Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 08:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes it is a subjective thing values. One can base their values on anything really, I prefer data and history, what works over what we have always done. Not everyone is going to agree 100% of the time, that's life. It is also why we hold elections because that has proven to be the fairest way to handle these disagreements, more so than your idea of "Fuck anyone who isn't rich enough to buy their way out of problems".
Please don't say that problems just appear out of nowhere and that only rich people can solve them. People have been getting themselves out of poverty ever since capitalism was invented. Capitalism is the best charity and it pays for itself too!

[Image: a0PLeWB_700b.jpg]

(24-08-2014 08:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  But we don't live in a bubble we have tried many things including market based healthcare. It is an unmitigated disaster. The #1 cause of bankruptcy in the richest country in the history of the world is medical bills. If you don't see what the problem with that is then there is no getting through to you.
I haven't heard of this issue yet. Wait, I think I have.
[Image: thomas-sowell-quote.jpg]

(24-08-2014 08:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:00 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's good that people can sign up for the national security and others can sign up for private service. But I'd wish that people who'd go for the private choice would have their taxes returned to make it a fair choice. Otherwise it's like paying double for the private services.
Sorry that is not how it works. Nor should it be. That would be a clusterfuck system that would collapse under it's own weight and the bureaucracy that would be needed to go through everyone's tax return to see what they want funded with their money vs what they don't would double the size of the government. Unworkable.
I agree. This is why I am in favor of pre-emptive tax returns, also known as flat zero tax. Less work that way Wink (that's what I thought of all along)

As for social security, I am in favor of investment retirement funds. You send them money, and they invest it into a portfolio. When the companies get rich, they pay the money back plus interest and that's how people get their retirement secured, while also helping the economy grow and produce new services which make the money more useful. Yay capitalism! Money can't work while they're held hostage in the pubic sector.

(24-08-2014 08:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Laissez-faire has been tried before several times in several places it is a failure. It is the most exploitative form of capitalism and is parasitic. It causes tons of problems that it has no way to solves. Unmitigated Greed is bad.
I haven't heard of this Unmitigated Greed phenomenon. Got any science on it?
My data suggest the unmitigated greed is mostly people trying to keep their life standard by working more and more, because America floods them with endlessly printed dollar. You've got to swim harder if the water is rising constantly. Government is like a turd, it floats without work.

(24-08-2014 08:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Too bad that does not seem to play out in the real world. The states that are most likely to break down into anarchy are the ones run closest to your free market system. Again the countries with the highest standard of living follow the plan that is in complete contrast with everything you preach and by doing so are the most successful societies humanity has ever known. The proof is in the pudding as they say and free market only is a stomach turning dish.
Such as New Zealand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogernomics
http://www.libinst.cz/Files/KqLFy4r2/pro...7/rden.pdf
Roger Douglas was a big point in my economics lessons, we actually used parts of the above PDF. His method was, privatize the fuck out of everything he could get his hands on politically, take away all the government privileges, do it all at once, but announce it in advance. Fuck democracy and public opinion, but be quick about it. If everyone loses privileges at once, nobody is worse off and exporters on foreign markets love it.

The only thing he didn't privatize outright was post service I think, but he regretted that later. Turns out private sector does everything better and cheaper than public sector workers. Everything that people want, not the things that they don't want. Yay intelligent services!

Hey, one thing I like about Stefan Molyneux is, when he goes public such as on Peter Schiff show, he makes a complete lecture on how society, politics, economy and parenting works. He puts it all in there into one inter-connected smoothly working machine of connections, that you don't seem to make. As he says, you seem to have this "command and control worldview", that if X isn't spelled out in the law, and enforced by state powers, X never gets done, people will just stand around and scratch their heads. You said you're leaning towards libertarianism, so with you the X is smaller, but you've still got this head-scratching category of X whatever it turns out to be, healthcare, social security, whatever.
Hear for yourself. I think he puts it better than I could. He talks about the Ferguson riots as a main topic, but he puts it into whole context of economy, society, politics, minimum wage too! Hell, he says it all. I am completely useless here. I'd better shut up and just post videos.
After a year or two of listening to that you will not say "magic". You will have an idea how human action on mass scale produces results.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 05:30 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2014 05:36 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 03:54 PM)morondog Wrote:  Rolleyes Can we write pseudocode for a Lumi response?

