|
1. a person who believes that God created the universe and then ABANDONED itYou're grossly misrepresenting their position by your choice of words and emphasis, possibly in an effort to demonize them. A far better defintion would be:
1. a person who believes that God created the best of all possible universes and then left it to run according to His divinely-mandated natural laws.
The idea is that God doesn't need to intervene with miracles, because He did the job right the first time.
a.) I am curious as to why I am possibly attempting to demonize their position by my choice of words?
I pulled the definition from a google search for the definition of deist.
I used the google search term define: deist
I included the link in my post. Viewing the link would have shown that it was a google search for the term "define: deist". So, why would choosing my words in such a manner look like an effort to demonize them? I grant that a googled definition may not be the best but I included the link to the page I found it in my post. So, I thought it would be obvious that it was not intentional gross misrepresentation.
b.) The emphasis was not for the point of painting them in a poor light. The emphasis was because Paul Watson was saying that being an Arian Christian made Garydee a deist.
Here is the quote:
Paul Watson was arguing that because Arian Christians believed in God but did not believe Jesus was divine (his interpretation, I have little to no knowledge of the validity of said interpretation), they were deists. I listed several definitions of a "deist" (skipping...
Uhm, believing in the divinity of Christ is a requirement to be a Christian, so yes, you are a Deist. Sorry to break it to you like this.
It was the first time I'd ever heard someone claiming to be a Christian who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, i.e. that Christ was divine. In my experience, Jesus being the Son of God and thus divine is a fairly integral part of being a Christian. Never having heard of Arian Christians, I spoke from a position of ignorance, which Garydee and Urizen corrected me on, at which point I accepted my ignorance and dropped the topic and so did he.
As for your definition of deist, I suggest you look up the wikipedia version. It's far better than the misrepresentations google found for you.
Someone making $200,000 a year is in a better position to hire private security or purchase land near the highway(or away from it if they don't want to be bothered by construction) than someone making $20,000. As a result, if the fine for speeding is...No. He'd get the same fine for the same reason, which is his wealth not the car he was driving. But feel free to misrepresent things some more to back your case up. That always helps.
What is it with conservatives and wanting to let the rich off with financially meaningless fines? Do you like the thought of millionaires being able to ignore penalties because their wealth makes a flat fine meaningless? If he's worth a couple of million dollars, do you really think he's going to care about a $100 fine? Apparently not, as he's a repeat offender so the court decided to actually penalise him this time to give him an incentive to not do it again. Given how much conservatives blabber on about needing to 'get tough on criminals' they seem awfully reluctant to do that in this case.
I think the point, which is not misrepresented at all, is that he'd get fined a pittance if he was a poor guy with a crappy car. It's wrong to go after someone because they have more money. The guy shouls pay whatever the fine is now - he's local, the local laws apply and he was doing the deed. But to structure the fine based on his income and not based on his crime is discriminatory.
Again, a point I wish I could get to resonate with some of you fine people: it is no one's business if someone has money. You shouldn't be taxedmore, you shouldn't be fined more. Soldiers don't fight any hard in your defense, or work any harder on the highways near your house. Your stake in the government is the same, and you participation in the economy is greater.
And it is cynical and a little hateful to ever make the assumption that a rich person had to steal what they got. But I guess to some liberals all rich people look alike.
Three points
First, I don't care if it is a non-issue for him to do it once. Doing it multiple times will result in higher insurance (he might have to pay that with just one instance and it will be a lot for a luxury car) and it will mean that if he continues to do so he will need to go to classes (a person's time is a very valuable thing...) to avoid losing his license and if he continues to do so he will lose his license anyway.
The point is that being a nonissue for a civil infraction as trivial as speeding is meaningless unless the non-issue means it will be repetitive with meaningless consequences. Repetition will (should) lead to all involved receiving loss of license regardless of income.
The second point is that there is also a point where people are right on the borderline of staying afloat. Any amount of fine would mean that they would not be able to buy gas for their car or buy lunch one day or etc. So, any fine at all would be unfair to them by this method. This of course means that they would be able to speed at will. Or is the argument going to be that only someone making more than you should pay more based upon his income?
Finally is what I believe is the most important aspect. The punishment should fit the crime. If two people do the same crime then the punishments should be the same because the crime is the same.
It was the first time I'd ever heard someone claiming to be a Christian who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, i.e. that Christ was divine. In my experience, Jesus being the Son of God and thus divine is a fairly integral part of being a Christian. Never having heard of Arian Christians, I spoke from a position of ignorance, which Garydee and Urizen corrected me on, at which point I accepted my ignorance and dropped the topic and so did he.
Thank you and explanation accepted.
I am still trying to figure out how it appeared I was trying to demonize deists in my post. :scratch head:
It was the first time I'd ever heard someone claiming to be a Christian who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, i.e. that Christ was divine. In my experience, Jesus being the Son of God and thus divine is a fairly integral part of being a Christian. Never having heard of Arian Christians, I spoke from a position of ignorance, which Garydee and Urizen corrected me on, at which point I accepted my ignorance and dropped the topic and so did he.
As for your definition of deist, I suggest you look up the wikipedia version. It's far better than the misrepresentations google found for you.
Heck, there are Christian sects out there that don't follow the traditional trinitarian views. There are Christians out there that disbelieve the existence of a creator God, but still follow the tenets that Christ taught as a moral guideline.
Schisms and language barriers bring out interesting ideas. But I'll pass on playing with snakes and glossolalia. The former is way too risky and the latter is greek to me. :P
At the very least, we should look at people that could work, but that are on the government money as being force to "volunteer" to do odd jobs. Pick up trash on the high way. Shovel sidewalks. Whatever. If you are getting government money, you should be providing a service to the public.
This one is tricky - in some ways you just created some kind of government employer because know they are doing jobs that others might otherwise do. Furthermore you're cutting into the time they need to try and actually get a job.
If the judge says "Well the penalty is normally Y, but we're going to charge you Z because you're (rich/black/elf etc)." that's wrong.
