|
More Jefferson quotes for youThe priests of the different religious sects... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
--Letter to Correa de Serra (April 11, 1820).The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
--Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-82).All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.
—First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1801).Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law” because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (1819).
Yeah, I could have gone all day long with quotes from the Founding dudes, but, you know, nothing will convince these kids we've strayed quite far from being a nation interested in Liberty. We could post Jefferson quotes on why people should have guns all day, too. But modern Democrats still think they have anything in common with Jefferson.
Of course, modern Republicans have nothing in common with Teddy, either, so...
I wonder if anyone realizes most of them would be Libertarians today...
Well, except for Hamilton, he'd feel at home in either of the two majors, I think.
I wonder if anyone realizes most of them would be Libertarians today...
No body is perfect, not even the founding fathers.
Yeah, I know. Perfection apparently only happens when you punish the productive...I wonder if anyone realizes most of them would be Libertarians today...No body is perfect, not even the founding fathers.
Punish the productive?
Ah this will be your 'welfare costs me in tax' arguement.
There are some masterstrokes in the constitution. Seperation of church and state but the responciblity to protect life, liberty and private property, when followed logicially, prevent the constitution from ever being a purely libitarian document.
|
|
Yeah, I know. Perfection apparently only happens when you punish the productive...I wonder if anyone realizes most of them would be Libertarians today...No body is perfect, not even the founding fathers.
Punish the productive?
Ah this will be your 'welfare costs me in tax' arguement.
There are some masterstrokes in the constitution. Seperation of church and state but the responciblity to protect life, liberty and private property, when followed logicially, prevent the constitution from ever being a purely libitarian document.
Only if someone doesn't understand libertarianism. They used to call it "liberalism" before the term was co-opted (in America, anyway) to mean something all together different than what Locke, Goethe, and the like espoused.
The Constitution is a list (or it was, anyway) of limits on the Federal government. It was never a limit on the rights of the People.
Yeah, I know. Perfection apparently only happens when you punish the productive...I wonder if anyone realizes most of them would be Libertarians today...No body is perfect, not even the founding fathers.
Punish the productive?
Ah this will be your 'welfare costs me in tax' arguement.
There are some masterstrokes in the constitution. Seperation of church and state but the responciblity to protect life, liberty and private property, when followed logicially, prevent the constitution from ever being a purely libitarian document.
Only if someone doesn't understand libertarianism. They used to call it "liberalism" before the term was co-opted (in America, anyway) to mean something all together different than what Locke, Goethe, and the like espoused.
The Constitution is a list (or it was, anyway) of limits on the Federal government. It was never a limit on the rights of the People.
It also gives responciblities to the Federal government. It does not only limit the goverment, it empowers the government, including the empowerment that allows the government to strip people of liberty under some conditions, for instance treason.
I also have no real problem with some sections of Libitarian thought.
However the sheer illogical nature of how libitarians veiw issues such as welfare and healthcare confounds me at every single turn.
|
|
Yeah, I know. Perfection apparently only happens when you punish the productive...I wonder if anyone realizes most of them would be Libertarians today...No body is perfect, not even the founding fathers.
Punish the productive?
Ah this will be your 'welfare costs me in tax' arguement.
There are some masterstrokes in the constitution. Seperation of church and state but the responciblity to protect life, liberty and private property, when followed logicially, prevent the constitution from ever being a purely libitarian document.
Only if someone doesn't understand libertarianism. They used to call it "liberalism" before the term was co-opted (in America, anyway) to mean something all together different than what Locke, Goethe, and the like espoused.
The Constitution is a list (or it was, anyway) of limits on the Federal government. It was never a limit on the rights of the People.
It also gives responciblities to the Federal government. It does not only limit the goverment, it empowers the government, including the empowerment that allows the government to strip people of liberty under some conditions, for instance treason.
Sure, but "Libertarian" doesn't mean "suicidal". Libertarians aren't permissive of people initiating force to achieve their goals, and will act accordingly. In domestic policy, this means don't rob, assault (in any way), defraud or kill people or you will be punished. In foreign policy it means "We won't initiate violence to achieve our goals, but if you chose to do so, you'll draw back a bloody stump".
Libertarian (Classical Liberal) philosophy views retribution as a very undesirable last resort, but it doesn't mean the option is off the table. Teddy's "Speak softly but carry a big stick" quote defines the attitude nicely.
|
|
Yeah, um, the new dude has, in the first 100 days, run up a deficit larger than anyone before him, combined. He could tax the top 1% 100% of their income for the next four years and not come close to balancing his budget plans. But then, everyone seems to forget Clinton HAD to submit a balanced budget. Congress threatened to shut down government until he did so. And even the new guy's own people told him massive infrastructure spending would do little to "stimulate" anything.
So what happened to that balanced budget that appeared on the desk of his successor? Where did the largest budget surplus in history go?
Not if they can afford it. If they can't, then, yes, I can blame them for all sorts of things.
Do you own a house? Have a mortgage? Its hard to find a house that wasn't recently constructed and isn't more house than the average person needs. Especially ones close to where the jobs are.
I'll give you my city for example. Here there was a large number of jobs to be found in the city during the sixties and seventies. Over the next fifteen years (into the nineties) the outlying communities began to expand as people moved north and west and the businesses followed them, leaving large swathes of the city depopulated and devoid of many businesses. People don't want to move into a community that lacks jobs, so they try to find them in the northwestern counties.
Building picks up in the farm areas there, turning them into newer modern suburbs. Not a single story house can be found in construction past this point. Its more economical on the part of the construction firms, lumber suppliers, steel manufacturers, yada... to build houses like these. Single families are forced to move into homes that are just too large. There is no where else to go. It is not their fault that jobs cannot be found back where houses are more affordable.
Funny, but "immediate and drastic change" is what the new dude RAN HIS CAMPAIGN ON. And I think you have a very infirm understanding of what exactly the Constitution is meant to do, and exactly how far away from the principles the writers of the Constitution held (particularly Jefferson, who would be furious to see the Democrats continually invoking his name) our government has strayed.
Slavery, concentration of power and wealth by the select few, women are inferior... those are some great principles that I'm glad we've done away with that the founding fathers seemed to espouse. Unfortunately, by design, it took nearly 150 years to accomplish correcting these problems. But that was the point. The ideas behind the construction of the constitution were to protect the people in charge and not let the common man actually have a say at all. Thankfully there have been some erratas.
Jefferson didn't write the constitution, so I don't know why his name would be thrown around at all. No democrat i've ever known does, neither do republicans for that matter. They always seemed more concerned with Roosevelt Mk II and Reagan. Of course something negative can be said about their fiscal policies, but then so can positive things. At least they tried something.
I don't think you understand something. The only "change" I want to see is that our government get back to actually FOLLOWING the Constitution, and living within their means.