<Ignore poster's points>
<Assert poster has mental problems / doesn't really understand economics / politics / is stupid>
<Pick random sentence from poster's response and reassert some earlier bullshit as an "answer">
<Reiterate that taxation is violence>
<Be smug about how intelligent you are, pat other poster on the head>
You forgot this:
<Sanctimonious hubris for teaching people economics for free as a charity Angel >
Hell, I get what I deserve. People want to have their shiny goodies validated, they want to get taken as healthy, sane equals who know a thing or two about everything. They don't want to get used as a shagging leg for a dog. Got to write that down, for people in real life.

But seriously, that's what you get from someone who is in therapy. Also, high as fuck, though not for reasons you'd believe me.
Whatever you think about me treating you, I say two things: firstly, you are correct and secondly, the government treats you much worse. The government thinks it knows better than you about everything, economy, right and wrong, society, family... The sleazies you see on election campaign who treat you like you're stupid and promise you heaven, they get to decide about you. Your well-intended remarks will get shredded in a paper bin. I am the closest condescending arsehole to a high-level politician that you can meet in real life. Remember that next time you watch TV. All the people in there are convinced they know better than you and that entitles them to take 60 % your money. If you don't like me, how much more hate do they deserve?



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 04:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes it is a subjective thing values. One can base their values on anything really, I prefer data and history, what works over what we have always done. Not everyone is going to agree 100% of the time, that's life. It is also why we hold elections because that has proven to be the fairest way to handle these disagreements, more so than your idea of "Fuck anyone who isn't rich enough to buy their way out of problems".
Please don't say that problems just appear out of nowhere and that only rich people can solve them. People have been getting themselves out of poverty ever since capitalism was invented. Capitalism is the best charity and it pays for itself too!

[Image: a0PLeWB_700b.jpg]

(24-08-2014 08:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  But we don't live in a bubble we have tried many things including market based healthcare. It is an unmitigated disaster. The #1 cause of bankruptcy in the richest country in the history of the world is medical bills. If you don't see what the problem with that is then there is no getting through to you.
I haven't heard of this issue yet. Wait, I think I have.
[Image: thomas-sowell-quote.jpg]

(24-08-2014 08:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Sorry that is not how it works. Nor should it be. That would be a clusterfuck system that would collapse under it's own weight and the bureaucracy that would be needed to go through everyone's tax return to see what they want funded with their money vs what they don't would double the size of the government. Unworkable.
I agree. This is why I am in favor of pre-emptive tax returns, also known as flat zero tax. Less work that way Wink (that's what I thought of all along)

As for social security, I am in favor of investment retirement funds. You send them money, and they invest it into a portfolio. When the companies get rich, they pay the money back plus interest and that's how people get their retirement secured, while also helping the economy grow and produce new services which make the money more useful. Yay capitalism! Money can't work while they're held hostage in the pubic sector.

(24-08-2014 08:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Laissez-faire has been tried before several times in several places it is a failure. It is the most exploitative form of capitalism and is parasitic. It causes tons of problems that it has no way to solves. Unmitigated Greed is bad.
I haven't heard of this Unmitigated Greed phenomenon. Got any science on it?
My data suggest the unmitigated greed is mostly people trying to keep their life standard by working more and more, because America floods them with endlessly printed dollar. You've got to swim harder if the water is rising constantly. Government is like a turd, it floats without work.