Bullsh*t! Elves can't even be charged as adults until they're 110. By then they should know better, and should be charged more if they break the law. Don't even get me started on those wealthy Elves of African decent!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It was the first time I'd ever heard someone claiming to be a Christian who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, i.e. that Christ was divine. In my experience, Jesus being the Son of God and thus divine is a fairly integral part of being a Christian. Never having heard of Arian Christians, I spoke from a position of ignorance, which Garydee and Urizen corrected me on, at which point I accepted my ignorance and dropped the topic and so did he.
As for your definition of deist, I suggest you look up the wikipedia version. It's far better than the misrepresentations google found for you.
Heck, there are Christian sects out there that don't follow the traditional trinitarian views. There are Christians out there that disbelieve the existence of a creator God, but still follow the tenets that Christ taught as a moral guideline.
Schisms and language barriers bring out interesting ideas. But I'll pass on playing with snakes and glossolalia. The former is way too risky and the latter is greek to me. :P
My favourite are the faction of Coptic Satanists who worship a reconciled satan whom God put in charge of the earth. I really need to look more up on these guys.
My favourite are the faction of Coptic Satanists who worship a reconciled satan whom God put in charge of the earth. I really need to look more up on these guys.
That's a new one on me. Toss me a bone when you find 'em. I imagine they have their roots in Job.
Someone making $200,000 a year is in a better position to hire private security or purchase land near the highway(or away from it if they don't want to be bothered by construction) than someone making $20,000. As a result, if the fine for speeding is something like 200 bucks, they are in a position where they can afford to be fined for speeding, making it a non issue for them if the only thing they face is a fine. Still, as stated above, I don't think this is a good topic for this thread- few of us live in Switzerland, so I'm sure something is being lost in translation here.
Three points
First, I don't care if it is a non-issue for him to do it once. Doing it multiple times will result in higher insurance (he might have to pay that with just one instance and it will be a lot for a luxury car) and it will mean that if he continues to do so he will need to go to classes (a person's time is a very valuable thing...) to avoid losing his license and if he continues to do so he will lose his license anyway.
The point is that being a nonissue for a civil infraction as trivial as speeding is meaningless unless the non-issue means it will be repetitive with meaningless consequences. Repetition will (should) lead to all involved receiving loss of license regardless of income.The second point is that there is also a point where people are right on the borderline of staying afloat. Any amount of fine would mean that they would not be able to buy gas for their car or buy lunch one day or etc. So, any fine at all would be unfair to them by this method. This of course means that they would be able to speed at will. Or is the argument going to be that only someone making more than you should pay more based upon his income?
Finally is what I believe is the most important aspect. The punishment should fit the crime. If two people do the same crime then the punishments should be the same because the crime is the same.
This situation was rehetorical(at least from my point), and as I mentioned above, it happened in another country. I truly don't know how Switzerland does its laws, and unless I'm going there, I really dont' think I'm going to find out. If this happened in America, I'd be all over it like a sweaty teenage boy on a girl who implied she *might* be interested in going out with him. But as this is another country, I'm really not that perturbed. That said, I agree with your third point entirely, and your second point as well. For the most part, just don't speed.
My favourite are the faction of Coptic Satanists who worship a reconciled satan whom God put in charge of the earth. I really need to look more up on these guys.It was the first time I'd ever heard someone claiming to be a Christian who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, i.e. that Christ was divine. In my experience, Jesus being the Son of God and thus divine is a fairly integral part of being a Christian. Never having heard of Arian Christians, I spoke from a position of ignorance, which Garydee and Urizen corrected me on, at which point I accepted my ignorance and dropped the topic and so did he.
As for your definition of deist, I suggest you look up the wikipedia version. It's far better than the misrepresentations google found for you.
Heck, there are Christian sects out there that don't follow the traditional trinitarian views. There are Christians out there that disbelieve the existence of a creator God, but still follow the tenets that Christ taught as a moral guideline.
Schisms and language barriers bring out interesting ideas. But I'll pass on playing with snakes and glossolalia. The former is way too risky and the latter is greek to me. :P
Are you sure these guys really exist? It sounds a LOT like something an old pastor told his congregation(of which I was once a part of, unfortunately) once in an attempt to scare us back next Sunday.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My favourite are the faction of Coptic Satanists who worship a reconciled satan whom God put in charge of the earth. I really need to look more up on these guys.Are you sure these guys really exist? It sounds a LOT like something an old pastor told his congregation(of which I was once a part of, unfortunately) once in an attempt to scare us back next Sunday.
Well I *believe* they exist, I'll have to try to dig deeper when I get home. I heard of them once and it stuck in my head. Does sound almost gnostic though.
I'd add that they also don't pay for their defense as much as we do.Or does anyone else remember the panic when we talked about 'drawing down' the forces in Europe?
Europe's still spending huge sums on the military, far more then the world average. Britain spends more then Russia as does France and Germany and Italy each individually spend only a little less then Russia. China outspends any individual European state but not by to much - combine France and Britain together and they have a military budget that is 50% larger then China's.
Hence France is the world's #3 spender and the UK comes in #4, Germany is #6 and Italy is #8.
There may have been a point during the Cold War when the West really did need to stand together against the Russians but that time is long past and no other group poses anything even resembling a meaningful threat to Europe.
|
|
You mean in the "I'm a smart dude, but I'll take common sense over bloated theorizing any day" kind of anti-intellectual sense, right?No sarcasm at all. :)Oh, I'm anti-intellectual. No worries there, my friend.For the record, I wasn't being sarcastic; my apology was genuine. I'm saying this because I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. :/
Maybe, maybe I just dislike the company of eggheads and prefer regular, down to earth types.
|
|
I encourage you to call your local GOP candidates and tell them you feel that way. If there's an upside to losing, it is that we unload some losers (lookin at you, Specter) and finally OUR voice gets heard for a while.Oddly, I left the GOP precisely because they abandoned their checkbooks for Bibles. Specter (and maybe McCain, if he hadn't picked Miss Alaska as a running-mate) were the last of the bunch that I would have voted for. I'm a "fix the budget" voter, not a "values voter."
