SO can we just throw the senate and congress out on their asses already?

Printable View

11-17-2011, 07:45 PM
StonedApe

SO can we just throw the senate and congress out on their asses already?

I've just become aware of SOPA(didn't see any threads about it), which is a bill in the house that would effectively allow the government to censor the internet in order to prevent internet piracy. The senate has a similar bill.

This bill would close down half of youtube. It's not like this is the first bad law they've come up with lately. I'm serious, all these people occupying wall street should just march on congress and physically throw them out.

http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/SOPA%202-pager%20final.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s968rs/pdf/BILLS-112s968rs.pdf
11-17-2011, 09:29 PM
Seroquel

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

I'm serious, all these people occupying wall street should just march on congress and physically throw them out.

This would only result in a lot of dead hippies.
11-17-2011, 10:23 PM
cmind

StonedApe, although I agree that the congress are just as evil as the Empire in Star Wars (seriously), I don't think mob rule would solve anything. Such a notion only leads to more powerful governments (see Russia c. 1917).
11-17-2011, 11:13 PM
Marvo

I've been reading a lot about this all evening. It's pretty fucked up. I can't really do anything about it, since I'm Danish, but such a law will definitely have some consequences, both in long and short run, for the rest of the internet. Please, if you're an American, try to stir up some shit, post this on facebook, contact your representatives or whatever. This will actually hurt the internet, for everyone, in a noticable way, and the only purpose of it is for the entertainment industry to grab more money (although it'll probably hurt them, since they will be losing all that free advertising, word of mouth and so on).
11-18-2011, 12:36 AM
tommo

The people on Wall St. should have physically thrown them out already. This is just the icing on the cake.

Open letter from several companies regarding the bill.
http://politechbot.com/docs/sopa.goo...ter.111511.pdf

SOPA would also grant the Justice Department the right to target internationally operated websites, as well as domestic ones.

Tell me, how does America honestly think they can pass a law which applies to every other country as well?
How the fuck does that even work?
11-18-2011, 01:12 AM
Never

The people must get back control of their state legislatures. It is the local vote that counts the most. Once this is done, the states can nullify all unconstitutional federal laws. This is the only peaceful way to shrink the government once again. Once enough states have done this, the bad amendments can be repealed and the criminals thrown out. If war must result, it will be at the decision of the fed and not the people. See the Kentucky resolutions of 1798 for more info.

Of course, people need to educate themselves in liberty before doing anything; but I guess I am expecting too much there. It is much easier to stand in the middle of the road with an Ipod and stamp your feet.
11-18-2011, 04:26 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Never

The people must get back control of their state legislatures. It is the local vote that counts the most. Once this is done, the states can nullify all unconstitutional federal laws. This is the only peaceful way to shrink the government once again. Once enough states have done this, the bad amendments can be repealed and the criminals thrown out. If war must result, it will be at the decision of the fed and not the people. See the Kentucky resolutions of 1798 for more info.

Of course, people need to educate themselves in liberty before doing anything; but I guess I am expecting too much there. It is much easier to stand in the middle of the road with an Ipod and stamp your feet.

Really, how much longer are we going to be subjected to "if only we get the right people in government, then everything will be fine!" notion? Disinterest in governmental power is something even the "Founding Fathers" were incapable of having and conservatives like to tout them as demigods.
11-18-2011, 04:56 AM
Supernova

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Tell me, how does America honestly think they can pass a law which applies to every other country as well?
How the fuck does that even work?

http://www.prosportstickers.com/prod...ice__75239.jpg
11-18-2011, 05:14 AM
tommo

lol No but, seriously.... do they just do it because no one stops them? Or is there some actual law allowing them to do so?
11-18-2011, 05:23 AM
Supernova

They do it because they can. Because the US hasn't yet lost its "wooooo #1" status in the world, though we will eventually (I'm not trying to be negative or anti-American, but let's face it, no society stays on top forever).
11-18-2011, 07:29 AM
Never

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Really, how much longer are we going to be subjected to "if only we get the right people in government, then everything will be fine!" notion? Disinterest in governmental power is something even the "Founding Fathers" were incapable of having and conservatives like to tout them as demigods.

I didn't quite say those things, but that's okay.
11-18-2011, 08:00 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Never

I didn't quite say those things, but that's okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Never

The people must get back control of their state legislatures.

Did you not by saying this?
11-18-2011, 08:56 AM
Never

I did not mean to imply that it was a cure-all. It may not pan out so well, or it might go an entirely different and unforeseen direction. The point is to get people to think smaller than the congress, as local officials are more accessible to the people, and taking it one step higher, it is way easier to win a state than the central power, which runs itself at this stage.
11-19-2011, 02:55 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Never

I did not mean to imply that it was a cure-all. It may not pan out so well, or it might go an entirely different and unforeseen direction. The point is to get people to think smaller than the congress, as local officials are more accessible to the people, and taking it one step higher, it is way easier to win a state than the central power, which runs itself at this stage.

How about secession down to the individual level?
11-19-2011, 03:44 AM
tommo

It's more likely that we're gonna end up having a world government. Good luck getting any change through them.
11-19-2011, 04:07 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

It's more likely that we're gonna end up having a world government. Good luck getting any change through them.

Hopefully we hate each other too much for that. *Prays that the world is unable to get over their differences*

I disagree with physically overthrowing the government, because chances are it will only set up a worse system (very few overthrows have made governments BETTER. It took years of trial and error with the Articles of Confederation before we set up a fairly functional Constitutional government.) If we're sick of the government overstepping their bounds, maybe we should vote 3rd party? I will be, most definitely.
11-19-2011, 04:07 AM
Never

[laughing man]

I'm not sure if I follow you, or if you were being sarcastic. You don't give me much to go on.

I live in the woods much of the time on principle; it doesn't get much more stubborn than that, and still I have to take part in the system to some degree, or I die or go insane; well too late on the last bit. You sacrifice everything, gain nothing, and nobody will ever know or care; in fact they usually think you are stupid.

We need communities; if you can get states to go Anarcho-capitalist, well then okay, I'll take that over the guaranteed oppression of the current state, but I think it more likely to attain "minarchy" before anarchy. Moreover, I feel it is a much safer mode of improvement, as we have something to fall back on; something that has been done before and can be done better this time around. What do you think? Or am I way off on your perspective?
11-19-2011, 04:57 AM
Supernova

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Hopefully we hate each other too much for that. *Prays that the world is unable to get over their differences

Something tells me you don't have to worry about that.

Besides, I don't see how a global government, formed in the near future, could possibly remain stable for very long.
11-19-2011, 05:00 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supernova

Something tells me you don't have to worry about that.

Besides, I don't see how a global government, formed in the near future, could possibly remain stable for very long.

That's a very refreshing, calming thing to hear as a Libertarian. (Note the difference with libertarianism and anarchism; we still want government, but it should do just a few things, keep roads, protect individual rights, and simple things like a fire department. The rest is basically anarcho-capitalism).
11-19-2011, 05:46 AM
Supernova

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

but it should do just a few things, keep roads, protect individual rights, and simple things like a fire department. The rest is basically anarcho-capitalism).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supernova

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...icleInline.jpg

Whaaaaaaat??

.
11-19-2011, 05:58 AM
ThePreserver

I'm not exactly in my right mind tonight... so yeah. O.o
11-19-2011, 11:53 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

If we're sick of the government overstepping their bounds, maybe we should vote 3rd party? I will be, most definitely.

Maybe???? lol I've been voting 3rd party since I was allowed to vote.
11-19-2011, 09:04 PM
ThePreserver

Weeell this will be my first Congressional election in which I can vote (I did get to vote a couple weeks ago, though!) so yeah, I'm excited about that.
11-20-2011, 04:41 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Never

[laughing man]

I'm not sure if I follow you, or if you were being sarcastic. You don't give me much to go on.

I live in the woods much of the time on principle; it doesn't get much more stubborn than that, and still I have to take part in the system to some degree, or I die or go insane; well too late on the last bit. You sacrifice everything, gain nothing, and nobody will ever know or care; in fact they usually think you are stupid.

We need communities; if you can get states to go Anarcho-capitalist, well then okay, I'll take that over the guaranteed oppression of the current state, but I think it more likely to attain "minarchy" before anarchy. Moreover, I feel it is a much safer mode of improvement, as we have something to fall back on; something that has been done before and can be done better this time around. What do you think? Or am I way off on your perspective?

I think you are off. Disinterest in government power is unsustainable. You may start off with a small government but I believe it will not have an incentive to stay that way. You would need a static political society in which everyone has the same conception of the role of government and no one can deviant beyond that role because you would need a constant majority to maintain the role. You would need constant watchmen over bills to make sure it does not extend the powers of the state. I just do not see that happening. It will grow. Strike the root and it will whither.
11-20-2011, 04:42 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

That's a very refreshing, calming thing to hear as a Libertarian. (Note the difference with libertarianism and anarchism; we still want government, but it should do just a few things, keep roads, protect individual rights, and simple things like a fire department. The rest is basically anarcho-capitalism).

Follow the NAP to its logical conclusion and libertarianism = anarchism.
11-20-2011, 04:49 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Follow the NAP to its logical conclusion and libertarianism = anarchism.

Please explain how libertarianism = anarchism?
11-20-2011, 07:23 AM
Never

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I think you are off. Disinterest in government power is unsustainable. You may start off with a small government but I believe it will not have an incentive to stay that way. You would need a static political society in which everyone has the same conception of the role of government and no one can deviant beyond that role because you would need a constant majority to maintain the role. You would need constant watchmen over bills to make sure it does not extend the powers of the state. I just do not see that happening. It will grow. Strike the root and it will whither.

It is true that the general mass would have to understand that big government destroys freedom, and since there are people still rooting for terrible systems today even though they have failed many times throughout history, and are also flawed logically, I cannot argue that if we returned to a small government republic, that people would remember the mistakes of the current epoch. People are not and probably never will be willing to put in the hundreds of hours of study required to properly understand the history of politics and liberty. Some are lazy, some don't care, and some are simply too busy being productive in other ways.

However, hypothetically speaking, I believe a can argue that such a majority can be maintained. In the early days of the republic, people had no desire to change what was working well for them. The government expansion through ignorance that we see in the twentieth century was not possible back then, and when it did happen it was an extremely slow process, only allowed for by the problems I will mention here.

To start with, the constitution has loopholes, and since it was partially influenced by Hamilton, who was a monarchist, one could argue that these loopholes were deliberate. Hamilton was using lawyer talk to fool the population even then. The supreme court clearly had too much power, but nothing was done about this. I would argue that this was the main cause for the usurpation of rights up until the war between the states. However, Jefferson, who was not present at the signing of the constitution, continued to push for states' rights even though it is an idea these days considered extremist. The idea is that you have all these districts competing for power, which keeps the central power in check better than which was customary (allowing the federal government to decide for itself what was constitutional through the judicial branch).

Now, even though this huge loophole existed, the rights of the states could still not be taken away until the federal government finally decided to take them by force of arms, and so Lincoln sent troops to murder the secessionists and force them to capitulate. The 14th amendment was even signed under coercion and outright hostage taking.

Since then, we have the mass ignorance that you speak of, but I think it's important to understand that this was simply not possible until after the federal government used outright force; and since the rights were no longer manifest, the people eventually forgot them and Hamiltonianism and subsequently progressivism was allowed to flourish. I believe that in the presence of states' rights, which were not largely endorsed by the federalists, but rather by the anti-federalists, such a situation could only be achieved through victory in war, as the people generally liked the idea of free states in a compact.

It is difficult to convince someone the world is flat if they know the science, but if you kill them you can tell their children and grandchildren the lie and they will believe it, so long as you hide the science.

Even though many states even disagreed with the idea of nullification by virtue of the fact that it was simply not a major consideration in many areas, with the notable exception of Virginia, it still took a war to wrench the power away from those states that did understand the division of power. Now imagine had we started out with a strict understanding of states' rights across the board, and a "repaired" constitution, with amendments specifically outlining certain areas that need attention.

Perhaps it is a dream, but no more a dream than anarchy, and I think more likely. Now, from here, we can experiment with anarchy if certain states wish to. This is the beauty of states' rights and the tenth amendment, which Jefferson called "the cornerstone of the constitution", the very area that came under direct attack and is still considered treasonous to consider.
11-20-2011, 09:50 PM
Descensus

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Please explain how libertarianism = anarchism?

He just did lol
11-21-2011, 12:31 AM
Xei

Naturally following the NAP to its logical conclusion is absurd, however, because you remove any practical means to enforce said NAP.
11-21-2011, 12:44 AM
IndieAnthias

what does NAP mean?
11-21-2011, 12:44 AM
Descensus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Naturally following the NAP to its logical conclusion is absurd, however, because you remove any practical means to enforce said NAP.

How so?
11-21-2011, 12:45 AM
Descensus

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

what does NAP mean?

Non-aggression principle. Simple term meaning one should not initiate force on another.
11-21-2011, 01:33 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Naturally following the NAP to its logical conclusion is absurd, however, because you remove any practical means to enforce said NAP.

Enforcing = aggressively beating them in to submission. Coo....
11-21-2011, 01:37 AM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Non-aggression principle. Simple term meaning one should not initiate force on another.

Or threaten to.

Here is a great video to elaborate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

How so?

Because you need a justice system and security force.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Enforcing = aggressively beating them in to submission. Coo....

1. I don't have a clue what you're talking about, but whatever you are talking about is wrong.
2. You're not remotely a libertarian, therefore you personally support the breaking of the NAP far more than I do.
11-21-2011, 01:42 AM
Descensus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Because you need a justice system and security force.

No one concludes that every human that exists now and in the future will be a perfect creature. Use of the NAP (or "acceptance" if you wish to call it that. I personally don't) is not required for everybody. The NAP doesn't preclude or ignore a justice system or security force.
11-21-2011, 01:48 AM
Xei

I don't think you're understanding the point. What if there are not enough people willing to pay for the security force?
11-21-2011, 02:04 AM
Descensus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think you're understanding the point. What if there are not enough people willing to pay for the security force?