Agreed, but the problem doesn't stem from the government here, it doesn't stem from joe-schmoe either. It has to do with the profit making strategies of American companies. Simply put, non-regulation caused this problem. Something must be done to correct it.
Jefferson said "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds... [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers...And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery...And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
I don't disagree with this at all. However, if we're going to sit on our hands and let people start this process, are we not accomplice? Its really easy to point out problems after the fact.
|
|
stuff
I've been voting third party since '88, the first election I could vote in. I vote my beliefs and principles. The masses are sheep, frankly, if they think voting for the same two parties will change anything.
You can stop capping on Bush for squandering the surplus (which was really Gingrich's doing anyway, when the Repubs ran him out, they squandered more than a surplus, they squandered the opportunity to follow through on their work in the '90s and ruined the chance to be in charge for a while. So be it, if they can't stick to the principles that put them in charge for the first time in 60 years, they deserve the situation they're in). He ran deficits that seem quaint compared to the new guy. 300 billion dollar deficits would be a wet dream right now, compared to the over one trillion dollar deficits we face now. It is hypocritical to keep capping on the last guy when the new guy is, literally, three times less frugal.
As far as housing goes, no one is "forced" to do anything. No one puts a gun to someone's head and makes them break the Golden Rule of mortgages (20% down, payments no more than 30% of monthly income). People can and do rent, believe it or not, and no one forces anyone to move to the suburbs. I really do not think I should have to suffer for the poor choices of others. Stop making excuses for people who make poor life decisions.
Yeah, when this country was founded, it wasn't moral by modern standards, but, the fact is, we did change. And most of that change came as Western culture as a whole became more enlightened. Basically, your argument is specious and silly in that regard.
Democrats are constantly reminding us they're the "Party of Jefferson", so, I have to assume you just don't pay attention there. As far as why I bring up Jefferson, he wrote extensively about the Constitution and how it guided his governance. He was most eloquent in explaining how government, when given too much power, interfered with Liberty, our most precious possession.
I'm not going to convince you of anything, and I really don't care if I do, since you apparently think voting for the same people who put us in this mess will somehow get us out of this mess. Keep voting for Repubs and Dems, keep watching government get larger, keep watching Liberty disappear. I won't play the game, I'll keep voting my conscience, I'll keep preaching my Gospel of Locke, von Goethe, Jefferson, Voltaire, Hume, Friedman, Montesquieu and von Mises, and I'll keep watching history repeat itself and pray some day people wake up.
As to pointing out problems "after the fact", well, I'm sorry, but I was only born in 1970, I couldn't damned well point out anything before that, and, if you had read my posts leading up to this election, I warned this would happen (just like I did in '88, '92, '96, 2000...), so, frankly, you can stuff that argument in a convenient orifice.
stuffI've been voting third party since '88, the first election I could vote in. I vote my beliefs and principles. The masses are sheep, frankly, if they think voting for the same two parties will change anything.
You can stop capping on Bush for squandering the surplus (which was really Gingrich's doing anyway, when the Repubs ran him out, they squandered more than a surplus, they squandered the opportunity to follow through on their work in the '90s and ruined the chance to be in charge for a while. So be it, if they can't stick to the principles that put them in charge for the first time in 60 years, they deserve the situation they're in). He ran deficits that seem quaint compared to the new guy. 300 billion dollar deficits would be a wet dream right now, compared to the over one trillion dollar deficits we face now. It is hypocritical to keep capping on the last guy when the new guy is, literally, three times less frugal.
As far as housing goes, no one is "forced" to do anything. No one puts a gun to someone's head and makes them break the Golden Rule of mortgages (20% down, payments no more than 30% of monthly income). People can and do rent, believe it or not, and no one forces anyone to move to the suburbs. I really do not think I should have to suffer for the poor choices of others. Stop making excuses for people who make poor life decisions.
Yeah, when this country was founded, it wasn't moral by modern standards, but, the fact is, we did change. And most of that change came as Western culture as a whole became more enlightened. Basically, your argument is specious and silly in that regard.
Democrats are constantly reminding us they're the "Party of Jefferson", so, I have to assume you just don't pay attention there. As far as why I bring up Jefferson, he wrote extensively about the Constitution and how it guided his governance. He was most eloquent in explaining how government, when given too much power, interfered with Liberty, our most precious...
People make poor life choices, they always have and always will. And you know what, if they don't have good education, they are more likely to make bad choices.
People do have to eat, people do have have shelter, people do have to have a good quality of life. Not for any reason of morality, though i believe strongly that it is moral to ensure that people have these things i consider it basic self interest to ensure people have these things. Why? Because high levels of social inequality are strongly associated with high levels of crime.
Crime is expensive. It pushs up the burden on tax payers by requiring expensive prison systems, policing and by raising insurance premiums.
I would rather support people through bad times that increase my likely hood of being mugged again in the near future and having a higher law enforcement and prison costs.
Edit: and you might want to look a little at the mathimatics related to game theory and Decision theory. They put lie to the idea that voting for the lesser of two evils is 'still evil' when voting with your conscience may well allow the worst of two evils to win.
|
|
stuff
Part one: yawn. Most of the people getting butt smacked right now (with regards to housing) are idiots who bought more house than they could afford either through their eyes being bigger then their wallet, or speculating that the housing market would continue to rise. These are people that had decent jobs, not poor people.
And, um, education is free in this country until 12th grade. I grew up in "the hood", I saw quite a few kids I grew up with make it. People make choices in life. Not raising your kids right is a choice. Not doing anything to better yourself is a choice. I am tired of people making excuses for everyone who chooses to screw up. I reserve my compassion for people who find themselves in bad situations despite making good life choices. I don't feel for people who insist on repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. Sorry.
Part two: My definition of "evil" is probably different than yours.
And, um, education is free in this country until 12th grade. I grew up in "the hood", I saw quite a few kids I grew up with make it. People make choices in life. Not raising your kids right is a choice. Not doing anything to better yourself is a choice. I am tired of people making excuses for everyone who chooses to screw up. I reserve my compassion for people who find themselves in bad situations despite making good life choices. I don't feel for people who insist on repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. Sorry.
People make bad choice, drug addiction rates for tabacco alone tell use that. People who are presented with temptation will more often than not give into it.
Your saying 'people make their own mistakes, they have to live with them.' But it simply isn't true. We make the choices we do because of a range of factors beyond simple logical choice. We know advertising and social presures effect peoples behaviour.
Those people who took loans they count afford did not make a logical decision, they where tempted into it, they had social presures layered on them by their peers and where sold a dream by the housing industry.
They are victims of the market.
The simple fact is, the companies that sold them those loans should never have been allowed to behave in such a manner.
People make bad choices, but society stacks the deck on those choices.
School might be free, but its quality could be much improved, and if you provide better educations, their are likely to be savings made in other areas. Again, people's ability to make good choices are heavily effected by their enviroment. If your not willing to do something to help change the way the deck is stacked on peoples lives, your as good as pulling the trigger on that 'foot gun.'
