to the POTUS.
Yes, let's hope Sanders is elected, maybe he can fulfill his promise to turn the USA into that Democratic Socialistist Progressive Utopia Sweden he's always crapping on about. The quicker Progressive Socialists sink this economy, the quicker those of us who will fix things ourselves can to work. So, yes, vote Sanders.
It should be noted, if you go to Sanders website, most of his list (pretty much every item) is MOAR FREE. Free free free.... how pathetic. It seems to get elected in the USA today, all you need to do is promise free stuff. What you will NOT see on his website is ending Teachers Unions, make it easier for common people to access Private Schools, ending the AMA, or anything else that might change things over the long run. The problems we face will require at least 3 decades to fix, just to give you a clue as to the magnitude of the problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rusty Mckee One major reason why the private sector is more efficient right now is because they do not have to deal with austerity cuts" HAHAHA.... yeah, because they EARN their money. But, the solution is simple, sell off your Governmental Services TO the Private Sector. See how simple it is? IF what you say is true, and you are providing value for money, then you will continue to do so in the PRIVATE FREE MARKET. It really is THAT simple. If you DO provide a valued service, and maybe you do, then you will continue to do so through making GASP a profit selling said service. It means people in society WANT you to keep doing what you're doing and are willing to pay you to keep doing so. This is why we NEED Privatization - which also means, no need for you to worry about CONgress, because you"ll be working directly for the people you claim to want to serve.
As for your allegation that if schools were private then ONLY the rich would learn - again, you are clueless. The 1910 US Census showed in a Chicago Suburb African Americans had a literacy rate of 85% in 1910. This is without Government Schooling. Why? Because African's THEN valued learning to read and write and wanted to better themselves and the lives of their children. The 2010 census showed this SAME neighborhood, these are the great grandkids kid, THEIR literacy rate was under 50%. Again, you turd, you are wrong. The facts show you are wrong. Government Schooling does NOT work. Unless you call 1 in 5 functional illiteracy "working". You can look up the data for yourself. Unlike in 1910, Africans in 2010 can just get on generational Welfare, there is no NEED to improve. Raising children is tough work, why do that when Progressive Democrats are willing to foot the bill.
Lastly, taxing does NOT increase the supply of good and services you dolt. Taxation only redistributed existing goods and services. As an example, the DoED spends more than the Koch Brothers lifetime earning in a single year and have nothing to show for it. You keep thinking we need more tax money - News Flash Sherlock, the Government raised over a TRILLION dollars this year. The US Government has NO problem raising capital. Jesus, are you completely clueless? The Government has MORE than enough money. One more time, taxation does NOT increase goods and services, it redistributes those that exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
Sure, there are a teeny minority of people who would happily pay a plumber to do brain surgery on them. Yes, the world is full of complete morons and yes I support you/them being free to be that level of stupid - preferably before you/they breed. That's just part of living in a free society. As for the rest of society, namely hospitals and insurance companies, we'll require a certification of competence to tender for brain surgery.
Note: I wonder why electronic companies never hire plumbers to do complex computer coding? Geee, and without any State requirement to only hire people with State certifications somehow GAAASP the free market is able to align goods and services with customers to produce $150 super computers that fit in my pocket.
While the current system sees the AMA (a private fraternity) with a near total monopoly (thus quality is low and price is high), in a free-market more certification options (example: DO and others) will drive quality up and price down.
Oh, and by the by, you are indeed free to walk over the magic State line and have surgery elsewhere in the world by people without USA regulated medical background. In many instances for a much lower cost and much higher quality of care. Japan is a good example of this.
One more time, healthcare IS the MOST regulated market in the USSA. It has the most regulations. No other market is more highly regulated than healthcare. And as a result we have extremely crap outcomes (400,000 Americans an KILLED each year due to medical error in our State-regulated medical care)
1
-
1
-
*****
I don't think you understand what logic is. You don't seem to be making a logical argument and your premises are unfounded therefor your conclusions are unsound.
As an example, you state the 'clusterfuck' we had prior to Obamacare was due to lack of regulatory enforcement - this is not true, further, the added regulations are NOT making us safer. Empirically, the data shows there were 90,000 deaths due to medical error in 1990 and with the addition of millions of more regulations the deaths due to medical error are now 450,000. The 'clusterfuck' (as you say) is due to (a) too many regulations (b) AMA monopoly (c) regulatory capture and rent-seeking.
Again, you're showing your ignorance, regulation is being used to maintain profits. It's the exact opposite of your presumption (that regulation is to bring down costs). One more time, regulations are there to keep profits high. As an example: cities in the USA are restricted on how many hospitals can be opened. IF it's determined (by people using the system to make money) that a new hospital will impact on the profitability of an existing hospital - then the State will refuse a new hosptial from opening. The same is true of all sorts of medical care. The number of fMRI that can opened in a city is also limited. LIMITED - to maintain profit.
Summary, the reason why medicine costs to much is due to State-enforced regulatory capture by the AMA to maintain it's rent-seeking.
I promise, more regulation, ObamaCare or otherwise, will see that 480,000 dying per year going up to a million.
You'll see. Much like you think you understand what 'logic' means, you'll find out you don't - and you also don't understand medicine and how regulations is making it more expensive and more dangerous. The problem is IMO, people like you are allowed to vote. You 'think' you understand something and you think you should have your say. But in reality, you don't really understand anything and having your say with 'your' logic is the very last thing we need as a society. Therefor, limited government and free-markets are the only solutions to people like yourself.
It's not that you are intentionally trying to destroy society, it's just what you do. You like to think you know much more than you actually do know and that makes you, when in aggregate, dangerous to the rest of us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joshua J Free trade with Asia has pulled millions of hard working Asians out of poverty and at the same time given millions and millions of Americans higher standards of living by producing electronics cheaply ushering in the internet age. If Asians weren't making smart phones, and they were made here in the USA, they'd cost thousands of dollars and most poor would never afford them.
As for why the poor are left with crappy low end jobs. Well, that's pretty easy to answer. Government schools are next to useless. As a matter of fact, the DoED found 1 in 5 American graduates are functionally illiterate. Further, the DoED found the average American reads at the level of a 6th grader. Next, thanks to Progressives like Thom, there's sooooo many millions and millions and millions of regulations making it impossible for poor functionally illiterate Americans to open up their own businesses. Thus, they have only two choices, work at McDonald's et.al. or go on to Government Welfare. Just think, if we didn't have a central bank, and didn't have minimum wage, and a trillion regulations, maybe all those jobs would have stayed in the USA?
The American middle class has spoke, when given the opportunity, they'll buy made in Japan, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan etc... over made in America. The only thing a tariff's do is prevent free Americans from purchasing the items they want. And what they want is made in China.
Notice Japan and Germany are still able to compete. That's something to think about.
Let me ask you this, in the next decade, we'll have 3D printers that put most Chinese out of a job, as we'll be able to produce anything we want in our own homes. Are you going to suggest this is going to make us poorer? Because, a cheap Asian making stuff for next to nothing, is pretty much like a 3D printer.
1
-
1
-
thrisbt1 Voting for anyone who promises to redistribute other people's money for the 'good of society' is a waste of time.
What exactly has Bernie Sanders himself done that doesn't involve taking other people's money and spending it? I mean, that's a god damn good gig if you can get it. Has Bernie inventing anything? Discovered anything? Created anything of note other than increased taxes and more paperwork? Has he created any successful businesses? Or is he a career bullshitter?
Politically, has Bernie taken on the Teacher's Unions? Has he radically tried to change the broken system that is Government schooling? I'm not talking about throwing money at Union officials, I'm talking total reinvent education? Nope, No, and No. Is Vermont reducing regulations to make it easier for the poor to open businesses? Nope. How about reducing income tax? Nope.
Bernie Sanders is successful at one thing, and only one thing - spinning bullshit people want to hear. It generally goes like this: Yes, I agree with you. Yes, you are right. The Government is failing the middle class. Yes, I'm here to take from the rich and give everything and anything you want. Free education? Done. Free healthcare? Done. Free University. Done. Free roads. Free internet. Free free and more free. Oh, and we'll stick it to the rich while we're at it.
As I said before, I'd be happy if Bernie won. 8 years of more failed Progressive bullshit and maybe people might start to get it. Probably not. More than likely we'll have to sink into 3rd world nation status with a banana republic dictator before Americans get that what made America prosperous was a LIMITED government.
Maybe we'll move back to Japan. Japanese generally agree on two things: politicians are full of crap and American politicians are a joke. It's also a much freer country in many respects. Progressives don't make much headway in Japan as Asians in general don't buy into airy fairy bullshittery.
1
-
Joshua J
Free trade with China has benefited much more than the 'corporate elite', it's pulled hundreds of millions of poor working Chinese out of poverty (a poverty caused by central planning I might add. The same sort of central planning that's leading to our lower standard of living). Chinese aren't making us 'poorer' because they're taking our jobs, they're actually propping up our standard of living by offering us extremely high value electronics for next to nothing. Just imagine, a super computer that fits in your pocket, and as soon as a new model comes out, Americans just toss the old super computer into the trash bin.
Corporations probably will move their operations to a cheaper country. And they'd have to. Or they go bankrupt. Not because THEY are greedy, but because Americans want the best of everything and they want it for next to nothing. Blame the middle class American consumer for the need to make everything so cheaply. They COULD have supported made in America, but they don't want to. Free trade simply shows the true face of America. Which is the price we pay for living in a free society. People are free not to buy made in America. Further, many Americans have the entire retirement dependent on stocks. Hundreds of millions of Americans REQUIRE that corporations turn a fat profit and if they don't, the CEO is quickly fired.
I personally make a distinction between making a profit (which is virtuous) and spoils (which is stealing, indirectly or otherwise). If you open a cafe and make a profit (be it a chain or otherwise) and you're competing in a free market, then this means you're providing people with something they want without threatening them in the process. That's virtuous. If you were not making a profit, that'd be a signal to you, people do not want what you are selling - regardless of your good intentions, or ill intent. That's the reason we need profit in a free market.
I didn't understand why you said small business need help from the government and then say you support crowd sourcing. Those are mutually exclusive statements. What we need is deregulation to make it fairer to compete. Just look at the Taxi scam as an example. Taxi's are small businesses, but as soon as Uber came along and offered competition, many ran straight to government trying to outlaw this competition - which has happened in some places via 'regulations'.
The only viable solution is to eliminate government's role in regulating the markets.
It seems to me that you're hung up on 'money' and 'jobs'. You suggest 3D printing is both going to put everyone out of a job AND at the same time bring on the Great Depression? This makes no sense. People do not 'have' to work and money is only a means of transaction. For example, if we have solar energy and 3D printers and recycling centers, then yes, there won't be as many jobs. That's a good thing, it means we can spend more time doing things of leisure. Life therefor is better - and the end goal is no one works at all and there's no need for money. Right now we live in a time when people toss supercomputers in the trash because they don't look nice, so, minus the State starting WWIII, we have a bright future IF we can return to free trade / free societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rusty Mckee Welcome to the end result of Progressive 'Socialism'. Of course we are worked to death - it costs a ton of money to pay for all the governmental 'free' services we are 'entitled' to. Particularly when it comes to the Federal Government bailing out the richest 0.1% crony so-called 'capitalists' that run our country.
In a FREE society competition FOR labor ensures wages remain high. I've personally witnessed this. We don't live in a free society. We live in a hyper-regulated society, thus, demand for labor remains low - and will continue to remain low until we admit we have a problem with too much government. Which isn't going to happen.
Then there's the trillions and trillions wasted on the Government's wars. Next comes the Federal Register which churns out approximately 80,000 pages of fine print regulations every year. This regulatory order is cumulative. Most of these regulations stay on the books. They are not repealed by the bureaucrats; they are amplified by new rules.These regulations are primarily aimed at protecting market players and locking out competition.
Imagine, today you can be fined for letting your children sell lemon-aid. THAT'S how 'free' the markets are in the USA. While you'd go to jail for selling open BBQ chicken without a licence, your neighbor can open a State 'regulated' tacobell and sell boiled in ammonia pig hooves, tail and bone meal mixed with HFCS, filler and food coloring. You know, because the Government wants to make sure we're "safe".
Why are we working to death? The DoED costs nearly $100 BILLION a year. What do we get for our money? Institutionalized 'education' where 1 in 5 graduates are functionally illiterate. They graduate with a degree in uselessness, barely able to read and write, little practical knowledge into hyper-regulated markets where they'd go to prison for selling unlicensed lemon aid.
Yes, the corporation of the USA is a huge problem - one the Government perpetuates. And will continue to perpetuate regardless of WHO is elected. Do you think Bernie Sanders is going to do a god damn think to decrease sales at Walmart? No way. Walmart is paying the lion's share of the taxes to the Government - which Bernie thinks is fantastic, because he's going to magically redistribute 'money' and this will someone make all our lives better.
Americans are addicted to Government. And, in this case, we'll have to hit rock bottom before MAYBE we'll admit we have a problem and do something about it. I'd say, in another 40 years of so. Give or take a decade or two.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rusty Mckee So you'd prefer to let millions of Chinese children starve to death? Is that your solution? No one in the USA is starving to death. Americans are, in reality, fat. 80% of Americans have air conditioning in their homes. Americans in the bottom 15% live in homes that are larger than the middle class in France. You have a distorted view of what's real.
The jobs ARE going overseas. There is no stopping that. Just as tractors replaced low skilled labor, Chinese are replacing low skilled Americans. One day 3D printers will replace Chinese.
And our standard of living is rising. We live in an age where Americans toss away old smart phones like trash because they want a new 'look'. We have access to ultra cheap electronics. People aren't starving in the USA, they're getting fatter. Food is plentiful. Education is nearly free and higher education has guaranteed for anything through State loans and tons of scholarships. We are going to gain access to solar power cells (made in China) that will make our lives even better.
If you have a high level skill, getting a good paying job in the USA isn't that difficult. Engineering, writing computer code, law, medicine, biotech, etc.... if you have a low skill, then you are not getting a high paying job in the USA any longer. Primarily because other Americans do not want to buy your stuff. They prefer made in China. It's that simple. You can try to restrict what other Americans can or cannot buy, but it won't work. They'll vote for the person who is giving them a cheap iPad not a job making a cheap iPad. It's called Democracy.
I personally have only bought 1 thing at Walmart (bag of pretzels). Not that I think they're a bad company, I just don't like their crappy products and their food is low quality. But Walmart makes its money serving the POOR. I've spoken to well connected people who suggest one reason the government gives Walmart subsidies is because Walmart does such a great job feeding the poor. While the Government on the other hand does a wonderful job creating poor. It's sort of a hand in glove relationship. That may or may not be true.
What is true is low skilled manufacturing is going overseas and when it comes back, it'll be in the form of a 3D printer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rusty Mckee Our entire monetary system was designed and implemented and voted into law by Progressives. Most notably Woodrow Wilson, he started the Progressive Party for Christ's sake. You saying there's been 'no Progressive in 35 years' is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The fact is Progressive Socialists are ALL we have - they come in two flavors, Fascist Corporatists and Fascists Socialists. Think of it like this, what is "Progressive" one day, is "Conservative" the next. A 100 years ago a Central Bank and taxing people by their Labor-hours was all new and "Progressive". Now it's unthinkable not taxing labour-hours and not having a central bank. It's "Tradition".
As for the worker missing out on the gains in productivity. Like I said before, until Labor is in demand, then the price will continue to fall. You can use the State to force the price of low end labor up, but you can't make people buy it.
Anyway, we can agree the monetary system is completely unfair and no longer functional. I think the way to fix it is to limit government and maximize personal freedom (the entire foundation of our society) and you can think redistributing from one group to another using a Police State is going to fix it (the antithesis to the foundation of the USA). I can promise you, the only thing the Police State is going to do, is work for the highest bidder - which is NOT the middle class or the poor. We can see they did exactly this when they bailed out the richest 0.1% during the GFC.