I don't WANT someone with "principles." I want someone who can stop spending long enough to lie, cheat, and steal our way back into financial solvency.
I miss Bill too.
Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.
The Russians are likely to be preoccupied by China for the immediate future and their are now so many buffer states between Russia and western Europe that it'd be quite some time before they'd manage to get into position to threaten the west. In any case historically the Russians only invade Europe after Europe invades Russia first and screws up the job (as the Germans, French and even Swedes did).
China is a much more interesting case because we have not seen a China this strong in a thousand years but they are far, far, away from Europe.
|
|
Probably because we are not the snarling monsters we have made each other out to be. Let's keep things moving in this unusually positive direction.Last round of huzzah's then I'm probably going to bed.
@ Matthew Morris
Ease up a bit. Making this personal may satisfy the snark sense, but it does damage what the people so far on this thread are trying to do. Less personal stuff and pot stirring. I'm not saying that links to other threads are not fair game, but the way you are using them doesn't lead down the path of discourse. Again, you may or may not be interested in that, but in this case that's not okay- this thread isn't for that kind of combat. I dont' agree with the vast majority of what you say politically, but I respect your opinion. Just turn down the snark, please. I want us all to reach some kind of understanding.
Oh I'm quite capable of reaching understanding with those who I disagree, you, Paul, Urizen, etc. It's when people name call, bring in non-relevant links to 'disprove' something, then claim that wasn't their intent, that I bring out the snark gun.
Actually I'm quite amused that the posting here has been civil. Compared to actual political blogs, my 'ideological foes' have been quite articulate and verbose. :-)
I'm a snarling monster. :P
RPG Superstar 2013
|
If a fine is fixed, it will be disproportionately punitive on the poor as taking that $100 when you only make $800 a month means you...
I find the premise of your argument to have horrific implications. A person deserves to pay more because he has more? And even worse, in your last post, you are positing that a traffic fine ought to be comensurate with one's income?
Now, I know you are not proposing the fine should be commensurate, but you are saying it is unfair for a poorer person to pay a larger portion of his income if he gets fined, so I see no practical distinction.
The answer is, punishment fits a crime, not a portfolio. If I can't afford my car insurance, I ought to try to make more money. Work longer hours, get a second job, stop buying so many Dews. Scratch that last one. Forget I said it.
By your analysis, EVERYTHING would cost more. WOuld you like also to regulate movies so that seeing Avatar costs me $12 but costs Bill Gates $72.50? Certainly not!
Again, the premise of government ought to be: it doesn't matter how much you have or how much you make. The Constitution doesn't say anything about monitoring what people make because their life is unfair. I want to be rich enough to buy DnD and then gift the IP rights to Paizo. I want to start a theme restaurant and a 24-hour garage/taxi service. I want to start a web site that funnels donations to charitable groups and politicians we can trust, doing the research and holding them accountable or no more money. That takes capital, and I have to get there. If someone else got there first, he doesn't owe me anything.
Your ideas (and I believe we are talking theoretically, I don't ascribe the belief to you genuinely yet) would have successful people paying more for required car insurance, utilities, taxes (which they already pay too much of) and more. Anything anyone contends is a right. More for government health care (which, sadly is the road we're headed down). More for a state attorney.
What would be the point of working for 60 hours and taking good care of your business and money? Or the point in saving for your retirement?
The whole problem we have with SSI is we told people the government would be there to take care of them. And now the government is stealing my money (and yours) to pay for retirement that people should have saved uup for themselves. They made bad decisions (and the government helped them make those bad decisions), and we pay the bill. That system won't be there when we get there. My SSI statement every quarter? I don't open it. Nothing it says means anything. Save some money and don't print it. And if people had to do things for themselves, we wouldn't have to worry about that. I could take home what I earn, and then pay my taxes, instead of the government allowing me to take home a portion of what I earn and calling it a "tax expenditure".
A person's money is their own. It is no one's business how much or what they do with it. It is wrong to take more because they have more. It is a poor message for those trapped in government dependence, and a poor step in creating a climate where prosperity is possible. We are eating the rich in this country, and those are the people who pay good wages and create new jobs. If I am ever rich, I will pay good wages and take good care of people. But I'll never get that chance if it's such a struggle to afford basic necessities, and certainly if I start having to pay more for things as I earn more.
Actually, I have said enough on this subject. I give the argument too much credibility. Don't break the law. If you can't afford the ticket, take extra care not to - that's part of the good stewardship of your time and money that will make you more successful. Realize the government does not exists to guarantee outcomes or make things fair. That has only the effect of dependence poverty and misfortune.
I want everyone to be as successful as I want to be. I want them to come by it honestly, and be able to say they worked for it. If God blesses them with early success, it's none of my business. If I write a great book and become a millionaire, it was me who made that happen (by the grace of God). It was NOT the government or society or the color of my skin. Same thing if I declare a cheap disability and decide to start collecting SSI instead of working.
No text anywhere suggests that life is or is not fair. It's a human invention. Justice is different. Over time, justice will happen, fairness will probably not. Our government should never adopt an arbitrary attitude towards what is fair and how the police power of government can enforce that fairness. That leads only to demagoguery, corruption, and drags the whole system down.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Europe's still spending huge sums on the military, far more then the world average. Britain spends more then Russia as does France and Germany and Italy each individually spend only a little less then Russia. China outspends any individual European state but not by to much - combine France and Britain together and they have a military budget that is 50% larger then China's.
Hence France is the world's #3 spender and the UK comes in #4, Germany is #6 and Italy is #8.
There may have been a point during the Cold War when the West really did need to stand together against the Russians but that time is long past and no other group poses anything even resembling a meaningful threat to Europe.