Part two: My definition of "evil" is probably different than yours.
Yes we know this.
And i really struggle to see how someone who is apparently intelligent can so completely turn their back on anything resembling social justice and which provides him no real benifit while supporting only the very richest in society.
It's illogical.
|
|
And, um, education is free in this country until 12th grade. I grew up in "the hood", I saw quite a few kids I grew up with make it. People make choices in life. Not raising your kids right is a choice. Not doing anything to better yourself is a choice. I am tired of people making excuses for everyone who chooses to screw up. I reserve my compassion for people who find themselves in bad situations despite making good life choices. I don't feel for people who insist on repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. Sorry.
People make bad choice, drug addiction rates for tabacco alone tell use that. People who are presented with temptation will more often than not give into it.
If, at this point in time, people do not know tobacco and drugs are harmful, they've probably been living in a cave, and wouldn't be exposed to those temptations anyway. Everything is a choice. If what someone else thinks is more important to them than their health, it isn't my problem.
Your saying 'people make their own mistakes, they have to live with them.' But it simply isn't true. We make the choices we do because of a range of factors beyond simple logical choice. We know advertising and social presures effect peoples behaviour.
Sorry, but people are always in control of their own actions, unless someone literally has a gun to their head, and even then, they can chose to be true to themselves and let their oppressor pull the trigger.
Those people who took loans they count afford did not make a logical decision, they where tempted into it, they had social presures layered on them by their peers and where sold a dream by the housing industry.
They are victims of the market.
The simple fact is, the companies that sold them those loans should never have been allowed to behave in such a manner.
I take umbrage with the use of the word "victim" in this sense. People are not "victims" of their own choices. If someone refuses to consider their actions, they are not a "victim", they are a fool.
The reality is, quite a few of the loaning institutions wouldn't have made loans to people who couldn't afford them had the government not coerced them to do so.
People make bad choices, but society stacks the deck on those choices.
School might be free, but its quality could be much improved, and if you provide better educations, their are likely to be savings made in other areas. Again, people's ability to make good choices are heavily effected by their enviroment. If your not willing to do something to help change the way the deck is stacked on peoples lives, your as good as pulling the trigger on that 'foot gun.'
Well, since you brought up conditioning, behavioral psychology informs us that by rewarding poor decision making, people do not have an incentive to learn to make better decisions. Albert Ellis, Arnold A. Lazarus, Ivan Pavlov, Popper, Eysenck, and others all studied this in depth, and I agree with many of their conclusions, particularly Ellis. Do some research on RBT and RET. When people are made aware that there are consequences to their actions, they tend to chose actions that result in positive consequences. If people are continually protected from those consequences, they never learn anything, and continue to make the same choices.
The American version of "improving education" is to continue to move away from teaching history, science, language skills and social sciences and continue with the "progressive" methods developed in the '70s. It isn't a coincidence that American students started falling behind their Asian and European counterparts after our education system moved away from a system that worked well for the Baby Boomer generation. We need a shift in the way we look at education, throwing more money into a failing system isn't going to solve anything.
An informed population is vital to Liberty, but it seems our system is designed to discourage critical thinking. I think a large reason why we are so conditioned to believe advertising and lying politicians is we do not teach our children to think.
Part two: My definition of "evil" is probably different than yours.Yes we know this.
And i really struggle to see how someone who is apparently intelligent can so completely turn...
Again, my political philosophy is informed by Classical Liberal thought, not Progressive, Marxist or Socialist thought. Locke > Marx, Voltaire > Chomsky, and so on.
And, like I said, I have compassion for people who suffer through no fault of their own. People who do everything right, but live in a place struck by a disaster, or who were laid off because a company failed, or had to contract due to others bad decisions, people born with handicaps or handicapped in accidents not of their making, or kids born to unworthy parents, my heart bleeds for them. People have proven time and time again they are capable of astounding feats of compassion for those who, through no fault of their own, suffer.
People who create their own hell? I. Don't. Care. Stealing from people who do not make bad decisions to support people who refuse to use the brain they were born with is immoral.
What is illogical is punishing people for doing right, for saying that someone who didn't do right is more deserving of the fruits of their labor. People do not have a "right" to anything they do not earn.
Either we are rational animals capable of making rational decisions, or we are doomed.
Edit: I like debating you, you're fun :)
It's nice to have a discussion with someone who isn't rude.
Get a room, you two!
If, at this point in time, people do not know tobacco and drugs are harmful, they've probably been living in a cave, and wouldn't be exposed to those temptations anyway. Everything is a choice. If what someone else thinks is more important to them than their health, it isn't my problem.
They do know (at least in the case of tobacco, alcohol has avoided the attention it deserves and most drugs have at least a degree of misinformation associated with them, as with regards their dangers. interestingly the disinfomation can go in both directions. Ecstasy for instance is far less dangerous than its class-A status would suggest, while most cannabis users hardly even begin to understand the dangers associated with the drug they are using though it still isn't as bad as alcohol and tobacco). Knowledge of the destructive effects of tobacco is near universal. Yet people still start smoking. If it where a simple matter of a logical choice, people would not smoke. Their decision making process has been co-opted by outside stimuli. Your argument would be fine, if it where a choice they had made freely, but it isn't. They are influenced on a level, which impairs decision-making.
For instance, would you consider moral for me to ask a drunken individual whose decision-making was impaired to consent to sex or to sign a contract?
Sorry, but people are always in control of their own actions, unless someone literally has a gun to their head, and even then, they can chose to be true to themselves and let their oppressor pull the trigger.
Are they? What if they are suffering form an undiagnosed mental illness, cause by their environment? Your basing your arguement on a premise we simply don't know if is true or not. The evidence form psychology certainly seems to point towards us being far less in control of our own actions and choices than you suggest. The Milgram Experiment for instance.
I take umbrage with the use of the word "victim" in this sense. People are not "victims" of their own choices. If someone refuses to consider their actions, they are not a "victim", they are a fool.
The reality is, quite a few of the loaning institutions wouldn't have made loans to people who couldn't afford them had the government not coerced them to do so.
They can however be victims of their environment and society before they make the decision.
Well, since you brought up conditioning, behavioral psychology informs us that by rewarding poor decision making, people do not have an incentive to learn to make better decisions. Albert Ellis, Arnold A. Lazarus, Ivan Pavlov, Popper, Eysenck, and others all studied this in depth, and I agree with many of their conclusions, particularly Ellis. Do some research on RBT and RET. When people are made aware that there are consequences to their actions, they tend to chose actions that result in positive consequences. If people are continually protected from those consequences, they never learn anything, and continue to make the same choices.
The American version of "improving education" is to continue to move away from teaching history, science, language skills and social sciences and continue with the "progressive" methods developed in the '70s. It isn't a coincidence that American students started falling behind their Asian and European counterparts after our education system moved away from a system that worked well for the Baby Boomer generation. We need a shift in the way we look at education, throwing more money into a failing system isn't going to solve anything.