1
-
marisafari Inflation should NOT be occurring. As we become more productive and can make things cheaper, the prices of these items should drop. Therefor the normal way the worker enjoys 'productivity' gains is by paying less for the items at the store.
The reason why we instead have inflation is (a) Central Banks cause inflation by expanding the money supply and (b) the Government NEEDS inflation to pay off it's T-bonds as well as municipals and their gawd awful bonds. In short, the Central Bank and Government work like hand in glove to maintain high inflation - because it benefits THEM.
Ask a Central Banker about deflation and they'll blabber on about how we 'need a magical 2% inflation' of no one would buy anything, which is asinine. Electronics have seen prices drop year after year and sell like hotcakes!
Anyway, as to your point about labor-hours. Labor-hours are just like anything else. If the supply is high, then the price is low. If the supply is low, then the price is high. To reduce the supply of labor-hours we need more entrepreneurs. But, thanks to 80 years of Progressive regulations and 100 years of Progressive Government Schools - all we have are laborers.
Just imagine, in the 1960s America was seen (from the outside) as a country of businessmen. Literally, EVERYONE wanted to open a business. THAT was the norm. Now everyone wants to get a 'good job' or a handout. Very few Americans want to start a business any longer. And I don't blame them. Who would? The better option is to get a 'good job' working for the Government - nice benefits, high pay, job security, holidays off, no weekends, etc... Not the way to a prosperous future.
1
-
1
-
Rusty Mckee RE: CEO's
Yes, I agree that CEO's are being overpaid. However, taxing CEO's wouldn't even cover a tiny amount of money spent by the State. As an example, the Koch brothers (a favorite target of the Progressive far Left) have about $100 billion following about 80 years of work from two generations. The DoED blows through $100 billion each and every year. The functional illiteracy rate of American high school graduates is 1 in 5. Each student costs around $250,000 to put through 12 years of education.
Yes, the CEO's are paid too much - tax them all you like. It isn't going to change the fact of failing American schools. All that will happen is the money will be taken from relatively productive people and given to relatively unproductive people, wasted, and nothing to show for it.
I'll give you an example from my own experience. The government gave a $10,000.000 grant to teach minorities at a medical school. I personally tutored the ONLY minority. I did so for free. That $10 million was spent refurbishing the administration building in about 3 months time. ZERO was spent on any minority students. Or how about the $120,000,000 spent on medical research - this equated to pretty much nothing. And those are small figures. Very small. The State can easily blow through $10 - 20 billion in a few months with absolutely zero to show for it. And get this, most of the time it makes the problems WORSE. That's a fact.
I noticed long ago that Progressives have a faith in the State that's only matched in belief by the far right conservatives. Which makes sense. History shows both the far right (Religious extremists) and far left (Communists) kill in the name of their faith at a rate pretty much not matched by any other ideology.
Progressive Socialists and Conservative fundamentalists are two sides of the same coin.
I don't think you have an idea as to how things really work in the real world. Yes, it's nice to blame the rich (and they do suck) but if you think the Government is any better, you have another thing coming. Public servants are much worse - and Government is a much bigger problem.
Bernie knows this to be the case. Yet he still peddles his bullshit. I find that somewhat interesting. And telling.
1
-
marisafari I like your idea on giving people a basic income. I'd like to see if giving an electronic coupon that had to be spent in 1 month (staggered randomly) wouldn't work a bit like a vote. As an experiment I'd like to see a lot of new currency devices tried.
As for the CEO being paid 300 times more - well, we have to assume yes, they are worth 300 times more. As an example, take Brad Pitt, he's paid 300x more than the stage hand and 3000x more than the extra. Is he worth all this extra pay? Yes. Which is why he's hired. Are ALL of the CEO's worth 300x more? Ask their employers, mostly the board. They'd say yes. Which is why they hired them as CEO. Is an Apple iWatch worth 300x more than a simple watch? Well, to the people who buy them it is.
I agree that the top 0.1% have too much power in society. The solution I put forward is to remove government from their grasp of power. If they didn't have governmental power, then in 2008 most of those 0.1% would be bankrupt. People like Warren Buffet would be part of the 99%, instead (thanks to Government) he's in the 0.00001%. Worse still, government distorts all aspects of society (see the Police State and the War on Terror).
No, what we need is LESS Government and then just let the rich fail, as they ALWAYS do without Government propping them up.
1
-
marisafari No one likes to see poor working day and night. But stop and think about this: Why are they working day and night? WHO is really at fault? When they offer their services to the public, no one wants to pay them more than a basic minimum amount. This is no different than you choosing to buy something like an apple instead of the banana. You're saying you favor the apple grower over the banana grower (as an example). Is ANYONE at fault? Is it your "fault" you prefer apples and not banana's? If the banana grower losses his job, is that your 'fault'?
In a free society people are free to buy and sell goods and services. This means people generally find something they are good at that people ALSO find of value. We don't live in a free society. We live in a regulated society. This means there's going to be a lot of poor that cannot find a regulated job. Reason TV had a really great interview with a man on the dole who WANTED to work, but didn't want to work at a FastFood Inc... so he opened a BBQ up in a parking lot in a run down part of town with a bunch of closed businesses. Within a year a saved 18,000! THAT is what happens when you allow for free trade. Of course, the State came in a destroyed his business because he didn't meet it's "Regulations" and get this, the Police actually STOLE his money. It took him 3 years in court and he only recovered $11,000.
The State IS evil. It can strangle you to death for selling a 0.50 cent cigarette. It wages trillion dollar wars against innocent people. It taxes you FOR working! By the hour! It just bailed out the top richest 0.01%. Anyway, the ONLY viable long term solution is a LIMITED government. Of course, people hate limited government because the State is the new religion. The POTUS is it's Pope and the Senators the Bishops. The people worship it. They love it. Thus, we'll all just have to get used to a lower standard of living, less personal freedom and a bloated evil State run by the rich for their benefit. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Dictator elected sometime in the next 40 years. Followed by a massive cull of the 'rich' as we shift far Left. I think a lot of Americans are going to be surprised to find out, they're part of the 'rich'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rusty Mckee I can see we agree on many points.
Okay, let me try this. It comes from Kant, and so it's not my opinion (more like a set of definitions). Kant was an Ethicist, he named four kinds of government:
1. Law and freedom without force (anarchy).
2. Law and force without freedom (despotism).
3. Force without freedom and law (barbarism).
4. Force with freedom and law (republic).
Notice that the most moral society, has a government without force - which is to say, has no government (anarchy). A republic is predicated on the use of force. While Kant believed Republic was the best suited for humans, he understood anarchy to be the most moral. Government is just a group of people no different than any other - including a corporation. With one exception, government can use force against innocent people. Corporations cannot.
Let's pick the largest corporation in the USA: Apple Inc. Compare Apple to the Government. Imagine if Apple calls you and says they want to talk to you. How do you feel? Maybe you don't mind the call? Maybe you tell them to piss off. Now, let's imagine the same person calls you, only they're from the IRS. How do you feel now?
Think about that.
Apple isn't harming you, it's serving you. Apple only survives IF it gives you things you want. The Government on the other hand couldn't give two craps about you. You will pay it, or you will be tossed in prison. You will do what it tells you to do. Your children will pledge themselves to it in it's Government schools. It will invade other nations, murder millions of people, and you will still pay for it. Like it or not. Not only this, but the Government controls the currency you must pay it in. That's insane amounts of power. Yet, you will support it. Why? I believe it is because you are (like me) an atheist. But almost everyone needs a superstition. It's built in the DNA.
Big God, Little State
Little God, Big State
Government must be limited, this is what the Framer's of the Constitution understood. Sadly, this was forgotten.
1
-
Rusty Mckee I've lived in four different countries: The USA and Japan being the two more similar and most dissimilar. I think all people have cognitive bias towards the tribe and they like to use the word 'we' when referring to it. I do it too. But, it's not true. There really isn't a 'we' per say.
I'd just reiterate, Anarchy has rule of law. Just no State. Anarchy would be your personal relationships with people. The rules in this case are often unwritten. Anarchy would also best describe your day to day shopping activities. You freely walk into a mall and buy and shop, but you're agreed to their rules upon entry of their private property. They themselves can employ secutiry and if you break their laws (shop lift, walk around without a shirt on, etc...) you can be forced off their property.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Anarchist, but I would be if I could be :) Who wouldn't? Anarchy is the end goal of a peaceful human civilization. We should be striving towards it.
Anyway, I'd just like to also point out, IMO the ingrediants for a prosperous society are:
Law (to protect private property and contract)
Sound Money (derived by a free market)
Free Market (this is to say free people)
Limited Government (mainly to ensure the law is upheld).
So, what would a society do with a corporation that's polluting it? Imagine you live down stream of a chemical company. Currently, regulations ensure that the 'regulated' amount of pollution can poison you and your family. I'm sure this is a reasonable amount. Even cars emit pollution. Well, in a free society, you'd probably already had a contract with the company ensuring the same. But, lets suppose you didn't. Then you'd sue. Your neighbors would be the jury. Guilt would be determined. IF truly guilty, then the company could be closed and the CEO jailed. Of course, maybe the company hired a lot of people in the town? Or, maybe the company is constantly being harassed by frivolous lawsuits making it hard to do business. In a free society, we'd have to deal with these issues in a civil manner. But, we decided not to do this. We went with 'regulations'. Which is to say we went with the Government and it's ability to use force against innocent people (recall that guilt could have been found without the use of regulation). Yeah, it's efficient - violence always is. But, in the end we pay the price for resorting to violence. At least that's how I see it. That price is the society we live in today.
What I'm saying is it isn't easy living freely, but it is possible. Corporations don't exist IF they don't produce things people want. And corporations WANT people to have money and be prosperous, because they only survive when people shop. I do agree some corporations are shitty (or appear so) but generally these go bankrupt in a free society because people (a) don't want their products or (b) don't want to work for them. It IS possible to deal with all of our problems with a limited government.
Currently our government is the largest most powerful (and IMO evil) entity to come into existence. It taxes us for working - by the hour! Did you know if government was the size it was in 1990 that NO ONE in the USA would have to pay an income tax on hourly wages? Did you know the USA government is the single largest polluter in the world? Just think of the trillions it wastes on it's wars. Or the trillions it spent bailing out the richest oligarchy in history - we're actually going to live through generational debt with a lower standard of living, on those two acts alone. ONLY the government has THAT kind of power. Which is why it needs to be limited.
But that's not going to happen. And it won't be for our benefit.
1
-
1
-
Rusty Mckee I'd also add, Kantian anarchy and republic, is how politicians define themselves. It's why it's legal for the State to pass a law making the sale of cigarettes illegal, and then hire a person to legally strangle you to death for selling a 0.50 cent cigarette without a State licence.
Actually, depending within which State you (through dumb luck) happen to have been born into and live in, you may or may not be able to legally drive a car, marry who you love, cut hair, sell BBQ chicken, smoke a weed, babysit, walk around with out a shirt on, send an email without it being intercepted and stored on a government computer for future use and etc...All of these actions may result in your being killed by the Police / militant arm of the State.
In 1919, Max Webter defined the State as having a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (monopoly on violence) in his book Politics as a Vocation. Weber describes the state as any organization of humans that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory (aka: a State).
So, while Dictionary.com may have a definition of what anarchy is, it's not the complete definition as used by social scientists and Ethicists for that last 300 years.
1
-
Rusty Mckee Kant defined lawless as Barbarism.
So, Anarchy isn't lawless. Anarchy simply doesn't have a Government to enforce the laws against innocent people. See, this is the key. Anarchy does have police, and those police will enforce the law, but not against innocent people.
As an example, you should (in theory) own your body, and as an adult should have the right to determine what you consume with your body. But, you can be murdered by the government for smoking a weed. However, you are a morally innocent human - given you own your body.
Another example would be people who are murdered for holding a belief. But, you own your body and your mind. Yet, if you are atheist, you may be murdered (by the Government of KSA or Iran) even though you are (morally) innocent as you own your body and mind. See? Government has the right to initiate violence - this can occur in a Republic or otherwise. It's simple the defining feature of a Government.
Anarchy has law and may actually (believe it or not) have MORE laws and less freedom (in some ways) than a Republic. Which is interesting. I know it's hard to imagine, however, there are many examples of various Anarchies written about.
You may find this of interest: 1000 Years of Irish Anarchy:
https://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/1000-years-of-irish-anarchy/
Note: I'm in favor of a limited Government myself.
1
-
Rusty Mckee This is where we differ. The ONLY reason to have a government is because it can legally use violence against innocent people.
ALL governments share one common feature, the legal ability to initiate violence against innocent people. It doesn't matter if the government is run by a monarch, communist leader or president of a republic or a majority vote via direct democracy.
That's not a false dichotomy, it's THE defining feature of all governments since there was a concept called 'government'. It's what delineates governments from other groups of people.
Government is a group of people. In that sense it's not different from a corporation or small business or large business. It's just a group of people, except they can legally initiate violence against innocent people. Which is why it's best to limit their influence in society. Because a lot of sociopaths like to work in governments.
I'm not sure why you want government (a group of people with a monopoly on violence) to have anything to do with means of production? Or distribution of goods and services.
It should be noted Bernie Sanders has stated the free markets should always we used FIRST to produce any good or provide any service. That's something to concider.
Free trade with sound money is the most efficient means to distribute goods. Without a price mechanism its impossible to know what to produce and who to distribute anything to. Also, in a free society (free ability to trade / free trade), money acts as a 'real' vote. This ensures the goods and services are provided to the maximum number of people.
In a free society, each individual attempts to provide a good or service and 'sell' it to other free people around them who voluntarily to buy that good or service. The only reason anyone would want the government involved is if they wanted to force people to buy their good or service (this is what many corporations do, and banks I might add - if you consider money a good).
As for Ireland, I gave this as an example of a functioning anarchy. Of course we're never going to live like tribes (short of catastrophe). The point is there are all sorts of ways to organize people. Anarchy is the most moral. It may not be ideal, but it should be the goal. If these means completely destroying concepts we currently treasure, ideas like "America" or "Republic" or "The US Dollar" - then so be it.
Oh, and for the record, I don't believe humans are capable of living in an anarchy just yet. In the future, yes, this will happen. But, for now, we should aim for a limited government. And, most of the problems we have right now, have to do with money. Had we let the banks crash in 2008, we'd be living in a pretty equitable society right now. Much better than the one we have. Too bad we don't have a limited government - one that can't bail out the rich.
Oh well, people cherish stability over equality. Always have. Always will. Particularly as they get old.
1
-
Rusty Mckee RE: False Dichotomy.
** NOTE: By false dichotomy do you mean you think I'm suggesting it's either Government or corporations? I certainly agree corporations can be corrupt. However, with free markets, property laws and contract we can use sound money to put most out of business. Just look at GM. I'm not suggesting all people who work in Government are evil either.
If not then you'll have to clearly list the two choices you think I'm restricting you to. I didn't define government - the government itself legally defines itself as the one (and only) institution (group of humans) that have legally right to initiate violence against innocent humans within a geographical location.
This is a matter of legal definition.
I can give examples:
- Strangling someone for selling their own property (a cigarette) to a willing adult (here in our republic).
- Or, thinking the wrong thoughts (atheism in KSA).
- Or, offering political alternatives (North Korea).
I only list those examples to illustrate the defining characteristic.
Yes, I agree that people who work in both public AND private institutions can act and be sociopathic. BUT, I don't believe most people ARE sociopaths. I do think living in non-free societies (such as ours) can begin to bring out the worse in people. Even normal, otherwise good people, will when under duress act in uncivil manner. It's just being human. Most do. Which is why we celebrate heros as they are able to (somehow) act brave (normal) in times of duress.
I of course think Government should play a limited role in society - primarily upholding the law. But, maybe also play a role in property rights. I also think humans should be free to move anywhere on earth. We should eliminate States. We should trial all sorts of different forms of social organization. Even Communism (which might work well within a Religious Order - and I'm perfectly fine with that, so long as people are free to leave).