(24-08-2014 08:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Too bad that does not seem to play out in the real world. The states that are most likely to break down into anarchy are the ones run closest to your free market system. Again the countries with the highest standard of living follow the plan that is in complete contrast with everything you preach and by doing so are the most successful societies humanity has ever known. The proof is in the pudding as they say and free market only is a stomach turning dish.
Such as New Zealand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogernomics
http://www.libinst.cz/Files/KqLFy4r2/pro...7/rden.pdf
Roger Douglas was a big point in my economics lessons, we actually used parts of the above PDF. His method was, privatize the fuck out of everything he could get his hands on politically, take away all the government privileges, do it all at once, but announce it in advance. Fuck democracy and public opinion, but be quick about it. If everyone loses privileges at once, nobody is worse off and exporters on foreign markets love it.

The only thing he didn't privatize outright was post service I think, but he regretted that later. Turns out private sector does everything better and cheaper than public sector workers. Everything that people want, not the things that they don't want. Yay intelligent services!

Hey, one thing I like about Stefan Molyneux is, when he goes public such as on Peter Schiff show, he makes a complete lecture on how society, politics, economy and parenting works. He puts it all in there into one inter-connected smoothly working machine of connections, that you don't seem to make. As he says, you seem to have this "command and control worldview", that if X isn't spelled out in the law, and enforced by state powers, X never gets done, people will just stand around and scratch their heads. You said you're leaning towards libertarianism, so with you the X is smaller, but you've still got this head-scratching category of X whatever it turns out to be, healthcare, social security, whatever.
Hear for yourself. I think he puts it better than I could. He talks about the Ferguson riots as a main topic, but he puts it into whole context of economy, society, politics, minimum wage too! Hell, he says it all. I am completely useless here. I'd better shut up and just post videos.
After a year or two of listening to that you will not say "magic". You will have an idea how human action on mass scale produces results.



Oh yeah Rodgers sounds great if you're a fucking moron. From your link.

Quote:Over 15 years, New Zealand's economy and social capital faced serious problems: the youth suicide rate grew sharply into one of the highest in the developed world;[41][42] the proliferation of food banks increased dramatically;[43] marked increases in violent and other crime were observed;[44] the number of New Zealanders estimated to be living in poverty grew by at least 35% between 1989 and 1992;[45] and health care was especially hard-hit, leading to a significant deterioration in health standards among working and middle-class people.[46] In addition, many of the promised economic benefits of the experiment never materialised.[47] Between 1985 and 1992, New Zealand's economy grew by 4.7% during the same period in which the average OECD nation grew by 28.2%.[48] From 1984 to 1993 inflation averaged 9% per year, New Zealand's credit rating dropped twice, and foreign debt quadrupled.[49] Between 1986 and 1993, the unemployment rate rose from 3.6% to 11%.[50]

Yup working as intended everything going to hell in a handbasket.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 04:46 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Please don't say that problems just appear out of nowhere and that only rich people can solve them. People have been getting themselves out of poverty ever since capitalism was invented. Capitalism is the best charity and it pays for itself too!

Like these people?

[Image: 2_great_depression.jpg][Image: evans1.jpg]

Quote:I haven't heard of this issue yet. Wait, I think I have.
[Image: thomas-sowell-quote.jpg]

Except that since you only read biased crap, you don't how stupid that quote is.
The overhead costs for the private health care 'system' in the U.S. are higher than the costs in most (possibly all) government mandated systems.
By a considerable margin, at that.

Quote:
(24-08-2014 08:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Sorry that is not how it works. Nor should it be. That would be a clusterfuck system that would collapse under it's own weight and the bureaucracy that would be needed to go through everyone's tax return to see what they want funded with their money vs what they don't would double the size of the government. Unworkable.
I agree. This is why I am in favor of pre-emptive tax returns, also known as flat zero tax. Less work that way Wink (that's what I thought of all along)

As for social security, I am in favor of investment retirement funds. You send them money, and they invest it into a portfolio. When the companies get rich, they pay the money back plus interest and that's how people get their retirement secured, while also helping the economy grow and produce new services which make the money more useful. Yay capitalism! Money can't work while they're held hostage in the pubic sector.