Unfortunately, your analysis of those numbers are a little off. Which is why some of prefer real-world experience over stats and models. Global warmologists tell us the earth is dying. They have the 'data' to prove it. But experienxce tells us it's darn cold outside, that the last decade temps are dropping overall, and that every single prediction about temperatures or weather or how much ice we are losing are completely wrong. California should have been totally under water by now, several times over.
So, that was an example.In the case of military spending in Eurpoe, they do all spend less. And how you examine those numbers gives different stories, too. But what we know, is we can't have national health care like they do and enjoy American life. We'd have less stuff, less privacy and would in fact have to drop our defense spending considerably to handle it the way they do. France only gets away with it becvause they only pay a portion, and then private insurers pay the rest (kind of like Medicare supplements). And, in fact, there is a general sense of panic when we consider reducing troops, closing bases moving them around, etc. SOme of that is local economic impact, some of that is strategic defense help that other nations couldn't handle themselves. You'll recall Poland's reaction when Obama chose the anniversary of the invasion of Poland to announce US troop reduction. It's a broken agreement and they consider it bad for their defensive capabilities.
European nations might be number 2-3 in defense. And might even outstrip us percapita in defense (with a smaller population), but they can't afford state programs and pay for their own defense.
Well I *believe* they exist, I'll have to try to dig deeper when I get home. I heard of them once and it stuck in my head. Does sound almost gnostic though.My favourite are the faction of Coptic Satanists who worship a reconciled satan whom God put in charge of the earth. I really need to look more up on these guys.Are you sure these guys really exist? It sounds a LOT like something an old pastor told his congregation(of which I was once a part of, unfortunately) once in an attempt to scare us back next Sunday.
Gnostic Satanism? Are they LaVey-Crowley mash-up fanbois? :P
If a fine is fixed, it will be disproportionately punitive on the poor as taking that $100 when you only make $800 a month means you...I find the premise of your argument to have horrific implications. A person deserves to pay more because he has more? And even worse, in your last post, you are positing that a traffic fine ought to be comensurate with one's income?
Now, I know you are not proposing the fine should be commensurate, but you are saying it is unfair for a poorer person to pay a larger portion of his income if he gets fined, so I see no practical distinction.
The answer is, punishment fits a crime, not a portfolio. If I can't afford my car insurance, I ought to try to make more money. Work longer hours, get a second job, stop buying so many Dews. Scratch that last one. Forget I said it.
By your analysis, EVERYTHING would cost more. WOuld you like also to regulate movies so that seeing Avatar costs me $12 but costs Bill Gates $72.50? Certainly not!
Wow, now who's the one misrepresenting someone elses words?
What Paul wrote has nothing to do with buying goods or services. You just, wrongly, seized on it to continue on a whole different rant.It's about punitive measures. If a repeat offender, and I'm sure the man in question has been dealt the usual fines, doesn't stop his offences, then a judge has the ability to leverage a higher fine or take some other action (prison time, take away the driver's license etc.). Just as in other criminal cases there's usually a minimum fee/sentence which is the standard, but there are provisions for setting a higher penalty if the crime fits certain criteria (e.g. repeat offenders).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Gnostic Satanism? Are they LaVey-Crowley mash-up fanbois? :PWell I *believe* they exist, I'll have to try to dig deeper when I get home. I heard of them once and it stuck in my head. Does sound almost gnostic though.My favourite are the faction of Coptic Satanists who worship a reconciled satan whom God put in charge of the earth. I really need to look more up on these guys.Are you sure these guys really exist? It sounds a LOT like something an old pastor told his congregation(of which I was once a part of, unfortunately) once in an attempt to scare us back next Sunday.
Heh, I was thinking of the Cathar heresy, where they argued the flesh was evil and a prison for the spirit (short form) If my memory is right, and they believe a 'redeemed Satan' is in charge of earth, then I could see some parallels.
Off topic: Satan is one of my own heretical beliefs, FWIW.
Heh, I was thinking of the Cathar heresy, where they argued the flesh was evil and a prison for the spirit (short form) If my memory is right, and they believe a 'redeemed Satan' is in charge of earth, then I could see some parallels.
It's been awhile. I don't think he was left in charge, but more so that even he could be forgiven. But something tells me I'm getting that mixed with something else.
Off topic: Satan is one of my own heretical beliefs, FWIW.
Elaborate? Spoiler if you must.
From the BBC: "A Swiss millionaire has been handed down a record speeding fine of $290,000 (£180,000) by a court.
The man was reportedly caught driving a red Ferrari Testarossa at 137km/h (85mph) through a village.
The penalty was calculated based on the unnamed motorist's wealth - assessed by the court as $22.7m (£14.1m) - and because he was a repeat offender."
Reactions? Kind of puts a new twist on "from each...to each..."
Zo
Sounds like someone is trying to balance their local budget to me.
And yes, it is b.s. to make the fine relevant to the person's income.Actually it makes sense (unless the attendant bureacracy makes implementing it more costly than its worth). A fine is supposed to be a disincentive to illegal behavior, a way to cause a bit of pain and inconvenience to those who commit minor infractions of the law, in hopes that this will make them less likely to commit such infractions in the future. A $100 traffic fine may cause a bit of pain and inconvenience to me and therefore it is a disincentive. But $100 is not a cause of pain and inconvenience to someone making several million dollars per year. To such a person, a $100 fine would be no more inconvenient than a dollar or two for me. So a higher fine should be charged to the millionaire just to make the disincentive higher.
On the other hand, there is the possibility that the traffic cops would then hang out in rich neighborhoods in order to maximize revenue for their towns, which would be unfair to the rich drivers and also make the roads in poor neighborhoods less safe.
Well to follow this logic then. Let's assume two men each commit a murder. The facts in each case are essentially the same (motive or no motive, premediated or not premediated, etc.). Now one of the men is 20 years old. The other is 60 years old. Should the younger man get a longer sentence for essentially the same exact crime because he has more "wealth" in years (has more years to live potentially)? The old guy gets 5 years and the young guy gets 45 years, so they both get out when they are 65 years old (obvious not at the same time)?