It's my opinion we should have allowed for the financial collapse in 2008. That was our 'reset'. It was what makes free markets worth having. Not allowing that to occur, will, (again, just my opinion) result in something 1000 times worse. What will that be? WW3? A dictator? Or just a slow slide into poverty like has happened in North Korea? I'm going with this last option. I'm fairly certain this is the path forward for us. We'll probably elect a POTUS from the far Left and then when that fails one from the far Right. But, neither is going to fix the problems we face.
What we need (again IMO) is a reset and then a return to sound money, law and free markets. I think that will bring about what we both want. I may be wrong. I am sure there's more than one path to prosperity. So, let's just see what happens.
1
-
Landorcan (A) There is not "X" amount of jobs.
(B) At one time 85% of all Americans worked on farms. Then came the cheap tractor and put all put 3% of them out of work. If you think Asians are cheap, try competing against a tractor! And, guess what? We became richer as a result of the loss of those jobs with the cheaper production of food. JUST like electronics today.
(C) We wouldn't have the internet, tech industry, Youtube, smart phones, large TVs, iPads, laptops or any of the other inexpensive electronics that characterize our modern world, without Chinese there making them.
Lastly, those jobs are NOT coming back. It's that simple. If tariffs go up, or minimum wages is raised, soon robots will do the work. Therefor, the key is sound money, law and the ability TO trade with one another freely. Freedom of movement would also be a huge help. Although, that said, it's pretty easy to move anywhere in the world.
1
-
1
-
Landorcan You seem to be stuck on the 'money' aspect. For example, you ask: "Who is going to pay for the private schools". Money is just a medium of exchange. It's the goods and services that are important. As an example, suppose in the next 10 years we have 3D printers that replace Chinese. AND there's no need to buy 90% of anything. Will having 3D printers make us 'poorer'? Of course not. Just as the tractor replaced the farm hand, the assembly line in the USA replaced the single worker, the Chinese replaced the assembly line in the USA. Each step we become more prosperous. Not less, more. The fact that Chinese are making electronics extremely cheaply, is a good thing. And when the 3D printer comes along, that will be even better.
What we need is free-markets INSIDE the USA. That, and sound money (derived though free trade) and laws - and we'll be fine. You asked WHO is going to buy the private schooling. What you should ask is WHO is going to TEACH inside a private school. And the answer is, now that we don't have to waste our time making cheap electronics, WE are FREE to put ourselves to this more interesting and productive use of our time.
We ARE more prosperous for it.
Now, the major problems in the USA are: We do not use sound money, we are taxes for our labor hours, we do not have free trade inside the USA and most laws are unjust and many more immoral.
1
-
Landorcan You seem to be hung up on money. Money is only a means of exchange.
The unemployment rate in the USA is around 6%. Hardly 'no jobs'. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, tractors replaced 82% of the 'jobs' (farm hands) in the 1800s - and we became MORE prosperous. Not less. More. One day 3D printers will replace cheap made in China - and we'll be MORE prosperous.
Making cheap junk is one type of employment. Another type is producing high end products like designing a new software or made a new medicine or even performing an art and producing high quality handmade products (food or paintings or clothing, etc... ).
Because we don't need to waste our time making cheap junk, we can instead focus our energy on producing better education. Or, I should say we 'could' IF this is what Americans want. It's not, because Americans don't value education enough to pay people well for the service, but it could be.
One thing you miss in your analogy, IF we retained those jobs in the USA, we wouldn't be exporting electronics (because they would be too expensive and of relatively low quality) and most Americans wouldn't own a smart phone or probably have access to the internet. China OTOH would still produce cheap electronics and other countries like Japan and Germany would buy them. We'd be falling behind. Sure, there'd be a few factories making smart phones going out of business. Hardly a recipe for success.
The 'Digital Age' would not have had happened as it did.
Would YOU buy a Made In America smart phone that ran half as fast and cost $2500? Probably not.
I understand what you're suggesting regarding food coming in from overseas. I personally try to only buy local when possible. Although it's getting harder.
IMO that best option is free trade inside the USA. We need free trade amongst ourselves. For being 'free' America is one of the most regulated markets in the world. Those jobs you're talking about are ONLY coming about when Americans are allowed to create them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rick's Channel
In Australia, all Australians have the right to free healthcare. Yet, there's a thriving private healthcare market. As a matter of fact, when given the choice, no one in their right mind would want to have surgery performed at a free public hospital.
Why do you suppose, when given the chance at 'free' state of the art healthcare, so many Australians would rather pay those 'greedy corporations' instead? Why choose to pay for something, when you can get it for free? Why pay those greedy healthcare corporations who only care about making money and couldn't care at all about you or your health when there's "free" government provided healthcare right next door?
In Australia, the government spends a lot of tax money on primary education. Yet, at the same time has a thriving private education industry. Private tuition for high-school in Australia is $25,000 per year (base funding, then you have to pay for uniforms, books, activities, etc...). So, why is it, do you think, that so many Australians pay? Many private schools have a $1000 retainer fee you must pay per year, for 10 years prior to having your application reviewed at grade 9. Why is that? Why not just get the 'free' education? Why pay those 'greedy corporate' private schools who only want to make as much money as they can and couldn't give two craps about kids education" when there's free government schools right next door?
1
-
Rick's Channel How is it, do you think, the poor are able to afford supercomputers that fit in their pocket and have access to nearly all information in the world? The free-market. See, the free-market [which is to say you and I agreeing to trade without using force against one another (aka: free people)] is the most efficient means of bringing prosperity to the poor.
Most poor attend Government schools and 1 in 5 will graduate as a functional illiterate. With little skills needed to secure a good job in today's markets.
Ever hear the phrase "Good enough for Government work"? Which is to say, over priced and half-arsed.
If you really cared about the poor, then you'd choose less government and more free-markets. A 1910 census found the Black Americans living in Chicago had an 85% literacy rate (this is without Government schooling). In 2010 this same neighbourhood had a literacy rate around 50%. This is what 'Good enough for Government work' is. Twice the cost, half the quality.
Medicine and Finance are HYPER-regulated by the Government. These Government-regulated markets are a total mess. Medicine continues to drop in quality year after year. Finance is more a scam than anything else.
Imagine if next year you paid twice as much for a computer only instead of 16 GB of RAM you got 2 GB of RAM. And it crashed all the time. That's Government regulated medicine. We pay more year after year, and the quality goes down year after year. The same holds for Government schooling, the never ending Wars, Finance, and etc....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
judyleasugar97 Decades ago the markets were much freer. Much freer. The period you're referring to was before the rise of the Welfare State. The 'livable wage' as a minimum wage was way back in the 1960s. That's half a century ago. Since LBJ's Great Society we have seen a drop in the living standard and a massive explosion in Regulations and huge drop in educational standards.
Here's an example: Drug laws. They came into effect in the 1970s. Now we're living with the largest non-violent prison population in history, massive drug problems (gangs, no-go zones, people hooked on drugs, welfare ghettos). There's no waving a magic wand and POOF everything goes back to 1963. Cause and effect.
Another example is the Department of Education. Started in the late 70s, now it chews through 80 billion a year with abysmal outcomes. Over 1 in 5 graduates from High School are functionally illiterate. Teacher Unions protect Bad Teachers and good teachers generally give up or quit.
The number of regulatory agencies and regulations themselves in the USA has exploded. You may find this hard to believe, but in the 1960s most Americans still wanted to open a business. That was (was) our culture. Now most Americans just want a job. Well, when everyone wants a job, there's too much labor on the market, the price of labor goes down. It's very simple law of supply and demand.
Have you ever started or attempted to start a business? You didn't find all the paperwork and regulations you needed to meet once you hired an employee and the licences you needed to obtain a huge hamper on your business? Imagine if you had a hard time reading and writing like the 1 in 5 Government school graduates. Not to mention, in the USA the average literacy grade is 6. That is to say, most Americans read at the level of a 12-13 year old.
Waving a magic wand is NOT going to fix this problem.
Even if we knew the answers, we're talking generational change that will take decades - which will never happen in the USA because Americans prefer magic thinking, free and now.
1
-
Rick's Channel 30 years of Reaganomics? Really? What? Is Reagan secretly Dr. Evil controlling all of US history from the grave?! Not to mention for 16 years we had Democratic POTUS including a time when both the POTUS and Congress where run by Democrats. Given Thom takes every and ANY opportunity to push this Boogeyman story of Reagan the POTUS who destroyed the middle class - I'm going to suggest you've been told this enough times that now you believe it.
It's not true.
Explain why the same economic reality is also true in Australia? In Australia there's even LESS mom-and-pop stores and even BIGGER monopolies (Westfields, Coles, Woolworths, etc...). The same is true in Canada. The same is (somewhat) true in Japan. Let me guess, Reagan was their POTUS too? OR... Or maybe, large monopolies always occur when given a State regulated market? Now, I mention that because in Japan I've noticed there actually ARE still a lot of mom and pop stores along side the big Box Top monopolies. Why? Because it's much easier to open a mom and pop type business in Japan. Like opening a bar that seat 3 people. AND, Japanese seem to support smaller niche businesses that provide higher quality whereas in the USA, most Americans want cheap and don't really care to support high quality (or so that's how I notice it).
So, no it was NOT because of Ronald Reagan we have large chains - this phenomenon has occurred EVERYWHERE in the modern world from Asia to Europe. And it's not inevitable, in Germany Aldi (a chain) put Walmart out of business. Why? Because Germans preferred Aldi as they had lower prices and higher quality.
There's no need to involk some 30 year conspiracy theory. It's basic economics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lightmane321
"that is protect the people through equal protection under the law,"
1) Equal protection under the law means you can not tax someone for, through voluntary trade, makes more money than you do. You must treat people equally, not 'progressively'.
2) It's your PURSUIT of happiness - not your happiness. No one can guarantee your 'happiness', that's asinine Progressive psycho-babble.
3) The one, and ONLY one manner in which groups of humans who are part of 'Government' (public) delineate themselves from other groups of groups of humans (private) is that the Public, Government groups, have the legal ability to initiate violence against other, innocent, groups of humans.
That's it.
A good example would be Drug War. Here we see perfectly innocent human ADULTS smoking a weed (although, given they are adults they should be free to do what they want to with their own bodies) and the State using it's militant arm to cage, even kill, these innocent people - creating the largest prison population of non-violent morally innocent people in history. The big scary Koch brothers can not do that - ONLY the State can. And if you let the State do it, then the rich simply USE the State (see TBTF bailouts)
Hell, your psychopath Progressive government legally strangled to death a morally innocent man for selling a 0.50 cent cigarette a month back. THAT is NOT equal. Equal means ANYONE can sell and trade beer, cigarettes, food, love, sex, shelter, money... etc... Oh, but not in the 'Land of the Free', no, we must ask permission from our Progressive Nanny State to sell a god damn cigarette.
Our Progressive Socialists have taken away that equality and now we all get to live in your Socialist Paradise where the TBTF aristocracy is bailed out by the PROGRESSIVE Central Bank (yes, started by a f*cking progressive POTUS) and we get stuck paying a PROGRESSIVE income tax for the 'freedom'/right just to f*cking work.
Our Progressive State just spent $600 BILLION out of $1.2 trillion on our Progressive Military Industrial Complex to fight phoney wars against women and children.
So, enjoy the progressive society we're stuck with - it isn't going anywhere any time too soon.
You'll see.
Yes, I do hope to the Gods some States start succeeding from the Union, and doing so soon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, this last half century has seen 100s of millions of humans lifted out of poverty. Primarily in 3rd world nations where they've become much more freer - as in, more legal liberty, particularly owning their bodies. We OTOH have had millions and millions and millions of licencing scams (hair cutters licence, $800,000 Taxi license, liquor licences, filing for bankruptcy licences) millions and millions of regulations (like the ones making pink slime legal food) millions and millions of NSA drones, Wars in Iraq, etc....
Well, you Progressives wanted to UN-Limit Government, it's is now filled with Sociopaths using the Government-run NSA / Commons to spy on us and is bailing out to the richest 0.01% richest humans in history. $600 BILLION is the Pentagons budget in 2015 under that wonderful Progressive O-blah-ma.
What the hell do you care if the richest Americans buy our so-called Commons? You made us their Slaves decades ago. Thanks to you Progressives we have a Progressive Labor Tax and a Progressive Central Bank and our Central Planners will send over some Progressive Police and strangle you if you and generations more of Americans don't keep paying off our bailing out the TBTF banks for the rest of this century. This is a simple fact.
You wanted Big Progressive Government - well it's never been bigger, more intrusive and more violence. The USA is a mirror image of the Socialist Worker's Party run Germany circa 1930s.
1
-
Gordon Bradley China. S. Korea. Taiwan. Vietnam. E. Germany. Russia. Much of Africa.
As we've hemorrhaged civil liberties the people of these nations across the last 50 years have gained personal civil liberties and the corresponding economic prosperity.
Don't worry, we're getting more Progressive taxation, more progressive regulations, more progressive licencing and we will become poorer. Oh, and to make sure everyone pays their 'fair share' for the 'good of society' we all get to lose our personal privacy and live in a Police State.
I grew up in the USA and I've lived in many countries and I'll tell you now, I've only experienced the Police presence like in the USSA in a few Communist countries I've visited. I was only in the USSA for a day and I drove past 15 State police on the highway and was almost run off the road by one within 5 minutes of leaving the airport in a rental car. Literally, I looked into my mirror and was so startled to see a State Police car, on a country road (teeny airport), nearly a foot off my back bumper I nearly swerved into a ditch.
See, you don't get to redistribute wealth without a Police State. And when you try, it's going to be the poor and middle class who are the one's having their wealthy redistributed to the richest most well connected in society. All your regulations only make it nearly impossible for the poor to start a business, while at the same time making it easy for franchises to corner the market. Thus the poor are stuck as workers in low end jobs instead of owners of their own businesses.
Your good intentions are destroying, and will eventually destroy, society. The more you turn to the Government to fix problems - the worse you make those very same problems. Example: Progressives wanted 'free' education. Now we pay more than most nations for Government Schooling and 1 in 5 Government School graduates are functionally illiterate. Literacy rates among Blacks is lower NOW (in come areas) than it was 105 years ago. A century of "FREE" education has nearly destroyed education.
The Road to HELL is paved with Good Intentions.
You'll see. This is going to be playing out for decades to come. Life in the USA is going to get worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
bohemianwriter1 Let me repeat myself: In Australia there's a Public Healthcare system where ANYONE can go to for FREE. And there's a Private Healthcare network where everyone WANTS to go.
Why is that? Ohhhh.... .that's right, because when you're going in for surgery, you really don't give two shits about the interpersonal disposition of your surgeon and her/his personal motivation. What you care about, the ONLY THING, you care about - is competence. Can they do the surgery.
Guess what? When given the choice, people are more than happy to pay for private healthcare to ensure they get treated by a competent doctor rather than take a chance with a FREE Public Healthcare provided doctor.
These are the facts.
I personally find Japanese private doctors to be both of high quality, competent, and of a reasonable price. We paid $5400 for 3.5 week stay in a PRIVATE hospital in Japan PLUS the actual procedure. The procedure alone would have cost $12,500 in the USA and in Australia it would cost $15,500. That's not counting the full 3.5 weeks in hospital bed hooked up to IV.
Of course, Japan trains the most doctors per population, builds the technology use in the hospitals (fMRI etc...) and develops pretty much all of their own pharmaceuticals - all of which massively lower costs of healthcare.
Anyway, the fact is Australia has FREE healthcare. All citizens are covered. Yet, when offered a choice, almost everyone who can afford to, goes to Private hospitals.
See, much like our over-budget expensive Government Schools with the 1 in 5 functional illiteracy graduate rate, subpar may be good enough for Government Work, but when it comes to health, most people want a bit better.