Do you actually believe that the money paid in to Social Security is not invested? Shocking

Quote:I haven't heard of this Unmitigated Greed phenomenon. Got any science on it?
My data suggest the unmitigated greed is mostly people trying to keep their life standard by working more and more, because America floods them with endlessly printed dollar. You've got to swim harder if the water is rising constantly. Government is like a turd, it floats without work.

Right, like that paragon of hard work, Bernie Madoff. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
24-08-2014, 06:57 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 05:40 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
Quote:Over 15 years, New Zealand's economy and social capital faced serious problems: the youth suicide rate grew sharply into one of the highest in the developed world;[41][42] the proliferation of food banks increased dramatically;[43] marked increases in violent and other crime were observed;[44] the number of New Zealanders estimated to be living in poverty grew by at least 35% between 1989 and 1992;[45] and health care was especially hard-hit, leading to a significant deterioration in health standards among working and middle-class people.[46] In addition, many of the promised economic benefits of the experiment never materialised.[47] Between 1985 and 1992, New Zealand's economy grew by 4.7% during the same period in which the average OECD nation grew by 28.2%.[48] From 1984 to 1993 inflation averaged 9% per year, New Zealand's credit rating dropped twice, and foreign debt quadrupled.[49] Between 1986 and 1993, the unemployment rate rose from 3.6% to 11%.[50]

Yup working as intended everything going to hell in a handbasket.

Well, now; New Zealand faced some very specific economic difficulties. They were wholly an export economy, primarily agricultural with some light industry. Come the late 1970s, the UK - their main export market by far - reoriented towards the common European market and NZ's biggest buyer disappeared overnight.

The repercussions of that transition have still not fully shaken out. Redirection towards emerging Asian markets can't happen overnight, and greater integration with Australia has been slow.

But, as we all know, context and nuance are the two Great Demons all True Believers must slay within themselves before bringing their preachifying to the world at large.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
24-08-2014, 10:55 PM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2014 12:17 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Let me just preface Lumi's response with this...


[Image: Triple-facepalm.jpg]


(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  They can, and do exist; and have utterly failed to pick up the necessary slack. Not only that, but charities run by donations dry up whenever things are at their worst. During the Great Depression, the inflow of money to charities simply stopped, and thus the charities collapsed. That has always been the problem with charity, it fails when it is needed the most.
What if they didn't fail to pick up the slack, but there is just not enough purchasing power left in society, after the taxes that pay the public sector?

Please explain how people without jobs, fail to make donations to charity because of taxes and not the fact that they don't have a fucking job? It was the Great Depression, the bottom fell out of the market because "lol capitalism" and magical thinking wasn't enough to save it. Yes, the federal government basically bought it's way out of it. It hired the masses of jobless and put them to work on massive public works projects, building and revitalizing our infrastructure. This in turn gave all of those people jobs with steady incomes so that they could afford to have someplace to live and food to eat, and purchase other thing in the economy. The crash was turned around from the bottom up; the emphasis wasn't on kowtowing to corporate interests, it was in helping the American people, and it worked beautifully.



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fuck you. People voted for FDR, and after he passed Social Security, they continued to vote for him in show of their support of his policies. There is a reason the most popular President in American history was arguable the most socialist. He was popular with the citizens because he helped to take care of the citizens. His popularity and unprecedented 4 terms in office was a testament to that, and an endorsement of his social policies.
More evidence that citizens don't understand economy Sad Socialism sounds good and feels good for about the first generation, three generations if it's Sweden or a global empire. Then you run out of other people's money.