This one is tricky - in some ways you just created some kind of government employer because know they are doing jobs that others might otherwise do. Furthermore you're cutting into the time they need to try and actually get a job.
At the very least, we should look at people that could work, but that are on the government money as being force to "volunteer" to do odd jobs. Pick up trash on the high way. Shovel sidewalks. Whatever. If you are getting government money, you should be providing a service to the public.
Well as was discussed earlier, we wouldn't require this to be a 40 hours a week position. Possibly 15 hours? I am sure someone who is unemployed can find 15 hours to do some community service when they are not doing interviews. And it actually can sell them better because it can keep the person busy and making connections. Perhaps someone likes their work ethic and hires them or writes them a recommedation or something. Again, win-win.
As for the government employer issue, so what?
A person's money is their own. It is no one's business how much or what they do with it. It is wrong to take more because they have more. It is a poor message for those trapped in government dependence, and a poor step in creating a climate where prosperity is possible. We are eating the rich in this country, and those are the people who pay good wages and create new jobs. If I am ever rich, I will pay good wages and take good care of people. But I'll never get that chance if it's such a struggle to afford basic necessities, and certainly if I start having to pay more for things as I earn more.
Therein lies the problem for many. Most people- even insane liberals such as myself- think that one should be able to do with ones money what they wish. The problem lies in what happens when those people lack, for lack of a better word, character.
Someone who owns a company can choose to take their profits and close up shop. Or they can choose to keep playing ball. In the end, the choice is up to them. There are numerous organizations(well, really a handful of people running said organizations) that had no problem writing off scores of people and keeping the money that they would have paid them and calling it a profit. The question my liberal mind has is- what happens then? What happens when the companies that employ the vast majority of a small town decide to go in for paper instead of silver and move to the big city?
|
A person's money is their own. It is no one's business how much or what they do with it. It is wrong to take more because they have more. It is a poor message for those trapped in government dependence, and a poor step in creating a climate where prosperity is possible. We are eating the rich in this country, and those are the people who pay good wages and create new jobs. If I am ever rich, I will pay good wages and take good care of people. But I'll never get that chance if it's such a struggle to afford basic necessities, and certainly if I start having to pay more for things as I earn more.Therein lies the problem for many. Most people- even insane liberals such as myself- think that one should be able to do with ones money what they wish. The problem lies in what happens when those people lack, for lack of a better word, character.
Someone who owns a company can choose to take their profits and close up shop. Or they can choose to keep playing ball. In the end, the choice is up to them. There are numerous organizations(well, really a handful of people running said organizations) that had no problem writing off scores of people and keeping the money that they would have paid them and calling it a profit. The question my liberal mind has is- what happens then? What happens when the companies that employ the vast majority of a small town decide to go in for silver instead of paper and move to the big city?
The Bubble busts.
Well to follow this logic then. Let's assume two men each commit a murder. The facts in each case are essentially the same (motive or no motive, premediated or not premediated, etc.). Now one of the men is 20 years old. The other is 60 years old. Should the younger man get a longer sentence for essentially the same exact crime because he has more "wealth" in...
Well depending on the circumstances of the crime, yes the young man can and should spend more time in jail for murdering someone. If they are both sentenced to life in prison the young man will be ‘paying’ much more than the old man who’s already got to spend most of his life outside of prison. The young man doesn’t get to spend only 10 years in prison because the old man dies 10 years into his sentence.
The ‘liberal’ argument here is the same thing. If you commit a crime you should have to pay a fine that is enough of a deterant to make you not commit the crime again, let’s say a % of your annual wages with a minimum fee for people who make under a certain amount. Just because the % assigned to someone who makes around $2,000 is $200 and enough to make someone who makes that amount never commit a crime again doesn’t mean someone who makes $20,000 a month should only pay $200. The sentence is the same, even if the money isn’t.
Actually, I'm interested in the conversative viewpoint on this. Despite what's going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps one day in Iran, red war is slowly going the way of the ostrich. Combat has shifted to Wall Street and the stock market, and I think this is where America as a country needs to focus with China especially. I agree wholeheartedly with Z, a stable American dollar...
They are moving on you.
Want to sleep in your stew of moral rectitude and kill Iraqis? No problem. China loves that.
America is playing chess. China is playing Go. In chess the moves are aggressive, easy to see, and the progressions are predictable. In Go everything is subtlety and patience.
The end is nigh? What do you see as victory for China in this scenario?
I consider myself conservative, but I am finding that I am some ways apart from most public conservatives:
I believe that war is a last, desperate measure, not a way for one country to enforce its beliefs on other nations or force them into favorable trade.
I do not believe that America should be "peacekeeper to the world"--we should lead by example, not by meddling in foreign affairs. Rome, Great Britain and the U.S.S.R. should serve as cautionary examples to us.
I believe that abortion and euthanasia are wrong; a physician "shall do no harm" and these procedures often reduce the value of life to matters of money and convenience.
I believe that personal freedom and personal accountability must go hand in hand.
I believe that Government must protect the rights of those citizens who are unable to fend for themselves. At the same time, I don't believe that people living in our country illegally should benefit from our tax money.
I believe that guns should be strictly controlled and those who use deadly force be prosecuted severely. I support the death penalty.
I believe that hate crimes legislation is dangerous to the right of free speech. I also deplore Political Correctness for the same reason. At the same time, I believe that opinions are not an excuse for abuse, neglect, or discrimination.
That's what this particular conservative believes, for what it's worth.
October 10, 2006
For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word “liberal” has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define “liberal” today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.
Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the “liberal” position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.
1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that “time has upset many fighting faiths.” Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.
2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)
3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; “one person, one vote;” limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.”
4. Liberals believe “we the people” are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as “conservatives,” share this value with liberals.)
5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.
6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to “promote the general welfare.”
7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.
8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)
9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.
10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: “Those who won our independence … did not exalt order at the cost of liberty.”
Consider this an invitation. Are these propositions meaningful? Are they helpful? Are they simply wrong? As a liberal, how would you change them or modify the list? As a conservative, how would you draft a similar list for conservatives?