1
-
1
-
bohemianwriter1
The first thing I'd ask is if Noraway is multicultureal? Do you have no-go zones in your cities? You know, full-on ghettos where the police don't go to unless in riot gear? DO you have 5 generation single mother farms? Where one mother has had children by 5 different men and many children don't know their fathers?
Is your nation one that makes up phony reasons to invade other nations? You know, pretend to be attacked and then invade Vietnam. Wait a generation and rinse and repeat with the middle east?
Is is possible in your nation to ride a bicycle without a helmet? Are teens allowed to snowball fight without being shot by a cop? If a man was selling a $0.20 cent cigarette would he be strangled to death by the police?
Do Government School GRADUATES pass without being able to read and write? In the USA, Government School graduates have a functional illiteracy rate of 1 in 5. Oh, and the general population reads (and thinks) at the 8th grade level. Oh, and 1 in 6 are totally illiterate and cannot read or write.
I'll tell you what. Why don't we agree that what works in oil-rich (nearly monocultureal) Norway probably isn't going to work in pop-culture USA.
You want to know what the American dream is? Getting on disability and playing video games while watching pop culture on your smart phone.
Yes, I agree that healthcare doesn't work in the USA. NOT because it's not Public Healthcare, but because it's Fascistic Healthcare where a small cartel control the numbers of healthcare providers, hospitals, etc... and use their State-given monopoly to rent-seek and regulatory capture the hyper-regulated healthcare markets.
How about this? We open up the flood gates and let all these functional illiterate thieves move to Norway? Then you you can see how well Norway' system works at providing healthcare and other benefits to lying, cheating, scamming Americans who will say and do anything to take as much as possible from the "Commons" without giving anything in return. Yeah, I'm all for it. Is tomorrow good for you? Because, we can send over 10s of millions of functional illiterate Americans. I promise, your 'free' healthcare will collapse within a month.
What works in Norway works in Norway because most Norwegians are hardworking honest people who probably care for one another. Don't make the mistake of thinking other's think like this. Your culture didn't just POOF into existence. The same is true of monocultureal Japan - it's pretty good. But, as I've lived in both (as well as others) I can tell you right now, it will NOT WORK IN THE USA. What works in the USA is freedom and free markets. This is the ONLY way to keep Americans honest. The day you let the Government provide a service, is the day you embark on becoming a neo-Fascist warmongering State that we actually ARE today. Again, the USA government is spending $600 BILLION losing the Wars for another year. THIS is what Americans want - kill people, take their resources, and consume pop-culture.
1
-
1
-
bohemianwriter1
I actually think we agree on many things. Although I'd choose Finland over Norway in terms of Government structured education.
That said, currently Norway is no where near a multicultural country - at least not relative to the USA, Australia or England. According to a 2012 survey 86.2% of the total population have at least one parent who is born in Norway and of the immigrants most come from Europe or other western nations.
I've been in no-go zones in England as well as Australia and both of these countries are structured quite similar to Norway with Government provided healthcare and education (of course, the education is crap compared with Norway, but that's down to Norwegians themselves and how they value education).
Talk to me when 50% of Norway is immigrants. Or when Norway has no-go zones where you're likely to be shot at night for walking around in areas you do not belong. Just wait until you have multi-generational welfare ghettos. Then you'll see the system you enjoy no longer functions cost-effectively. Then you will need to either raise taxes higher, until a point where you cannot afford to raise them any higher, or you'll have to cut services. It's that simple. There's no 'magic' way of doing things - IMO. Things are done by people, you just happen to have a lot of good honest hard-working ones. Society must have built in bullshit detectors that shut down the bad apples (this happens in Japan quite effectively via shaming and shunning).
Not to mention, Norway's oil-fund is an added bonus. When that's defunct, then you'll have a harder time paying for the social services you enjoy. Include healthcare and education.
UAE and KSA also offer a lot of social services - I remember when Kuwait used to give everyone that was a citizen a ton of money. I knew people who were paid $35,000 a year just for being born in UAE. So? Why don't you do that they'd say? I mean, it seemed to work for them. Maybe the USA would work better with a Sultan? Of course, they were all as lazy as could be - and just had the good fortune of living on top of an oil supply. Dumb luck. But, if you asked them, it was insert some irrational post-hoc justification.
Norway works because of geographical location and resources, but most importantly because it has a lot of Norwegians. When that changes, then it will not longer function. I've seen it many many times, over and over, again and again. When its done, its done. I'm very happy Japan has politely resisted too much immigration - although there certainly is immigration. Just a small amount. And people are expected to integrate, NOT retain their own culture. If they want they're own culture, they can just as easily leave.
Note: Everyone wants a society that has good inexpensive healthcare, good education and is safe. Everyone wants to live where they have lots of opportunity. This comes by maximizing personal civil liberty. Not by more regulation, but by more freedom.
1
-
bohemianwriter1
I certainly do not disagree that religious fundamentalists are a nuisance. But that's it. They cannot use the State against other's who are atheist. This is not true when it comes to another religious Theocracy: Progressive Socialists. See, the Progressive CAN use the State to murder me if I attempt to live a life, as an adult, in a manner that does not harm others, but runs counter to their superstitious ideas about what's 'good for society'.
As an example, suppose I wanted to open a eatery where people can smoke? Well well. The Progressive says this is bad for society and thus is illegal. See? They're the new Morality Police. The other side of the Theocracy coin, but still the same coin. If I attempted to open a smoking eatery I'd be put in jail - maybe even killed if I resisted being put in a State-run cage. So, I like everyone else just shuts up and never opens a smoking eatery. Of course, I don't smoke, but that's my example.
Big State, Little God
Big God, Little State
- People need their superstition, one way or the other.
Life in the USA is going to probably get worse on many levels. I think technology will advance, and those will high-level skills will do well, but most will be poorer. They'll work longer and for a lot less. It's pretty sad. Particularly when everything we needed was laid out and working well by the middle-late 1800s. But, much like everything else, people just can't leave well enough enough and will violate any and every moral rule for the "Good of Society".
The Road straight into Hell is clearly paved with good intentions
1
-
1
-
bohemianwriter1
I'm not "demonizing" immigrants. I'm saying that when you live in a monoculture, you can enjoy some level of the Commons due to the monoculture. When you don't - you can't.
This means, when you live in a multicultureal society, it's structure must be different. History shows quite clearly that multicultureal societies are best run when people who live in them are free to trade with one another with limited, very limited, government interference. This forces the people in these societies to deal with the inherent problems that arise when living in such a society.
Example: In Japan it's common to have beer vending machines - all around town. You can walk over to a vending machine and buy a beer pretty much any time you'd like. You're free to do that. You can also drink it right there on the street. No one does, because in a monocultural there's pressure not to. And young people rarely buy beer. Why? Because in a monoculture this is shameful. Oh, and they're never pilfered. Why? Because Japanese just don't do that sort of thing.
Now, just how long do you think vending machines with beer would last in the USA before kids where buying beer and criminals where breaking into them and stealing? A day maybe - at best. So in the USA the government simply outlaws these machines. This means society never has to deal with the underlying issues. Are you seeing my point yet? I'm saying that in multicultreal societies we need LESS government and we need to deal with these issues. That can ONLY happen through free markets - which is to say, free people. Sure, maybe the vending machines disappear from the market. Or maybe they don't. But it's up to free people to decide. NOT a Police State.
I hope I made myself clearer. I've been an immigrant in 5 countries, I have no problem with immigration. I also have no problem with the lack of it either.
1
-
bohemianwriter1
Oh, I should mention, my family is not white. You seem to have come to the conclusion my family is European in origin, half of it is Japanese. The other half is mixed Irish, German, Jewish, Christian, etc.... some people in my immediate family do not speak English. Or, very limited at best.
I don't disagree that poverty is linked to violence. And free-markets create prosperity thus, we should maximize freedom if we want to live in a less violent world. The USA is NOT a free-market. Did you know in some states you need a liscence to fix a PC, or to cut hair, or even to go out of business? The USA is a Fascist State with Progressive written all over it. We're war mongers too. We have a central banking cartel that just bailed out those richest 1%.
IF we lived in a true free-market, many of those richest 1% would be totally wiped out. Broke. But this isn't what happened. The State everyone loves bailed them out. That's Fascism, not free-markets.
The oil was luck, not a virtue. Yes, your oil fund can be spent wisely. But it doesn't have to be spent wisely. If could just as easily be squandered. Now, here I note you used the word "We" - as in we Norwegians.
That's interesting, give the other half of your post. Suppose most of the immigrants would like to spend all of that oil money here and now. I know many Americans would. We blow through $100 billion a year just in our Government run education system - only to produce a 1 in 5 functionally illiterate graduating class each year. Oh, and we blow through $600 billion a year losing the War and have done so for over a decade.
Must be nice to live in a society where everyone is on the same page regarding how to save and invest - I bet you like that, huh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
bohemianwriter1 Again, I don't think you understand my position. Also, you're confounding culture with race. A "white" person can 'be' Japanese culturally. And an Asian can be Americans likewise. Or Norwegian.
Mono-cultures could, therefor, be composed of people of different phenotypes (asian, white, black, etc...).
My personal opinion is people should be allowed to migrate anywhere on Earth with no boarders. However, if this is to be true, then we should also practice pananarchy (different forms of government and let people choose). Also, most land would need to be privatized.
That said, monocultures have inbuilt bullshit detectors and private means of enforcing cultural norms that make or break those societies. In societies without these, multicultural societies, these are missing and therefor we NEED free-markets to perform these functions in society. Therefore, less Government, more freedom.
1
-
1
-
1
-
silat13
How does a 50+ year old end up talking in the sorts of babble you're using? I mean "Bubba"? Really?
I suggest you buy Hurley P. text titled "Logic" and don't waste the last of your life with these nonsensical thoughts. I'd literally pull my hair out stuck inside your head.
Let me guess, the Koch brothers are to blame for the fall of Roma, the collapse of the USSR and any other event you want to causally link to them. And, at the same time, somehow this 'All Powerful' Koch Cartel couldn't unseat Obama in the last election?...right. Did they also cause the Great Depression? Are they the reason why GM went bankrupt?
Look, "sonnyboy", you're wasting whatever is left of your brain and life with this Left/Right dichotomy. Take that as the best advise you've been given - ever.
Our societies functions better when we maximize freedoms, not minimize them. We want and need to return to LIMITED government with the right to liberty returned to the individual. It's not that hard of a concept, I promise. More freedom. Less Government.
Anyway, none of this matters. We will have less freedom, more war, more spying, more debt, more regulations, less prosperity, more taxes, less opportunity. And that's the way forward for the USA.
You'll see.
1
-
bohemianwriter1
Corporations do not 'own' Government. This simply is not factually true. No one 'owns' the Government. To be clear, what you meant to say was the people hired for the Government, often make policy decisions in the favour of Corporations and/or Businesses and/or other Private groups of individuals.
YES! This is why we need to LIMIT government's ability to interfere in our lives - particularly around the ability to trade.
But, this is the thing, you support Government doing this. For example, one hundred and twenty years ago most people were educated at home and by private schools and private tutors. Interestingly enough, Black Americans living in Chicago in 1910 had a hire literacy rate THEN compared with NOW. But, people want "Free" - right? And, whenever people want something but don't want to pay for it, they simply ask the Government to provide it and call it "Progressive". This may be Schooling, it may be War, it may be Water - pretty much anything.
Well, guess what? When the Government stepped into the education-market, it put a lot of private businesses OUT of business. This means, as a School, you either became a Public School or you could try desperately to remain Private and compete against 'Free' education (and some did, but most went bankrupt or they lobbied Government to ensure they were funded too). Worse still, we haven't seen hardly any innovation in education - if anything it's getting worse with 1 in 5 Government Schools graduates functionally illiterate.
So? IS this an example of 'Corporations' (in this case schools) buying off Government? Or, now that Government Schooling seems 'normal' is it just a 'public service'?
The same is true of the American Medical Association. This is a private fraternity of medical doctors who now, through the Government, have the legal right to bar entry into their market. The AMA uses the Government to ensure they regulatory-capture the once-upon-a-time-free markets (this is called rent-seeking by way). However, I'm sure you support having the AMA decide for you, who can be a State licensed doctor. Well, given this actually IS part of what I do - I can safely tell you, it's not ideal. It's both unfair to many more than capable students and it's also immoral as it leave the decision up to a handful of people who, most of time, don't HAVE the time to properly ensure the best are 'chosen'. As a matter of fact - this is an impossible task. It's unknowable who will make a good doctor. The only sound method is a free-market. But, again, you prefer we decide. You do know Universities are run like Corporations - right? So, here we have yet another example where you probably support "Corporations".
And I could list many many many MANY examples of where this occurs. And, I will tell you right now, the ONLY (and I mean ONLY) way to eliminate corporations, be they a net gain or net loss to society, from using Government is by LIMITING government.
Limiting government is the ONLY way.
Oh, and as for medicine, you have a 1 in 12 chance of being misdiagnosed, 1 in 23 chance of seeing someone incompetent and a 1 in 76 chance of seeing someone who chose medicine because they, seem to, enjoy when people die - possibly even outright misdiagnosing and purposefully killing people. Preventable Death caused by medicine (unintentional) was 90,000 in 1990, in 2010 it jumped to 480,000 EACH YEAR. Add an additional 3 - 5 MILLION seriously harmed for life. EACH YEAR.
Yet, I bet you like having 'free' healthcare? I bet you like the idea of affordable safe medicine. Well, sorry, but the ONLY way to provide that is a free-market. Likewise with education. Likewise with internet, electronics, automation, pharmaceuticals, relationships, everything.
The answer is MORE freedom - NOT LESS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
bohemianwriter1
You're simply not correct. Corporations do not 'own' anyone. That's called slavery and does not exist.
Yes, corporations do write laws and regulations for the EPA and FDA. Which is why we need LESS government so that we can conduct business using simple laws that protect property rights equally.
If there was an oil spill, then it happened while being regulated by the government. Almost every aspect of our lives is regulated. Thus, again, if there was an oil spill, then this oil spill happened while being regulated. Which just shows you, that regulations cannot prevent oil spills. But what regulations do is protect companies, like the Koch brothers, from being sued by people who have oil on their property. See how it works? All the corporations have to do is say "This is all regulated and all legal".
While you do not have these problems yet, as your culture is changed (and it will change) due to different ideas from different people on how to do things, then you will suffer from the exact same problems. At that point, your social institutions will be inefficient and you'll end up exactly in the same boat as us. Maybe then, maybe, you'll get it.
1
-
silat13 First of all, you're using the word "logic" incorrectly. I hate to be pedantic, but I actually enjoy studying and developing logical sentences - you may want to look up Categorical Syllogism to start you out on what logic actually is.
And secondly, no, property rights are one of the main laws that must be respected. I'd even argue, given the manner in which children play, private property is inherent, even genetic. Our body is our private property - and this should be protect by law. Thus, murder is property damage and punishable as society sees fit. Oh course, not, our bodies are property of the State - public property. Part of the Commons.
Note: Currently we lost ownership of our bodies. Our government owns out bodies. It can tax a portion of our labor (income tax) and it can determine who we can marry and it can determine what we eat, what drugs we use, who we have sex with, pretty much everything - even our death is in the the hands of the State you love so much.
1
-
bohemianwriter1
My employer does not 'own' me. I own my body and I sell my body's labor. We freely attempt to sell our labor IF we are laborers and then it's up to someone to freely decide if they do or do not want to buy that labor.
If you have a highly marketable skill, and you're honest, and you work productively, then you'll have no difficulty selling your labor hours into the market making an easy 6 figures a year. My cousin recently graduated from University with a computer programming degree (only girl to graduate with actual computer programming skills that year - most do webdesign etc...) and yes, it took her about 8 months to find a job. Yes, she was depressed. But guess what, 1 year later and she's offered jobs at a rate of one a month. She's known a hard worker, speaks fluent Japanese, and is very productive and efficient at her job. She also scored the highest score on the companies logic test in it's history (based in London).