Not your decision to make, you alone don't get to decide what is best in a democracy. We're running out of money now because our private healthcare system is the most bloated in the world, we easily pay more than twice with other nations do per person, and for shittier results. Our private system is an unmitigated disaster far all except those with the most money. Also we used to tax corporation far more heavily than we do now, they used to make up 75% of the tax burden, now citizens american make up 90% of that burden. Corporation have systematically shifted the tax burden from themselves to the citizens, all for shareholder gains. Which is fine in a 'fuck you' laissez faire capitalism economy, but if the people wake up to the realization of how fucked up that is, it's well within their power to do something about it. Other people's money? Right now it's the corporations that are running away with it, not the social safety net.

Also, exactly how is it 'run out of other people's money' when the public pays into social safety programs to help the public? Facepalm



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  There will always be people that game the system, but that hasn't stopped capitalism now has it? The overall improvement for the vast majority of hard working people who need the help (protip: Americans are the hardest working people in the developed world), and in return do manage to better themselves and society, are well worth a few deadbeats milking the system.
In capitalism everything has its costs, even cheating. Politicians cheat without costs, because they want to get rich in short term, election term.

I love this logic.

Cheaters in an unregulated market will get caught because magic.

Politicians in a state who cheat will never get caught because reasons.

Seriously, you can't be so stupid as to think that is anything close to reasonable or persuasive.



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Once again Lumi, some peoples have decided that taking care of the needy is more important than maximal gains in GDP... Facepalm
Sorry, I don't believe in GDP. Politicians calculate GDP as private sector + public sector, while it really should be private - public sector. Tax and public services are not gain, they are pure loss, because they are not alternatives, they are forced choices. Money get more purchasing power by offering alternatives, not paying the government in advance and removing the money from economy.

Not the point dumbass, not even close...

Also, how is investing into social security and unemployment, programs that make sure those who need it have the money to purchase what they need in hard times, somehow magically makes that money disappear?



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Charities fail, and private businesses lie; so let's deregulate them further and make them the primary providers for retirement. Look at the sham that is 401K's, as their value crashes along with the markets they're built on...
Governments fail too and politicians lie too. But they don't bear any consequences, they have immunity, it's all for our money.

Democratic governments are accountable to their citizens. Corporations are accountable to their shareholders. You have utterly failed to make a convincing argument for your alternative.



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, more able to take care of the old, when? No minimum wage, no mandated vacations or sick leave, no mandated maternity leave; what makes you think that this will be possible for anything close to everyone that needs it? Oh right, magic...
Believe it or not, business actually needs people and must compete for them by offer better working conditions.

Not anymore, there is a labor surplus. Look at the United Sates in the 70's, you had the trifecta of woman's liberation, globalization, and civil rights. More people than ever people were in the work force, and likewise it was easier than ever to move labor abroad. Labor is disposable, from the perspective of corporations; look at the manufacturing in China. Now some countries decided that it was in their best interest to protect their citizens (like northern Europe), while others shrugged their shoulder's and did fuck all (the United States). Since then the closest the Liberal Democracies of northern Europe have come to economic collapse has been at the behest of global financial crises, largely enabled by the capitalist friendly United States and our near unregulated banks.

But no, tell us all again how deregulation magically fixes everything...



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Rich people don't want poor suburbs and ghettos, they want to exploit and employ the hell out of them.

So the reason McDonald's and Walmart refuse to pay their employee's a living wage is because?

It's cheaper in the short term to cut wages, using the government to effectively subsidize their payroll because now their employees need food-stamps and government assistance. Which wouldn't be as bad, if the tax burden wasn't already shifted almost entirely onto the working class already.

You statement fails before you've even finished the sentence...



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Incidentally, that's how they get to middle class. But they can't, because unions forbid that.

Unions allow the workers to bargain on an even footing with multinational corporations. The decline of unions has gone hand in hand with the decline of wages (and the gluttony of the .01%) in the United States.



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Minimum wage does not make rich assholes pay more money for work, it just makes them hire less people and only the very best. It takes away the bottom rungs of social ladder.