As promised...
1) Unsure about the first part, completely behind the second. As a liberal I have been slandered for years as being weak/knock kneed and unable to back up my opinion with any type of heat beyond wishing shame upon those who disagree. Nothing could be further from the truth. That said, I'm all for debate, provided it is not from a debate team standpoint.
2) Oh hell yeah. I may never agree with what Garydee, Houston, and even Steven have to say, but I will forever defend their right to say it without fear of reprisal from those who disagree.
3) Okay.
4) Okay.
5) Okay.
6) Hm. I'd say helping the less fortunate maybe, but promoting the general welfare, yes. There should be a basic level that all americans should be able to exist upon, even if that level isn't very nice. Still, no grade F meat or government cheese.
7) Okay.
8) Okay.
9) Okay. No double secret probation, natch.
10) Okay.
Unfortunately, your analysis of those numbers are a little off. Which is why some of prefer real-world experience over stats and models. Global warmologists tell us the earth is dying. They have the 'data' to prove it. But experienxce tells us it's darn cold outside, that the last decade temps are dropping overall, and that every single prediction about temperatures or weather or how much ice we are losing are completely wrong. California should have been totally under water by now, several times over.
Political opinions are one thing, but this is just so confused I can't let it pass.
1. the earth is not dying. No one has said that. A global temperature increase could be bad for lots of reasons, but the death of the planet is not one of them.
2. "experience tells us it's cold outside". Why yes, it's the middle of winter. In summer it's hot out. You've confused weather with climate, and local weather with global climate.
3. even if temps have been dropping for the last decade, this doesn't preclude a long term increase. Just as there is seasonal variability in temperature (see point 2), there are also short-term trends that may go up or down. What the models and stats do is separate this short-term variability from the long term trends.
4. Predictions have frequently been wrong, in both directions (some underestimate the change, some overestimate it). Modeling is not perfect. But how can someone have "real world experience" for something like global climate? Don't discount work by experts to replace it with something far more useless.
Unfortunately, your analysis of those numbers are a little off. Which is why some of prefer real-world experience over stats and models. Global warmologists tell us the earth is dying. They have the 'data' to prove it. But experienxce tells us it's darn cold outside, that the last decade temps are dropping overall, and that every single prediction about temperatures or weather or how much ice we are losing are completely wrong. California should have been totally under water by now, several times over.
Political opinions are one thing, but this is just so confused I can't let it pass.
1. the earth is not dying. No one has said that. A global temperature increase could be bad for lots of reasons, but the death of the planet is not one of them.
2. "experience tells us it's cold outside". Why yes, it's the middle of winter. In summer it's hot out. You've confused weather with climate, and local weather with global climate.
3. even if temps have been dropping for the last decade, this doesn't preclude a long term increase. Just as there is seasonal variability in temperature (see point 2), there are also short-term trends that may go up or down. What the models and stats do is separate this short-term variability from the long term trends.
4. Predictions have frequently been wrong, in both directions (some underestimate the change, some overestimate it). Modeling is not perfect. But how can someone have "real world experience" for something like global climate? Don't discount work by experts to replace it with something far more useless.
I thought global warming was out and climate change was in?
Well depending on the circumstances of the crime, yes the young man can and should spend more time in jail for murdering someone. If they are both sentenced to life in prison the young man will be ‘paying’ much more than the old man who’s already got to spend most of his life outside of prison. The young man doesn’t get to spend only 10 years in prison because the old man dies 10 years into his sentence.
Well to follow this logic then. Let's assume two men each commit a murder. The facts in each case are essentially the same (motive or no motive, premediated or not premediated, etc.). Now one of the men is 20 years old. The other is 60 years old. Should the younger man get a longer sentence for essentially the same exact crime because he has more "wealth" in...
Well "life" in the legal sense rarely means life in the real sense. Usually there is some kind of parole opportunity. But I'll give you the life case. Let's say it was less than life sentence situation. Should the younger man have to spend more time in prison than the older man? Would 5 years for the older man and 45 years for the younger man (excluding premature death) be ok?
The ‘liberal’ argument here is the same thing. If you commit a crime you should have to pay a fine that is enough of a deterant to make you not commit the crime again, let’s say a % of your annual wages with a minimum fee for people who make under a certain amount. Just because the % assigned to someone who makes around $2,000 is $200 and enough to make someone who makes that amount never commit a crime again doesn’t mean someone who makes $20,000 a month should only pay $200. The sentence is the same, even if the money isn’t.
And what if one person makes $20,000 and is single with no debt and bills to speak of, and another person makes $20,000 and is divorce has alimony and child support and severally thousands of dollars of debt he was forced to take on from the divorce? Is giving both of those people the same ticket amount "just"? And that ultimately is the problem with this situation, you can't write a law that covers every single person and if you leave it totally up to the judge, some judges will give out light amounts and others will give out heavy amounts (the hammer judge) and then justice still fails.
As others pointed out, instead there should be other options than this. If this is a repeat offender, why are they not losing their license? That sports car looks really cool in the garage, but if you can't drive it, it is a bit of a waste. And when they are paying a driver to get them around, see that is cutting into their money indirectly. There are better choices that treat each violator the same and thus fairly that can deal with these problems instead of ridicilous discrimination tactics.
The purpose of conservatism is to return to an atmosphere where the opportunity exists to get paid what you're worth and do what you love.
While I disagree with a lot of what you have written I'm going to take special issue with this sentence because I think its pretty much demonstratively false.
Return to when? While its possible the conservative program works (though I personally don't believe that to be the case) its not possible to point to a period in the past and show it working.
I thought global warming was out and climate change was in?Unfortunately, your analysis of those numbers are a little off. Which is why some of prefer real-world experience over stats and models. Global warmologists tell us the earth is dying. They have the 'data' to prove it. But experienxce tells us it's darn cold outside, that the last decade temps are dropping overall, and that every single prediction about temperatures or weather or how much ice we are losing are completely wrong. California should have been totally under water by now, several times over.