See, she's not a slave. AND in free-markets people like her are free to quit and go start up their own competing company. This means that the labor pool shrinks and the price of labor goes up due to limited supply. But, in our Progressive hyper-Regulated Social paradise, millions and millions and millions of regualtions, unsound fiat currency, high minimum labor price and a zillion other laws prevent people from even bothering to try to open up a business. And why would you bother? All you'd get is accused that you 'OWN' people - this is how you opened your post. Thus, labor supply is over-supplied and the price of labor is low (particuarly if you don't have a high skill set) and this is actually what we do see in our society.
If you think it's so easy being an owner - go start a business. I've had to manage people who were so lazy I paid them for 8 months NOT to come into work just to finish off their contract. At my level, I pay people for the job they do, some like to come in at 6am and leave at 1 pm, others like to come in at 11am and leave at 6 pm. I really don't care.
Let's not pretend I 'own' them. They own me, I depend on them. I work much harder and much longer than they do. I also worry about their futures because I know times are tight and soon they won't be working for me. I work hard FOR them so that they are able to do well for themselves.
People spend 12-30 years just preparing the skills to sell their labor. AND you pretend the corporations 'owns' them?! Come off it. Anyone can quite and go try their luck at starting a company. See how quickly you finf life on the 'Owners' side of the fence a lot more work, effort and risk, with a lot less reward. There's no 'free' time either. You work to keep the business going 7 days a week, 12-14 hours a day. No vacation time off. At least, not mentally.
When you walk past a Starbucks and choose not buy a coffee - YOU may be putting a barista our of business because you chose not to buy from them that day. Does this mean you OWN them? No, it doesn't. It means you do not want to buy what they are selling. And guess what? They don't have to sell to you. If you BOTH agree, then this is the free-markets. Win-Win. Value for Value. The exact same principle holds true for labor and corporations.
1
-
bohemianwriter1
Provide evidence that non-regulations is why BP bosses went free. It's not because of non-regulations. (A) There's millions of regulations around energy, oil and the environment. The USA has some of the most strict in the world. (B) If there were NO regulations then the laws that protect Private Property could have been used in court by the land owners to privately sue BP. The reason why the owners walked away freely was due TO regulation. Regulations are their to PROTECT the business owners from litigation. NOT to protect property owners. Property owners ALWAYS had the right to sue for damaged. Now, thanks to the State and Unlimited Government, regulation usurp property rights and owns who's land is damaged can not seek compensation.
Of course, no one wants to see companies stuck with millions of frivolous litigations. And, no one wants to see corporations pollute. When we had a free-market one could argue their were too many frivolous litigations. What could have solved this problem is contract laws. But, we never developed that part of society because people ALWAYS when given the option, chose the lazy route, which is the State's use of violence. This is WHY we always start with limited government, then it grows like a cancer, twists society into an ugly reflection of itself, and the body politic collapses. Rinse/Repeat.
1
-
silat13 Still with the strawman? Don't you get tired of your fallacious reasoning? Doesn't unreasonable babble-thinking give you a headache?
Anyway, limited government is what works and limited government enforced common law, property rights and contract law. As for corporations 'buying' their way out of the law. This simply doesn't happen when a random jury is used. If Steve Jobs were to stab someone, and it went to jury, he'd most likely be sent to prison (if her were alive) - regardless of if he was CEO of the world's largest corporation.
Further, quite frankly I think you'd have to be paranoid to think you need to give up your personal privacy (NSA spying) and civil liberties (Drug War) and pay the State a tax on labor (Income Tax) all because you're scared big scary Apply Inc, Microsoft, Toyota, Sony, etc... and going to somehow harm you.
Frankly, I'd suggest growing a pair of balls and manning up. I mean Jesus f*cking Christ. Your mama still spoon feeding you too? I think, as adults, I can negotiate the big scary Honda without having to live in a Police State.
Which is why, one day, hopefully, States within the USA will succeed from the Union. That way, you can go live with the Progressive Socialists and Warmongers who will keep you safe from yourself with millions and millions of regulations and those of use who are competent adults will use limited Law and Limited Government together with sound money to create prosperity.
In the meantime, enjoy the Police State, it's never going away in your life time, so, you don't need to worry about it.
1
-
silat13 I just wrote you a basic, very very very basic, conditional clause argument. I've addressed your questions and you return with 'LOL'.
'LOL' is the level of your reasoning - which is to say you do not reason. You do not understand how to reason. You do not know the differences between types of reason, say deduction vs induction. You definitely don't know what a sound valid argument is. Nor do you understand what cogent arguments are. I don't blame you for your stupidity. You were probably Government schooled and thus you're a functional illiterate.
So, take pride in the fact you can "LOL" and feel like you've made a sound, valid argument. In reality, you're just babbling. I'd personally find such babble-thoughts irritating and seek to change this. But, hey, each to their own.
Note: I'm paid a decent 6 figure salary to write cogent arguments. Most of which you probably would be lost within two sentences. So, let's agree you lack the skill set sufficient to understand an argument let alone create one.
Please continue with your babble-thoughts, go pray to Obama or whatever you do, and we'll call it a day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mehrshadvr4 Sorry, but you're wrong. Regulations are in place to prevent litigation. Prior to regulations, litigation was pretty common and, with the wrong jury, many business owning Americans were unfairly sued and lost their fortunes. This, together with the legal concept of 'corporation;, led to the the early 'regulations' - which legally protected corporations from litigation. So long as regulations were met, there can be no law suit (or it's someone difficult). Further, now regulations are used to lock out competition (examples include: licence requirement to make coffee, sell flowers, practice medicine, etc... ). Regulatory capture is why Uber was invented - because it goes around regulations and allows free Americans to work freely. You know "free markets' / free people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leland Somers Reich Winger. Nice, did you make that up? Here, let me give you a clue: National Socialist German Workers' Party.
I've lived in 5 different countries and I've seen the media pander to people like you in all 5. Slightly different in many ways, but always some sort of right vs left paradigm.
It makes simpletons like you easy to predict and control. Either they feed into your religious superstitious nonsense or they tell you you're special and being oppressed. Or something similar. Whatever your cognitive biases are, they feed you. AND you eat it up. Just as you are now.
So, do like you're expected to do and vote Hilary once the Progressive party picks her over Bernie The Progressive Fascist. Then whine in 8 years when things are worse of a mess than even Bush or Junior O-blah-ma made. Oh, and make sure you blame the GOP or Libertarians or whomever.
Rinse.
Repeat.
As for the babyboomers, I don't blame 'them'. They're not a person, they're a generation. However, that generation took more than it's fair share though T bonds, tax scams and etc... Now they're even shafting their grand kids with the medical bills. They have, collectively, about 18 trillion in assets. Well, they invented Public Welfare, you know, to 'take care of people', so, it's only reasonable they enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Not the ideal solution, but THEY have the wealth. Millennials are actually negative in terms of equity. Most Gen X/Y have next to nothing. Or, we can sink into 3rd world status. Which is probably the more likely.
1
-
Leland Somers This isn't about 'You". It's a statistical empirical FACT that babyboomers own most assets. In total, they own over 80% of everything. Further, babyboomers sold trillions and trillions of dollars in T bonds (30 year) and municipal bonds (some up to 50 years) to pay for all the services they consumed without every paying back. Now they (as a generation) have the gall to bailout their 401K and pension funds on the backs of their grandchildren by selling even more T bonds, a lot of which will be used to pay for their medical and healthcare expenses. Not to mention many work in highly paid (by tax dollars) public institutions where they gave themselves great benefits.
Most of those billionaire parasite are also babyboomers and many got rich selling cheap made in China crap to other parasitic babyboomers. If there is a fault in Capitalism it's the it allows the bottom feeders to express their bottom of the barrel will on the entirety of society. The call it pop culture for a reason. If you're not paid much, then this is because society doesn't value when you are selling. You needn't blame some abstract concept like Capitalism for why people around you don't want to pay you much - the answer is much closer to home.
If you think the billionaire under 55 age class has the money to pay for all this, you're living in la la land. Thus, IF we're going to tax anyone, it's going to be over 55. It's called Progressive income tax for a reason, and our Progressive central bank, given to us by Progressives, is meant to do just this - redistribute from those that have the most (over 55) to those that have the lease. Those under 55.
So suck it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
beyondathought
Have you read any further analysis of the actual data? As far as I have read, the full data is available for anyone to analyse. As a matter of fact, once data is published the authors agree to make the data available to anyone else for analysize. The data that supposedly was left out, wasn't really left out. It was combined for an average. It has subsequently been analyzed and appears that, with the exception of a small window in the age of male African american children, there doesn't appear to be an effect of the vaccine on population increase or decrease in autism.
Is it possible? Yes. It's possible fertilizer, day care, food coloring, shampoo, etc.... could have an effect on children becoming autistic.
You suggest that this is to save money? Why would that be the case? The company owns the patent. The company would simply pass an additional costs on to the buyer. So, no, this isn't being done to save company's money. It's be done to save the public money though.
I think this scientist is possibly a crack pot, possibly seeking revenge, possibly going to sell something (book, stocks, who knows) or maybe really believes what he says.
If all of these other scientists who were on the paper were aware of this falsification, why haven't they come forward?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** "unfettered capitalism"
LOL... the USA adds millions and millions and millions of lines of regulation every single year. As a matter of fact, there's so many lines of regulation no one can tell you how many laws and regulations there are - let alone how many lines of regulation there are.
Depending on the State you live in, you can't even sell arranged flowers without a licence, you can't cut hair, you can't fix computers, and onward it goes. The USA has hyper-regulated markets. NOT 'unfettered'. Not to mention, the State issues our currency - as it's fiat. It requires it's citizens (us) to pay it in it's fiat currency a transaction tax on our labor.
Unfettered capitalism - get real. I'll tell you what, you go out to your front yard, put up a BBQ and start grilling and selling organic hotdogs without the million State licensees and permits and health and safety regulations you'll be in violation of - watch how quickly your ideas of 'unfettered capitalism' come to an end. Oh, but buy a franchise and you can easily sell FDA approved boiled ammonia washed HFCS infused pink-slime off cuts ground with bone meal and food coloring. You know, because the State worries about your health and wants to make sure you're looked after real well - as well as taking it's cut.
The FACT is the Progressives of the late 1800s brought the Central Bank into existence as well as Labor Tax. The problems of the USA's economy IS directly due to hyper-regulation and the central bank. But, don't worry, we're getting more central planning, more regulation, less privacy and less liberty. So, enjoy the Progressive Sociapathy. It's here to stay.
1
-
1
-
*****
Who said anything about a pure free-market?
We had a tradition of LIMITED government, sound money and law. Now we have massive Government, one that is spying on us, hyper-regulating all aspects of our lives, taxing laborers when they work and the accompanying Progressive Sociopathic 'Utopian' society that is inevitably derived from using force against innocent people.
The irony, the USA Government preaches all the free-market principles needed to lift the poor out of poverty - only to other nations. AND guess what, it works pretty well. They get wealthier. We get poorer.
The only fantasy here is the Progressive's magic-thinking that using State violence against free people is 'Good for Society'. Aside from the jingoistic tone of "Progressive Socialism" there's the fact it's predicated on violence against innocent people. It's an oxymoron.
Only an irrational boob or religious crank thinks it's "Progressive" to use the initiation of force against innocent humans is good for society.
The Progressives gave us our Central Banking cartel. The Progressives gave us our Progressive Income Tax. We are living in the inevitable outcome of their fantasy thinking. From their Progressive welfare slums to 'help the poor', to their Teacher Unions whose Government Schools graduate functional illiterates, to their never-ending-moral-wars. War on Poverty. War on Drugs. War on Privacy. And now a never ending War on Terror.
Our Founders of our State ensured it was LIMITED for a reason. The first 10 amendments protect us from the State. Not the rich - and there were plenty of rich then. But from the State. Why? Because the State is inherently immoral. It's legalized legitimate violence perpetrated against innocent humnans within a geographical area. The 'OF" in the phrase, Citizens of the United States denoted ownership.
Don't worry, we're getting more regulations and more State - do, you should be happy. Less free association/free-trade, hyper-regulated lives. Lets see how that works for us.
1
-
*****
The best option is Panarchism. I have no problem at all with Syndicalists attempting to get people to voluntarily create any society they like, so long as force is not used against anyone innocent and people are free to leave.
I feel most Anarchists who also espouse Socialism have never had the displeasure of hiring and dealing with loafers, thieves, slackers and incompetence. Have you ever had to fire someone because they didn't have the aptitude - they were simply inept? While it'd be nice to think anyone and everyone does their best, the fact is most don't. Or maybe they do, but it's not good enough.
That's the interesting aspect to these socialistic societies. Because inevitably, its the loafers, not the idealists, who end up running them. Loafers do have one skill - getting others to do their work for them and taking credit for it. And while I do think "loafing" is a good idea in the sense of working hard upfront to create something to save time later. But most loafers don't do this. They just loaf. They rise to the top - and destroy the institution they run.
The only option is to allow those institutions to collapse - and most socialist societies are loath to do this. Thus, society itself collapses.
Interestingly, most mediocrity don't think of themselves as being mediocre. They think they're, well.... damn good. But, in reality - they're mostly not that good. It's why we need a free market, sound money, and law. So that the impartial hand of the free-market can signal to these people letting them know, they're not good enough by putting them out of business. And while this may seem harsh, it's a fact of reality and it must be allowed to occur. Again, I don't think most socialists have had the required experience dealing with enough people of a wide enough variety to really see things as they truly are.
I've worked with hundreds of people, across multiple nations and cultures, at the highest levels of expertise - I can tell you, most people simply don't have what it takes, and most people over-value their own worth to the market. Most people think they're worth double (or more) what they're actually worth to the market. They're not the unique snow flake they think they are. And they're not that clever. Some are (and ironically they often under value themselves), but most aren't. I don't think socialists deal with this aspect of society very well as they want and think everyone will work as hard as they. Well, they won't. Not by a long shot.
1
-
*****
OK, suppose you have two people who want to work as surgeons.
- Person A is an incompetent idiot, lazy, and while they like the idea of working as a doctor they do not do well under stress and often make mistakes when under time pressure - they do not have mental aptitude to be a good surgeon.
- Person B is competent works hard and shows all the mental aptitude to deal with the stress and be a high functioning surgeon.
BOTH person A and B want to be doctors. However, there are only enough resources and time to permit the training of one of them. It's up to you to determine the value of each person's potential. What do you do?
I didn't say people do not have value - but not everyone produces the same amount of value to society. People are different and the value they offer to society is not the same. A computer programmer, medical research, surgeon or nuclear physicist is paid more relative to someone who rakes leaves, makes coffee or carries bricks because their labor, service or produce is valued MORE by society.
Again, I didn't say people have zero value. So don't put words in my mouth. But to pretend everyone's labor is of equal value is naive at best and grossly negligent at worse.
And don't pretend you don't make value judgements (or as you say "Price People"). You most certainly do. You didn't randomly choose the people you are close to and formed relationships with. You determined, based on your set of value-criteria, a value in a person and perused a friendship by investing your time and emotion. This doesn't mean you think the other's you neglected or refused befriend had no value - just not enough for you to take your limited time and effort to invest it in them.
You probably have a favored place to drink coffee/food/etc.. - you're not treating people 'equal', you are making value judgments all day every day (as you say: "pricing people"). While you can pretend you're not, that's simply being childish.
1
-
*****
I do admire that you discovered anarchism, given it's inherent moral structure. However, you have some misconceptions regarding value and society. You confuse working hard with providing value. You can labor all day raking leaves in the woods - but that labor is not valued by anyone. So, while it is true you are working hard, no one cares. Also, 'society' doesn't anything, it's not a thing. It's a meta concept and has little, if any, meaning. While a useful shortcut, I wouldn't frame anything actually important using it. People are not equal. Some are good at running, others are not. Some are good at mathematics, others are not. Some like to paint and are good at it, others are not. Some can hear perfect pitch, other can not.