An informed population is vital to Liberty, but it seems our system is designed to discourage critical thinking. I think a large reason why we are so conditioned to believe advertising and lying politicians is we do not teach our children to think.
I know the principles to which you referrer, i spent many years studying in associated fields. While i agree with much of the work and its conclusions, i have to argue that the conclusions are flawed when applied to society as a whole due to other factors which come into play.
And don't get me wrong. I don't believe that providing more money alone will solve america's educational system. By my understanding it needs reform as well, not to mention that something fairly drastic needs to be done to protect science education form the inclusion of non-science.I love freedom...It is probably the only thing i would fight and die to protect (stupid meme, making me work against the interests of my genes...*grumbles*), however, i think the big difference between us is that i hold to the concept that 'a man who is free to suffer, isn't really free.'
On the critical thinking front, the evidence is really very clear on this one, we are genetically predisposed to believe authorities. Any attempt to teach people critical thought is a complete uphill struggle because we are fighting our own minds to achieve it.
Again, my political philosophy is informed by Classical Liberal thought, not Progressive, Marxist or Socialist thought. Locke > Marx, Voltaire > Chomsky, and so on.
And, like I said, I have compassion for people who suffer through no fault of their own. People who do everything right, but live in a place struck by a disaster, or who were laid off because a company failed, or had to contract due to others bad decisions, people born with handicaps or handicapped in accidents not of their making, or kids born to unworthy parents, my heart bleeds for them. People have proven time and time again they are capable of astounding feats of compassion for those who, through no fault of their own, suffer.
People who create their own hell? I. Don't. Care. Stealing from people who do not make bad decisions to support people who refuse to use the brain they were born with is immoral.
What is illogical is punishing people for doing right, for saying that someone who didn't do right is more deserving of the fruits of their labor. People do not have a "right" to anything they do not earn.
Either we are rational animals capable of making rational decisions, or we are doomed.
Edit: I like debating you, you're fun :)
It's nice to have a discussion with someone who isn't rude.
Some of your comments on the american electoral system are actually very Chomsky-esk
Do you have a way to differentiate accurately between those whose lives are damaged by their own choices and those whose lives are damaged by their environment?
If you deign help to those who make bad choices, how do you ensure that people do not fall through the cracks?
Given that, people who do not get what they consider necessities are likely to turn to crime to acquire those things and that crime costs a society as a whole (and individuals on a greater level) more than welfare does, how do you justify choosing to criminalise people who make mistakes, instead of supporting them form a pragmatic standpoint.
I try not to be rude, but i do get really, really angry at the world which sometimes leaks out into my writing. Which is often why i drop out of these convocations? They do tend to make my depression much worse.
|
|
My comments on our government are across the board, Chomsky has a very specific focus for his bile. So, while some of my verbiage may superficially seem similar to his (and I grant that), we couldn't be further apart in how we approach and define the problem.
Some people are going to fall through the cracks. They do even in systems with heavy government involvement in everyday life. Perfection is not a reasonable goal. Utopia will never exist, and making it an objective is fallacy.
And, again, your insistence that people will automatically turn to crime if not coddled by government is far too cynical for my tastes. If someone's response to adversity is to impinge on the rights of others, they should be removed from society.
Governments cannot create wealth, they cannot create anything, they can only take from some to give to others. And they never do so efficiently, which wastes resources that private citizens working in their own self interests generally can and will use in a much more efficient and beneficial manner. Bureaucracies are notoriously wasteful, and people who have no vested interest in being efficient (and, generally, no accountability) will not be, by and large.
And, considering that the top 2% of earners in this country pay 82% of the money the government collects every year (after tax deductions and rebates), I think it is hilarious that somehow everyone else is being hurt by them. Hell, the bottom 40% of wage earners in this country pay negative income taxes. That is, they get back more in refunds than they paid in the first place. Class warfare is great if your goal is for everyone to be poor.
You like to invoke human nature. Well, human nature dictates that people with no incentive to better themselves will not do so. If government decides to punish people for doing well, and reward people for doing nothing, more people will do nothing. The path of least resistance applies to social constructs as well, after all. The Soviet Union collapsed primarily because the citizens didn't give a crap. There was no incentive to do well, except for an elite few. Hard work received no more reward than lazy work, as rewarding someone for trying harder was anathema to the entire concept of Communism. "Equality" in the U.S.S.R. meant everyone was equally miserable.
I do respect one thing about European Socialists, though. At least they are proud to admit what they are, and aren't hypocrites about their political philosophy. Too bad American Socialists try so hard to divorce themselves from that word, and insist on lying to the American public about their philosophy. And, both major parties here are socialist, the only difference is the degree of government control they espouse.
Derek, I'm with you to a point, but at some juncture a bit of carrot is more useful than a stick. Also, Maslow's heirarchy, while overrated, does have some relevance. Currently in most of the developed world, we take shelter, running potable water, and access to electricity to be a baseline. I've lived without them before, and found that adapting to their lack is, seductively, a lot easier than re-adapting to their presence. Unfortunately, without them I found that I had a disconcerting automatic tendency to react to being startled by grabbing a machete.
What I propose is that, if everyone could be assured of certain things: clean water, power, plus medical care and some means of living once they were too old to work -- they could stop worrying about those things all the time and actually set about improving themselves. I now make twice as much as I did teaching, but I actually have less to spend, because my health care costs increase MUCH faster than my 401(k) even when the economy is good. I'm actually worse off than I was before -- I'm better off teaching kids the rudiments of earth science they'll never use, as opposed to actually being a professional geologist and bettering the world with it, by developing new sources of potable water, say. That's one consequence of sneering at "socialist" policies like affordable health care, and espousing a totally unrestricted market in which everything, including medical treatment, is a matter of maximizing profit.
There is no economic incentive in the U.S. to be an engineer, a scientist, an architect, as opposed to being an apathetic postal carrier. Rather, "bettering oneself" in a real sense under this system requires posturing idiotically and yelling "Yo!" into a microphone, or equally non-productive shenanigans like running companies into the ground.
Government is wasteful and inefficient -- there is no disputing that. But having lived under its presence and its absence, I can attest that it's better than anarchy. It's a useful mechanism for distributing and regulating police, fire services, national defense, paving of roads. Leaving baseline things to a totally free market unfortunately just doesn't work.
There's a "middle way" between the enforced degradation of the Communist USSR and the runaway tribal free markets and free-for-all policies of a Central African "republic" of your choice. Having been born in Western Europe, I can see that they have some real problems that we don't, but are far from the bleak dystopia you describe -- and in fact have some good things going for them that we lack. I should also mention that Sweden, not the U.S., has long been #1 in the aerospace technology marketplace, that Norway is generations ahead of us in terms of renewable energy technology, and that the Netherlands are centuries ahead of us in terms of flood control. Because their engineers and scientists can worry less about affording health care and retirement -- or quitting in order to do something more lucrative but less useful -- and focus more on doing their jobs well.
|
|
Sweden was also #1 in suicides.