Then they won't pay for the security force...Meaning they probably don't need it.
11-21-2011, 02:13 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

1. I don't have a clue what you're talking about, but whatever you are talking about is wrong.

I'm saying you don't need to be aggressive to enforce something.
11-21-2011, 02:23 AM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Then they won't pay for the security force...Meaning they probably don't need it.

Possibly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm saying you don't need to be aggressive to enforce something.

That wasn't my meaning. The NAP doesn't contradict itself by virtue of the fact that you need to use force to stop somebody from using force; it includes that caveat.

I'm not sure how in general you think that enforcement doesn't require aggression, though. How do you propose to pay for public schools if not enough people volunteer?
11-21-2011, 03:02 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

That wasn't my meaning. The NAP doesn't contradict itself by virtue of the fact that you need to use force to stop somebody from using force; it includes that caveat.

Well I don't get what you meant then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not sure how in general you think that enforcement doesn't require aggression, though. How do you propose to pay for public schools if not enough people volunteer?

Educate them on why it is better, for everyone, for them to do so.

Note: As you said, I don't think NAP is a good principle. I don't think it isn't either.
I'm just debating the points raised. I haven't thought about it enough to form an opinion on whether or not it is good.
11-21-2011, 03:22 AM
Supernova

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Maybe???? lol I've been voting 3rd party since I was allowed to vote.

Could you imagine having a green party candidate in the white house? No, seriously, try to picture it, 2012, at the swearing-in ceremony, and the green party candidate steps up to take the oath. And the only thing stopping it is the media generated self-perpetuating falseity that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Wasted why, because they never win? The sole reason for that is that most people believe that a third-party vote is wasted. It's fucking insanity!

I fucking hate it when I hear people going on about not voting for third parties, acting as if the idea of actually electing someone that gives a fuck is nothing more than a childish fantasy.
11-21-2011, 03:38 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supernova

Could you imagine having a green party candidate in the white house? No, seriously, try to picture it, 2012, at the swearing-in ceremony, and the green party candidate steps up to take the oath. And the only thing stopping it is the media generated self-perpetuating falseity that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Wasted why, because they never win? The sole reason for that is that most people believe that a third-party vote is wasted. It's fucking insanity!

I fucking hate it when I hear people going on about not voting for third parties, acting as if the idea of actually electing someone that gives a fuck is nothing more than a childish fantasy.

QFT.

It's a self-fulfilling pile of steaming bull shit.

My city has elected a Greens candidate after the last elections. I think it will happen more and more as people just get majorly pissed off with the two main parties doing nothing but fuck shit up.
11-21-2011, 04:40 AM
cmind

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Educate them on why it is better, for everyone, for them to do so.

That would be something that happens in the free market. It has very little to do with how the government raises money.
11-21-2011, 07:44 PM
StonedApe

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Educate them on why it is better, for everyone, for them to do so.

So if I still disagree with you you wouldn't support using force to get me to pay my taxes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmind

StonedApe, although I agree that the congress are just as evil as the Empire in Star Wars (seriously), I don't think mob rule would solve anything. Such a notion only leads to more powerful governments (see Russia c. 1917).

I'm not suggesting mob rule, just mobs throwing out the congress. But I was just expressing anger not throwing out a solution. I agree with you guys saying that revolutions of force just lead to more government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

That's a very refreshing, calming thing to hear as a Libertarian. (Note the difference with libertarianism and anarchism; we still want government, but it should do just a few things, keep roads, protect individual rights, and simple things like a fire department. The rest is basically anarcho-capitalism).

I don't feel like writing a whole bunch of stuff about how it will work, but if you look into it roads and most other things could be better done by private groups. I do see how it might be beneficial to keep publicly funded fire and police(possibly some other stuff) but I still think you have to follow the NAP; fund it in a voluntary manner.

I'm optimistic that we as a society could follow the NAP to it's logical conclusion, but I'm also not 100% sure of it. But it seems to me that we could get rid of everything up to courts and police (and probably have privatized police). Courts could easily fund themselves with fines for those who lose.
11-21-2011, 10:56 PM
ThePreserver

So they failed to reach a deal on spending increase cuts.

(I find it funny that they spent all this time bickering about cutting how much the spending would INCREASE... not even cutting the spending, just saying "let's not spend as much more this year as we did last year from the previous." Sure acting like adults eh?)

Also, I believe that the court system is a good thing to have as part of our government. I agree with privatizing MOST things, but not absolutely everything. However, if we restricted government to its Constitutional limits, virtually everything WOULD remain privatized.
11-22-2011, 01:17 AM
Original Poster

I believe in public utilities that only take in the cost of the service they provide for industries like hospitals and higher education. The bottom line of education and healthcare should be education and healthcare. Private ownership should be reserved for our industries that are meant for profit rather than comfort. Unfortunately the government acts like a private company now more than ever and the system has been compromised.
11-22-2011, 01:39 AM
Descensus

Quote:

Private ownership should be reserved for our industries that are meant for profit rather than comfort

I'm up for government-run hotels and spas!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Unfortunately the government acts like a private company now more than ever and the system has been compromised.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/20...ie-d485kw0.png
11-22-2011, 01:41 AM
Original Poster

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/...cks/abd-69.gif
11-22-2011, 01:44 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm up for government-run hotels and spas!

Private means run by a company.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

So if I still disagree with you you wouldn't support using force to get me to pay my taxes?

Most people would not still disagree. Only a very small minority. The only reason I can see for why people try to avoid taxes at any cost right now
is that they either have no education basically, or they have had shit education. Even the most non-introspective person should be able to see that
it's better, if it's laid out for them and clearly explained.
11-22-2011, 01:52 AM
Descensus

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Private means run by a company.

...Yeah, so?
11-22-2011, 01:58 AM
Original Poster

If it would not be done properly on it's own, with profit as the only motivation, that means it's better off as a utility held accountable to an elected office. Greed cannot be trusted as the motivating factor to make sure the population receives a proper education or proper medical care.
11-22-2011, 02:01 AM
Descensus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If it would not be done properly on it's own, with profit as the only motivation, that means it's better off as a utility held accountable to an elected office. Greed cannot be trusted as the motivating factor to make sure the population receives a proper education or proper medical care.

I say the same thing about food!
11-22-2011, 02:12 AM
Original Poster

Food, too. We need to regulate a free seed environment and stop relying on oil based additives and monocropping. Food should be handled on the local level though. Then again I think every aspect of government should be as local as is just and possible.
11-22-2011, 02:14 AM
Descensus

I don't see why you think politicians are more trustworthy than the people you're doing business with.
11-22-2011, 02:17 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Food, too. We need to regulate a free seed environment and stop relying on oil based additives and monocropping. Food should be handled on the local level though. Then again I think every aspect of government should be as local as is just and possible.

There's some good points that buying local isn't always the best way. Because some areas just aren't right for certain types of food. So they have to add way to many fertilisers, change the soil and whatever else. And it ends up being just a lot better to buy it from somewhere where that food grows well naturally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't see why you think politicians are more trustworthy than the people you're doing business with.

Well, technically they should be held accountable if they're not doing things the way they should be. Realistically, well....
11-22-2011, 02:24 AM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't see why you think politicians are more trustworthy than the people you're doing business with.

My theory on government is a holonic form where we elect neighborhood representatives to represent us the next echelon of government and elect a representative for the next echelon and so on from the town or city to the county or state to the federal level. Our current form of democracy, which is based on getting the biggest mob to vote on the least dirty pre-selected puppet, is not actually any more trustworthy than a private business and is basically the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

There's some good points that buying local isn't always the best way. Because some areas just aren't right for certain types of food. So they have to add way to many fertilisers, change the soil and whatever else. And it ends up being just a lot better to buy it from somewhere where that food grows well naturally.

I'm not saying each local government should rely independently on its own food source but that each independent government should have control over its own food source so that food is not based on a scale of supply and demand but that farmers can instead be rewarded for abundance and allies with technology rather than competitors.
11-22-2011, 04:13 AM
juroara

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't see why you think politicians are more trustworthy than the people you're doing business with.

Well, thats why we need some form of democracy

Politicians are elected. We don't like em, we don't vote them next time around. You just can't do that with CEOs. Of course the problem we have now is, the politicians that enter in the public eye are funded by corporations. And I agree, go local as much as possible.
11-22-2011, 04:34 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by juroara

Well, thats why we need some form of democracy

Politicians are elected. We don't like em, we don't vote them next time around. You just can't do that with CEOs. Of course the problem we have now is, the politicians that enter in the public eye are funded by corporations. And I agree, go local as much as possible.

Well for publicly-traded companies, technically shareholders elect them (although if THEY own 51% they can elect themselves, but that's how it works. You have to be part of the company to decide how it's run.) But I agree with going local. It's most effective and most accountable. People need to start voting not for politicians who are supported financially, but ones they LEGITIMATELY agree with (ie third parties, usually where people can agree most which is why they arise.)
11-23-2011, 04:39 PM
StonedApe

This thread is sooooo off topic, but I'm cool with that. Seriously though people, this SOPA shit is important. Spread the word that the gov is trying to censor the internet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Most people would not still disagree. Only a very small minority. The only reason I can see for why people try to avoid taxes at any cost right now
is that they either have no education basically, or they have had shit education. Even the most non-introspective person should be able to see that
it's better, if it's laid out for them and clearly explained.

So you're calling me uneducated???(just kidding)

So you don't support using force then? Or is it okay for the majority to use force against the minority?

I still wouldn't pay for those things because I don't think the services they provide(in most cases) are very good. The ~~indoctrination~~ education system around here is a farce. I think it does more harm than good. So do most welfare programs. And while most people would pay for some things if you lump them all together almost nobody wants to pay for all of these "services"; one guy doesn't like social programs, another doesn't like defense programs etc.

It simply isn't better to do things the way they're being done. The way things are being done is centered around power. Power is much more corrupting than greed. If we are to have social programs they need to be done in a radically different manner, the current modes really don't work very well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If it would not be done properly on it's own, with profit as the only motivation, that means it's better off as a utility held accountable to an elected office. Greed cannot be trusted as the motivating factor to make sure the population receives a proper education or proper medical care.

So why are private schools so much better than public ones then? It's quite drastic. Even the religious schools are far better than the public ones around here.

Look into the Lancaster schools if you're bored. Joseph Lancaster. Private education for the poor that was so good the government ran him out of business because they were afraid that poor people might become too intelligent and then they'd have no one to work in the factories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by juroara

Well, thats why we need some form of democracy

Politicians are elected. We don't like em, we don't vote them next time around. You just can't do that with CEOs. Of course the problem we have now is, the politicians that enter in the public eye are funded by corporations. And I agree, go local as much as possible.

And just to add to what Preserver said, if people don't like a company they won't but things from it and it will go out of business. What we need is more transparency all around and better consumer education. People need to learn what certain businesses do and should know whether or not the product was made ethically or in an environmentally friendly way. I think we should set up agencies(some like this already exist, but more of them) that certify that a product was made in such a way. We should also educate people about the effects of buying products that aren't made in this way. If we did both of those things things like factory farms and companies that use sweatshops would have a much harder time staying in business.
11-23-2011, 06:08 PM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

This thread is sooooo off topic, but I'm cool with that. Seriously though people, this SOPA shit is important. Spread the word that the gov is trying to censor the internet.

http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/intern...orship-124757/ Here I'll leave this thread right here for you.
11-24-2011, 12:55 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

This thread is sooooo off topic, but I'm cool with that. Seriously though people, this SOPA shit is important. Spread the word that the gov is trying to censor the internet.

Agreed, sorry about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

So you're calling me uneducated???(just kidding)

So you don't support using force then? Or is it okay for the majority to use force against the minority?

I think, in a perfect world, people would be educated about all this stuff that they would be paying for in taxes. They would then be able to decide whether the government was running it correctly, to it's best ability, and if they were, they would pay those taxes for it.
In the real world, you need to force people. At the same time, as you've said, the government run things we have now, especially education, aren't exactly the best they can be by a long shot.

Yet we're still forced to pay for them lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

I still wouldn't pay for those things because I don't think the services they provide(in most cases) are very good. The ~~indoctrination~~ education system around here is a farce. I think it does more harm than good. So do most welfare programs. And while most people would pay for some things if you lump them all together almost nobody wants to pay for all of these "services"; one guy doesn't like social programs, another doesn't like defense programs etc.

Education is an absolute joke. I don't know about America, but here every school has to run on a state-decided curriculum anyway, regardless of whether they're private or public. So you could change it by whatever bureaucratic means anyway, but then you're still paying for education lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

So why are private schools so much better than public ones then? It's quite drastic. Even the religious schools are far better than the public ones around here.

Probably coz the government's shite. As evidenced by what this thread is actually supposed to be about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Look into the Lancaster schools if you're bored. Joseph Lancaster. Private education for the poor that was so good the government ran him out of business because they were afraid that poor people might become too intelligent and then they'd have no one to work in the factories.

Never heard of this, will look it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

And just to add to what Preserver said, if people don't like a company they won't but things from it and it will go out of business. What we need is more transparency all around and better consumer education. People need to learn what certain businesses do and should know whether or not the product was made ethically or in an environmentally friendly way. I think we should set up agencies(some like this already exist, but more of them) that certify that a product was made in such a way. We should also educate people about the effects of buying products that aren't made in this way. If we did both of those things things like factory farms and companies that use sweatshops would have a much harder time staying in business.