I do not agree with how you use the word Capitalists - given you are one yourself. But, I understand your sentiment. Yes, the fascist Statists have done what they always do and the best course of action is pacifism. I for one plan to open a school sometime in the future. Maybe in the USA, but maybe Japan would be better. Japanese people are a bit more inclined towards anarchism in many ways. Whereas Americans prefer State-worship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
njanovic1980
No, it's 'loons' like you who HAVE returned us to 'those' conditions. Because, the food in the 1800s was actually better than the FDA "Regulated" HFCS Pink Slime that passes itself off as 'food'. As a matter of fact, Amoorikans have never been fatter or less healthy than today.
But, don't worry, we're not getting less FDA - we're getting more. Much more. Oh, and just so you know, I'm one of your Regulators. So, my advice to you - you keep paying your income tax. You let us do the thinking for you, and, we'll keep regulating you for your own good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Here are some well known facts: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/04/01/infrastructure-gap-look-at-the-facts-we-spend-more-than-europe/#4b2fa512137a
(oh, and we spend more than the EU)
One of the major problem in the USA is our low quality Government Schools that graduate functional illiterates at a rate of 1 in 5. Another Government created problem is the Government run Welfare Projects. These literally breed more of the problem: Lastly, Government regulations strangle the economy, though it is great to see companies like Uber tackling this head-on.
What you want is Big Government to come in and give you a high paying job without having to work for it. That's not going to happen. Go learn a skill and freely sell it to other Americans. If your skill is low, like labor, then don't expect much money for it. That's not the fault of the free market, no more than are apples being cheap in summer. Plenty of low skilled workers around. It should be noted here, if the Government had a more restrictive visa program, we'd actually have a demand for low skilled labor. But the Government keeps letting in millions of low skilled labor, which increases supply, lowering price - and the Government does this on purpose, and has specific visa programs intended for this. Even high skilled workers are now forced to train their replacements. Again, thanks to Government policy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Illiteracy Statistics
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Literacy
Research Date: 4.28.2013
Percent of U.S. adults who can’t read 14 %
Number of U.S. adults who can’t read 32 Million
Percent of U.S. adults who read below a 5th grade level 21 %
Percent of prison inmates who can’t read 63 %
Percent of high school graduates who can’t read 19 %
http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read/
It's nice to see the Public taking a stand against Government Unions like the bloated self-serving Government Teacher's Union by voluntarily taking their children out of Government schools and using their hard won time, efforts and money more productively by supporting organic, LOCALLY OWNED Charter Schools and other Private Schools built brick by brick by local people (many of whom were teachers who quit Government schools to do real education) and supported by the local community.
WI has some of the nation's top Charter Schools serving the poorest with real education. Its great to see The Public continue to vote in a Governor who supports giving the poor the freedom to choose a Private pedagogy via School Choice just as the rich have always had.
I think O-blah-ma was the last straw. The general public has had enough of this Progressive Socialist's 8 more years of never ending Warmongering, bailing out the Crony Bankers and bloated over priced Government 'services' - all shoveled down their throats.
Of course, it'll take decades more of a dropping standard of living in the USA before enough people say enough is enough. But, we didn't get into this Progressive Socialist mess over night, this took over 100 years and it'll take decades to reverse and then fix the damage they've done.
The first step in real change is voluntarily removing your child from Government school is a good Charter School is available. Again, this is going to take decades to change.
Oh, and the problems with Government schools, their bloated Teachers Unions and their horrible 'pedagogy' of pump and dump education, have nothing at all to do with the Koch brothers. These problems have built up across 100 years with an acceleration from the LBJ/Mao's Great Society in the 1960s equating in our horrid Government School system we have today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Harmony Alexandria Actually it depends on the country, in Japan, medical error rate is quite low whereas in Canada and Australia the medical error rate is probably higher (maybe even double that of the USA). I know someone who studies medical error rate and the governmental statistics are not the true rate as medical errors are under reported as well as re-categorized. As an example, a person came in to the hospital with a neck ache, he had an underlying condition (MS). Due to medical error / utter incompetence a routine surgery resulted in quadriplegia and later died of complications (about 8 months later), His death was not medical error. In another case, a Professor's wife was misdiagnosed with an obvious tumor any idiot could see - she died of cancer about 1 year later, again, not listed as medical error. Anyway, you probably have little or no idea regarding medicine, while I work in the field.
As for gun violence, again, it's at decades low. Decades low. And we don't own guns. So, I'm not a gun owner. It's just simply a fact, gun violence is at decades low. Of the top 10 so called mass shootings, the shooters have been religious fanatics or pill heads.
I do agree, crapitalistic medicine in the USA has ruined healthcare. But, socialized medicine isn't going to change that in the USA.
1
-
1
-
1
-
technatezin You're describing a false dichotomy. I can both BE myself (consciously) as well as OWN the body my consciousness exists in. As a matter of fact, my consciousness arises FROM my body - my neocortex to be precise. They're not indistinguishable from one another physically.
Let's see if a couple examples will clear this up:
(1) Suppose "I" (referring to the subjective consciousness you commented on) require a kidney (maybe "I" have Type 1 diabetes) do "I" have the moral right to forcibly hold the body that "you" exist inside of and cut "that body's" kidney out for my personal use?
(2) Suppose "I" wanted to put a tattoo on my face, of course this will upset some other people's 'subjective' consciousnesses (namely my partner). Do "I" have the "Right" to put a tattoo on the body "I" happen to inhabit?
On a pragmatic level, "I" take care of this body, I feed it, wash it, and exert about as much control over it as is currently humanly physically possible. As humans have come to use the word 'property' and 'ownership' and 'right' I can safely say "I" have ownership over this body, it is my property, I have the right to it.
Oh, and your snide remark about anyone who doesn't agree with you is "insert ad hominem" is not making you look like you have a strong argument, it's making you look like you have a weak argument - thus your attempt at poisoning the well. Aside from being childish, it's also fallacious. A religious fundamentalist may or may not be correct. What is important is their argument, not their personal belief system. This is the entire reason WHY Aristotle developed the concept 'validity'.
1
-
technatezin
Again, you start out with a false dichotomy. You can both own your body and be a part of the thing you own. There is no false dichotomy. People die all the time and their physical possessions fall into disrepair and return to the land.
RE: "Nope, because that would be violating the indivisible-ness of the body and the critical functioning parts that comprise it.."
--> This is referred to as moving the goal post. First you try (and fail) to demonstrate I cannot own my body and now you're replacing property with "indivisible-ness" (a word you made up on the spot, unless you meant indivisibleness. Either way, it's not a valid argument).
RE: "You do have that "right", but you do so because it is something you did to your body that didn't take away any functionality from anybody else's body."
Oh, really? Anybody else's body. Did you notice the possessive you placed on the word "body" with your apostrophe on the letter s? The apostrophe on the s is used to indicate ownership or possession. Property is defined by ownership. You implicitly know you are wrong. Your own language shows you believe the body is owned (is property) by the consciousness that inhabits it. Putting a tattoo on another person's body, does not affect it's function, but is still violating that person's property rights.
Oh, and you are incorrect in your assertion about the tattoo. In tattooing your own face, you do 'take away functionality' of the other person's body in the sense that you have changed their aesthetic perception of you - as in, you've changed their synaptic connectivity of their cortex. You're affected their physical body - their brain to be precise. But, we accept this in society as non violent and thus it falls into the category 'aesthetics'.
Lastly, when you're suggesting "Again, the obviousness of this is astounding" is a classic ad hominem. It makes you sound like you're 12. Are you 12? Seriously, you sound peril when you conclude your lack of success in making an argument by denigrating anyone who doesn't agree with your fallacious reasoning. Actually, I know 12 year old children that know better than to do that in an argument.
You may be interested in looking up the following:
- types of reasoning
- deductive vs inductive
- sound and valid vs strong and cogent
- ad hominem
- poisoning the well
- logical reasoning
- rationalism vs empiricism
- argument by analogy
So, my apologies, but we cannot come to an agreed conclusion. You may persist in your belief you do not have ownership over your own body and, perhaps, mull over how such a sentiment was generally shared by slavers of the 1700s. Have a nice weekend.
1
-
1
-
technatezin Okay, I'll re-read.
RE:
A: Social agent's "free will" determines the ownership of critical body parts that are mandatory requirements for sustaining the life of the biological entity that acts as the social agent.
B: Ownership of critical body parts can be released and transferred as a social construct that then belongs to another social agent without affecting the functionality of the social agent that is transferring it.
A implies B or If A is true then B is true
Okay, you start with Modus Ponens for 'critical body parts' (I'm not sure if ANYTHING, including an idea, can be transferred without affecting the functionality of the social agents transferring it - the act of transferring will cause some change somewhere thus affecting the functionality of the brain - but anyway) and then perform the contrapositive.
AND?
Is it your goal to part the body out into what is and is not property based on what is and is not within the category 'critical body parts' and/or 'affects the functionality of a body? I'm not quite sure of your point here?
NOTE:
When Libertarians talk about Private Property and begin with self-ownership, I don't think delineating 'critical body parts' has any bearing on their proposition. Which is self-ownership (or whatever term you'd like to replace with self-ownership that retains the meaning of the apostrophe after the S you used earlier). Do you have a term you'd prefer to use other than property?
I, as a strong Atheist, also do not think it's a leap of religious faith to suggest 'self-ownership' involves referring to the body as your property. That's the common vernacular as well as the legalese.
NOTE:
None of the following fall into the category 'critical body parts':
kidneys, lungs, epidermis of the skin, sampled DNA, blood, vagina, hair.
RE: "Owning property clearly implies the realistic transferring of ownership when the property can be taken".
1) Kidney can and are sold.
2) Space on skin for tattooing advertisements can be and is sold.
3) You can live with a single lung - therefor lungs can be sold.
4) The red cross pays for human blood.
5) You even own your unique DNA sequences.
6) Hair is sold ALL the time.
7) Sperm can be sold - and are.
8) Eggs can be sold - and are.
9) Wombs can be rented - and are.
These examples clearly show that you are attempting to redefine what property is relative to the common legal and ethically defined term. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with attempting to be more clear in the usage of the term property. But the only argument you appear to be making, assuming we agree to the premise in A is that 'critical body organs' cannot be sold, is one that strengthens the position of 'self-ownership' by whatever terminology you come up with to explain that apostrophe YOU used. Not only this, but your A --> B implied that 'non-critical body organs' CAN be sold by the social agent and therefor are probably property.
What word do you propose we replace the parts of the body that are 'property' and can be sold from the parts of the body that are not sell-able? How is your new term going to make one bit of difference from how the general use of Property Rights in reference to the body is employed? If anything, you're strengthening the underlying argument for the notion of 'self ownership'. You may come up with a new term, but the proposition is only that much more strengthened.
RE: "Meaning that the property transference can be reversed like in any ordinary kind of property exchange agreement"
1) Sex can and is sold.
Is the vagina a "critical body part"? Do women own access to their vagina?
Again, it seems you're attempting to create a new category for 'property' in an effort to exclude self-ownership, but you're actually achieving the opposite.
Social Agents can legally (and Ethically) terminate their own body's life. Why? Because they OWN their body. It is their property, and so they can even destroy it if they so choose.
This last example suggests that social agents own more than just their non-critical organs. they can terminate their entire body. Including the critical organs. That's actually the whole point of suicide. Again, this is evidence for self-ownership and that the body is property (or, whatever word you'd like to replace with property that means 'property' as in the common vernacular).
1
-
1
-
technatezin "You don't own your body. You've just used yourself including the part that comprise your sexual organs in a social behavior in order to exchange entitlement privileges for yourself."
LOL
And now you're replacing the word 'sell' with the word 'used'? How far are you willing to push this goal post? And more importantly, why? You're not changing the proposition "private property" and the implication of self-ownership by changing the words used to describe the relationship a free-agent has with the body it lives within.
You do understand that much? Legally, you own your body. When Libertarians discuss the body being private property, they are also discussing the legal fact you own your body. If your body commits a crime, 'you' are held responsible.
The proposition "Private Property Rights" is not going to change just because you change the word property to "non-critical organs of the biological substrate that houses an individual free-will agent". Or change the word 'sell' to 'used'. Or etc....
The words may change, the proposition is not going to change.
And I'm sorry but when money is exchanged, in English, we no longer use the word 'used' (as in, she used him for status, he used her for sex) and instead replace used with the word sold (as in: he paid her for sex, she sold sex).
Let's use some examples, you can answer them true or false:
1) Sometimes people sell their 'critical organs' such as their kidneys for money.
2) Sometimes people sell their car for money.
3) Sometimes people sell sex for money.
4) Sometimes people sell their hair for money.
5) Sometimes people sell their sperm for money.
6) It is not possible to legally sell something you do not own.
7) It is not possible to legally sell something that is owned by someone else without their permission.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, you're both correct.
Government Theft / Taxation actual can drive economies 'forward' and lead to prosperity through infrastructure project. Of course, this initiation of force is immoral - and in the long run generally leads to Government metastasis into all sorts of areas of human interaction (aka: the economy).
Stop and think about Slavery itself. Lots of gold was mined for the Romans during times of Slavery. Yet, much of the rest of their empire was about as Laissez-faire as one could imagine. Did the use of Slaves help the rest of society by providing it with cheap gold? Yes. It probably did. Was this immoral? Yes, it most certainly was.
The problem is complex, and no solution in terms of 'economic' prosperity is going to happen in any conversation. Let alone a YouTube one. However, it's a Kantian Ethical position that Government (force, law, freedom) is immoral due to the use of force. Only Anarchy (freedom, law without force) is moral.
Japanese (half my family are Japanese) self regulate through culture and therefor can have a lot of personal individual freedoms we do not have. Its possible to open small businesses pretty easily in Japan (if you speak Japanese). Little restaurants that seat 5. However, they also have had a LOT of government infrastructure projects. Most of which are well looked after by the people. This has, IMO, lead to an economic boom and bust. A long 30 year bust. A better way would be a slower initial 'boom' through less (preferably no) governmental spending. That way we'd have had a more sustainable economy. Instead we say a huge amount of economic activity (helped along by Government spending) followed by a just as massive bust leading to a projected 50-80 MORE years as the resulting population declines back to 80 million from 120 million.
So, you're both correct. Government is immoral force and through it's spending it can cause huge economic booms which can lead to economic benefit - particularly in the short term. Or long term, no one can know until the time passes. Plus, we can not go back and 'rerun' history to see how things may have been had the government not taken on debt and reallocated resources. Probably a less economic activity (many of us would not have been born) but more sustainable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
john carlisle
The problem is not funding, the problem is the structure of government schools. As an example, anthropologists have shown when children are grouped per age, bullying naturally arises. This has been published. Yet, we continue to structure grades by age and not aptitude. This leads to bullying and also lowers educational outcomes. We still take off summers - this has been shown to correlate strongly with a reduction in children's long term learning. Again, even though this is published, Government schools continue to take summers off. I'm sure Teachers Unions would fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. Teaching topics in classes per a single topic does not integrate learning - but it's easier to do that way. Thus math is taught without any history, often making it meaningless and useless - completely abstract, and likewise with history. Over and over we see Government schools are unsound in their pedagogy, thus parents should have the option to put their kids in a PUBLIC Charter School that is attempting to make positive changes - often with less money.AND Teachers who want to teach should have these employment opertunities. Many of these schools are succeeding with less money. It's really that simple. Parents pay, they should get a say in where their children are educated.
The DoED has published stats that show 1 in 5 graduates are functionally illiterate. Yet, in Japan they have nearly a 99.99% literacy rate while spending almost half as much money as we do. Again, it's not the funding, US Government Schools are some of the best funded in the world. These are all facts you can research at your leisure.