And, actually, Norway is losing money on their "alternative energy" initiatives, as is Denmark and Holland. And they're less efficient than nuclear, hydroelectric and coal burning plants. *shrug*
I'm not for 100% unfettered markets, there have to be provisions to allow for true competition in the marketplace, and education, police and fire protection, roads, stuff like that, no problem.
However, regarding health care, it didn't become unaffordable for the average American until AFTER government got involved. When only the market decided these things, doctors made house calls and had to compete for patients. Government involvement, a shift from preventative care to treating symptoms (Big Pharm lobbying the government), insurance companies and HMOs dictating medical decisions (and lobbying the government to keep it so) and medical malpractice laws (the tort lawyers lobbying the government to keep the system as is) all contributed to our out of control health care costs, NOT the free market.
The problem we have in THIS country is the government never gives back once it takes something. In Germany, corporations pay next to nothing in taxes compared to their American counterparts (15% to 46% next year) and do not have to concern themselves with their worker's health care and whatnot. When we implement universal care here, the government isn't going to cut corporate America a break. It will probably increase their tax rate. Too bad our government is too stupid to look at the fasted growing economy in Europe, Ireland, which only taxes corporations at 12.5%. Yeah, personal income taxes are higher in Europe, but they at least get a benefit from that, and their corporations aren't suffering due to punitive tax rates (highest rates in Europe? France at 35% or so).
America is getting very close to crossing the line of punitive taxes, and, frankly, that will have disastrous effects on our economy.
|
|
Democrats are constantly reminding us they're the "Party of Jefferson"...
Are you sure you don't mean Jackson? Like I said, I've never heard a democrat call themselves the party of Jefferson but I have heard them call themselves the party of Jackson.
Sweden is like the Seattle of Europe, but quite a bit of that seems to be related to the climate and weather patterns there... but I digress.
|
|
Democrats are constantly reminding us they're the "Party of Jefferson"...Are you sure you don't mean Jackson? Like I said, I've never heard a democrat call themselves the party of Jefferson but I have heard them call themselves the party of Jackson.
I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever read, watched, or listened to anything dealing with American politics.
"the Party of Jefferson" for Democrats and "The Party of Lincoln" for Republicans have been part of the political lexicon in this country since I can remember. The Democrat's biggest party of the year is called "The Jefferson - Jackson Dinner". You can't go to any Democrat web site without seeing Jefferson's name plastered all over the place.
In Germany, corporations pay next to nothing in taxes compared to their American counterparts (15% to 46% next year) and do not have to concern themselves with their worker's health care and whatnot.
OK -- I'll concede, as a German-born Wuerzburger, when I think of "Europe" with rosy glasses and get a warm fuzzy feeling, I'm thinking of Germany, not Britain or Romania.
|
|
Democrats are constantly reminding us they're the "Party of Jefferson"...Are you sure you don't mean Jackson? Like I said, I've never heard a democrat call themselves the party of Jefferson but I have heard them call themselves the party of Jackson.
Sweden is like the Seattle of Europe, but quite a bit of that seems to be related to the climate and weather patterns there... but I digress.
Wait, they serve horribly bitter, over roasted coffee in Sweden, too?
No, the people who keep voting over and over for the same douchebags in the major parties are insane (definition: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result). Keep voting Republican and Democrat, electing the same crap year in and year out, and keep telling me I'm wasting MY vote by voting third party.
Believe it or not, voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still EVIL. Enjoy the grass you're grazing...
Wouldn't repeatedly voting for a third party candidate and hoping that one day they would actually win also meet the definition of insanity as presented here.
|
|
Wouldn't repeatedly voting for a third party candidate and hoping that one day they would actually win also meet the definition of insanity as presented here.No, the people who keep voting over and over for the same douchebags in the major parties are insane (definition: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result). Keep voting Republican and Democrat, electing the same crap year in and year out, and keep telling me I'm wasting MY vote by voting third party.
Believe it or not, voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still EVIL. Enjoy the grass you're grazing...
Probably. At what point do you see HD admit to being sane? ;-)
At what point do you see HD admit to being sane? ;-)
Lemme stay out of this one. I know him IRL. And no one thinks I'm totally sane...
|
|
Democrats are constantly reminding us they're the "Party of Jefferson"...Are you sure you don't mean Jackson? Like I said, I've never heard a democrat call themselves the party of Jefferson but I have heard them call themselves the party of Jackson.I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever read, watched, or listened to anything dealing with American politics.
"the Party of Jefferson" for Democrats and "The Party of Lincoln" for Republicans have been part of the political lexicon in this country since I can remember. The Democrat's biggest party of the year is called "The Jefferson - Jackson Dinner". You can't go to any Democrat web site without seeing Jefferson's name plastered all over the place.
If they've started doing that I haven't seen it, no. I do try to stay up with politics in general, but as I said before I haven't seen a single democrat ever call themselves the party of Jefferson.
So unless I've suddenly missed some major news source that you're drawing on, I do think you've got it mixed up here. Their names are quite close. You've definitely got the Party of Lincoldn down though. I try to avoid the name calling and hooting that many politicians do, beating their own chests.
The Democrats are the Party of Jackson, his party basically ate the old Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson. Its kind of strange, but I actually think I see the Libertarian party doing the same thing to the Republicans today. Many are saying they think the GOP will rebound, but I don't think that many are going to find a viable party in the Republicans further into the future. Libertarians maybe...
|
|
Wait, they serve horribly bitter, over roasted coffee in Sweden, too?Democrats are constantly reminding us they're the "Party of Jefferson"...Are you sure you don't mean Jackson? Like I said, I've never heard a democrat call themselves the party of Jefferson but I have heard them call themselves the party of Jackson.
Sweden is like the Seattle of Europe, but quite a bit of that seems to be related to the climate and weather patterns there... but I digress.
I meant the rain, but if that is Seattle's Best then they should get a do-over. Same for Millwauke's Best.
If they've started doing that I haven't seen it, no. I do try to stay up with politics in general, but as I said before I haven't seen a single democrat ever call themselves the party of Jefferson.
Maybe they mean a different Jefferson. ;D
|
|
Wouldn't repeatedly voting for a third party candidate and hoping that one day they would actually win also meet the definition of insanity as presented here.No, the people who keep voting over and over for the same douchebags in the major parties are insane (definition: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result). Keep voting Republican and Democrat, electing the same crap year in and year out, and keep telling me I'm wasting MY vote by voting third party.
Believe it or not, voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still EVIL. Enjoy the grass you're grazing...
I don't expect them to win, to be honest. I just can't bring myself to vote for the two majors, as neither come close to my view of what America is supposed to be.