See if America has a version for your country of this Ethical Consumer Guide

I did find "ethical shopping" for America but the site looks dodgy, and it says "Coke agrees to stop advertising to children" on it's front page, which I just don't believe.
11-24-2011, 01:12 AM
Original Poster

You can't use our public systems to attack socialism because they're not socialist, they're monopolistic industrial complexes run by money. What I'm saying is that government SHOULD act as an accountable distributor of product that aren't best run by greed. I'm not saying it does.
11-24-2011, 01:39 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

I did find "ethical shopping" for America but the site looks dodgy, and it says "Coke agrees to stop advertising to children" on it's front page, which I just don't believe.

Being an ethical consumer means being educated, even slightly. Difficult to find when most consumers are mindless consumers following fads, trends, and advertising.

Also... you'd think that a TRULY educated consumer would avoid as much consumption as possible... what with the environmental side-effects, dwindling resources, and uselessness of most of the crap we buy.
11-24-2011, 03:43 AM
StonedApe

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Agreed, sorry about that.

don't be, there's another thread for sopa now. I just thought it was kinda funny, a great example of the add of ED.

Quote:

I think, in a perfect world, people would be educated about all this stuff that they would be paying for in taxes. They would then be able to decide whether the government was running it correctly, to it's best ability, and if they were, they would pay those taxes for it.
In the real world, you need to force people. At the same time, as you've said, the government run things we have now, especially education, aren't exactly the best they can be by a long shot.

Yet we're still forced to pay for them lol

Why do you need to use force? If you can do it with persuasion then using force would actually hurt your cause because it makes it look like you can't(it makes you look unjustified). And if you can't do it with just persuasion then what makes you think that it is actually a good thing?

Quote:

Education is an absolute joke. I don't know about America, but here every school has to run on a state-decided curriculum anyway, regardless of whether they're private or public. So you could change it by whatever bureaucratic means anyway, but then you're still paying for education lol

This is a great example of why using force to make people provide social services is a bad idea. If it doesn't work well we end up having basically no ability to change it. Oh wait we can vote![/SARCASM]

Quote:

I did find "ethical shopping" for America but the site looks dodgy, and it says "Coke agrees to stop advertising to children" on it's front page, which I just don't believe.

I think if we had more groups like this, and better ones, we could effectively manage some of the major issues. The government can't fix this problem without a total 180 of our culture and economics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You can't use our public systems to attack socialism because they're not socialist, they're monopolistic industrial complexes run by money. What I'm saying is that government SHOULD act as an accountable distributor of product that aren't best run by greed. I'm not saying it does.

I wasn't arguing against socialist schools, I'm arguing against state schools. I'm not even anti-socialist really, just anti state. If you can fund those schools without using force I'd be totally in support of them. I probably wouldn't give you any money, but I might volunteer some time.

Why do you think that a group of people who are driven by power will make better decisions than a group of people driven by greed?

But you missed my point. My point is that private schools do a fairly decent job of education. It's not perfect, but it's the best choice aside from home schooling.
11-24-2011, 06:45 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

don't be, there's another thread for sopa now. I just thought it was kinda funny, a great example of the add of ED.

haha very true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Why do you need to use force? If you can do it with persuasion then using force would actually hurt your cause because it makes it look like you can't(it makes you look unjustified). And if you can't do it with just persuasion then what makes you think that it is actually a good thing?

MY system would be good enough for most people to agree with it. Don't ask me what my system would be lol But I would take all profit out of education for a start and it would involve the internet a lot more than the current system.
The ones who didn't pay for it could not use it. So it's a sort of underhanded force. But also, the results would speak for themselves, and if people realised that it's better, they would obviously pay for it.
If I wanted everyone to pay for it, I would need to use some sort of force because some people are just plain selfish. They'll let everyone else take the burden of paying for it while they reap all the benefits.

The problem with education in this argument is that the people need to be educated properly first before they would agree to pay for actual good education. Sort of a Catch-22.
So if any force is necessary, it is to force the education taxes first, for good education, and then everything else will follow. Maybe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

I think if we had more groups like this, and better ones, we could effectively manage some of the major issues. The government can't fix this problem without a total 180 of our culture and economics.

Yeah, they need funding from companies which are ethical, or better, the government, to avoid bribes etc.
11-24-2011, 12:34 PM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by StonedApe

don't be, there's another thread for sopa now. I just thought it was kinda funny, a great example of the add of ED.

Why do you need to use force? If you can do it with persuasion then using force would actually hurt your cause because it makes it look like you can't(it makes you look unjustified). And if you can't do it with just persuasion then what makes you think that it is actually a good thing?

This is a great example of why using force to make people provide social services is a bad idea. If it doesn't work well we end up having basically no ability to change it. Oh wait we can vote![/SARCASM]

I think if we had more groups like this, and better ones, we could effectively manage some of the major issues. The government can't fix this problem without a total 180 of our culture and economics.

I wasn't arguing against socialist schools, I'm arguing against state schools. I'm not even anti-socialist really, just anti state. If you can fund those schools without using force I'd be totally in support of them. I probably wouldn't give you any money, but I might volunteer some time.

Why do you think that a group of people who are driven by power will make better decisions than a group of people driven by greed?

But you missed my point. My point is that private schools do a fairly decent job of education. It's not perfect, but it's the best choice aside from home schooling.

My point is that you cant blame public schools for the poor education they offer. But I would take your money "at gunpoint" as you like to put it. I would have private schools banned and force people to contribute to the community they're in. Private schools are just class warfare.Then again, I don't think school should be required either. It should be optional to go but everyone in the community should pay for it.
11-24-2011, 02:56 PM
StonedApe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

My point is that you cant blame public schools for the poor education they offer. But I would take your money "at gunpoint" as you like to put it. I would have private schools banned and force people to contribute to the community they're in. Private schools are just class warfare.Then again, I don't think school should be required either. It should be optional to go but everyone in the community should pay for it.

Why not? They have a poorly written curriculum and do all sorts of other things that are obviously counter productive. Who's to blame then? Taxpayers for not giving 70% of their wages to education?

Not all private schools are like that. I went to a catholic school; I think it recieved a small amount of gov funding, but it was a private school. Over half of the kids their were somewhat poor. Not scraping by, but not doing all that well either. There are plenty of non-violent ways to get funding for education, so why do you think you have a right send someone to my house to kidnap me if I don't give you my money to pay for your schooling?

Two questions(you guys seem to be avoiding answering them): What gives you the right to use force simply because you are in the majority? And why do you think people driven by power will make better choices than those driven by greed? Fuck, thrreee: Do you really think that gov will ever get to a point where it isn't driven by power(because to me that's the only way it will ever actually provide something good for people in terms of education. Those in power do not want people to be well educated, well educated people don't want to work in factories or other shit jobs they need to make their wealth. The only way to remove power from the situation is to remove domination from it, the only way to remove domination from it is to remove [the initiation of] force).

I deleted my response for you tommo, sorry. I don't have time to type up another. Maybe later.
11-24-2011, 04:49 PM
Original Poster

Why do you insist on using strawmen? Just argue the argument we're having, don't make one up so it's easier to counter me. Talking about kidnapping is an extreme misuses of my intention of the word force.

That being said, yes I do believe the government will get to the point where it's not pursuing pure power, but first you have to localize it to the most communal level and give the community the power. Over the last 30 years productivity has gone up in this country but education has remained the same or declined. The rich are getting wealthier and more powerful while all the most basic needs of society are being left to crumble.

If they want to participate in this system, they must help with it too. The rich are nothing more but a hand-out class, asking for bail-outs and subsidies while never doing a damn thing for the people. They are parasites. Not all rich, obviously, just the ones that use that type of language to describe the poor. They describe themselves perfectly. They're a welfare class, a beggar class. Why is it society must hold up their pillars and yet, rather than support education they have transformed it into a factory outputting an obedient working class? Then they say the system is broken because it's a public system and private systems just work better. The only thing that's public about our school system is the way they pay themselves.

I'm not saying nothing educational can be organized privately in order to research the best way to educate kids and evolve out of this tragedy, the mass-produced education. But I think private schools serve as an excuse to let the broken system remain as is, which is an assault against the middle class.

To me a democratic government can only truly exist on a community level. You can branch up into a republic to some degree it must exist as a force to enable the community to lift itself up rather than as a means to concentrate power. Claiming the government is greedy is no excuse to hand over more power to people who are greedy by disposition. We can change government. The entitlement class (top 1%) will always ask for more.
11-24-2011, 10:25 PM
ThePreserver

I love the "who pays for school" discussion! If we HAVE to use democratic means, I prefer school systems to be locally-funded by tax levies; that's the way our schools are funded here (for the most part.) If the community WANTS to pay for a school, they get to vote for it.

Although I don't believe that the rich can be classified as a "hand-out" class; ALL classes will take handouts if they can get them; middle-class students with student debt want debt-forgiveness, poor families who cannot afford healthy food for their children want a way to provide, and the wealthy want a way to recoup some of their taxed money through bailouts. Everyone wants MORE, regardless of how much they have.

Democracy is nothing more than 50% + 1 imposing their will on the 50% - 1. If you're in the majority, that's great! If you're in the minority... too bad.
11-26-2011, 04:28 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I love the "who pays for school" discussion! If we HAVE to use democratic means, I prefer school systems to be locally-funded by tax levies; that's the way our schools are funded here (for the most part.) If the community WANTS to pay for a school, they get to vote for it.

Although I don't believe that the rich can be classified as a "hand-out" class; ALL classes will take handouts if they can get them; middle-class students with student debt want debt-forgiveness, poor families who cannot afford healthy food for their children want a way to provide, and the wealthy want a way to recoup some of their taxed money through bailouts. Everyone wants MORE, regardless of how much they have.

Democracy is nothing more than 50% + 1 imposing their will on the 50% - 1. If you're in the majority, that's great! If you're in the minority... too bad.

It's funny that you say a community gets to vote for them...then complain that democracy is nothing but majority rule.
11-26-2011, 04:33 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It's funny that you say a community gets to vote for them...then complain that democracy is nothing but majority rule.

Note that I said "If we HAVE to use democratic means." I'd prefer meaningful discussion and compromises in which both sides get something in a town forum type event, but that's not what HAPPENS. So if we HAVE to be democratic, I support local funding, NOT state or federal.
11-26-2011, 04:38 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Note that I said "If we HAVE to use democratic means." I'd prefer meaningful discussion and compromises in which both sides get something in a town forum type event, but that's not what HAPPENS. So if we HAVE to be democratic, I support local funding, NOT state or federal.

Taxation is theft and democracy is mob rule. There is no compromise in that.
11-26-2011, 04:48 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Taxation is theft and democracy is mob rule. There is no compromise in that.

Taxation isn't theft if you can get people to agree on it! Which is easiest how? Local level.
11-26-2011, 11:19 AM
Original Poster

You know what I consider theft? Working 40 hours a week to make some asshole rich who doesn't do shit but sits and bitches about social programs causing an entitlement class.
11-26-2011, 03:04 PM
tommo

I was listening to a Joe Rogan podcast recently, and he brought up a good point.... People say that it's no that bad, you only work 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week if you work 5 days. But that's complete bullshit.
You also have to count the time getting to and from work, which can be easily an hour or two for some people. Plus the time getting ready and coming home and unwinding for the day/showering etc. to get work crap off your mind.
That's like 3 or 4 hours all up. So you could basically say work takes up 10-12 hours of every day. For most people.
Plus you also can't do what you want to do for the rest of that 12-14 hours. Because you need to be able to work the next day and a lot of things would prevent you from doing so. And obviously 7-8 hours are taken up sleeping.

Conservatively, going with the 10 hours of your day taken up, that's 118 hours you have left to do what you want, assuming what you want to do won't affect your work, if it would, you have to do something else.
That's 69 hours left if you subtract 7 hours of sleeping per day. 62 if you sleep 8 hours, which is recommended.
Thank god we lucid dream!
11-26-2011, 05:39 PM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Plus the time getting ready and coming home and unwinding for the day/showering etc.

Tragic. Sweatshop workers making a dollar a day feel your pain.

What exactly is it that you are saying? It's not fair that you have to go to work if you want to live comfortably? You think it's a human right that somebody else should have to work for you? :/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I would take your money "at gunpoint" as you like to put it. I would have private schools banned and force people to contribute to the community they're in..

Oh Jesus Christ. This is the voice of somebody who claims to want freedom; endorsing the holding of a gun to your face until you pay his arbitrary amount of money, and blanket banning your right to exercise any kind of free enterprise if he's butthurt about it for whatever stupid reason.

I'm a private tutor and I deem my skills to have a certain worth. I therefore engage in free trade with people who agree with my valuation. How dare you say that I should be banned from doing this? Who the hell do you think you are? And once you find out about my skill set, given that education is an undeniable human right, you're going to force me to teach for however long is needed and for whatever measly sum you desire.

You're a slave driver, and your system will be a catastrophe as it has always been.
11-26-2011, 06:14 PM
Never

That is a fact.
11-26-2011, 06:37 PM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You know what I consider theft? Working 40 hours a week to make some asshole rich who doesn't do shit but sits and bitches about social programs causing an entitlement class.

Someone will always have a disproportionate amount of power and resources. Which is better, a despot who holds those and uses "communism" as an excuse to ration as he sees fit, or an oligarchy who uses crony capitalism to keep as much of it as possible? I don't know the answer, you tell me.

You're not alone in being upset at this; pretty sure Marx wrote a lot about this; the entire history of civilization is class struggle (and a historian would be able to see that and relate very easily.)
11-26-2011, 07:27 PM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Someone will always have a disproportionate amount of power and resources. Which is better, a despot who holds those and uses "communism" as an excuse to ration as he sees fit, or an oligarchy who uses crony capitalism to keep as much of it as possible? I don't know the answer, you tell me.

You're not alone in being upset at this; pretty sure Marx wrote a lot about this; the entire history of civilization is class struggle (and a historian would be able to see that and relate very easily.)

You don't need a socialist revolution to fix this problem. I'm saying that ever since the conception of the New Deal people have been working to destroy it and all the social programs it created. I'm saying as this country has become more powerful and more wealthy our private corporations have seen the rewards but our people have fought for every last dime and half of them act like it's supposed to be that way. If power naturally concentrates in the hands of the few then social programs such as public education are completely justified.