1
-
1
-
ahabthewhaler
Republicans are no different than Democrats. They're both 'Progressive' socialists. They only differ on what they think is "Progress".
They both LOVE lots of government.
They'd both have bailed out the crony banks.
They both support expanding government (see NSA).
They both support never ending wars.
If you think deregulation led to the GFC you've been fooled. Firstly, the financial system in the USA (and elsewhere) is and has been one of most regulated markets in the world. It's neck and neck with medicine and hard to say exactly which has the most regulations. And, of course, both hyper-regulated unfree-markets of finance and medicine are a total mess. Secondly, Clinton 'deregulated' finance (although, as I said, this is NOT what caused the GFC - and finance remains one of the most regulated markets in the world).
Do you have any evidence that "Republicans" don't "want any regulations on financial markets"? This sounds rather absurd.
Of course, I personally would love no regulations on any markets outside of those derived by common law and contract laws. If you think some clueless bureaucrat in Washington can effectively regulate their way out of a wet paper-bag, well, I have news for you - they can't. Most are totally incompetent and couldn't give two craps about anything other than making more money through ticking the right boxes to get promoted into better paid, cushier jobs.
If we had stuck with common law and contract law we'd have developed the sort of finance that doesn't exist only to serve the richest 0.1%.
Oh well, hope you like being poorer. Because the government is going to be bailing out/transferring wealth to the Too Rich To Jail for decades to come. This IS going to happen and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
technatezin I completely agree that instructional methods have not changed much - and, with the exception of some forms of technology/CAI (visuals and movies for example), probably can't do much about transferring knowledge from one person to the next. That's where "teaching" comes in. Teaching is a skill, like acting, some people have it, some do not. Which is why we need a free-market in pedagogy. In this way good teachers are rewarded (profit) and bad teachers can go find something better to do with their lives. Government Schools are fascistic in their monopolizing the K-12 pedagogy. You want to talk about fleeced, after 12 years of Government Schooling 1 in 5 graduate is functionally illiterate (according to the DoED). THAT is at a cost of $12-23K a year ($150,000+ PER student ) to the tax payer. This is some serious fleecing being done by Government Schools. Anyway, if you like Government Schools, great, you're free to use them. Some are genuinely pretty good. Free-Market competition will keep them that way.
1
-
technatezin 1) Firstly, of our top ranked 20 Universities, 19 are private.
2) Sure, some people feel they were ripped off - particularly if they paid $150K for a liberal arts degree and now cannot find work. Well, they have recourse, they can sue. AND the same could be said of buying a car or a house.
3) The DoED publishes statistics on functional illiteracy and they show 1 in 5 graduates of traditional Government Schools cannot competently read or write. So, you tell me, where is OUR recourse? Where is the return of our tax money?
4) Sorry, but we have many successful Private Schools K-12. Many parents are more than happy to pay. I've lived in AU and JP and in both countries you will find a thriving Private School market. So, it's not just the USA. This is evidence that people WANT and are happy to pay for Private education. So, in the real world, it does work. Our premise is in fact aligning well with empirical reality. These schools do exist and are thriving.
Agreed?
5) Like it or not, many traditional Government Schools have become total mockery of education. And, like it or not, they will compete with Private Schools, Alternative Schools and Charter Schools - and many Government schools will go bankrupt, right along with the rest of the corrupt public institutions, taking down entire cities with them (SEE: Detroit, Flint, ChIraq).
1
-
technatezin Yes, I do agree, sometimes people lose their time and money. Welcome to life.
1) I am not assuming anything about perfect information, don't create a straw man. I am arguing that people have a right to buy private education if they so choose - and they do.
2) Do people open scam schools? Sure. And? Again, welcome to the real world. My advice is do some research before buying a product. If you don't have the money to lose, then stick with a tried and true source of information. Examples of quality private schools include: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc...
3) No one is telling you, you have to buy private, if you don't want it, don't buy it. But don't tell me what I can or cannot buy with my money. Agreed? Like I said, we're not going to privatize Government Schools, why would we do that? We're going to out compete them in the free market by offering a superior product, and they'll go bust. As many already are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jenni Lee I didn't say owning a business is a civil "Right". I said OPENING a business WAS a right - long ago. When we were a freer nation of people. As a matter of fact, there's little difference between opening a business and selling a service or good and offering to perform labor, which is itself selling a service - labor. The Progressive State has also restricted this as well. Thus, of course we are becoming a poorer less prosperous society and will continue to become so as more and more progressive regulations make it nearly impossible for anyone to do anything.
Anyway, let's let empiricism see who is correct. Are Americans opening less businesses and are restrictions increasing? Are we becoming poorer? So far? Restrictions and regulations increase (by the millions of lines of legal code) each year and less and less Americans want to bother wasting their time opening up a business - particularly when people like Thom run their name's through the mud. I personally wouldn't open a bussiness up in the USA. No way. It's not worth the regulatory hassle, combined with how litigation happy we Americans are.
That said, overseas I probably will open up a business. I find Asia is much freer than the USA, personally. Also, I like the Asian "Can Do" attitude and Asians have a good work ethic and positive attitude about doing work when at work. Asians don't sue as much either. It's easy to organize to do business over a handshake - and some are much more trustworthy. In my experience.
So, there you go, another American entrepreneur makes plans to leave and provide goods and services to others outside of the USA. Your understanding of a "right" vs a "privledge" isn't going to do squat to keep me or other's like me here in the USA. We will not be investing and working hard to make our nation a better place - no, we'll do that elsewhere, for other people's benefit. And get this, I imagine, I won't be hassled over the nuances of having the 'right' to own a businesses vs the 'right' to be allowed to freely OPEN a new business. A small added bonus :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Andi Amador Talk about a sloppy strawman.
1) I didn't say anything about 'shooting' someone because you didn't like their service. That would be against the law.
2) I also didn't say anything about lawlessness. Contract law, laws that protect property rights and sound money are all perfectly compatible with civil society.
3) I also didn't say anything about removing licencing. Receiving a qualification is perfectly compatible with a civil society. The AMA, a private medical organization of physicians, as an example, qualifies and licences members.
4) No, it would not be legal to sell goods and/or services fraudulently as that's both a breach of contract law and potentially property damage if it leads to someone being harmed. IOWs, yes, you can hang your shingle up, but you can not claim to be a qualified medical doctor as that would be fraud.
So, if you're done with the strawmen, please feel free to address the timely and quite simple example that was taken from contemporary news just this last week. See, unlike you and your 'Wild West' red herring, I posted a meaningful question, one that is being dealt with by the State, as we speak.
Oh, and to make sure we're clear, my family isn't white and I have no time for superstitious non-sense like belief in asinine memes such as God/s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
thrisbt1 No, I thought you asked me how I would personally rectify this.
To my question: "Okay, suppose someone opens a Pizza store and they refuse to sell pizza's to Blacks, Asians and homosexuals. What do YOU want the Police to do about it?
Let's hear what YOU think the Progressive State should do to legally rectify this?"
My answer is, given the information presented here, the Police are to play no role in this particular transaction.
1) Ethically, there is nothing immoral occurring.
2) Aesthetically, the store owner is, in my opinion, acting in a despicable manner.
I would personally, not shop there. I would instead, make it a point to buy pizza directly from competitors. If possible, I would work towards educating the next generation not to follow this particular superstitious belief system. Perhaps I'd promote competing superstitions like Buddhism. Or other belief systems such as bayesian epistemology.
I understand that the slow learning process (which involves up regulating the production of AMPA receptors - this takes a while) is not as satisfying as the immediate base feeling one gets when violence is perpetrated (which is why our News and society is filled with images of violence). But, if we want to live in a civil peaceful society, then we have to act civil. Perhaps a logical biconditional argument could be made here?
Anyway, if worse came to worse, I could invest in a smart phone app that allows me to refuse business with any of the people who volunteer to supply goods and services to the pizza shop owner. Perhaps even shutting off electricity to the shop once the contract has finished. Or not renewing a rental agreement. Etc.... Though, this should only be done in an extreme situation. The best option is to buy my pizza elsewhere. Ultimately, it may take generational learning (this is due to low levels of synaptic plasticity in the adult brain).
I hope that has answered your question satisfactorily.
1
-
LiberalLionMMXX Strawman much?
1) You used the word utopia, not me.
2) I certainly did not say Licences would not be issued, only that you would not be required to obtain one by the State.
Here, let me show you how faulty (and simplistic) your reasoning is:
"You think licensing professionals is a bad idea? Good luck when the dropout down the road decides that he's a brain surgeon"
3) No, I think private licensing is a GOOD IDEA. As a matter of fact, that's how we do it currently.
4) I think giving the State a monopoly on who can issue licenses is a bad idea.
5) You can get on a plane, fly overseas and have brain surgery done today by a surgeon who is not licensed to practice in the USA. As a matter of fact, many people do go overseas and have major surgery performed.
6) Good luck getting an insurance company to pay for a non-licensed drop out to perform your surgery. That is never going to happen. I wouldn't even raise that one to the level of strawman argument. It was insulting - to your intellect and makes you look puerile. You should apologize to your Ego immediate.
7) It would be illegal to pretend to be licensed as that is contract fraud.
Lastly, you have no idea about how MD's are qualified. I on the other hand actually qualify MDs. So, unlike you, I am one of your regulators in this instance. If you think having a monopoly on who can practice is driving UP quality - well, you're the one living in a Progressive utopian bubble. But, I'll give you a clue. In 1990 about 90,000 Americans died that year due to medical error. In 2010 that number was 480,000.
The only one living with dreams of Utopia are you Regressive socialists. And more often than not, you think you know much more than you do. My suggestion is vote Hillary and hope the nation does us the favor of collapsing soon. Until then, enjoy our Progressive Socialistic NSA Police State. It's going to be here for a long long time to come.
1
-
John Smith
RE: "the Patriot act was not a progressive policy"
Th Partiot Act IS a Progressive policy.The Patriot Act is a continuation of the Progressive Tradition of the State keeping us 'Safe' and we lose more personal liberty 'for the Good of Society'.
The "Conservative" tradition is rugged individualism - just ask Thom, he says as much while he constructs his Strawmen to blow over.
The "Conservative" tradition is SMALL government and MAXIMAL individual freedom. Exactly the opposite of "Progressive Socialism". Even Thom admits this. Now, you tell me, which is closer to the "Patriot" Act??
Obviously the Patriot, a MASSIVE expansion of the State and MASSIVE erosion of Personal Liberty and MASSIVE erosion of Personal Privacy thus IS, by definition, a Progressive policy. Loss of Personal Liberty for 'the Good of Society' IS Progressivism 101.
The Partiot Act is simply MORE Nanny State babysitting the sad pathetic populace called Americans. Which is why we will, one day, end up in a neo-Fascist State completed with something akin to a Dictator/s (see: TBTB Banking Aristocracy). Progressive's really got started 100 years ago with the Progressive's creation of the Central Bank and the Progressive's passing of the Tax on Labor (Income Tax) - well, this was followed up with a century of Progressive Regulations to make us "safe" and for "The Good of Society" (See: Rent Seeking and Regulatory capture and, together with Government Schools, is the reason there are no good jobs).
Summary, now, 100 years, almost to the day, the Right Wing of the Progressive Party passes the Patriot Act and the Left Wing of the Progressive Party has maintained it for 6 years - even expanding the NSA with 100s of billions of dollars of spyware. We continue to LOSE more personal freedom, LOSE more personal privacy and have to be questioned/searched at boarders 100 miles INSIDE the USA. This is the exact OPPOSITE of the Conservative Tradition, which again, as THOM likes to point out, IS personal responsibility/individualism and maximal personal freedom.
If you don't like the stink of your Progressive Policies, well, stop blaming the Conservative tradition and blame yourselves. Maybe take a bath too.
Note: I'm an Atheist by the way. That is ALSO part of the conservative tradition, almost ALL of the Framers were atheists or deists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PolakFury I think it depends on who you spoke to in the USA. I personally think there will come a day whereby any human can move anywhere on earth - and I have no problem with people coming and leaving passport free, anywhere. We should eliminate passports.
However, at the same time, we would have to have a diversity of governments, with some being very very very small. Thus, in societies with large governments, they can decide how they want to deal with an influx of humans, those societies with small limited governments will find most goods and services are provided by free people within thew law, using an agreed upon currency. In a free society, people find out quite quickly if they are wanted in a community, as they'll be required to provide value to the people around them. Whether a fruit picker or a neurosurgeon. Which is good for both parties.
I admit, I really like Japan. I like that the culture is maintained - but, it's not really true. The Japan of 2015 is not the Japan of 1915 or 1815. That said, Japanese are good at ostracizing the people they don't want in their communities. This may or may not be to their own detriment. In my opinion, this is the best way.
It would be interesting to see how many women in KSA (whom we in the USA support) would like to get the hell out of KSA and come live in the USA. I find it interesting Americans like supporting KSA and bombing Iraq etc.... primarily because we don't have to deal with the consequences - IOWs, we bomb them or support their dictators and at the same time use our boarder to prevent them from leaving. Which is perverse.
Sadly, we're not going to move towards a world with small limited governments. That's just not what the majority of people want. Most people secretly like using State violence. Which is why we'll probably end up living in a Police State. Oh.... wait. It's already here. To imagine in some States you're required a State Licence to sell arranged flowers or cut hair. Or fix a PC. Or get married. Or sell a weed.
How pathetic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
J GALT
Stop and think about what you're saying. IF most people do NOT want to help other individuals, then in a democracy, a representative government would not be able to enact laws that do help other's as that would run counter to the will of those that are governed.
Further, in a free-market based society (no, not a free-for-all Regressives like to Strawman) the only way you can get along with other's is by offering them something of value. Thus, even if you didn't like other people, you'd still be stuck having to deliver value if you wanted to interact with others.
The very oxymoron that sits at the center of Progressive Ideology is that we need to use force / the State, in order to coerce some people, into helping others. All that has happened is the State has morphed into a Warmonger littered with Welfare ghettos where, instead of individuals helping one another, individuals say "I pay me taxes" and wash their hands of it.
Too bad to, we could have organized a really wonderful society. But, instead we all get to live in the Regressive Police State we currently inhabit - and will for a long long time to come. Decades, if not centuries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
1) No one said 'free markets' are 'free for alls'.
2) Chinese are not slaves, any Chinese who does not want to work in a factory can quit, and finally, China is becoming one of the richest nations in the world and just passed the USA. China is watching it middle class explode in size and scope while ours implodes. Hell, many Americans only wish they could get a job in a Chinese factory.
3) Corporations do not take 'your' job anywhere. It's not 'your' job. You sell your labor, someone may or may not want to buy it.
Your argument would be like a Starbucks barista saying you're taking "job" away because you choose not to buy a coffee from Starbucks. No, you choose from whom to buy your coffee just as business owners choose from whom to buy their labor and services from.
It's thier business - THEY choose who they buy materials AND labor from. Again, NOT YOUR job.
4) You have some travel guides? Oh, good for you. I on the other hand have lived in 5 different countries. Some for over a decade.
If Americans want to become prosperous then we need laws that protect private property AND we need to return civil liberty to the people and put government back in its box. Until that happens, you can vote in whomever you like, but the country as a whole will continue to become poorer. This nation was founded on the principle of LIMITED government, basic common law and sound money. Now we have UNLIMITED government, millions of upon millions of lines of regulations and fiat currency used to by the State to bail out the rich and pay for never ending war.
All thanks to Regressive Socialists.
1
-
***** The USA never had a problem of people staving to death - ever. We've NEVER had a history of mass starvation with one exception the Progressive Central Bank caused Great Depression in the 1930s. As a matter of fact, regulations were very very limited in the 1800s, there were no social safety nets, and this is correlated with the greatest creation of wealth in human history as well as the second industrial revolution. It led to the modern world. movies, radio, private universities, electricity, cars - all of this came during the time when Government was limited.
A Chicago census found Black Americans in 1910 had a higher literacy rate THEN as compared to NOW, one hundred years later. That was BEFORE public Government schools. The difference was 85% then compared with 50% now.