I am a hardcore liberal on most social issues, so I'm not going to vote for someone opposed to gay marriage, overturning Roe v. Wade (while I'm morally opposed to abortion - I think a woman should take it upon herself to ensure she doesn't get pregnant - I don't want to go back to the back alley coat hangar nightmare), ending drug prohibition, and stuff like that.
I'm a hardcore economic conservative, so I'm not going to vote for someone who doesn't believe in free markets, who wants to raise taxes, who wants to increase the role of government in the private lives of American citizens.
I believe in the right to keep arms, I think if the carrot doesn't work in foreign policy the stick needs to come down hard, I believe in the importance of protecting private property (I'm opposed to property taxes since their existence effectively makes private property an illusion. You don't own something if it can be taken away) and I believe what Jefferson said about government:
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
A lot of people use religion to make money. I think this movie falls into that category.
I have not seen it, only short clips on the net. Can someone tell me what the main points are, and if it is truly worth seeing, or should I just ignore it?
My comments on our government are across the board, Chomsky has a very specific focus for his bile. So, while some of my verbiage may superficially seem similar to his (and I grant that), we couldn't be further apart in how we approach and define the problem.
Hey I wasn't saying you should go out drinking, only that i had observed some commonality.
Some people are going to fall through the cracks. They do even in systems with heavy government involvement in everyday life. Perfection is not a reasonable goal. Utopia will never exist, and making it an objective is fallacy.
But, I am not make an objection based on utopia, I am making an objection based on best practice. It is well established that the greater the assessment systems that are inplace, the more it excludes the most those who need it most.
What your suggesting widens the cracks, more people will fall through.And, again, your insistence that people will automatically turn to crime if not coddled by government is far too cynical for my tastes. If someone's response to adversity is to impinge on the rights of others, they should be removed from society.
I don't think it is cynical. I think it is reflective of the evidence.
Taxation and government as a whole is by is very nature an imposition on the rights of individuals to deal with adversity. I mean, come on, the military.Governments cannot create wealth, they cannot create anything, they can only take from some to give to others. And they never do so efficiently, which wastes resources that private citizens working in their own self interests generally can and will use in a much more efficient and beneficial manner. Bureaucracies are notoriously wasteful, and people who have no vested interest in being efficient (and, generally, no accountability) will not be, by and large.
Governments cannot create wealth? They cannot create anything? Has the advent of the microprocessor not created wealth? Without basic research funding from government, which allowed scientists to explore quantum P-states, the transistor would likely not have been discovered even now. It was the freedom of scientists to investigate whatever they liked, with government money, without a specific application in mind that allowed for the computers we see today.
Equally? Has the internet not created wealth? The internet exists due to international research funding and military funding.I am sorry, but on this one your providing rhetoric and it is false.
And, considering that the top 2% of earners in this country pay 82% of the money the government collects every year (after tax deductions and rebates), I think it is hilarious that somehow everyone else is being hurt by them. Hell, the bottom 40% of wage earners in this country pay negative income taxes. That is, they get back more in refunds than they paid in the first place. Class warfare is great if your goal is for everyone to be poor.
I don't have an answer to this at the momment, i will try to come back to it after o have had more of a think.
You like to invoke human nature. Well, human nature dictates that people with no incentive to better themselves will not do so. If government decides to punish people for doing well, and reward people for doing nothing, more people will do nothing. The path of least resistance applies to social constructs as well, after all. The Soviet Union collapsed primarily because the citizens didn't give a crap. There was no incentive to do well, except for an elite few. Hard work received no more reward than lazy work, as rewarding someone for trying harder was anathema to the entire concept of Communism. "Equality" in the U.S.S.R. meant everyone was equally miserable.
Derek, we also have vast bodies of evidence that negative reinforcement is a lousy teaching tool. (We are getting into my field woot!)
The Soviet Union collapsed for a whole host of reasons. Crippling itself with weapon constructionIncidentally have you watch The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom ?
However, just because something is a challange, doesn't mean we cant work to device systems that counter the issues that social justice itself raises.
I do respect one thing about European Socialists, though. At least they are proud to admit what they are, and aren't hypocrites about their political philosophy. Too bad American Socialists try so hard to divorce themselves from that word, and insist on lying to the American public about their philosophy. And, both major parties here are socialist, the only difference is the degree of government control they espouse.
They do that because your culture makes such a big deal of demonising the term. There is a huge difference between Northern European social democracies and soviet Russia. And when politicians who really don't understand that while socialism isn't the monster under the bed that they where told it was when they were growing up, spout rhetoric about socialism being evil, is it any wonder your very centrists only just socialists search for other ways to describe themselves.
|
|
My confusion here at this point in the conversation is this...
If you are unhappy with the war in Iraq, unhappy with the education system, unhappy with social security etc etc etc, why on earth would you think that spending MORE money on these things will make you more happy?
The truth is that we will like some people in office better than others. We will think some do a better job than others. But anytime either side expands government, they are opening the door for greater power for a later candidate whom we may vehemently oppose.
I scratch my head thinking of something that the government has done well; has done efficiently and has done more good than harm and I am at loss. Really. From the war on drugs, to the war on terror. From the aid rendered to the victims of Katrina, to the aid rendered to the victims of AIG and the like. From public education to social security. What thing of significance have they done since, say, the interstate system was put in has been done well?
I do not expect that expanding thier reach will help.
They went to the Moon?
They eradicated smallpox?Pretty impressive achievements that.
One of those was an action by many governments even.
They fund huge amounts of research which improves out quality of life.
They have funded research that has openned up entire new fields of industry.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
What thing of significance have they done since, say, the interstate system was put in has been done well?
Invented the Internet.
Ended the Cold War.Put a robot on Mars.
Prevented nuclear war.
Integrated public schools.
It also passed the Endangered Species act that saved the:
* Bald Eagle (increased from 417 to 11,040 pairs between 1963 and 2007); removed from list 2007
* Whooping Crane (increased from 54 to 436 birds between 1967 and 2003)
* Peregrine Falcon (increased from 324 to 1,700 pairs between 1975 and 2000); removed from list
* Gray Wolf (populations increased dramatically in the Northern Rockies, Southwest, and Great Lakes)
* Gray Whale (increased from 13,095 to 26,635 whales between 1968 and 1998); removed from list (Debated due to the fact that whaling was banned before the ESA was set in place and that the ESA had nothing to do with the natural population increase since the cease of massive whaling [excluding Native American tribal whaling])
* Grizzly bear (increased from about 271 to over 580 bears in the Yellowstone area between 1975 and 2005); removed from list 3/22/07
I mean, I appreciate know-nothing government no-goodnikism as much as the next guy, but let's try not to be completely obtuse.
Sorry, but people are always in control of their own actions, unless someone literally has a gun to their head, and even then, they can chose to be true to themselves and let their oppressor pull the trigger.