And Xei, you just fucked up my claim AGAIN. I would not stop private tutoring. School is required, tutoring is not. People are allowed to learn anything they want and pay whoever they want to learn it but if there's a law saying they have to learn shit in a certain building for 8 hours a day I want our public schools to have a fighting chance at getting funding and we all know money is power so why do we let all the people with money avoid the system? We bust our asses to make that asshole rich in the first place but they can't mix their kid with ours?
11-27-2011, 12:39 AM
ThePreserver

I don't recall calling for a socialist revolution... I'm saying Marx was correct in that society IS class struggle. I, personally, don't think you can SOLVE the problem... because we haven't been able to yet. It's one of those things that we have to live with... wealth and power will NEVER be evenly distributed or properly distributed.
11-27-2011, 12:44 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Tragic. Sweatshop workers making a dollar a day feel your pain.

What exactly is it that you are saying? It's not fair that you have to go to work if you want to live comfortably? You think it's a human right that somebody else should have to work for you? :/

How about it's not fair that people work for multi millionaires or billionaires and earn 10 dollars an hour or whatever the much too low minimum wage is.
Working is probably a good thing. It forces you to not be lazy. But I don't think you can seriously argue that the state we are in now is a good way to go about things.
If you're working ANY job, you should be able to pay for your basic needs (food, water, shelter, electricity). But some people work 2 or 3 jobs to be able to afford this.

As Omnis said "people have fought for every last dime and half of them act like it's supposed to be that way." People have been brainwashed in to thinking it's admirable or
something to basically kill yourself working, just to barely get by.

It's not. It's just fucking sad.

And I'm not against anyone who has built up a huge company. Not at all, I think that's great. Good for them. But I am against people who are greedy as fuck and think that just because they were lucky enough to have made this huge company, that they can say "fuck everybody else, I'm gonna make more money at the expense of the people who actually keep my company running" (the workers).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I don't recall calling for a socialist revolution... I'm saying Marx was correct in that society IS class struggle. I, personally, don't think you can SOLVE the problem... because we haven't been able to yet. It's one of those things that we have to live with... wealth and power will NEVER be evenly distributed or properly distributed.

If you think that it won't, it probably won't.
11-27-2011, 01:07 AM
Spartiate

It's funny to see the range of extremism on both sides of the spectrum here. Hard to find common ground with anybody.
11-27-2011, 01:18 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

If you think that it won't, it probably won't.

I'd really like to believe otherwise... but it hasn't worked yet and would take some seriously "good" people to make it work!
11-27-2011, 01:48 AM
Spartiate

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm on the left and I don't want wealth or income to be identical for everybody... I just want everybody to get equal opportunities and access to essential goods and services. Everyone should start on a level playing field, where they end up is not my concern.
11-27-2011, 02:11 AM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I don't recall calling for a socialist revolution... I'm saying Marx was correct in that society IS class struggle. I, personally, don't think you can SOLVE the problem... because we haven't been able to yet. It's one of those things that we have to live with... wealth and power will NEVER be evenly distributed or properly distributed.

This, to me, is a good justification for more social spending.
11-27-2011, 03:12 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

This, to me, is a good justification for more social spending.

Yup. With a deficit of over 1 trillion dollars, we definitely need more spending... 1 trillion is not enough!
11-27-2011, 03:15 AM
Never

In a free market, business owners invest in capital goods which increase productivity, lowering prices and raising real wages (the value of your money goes up) and the standard of living for everyone. We need to get government out of the economy so this can happen, not expand it.

Also, in a free market, "laborers" will have the opportunity to open their own businesses without excessive regulations and requirements; hence at very low cost. What problems arise should be dealt with locally, and not by a central power. In the United States, this would be simple.

For the record, I am not rich. In fact I am usually homeless. I find it amusing that some of you would condone stealing from me at gunpoint, but I have guns too, and will use them if necessary. You only have the rights that you are willing to fight for. Nobody hates laboring for endless hours for nothing more than myself, but the answer is freedom, not more slavery.
11-27-2011, 03:22 AM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Yup. With a deficit of over 1 trillion dollars, we definitely need more spending... 1 trillion is not enough!

What caused the deficit?
11-27-2011, 04:08 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

What caused the deficit?

I'm going to go with answer A) The spending, of money, money that the government doesn't have. That's usually what causes deficits.
11-27-2011, 04:12 AM
cmind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

What caused the deficit?

I always thought you were missing a crucial component of your third grade education.
11-27-2011, 04:24 AM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I'm going to go with answer A) The spending, of money, money that the government doesn't have. That's usually what causes deficits.

Spending on War and Bail-outs. Not social spending.

This deficit was caused by helping the rich, not the poor.
11-27-2011, 04:32 AM
cmind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Spending on War and Bail-outs. Not social spending.

This deficit was caused by helping the rich, not the poor.

I already know you're going to somehow dodge the question, but are we to understand that your contention is that social spending has not significantly increased in the last few years?
11-27-2011, 04:36 AM
Never

I think you should read more about Patrick Henry; the guy you are quoting in your sig.
11-27-2011, 04:46 AM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmind

I already know you're going to somehow dodge the question, but are we to understand that your contention is that social spending has not significantly increased in the last few years?

What, specifically, are you referring to? I see spending increase in ways that have helped the richest americans shield themselves from the recession. I've seen military spending helping to centralize energy and food into the hands of the few.

I have not seen veteran's benefits raised once since Obama took office. I watched Obama kill the health care bill. I watched the media pick apart social security based on a myth. But the worst victim of all has been our education system.
11-27-2011, 10:45 PM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Spending on War and Bail-outs. Not social spending.

This deficit was caused by helping the rich, not the poor.

But then what about the fact that the OTHER half of the budget is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are all ballooning out of proportion?

Even if we ended our wars, we'd STILL have a deficit from social programs.
11-27-2011, 11:27 PM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And Xei, you just fucked up my claim AGAIN. I would not stop private tutoring. School is required, tutoring is not. People are allowed to learn anything they want and pay whoever they want to learn it but if there's a law saying they have to learn shit in a certain building for 8 hours a day I want our public schools to have a fighting chance at getting funding and we all know money is power so why do we let all the people with money avoid the system? We bust our asses to make that asshole rich in the first place but they can't mix their kid with ours?

I don't get how you find 'people are allowed to learn anything they want and pay whoever they want to learn it' compatible with 'ban private schools'. Private schools are just conglomerations of private tutors. If I were the sole source of education to a kid, I would be a private school.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm on the left and I don't want wealth or income to be identical for everybody... I just want everybody to get equal opportunities and access to essential goods and services. Everyone should start on a level playing field, where they end up is not my concern.

Don't know how this could be achieved. It'd mean zero inheritance. In fact it would mean zero private property; a child born parents with lots of material wealth won't have identical opportunities as one born to parents with less material wealth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

How about it's not fair that people work for multi millionaires or billionaires and earn 10 dollars an hour or whatever the much too low minimum wage is.
Working is probably a good thing. It forces you to not be lazy. But I don't think you can seriously argue that the state we are in now is a good way to go about things.
If you're working ANY job, you should be able to pay for your basic needs (food, water, shelter, electricity). But some people work 2 or 3 jobs to be able to afford this.

You shouldn't have to work to pay for basic needs.

Quote:

And I'm not against anyone who has built up a huge company. Not at all, I think that's great. Good for them. But I am against people who are greedy as fuck and think that just because they were lucky enough to have made this huge company, that they can say "fuck everybody else, I'm gonna make more money at the expense of the people who actually keep my company running" (the workers).

If the workers feel like they're not getting paid enough, they can form a union and strike.

If other members of the public are happy with the wage, they can take the place of those workers.

What needs to change here?
11-28-2011, 12:02 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm on the left and I don't want wealth or income to be identical for everybody... I just want everybody to get equal opportunities and access to essential goods and services. Everyone should start on a level playing field, where they end up is not my concern.

I can actually agree with this. If something like the Venus project were not possible for some reason. (No arguments about the merits and downfalls of it, please).
But, why don't you want people to stay equal? You want them to start of equal and let chance and genes determine their fate?
11-28-2011, 12:04 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

But, why don't you want people to stay equal?

Short answer: no incentive to DO anything.
11-28-2011, 12:05 AM
Xei

You need to define 'equal'. As far as I can tell the most sensible definition is 'equal opportunities'. If you work hard to take those opportunities, it would not be right to take negative action so as to maintain superficial 'equality', would it?
11-28-2011, 12:26 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

You shouldn't have to work to pay for basic needs.

Oh wow, now you're talking sense!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

If the workers feel like they're not getting paid enough, they can form a union and strike.

If other members of the public are happy with the wage, they can take the place of those workers.

I was thinking this same thing yesterday, but I quickly realised the unworkability of it.
There's always someone desperate enough to take whatever you want to pay them.
Immigrants routinely work for less than minimum wage, a lot less.
Some people will suck your dick for 5 bucks.
There's always someone desperate enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I watched Obama kill the health care bill.

Obama????...... Obama killed it!????
Obama introduced it, everyone else killed it.
What planet do you live on?
11-28-2011, 02:20 AM
StonedApe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Why do you insist on using strawmen? Just argue the argument we're having, don't make one up so it's easier to counter me. Talking about kidnapping is an extreme misuses of my intention of the word force.

What do you intend then? What constitutes force? Are you allowed to use guns or hold people? I understand that you want something different from the current system but unless you propose changes it looks like you're asking for basically a different version of the same system. Personally I don't support using force against peaceful people under any conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

That being said, yes I do believe the government will get to the point where it's not pursuing pure power, but first you have to localize it to the most communal level and give the community the power. Over the last 30 years productivity has gone up in this country but education has remained the same or declined. The rich are getting wealthier and more powerful while all the most basic needs of society are being left to crumble.

By productivity do you mean the amount we produce? Because from what I understand it's the opposite, that we produce less, or at least that we seriously need to produce more and that's why our economy is shit; because everything we buy is from china.

Why and how will the government ever be about anything other than power? Even if you do reduce it down to the local level only it will be about power so long as the issue of force is on the table. If you can force someone to do something you have power over them. Personally I don't think that this kind of power is ever justified; can you tell me why you do?

Quote:

If they want to participate in this system, they must help with it too. The rich are nothing more but a hand-out class, asking for bail-outs and subsidies while never doing a damn thing for the people. They are parasites. Not all rich, obviously, just the ones that use that type of language to describe the poor. They describe themselves perfectly. They're a welfare class, a beggar class. Why is it society must hold up their pillars and yet, rather than support education they have transformed it into a factory outputting an obedient working class? Then they say the system is broken because it's a public system and private systems just work better. The only thing that's public about our school system is the way they pay themselves.

If it isn't obvious I'm more opposed to bailouts than to public schooling or the use of force to provide public schooling. The bailouts are a clear example of why force doesn't work; power always leads to corruption. How do you deal with this, how do you get rid of corruption without getting rid of domination?

Quote:

I'm not saying nothing educational can be organized privately in order to research the best way to educate kids and evolve out of this tragedy, the mass-produced education. But I think private schools serve as an excuse to let the broken system remain as is, which is an assault against the middle class.

To me a democratic government can only truly exist on a community level. You can branch up into a republic to some degree it must exist as a force to enable the community to lift itself up rather than as a means to concentrate power. Claiming the government is greedy is no excuse to hand over more power to people who are greedy by disposition. We can change government. The entitlement class (top 1%) will always ask for more.

I wonder which more of exists: honest politicians or businessmen?

How do you get to this magic state where power is at the local level and in the hands of good people? The people who have the power now would never let that happen, and they have the power to keep things that way. How do you get this change without getting rid of power in the first place and letting individuals decide for themselves?

Anyways, here's a thought: if we live in a democracy and that democracy has decided that they want to publicly funded education then the majority of people want some of their money to fund public education. So why can't we just use that money to pay for education? This would be very affordable even if people weren't forced to pay for other completely absurd things like corn or fossil fuel subsidies, or things like warfare. If your system is so great convince people of it; why do you need to use force if you are on the side of good?

If what you want to do is a good thing you will be able to convince people to do it through persuasion. The only reason why you wouldn't be able to is that people are selfish and don't care about others, and if that's the case then democracy is a terrible idea. People will simply use power to further their own selfish aims; case and point the bailouts.
11-28-2011, 08:04 PM
Original Poster

I understand the problem of government, but would you please, for god's sake, acknowledge the problem of an unregulated private sector and a society absent of communal structure?

Now that we both agree (if not there's no reason to continue having this conversation) let's stop bickering and think of solutions to this problem. I don't understand what you're talking about with education. You want only people who like public education to pay for it? That's the opposite of social infrastructure. That would ensure that no one who can afford to support the public education system pays for it because they'd just pay for private school. That wouldn't even be public education anymore, just a collective of private schools.

I propose consensus based democracy. I know this sabotages my proposal to ban private schools but I could never get away with that shit in the first place and my belief that schooling should be optional invalidates it anyways.

A consensus based community can keep things running because they're required to keep things running in order to survive and without the power of majority they're no longer able to push fundamentalist, impractical garbage up the lines of government. They all have a stake in the community and are therefore driven toward the most practical ends.

The problem is sometimes I like when government does things that not everyone agrees with. Like forcing racist business owners to let black people use their stores. I support that anti-discrimination law. But it goes both ways because you can't regulate that sort of power. Maybe it begins with acknowledging corporations are different from people, and while the government can create more rights for people, they cannot create more rights for corporations. That could at least cut down on some of their corporate backers to ensure they're better held to a constituency of voters instead of share-holders.
11-28-2011, 09:57 PM
StonedApe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I understand the problem of government, but would you please, for god's sake, acknowledge the problem of an unregulated private sector and a society absent of communal structure?

I don't think that an unregulated private sector would be an issue if it weren't for the absence of a communal structure of some sort. If the community itself had more power then it could do something to stop private sector problems. But none of this needs to be done with force(meaning violence or threats of violence;this includes fines).

Quote:

Now that we both agree (if not there's no reason to continue having this conversation) let's stop bickering and think of solutions to this problem. I don't understand what you're talking about with education. You want only people who like public education to pay for it? That's the opposite of social infrastructure. That would ensure that no one who can afford to support the public education system pays for it because they'd just pay for private school. That wouldn't even be public education anymore, just a collective of private schools.

Not really, why are people who don't use them okay with paying taxes for public school now? Because they realize that some form of assistance is needed for poor children. There are a large number of people who are not only okay with this but actually advocate for it despite that they have no kids in school.

I am against public schools of any kind. They lead to indoctrination. I think instead we ought to just have private schools and make grants available to people who make under a certain income through voluntary means(donations). Basically like charter schools now. Some of these schools could run for less time each day, pay teachers only part time and do other things to lower the cost*. I really don't think there's any way you can make it so that children who's parents have no means of educating them can educate them to the same level as those who do have the means without just lowering the level of education for those who do have money. There are an infinite number of things you can do to improve the level of education for the poor, but there is no justification for using force in this situation. Many of the important changes don't require money and are actually just a change in approach.

Quote:

I propose consensus based democracy. I know this sabotages my proposal to ban private schools but I could never get away with that shit in the first place and my belief that schooling should be optional invalidates it anyways.

A consensus based community can keep things running because they're required to keep things running in order to survive and without the power of majority they're no longer able to push fundamentalist, impractical garbage up the lines of government. They all have a stake in the community and are therefore driven toward the most practical ends.

Wouldn't those with wealth and means still be able to get by without consensus? How would you prevent this? Social programs might not be functioning well but those who don't need them can obviously still get by.On top of this what about all the issues that you can't get a consensus on, what happens then? What about when most people want something but not any kind of consensus? And you still have the problem of propaganda and public relations convincing people to do things that are in their own worst interest.

Quote:

The problem is sometimes I like when government does things that not everyone agrees with. Like forcing racist business owners to let black people use their stores. I support that anti-discrimination law. But it goes both ways because you can't regulate that sort of power. Maybe it begins with acknowledging corporations are different from people, and while the government can create more rights for people, they cannot create more rights for corporations. That could at least cut down on some of their corporate backers to ensure they're better held to a constituency of voters instead of share-holders.

I think that sort of thing can be done non-violently, there's no need to physically force the business owner to do that. Just make it well known that the owner of that business is a racist and organize a boycott of his business. If society is predominantly racist you have an issue, but if society is predominantly racist so is the government. I could be wrong about this but it seems to me that there is a higher percentage of racism or at least racial superiority in gov then in the general public. It's not until public opinion starts to change that the law changes.

And by doing this you actually deal with the issue of racism instead of just forcing people to be good. They are forced to face the truth of their own ignorance. And it encourages people in the community to think about the issue and have an active place in it. It's very hard to get good people to do or go along with bad things unless you make them passive first.

*I'm a very strong advocate of something like the Lancaster schools where children become teachers starting at a very young age; 5th graders teaching first grade math, etc. This cuts costs immensely and creates incentive for students to do well. It also creates a more equal level between teacher and student; students are not taught down to as much. I would probably try to start a school like this if child labor laws didn't make it impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Taxation isn't theft if you can get people to agree on it! Which is easiest how? Local level.

It isn't taxation if you give it voluntarily, then it's a contractual payment or a donation of some kind. And the only way you could get people to agree to pay this would be if they decided exactly how the money given was spent and have some way of holding them accountable if the spend it differently. You could have some kind of contract people signed when they bought a home in an area saying they had to pay for x but if they already own the property you or any other entity have no right to impose a tax on them. That's just a bunch of garbage that some people who died hundreds of years ago made up so that they could live off of others.
11-30-2011, 08:06 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

You shouldn't have to work to pay for basic needs.

Why not? Food, water and shelter do not just fly into your life. We are not in some utopia where vines and fruit trees can just be picked. There is scarcity in this world. Humans put a value on things that are scarce. Why should you not work to achieve those things?
11-30-2011, 03:26 PM
cmind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why not? Food, water and shelter do not just fly into your life. We are not in some utopia where vines and fruit trees can just be picked. There is scarcity in this world. Humans put a value on things that are scarce. Why should you not work to achieve those things?

*Or get voluntary charity from those with means. Let's not scare people off by making it look like libertarians are against helping your neighbour. It's government welfare schemes we oppose.
11-30-2011, 06:39 PM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why not? Food, water and shelter do not just fly into your life. We are not in some utopia where vines and fruit trees can just be picked. There is scarcity in this world. Humans put a value on things that are scarce. Why should you not work to achieve those things?

But the problem is people are being punished for abundance because everything is put on a scale of scarcity to determine its value. Your model puts man in direct competition with technology.
12-01-2011, 12:57 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why not? Food, water and shelter do not just fly into your life. We are not in some utopia where vines and fruit trees can just be picked. There is scarcity in this world. Humans put a value on things that are scarce. Why should you not work to achieve those things?

Yeah.... coz you can't just grow fruit on trees! Who do these people think they are????
Wanting to grow their food! LOL!
12-01-2011, 01:19 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah.... coz you can't just grow fruit on trees! Who do these people think they are????
Wanting to grow their food! LOL!

I agree. First people think money grows on trees... and now FOOD?! I get my food from the STORE, not from some magical "farm" or "garden of eden" that just spontaneously grows apples on trees. What next? BUSHES covered in raspberries?! Absurd.
12-01-2011, 02:34 AM
Never

Growing food consists of working regardless.

I forage quite a bit, and it is not an easy way to live. Hunting and farming; same deal.
12-01-2011, 02:56 AM
Original Poster

That doesn't mean farmers should be punished for producing more. That doesn't meed the value of food should be based on its scarcity.
12-01-2011, 03:28 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

That doesn't mean farmers should be punished for producing more. That doesn't meed the value of food should be based on its scarcity.

I don't see them getting punished much, they get subsidized despite this alleged "scarcity".
12-01-2011, 03:58 AM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why not? Food, water and shelter do not just fly into your life. We are not in some utopia where vines and fruit trees can just be picked. There is scarcity in this world. Humans put a value on things that are scarce. Why should you not work to achieve those things?

What cmind said. If this is your attitude then you are a libertarian for all the wrong reasons. I am a libertarian because I believe that people shouldn't use force to compel charity; they should just be charitable. I find the Randian scorn of altruism to be quite despicable, personally.

Some people are unable to work. For instance, people who are mentally retarded. Mentally retarded people should be left to starve because they can't provide for themselves? Lovely.

There's no economic reason that a society should even provide an adequate amount of employment for the subsistence of its competent population. There's no formula that causes the amount of available labour to be necessarily greater than the amount of labour that the population requires to survive.

And no we are not in a utopia with infinite food, but that analogy is ridiculous. People in the developed world are living in a society which could pay for basic subsistence a hundred times over. My adherence to the non-aggression principle only goes so far. If there is man on the street starving to death and the only remaining means to feed him is to compel some decadent billionaire to buy him a meal, no I wouldn't object to the use of force.
12-01-2011, 05:02 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmind

*Or get voluntary charity from those with means. Let's not scare people off by making it look like libertarians are against helping your neighbour. It's government welfare schemes we oppose.

I guess we should make a distinction between the disadvantaged and the delusional.
12-01-2011, 05:05 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

That doesn't mean farmers should be punished for producing more. That doesn't meed the value of food should be based on its scarcity.

Why not on scarcity? What value system do you feel is better then the subjective desires of individuals?
12-01-2011, 05:09 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Some people are unable to work. For instance, people who are mentally retarded. Mentally retarded people should be left to starve because they can't provide for themselves? Lovely.

And there is a difference between those who are capable of working and those who are not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

And no we are not in a utopia with infinite food, but that analogy is ridiculous. People in the developed world are living in a society which could pay for basic subsistence a hundred times over. My adherence to the non-aggression principle only goes so far. If there is man on the street starving to death and the only remaining means to feed him is to compel some decadent billionaire to buy him a meal, no I wouldn't object to the use of force.

Then you are a hypocrite and you are not a libertarian if you do not expressly follow non-aggression. You have accepted the principle of violence and your only difference between a criminal and yourself is scale, not principle. A criminal steals for want a great deal of the time, you steal for want a little. Where is the moral suasion in the example? It was not even given lip service. You just see someone who is in dire straights and your first response is to use violence against someone else in order to better his/her condition.
12-01-2011, 05:13 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah.... coz you can't just grow fruit on trees! Who do these people think they are????
Wanting to grow their food! LOL!

Yes, 6 billion people are going to frolic through the forests berry picking. Or wait, did you magically go to some far off land in your dreams?
12-01-2011, 06:55 AM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And there is a difference between those who are capable of working and those who are not.

This doesn't address what I said about the total employment not being sufficient, does it?

In 20 years technology will have made all kinds of menial jobs obsolete. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't enough jobs for 50% of the population. How is your philosophy going to work then?

Quote:

Then you are a hypocrite and you are not a libertarian if you do not expressly follow non-aggression.

Libertarianism is a sliding scale. You seem to be confused with anarchy. A libertarian can be a constitutionalist who believes in inalienable human rights.

Quote:

You have accepted the principle of violence and your only difference between a criminal and yourself is scale, not principle. A criminal steals for want a great deal of the time, you steal for want a little. Where is the moral suasion in the example? It was not even given lip service. You just see someone who is in dire straights and your first response is to use violence against someone else in order to better his/her condition.

Why did you feel the need to set up a strawman?

I said as a measure of last resort. That doesn't mean 'first response', does it?

I would exhaust all non-coercive means, and only then, if necessary, would I force the billionaire to pay for the man's life rather than another caviar smoothie.
12-01-2011, 08:01 AM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why not on scarcity? What value system do you feel is better then the subjective desires of individuals?

One which enables farmers to benefit from technology rather than be punished by it.
12-01-2011, 09:32 PM
ThePreserver

Or we could stop wasting our precious resources on producing meat, which has an efficiency of only 10% compared to simply eating vegetable proteins... That's a lot more food for a lot more people, saving a lot more water (80% of our fresh water used is devoted to food production and agri-business).

Nevermind. People like their hamburgers composed of 500 different anti-biotic filled, hormone-injected cows too much to eat more vegetable proteins and less meat. DELICIOUS. NOM NOM NOM.
12-01-2011, 09:45 PM
cmind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

One which enables farmers to benefit from technology rather than be punished by it.

Would you be referring to the state enforced agri-patent system that was put in place in the 1970s?
12-01-2011, 11:18 PM
StonedApe

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Or we could stop wasting our precious resources on producing meat, which has an efficiency of only 10% compared to simply eating vegetable proteins... That's a lot more food for a lot more people, saving a lot more water (80% of our fresh water used is devoted to food production and agri-business).

Nevermind. People like their hamburgers composed of 500 different anti-biotic filled, hormone-injected cows too much to eat more vegetable proteins and less meat. DELICIOUS. NOM NOM NOM.

God damned corn subsidies.
12-01-2011, 11:28 PM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Yes, 6 billion people are going to frolic through the forests berry picking. Or wait, did you magically go to some far off land in your dreams?

7 billion. And no.
If people weren't forced to live in blocks with zero land, we could all grow our own food.
But people need to work! So they have to live close to where they work. So they have to live in a house with no land 99% of the time. Unless they want to be a farmer.

Apparently you can feed yourself easily on 50ft2 of land.
We don't all need to go out picking berries form the forest.
12-01-2011, 11:32 PM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

7 billion. And no.
If people weren't forced to live in blocks with zero land, we could all grow our own food.
But people need to work! So they have to live close to where they work. So they have to live in a house with no land 99% of the time. Unless they want to be a farmer.

Apparently you can feed yourself easily on 50ft2 of land.
We don't all need to go out picking berries form the forest.

So... you either work for MONEY to buy food. Or you work to make the food yourself. So far it looks like there is work involved. (Berrypicking is work, too. hasslesome, what with all the pointy pricklies.)
12-01-2011, 11:51 PM
tommo

However, we live in the 21st century. There is absolutely no reason why we should have to trade off between free food and working to buy stuff that we can't get or build ourselves.
The only reason it is like this is because the houses are packed in so tight in cities and urban areas.
12-02-2011, 02:03 AM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmind

Would you be referring to the state enforced agri-patent system that was put in place in the 1970s?

No.
12-02-2011, 03:02 AM
cmind

Do you even know what I'm referring to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

No.
12-02-2011, 03:07 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

So... you either work for MONEY to buy food. Or you work to make the food yourself. So far it looks like there is work involved. (Berrypicking is work, too. hasslesome, what with all the pointy pricklies.)

Oh and also you have to pay land tax every year. So you have to work lol
12-02-2011, 05:49 AM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmind

Do you even know what I'm referring to?

Yes. Do you know what I'm referring to?
12-02-2011, 06:39 PM
cmind

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Oh and also you have to pay land tax every year. So you have to work lol

Libertarians are obviously opposed to property taxes.
12-02-2011, 07:19 PM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Oh and also you have to pay land tax every year. So you have to work lol

I'm fine working! I just think I should be allowed to give my excesses to the charity that I CHOOSE, not to the government so they can go murder more people abroad. I understand that they need 1 or 2% to fund serious things, like interstate highways and NASA, but everything else, I can handle myself.
12-03-2011, 12:02 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I'm fine working! I just think I should be allowed to give my excesses to the charity that I CHOOSE, not to the government so they can go murder more people abroad. I understand that they need 1 or 2% to fund serious things, like interstate highways and NASA, but everything else, I can handle myself.

You can do that you know.... It's called tax deductible donations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmind

Libertarians are obviously opposed to property taxes.

Cool fuckin story bro.
12-03-2011, 12:08 AM
cmind

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Cool fuckin story bro.

Is this your standard response for when you have nothing intelligent to add?
12-03-2011, 12:29 AM
tommo

You just said that for absolutely no reason. Why do I give a fuck if libertarians are opposed to property taxes? How does that change anything or add anything to the discussion?
12-03-2011, 03:13 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

You can do that you know.... It's called tax deductible donations.

I find those to be a little different than not paying the taxes in the first place, though :P From what I understand I can't deduct more than 50% of my income tax for that...

And that doesn't count Capital Gains. Non-deductible :/ Somehow, they get their money to help pay for wars that they wouldn't have been able to afford anyways xD I definitely do enjoy tax deductions, but the principle of taxation without representation is pretty silly to me. (I never consented to an income tax, it was forced upon me. Same thing with Social Security.)
12-03-2011, 04:11 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

This doesn't address what I said about the total employment not being sufficient, does it?

In 20 years technology will have made all kinds of menial jobs obsolete. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't enough jobs for 50% of the population. How is your philosophy going to work then?

Really? Mechanization is going to lead to unemployment? What are we back in the mid-Industrial revolution times? Human desires are constantly evolving and never satisfied. You are presuming they are static and capable of being fully fulfilled by machines. Let us see how ridiculous your notion is through an example. Say I invent a solution that causes people to never have to go to the dentist or brush their teeth again. Hooray for me. My teeth solution is sold, I make people happy, I get profits. What about all the dentists you say, all the dentist assistants, the toothbrush industry, etc. etc. Well now their labor is freed up for trying to supply the demand of consumers in the teeth industry. They can now move into other areas of employment which service the new or existing demand of consumers. That is of course if people actually like my tooth solution. Perhaps there are some people who like going to the dentist. They find the experience exhilarating. Well the then still can be dentists, still be suppliers of toothbrushes, there can still be a market. Basically your argument is akin to "We cannot make cars because all the buggy drivers will lose their jobs!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Libertarianism is a sliding scale. You seem to be confused with anarchy. A libertarian can be a constitutionalist who believes in inalienable human rights.

What are those inalienable rights? Life...liberty and....Property? Oh wait not property because then you would again be shown to be a hypocrite by calling yourself a libertarian, believing in natural rights while at the same time giving justification for stealing for a "worthy cause." Anarchy is the logical conclusion of Libertarianism. Constitutionalism permits the empowerment of government with rights that common individuals have. It falsely assumes it has the ability to tax (to steal) and to conscript (to kidnap). It is nothing more then highwaymen and thieves looking for legitimacy. You do not have the right to murder and call it war, you do not have the right to steal and call it taxation and you do not have the right to kidnap and call it conscription, so by what right do you empower the government to do so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Why did you feel the need to set up a strawman?

I said as a measure of last resort. That doesn't mean 'first response', does it?

I would exhaust all non-coercive means, and only then, if necessary, would I force the billionaire to pay for the man's life rather than another caviar smoothie.

My point still stands. You are justifying the coercion of an individual. You are not a libertarian even in the slightest degree. Even if libertarianism was just the non-aggression principle, you are even passing that. This is not some case of "get off my jungle-jim," ideas have power and so do the words that go with them. You falsely assigning yourself the title of libertarian dilutes not only the definition of the word making it more ambiguous and unmanageable but you are diluting yourself into thinking you are something you are not which in itself is pathetic.
12-03-2011, 04:16 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

One which enables farmers to benefit from technology rather than be punished by it.

That is ambiguous. Can you be a little more detailed?
12-03-2011, 04:25 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

7 billion. And no.
If people weren't forced to live in blocks with zero land, we could all grow our own food.
But people need to work! So they have to live close to where they work. So they have to live in a house with no land 99% of the time. Unless they want to be a farmer.

Apparently you can feed yourself easily on 50ft2 of land.
We don't all need to go out picking berries form the forest.

Actually 6,840,507,000 according to Google but who knows, babies can be popping out right now as I write this. People are not really "forced" to live in blocks with "zero land." True there is urbanization but there still is rural areas. In fact look at the western coast of the United States, in most states the government owns half or more of the land and nobody can build on that. Also this self-sufficientness in agriculture is getting really annoying . I do not want to plant corn. I am not a farmer, I do not care to farm. Apparently this is true for 98% of the American populace because only 2% actually does farm and most of them are corporations. If you wish to return to a feudal era, then be well and good luck. Engage in animal husbandry and tame the land with your plow. I will stick to my books, my education and my hopefully good future teaching career. I speculate that many people will agree with me but this does not make my argument "right." Numbers do not mean "rightness."
12-03-2011, 05:10 AM
ThePreserver

7 billion according to the United Nations. (Google isn't always so truthful :P) And urbanization is a serious problem, causes massive amounts of waste and transportation costs for food (fossil fuels to transport the food and spoilage mostly), if more food was localized it would be less wasteful, healthier (no need to be frozen/canned/genetically modified to last longer).

You don't have to give it all to agri-business, it can be localized without that.
12-03-2011, 05:15 AM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That is ambiguous. Can you be a little more detailed?

Tractors and other such inventions of the 1920s drove down the price of the food putting farmers into a depression long before the rest of the nation. Part of the new deal to help farmers was to pay them subsidies to destroy all the extra crops they were making in order to keep the value of food high enough for them to make a living.
12-03-2011, 06:24 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Actually 6,840,507,000 according to Google but who knows, babies can be popping out right now as I write this. People are not really "forced" to live in blocks with "zero land." True there is urbanization but there still is rural areas. In fact look at the western coast of the United States, in most states the government owns half or more of the land and nobody can build on that. Also this self-sufficientness in agriculture is getting really annoying . I do not want to plant corn. I am not a farmer, I do not care to farm. Apparently this is true for 98% of the American populace because only 2% actually does farm and most of them are corporations. If you wish to return to a feudal era, then be well and good luck. Engage in animal husbandry and tame the land with your plow. I will stick to my books, my education and my hopefully good future teaching career. I speculate that many people will agree with me but this does not make my argument "right." Numbers do not mean "rightness."

If you don't want to plant your own food you have lost your connection to the Earth.
It's one of the best experiences you could have and it helps you realise that you are
not separate from anything. The main problem with consumerism is that people no longer realise that
we are part of the Earth and can only use what the Earth will allow.

I'm not saying let's all farm for a living. I'm saying you don't have to, you can plant some plants and eat them,
and spend the rest of the time doing whatever you want. Water them occasionally.
12-03-2011, 06:40 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

If you don't want to plant your own food you have lost your connection to the Earth.
It's one of the best experiences you could have and it helps you realise that you are
not separate from anything. The main problem with consumerism is that people no longer realise that
we are part of the Earth and can only use what the Earth will allow.

I'm not saying let's all farm for a living. I'm saying you don't have to, you can plant some plants and eat them,
and spend the rest of the time doing whatever you want. Water them occasionally.

Nah. People seem to prefer virtuality to reality. A shame, really, because I like growing vegetables and picking berries... but it's their loss!
12-03-2011, 10:00 PM
Marvo

So I figured this might be worth posting.

Swiss Government Declares Downloading for Personal Use Legal | WebProNews
12-03-2011, 10:50 PM
ThePreserver

Also Switzerland was (and still is) smart enough to stay out of other countries' business. They just accept their money if they need a stable place to store it. They might be on to something...
12-04-2011, 02:19 AM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Really? Mechanization is going to lead to unemployment? What are we back in the mid-Industrial revolution times? Human desires are constantly evolving and never satisfied. You are presuming they are static and capable of being fully fulfilled by machines. Let us see how ridiculous your notion is through an example. Say I invent a solution that causes people to never have to go to the dentist or brush their teeth again. Hooray for me. My teeth solution is sold, I make people happy, I get profits. What about all the dentists you say, all the dentist assistants, the toothbrush industry, etc. etc. Well now their labor is freed up for trying to supply the demand of consumers in the teeth industry. They can now move into other areas of employment which service the new or existing demand of consumers. That is of course if people actually like my tooth solution. Perhaps there are some people who like going to the dentist. They find the experience exhilarating. Well the then still can be dentists, still be suppliers of toothbrushes, there can still be a market. Basically your argument is akin to "We cannot make cars because all the buggy drivers will lose their jobs!"

I see no quantitative analysis here. Zero numerical argument that the number of jobs created equals the number made obsolete; just a qualitative assertion. It is hence utter bunk.

Simple question: when we reach the point where working machines have intelligence and dexterity greater than their average human counterparts, what jobs are left for the humans?

The only technologies required for this to happen are advances in robotics and the in-silico simulation of neural networks. Both of things are going to happen this century.

Quote:

What are those inalienable rights? Life...liberty and....Property? Oh wait not property because then you would again be shown to be a hypocrite by calling yourself a libertarian, believing in natural rights while at the same time giving justification for stealing for a "worthy cause." Anarchy is the logical conclusion of Libertarianism. Constitutionalism permits the empowerment of government with rights that common individuals have. It falsely assumes it has the ability to tax (to steal) and to conscript (to kidnap). It is nothing more then highwaymen and thieves looking for legitimacy. You do not have the right to murder and call it war, you do not have the right to steal and call it taxation and you do not have the right to kidnap and call it conscription, so by what right do you empower the government to do so?

My point still stands. You are justifying the coercion of an individual. You are not a libertarian even in the slightest degree. Even if libertarianism was just the non-aggression principle, you are even passing that. This is not some case of "get off my jungle-jim," ideas have power and so do the words that go with them. You falsely assigning yourself the title of libertarian dilutes not only the definition of the word making it more ambiguous and unmanageable but you are diluting yourself into thinking you are something you are not which in itself is pathetic.

If you really want to have the inane argument that to be a libertarian means you believe in zero mandatory state, please just have it with yourself. I'm not interested in such semantic nonissues. Want to define libertarianism as anarchism? Fine, I'm not a libertarian by your definition. Move along.
12-04-2011, 03:28 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

7 billion according to the United Nations. (Google isn't always so truthful :P) And urbanization is a serious problem, causes massive amounts of waste and transportation costs for food (fossil fuels to transport the food and spoilage mostly), if more food was localized it would be less wasteful, healthier (no need to be frozen/canned/genetically modified to last longer).

You don't have to give it all to agri-business, it can be localized without that.

There is no credence to that argument. Food can just as easily spoil if it were local. The shipment of goods around the nation/world is due to demand. Example, I love Georgia peaches. I love California cheese, wine and meat. There is something about the meat (I am guessing it is the open-air pastures) that just makes it better. I live in Florida. How am I going to get California meat if I can only buy local?
12-04-2011, 03:31 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Tractors and other such inventions of the 1920s drove down the price of the food putting farmers into a depression long before the rest of the nation. Part of the new deal to help farmers was to pay them subsidies to destroy all the extra crops they were making in order to keep the value of food high enough for them to make a living.

In all the time we have talked, have I be an advocate for food subsidies or any government subsidies? I want the market to drive prices down because as a consumer, I like abundance. I also like it in terms of morality. However, what you have just said does not contradict what I previous stated which is that scarcity should dictate prices. This does not mean I want people to be protected from competition in the market place by government so that they can raise their prices. I am very much against this. You seem to be too.
12-04-2011, 03:36 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

If you don't want to plant your own food you have lost your connection to the Earth.

So says you. I can receive such a connection from a walk in my local forest or a canoe trip in the Everglades. I do not need to plant food in order to feel connected to the world around me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

It's one of the best experiences you could have and it helps you realise that you are

Again your sentiment. My experiences differ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

not separate from anything. The main problem with consumerism is that people no longer realise that
we are part of the Earth and can only use what the Earth will allow.

I'm not saying let's all farm for a living. I'm saying you don't have to, you can plant some plants and eat them,
and spend the rest of the time doing whatever you want. Water them occasionally.

Why do you think that consumerism causes people to "lose" their connection to Earth? Because we have more enjoyable lives, have capital to allow us to have libation; this is some kind of disconnect? What good is being under the whim of mother nature? Do we welcome natural disasters on a primal level? Is not the goal to escape her restrictive lifestyle? Perhaps it is not for you but like I said if you want to tame the child then be well.
12-04-2011, 03:46 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why do you think that consumerism causes people to "lose" their connection to Earth? Because we have more enjoyable lives, have capital to allow us to have libation; this is some kind of disconnect? What good is being under the whim of mother nature? Do we welcome natural disasters on a primal level? Is not the goal to escape her restrictive lifestyle? Perhaps it is not for you but like I said if you want to tame the child then be well.

You will lead a very frustrated life if you are trying to escape the whims of nature. Because you can't.
Just look at the progression from ancient societies to now. There's more cancer, dementia and chronic and mental illness now then there was
just a couple of hundred years ago even.
Because we decided to go against the grain of how the rest of nature works and build massive, densely populated cities of steel and glass and plastic.
If we'd gone with the grain instead of against it, most of these problems would have never existed.
12-04-2011, 03:52 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

I see no quantitative analysis here. Zero numerical argument that the number of jobs created equals the number made obsolete; just a qualitative assertion. It is hence utter bunk.

Economics is not quantitative. If you are feel like I am wrong and also feel adventurous then present a list of your desires (values) and try to add or subtract them. Does your second desire plus your third desire equal your first desire? Does your first desire equal two second desires? Value scales are not quantitative. I feel safe saying that even Neoclassical economists believe that. So you passing off "oh well its qualitative therefore bunk" not only shows your naivety but also your inability to properly argue the issue. Where has my logic gone awry? That is what economic law is: logic. So I will give you another chance. Human desires are always evolving and never satisfied, do we decry the lose of the buggy industry because it put so many of out work? If your goal is total employment then I will conjure up a great platform for you. Everyone will destroy the capital, the technology and we will all carry sand on our back for one part of the country to another part. Everyone will then be employed and we will not have to worry about those dastardly machines taking our jobs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

If you really want to have the inane argument that to be a libertarian means you believe in zero mandatory state, please just have it with yourself. I'm not interested in such semantic nonissues. Want to define libertarianism as anarchism? Fine, I'm not a libertarian by your definition. Move along.

That is the wonderful thing about language, it is never private/agent-relative. It is public/agent-neutral therefore this is not my personal definition of libertarianism, it is the English language's definition. Just like you conform to the grammar and syntax of the English language, how it is written etc. You never invented it nor are you making up words for it that cannot be communicated because that is what language is: communication. It is not a language if it cannot be learned by another or understood by another. Does that not blow your mind?! Now we can argue about possible nuances in the definition but the central tenet to libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. Do you follow it in all aspects? No. Therefore you are not a libertarian. Be a minarchist, a Constitutionalist. Discover what your true title is in the world. At least you will have some peace in knowing what you believe and putting a term to it.
12-04-2011, 03:56 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

You will lead a very frustrated life if you are trying to escape the whims of nature. Because you can't.

We have conquered everything but natural disasters which are mother nature's most awesome forces. I think we are doing pretty good on the "escaping the whims" department.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Just look at the progression from ancient societies to now. There's more cancer, dementia and chronic and mental illness now then there was
just a couple of hundred years ago even.

Yes, because a couple of hundred years ago people did not know what cancer was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

Because we decided to go against the grain of how the rest of nature works and build massive, densely populated cities of steel and glass and plastic.
If we'd gone with the grain instead of against it, most of these problems would have never existed.

There also would not be developed economies, modern medicine, modern technology, the internet, mass publication of literature. Are these things terrible to you? I am honestly curious. Really I find you quite strange. You support things like the Venus project yet want to go back to primitive life.
12-04-2011, 04:09 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

We have conquered everything but natural disasters which are mother nature's most awesome forces. I think we are doing pretty good on the "escaping the whims" department.

Yes, because a couple of hundred years ago people did not know what cancer was.

There also would not be developed economies, modern medicine, modern technology, the internet, mass publication of literature. Are these things terrible to you? I am honestly curious. Really I find you quite strange. You support things like the Venus project yet want to go back to primitive life.

I don't want to go back to primitive life. I would like to see what it's like soon. But I don't think I want to live it every day for the rest of my life.
I do think that there are positives to taking some of that natural way of living in to our modern life.

The Venus Project is basically what I just said. Of course there's a lot more to it, but it includes that.
12-04-2011, 04:27 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

I don't want to go back to primitive life. I would like to see what it's like soon. But I don't think I want to live it every day for the rest of my life.
I do think that there are positives to taking some of that natural way of living in to our modern life.

The Venus Project is basically what I just said. Of course there's a lot more to it, but it includes that.

Well this just comes down to preference then. You have your wants and I have mine.
12-04-2011, 05:29 AM
tommo

I'm not talking about preferences, I'm talking about something being objectively better.
Such as not wasting all of our resources and ruining fertile soil etc.
12-04-2011, 11:08 AM
IndieAnthias

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So says you. I can receive such a connection from a walk in my local forest or a canoe trip in the Everglades. I do not need to plant food in order to feel connected to the world around me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

We have conquered everything but natural disasters which are mother nature's most awesome forces. I think we are doing pretty good on the "escaping the whims" department.

There is a slight incongruency there. We've managed to conquer nature without losing touch with it? I know these were two different trains of thought but the tracks do cross at some point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Human desires are always evolving and never satisfied...

Insatiable is not sustainable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That is the wonderful thing about language, it is never private/agent-relative. It is public/agent-neutral...

Never...except for always. (always agent-relative that is). lol.
12-04-2011, 05:39 PM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

There is a slight incongruency there. We've managed to conquer nature without losing touch with it? I know these were two different trains of thought but the tracks do cross at some point.

Just because we can be beyond her whims does not infer that we can return to it through things like nature walks, star-gazing etc. The point is that we have the option to live a "civilized" (if it could be called that) life or a primitive one. The option is ours, not mother nature's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Insatiable is not sustainable.

You will have to forgive me. I am a grad student which leaves little time for recreational reading. Just as there is a desire to serve the wants of individuals, there will be people such as yourself who want "sustainability" and will therefore pursue a course in which technology is directed toward such a goal. It is actually a very nice duality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Never...except for always. (always agent-relative that is). lol.

Language is never agent-relative. If I created a new word now, let us call it sulalackytacky, you would have no idea what it means (there not allowing it to be a language because language infers the ability of communication and if you cannot understand what I am saying then I am not communicating with you). Are you a big JRR Tolken fan? Or perhaps a Star Trek fan? Elivish, as a language is only understandable if it is open, public and beyond the scope of a single individual. Same with Klingon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm not talking about preferences, I'm talking about something being objectively better.
Such as not wasting all of our resources and ruining fertile soil etc.

Better for you like I stated but not better for me therefore it is not objective.
12-04-2011, 07:05 PM
IndieAnthias

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Just because we can be beyond her whims does not infer that we can return to it through things like nature walks, star-gazing etc. The point is that we have the option to live a "civilized" (if it could be called that) life or a primitive one. The option is ours, not mother nature's.

That smacks of unilinear cultural evolution. "Primitive" to "civilized" is the exact framing of some thoroughly debunked 19th century anthropology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You will have to forgive me. I am a grad student which leaves little time for recreational reading.

Ditto. I'm not just dropping a whole book and saying 'read this' as my argument, which would be bad form indeed. It is nicely summarized in the Amazon description. The point is, what you said, "Human desires are always evolving and never satisfied", is a cultural characteristic, not a cultural universal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Just as there is a desire to serve the wants of individuals, there will be people such as yourself who want "sustainability" and will therefore pursue a course in which technology is directed toward such a goal. It is actually a very nice duality.

That's a good way of putting it, actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Language is never agent-relative. If I created a new word now, let us call it sulalackytacky, you would have no idea what it means (there not allowing it to be a language because language infers the ability of communication and if you cannot understand what I am saying then I am not communicating with you). Are you a big JRR Tolken fan? Or perhaps a Star Trek fan? Elivish, as a language is only understandable if it is open, public and beyond the scope of a single individual. Same with Klingon.

If language is never agent-relative, then what is connotation? Denotations can be understood by everyone based on public consensus, but connotations are anything but. Even well-defined terms can mean different things to different people. Language is an imprecise tool, useful only to an extent. If it weren't, art and music would be redundant. I believe Wittgenstein wrote about this... that philosophy itself is bound by semantic limitations. and Quenta Silmarillion, my friend.
12-04-2011, 08:20 PM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

That smacks of unilinear cultural evolution. "Primitive" to "civilized" is the exact framing of some thoroughly debunked 19th century anthropology.

Oh I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that civilizations can "devolve" if we can call it that. Ideas get lost in the span of history, trust me if there is anyone how knows it better then it is historians which I study. Perhaps I used the wrong word, developed? Is that better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Ditto. I'm not just dropping a whole book and saying 'read this' as my argument, which would be bad form indeed. It is nicely summarized in the Amazon description. The point is, what you said, "Human desires are always evolving and never satisfied", is a cultural characteristic, not a cultural universal.

Well I think that might be true for ludities and the Amish but I think we are talking about the people who actively take part in the growing market place. I see those cultures as on the fringes of the marketplace (by their own choice) which is acceptable. I am pretty live and let live.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

That's a good way of putting it, actually.

Yes, balance can be pretty cool sometimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

If language is never agent-relative, then what is connotation? Denotations can be understood by everyone based on public consensus, but connotations are anything but. Even well-defined terms can mean different things to different people. Language is an imprecise tool, useful only to an extent. If it weren't, art and music would be redundant. I believe Wittgenstein wrote about this... that philosophy itself is bound by semantic limitations. and Quenta Silmarillion, my friend.

Connotations denote attached secondary definition to words that have already been given a primary definition. If you build personal conceptions upon an existing perception then that is subjective but you are building them within the existing objective framework. Do you get my meaning?
12-04-2011, 11:06 PM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

In all the time we have talked, have I be an advocate for food subsidies or any government subsidies? I want the market to drive prices down because as a consumer, I like abundance. I also like it in terms of morality. However, what you have just said does not contradict what I previous stated which is that scarcity should dictate prices. This does not mean I want people to be protected from competition in the market place by government so that they can raise their prices. I am very much against this. You seem to be too.

Dude... what? Let me repeat myself.

When the value of food is dictated by its scarcity, technological achievements such as the tractor bring down the price of food so low that farmers cannot make a living. Technology has given produce such high supply potential that the only way to keep farmers in business is to pay them subsidies to destroy their crops and thus keep food scarce. What the fuck about this system works for you?
12-04-2011, 11:22 PM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Better for you like I stated but not better for me therefore it is not objective.

I spose, if you don't want to live, or don't want your grandchildren to live, fair enough.
Nicely connected to nature there I see. Those walks have done you good.
12-05-2011, 04:30 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Dude... what? Let me repeat myself.

When the value of food is dictated by its scarcity, technological achievements such as the tractor bring down the price of food so low that farmers cannot make a living. Technology has given produce such high supply potential that the only way to keep farmers in business is to pay them subsidies to destroy their crops and thus keep food scarce. What the fuck about this system works for you?

That is artificially raising the price. That is not the system I preach. You are talking about corporatism which I am against.
12-05-2011, 04:32 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommo

I spose, if you don't want to live, or don't want your grandchildren to live, fair enough.
Nicely connected to nature there I see. Those walks have done you good.

Please, do not try to use scare tactics on me or try to guilt me into accepting your viewpoint. It's pathetic.
12-05-2011, 07:23 AM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Economics is not quantitative.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/p...jpg?1317751303

We're discussing whether the number of jobs that can be provided by an economy is greater or less than the population of the society, as a general principle.

Quote:

If you are feel like I am wrong and also feel adventurous then present a list of your desires (values) and try to add or subtract them. Does your second desire plus your third desire equal your first desire? Does your first desire equal two second desires? Value scales are not quantitative. I feel safe saying that even Neoclassical economists believe that. So you passing off "oh well its qualitative therefore bunk" not only shows your naivety but also your inability to properly argue the issue. Where has my logic gone awry?

The bit where you assert that human desires require a quantity of work sufficient to provide the population with jobs. I don't know why you're struggling.

All you have said is 'the people working in the redundant industry will go get jobs doing something else'. That's not a logical argument, that's an assertion, and it's the one I'm analysing and you keep ignoring. Who says there are sufficient jobs to go to? By what principle does a new industry emerge; one which people place sufficient value in to employ all of the redundant?

Quote:

That is what economic law is: logic. So I will give you another chance. Human desires are always evolving and never satisfied, do we decry the lose of the buggy industry because it put so many of out work? If your goal is total employment then I will conjure up a great platform for you. Everyone will destroy the capital, the technology and we will all carry sand on our back for one part of the country to another part. Everyone will then be employed and we will not have to worry about those dastardly machines taking our jobs.

I really have zero idea what your argument is. I don't have any 'goals', at the moment I am just performing analysis and trying to ask a question.

For the third time, please: when we reach the point where working machines have intelligence and dexterity greater than their average human counterparts, what jobs are left for the humans?
12-05-2011, 07:32 AM
Wayfaerer

"For the third time, please: when we reach the point where working machines have intelligence and dexterity greater than their average human counterparts, what jobs are left for the humans?"

Coming up with creative ideas to put those machines to use :)

How far do you really think we can reconstruct the human brain when neurology/psychology isn't a completely finished field of study?
12-05-2011, 08:00 AM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That is artificially raising the price. That is not the system I preach. You are talking about corporatism which I am against.

No, you are talking ab out corporatism by insisting food should be valued based on its scarcity.
12-05-2011, 09:19 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Please, do not try to use scare tactics on me or try to guilt me into accepting your viewpoint. It's pathetic.

I'm not at all. I'm just saying that if you do hold the view that you want your kids and grandchildren to live healthy lives, then what I was saying before is for all intents and purposes objective. Since everyone should want that. Learn to follow arguments.
12-05-2011, 03:03 PM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Coming up with creative ideas to put those machines to use :)

Three problems: firstly, machines will eventually be better at creativity. Two, there's only so much that can be usefully created; we are not going to keep inventing things for the next billion years on Earth. Thirdly, seven billion people can't seriously be employed in 'being creative'.

Quote:

How far do you really think we can reconstruct the human brain when neurology/psychology isn't a completely finished field of study?

In this thread I'm more concerned with theory than application; but it is undoubtable that we'll do it. We wouldn't even need to conceptually understand it, just model it, which only requires looking at it and copying it. In fact this is being done right now (Blue Brain).
12-05-2011, 03:55 PM
IndieAnthias

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Three problems: firstly, machines will eventually be better at creativity. Two, there's only so much that can be usefully created; we are not going to keep inventing things for the next billion years on Earth. Thirdly, seven billion people can't seriously be employed in 'being creative'.

lol, what an absurd situation. The once so self-apparent reasons for doing something like mechanization are totally forgotten once we achieve it. Either that, or we realize how mal-formed and tentative the original plan was, and now we're clueless with what to do with the fruits of our progress. Couldn't we.... not work anymore?? No, employment has been for it's own sake for so long, we're clueless about what to do without it, and any notion that we've made things easier with technology is pure delusion. The Red Queen strikes again.
12-05-2011, 09:27 PM
ThePreserver

Wait until we hit 9 billion people, and level out at 10 billion, and need to supply fresh water, food, and energy to all of these humans AND machines, find resources to BUILD this technology, and somehow protect the environment from being absolutely decimated...

Looks like we have a few challenges ahead of us. (And as a side-thought, how do you occupy the time of 10 billion people? What are they supposed to do for their increasing life-spans?)
12-05-2011, 10:16 PM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

lol, what an absurd situation.

Yes. It's very interesting at least. The thing is I don't personally know the solution; I just recognise that there is a problem.

An interesting facet is how well humans function without work. The need to do something that feels necessary is deeply biologically ingrained. People without the psychological effects of work tend to become degenerate. I don't know what can be done about this either. I'm not sure whether humans are built for total liberation, yet I don't see how it can be avoided either.
12-05-2011, 10:27 PM
Wayfaerer

It seems a little too much to say this will undoubtedly happen, I just have this feeling that there will necessarily be subtle shortcomings in trying to reconstruct nature.
12-05-2011, 10:35 PM
IndieAnthias

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes. It's very interesting at least. The thing is I don't personally know the solution; I just recognise that there is a problem.

An interesting facet is how well humans function without work. The need to do something that feels necessary is deeply biologically ingrained. People without the psychological effects of work tend to become degenerate. I don't know what can be done about this either. I'm not sure whether humans are built for total liberation, yet I don't see how it can be avoided either.

All I can think of is somehow dismantle (or scale back) division of labor. Do your own everything. Not an easy sell, drawbacks notwithstanding, but some choose this route and seem to enjoy it, provided a little company. On a large scale, though, I suppose this isn't much better than any other un-tought-out call to abandon technology. Never mind my loose rambling.
12-05-2011, 10:52 PM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

It seems a little too much to say this will undoubtedly happen, I just have this feeling that there will necessarily be subtle shortcomings in trying to reconstruct nature.

I doubt it, but we've got millions of years potentially, and I was just making a philosophical point anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

All I can think of is somehow dismantle (or scale back) division of labor. Do your own everything. Not an easy sell, drawbacks notwithstanding, but some choose this route and seem to enjoy it, provided a little company. On a large scale, though, I suppose this isn't much better than any other un-tought-out call to abandon technology. Never mind my loose rambling.

This is what I meant by it being unavoidable though; we can build the technology and find activities to give a sense of purpose, or we can destroy the technology and be forced to perform those technologies to survive; but in both we know that the work is really pointless. In the latter situation we know we could have just built machines to do it all for us.
12-06-2011, 12:30 AM
tommo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes. It's very interesting at least. The thing is I don't personally know the solution; I just recognise that there is a problem.

An interesting facet is how well humans function without work. The need to do something that feels necessary is deeply biologically ingrained. People without the psychological effects of work tend to become degenerate. I don't know what can be done about this either. I'm not sure whether humans are built for total liberation, yet I don't see how it can be avoided either.

But what feels necessary is social ingrained. And I think we could quickly change what we think is necessary. Some people would change their view straight away, then after a few generations, it would become
normal.
Probably just hobbies/creative things and exercising etc. We would just be able to put more time and effort in to those things.
Cooking is usually done quickly and carelessly, and a lot of the time just bought from a shop that does an even worse job.
Because our attention is focused on work. But without that we would probably focus more on cooking, maybe spend a few hours preparing a nice meal.
Same applies to everything really. There would still be humans making music and art and plays to go see. There would still be nature to go look at and walk in (hopefully lol)

Probably some people would not cope, because a "strong work ethic" has been so embedded in our psyche. But there's nothing that can be done about that really.
12-06-2011, 01:31 AM
Never

It is true that many people who are out of work become degenerate, but many people engaged in work are degenerate as well.

When I was a teen my family used to look upon me with disdain, because I would work a few years, save money, and take a few years off. During this time I would cram as much learning into my mind as I possibly could. This was both fun and beneficial, but to others it was a selfish waste of time, but the truth is that they were followers, not leaders. It is surprising what people will do when they are told to. The point is I don't see these people as being any more of an overall problem when unemployed, mainly because it is more dangerous to be uncreative and obedient when employed as there is no time for improvement. These people would likely find someone to follow in this hypothetical society, and it can be assumed that the projects would be more enlightening than assembling furniture or what have you.

Tommo has good points as well. People, when "forced", tend to get obsessive about details and perfection, sometimes to an unhealthy degree, but not always.
12-06-2011, 02:34 AM
ThePreserver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

It seems a little too much to say this will undoubtedly happen, I just have this feeling that there will necessarily be subtle shortcomings in trying to reconstruct nature.

We also like to try and reconstruct not only human nature but "nature" nature. (See Biosphere II. HEHE). OK, back to whatever it is that we were discussing!
12-06-2011, 05:55 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/p...jpg?1317751303

We're discussing whether the number of jobs that can be provided by an economy is greater or less than the population of the society, as a general principle.

No, we are discussing whether mechanization is going to cause unemployment, not whether there is a balance in population and jobs. Do not try to change the argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

The bit where you assert that human desires require a quantity of work sufficient to provide the population with jobs. I don't know why you're struggling.

All you have said is 'the people working in the redundant industry will go get jobs doing something else'. That's not a logical argument, that's an assertion, and it's the one I'm analysing and you keep ignoring. Who says there are sufficient jobs to go to? By what principle does a new industry emerge; one which people place sufficient value in to employ all of the redundant?

A new industry emerges from the demand of a good or service. People want a music device that they can take on the go, ipods are made in the hope that people will buy them. Creating a commodity or supplying a service does not always infer success though. Like I stated before with the tooth solution, there could be people who do not like the solution and like having to go to the doctor. Preferences are not know in economics until action brings them about. I could like chocolate ice cream, I could like vanilla but an economist does not know which I like more unless I show that through action (ie. buying chocolate instead of vanilla or vice-versa) In economics action exhibit preference. Therefore people who buy my tooth solution prefer it over not buying it and those who do not buy it prefer not buying it to buying it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

I really have zero idea what your argument is. I don't have any 'goals', at the moment I am just performing analysis and trying to ask a question.
For the third time, please: when we reach the point where working machines have intelligence and dexterity greater than their average human counterparts, what jobs are left for the humans?

Whatever human desires that are in demand which machines cannot themselves do. If you are asking for specific jobs then I do not know and neither do you nor does anyone because no one knows the future with certainty. Plus why are you assuming that just because machines have the same if not more intelligence then people that it instantly translates into them having the job? Perhaps there will be people who do not want to deal with machines in their business.
12-06-2011, 05:57 AM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

No, you are talking ab out corporatism by insisting food should be valued based on its scarcity.

No, what I am talking about is allowing the free-market to dictate price.
12-06-2011, 03:32 PM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

No, we are discussing whether mechanization is going to cause unemployment, not whether there is a balance in population and jobs. Do not try to change the argument.

The entire reason I brought up mechanisation was to illustrate the lack of a balance.

Quote:

A new industry emerges from the demand of a good or service. People want a music device that they can take on the go, ipods are made in the hope that people will buy them. Creating a commodity or supplying a service does not always infer success though. Like I stated before with the tooth solution, there could be people who do not like the solution and like having to go to the doctor. Preferences are not know in economics until action brings them about. I could like chocolate ice cream, I could like vanilla but an economist does not know which I like more unless I show that through action (ie. buying chocolate instead of vanilla or vice-versa) In economics action exhibit preference. Therefore people who buy my tooth solution prefer it over not buying it and those who do not buy it prefer not buying it to buying it.

...okay? I am not ignorant of how human desires and free markets work.

Quote:

Whatever human desires that are in demand which machines cannot themselves do. If you are asking for specific jobs then I do not know and neither do you nor does anyone because no one knows the future with certainty. Plus why are you assuming that just because machines have the same if not more intelligence then people that it instantly translates into them having the job? Perhaps there will be people who do not want to deal with machines in their business.

I'm not interested in whether or not it's a certainty (although I do think it very likely and find it a bizarre implausibility that businesses in the free market would opt for more expensive and less effective workers), I'm interested in contingencies and general principles and philosophy.

Now, here is the problem: in the current system, the logical outcome will be a very small number of people owning the means of production, employing nobody. In a libertarian (by your definition) model, almost the entire population could be left with no means of subsistence (if there is insufficient charity). Does this seem moral? It certainly doesn't seem very free for the people arbitrarily born into poverty.

There are also basic economic problems; when ultimately nobody is employed, nobody has wages, so there is no longer anybody to sell goods and services too. The current system just wouldn't make any sense.
12-07-2011, 05:45 PM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

No, what I am talking about is allowing the free-market to dictate price.

Which means you base the value on scarcity which means you put farmers in competition with technology meaning only farmers that can produce incredible mass quantities can make a living, destroying the family farm and giving way to massive farms that monocrop to destroy the soil and use synthetic additives to destroy the oceans and larger ecosystem. And even then, they'd still find some other way to make people all over the world starve because they want their food to be as valuable as possible and that only works when there's people that can't get any.

What I'm suggesting is that the free market does not work with food production. It might have worked before the industrial era but it's time to realized our farming method can now deplete the soil so much faster than it renews itself that we're creating deserts. The natural motivations that would run a free-market based agronomy are detrimental not only to the poorest people but also to the environment. We need to be more responsible than that in this stage of our evolution. We need to stop figuring out how to obtain more profit no matter what and start figuring out how to keep a society running in a sustainable fashion.
12-07-2011, 05:50 PM
Xei

Why would farming corporations want to destroy their own soil?
12-07-2011, 05:58 PM
Original Poster

They don't want to, they have to in a free market in order to make their yield. Fishermen don't want fish to go extinct but because they're in competition with each other that's the way it plays out.
12-07-2011, 06:08 PM
Xei

Well it's true that the free market driven by personal gains do drive fish stocks extinct. I wonder what Laughing Man has to say about that. To what extent is the produce of the ocean the property of a single person anyway?
12-10-2011, 11:28 PM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Which means you base the value on scarcity which means you put farmers in competition with technology meaning only farmers that can produce incredible mass quantities can make a living, destroying the family farm and giving way to massive farms that monocrop to destroy the soil and use synthetic additives to destroy the oceans and larger ecosystem. And even then, they'd still find some other way to make people all over the world starve because they want their food to be as valuable as possible and that only works when there's people that can't get any.

Well you are imposing subjective concepts like "make a living" and "incredible mass quantities." Also imposing the idea that farms have to monocrop which is not the case at all. Nor do they have to use additives. In fact food that is "organic" costs more money (because it is higher valued to the consumer) then non-organic food. Also do you not see this contradiction in your idea. Farmers have to sell "mass quantities" yet they do not look for new markets in order to sell "mass quantities" because they want their food prices to go higher thereby making them higher profit and yet they cannot "make a living." Am I understanding your idea correctly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

What I'm suggesting is that the free market does not work with food production. It might have worked before the industrial era but it's time to realized our farming method can now deplete the soil so much faster than it renews itself that we're creating deserts. The natural motivations that would run a free-market based agronomy are detrimental not only to the poorest people but also to the environment. We need to be more responsible than that in this stage of our evolution. We need to stop figuring out how to obtain more profit no matter what and start figuring out how to keep a society running in a sustainable fashion.

Now you are complaining that we are destroying the earth because we make too much food and before you were complaining that farmers were not making enough food to keep prices up. Can you give a coherent argument as to why free-market food production is a bad thing?
12-10-2011, 11:34 PM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Well it's true that the free market driven by personal gains do drive fish stocks extinct. I wonder what Laughing Man has to say about that. To what extent is the produce of the ocean the property of a single person anyway?

The ocean is not privatized so there is no incentive in long-term interests. You calling a resource based in the commons, in which it is illegal to bar off private property, a result of free markets is interesting though. We could start establishing fish farms in the ocean itself in which businesses fence off parts of the ocean for fish breeding and farming. Most of the environment of the ocean (the coral and coruscations) are near the inland. People would then have a invested interest in conserving resources for long term goals. When it is a commons, it is just "grab, grab, grab" with no thought of what is going to happen beyond the season.
12-10-2011, 11:47 PM
Laughing Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

The entire reason I brought up mechanisation was to illustrate the lack of a balance.

Markets never achieve equilibrium so there will always be a "lack of balance." That is how the concentration of capital is an impossibility. It would be like throwing an apple in the air and it never coming down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

...okay? I am not ignorant of how human desires and free markets work.

Then why are you asking me how new markets emerge?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not interested in whether or not it's a certainty (although I do think it very likely and find it a bizarre implausibility that businesses in the free market would opt for more expensive and less effective workers), I'm interested in contingencies and general principles and philosophy.

Now, here is the problem: in the current system, the logical outcome will be a very small number of people owning the means of production, employing nobody. In a libertarian (by your definition) model, almost the entire population could be left with no means of subsistence (if there is insufficient charity). Does this seem moral? It certainly doesn't seem very free for the people arbitrarily born into poverty.

There are also basic economic problems; when ultimately nobody is employed, nobody has wages, so there is no longer anybody to sell goods and services too. The current system just wouldn't make any sense.

Explain how the concentration of capital will happen without a government to inhibit entry into markets. How are people just going to become "unemployed?" I thought you "knew human desires" and "how the free market worked?" Human desires are ever evolving. Technology is always progressing/digressing. You seem to be under the impression that every business will have robots, why? Not every individual is "homo economicus." Some people will pay extra because of different psychic values. If this small group of individuals with capital push aside every other human being and they have no one to sell goods or services to then what are they going to do? You are setting up this fantasy of a static society and saying "look! that is what is going to happen!"
12-11-2011, 03:31 AM
Original Poster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

The ocean is not privatized so there is no incentive in long-term interests. You calling a resource based in the commons, in which it is illegal to bar off private property, a result of free markets is interesting though. We could start establishing fish farms in the ocean itself in which businesses fence off parts of the ocean for fish breeding and farming. Most of the environment of the ocean (the coral and coruscations) are near the inland. People would then have a invested interest in conserving resources for long term goals. When it is a commons, it is just "grab, grab, grab" with no thought of what is going to happen beyond the season.

:facepalm:

Fish is an example for how the free market works in general. What kind of strawman was that? Have you forgotten what we're talking about here? You are dodging this point but I'm not going to let it go. The Free Market causes efficiency and profit to overwhelm sustainable measures of collection/production. Every aspect of the economy is turning into "grab, grab, grab" not just the oceans.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:50 PM.