Political opinions are one thing, but this is just so confused I can't let it pass.
1. the earth is not dying. No one has said that. A global temperature increase could be bad for lots of reasons, but the death of the planet is not one of them.
2. "experience tells us it's cold outside". Why yes, it's the middle of winter. In summer it's hot out. You've confused weather with climate, and local weather with global climate.
3. even if temps have been dropping for the last decade, this doesn't preclude a long term increase. Just as there is seasonal variability in temperature (see point 2), there are also short-term trends that may go up or down. What the models and stats do is separate this short-term variability from the long term trends.
4. Predictions have frequently been wrong, in both directions (some underestimate the change, some overestimate it). Modeling is not perfect. But how can someone have "real world experience" for something like global climate? Don't discount work by experts to replace it with something far more useless.
Global warming is a subset of climate change. Call it either one, it doesn't change what's happening. But you're right - the term "climate change" is more in vogue these days. From what I gather the switch to more common use of "climate change" was to help avoid weather/climate confusions along the lines of "it's cold outside, therefore global warming is false".
Intersting point about Rush. By paying cash for his last hospital stay, he paid less than most insurance would have paid. But there was no hassle, the money went right to the hospital's bank, and everyone was happy.An important point is that neither myself nor Rush Limbaugh want anyone to pay for our health care. We want an economy where it isn't up to the government to do everything - which it does badly without exception.
Then he must have been well connected or some such because that's not how the system works. When you get your bill from the hospital and your on some kind of health insurance plan the bill is full of fantasy numbers. This is because the insurance companies negotiate the numbers down. So if the Hospital wants to charge a $1000 for a cat scan the insurance company comes to them and says something along the lines of 'we'll give you $700' and if you don't agree then were recommending that all of our 10 million members use a different hospital.
Hence that full price is usually only paid by people that come in off the street without some kind of health plan since they sure don't have the big stick (lots of members) that a large health plan uses to reduce fees.
And what if one person makes $20,000 and is single with no debt and bills to speak of, and another person makes $20,000 and is divorce has alimony and child support and severally thousands of dollars of debt he was forced to take on from the divorce? Is giving both of those people the same ticket amount "just"?
Yes. Yes it is. They both make the same amount of money. I could care less if guy two made some bad decisions that cut down his expendable income. Perhaps the individual could appeal his ticket to a judge based on the hardships he’s going through and the judge will show leniency , but I still believe the base law should be as I stated. A punishment should be a punishment to everyone. Yes, if someone gets a certain amount of tickets he will have his license taken away regardless of their pay grade. However, I think it’s BS that up until that point the tickets are a deterrent for people of one pay grade, and a triviality for another.
My central concern with fiscal conservatism is the assumed correlation between merit, that is, responsibility for the creation of wealth, and the eventual distribution of that wealth. I've decided to try to put this in terms a fiscally minded person might appreciate, or at least be able to understand.
People say the liberals want to arbitrary redistribute wealth. But for that to be true, we must assume good reason for the existing distribution, lest it be equally arbitrary. The idea seems to be that laborers willingly sell their labor to capitalists in exchange for fair value. So far, so good. But what is fair value? Well, that is set by the labor market. Great. But wait – how efficient is the market for labor at setting a fair wage? Sure, employers point to the labor market and say: “Look: See? We pay fair market value.” The problem is that there is no functioning free market; the fix is in. Employers (read:capitalists) have the market rigged hopelessly in their favor. That’s right: They don’t play by their own rules.
How so? Well, there are several factors can that affect the efficiency of free markets. One of those is called price elasticity of demand. What is price elasticity, and what does it have to do with the functioning of the market? Image you’re dying of infection; what is the “fair” value of life-saving antibiotics? Easy: All the money you have. The demand for life-saving medical treatment can be said to be very inelastic. So how elastic, then, is the demand for wealth? Up to subsistence level, it’s almost completely inelastic, because no wealth means you don’t eat. Can one choose to starve? Certainly, but most people won’t. As a result, the capitalist needs only pay subsistence, or slightly above, for most people to choose to enter into employment.
Another thing free markets need to function correct is informed participation. But in the case of potential sellers of labor, there is a dearth information. Most people have no *idea* what their labor is worth (by design, no less). If I work on assembly line in an auto plant, I have no way of knowing how much value my labor added to the vehicle. I don’t know what the fixed costs were. I don’t know how many units those costs will be spread over. I don’t know what the plant cost, or how much electricity goes into building each vehicle, or even how much the company pays per vehicle for lobbying. In short, I have almost no information about how much value I’m adding. When people do not have enough information to make informed decisions (how much should I demand for my labor?), the free market (once again) can’t do its job and set a fair value for labor.
So, to the those out there who think liberals want to steal your wealth: We don’t. In fact, if we had our way, the vast majority of you (and us) would be much wealthier to begin with! You’re being robbed, all right, but not by us, and not by the government. Instead of worrying about the hand in your pocket, why don’t you give some thought to how much money should have been in your pocket in the first place?
********************
For the record, I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, but I have to ask that the character assassination be checked at the door.
Your best off staying out of threads like this if reading them causes you to loose your temper.
That's one way to look at it. Another is that perhaps we all hold each other to a more rigorous standard of focusing on the position, not the person.
Maybe, maybe I just dislike the company of eggheads and prefer regular, down to earth types.
Surely you realize this is the same as me posting:
"Maybe I just dislike the company of the intellectually inferior and prefer educated, thoughtful types."
Labels are labels, dude.
Also. For the record, I am not saying take that extra money from the rich people fined and give it to the poor people. This is a simple matter of me thinking that if two people who break the same law are punished they should both feel punished.
Maybe, maybe I just dislike the company of eggheads and prefer regular, down to earth types.Surely you realize this is the same as me posting:
"Maybe I just dislike the company of the intellectually inferior and prefer educated, thoughtful types."
Labels are labels, dude.
Knowledgable and Intelligent are not the same, right?