Ugh. I felt I had to comment on this. Have you never had/been close to someone who had a mental illness? I would venture that the answer would be "no" based on that statement alone. As a sufferer of chronic depression and anxiety you can't just tell me to "go out there and have fun because you're in control of your own actions." It doesn't work that way (if only it did). This is a narrow example, and maybe not the best one someone could come up with, but there are so many factors that go into pushing a person's behavior in one direction or another that your statement comes off as naive.
Invented the Internet.
Ended the Cold War.
Put a robot on Mars.
Prevented nuclear war.
Integrated public schools.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Struck down bans on interracial marriage.Struck down laws criminalizing private consensual sex between adults.
Abolished poll taxes.
As a sufferer of chronic depression and anxiety you can't just tell me to "go out there and have fun because you're in control of your own actions." It doesn't work that way (if only it did).
Your point is a good one, but in fairness to Derek, he did carefully specify "actions," not "attitude," and I think the difference is significant. To stick with your example, you can force yourself to go out there for a short time, grit your teeth, and try go through the motions of someone trying to have fun, even though it ultimately makes you frantic, miserable, and exhausted.
Or, as Andrew Vachss (author and youth attorney) points out ("Behavior is Truth"), someone who fantasizes about robberies doesn't get in trouble for being a "hijackophile," but by the same token, if he then actually commits robberies, he is sentenced for it without being entitled to a defense of "Not Guilty by reason of hijackophilia."
|
|
Sorry, but people are always in control of their own actions, unless someone literally has a gun to their head, and even then, they can chose to be true to themselves and let their oppressor pull the trigger.Ugh. I felt I had to comment on this. Have you never had/been close to someone who had a mental illness? I would venture that the answer would be "no" based on that statement alone. As a sufferer of chronic depression and anxiety you can't just tell me to "go out there and have fun because you're in control of your own actions." It doesn't work that way (if only it did). This is a narrow example, and maybe not the best one someone could come up with, but there are so many factors that go into pushing a person's behavior in one direction or another that your statement comes off as naive.
First of all, I'm probably more aware of the consequences of poor decision making than most of the people on these boards. Second of all, I know I was in complete control of my actions. I had a s&$!ty "poor single mother, grew up in the 'hood" childhood, I have my share of psychological difficulties, I went to crap schools, I was told my whole life I'd never amount to jack, and I screwed up and went to prison. But, guess what? I didn't go to prison because I had a crappy childhood. I didn't go to prison because I'm bi-polar, I didn't go to prison because I went to crap schools. I went to prison because I was lazy and took the instant gratification route instead of busting my ass and improving my situation. I did that, society didn't "make me do it" (God, I hate that f*~%ing excuse), my childhood didn't make me do that. Despite my background, despite my being dirt poor growing up, despite going to crap schools, I still managed to get accepted to college and threw it away. I made bad choices in life, period. I made a mess of it, period. And now I'm doing everything I can to make better decisions.
So, I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for people who simply made bad decisions.
I'm sorry you have clinical depression, I have friends that suffer from it, but, if you read my posts carefully, I make exceptions for people who suffer through no fault of their own. Your brain chemistry isn't a choice you made, it is something you were more likely than not born with. So, basically, my post wasn't directed at you. I apologize if you felt it was, but I qualified my statements quite clearly, so there really was nothing for you to take offense with.
|
|
What thing of significance have they done since, say, the interstate system was put in has been done well?
Invented the Internet.
Ended the Cold War.
Put a robot on Mars.
Prevented nuclear war.
Integrated public schools.It also passed the Endangered Species act that saved the:
* Bald Eagle (increased from 417 to 11,040 pairs between 1963 and 2007); removed from list 2007
* Whooping Crane (increased from 54 to 436 birds between 1967 and 2003)
* Peregrine Falcon (increased from 324 to 1,700 pairs between 1975 and 2000); removed from list
* Gray Wolf (populations increased dramatically in the Northern Rockies, Southwest, and Great Lakes)
* Gray Whale (increased from 13,095 to 26,635 whales between 1968 and 1998); removed from list (Debated due to the fact that whaling was banned before the ESA was set in place and that the ESA had nothing to do with the natural population increase since the cease of massive whaling [excluding Native American tribal whaling])
* Grizzly bear (increased from about 271 to over 580 bears in the Yellowstone area between 1975 and 2005); removed from list 3/22/07I mean, I appreciate know-nothing government no-goodnikism as much as the next guy, but let's try not to be completely obtuse.
Let's see, did the GOVERNMENT create the wealth used to fund those projects, or did they take it in the form of taxes from someone who did create that wealth?
I never said there wasn't a role for government, I never said they never did anything worthy, I said, simply, THEY DO NOT CREATE WEALTH. They only take it from some and give it to others. Some of the money they take in taxes goes to good works (The Endangered Species Act has done a lot of good, I'll grant that), and the internet is a good thing.
Let's look at the internet, though. Arpanet was used by the military, and its immediate successor was used by universities to exchange data. Neither of those uses generated wealth. It wasn't until the internet had been available for the common man for a time that companies figured out how to make money off of it. And they didn't even do that right until the second and third gen internet companies figured out how to make it worth.
The Mars rover isn't generating wealth, it's costing money. The knowledge we're gaining from the Red Planet is scientifically fascinating, but it isn't making any money.
As to the Cold War. Well, government also started it, so kudos to them for that. Still didn't generate wealth. Took money from our taxes and made a bunch of defense contractors rich.
We had a one sided nuclear war already. And, unless you're saying that by not starting a nuclear war the government should get credit for all of the wealth created by the private sector during the Cold War, again, preventing nuclear war didn't generate wealth.
Integrating public schools? Have you been to most major cities these days? Schools aren't segregated by law any more, but there are still plenty of public schools that are very heavy ethnically one way or another. But, again, either way, didn't generate wealth.
Again, government's do not generate wealth, they move existing wealth around. And, again, I'm not saying government doesn't have a role, and that they're incapable of doing good things, but they do not, by definition, "generate wealth".
"Generation of wealth" has a very specific meaning, economically speaking, and government doesn't do it.
"Obtuse"? Moi? No. Unless by "obtuse" you mean "of a different opinion in the field of economics". In that case, I'll wear the obtuse label proudly.
Insightful debate
Once again, I have to agree with what you are spinning out HD. Although I didn't grow up in 'bad' circumstances, I did spend much of my early adult life among the lower income bracket folks due to some poor choices on my part. I faced up to my problems and went off to the military to improve my circumstances. Most of my peers who stuck with the government cheese are now either dead or addicts at this point.
I understand fully why people want 'basic needs' to be provided. Heck, I think it is incumbent on all of us to assist people who are in distress. HOWEVER: There are a lot of people out there who 'game' the system continually. They skate along, coming up with maladies, deficiencies and excuses why the government should give them money. As long as the option is available to them, these people will continue their actions.