Nope. Here in the United States, the states that have preemptively raised their minimum wages (or had them adjust automatically with inflation) have done far better economically than the states that have not. It is bottom up economics dumbass. States that raised their wages, had more people making more money, and their consumption drove demand, which increased job growth! Holy shit, it's a miracle! People at the bottom of the economic ladder spend everything they make, because they have to. So when you increase their purchasing power, it instantly goes back into the economy through their consumerism to buy the things they need; they don't hoard it in offshore bank accounts. As opposed to tax cuts for wealthy and corporation, so that they can just sit there atop massive piles of cash that they do nothing with. Tax cuts to the rich allow them to add money to their bank accounts, it doesn't magically make them go out there and but hundreds more pairs of pants; you know, do things to actually stimulate a consumer driven economy. You want to stimulate a consumer economy, you need to improve the buying power of consumers. This is so fucking simple, it's no wonder you can't see it with your head shoved up your ass.



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And do not look at the number on paycheck, look at purchasing power. Today in USA even with the minimum wage, the purchasing power is half compared to the 1950's purchasing power of minimum wage, even though it's 3 times as high. Why? Because government fuckin' prints money.
If someone paid me with infinitely printed money, I'd kick him in the balls, not vote for him.

You do know that inflation was a 'thing' before 1950, right? Facepalm



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, and when that peaceful group of baboons finds itself in a tight spot and must directly compete for resources with the far more aggressive alpha males of other troops or else face starvation? They'll do whatever they need to survive, or they will die; and that no-aggression principle goes out the fucking window. You fail to realize this, that in doing nothing to try to maintain a minimum standard of living (except assuming that the magic of families and charities will always be enough), it is inevitable that people will be placed in situations where they can and will do whatever they need to survive. You cannot rely on your vaunted non-aggression principle whenever you leave this massive gaping hole in your plan.

You're still advocating for tribalism, instead of humanism. Seeing everyone on the level of the family or the tribe, instead of seeing us on a worldwide species level; and how well has that worked out for us in the past? Even now, it is tribalism that is one of our greatest roadblocks to peace in much of the world. Because tribes will try to take care of their own, at the expense of others if need be.
Assuming the other tribe is also capitalistic, there will be a mutually productive trade. Yay, new market! New customers! Make trade, not war!

Where is the trade when there is one resource that both parties need or else they will die? Also please note how you blatantly put 'assume' there, as if being forthright about your assumptions negates the fact that they are still assumptions. Thanks for being purposely obtuse, because that's easier than admitting your bullshit has major flaws in it.



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  People don't have rights to anything, except what we as a particular society decide we have rights to. Women have the right to free speech and association in the United Sates, they do not have this right in Saudi Arabia; not because the rules of the universe or cosmos are different, but because different societies bestow different rights in different contexts. Stop pretending like your property rights bullshit is some unchanging law of the universe, like the inverse square law of gravity or something.

Well, there's something about property rights in constitution. Their words, not mine. What if a state makes mutually contradictory rules? Property rights for some, but no property rights for others, completely willy-nilly. That sounds dangerous to me.

BTW, how do people know what rights should be written down? Where do they take that idea from?

Taxation is also in the United States Constitution fucknuts... Facepalm

And it was willy-nilly, insofar as any agreement among people is arbitrary and not some objective universal truth. The Constitution didn't recognize the equal rights of women or slaves, and later we fixed that in the pursuit of 'a more perfect Union'.

The rights that get written down are the one we've agreed upon. You can think you have a right to an unlimited supply of Gorgonzola cheese, but unless enough people agree with you, then your 'right' means fuck all. The British didn't agree with the Colonist's right to rebel and commit treason, Parliament didn't agree with the rights they claimed in the Deceleration of Independence; so they had to fight to assert those rights. They got their ideas from the Enlightenment, and had to debate and come to a consensus among themselves. Hammering out the specifics of the Deceleration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution; all took days (if not weeks) of often heated debate before a compromise was reached. Something that would have been impossible if they were all dogmatic True Believers™ like yourself.