Knowledgable and Intelligent are not the same, right?Maybe, maybe I just dislike the company of eggheads and prefer regular, down to earth types.Surely you realize this is the same as me posting:
"Maybe I just dislike the company of the intellectually inferior and prefer educated, thoughtful types."
Labels are labels, dude.
While the later certainly makes the former more easy to achieve they are not the same, nor mutually exclusive, no.
Also. For the record, I am not saying take that extra money from the rich people fined and give it to the poor people. This is a simple matter of me thinking that if two people who break the same law are punished they should both feel punished.
Sure, both feel punished. And it is ok to kick the guy, with the abusive ex-wife that finally decided to get out of the marriage and then gots shafted by the courts (which they tend to do to men), right square in the gonads, while giving another guy a minor inconvience just because they happen to have jobs that have the same anual salary.
Knowledgable and Intelligent are not the same, right?
Correct (of course). But "Egghead" is hardly complementary. Do the specifics of the insult really matter? It's still generalizing.
My central concern with fiscal conservatism is the assumed correlation between merit, that is, responsibility for the creation of wealth, and the eventual distribution of that wealth. I've decided to try to put this in terms a fiscally minded person might appreciate, or at least be able to understand.
People say the liberals want to arbitrary redistribute wealth. But for that to be true, we must assume good reason for the existing distribution, lest it be equally arbitrary. The idea seems to be that laborers willingly sell their labor to capitalists in exchange for fair value. So far, so good. But what is fair value? Well, that is set by the labor market. Great. But wait – how efficient is the market for labor at setting a fair wage? Sure, employers point to the labor market and say: “Look: See? We pay fair market value.” The problem is that there is no functioning free market; the fix is in. Employers (read:capitalists) have the market rigged hopelessly in their favor. That’s right: They don’t play by their own rules.
How so? Well, there are several factors can that affect the efficiency of free markets. One of those is called price elasticity of demand. What is price elasticity, and what does it have to do with the functioning of the market? Image you’re dying of infection; what is the “fair” value of life-saving antibiotics? Easy: All the money you have. The demand for life-saving medical treatment can be said to be very inelastic. So how elastic, then, is the demand for wealth? Up to subsistence level, it’s almost completely inelastic, because no wealth means you don’t eat. Can one choose to starve? Certainly, but most people won’t. As a result, the capitalist needs only pay subsistence, or slightly above, for most people to choose to enter into employment.
Another thing free markets need to function correct is informed participation. But in the case of potential sellers of labor, there is a dearth information. Most people have no *idea* what their labor is worth (by...
I thought you were going to say something like the companies conspire to set pay wages. I probably wouldn't agree with it, most fixed pay wage situations are actually the faults of unions for good or bad, but it makes a bit more sense than suggesting companies are only paying enough for people to get by. If that was true, the best way to steal the best workers is to offer than a bit more than just enough to get by. And you'll be able to pick and choose the best, that is until another company decides to pay just a little bit more, and so on. Yes, the absolutely crappiest workers often have to setting for the least pay, but in the end, you get what you pay for. Those are the folks that never show up on the busy night or are always late and always sneak out early and such.
Knowledgable and Intelligent are not the same, right?Correct (of course). But "Egghead" is hardly complementary. Do the specifics of the insult really matter? It's still generalizing.
Just in a nit-picky kind of way. "egghead" while not necessarily complementary (though some might have taken the term as a point of pride, like "nerd" is becoming*), it is not necessarily incorrect, except in the literal sense (are the people's heads actually egg shaped?). While saying someone is "intellectually inferior", maybe. That was just my point.
Also. For the record, I am not saying take that extra money from the rich people fined and give it to the poor people. This is a simple matter of me thinking that if two people who break the same law are punished they should both feel punished.Sure, both feel punished. And it is ok to kick the guy, with the abusive ex-wife that finally decided to get out of the marriage and then gots shafted by the courts (which they tend to do to men), right square in the gonads, while giving another guy a minor inconvience just because they happen to have jobs that have the same anual salary.
No, I don't think it should be a minor incontinence to the second guy. As for the first, sucks to be him. That's pretty much the way the law is now if you take the same scenario you have with a flat fine system and apply it to two guys of a lower pay grade. If two guys make 2,000 dollars a month, and the first lives with his parents, and the second has an apartment in the city with a wife/husband and a kid, a flat $200 fine is going to be a bit of a pain to the guy living with the parents, and a really hard blow to the guy with the family. On the flip side two guys who make 20,000 a month are hit with a flat $200 fine it’s a triviality to the guy in either situation. That’s not right.
Stuff
Supply and demand still move the market when it isn't working optimally, but the resulting equilibrium price is not what it would be in a free market.
Would you please state your disagreement in economic terms?
I mean NO disrespect: I've took two years of economics in college, and so I have a pretty good handle on the terminology. If my post wasn't clear, or you think you may not fully understand it, please ask and I'll explain.
Specifically:
Why do you think my point about elasticity is incorrect? Demand for basic necessities is certainly inelastic.
Why do you (apparently) think the fact that laborers have very little information with which to set the price of their labor is irrelevant?
|
|
Maybe, maybe I just dislike the company of eggheads and prefer regular, down to earth types.Surely you realize this is the same as me posting:
"Maybe I just dislike the company of the intellectually inferior and prefer educated, thoughtful types."
Labels are labels, dude.
From what I've seen, "educated" and "thoughtful" aren't exactly in sync much of the time. "Educated" and "insufferably arrogant" on the other hand...
Heck, when I was locked up, the "educated" guys (the white collar guys) were so intelligent, they didn't realize that being an arrogant, condescending ass was what caused so many of their stitches. "Educated" and "common sense" seem to rarely go hand in hand as well.
This is from IRL experience. Haven't met too many blue collar snobs in my day.
And your counter example is way too often the actual case, which is why I'd rather sit around drinking PBR at the ice house than martinis in Midtown...
I don't care that I went to college, read over ten thousand books, whatever, I'm more comfortable around the salt of the earth than the intellectual types.