So, sorry, but history simply show's you're wrong. Starvation was never a problem in the USA. Either was literacy, either was job creation, either was finding work. People moved to the USA to find prosperity because we WERE prosperous.
Today, after 100 years of Progressive Socialism and 60 years of hyper-Regulations, yes, there's serious problems with the unsound structure of society.
So, the solution isn't to attempt to pull the table cloth out from under the dishware. No, the first step is to recognize and admit we have a problem with too much Government.
Then we work towards finding private community based voluntary free-market solutions to our MANY government caused problems.
Solutions MAY include:
1. State based debt-free currency competition.
2. Competition in pedagogy using vouchers.
3. Winding back ALL regulations that result in rent-seeking and regulatory capture.
4. Ending income tax, the drug war, the wars in the ME.
5. And other ideas that society will come up with as it attempts to meet the needs of other's through free-market trade instead of relying on the use of State violence.
But, none of this is going to happen. What's instead going to happen is we're getting many MANY more regulations, we'll lose our personal privacy, the NSA will be expanded, the internet will be regulated by the State (one day you'll need a State licence to log-in to the internet and a State licence to be allowed to create a website, you know "For the Good of Society" and because "You use the Roads".) We'll see decades more War (and new ones) and there'll be a lot less meaningful highly paid jobs. Luckily for me, I have an irreplaceable skill-set. I can move pretty much anywhere in the world. I cannot be replaced by a machine. So, I'm okay. But, for those who live in our hyper-Regulated Progressive Police State, many will simply have to sign up as Cannon Fodder in the Progressive Wars we fight to 'Bring Freedom' to the World.
So, lucky you, we're getting much more State and you needn't worry about scary things like being free to chart your life's course, having personal privacy or 'starving to death'.
1
-
*****
The Civil War was initiated by the State. So, this is an example of State violence. Yes, people do starve during State-initiated War as the State's troupes generally burn crops. I was referring to post-CW (I mean, before there were Slaves, this isn't exactly a free society right?).
The Long Depression ended in 18 months. I do not recall reading of wide-spread starvation.
The Great Depression, caused by the Progressive's Central Bank, and then extended far into the 30s, did result in starvation - particularly when the State paid farmers to burn their own produce and bury their own livestock to push up prices. THIS is the level of stupidity of the State. Again, fault of the State, not the free-markets.
I'm telling you, we have too much Government. This IS the problem. And no, electing a new POTUS is never, ever, going to solve this problem. It will take decades, at least, to unwind all the mess the State has made of society.
You're correct, I don't need to worry. And, I don't need to move anywhere (although I do like living in Japan). I will do well with more Regulation. It's people like me who are tasked to regulate people like you. What I don't understand is this: I'm telling you, YOU don't need ME to regulation your life for you. Yet, you turn around and almost beg me to do so? Why? You can do things on your own. You're not a child. And get this, the more you're forced to do things on your own, the more you're likely to create a meaningful job, employ other people, and enjoy your life.
We don't need the State. We never did. Actually, we don't 'need' any State at all. But, I accept we will for now, thus I suggest a slow-winding back. My own focus now is to work towards creating a new pedagogy for the next generation. I think it may require another decade before it's complete. And then another 2 decades before results are obtained. And then anther 2 decades before fruit is born.
That's the time scale we need to think on.
Anyway, in the meantime we're getting much more regulation and the common person is going to get poorer in some ways but enjoy technological advances which improve other aspects of life. So, you needn't worry that anything I'm writing about is going to happen any time too soon. No way. Americans now despise freedom. This level of hate for the individual and civil rights and freedom usually required 4 generations (or 80 years or so) to dispel. When people are starving for a good 2 decades - THEN they'll see reason. At least a good reading of history suggests that's the case.
1
-
1
-
*****
Well, to be fair you've been cordial. I was referring to the Depression of 1920–21 (18 months). As for the Long Depression, this did not result in mass starvation. The USA has never had mass starvation (outside of when the State caused it).
That aside, you are in luck. We are not going to be gaining more civil liberties in the coming decades.This year alone millions upon millions of more regulations were added to the 10s of millions from before that. And, we'll also see more loss of personal privacy via the NSA and etc... (well, to be fair, not much is left to lose anyway).
I happen to be one of your Regulators. While I also happen to think that you, as an adult, are more than capable of living as a free person within the Law and with minimal regulation of your life. You seem to think otherwise. You want people in my position to Regulate your life for you. Okay. You're in luck. That's one of the things that I do. As I said, I am one of your Regulators. And believe me, you'll be hard-pressed to find people in my position with my attitude. Most think like you. That we should regulate you because, quite frankly, you're seen as imbeciles at worse, children at best.
So, I suppose this is the deal: You keep paying your taxes and obey your betters in society. And, that's the way forward for you. If you're clever (I gave the keynote address at a top 10 University where I was awarded a full scholarship prior to completing doctorate work) then, perhaps you may become a Regulator. If not, well, I guess that's life.
What you should NOT expect is to live a more prosperous life in the coming decades. You see, regulations in general hinder job growth because it favours rent-seekers and regulatory capture, leaving low paying low skilled jobs as greeters, waiters, ditch diggers, etc....
So, outside of those who are highly skilled in very specialized fields, then things in the USA are not going to get any better - at least in my opinion, we'll see.
Summery: You both should be very happy with this arrangement, after all, this is what you want.
Your role is to obey your Regulators.
Our role is to Regulate you for your own good.
Enjoy the State, you'll be seeing much more of it in the coming decades. That much I can say for sure.
1
-
J GALT Your statement regarding good government (oxymoron) reminds me of an Iranian who once told me: Once we get the right Ayatollah then everything is going to be perfect. The same was told to me from a Chinese about their Dear Leader. I'm sure E. Germans and N. Koreans thought/think the same thing.
It's called magic-thinking. Humans, particularly the simple ones, seem to default into magic thinking. Probably why so many people believe in Gods.
Because, your premise of getting the good Government is no different than E. Germans, N, Koreans, Chinese and Iranians: If only we could elect the right people elected THEN *magic happens* and poof we'll have "good" government.
I have a question: Why is it, do you think, the Communist's in Germany, China, Korea, etc... all seem to elect the wrong people and end up in dirt poor crap-hole dictatorships? Whereas, when the USA had extremely limited Government (mid to late 1800s) this is correlated with the greatest growth in ANY society in the history of humanity ushering in the second industrial revolution and the post-modern era.
Here's another question: How much is my tea cup (in my hand) worth, to me? You needn't see it. That's not going to make any difference. Take a guess. Is it worth $1, $80? $500, $5000 maybe there's no price I would sell it for. Maybe it was a personal gift from a dead relative who's memory is more important than what I could buy with money. Go ahead, tell me.
See, you really don't get it. Your understanding of how things work in the real world is superficial. Child like. The fact is, you can NEVER know until the day I sell my cup. I need the freedom, in a free market, before that can happen.
We need LIMITED government that protects private property, sound money and free markets. These are the ingredients to a prosperous society.
But, you just keep praying for the magical "good" Government to poof into existence out of the void. See how that works our for you.
1
-
1
-
J GALT You've yet to post anything intelligible. It's one post hoc magic-thinking rationalization after another.
I'll tell you what, you go get a book, open it, read about induction and deduction, valid, sound, cogent and strong and then attempt forming a thoughtful argument. Because, until then, you literally just spout childish babble.
Seriously, here's some terms for you to look up:
Deduction,
Induction,
Validity,
Soundness,
Axiomatic,
Cogent,
Strong,
Weak.
Do you know what a basic Venn diagram is? Basic set theory? How about rational? Empirical? David Hume ring any bells? Locke? Russel? Kant? No, not bells. This strongly suggests you can't even begin to analyse an argument - ha! You don't even know what an argument even is. Do you know what an alpha value is? Could you apply bayesian inference to an argument?
Look, I'm paid a decent 6 figure salary purely to analyze and write arguments. I promise you, all you're doing is babbling. The reason you're babbling is because you have no idea how to reason. You don't even understand the different types of reasons. Having a discussion with you is like attempting to explain basic Nernst potentials to a toddler. Of course you don't understand any of what you're reading, of course it all seems to make no sense. You simply lack the lexicon and cognitive experience to understand what you're reading.
Again, according to the DoE the average American has a literacy rate of between 7th and 8th grade. Now, ask yourself, are you average. Be honest with yourself. At best yes.
So, instead of wasting bandwidth - go read a book.
Note: Your conversation has been useful. I need test material to explain formal fallacies. You're been an ample supply. Kind regards.
1
-
J GALT Here's some facts about the government you worship:
- Invaded Vietnam and murdered millions of women and child over a lie.
- Rinse and repeat with Afghanistan and Iraq.
- The US government is currently the largest polluter in the world.
- The US government consumes more limited energy than any institution in the world.
- US Government schools graduate functional illiterates at a rate of 1 in every 5.
- The US government spent $100 billion building yet another NSA spy center, not to spy on a few goat herders, but to spy on you and I. Which is against the US Constitution.
- The FDA certifies boiled in ammonia off cuts of nose, ear, feet, snout processed and food colored (aka: Pink Slime) as edible for human consumption. I wouldn't feed that to a dog.
- The US government just bailed out the very same richest 0.1% that you seem to worry about.
How upside down is your world view?! The USA government just bailed out the very rich you complain about. Right now, those rich your whine about would be poor. But thanks to the US government not only are they not poor, not only did no one go to jail, but they're the richest class of humans in history and getting richer by the day.
- The US Government is spending $600 billion to lose the war another year. Up to $100 trillion has been wasted on the military since 1949 alone.
Now, in case you were confused. That list, is NOT an argument. It's a list of evidences that government doesn't not work for the social good IN my opinion. I'm not going to bother crafting an argument for you because you don't understand what one is. If you read that list and think that's all good for society. Well, then that's your opinion and we'll just have to agree to disagree on opinion. But, the list is factual - feel free to look up any one of those points.
Again, the progressive government you worship just bailed out the richest 0.1% most corrupt humans on earth. It also wages a never ending war killing women and children with low-grade radioactive material in Iraq. You may think we need more of it. I OTOH think it should be limited to a VERY SMALL role in any society.
Not that what I think or you think matters, because you just happen to be in luck. We're getting much more Government. You should feel good, each year the reach of government into our personal lives expands. Soon you won't have to worry about having these conversations, as the government will ensure they do not occur 'for the Good of Society".
Lucky you.
1
-
1
-
J GALT
Here, let me take this as an example:
You wrote:
"Economics is neither science nor discipline and as such has no connection to reality and the physical world and is therefor both invalid and fraudulent."
This is NOT an argument. This is you babbling. That aside, let's clear up a few of your premises:
1) Economics actually IS a discipline.
2) Micro economics can apply the scientific method. Behavior economics can apply the scientific method. Macro economics cannot apply the scientific method.
3) Of course economics has a connection to reality. Economic activity is buying and selling, this can be studied and described in the real world.
4) You're unsure of what the word invalid means. See, an argument needn't be true to be valid.
Let me repeat that one more time in case you missed it. An "argument" does NOT have to be true to be valid.
Let me repeat one more time to make sure you get it: An argument, does NOT have to be truth conserving in order to be valid. Validity is purely an aspect of argument form and is irrespective of whether the concluding proposition is truth conserving or not truth conserving.
Are you starting to understand now? You are babbling. You're not arguing. You're babbling. An argument can be both VALID and FALSE. This is very very common. This concept is so basic as to be akin to not understanding how to speak a particular language and then expecting to have a meaningful conversation in it. You are babbling. You're babbling on and on using words you do not understand the meanings of.
5) Fraudulent has nothing to do with an argument's validity. Fraud is an aspect of contract law. Again, you're jumbling up a bunch of words into a Word Salad.
I'm honestly sorry for you. But, it's not too late. You can still buy a book on basic intro to Logic (I suggest Hurley) and study it. After you feel comfortable with Venn diagrams and set theory (you know, the very basics) then come back and analyze your points and then you can have a good laugh.
Okay? Does that seem reasonable? I'm giving you good advice. You can either take it, and maybe improve yourself, or you can live our the rest of your life babbling to people. Which is it? That's up to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
silat13 Private unions are virtuous. No one in their right mind would suggest people should not have the civil right to self organization. Public unions OTOH are a menace to society. A good example of this would be Government Teacher's Unions.
American Government Teachers are some of the highest paid teachers in the world. Yet, at the same time, 1 in 5 students that graduate from a Government School with a diploma (barely worth the paper it's written on) are functionally illiterate. In Detroit, it's 50%. Yet in Detroit Government Teacher's Unions secured a 13th month bonus paid and many are paid 2 - 3 times the average yearly salary of the people in Detroit they're supposedly serving. Only 1 out of 3 kids in Detroit bother graduating, it's such a waste of time. Many of the Government School teacher's themselves have a poor command of the English language. Some are outright functional illiterates themselves.
This is why Government Unions exist - to protect them from the Voters who'd otherwise throw them out on their arse (if they were paying out of pocket). No sane person would pay $20 a year for such pathetic 'education' culminating in a degree not worth the paper it's written on.
When citizens do attempt to provide good high quality education through private Chartered schools, these same Government Unions try to use every dirty trick in the book, even the Government itself, in their attempts to retain their monopoly position in the education market.
This same story plays out across ALL aspects of Government. Which is why you'll stand in line at the DMV for hours on end, just to get a stamp from a functionally illiterate Government Union-member who's job could be replaced by the free-market and a computer in the matter of weeks at 1/10th the cost to the tax payer.
Government Unions are essentially there to protect Government employees from the Tax Payer, who would otherwise, fire the lot of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fritz Karl Many States were abolishing property taxes in the 1850s and none had an income tax on hourly labor.
That aside, your argument is non sequitur. Just because a form of society did not exist in the past exactly as it does today, does not mean it cannot exist. You cannot and do not know what can or can not 'work' (Problem of Induction).
Essentially you're using confirmation biases towards your own idea of normal to cherry pick observations (many faulty), and not creating an argument (deductive or inductive) but simply to comfort yourself. Well, you're in luck, the State isn't getting smaller, it's going to get bigger. So, if you're really good at doing standardized testing (I'm quite good at these personally) then you'll do well. If not, then maybe not. Either way, we are getting more Statism, not less, much much more. Which is too bad, but that's life. That whole rise and fall of nations thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, you don't have a 'real' back injury. You claim to have one. Once you get onto disability, you can move into a government paid for apt with some friends, sell a bit of weed, buy an Xbox and you're done and dusted.
The statistics are quite clear, as welfare has been cut, disability claims have skyrocketed. It's quite obvious people are working the system just as they were prior.
But, and here's the kicker, when we go broke, which will probably be before 2015, this will all end.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm liberal, I was raised on welfare, foodstamps, state aid, etc... having had this experience I can tell you that welfare is crippling the USA - not helping it. As liberals we do what we FEEL is right, however, we should now know that these are failed policies. Our cities are rotting and being destroyed because of them. Also, the monetary system is gamed by the rich - and they won. They own the POTUS (bush, obama, etc...)
Sadly, we all lost. In the end, we only have ourselves to blame.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2....gold, silver, stocks, etc. Investing is different than a "tool for exchange"
Yes, I agree, those are not 'money' or even currency (well, gold actually is real money) . However, they share a common characteristic with money that being value. So, my point was we don't NEED a Central Bank to create Units of value for us. We do it now.
Right now, as we type back and forth, the Fed is selling your future labor to the Chinese. You WILL be put in a real cage if you don't pay them back. Nice huh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here, I'll ask you a simple question:
If the government can by fiat create all of the currency that is needed to fund all of the needed public institution, like schools, roads, sewer, hospitals, etc... only do so without selling bonds, without interest, and without going into debt, at the same levels and rates as we do now - then why is it, do you think, we don't?
Do you even know what money IS?
I'm petty sure you don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1