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How about Equality of Opportunity?

Again, compared to what? How much equality and what kind of opportunity for what kind of people? Should a 80-years old woman have equal opportunity to deliver a healthy baby? Should a woman named Laquaqueeshitoqua Hicks have an equal opportunity to represent an international corporation during business negotiations? And then go on maternity leave and then return to the same job position after 4 years?

Yep, gotta love Lumi's 'fuck people, Heart corporations' worldview... Facepalm

That the idea of equality of opportunity is such an alien idea as to be literally unconscionable, shows only your staggering lack of empathy.




(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Public education; Equality of Opportunity.
Laugh out load Oh, you devil. Did they teach you that in public education?

Clearly, you didn't learn anything with your private education. How much did you spend on that again? I'd return it for a cheaper piece of paper, like a napkin.

Actually, do away with private education. That would force everyone into the same boat, and now those with the most wealth and resources now have a vested interest in improving and maintaining the public system, making it better for everyone. So yeah, I'm against private K-12 education.



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Compared to your laissez faire, fuck everyone who isn't lucky enough to have been born to successful parents bullshit.
Well, it's called freedom. Freedom means you are free to get anywhere, but nobody is going to drive you there in a limousine.

And without equality of opportunity, we will not all be free to make the same decisions with the same opportunity. What you are proposing is freedom, but only for those who can afford it.



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I think that's a fair deal. You get your hands untied and you don't have to drag the Bismarck social Ponzi scheme behind you and that is a huge boost in productivity, that's what the free society is.

That is what a society can be, if it's stupid enough to follow your bullshit. Come to American, it's so fucked up you'll love it here! Corporation give zero fucks, and I'm sure you'd be more than happy to work for them with no vacation or sick days for $1 an hour because that's all you're worth to them (and I'm being very generous here)!

Seriously Lumi, come to America and dedicate yourself to your ideals by becoming a wage slave! Put your money where your mouth is! Work your ass off and have nothing to show for it! And every night, you can go to sleep to the dreams of how much better everything would magically be if the corporation stomping on your neck had even more power to abuse you!



(24-08-2014 03:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Taxes and redistribution is like killing the goose that lays golden eggs by feeding parts of the goose to the goose. Only more violent.

Fail analogy is Fail.

How come you can't reason in anything but the most piss poor of false analogies? Consider

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-08-2014, 11:56 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 05:30 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But seriously, that's what you get from someone who is in therapy. Also, high as fuck, though not for reasons you'd believe me.
Whatever you think about me treating you, I say two things: firstly, you are correct and secondly, the government treats you much worse. The government thinks it knows better than you about everything, economy, right and wrong, society, family... The sleazies you see on election campaign who treat you like you're stupid and promise you heaven, they get to decide about you. Your well-intended remarks will get shredded in a paper bin. I am the closest condescending arsehole to a high-level politician that you can meet in real life. Remember that next time you watch TV. All the people in there are convinced they know better than you and that entitles them to take 60 % your money. If you don't like me, how much more hate do they deserve?

Some people do know better than me, but that person ain't you. You preach to me about not accepting what other people say at face value, then assert some shit and expect me to swallow it? Laughat

Let's talk about for example an issue such as pollution. How much is it a problem, what shall we do about it, is there a trade off we have to make in order for our economy to grow? Now, a government can set up a committee, can consult experts, can really explore in depth what needs to be done about this issue - and sure, it takes time and particularly in the US the lobbying system means that special interest groups have a disproportionate influence, but the basic thing is, this now frees *me* from having to be an expert on the issue - I don't *want* to have to know everything there is to know about pollution, possible side effects, reasons to allow pollution (for example in SA electricity is generated largely by coal fired power stations and it's not likely to change in the near future)...