The ongoing problem with government isn't that they help people. The problem is that they are incredibly INEFFICIENT about it. Now there is talk of doing away with the tax deduction for charitable giving. This will destroy many charities, making them beholden to government money, and by extension, government direction. I give extensively to charity, despite dwelling in the lower end of the earning spectrum. My wife and I foster shelter dogs, giving them a place to heal and learn how to interact while waiting on adoption.
Currently we are allowing a 18-year-old girl who is trying to straighten her life out to stay in our house. She is a product of the governmental system, and has four people in her immediate (mother, father, sisiter, brother) family who are dependent on welfare/ addicted to various drugs. She wants better, but her own mother is pestering her to go on disability so that she can collect as well. No one has ever given her one lick of positive encouragement or looked at her as anything other than a way to gain more government benefits. Did I mention she is one of EIGHT sibilings (half and full)?. By the way, her staying here is being done on our dime, the government isn't involved.
Most charities operate on a 85/15 split: i.e. out of every dollar you donate 85 cents goes to the people being helped, 15 cents goes to administration costs. Government programs flip this equation.
I have no problem paying taxes (although, like HD mentioned, I actually DON'T pay anything as I fall under the 40% negative flow conundrum). My issue is the massive waste and pork Washington indulges in. I am also truly horrified at the massive INCREASES in spending now that the Dems are in power. Not that the Reps can hold their heads high. They did the same thing as the Dems are doing, just on a lesser scale.
As HD said, government doesn't generate wealth, it merely collects and redistributes it. Some of its projects are worthy and neccessary (infrastructure/military/police/fire/etc.) some ..not so much. Borrowing money on this vast scale is criminal. If you have or plan to have children you should be ashamed. They are the true 'victims' and they will be burdened by massive taxes. If you don't think so, where do you think the money to service this debt will come from once the Chinese government decides buying our debt isn't a good investment? There's only one group of people who can't say no: The American taxpayer. It might not be this year, or next year, but the pressure will build to increase the tax burden further down the chain.
Also a final thought. This massive welfare underclass we are constructing is a mean beast. If we ever decide to stop feeding it, it WILL turn on us. The fathers of Rome faced the same troubles with their proletariat. 'Bread and circuses' is a time old way of deferring the problems for another day. The mob also makes a great tool in the hands of the right demagogue ...
|
Wealth creation eh? Well, I think some of the NASA technologies that were developed with government money certainly created a lot of wealth. If that doesn't satisfy you, the vast amount of university research surely should. Key among them things like the World Wide Web and the discovery of DNA. Those have certainly generated wealth.
Besides, wealth creation is far from the most important thing.
Wealth creation eh? Well, I think some of the NASA technologies that were developed with government money certainly created a lot of wealth. If that doesn't satisfy you, the vast amount of university research surely should. Key among them things like the World Wide Web and the discovery of DNA. Those have certainly generated wealth.
Pure science isn't profitable. Finding real-world applications is what makes the findings profitable. That takes private sector companies to accomplish. Though I feel that funding scientific inquiry is one of the things government SHOULD be doing (and bloody more of it IMHO). Some research requires the massive resources a government can bring to bear.
Besides, wealth creation is far from the most important thing.
Out of curiosity, what would you consider the most important thing?
Wealth creation eh? Well, I think some of the NASA technologies that were developed with government money certainly created a lot of wealth. If that doesn't satisfy you, the vast amount of university research surely should. Key among them things like the World Wide Web and the discovery of DNA. Those have certainly generated wealth.Pure science isn't profitable. Finding real-world applications is what makes the findings profitable. That takes private sector companies to accomplish. Though I feel that funding scientific inquiry is one of the things government SHOULD be doing (and bloody more of it IMHO). Some research requires the massive resources a government can bring to bear.
Not always true. In many fields, especially genetics, pure science is comercially important. But that aside, new industries are openned up and made possible by finding application for basic research. Those new applied sciences cannot exist. So in a very real sense, it is more fundimentally important to the creation of wealth, as money spent of basic research may open up hundreds of products, all of which are responcible for the creation of wealth.
Besides, wealth creation is far from the most important thing.Out of curiosity, what would you consider the most important thing?
The creation and preservation of culture, which is arguably one of our two purposes in life, along with the continuation of our genes.
I mean, C.E.R.N. is more important to humanity as a whole and its future survival that general motors ever will be. We as a species can do without general motor, but if we don't expand our knowledge, we are doomed to extinction.
The creation and preservation of culture, which is arguably one of our two purposes in life, along with the continuation of our genes.
Well, that's very Darwininan, but I would agree that's pretty much it stripped of all frills. I would posit that wealth creation makes culture possible and further continues our genes. Without wealth creation we have no civilized culture, we are hunter gatherers. And yes I understand that hunter gatherers had a form of culture, it just wasn't one that could support anything beyond base day-to-day survival. The first people to domesticate animals and plants paved the way to food surplusses and the freedom to think beyond gathering the next meal.
I mean, C.E.R.N. is more important to humanity as a whole and its future survival that general motors ever will be. We as a species can do without general motor, but if we don't expand our knowledge, we are doomed to extinction.
But massive facilities like C.E.R.N require wealth to build no? My take on the matter is that if you are spending immense amounts of money propping up an ever-expanding entitlement system, there will be less money to spend on such projects. I agree that we can do without General Motors, but who is throwing billions of dollars into it to keep it afloat, when it should have gone into bankrupcy last Fall?
When it came to funding our own Superconducting Super Collider it was derided as a Cold War 'Star Wars' type project and left to wither and die on the vine. Those deriding it were the congresspeople of the 92-94 era, when the Democrats held both legislative houses. Now we have thrown more into our unprofitable car companies than would have taken to build the SSC.
|
|
Pure science isn't profitable. Finding real-world applications is what makes the findings profitable. That takes private sector companies to accomplish. Though I feel that funding scientific inquiry is one of the things government SHOULD be doing (and bloody more of it IMHO). Some research requires the massive resources a government can bring to bear.
Quite so. Pure science, however, as Zombieneighbours mentioned, can open up huge new fields of study for later development and applications. Atomic Theory was once pure science, and yet we now have many practical applications from that. Same with genetics. If the LHC does find the Higgs Boson, and allows physicists to resolve their standard model, and maybe work on a Unified Field Theory, who knows what new developments might lead on from that? Heck, Electricity was once pure science. It took Edison to come along and make a profit out of it, but if it wasn't for the original pure research into that, Edison couldn't have patented the lightbulb, as there wouldn't be easy access to electricity.
Out of curiosity, what would you consider the most important thing?
The betterment of humanity as a whole. So, I'd say that the eradication of smallpox from Earth was one of the greatest (and least talked about) achievements of the 20th century, and that damn well needed governments to do it.
Sure, wealth creation is important. But pure wealth creation doesn't always help humanity.