As long as there is accountability in the system (which again, our current president seems dead-set on dismantling the accountability sub-systems of our government), then government deciding on some tricky issues for *everyone* is a very good thing.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
25-08-2014, 02:17 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 05:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Except that since you only read biased crap, you don't how stupid that quote is.
The overhead costs for the private health care 'system' in the U.S. are higher than the costs in most (possibly all) government mandated systems.
By a considerable margin, at that.

Every time someone gives me shit like that, there is a heap of government manipulation behind that.
If private healthcare was open to competition, then surely lots of doctors would want to get themselves rich, instead of working for the government! And they would compete for customers and guess what? Price would go down. And it would be a real price, not government made-up pre-paid number.

Did it ever occur to you that the government can't wave hands and say abracadabra fiat lex, and make the price actually go down? Such actions take about twice the actual price on people's taxes, purchasing power and quality of the service.

(24-08-2014 05:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Do you actually believe that the money paid in to Social Security is not invested? Shocking
Not in my country, we have a Pay as you go system. Other countries prefer to have a several hundred % retirement debt snowballing as a Ponzi scheme.

(24-08-2014 05:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Right, like that paragon of hard work, Bernie Madoff. Dodgy
Never heard of him. Did he order drone strikes or was he in charge of a secret prison?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2014, 02:45 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(25-08-2014 02:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 05:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Right, like that paragon of hard work, Bernie Madoff. Dodgy
Never heard of him. Did he order drone strikes or was he in charge of a secret prison?

The 'investment banker' that committed the cardinal sin of stealing from the wealthy. Oh, and the mind behind one of the largest financial fraud schemes in history. Funny how one so 'studied' in economics managed to miss that.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-08-2014, 03:10 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 11:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  Some people do know better than me, but that person ain't you. You preach to me about not accepting what other people say at face value, then assert some shit and expect me to swallow it? Laughat

Let's talk about for example an issue such as pollution. How much is it a problem, what shall we do about it, is there a trade off we have to make in order for our economy to grow? Now, a government can set up a committee, can consult experts, can really explore in depth what needs to be done about this issue - and sure, it takes time and particularly in the US the lobbying system means that special interest groups have a disproportionate influence, but the basic thing is, this now frees *me* from having to be an expert on the issue - I don't *want* to have to know everything there is to know about pollution, possible side effects, reasons to allow pollution (for example in SA electricity is generated largely by coal fired power stations and it's not likely to change in the near future)...

As long as there is accountability in the system (which again, our current president seems dead-set on dismantling the accountability sub-systems of our government), then government deciding on some tricky issues for *everyone* is a very good thing.
There is a promise and a charade of accountability, not actual accountability. That is the command & control mindset, if it's not spelled out in the law, nobody will do it even though everyone is talking about it. And by the law this takes control out of the hands of people who really care, that is owners.
Empirically, governments could not protect Alaskan cod population and they can't protect Brazilian rainforests. Tell me, who in the government gets fired and loses money if one more tree is cut down illegally in Brazil and one more tribe gets attacked?

Market knows about pollution. Free market reflects the effects of pollution in prices of literally everything, especially healthcare profits and insurance loses. This imbalance becomes a source of profit for someone to eliminate the problem and get rich if he's successful and -oh so inhumane- get poor if he fails. No government official or government-hired expert ever loses or gains money in proportion to the good or evil they cause.

The only way to protect ecology is to respect property rights. Owners take care of their piece of ecology, because they found a way how to use it. Owners don't exploit, they make long term investments. Owners want to hire experts to help them care for their property better. And so do insurance companies, because they are investors into the health and safety and they want healthy environment to generate profit.
Ownership rights make people naturally accountable through... accounting. There is no such thing as a market externality.
"Previous to 1850, for example, there was no pollution externality. This came about due to a “government failure” to uphold the law against trespass, not because of
any alleged “market failure” such as externalities."

https://mises.org/etexts/Environfreedom.pdf
http://mises.org/media/1804/13-Conservat...and-Growth
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: