NationStates Jolt Archive

What level of economic equality do you think a society should have? I think that everyone willing to work should get a living wage, even if it must be subsidized through tax dollars. What do you think?

I was going to vote the market forces one, but then I looked at myself.

I'm a student. I'd be dead by now

Ideally, wealth should be abolished and goods shared.

I personally think that the ideal economic system is where everyone gets what they need, no currency either. This doesn't work outside of small communes, and would destroy the economy of any large state, but that is what I'd really like.

Ideally, wealth should be abolished and goods shared.
*cough*no incentive for people to do necessary jobs because they get an equal amount of everything for doing stuff like selling magazines *cough*

I personally think that the ideal economic system is where everyone gets what they need, no currency either. This doesn't work outside of small communes, and would destroy the economy of any large state, but that is what I'd really like.

Ah, but with that, there wouldn't need to be a state, would there? I think one-day, we will reach a technological level to make it feasible on a large scale.

*cough*no incentive for people to do necessary jobs because they get an equal amount of everything for doing stuff like selling magazines *cough*

Nope, because ideally, it will take place in the future where the retail sector and the like are eliminated. I'm talking "ideally" here, not now. Of course theres a transition where bugs such as the above are ironed out. I'm no economist to say how, but it would be best theoretically and probably feasible in due time.

I personally think that the ideal economic system is where everyone gets what they need, no currency either. This doesn't work outside of small communes, and would destroy the economy of any large state, but that is what I'd really like.
Yes, but how long before
a) some nut job sees an opportunity and takes over the communes for his/her own personal greed
b) they collapse into a 1984-style terror based dictatorship

Also, how would you implement it in the first place? Humans are bastards at heart, most places would never accept it and therefore would be at an advantage over the communes because they could have enormous wealth and be able to buy lots of big shiny weapons

I think the economy now in first world nations is pretty good.

But as the world population increases....

I think the economy now in first world nations is pretty good.

But as the world population increases....
I didn't know this, but there are now 2 countries with over a billion people in them - China and India. That is one hell of a lot of people

Yay... Its true that the best economy would be a ideal communism, where everyone get's what they need. Ofcourse there still should be some special benefit's for people doing harder/more dangerous job's, but the main point is that there wouldn't be people trying to stack all the wealth to themselfs while other people suffer.

However that can't bea achieved easily, so i believe that what countries should do is take more takes from the rich, and corporations, as rich people still are rich if you take 40% off theyr wage, and if you give them more money it will be of no use. Also goverment should give tax cut's to the poor people, since they will use all the money they get for theyr living, and it will benefit the corporations and economy. Also goverment's should be increasing social security, becouse people really should support those not capable of taking care of themselfs.


I hope you got my idea even as my english is as bad as it is.

Yay... Its true that the best economy would be a ideal communism, where everyone get's what they need.

Its too bad that 'ideal communism' is just a fantasy that won't work in the real world.


However that can't bea achieved easily, so i believe that what countries should do is take more takes from the rich, and corporations, as rich people still are rich if you take 40% off theyr wage, and if you give them more money it will be of no use.

People with wealth invest that money in making more wealth, not just for themselves but for people all across the spectrum of society. When you take their money from them it gets squandered in bureaucracy and then what remains is generally mis-invested by politicians where it doesn't do the economy as much good. You need barely pay attention to the news to see a parade of examples of government mismanagement.

Also goverment should give tax cut's to the poor people, since they will use all the money they get for theyr living, and it will benefit the corporations and economy. Also goverment's should be increasing social security, becouse people really should support those not capable of taking care of themselfs.

Everyone should get tax cuts, not just the poor. Furthermore, what makes you think that it is just or proper for the government to engage in charity activities? If I want to donate to charity I don't need the government forcing me to do it. If I don't want to donate to charity I don't want the government forcing me to do it.

On paper, communism is the greatest idea since sliced bread. BUt in the real world, if we had communism and I earned more sliced bread than someone else, the goverment would steal it. That's what communism is. Stealing.

All I know is that the USA has a way too huge gap between rich and poor. The combined net-worths of the top 1% is more than that of the combined net-worths of the bottom 40%. That's jsut wrong. And the the thing is, the bottom 40% are the ones who do the hard labor that drives the nation forward. Many in the top 1% do nothing but manipulate money and get rich without contributing anything to the economy.

All I know is that the USA has a way too huge gap between rich and poor. The combined net-worths of the top 1% is more than that of the combined net-worths of the bottom 40%. That's jsut wrong.

That isn't wrong, thats just. The rich people drive the economy forward and benefit us all along the way. The software I'm using on my computer was cheap and its effective. If it were not for the rich people, namely Gates, in the computer industry I'd be poorer, I'd have less free time, and I'd be doing more work. Thats just one obvious example, I can point to almost any object in my home that makes my life easier, more enjoyable, and richer while saying the same thing.


And the the thing is, the bottom 40% are the ones who do the hard labor that drives the nation forward. Many in the top 1% do nothing but manipulate money and get rich without contributing anything to the economy.

If you took away the top 1% and their capital we would revert back into a primative society overnight. The rich contribute an overwhelming proponderance of the economies effectiveness and they also bear an inordinate amount of the risk associated with economic activity. I'm very grateful to the wealthy people and if you had any sense you would be too.

I personally think that the ideal economic system is where everyone gets what they need, no currency either. This doesn't work outside of small communes, and would destroy the economy of any large state, but that is what I'd really like.
i like the way Star Trek (yes i am a nerd) works. real communitarian - taking a leaf out of Rousseau's book. Everyone working for the 'Greater Good', the common goal - the good of humanity. There's no money, no desire for personal aquisition of wealth & power... you do what you are best suited for really. i like that.
sure it wouldnt work today but given time...

Yay... Its true that the best economy would be a ideal communism,

Nope--the best economy is a free economy, regardless of its end result, because it is the only MORALLY PROPER economy.

I'm not sure "a free ride" is the right way to describe someone who is ill and on benifits. If someone is incapacitated, and out of work, would you like to see them starve on the street?

I'm not sure "a free ride" is the right way to describe someone who is ill and on benifits. If someone is incapacitated, and out of work, would you like to see them starve on the street?

Yes! And have their kidneys stolen from them while still alive!!!!

All I know is that the USA has a way too huge gap between rich and poor. The combined net-worths of the top 1% is more than that of the combined net-worths of the bottom 40%. That's jsut wrong. And the the thing is, the bottom 40% are the ones who do the hard labor that drives the nation forward. Many in the top 1% do nothing but manipulate money and get rich without contributing anything to the economy.
That isn't wrong at all. The top 1% could be worth the rest of the next 99% and it wouldn't be wrong. Income gap and income inequality essentially means nothing. I couldn't care if the top 1% earns two million times more than the bottom 1%, because it means nothing by itself. The Economist did an article a while ago about income inquality, and it showed that the poor in America actually have about equal buying power to their European counterparts, despite America having a much larger income gap. What matters isn't equality, but whether the poor are getting by on what they have.

The Economist did an article a while ago about income inquality, and it showed that the poor in America actually have about equal buying power to their European counterparts, despite America having a much larger income gap.

Link please? This is interesting, especially if true.

That isn't wrong at all. The top 1% could be worth the rest of the next 99% and it wouldn't be wrong. Income gap and income inequality essentially means nothing. I couldn't care if the top 1% earns two million times more than the bottom 1%, because it means nothing by itself. The Economist did an article a while ago about income inquality, and it showed that the poor in America actually have about equal buying power to their European counterparts, despite America having a much larger income gap. What matters isn't equality, but whether the poor are getting by on what they have.
i think you may have missed the point. its morally wrong in some people's eyes (mine included) that some people have so much while others have so little comparatively - regardless of their buying power or relative cost of living. a little income inequality is necessary for capatalism to work, but too much ineqality is immoral, unethical and unfair, particularily with respect to the notion that all humans are equal.

Link please? This is interesting, especially if true.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2041155

You need to be a subscriber though. Maybe someone who does besides myself can confirm it for you.

This was an interesting graph in there, though..

http://www.economist.com/images/20030906/CUS978.gif

i think you may have missed the point. its morally wrong in some people's eyes (mine included) that some people have so much while others have so little comparatively - regardless of their buying power or relative cost of living. a little income inequality is necessary for capatalism to work, but too much ineqality is immoral, unethical and unfair, particularily with respect to the notion that all humans are equal.
There's the problem, all humans aren't equal.

There's the problem, all humans aren't equal.
meh true, but some (again me inc) think that they should be. or at least more equal.

It saddens how many communist welfare queens there are voting here.

i think you may have missed the point. its morally wrong in some people's eyes (mine included) that some people have so much while others have so little comparatively - regardless of their buying power or relative cost of living. a little income inequality is necessary for capatalism to work, but too much ineqality is immoral, unethical and unfair, particularily with respect to the notion that all humans are equal.

You must have very strange definations of morality and ethics to come to that conclusion. Humans are equal, but only in a political sense, under the law. We have equal liberties, but as for the rest of our attributes, including our ability to earn money, those are naturally unequal.

You must have very strange definations of morality and ethics to come to that conclusion. Humans are equal, but only in a political sense, under the law. We have equal liberties, but as for the rest of our attributes, including our ability to earn money, those are naturally unequal.
i just believe in, and want to strive for, a more equal distribution of resources - not just eqality in a fundamental rights (equal liberty) sense. nor a communist sense :rolleyes:

Pure communism never works, pure capitalism never works. Somewhere in the middle is best. Like have plenty of private enterprise, but with benefits for the very poor, people with children below a certain income, public health service etc. The UK would be a good example, if it wasn't for the fact that we seem to get a lot of this wrong

i just believe in, and want to strive for, a more equal distribution of resources - not just eqality in a fundamental rights (equal liberty) sense. nor a communist sense :rolleyes:


However, in order to do that you have to grant government a dangerous amount of power and trample on the liberties of the people.

Just enough welfare to keep the poorest alive and a free ride for those who can't work.

The government should never allow anyone to starve to death or be homeless.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2041155

You need to be a subscriber though. Maybe someone who does besides myself can confirm it for you.

This was an interesting graph in there, though..

http://www.economist.com/images/20030906/CUS978.gif


Good article. I love The Economist.

However, in order to do that you have to grant government a dangerous amount of power and trample on the liberties of the people.

Yes! Like the Oppressive Danish Government! :D

Yes! And have their kidneys stolen from them while still alive!!!!

Are Gypsies moving into the lucrative business of organ harvesting now? :p

Also, how would you implement it in the first place?
My point exactly.

Everyone should get tax cuts, not just the poor. Furthermore, what makes you think that it is just or proper for the government to engage in charity activities? If I want to donate to charity I don't need the government forcing me to do it. If I don't want to donate to charity I don't want the government forcing me to do it.

Having non-productive members of society who are unable to find a job hurts the entire society. Having members of society with no access to basic healthcare hurts the entire society.

You may not see it, but what the bum/hobo/whatever down the street does *can* and probably does affect your life.

It is in the best interest of the entire society to attempt to curb the amount of poor, homeless, and healthcare-less people.

That said, those who are able but unwilling to work should be cut off from aid of any sort.

That said, those who are able but unwilling to work should be cut off from aid of any sort.
But there are other factors than just lethargy and laziness there. They should be given better education options earlier on. If public school could motivate and encourage younger children, they wouldn't end up as low-lifes later on. And not just to be taught how to be factory workers either. I agree that someone needs to do those low-down jobs, but there is no reason to encourage that future in students. "We don't need no thought control."

Nope--the best economy is a free economy, regardless of its end result, because it is the only MORALLY PROPER economy.

Yes, because it is morally proper to allow large companies to maim and use human beings however they wish to as long as it makes them money.

Because it is morally proper that some kid who was born with a silver spoon up his ass and has never had to work a day in his life should sit around and squander daddy's money while a kid who was born into poverty should work hard all of his life and still end up homeless and struggling to find work.

Yeah, that's morally proper.

Nope--the best economy is a free economy, regardless of its end result, because it is the only MORALLY PROPER economy.
Well, actually, I believe that libertarian economics is superior economically, and authoritarian economics is better socially and environmentally. That seems to be the trend, and it all depends on one's priorities. I personally am liberal, but I do see the other side of the coin. (pardon the pun...)

But there are other factors than just lethargy and laziness there.

Not in the cases I am talking about.

They should be given better education options earlier on.

This I will agree with.

If public school could motivate and encourage younger children, they wouldn't end up as low-lifes later on.

This only applies to some.

And not just to be taught how to be factory workers either. I agree that someone needs to do those low-down jobs, but there is no reason to encourage that future in students. "We don't need no thought control."

There is no reason to discourage it either. Some people are destined for low-skill jobs. There is nothing wrong with that, and we should not give students the false impression that *everyone* should go to college and get a degree and become a doctor or lawyer.

Yes, because it is morally proper to allow large companies to maim and use human beings however they wish to as long as it makes them money.


That's a completely different issue. No one said that allowing companies to commit illegal and harmful acts was ok.

This only applies to some.
Yes, that is true. But only some.

There is no reason to discourage it either. Some people are destined for low-skill jobs. There is nothing wrong with that, and we should not give students the false impression that *everyone* should go to college and get a degree and become a doctor or lawyer.
You are right. But I advise everyone to read Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol. It is very eye-opening, and shows quite a few things I was unaware of. But certainly we should not make the impression that college education is the only way to be a decent person. Just give them the academic and psychological opportunities offered to others as well.

However, in order to do that you have to grant government a dangerous amount of power and trample on the liberties of the people.
nope. just high economic interference. leave civil liberties alone

that's what being a leftie liberal is all about :D

I think money is unnecessary. Wealth should be measured by effort, not by money. I believe in the saying "from each according to ability, to each according to need".

I think money is unnecessary. Wealth should be measured by effort, not by money. I believe in the saying "from each according to ability, to each according to need".

It is a beautiful saying. The problem is that it ignores the human element. Many, many humans would like it to say "from each according to whatever he can get away with, to each according to what he wants."

There has to be some incentive for working to the best of your ability - namely, that you get something more for it. For some of us, work ethic is just that - ethical. For many, they couldn't care less as long as they get what they want.

Everyone should get tax cuts, not just the poor. Furthermore, what makes you think that it is just or proper for the government to engage in charity activities? If I want to donate to charity I don't need the government forcing me to do it. If I don't want to donate to charity I don't want the government forcing me to do it.
I don't agree with communism, but I think taxes for social welfare are a necessary evil. For charity to achieve what social welfare does, each citizen would be required to give thousands per year. Let's face it, as someone said, people are bastards and they're not going to do that voluntarily.

Nope--the best economy is a free economy, regardless of its end result, because it is the only MORALLY PROPER economy.
It is wrong for the government to steal money in taxes. But it is far more wrong to have millions dying on the streets because they can't afford a home or food. That is the end result of a free economy, and there's nothing moral about it.

Pure communism never works, pure capitalism never works. Somewhere in the middle is best. Like have plenty of private enterprise, but with benefits for the very poor, people with children below a certain income, public health service etc. The UK would be a good example, if it wasn't for the fact that we seem to get a lot of this wrong
I agree. Electing blind ideologues as leaders ends in disaster (see the UK). The centre is best. I think Sweden has got this pretty well down.

Having non-productive members of society who are unable to find a job hurts the entire society. Having members of society with no access to basic healthcare hurts the entire society.

You may not see it, but what the bum/hobo/whatever down the street does *can* and probably does affect your life.

It is in the best interest of the entire society to attempt to curb the amount of poor, homeless, and healthcare-less people.

That said, those who are able but unwilling to work should be cut off from aid of any sort.

I dont belive most people refuse to work, but they have problems like drugs, and junk like that, and they can be rehablitated into working members of sociaty

That's a completely different issue. No one said that allowing companies to commit illegal and harmful acts was ok.
That's what lack of regulation leads to. I recommend Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. It has a few chapters about working conditions in the deregulated meatpacking industry of the United States.

It is in the best interest of the entire society to attempt to curb the amount of poor, homeless, and healthcare-less people.

That said, those who are able but unwilling to work should be cut off from aid of any sort.
I agree 100%.

Just enough welfare for the poor to survive BUT with good free healthcare and good free education(including collage) and housing scemes that I think would be the most equal without Communism

I dont belive most people refuse to work, but they have problems like drugs, and junk like that, and they can be rehablitated into working members of sociaty

And the purpose of social welfare should be to do so.

However, if they are unwilling to participate (be rehabilitated and become working members of society), which would apply to some people, they should be cut off.

That's what lack of regulation leads to. I recommend Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. It has a few chapters about working conditions in the deregulated meatpacking industry of the United States.


That still has nothing to do with the issue of government safety nets.

Just enough welfare for the poor to survive BUT with good free healthcare and good free education(including collage) that I think would be the most equal without Communism

Why do you think that everyone should go to college?

This is one of the problems with the education system in the US. College is *higher* education, not necessary education, and not universal education. *Everyone* should not go to college.

I said FREE
getting into collage would depend on how well you do in tests on leaving second level education. Like we have in my country.

I said FREE
getting into collage would depend on how well you do in tests on leaving second level education. Like we have in my country.

Free? Nothing is free. Someone is paying for it. Anyone can afford college - just take out a loan.

yeah, yeah. free as in we pay taxes for it.

My point of view:

-Poor fools!? You do not rearly get... You can have both wealth and a system who takes care of the poor, at the same time. It is not a choice between no rich or alot a poor people.

-But you can be sure about one thing: A rich guy will tell you that you cannot both. NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY get. The reason is proberly that he do not want to pay 5% or 10% more in taxes.

-I know this is not about the USA, but try to look at Skandinavia. Because of our policy: We are RICH, have BETTER personal and political freedoms, GOOD social system, LOW crime, LOW Coruption, FREE health care, FREE schools, FREE university, HELP with medicine expences, but also HIGH taxes. Compared with the USA we have a far better standard of living. And even though we tax the rich quite hard... somehow they seem to manage anyway :) ;)

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Free? Nothing is free. Someone is paying for it. Anyone can afford college - just take out a loan.
OK.

*takes out a loan*
*fails college*
*can't pay back loan*
*credit blacklisted*

Distirbution of wealth should be a lot more even than it is in the U.S. I mean, jeez.

OK.

*takes out a loan*
*fails college*

Looks like you shouldn't have been there in the first place.

*can't pay back loan*
*credit blacklisted*

Your own fault.

OK.

*takes out a loan*
*fails college*
*can't pay back loan*
*credit blacklisted*
you sure failed collage fast!

I said FREE
getting into collage would depend on how well you do in tests on leaving second level education. Like we have in my country.

Having it free suggests that anyone should be able to get in.

Guess what? We have tests for scholarships and financial aid.

anyone SHOULD be ABLE to get in if they get equal education unless they dont do the work or they're "intellectually impaired".

The fundamental problem is that people always want more. Why learn to be a doctor or a lawyer? For the money. Why go to that bother if you could make the same amount of money working in a shop. People always want things that are bigger, better, newer than they can afford. You will never have an equal society. It would take a gigantic shift in human beliefs and society.

Money makes the world go round after all.

Agreed, going to university should be about intellect, not bank balance.

I'd rather see companies pay a penalty for having huge wage gaps from the lowest paid to the highest paid. A CEO getting 1000X's more than the poor shmuck cleaning toilets is ludicrous and morally corrupt. Companies would have a stong incentive to raise wages to something closer to a living wage and thier CEO may take a paycut, but then there is more incentive for the CEO to benefit the company rather than fill thier golden parachute.
Even a ratio set at 300x the lowest wage paid ($7/hr) makes the cap $4368000/yr. Still pretty outragous, and $7/hr is not a living wage in most of the USA.
And the penalty, that can go to government programs for the needy, unemployment.

I'd rather see companies pay a penalty for having huge wage gaps from the lowest paid to the highest paid. A CEO getting 1000X's more than the poor shmuck cleaning toilets is ludicrous and morally corrupt. Companies would have a stong incentive to raise wages to something closer to a living wage and thier CEO may take a paycut, but then there is more incentive for the CEO to benefit the company rather than fill thier golden parachute.
Even a ratio set at 300x the lowest wage paid ($7/hr) makes the cap $4368000/yr. Still pretty outragous, and $7/hr is not a living wage in most of the USA.
And the penalty, that can go to government programs for the needy, unemployment.
They'd just get around it. Like useing a cleaning company to come in instead of hiring them directly.

I pesonally think that the New Labour ideal of "Equality through oppotunity" is the right way to go

No. Applies to wages paid to contract workers as well. Part-time or seasonal. Plus, the contracting company will also be having to conform to wage parity- they'll like the rule because they charge usually double to triple the wage, pocketing that extra.
Why companies use contract workers so much now boggles my mind. It hurts moral and really affects the bottom line beyond just what they are paying.

IIt is wrong for the government to steal money in taxes.
Since government cannot exist without economic power, then all government other than anarchy is evil by that mindset.

Anyone can afford college - just take out a loan.
Some people could do that, but even if they graduate form college and can get a job, the debt might prevent them from ever really accomplishing anything.

The fundamental problem is that people always want more. Why learn to be a doctor or a lawyer? For the money.
That may sometimes be true, but certainly not always. Some people want to become a doctor because they want to and are interested in health, science, and/or helping life (veterinarians are included as doctors). There are plenty of doctors who have non-financial reasons to want that. Same thing for lawyers. They very well may enjoy what they do. I could go into it more, but I am articulating my point poorly.

I think that inequality should be harnessed for it's possible benefits whilst possible negative effects are mitigated as much as is pragmatic.

I believe that the lowest paid full time wage should be enough to comfortably support a person so that they can pay for day to day expenses, have some savings, and still have some cash for luxeries and entertainment. I believe if you are especially competent and hardworking you should have earnings that allow you to accrue long term assets beyond house/car. I believe if you dont invest the time and money in tertiary eduction you should still be able to make a decent and comfortable living, but if you do attend tertiary education, are competent and work hard, that you can be much better off than comfortable.

The fact is we only need so many doctors, bankers, stock brokers, accountants lawyers etc. We also need street cleaners, truck drivers, cab drivers, waiters and waitresses, short order cooks, low level clerks, janitors, gas attendents, etc. Since we cannot support a society in which everyone works in a field that requires tertiary eduction, and since eduction is expensive, and since we need unskilled/semi-skilled workers, it seems reasonable to expect that the meanest full time job would comfortably support a person, so we dont have too much competition for higher paid jobs, and we dont end up sending legitimate productive work off-shore, or bringing in cheap labourers from overseas. The most deficient person, should still if they are willing to work to the best of their ability, be able to bring in a comfortable wage; that way they are unlikely to become a crime statistic, will be self supporting, and able to put something aside to ensure they dont become a burden on their family or the community when they retire.

So there should be enough inequality to provide motivation to those who can be exceptional, but not such great inequality that those who are at best mundane (and even less than competent) can still if they are hard working, earn a more than comfortable living.

Having non-productive members of society who are unable to find a job hurts the entire society. Having members of society with no access to basic healthcare hurts the entire society.


Its far more harmful to society to have government confiscate a portion of the general citizens property for the purpose of engaging in charitable activities though. You talk about how harmful it is when people can't find jobs and then you immediate advocate a practice which would eliminate jobs. Whenever you tax the people you suck money out of the economy that would normally have went for job creation. In exchange you spend it on bureaucracy, which creates nothing, and you spend it in a way counter to how the citizen you took it from would have spent it. When you artifically alter the methods of spending you alter the methods of production. You will harm the economy. You will eliminate jobs. You will create a new underclass of dependent people and widen the problem of cronic poverty.


It is in the best interest of the entire society to attempt to curb the amount of poor, homeless, and healthcare-less people.


I agree. The best way to accomplish those goals are to get the government completely out of it. The people, left to their own devices, will create a wealthier society, more jobs, and more opportunity for everyone who wants it.

That said, those who are able but unwilling to work should be cut off from aid of any sort.

I have no problem with giving people like that aid provided that the people giving the aid do so willingly and privately. The government has no interest in taking my money for charity.

just high economic interference. leave civil liberties alone

You draw a distinction where none exist. My liberties are comprehensive, not limited to 'economic' or 'civil liberty.' Indeed, my economic liberty, as you term it, is vital to the maintainance of my civil liberties.


I think money is unnecessary. Wealth should be measured by effort, not by money. I believe in the saying "from each according to ability, to each according to need".

Money is a measure of effort. From each according to their ability is a pipe dream. Who decides what each person's ability is? What happens if I don't want to give my full ability? To each according to their need is likewise subjective. My need is not something for a paper pushing bureaucrat or for my fellow citizen to determine. We're not a bunch of farm animals expected to pull the plow by day for our pittance of grain at night.

I don't agree with communism, but I think taxes for social welfare are a necessary evil. For charity to achieve what social welfare does, each citizen would be required to give thousands per year. Let's face it, as someone said, people are bastards and they're not going to do that voluntarily.

So if someone doesn't match your defination of a good person then they're a "bastard" and deserve to have their money stripped from them for the wonderful works that you think they should be doing. Thats not only arrogent, but its dangerously short sighted. What happens when we identify another good work that the government should be doing only this time it comes out of your proverbial hide instead of some faceless rich person you already descriminate against? Lets face it, government is wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt. Private charity will be far better able suited to help the needy and voluntary donations will ensure that charity remains a democratic process not a dictatorial one. Society will be able to freely allocate its resources as it desires instead of having one group of people forcing their views on everyone else.


It is wrong for the government to steal money in taxes. But it is far more wrong to have millions dying on the streets because they can't afford a home or food. That is the end result of a free economy, and there's nothing moral about it.

The end result of a free economy is not "millions dying" on the streets. I'm not sure from whence you've conjured up this fantasy notion of a free market, but it simply isn't true. To the extent that the modern world is rich and prosperous is entirely due to the mechanism of the free market getting government off the backs of the people and letting them create the wealth. If you want to do the most good for the most people then get rid of as much government as possible and watch the coffers of society, rich and poor, overflow.

Whenever you tax the people you suck money out of the economy that would normally have went for job creation.
Though that may be the case sometimes, it is certainly not a rule.

You will harm the economy.
I do, however, agree with this. It is typically worse for the economy the more control the government has over it. There is no profit motive. However, there are things other than just the economy. There is social equality, which a free market is typically bad about, and the environment, which it is notoriously terrible about.

You draw a distinction where none exist. My liberties are comprehensive, not limited to 'economic' or 'civil liberty.' Indeed, my economic liberty, as you term it, is vital to the maintainance of my civil liberties.
If you say there is no difference between civil and economic liberty, then you are wrong. There are at least four levels of governmental ideology. There are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and authoritarians. They all are determined by social and economic ideals, which are separate.


From each according to their ability is a pipe dream.
Unfortunately, yes. It will never work because of human greed. But it's a nice dream, you have to admit.

I'd rather see companies pay a penalty for having huge wage gaps from the lowest paid to the highest paid. A CEO getting 1000X's more than the poor shmuck cleaning toilets is ludicrous and morally corrupt. Companies would have a stong incentive to raise wages to something closer to a living wage and thier CEO may take a paycut, but then there is more incentive for the CEO to benefit the company rather than fill thier golden parachute.
Even a ratio set at 300x the lowest wage paid ($7/hr) makes the cap $4368000/yr. Still pretty outragous, and $7/hr is not a living wage in most of the USA.
And the penalty, that can go to government programs for the needy, unemployment.

If the people who own the company think the CEO is worth millions and the janitor is worth $6 an hour then who are we to disagree with them? Do you think that if a company could hire a CEO for less and get the same performance they wouldn't? Both the janitor and the CEO are free to quit their jobs if they think their services are not adequately compensated. You are so eager to hand out judgement about the practices of business yet you seem to know absolutely nothing about why they work the way they do.

Private charity will be far better able suited to help the needy and voluntary donations will ensure that charity remains a democratic process not a dictatorial one.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if that would work? But for precisely the reason that capitalism is a good system to boost the economy, it is also a system that supports class divides. It is because humans are selfish that capitalism works, and it is because humans are selfish that they won't be charitable on a reasonable level.

Though that may be the case sometimes, it is certainly not a rule.

Actually it is the rule. The vast overwhelming quantity of money that is taxed would have either been spent or invested, both of which would have created jobs. About the only time money isn't creating jobs is when someone stuffs it in a sock drawer and that doesn't happen much anymore, especially with any sizeable quantity of money.


I do, however, agree with this. It is typically worse for the economy the more control the government has over it. There is no profit motive. However, there are things other than just the economy. There is social equality, which a free market is typically bad about, and the environment, which it is notoriously terrible about.

Social equality has no place in a free and just society. Social equality is just a way of saying that the government gets to arbitrarly decide to take away your property and give it to someone else. The environment can be regulated in terms of public commons, but the government has no business telling private property owners what they can or cannot do with their property. Let the free market decide what level of environmental protection they want by way of how they expend their money. If they want a cleaner environment they can purchase environmentally friendly products, if not then they don't have to. Thats the most fair and democratic way to handle such matters.


If you say there is no difference between civil and economic liberty, then you are wrong. There are at least four levels of governmental ideology. There are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and authoritarians. They all are determined by social and economic ideals, which are separate.


I said that civil and economic liberty are so entertwined that you cannot step on one without infringing on the other. If I don't have a right to my own property then how am I to be confident in my right to free speech or free worship? If I can't freely express myself then I am no longer able to make certain types of economic decisions.


Unfortunately, yes. It will never work because of human greed. But it's a nice dream, you have to admit.

No, it sounds like a really bad dream where I have to work much more than I want to.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if that would work? But for precisely the reason that capitalism is a good system to boost the economy, it is also a system that supports class divides. It is because humans are selfish that capitalism works, and it is because humans are selfish that they won't be charitable on a reasonable level.

That is still a decision we have to leave up to the individual if we are to maintain a free and just society. You may not like the outcome of society's choice, but I think that people are more charitable than you suspect. Either way is acceptable to me so long as liberty is upheld.

That is still a decision we have to leave up to the individual if we are to maintain a free and just society. You may not like the outcome of society's choice, but I think that people are more charitable than you suspect. Either way is acceptable to me so long as liberty is upheld.

Liberty cannot exist where the many are subjugated for the benefit of the few.

Liberty cannot exist where the many are subjugated for the benefit of the few.

Exactly, which is why these government programs have got to go. They negatively impact on the large majority of society in higher taxes, lost jobs, and general economic weakness.

The environment can be regulated in terms of public commons, but the government has no business telling private property owners what they can or cannot do with their property. Let the free market decide what level of environmental protection they want by way of how they expend their money. If they want a cleaner environment they can purchase environmentally friendly products, if not then they don't have to. Thats the most fair and democratic way to handle such matters.
I feel this is the most important thing you said. Most humans cannot make real educated desicions on the environment. As Dickens said in A Christmas Carol, the two greatest enemies of mankind are ignorance and want. People do not know what they're doing to the environment. They do not know the repercussions. The fact that other forms of life have to suffer because of human ignorance and greed is unacceptable. We are killing the very land that gives us life. It is horrible beyond belief what we are doing. If everyone took an extensive ecology class, I would be satisfied. Nature is not prepared to deal with human advances at out pace. We are killing ourselves and others. It is unthinkable that humans consider themselves above the natural order. I really don't give a damn about fairness or democracy when it comes to teh environment--it transcends humanity.

Actually it is the rule. The vast overwhelming quantity of money that is taxed would have either been spent or invested, both of which would have created jobs. About the only time money isn't creating jobs is when someone stuffs it in a sock drawer and that doesn't happen much anymore, especially with any sizeable quantity of money.
So I guess there are no government jobs then...my bad. Though it does increase bureaucracy, which I admit does suck.

Social equality has no place in a free and just society. Social equality is just a way of saying that the government gets to arbitrarly decide to take away your property and give it to someone else.
Sorry, but social equality is not the government giving anything to anyone. It is where people are more equal, exteriorly speaking.

I said that civil and economic liberty are so entertwined that you cannot step on one without infringing on the other. If I don't have a right to my own property then how am I to be confident in my right to free speech or free worship? If I can't freely express myself then I am no longer able to make certain types of economic decisions.
By not giving the government power to do that. The government may have no power over social or economic matters, control over both, or control of economic but not social matters. They may be intertwined to you, but that is not necessary.

No, it sounds like a really bad dream where I have to work much more than I want to.
One of the Seven Deadly Sins is sloth, you know.

Social equality has no place in a free and just society. Social equality is just a way of saying that the government gets to arbitrarly decide to take away your property and give it to someone else. The environment can be regulated in terms of public commons, but the government has no business telling private property owners what they can or cannot do with their property. Let the free market decide what level of environmental protection they want by way of how they expend their money. If they want a cleaner environment they can purchase environmentally friendly products, if not then they don't have to. Thats the most fair and democratic way to handle such matters.

im thinking that you see the government as nothing more than something to keep the peace, and maybe enforce laws, correct? Myself, I see the government as an institution built by the people to correct problems in society - and I see excessive inequality of income and wealth as a problem endemic in society. You don't, right?
However, where do you draw the line? Is the government interfering if it stops you from killing another human? If it stops your business from putting wood shavings and iron filings (say) in the burgers (for eg) that it produces to pad them out? Is this immoral? Should this, on ethical grounds be allowed? This is what the government is for imo (partly) - to enforce the laws that correct 'immorality' and such problems in society.


I said that civil and economic liberty are so entertwined that you cannot step on one without infringing on the other. If I don't have a right to my own property then how am I to be confident in my right to free speech or free worship? If I can't freely express myself then I am no longer able to make certain types of economic decisions.

There is a line between civil and economic inteference. Stopping you killing people would be civil. Stopping you putting shit (that will harm people) in burgers is economic. Regulation of business is economic 'interference' - what you do outside the workplace is civil freedom and your own business imo. Business should be regulated imo, and as a part of that taxes should take on a redistributional quality to address the inequality problem, as i percieve it to be, in society. I can see how you can think that this partially creeps into civil liberty, but I am confident in my government not to take my civil liberties away.

I can see how you can think that this partially creeps into civil liberty, but I am confident in my government not to take my civil liberties away.
I envy you Britons...

Hello!

I went for this one,
'Limits on the wealth anyone can earn with the excess spread among the rest of the population'
I think this is best and the fairest. I dont think anyone should earnover £200,000 a year. Big Businesses that earn substantial profits should be taxed more. Rich Soccer players like David Beckham could easily be taxed 80%of his yearly Salary and still have loads of money left over to be richer than the rest of us, and that cash could be put into all sortsof useful projects.

I feel this is the most important thing you said. Most humans cannot make real educated desicions on the environment. As Dickens said in A Christmas Carol, the two greatest enemies of mankind are ignorance and want.

I wasn't aware that Dicken's Christmas Carol was a big pillar of political philosophical thought.

People do not know what they're doing to the environment. They do not know the repercussions. The fact that other forms of life have to suffer because of human ignorance and greed is unacceptable.

Humans are more important than other forms of life. We tame the environment to better suit our needs and goals. Furthermore, if 'the people' are unable to take into account the proper ways in which to manage the environment then what makes you think that a government of, by, and for the people can do so? What makes you think the people can elect representatives to do for them what they are too ignorent and greedy to do for themselves?

We are killing the very land that gives us life. It is horrible beyond belief what we are doing. If everyone took an extensive ecology class, I would be satisfied. Nature is not prepared to deal with human advances at out pace. We are killing ourselves and others.

We're far from killing ourselves, we live longer healthier lives than ever before in history. The animal species that best service us have more numerous populations than they could ever hope to have in nature. There is nothing inheriently good or right about nature and humans are just as much a part of nature as anything else.

It is unthinkable that humans consider themselves above the natural order. I really don't give a damn about fairness or democracy when it comes to teh environment--it transcends humanity.

So you care more about non-sentient creatures than about your fellow man? What does that tell us about you?

So I guess there are no government jobs then...my bad. Though it does increase bureaucracy, which I admit does suck.

Government jobs to oversee wealth redistribution don't create wealth, it just drains it.

Sorry, but social equality is not the government giving anything to anyone. It is where people are more equal, exteriorly speaking.

Equality at the expense of liberty is despotism. You're right though, it isn't about the government giving, its about the government wrongfully taking.

By not giving the government power to do that. The government may have no power over social or economic matters, control over both, or control of economic but not social matters. They may be intertwined to you, but that is not necessary.

Ah, but it is necessary. A couple of examples from both directions is in order. If the government restrains my civil liberty of freedom of expression then it restrains my economic liberty of how I may dispose of my property. If the government infringes on my economic liberty of who I conduct business with and on what terms then it infringes on my civil liberty of free association. We've tried to compartmentalize our liberties into economic vs. civil so that we can justify infringing on one without feeling like the totality of our liberty is being disturbed. We shouldn't make those distinctions, else we risk losing it all.


One of the Seven Deadly Sins is sloth, you know.

Thou shalt not steal.

im thinking that you see the government as nothing more than something to keep the peace, and maybe enforce laws, correct?

I give up a portion of my property in order for the government to protect the rest. The government has other roles, but thats the biggest one.

Myself, I see the government as an institution built by the people to correct problems in society - and I see excessive inequality of income and wealth as a problem endemic in society. You don't, right?


Maybe your government was built to be your overlord, but mine wasn't.


However, where do you draw the line? Is the government interfering if it stops you from killing another human?

My life is my property so the government should defend the life of all citizens.

If it stops your business from putting wood shavings and iron filings (say) in the burgers (for eg) that it produces to pad them out?

The government need only mandate transparancy, the free market will do the rest.

Is this immoral? Should this, on ethical grounds be allowed? This is what the government is for imo (partly) - to enforce the laws that correct 'immorality' and such problems in society.


Its not so simple as to say this is moral, this isn't. The government rarely needs to be involved in such subjective ventures.


There is a line between civil and economic inteference. Stopping you killing people would be civil. Stopping you putting shit (that will harm people) in burgers is economic.

This strawman proves nothing. How is it different from harming someone for a non-economic purpose or harming someone in the persuit of an economic purpose? Furthermore, you utterly ignore my previous line of reasoning which is that if you don't have economic liberty then you can hardly be assured of civil liberty and if you don't have civic liberty then you will be hard pressed to express your economic liberty. What good is my right to travel freely if I have to get a government pass under strict rules to take a government bus?

Regulation of business is economic 'interference' - what you do outside the workplace is civil freedom and your own business imo. Business should be regulated imo, and as a part of that taxes should take on a redistributional quality to address the inequality problem, as i percieve it to be, in society. I can see how you can think that this partially creeps into civil liberty, but I am confident in my government not to take my civil liberties away.

Businesses should be regulated, but only insofar as is necessary to make sure that they are transparent enough to maintain a free market system. As for your inexplicable trust in your government I can only stand amazed at your complacency.

I wasn't aware that Dicken's Christmas Carol was a big pillar of political philosophical thought.
First, it would be Dickens's, since his name is Dickens. Second, Dickens apparently has a more established political philosophy than you do, since if you believe that ignorance and want are not two of humankind's greatest enemies, you're pretty ignorant yourself.

Humans are more important than other forms of life. We tame the environment to better suit our needs and goals.
F**k no! Life is life, and humans are part of life. Are you aware of ants' terraforming habits? There are so many animals that alter their environment and alter themselves to fit the environment. And we cannot f**king "tame" the environment. We have never been able to and will never be able to. That you can think that humans are more important shows a direct lack of knowledge of ecology.

N.B. I get very uncivil when people start talking about the environment in this way, so I apologise for the angry and flaming language that I will likely use.

Furthermore, if 'the people' are unable to take into account the proper ways in which to manage the environment then what makes you think that a government of, by, and for the people can do so? What makes you think the people can elect representatives to do for them what they are too ignorent and greedy to do for themselves?
They aren't good about it, but typically the government has been much better able to at least blunt the impact on the environment by humans much more so than a free market does. Mainly because it is the people in industry that benefit from less environmental control, but there are more people who don't directly benefit than that do.

We're far from killing ourselves, we live longer healthier lives than ever before in history.
Longer? Yes. Healthier? You wish. It's not going to be too long till humans will be unable to survive without large amounts of vaccination. We are putting out huge amount of carcinogens into our environment. We are causing climatic extremes to begin with global warming. We have the ability to destroy nearly all life on this planet. These are just a few examples. You would get quite sick to your stomach if you realised just what we're on our way to doing.

The animal species that best service us have more numerous populations than they could ever hope to have in nature.
There's a good goddamn reason for that, too.

There is nothing inheriently good or right about nature and humans are just as much a part of nature as anything else.
Yes, humans are. What you propose is that humans are a higher form of nature. And nature is pretty much inherently right. I don't see how a person can think otherwise. We all must abide by her rules, whether we realise it or not.

So you care more about non-sentient creatures than about your fellow man? What does that tell us about you?
That I know that humans are just another organism, and do not hold superiority over other forms of life. We would not be able to survive without the bacteria and protists that live in our gut. We need vegetation and meat matter to survive. All energy originates from the sun--photosynthesis produces the glucose which supports all life.

Equality at the expense of liberty is despotism.
Despotism is rule by a despot. It is a military state. Equality at the expense of liberty is communism or socialism, not despotism.

We shouldn't make those distinctions, else we risk losing it all.
Nothing risked, nothing gained.

Thou shalt not steal.
Yes, please stop trying to steal the environment form our planet. Please.

Exactly, which is why these government programs have got to go. They negatively impact on the large majority of society in higher taxes, lost jobs, and general economic weakness.

But capitalism is no better. It "transfers" (ie steals) wealth from the producers to the owners.

First, it would be Dickens's, since his name is Dickens. Second, Dickens apparently has a more established political philosophy than you do, since if you believe that ignorance and want are not two of humankind's greatest enemies, you're pretty ignorant yourself.

Actually, I just moved the apostrophe into the wrong location, it should have read Dickens' although I believe Dickens's is acceptable too. I'm not sure why you though such a minor detail was worthy of wasting time on. Perhaps you like to present a style over substance arguement in addition to your appeal to, in this case a rather shabby, authority.


F**k no! Life is life, and humans are part of life. Are you aware of ants' terraforming habits?

Yes, I am aware that ants move dirt, beavers move twigs, and apes use pointy sticks to harvest their termites. However, life is not life, human life is far more valuable than animal life of any kind. Humans alone among the animals are sentient.

There are so many animals that alter their environment and alter themselves to fit the environment. And we cannot f**king "tame" the environment.

We tame the environment all the time. Human civilization is one huge monument to our triumph over nature. We thwart nature every day with our science, industry, and agriculture. Nature couldn't possibly sustain us by itself. Only after we mold and shape, nay, improve nature can it sustain us as we now live.

We have never been able to and will never be able to. That you can think that humans are more important shows a direct lack of knowledge of ecology.

You keep blustering about how ignorent I am but so far you've failed to offer up a single fact or construct a single arguement as to why you're right and I'm wrong. If you know so much about 'ecology' as you claim then don't just say it, demonstrate it.

N.B. I get very uncivil when people start talking about the environment in this way, so I apologise for the angry and flaming language that I will likely use.

I've never heard someone apologize for something they have yet to do before. If you were truely sorry you would refrain from behavior you feel is offensive. Never fear though, your 'flaming language' won't bother me.


They aren't good about it, but typically the government has been much better able to at least blunt the impact on the environment by humans much more so than a free market does.

I'm not convinced that it has, but regardless, the point is that its an infringement on the people's liberty as well as being anti-democratic.

Mainly because it is the people in industry that benefit from less environmental control, but there are more people who don't directly benefit than that do.

People in industry benefit most from doing whatever earns them money. If the people only buy environmentally sound products then you can bet that industry will be as green as the people want to pay them to be.

Longer? Yes. Healthier? You wish.

You typically don't live longer unless you're healthier too.

It's not going to be too long till humans will be unable to survive without large amounts of vaccination.

Thats better than getting sick of a preventable disease and dying or being crippled as a child.

We are putting out huge amount of carcinogens into our environment.

I'll tolerate higher cancer rates at an elderly age so long as I actually get to become elderly with all my comfortable life styles and vaccines.

We are causing climatic extremes to begin with global warming.

Are we really? Science has not forclosed on that proclaimation.

We have the ability to destroy nearly all life on this planet.

Not really, probably not even all human life. Nuclear weapons is what I'm assuming you are referring to.


Yes, humans are. What you propose is that humans are a higher form of nature. And nature is pretty much inherently right. I don't see how a person can think otherwise. We all must abide by her rules, whether we realise it or not.

So by that logic then whatever we do is 'natural' so you shouldn't have a problem with our activities.


That I know that humans are just another organism, and do not hold superiority over other forms of life. We would not be able to survive without the bacteria and protists that live in our gut. We need vegetation and meat matter to survive. All energy originates from the sun--photosynthesis produces the glucose which supports all life.

We can't survive without a lot of things, that doesn't prove anything. I can't run as fast as a horse, but I can get in a car and be in the next state in a couple of hours. I can't fly like a bird but I can hop on a jet and be in the next country before lunch. Mankind is superior to all other creatures because of our intellect. Even the things you assume we need now are things we can already create artifically or things we will likely be able to create artificially oneday. Nothing is restrained from us, we have mastered much of this world and no doubt it is within our potential to master everything completely.


Despotism is rule by a despot. It is a military state. Equality at the expense of liberty is communism or socialism, not despotism.

Despotism is absolutist rule which is just what your brand of tyranny constitutes. Even democracy can be despotic, didn't you know?


Nothing risked, nothing gained.


Old cliches are hardly relevant here.

Yes, please stop trying to steal the environment form our planet. Please.

We own the planet, not the other way around.

But capitalism is no better. It "transfers" (ie steals) wealth from the producers to the owners.

Incorrect. The owners are the producers. If I own a factory then all the goods produced by the machines that I own is mine. All the labor that the employee puts into running my capital is what he owns and is compensated for in the form of his wage which we mutually agreed on. Furthermore, the employee risks nothing, he is simply there. The owner on the otherhand has all the risk since he has sunk his capital into the means of production which he will lose should the company fail.

Actually, I just moved the apostrophe into the wrong location, it should have read Dickens' although I believe Dickens's is acceptable too. I'm not sure why you though such a minor detail was worthy of wasting time on. Perhaps you like to present a style over substance arguement in addition to your appeal to, in this case a rather shabby, authority.
Well, grammar freaks, which one of my English teachers was, clearly state that the possessive there is always an aposrophe then an "s" for all names, even those that end with an "s". Though there are some anmes, primarily archaïc Greek and Roman names, where that is acceptable. But I was just pointing that out.

Yes, I am aware that ants move dirt, beavers move twigs, and apes use pointy sticks to harvest their termites. However, life is not life, human life is far more valuable than animal life of any kind. Humans alone among the animals are sentient.
Well, social animals do a lot more than just move dirt. Ants actually are extremely creative and intuitive at times with some species. Bees cluster together during winter and move around a lot to generate heat, primarily to protect the queen, during winter. They create their own shelter from waxy excretions from some bees. There are many examples of animals modifying their environment, though I admit it is pretty much restricted to social insects and humans...

We thwart nature every day with our science, industry, and agriculture. Nature couldn't possibly sustain us by itself. Only after we mold and shape, nay, improve nature can it sustain us as we now live.
Well, to be more accurate, we use our knowledge of nature. We actually can't "thwart" it, though we can attack it. And do you know why nature could never possibly sustain the current amount of humans? Because we've exceeded the population limit that is reasonable. So I guess we do thwart nature...and we will pay the consequences.

You keep blustering about how ignorent I am but so far you've failed to offer up a single fact or construct a single arguement as to why you're right and I'm wrong. If you know so much about 'ecology' as you claim then don't just say it, demonstrate it.
I know, I know. But I've tried doing that, and the subject is just too hard to explain over the medium of an internet forum. Would you like me to explain biodiversity, ecological thermodynamics, the trophic tree, the biogeochemical cycles, the fatty magnification of chemical pesticides as they go up the food chain, acid rain, global warming, etc.? I can try with some of them if you're willing to learn, but for some reason I'm doubtful.

I've never heard someone apologize for something they have yet to do before. If you were truely sorry you would refrain from behavior you feel is offensive. Never fear though, your 'flaming language' won't bother me.
I gave a preëmptive apology because I know I can lose my temper easily, and resort to vulgarities. And you're right, I probably am not truly sorry.

I'm not convinced that it has, but regardless, the point is that its an infringement on the people's liberty as well as being anti-democratic.
Well, it does infringe on liberties, though I wouldn't say it's "anti-democratic", per se. But when it comes to the environment, I am for life before liberty.

People in industry benefit most from doing whatever earns them money. If the people only buy environmentally sound products then you can bet that industry will be as green as the people want to pay them to be.
Yes, and then we get into the aforementioned ignorance on multiple levels.

You typically don't live longer unless you're healthier too.
You also typically don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I'll tolerate higher cancer rates at an elderly age so long as I actually get to become elderly with all my comfortable life styles and vaccines.
Ignorance is bliss until you realise you've been lied to and f**ked up the ass.

Are we really? Science has not forclosed on that proclaimation.
Perhaps not Bush's science, but it is happening. Humans are certainly influencing global warming. The real issue is just how much that is. It may be there are larger factors at work, though I personally think that humans have a big chunk of it at least.

Not really, probably not even all human life. Nuclear weapons is what I'm assuming you are referring to.
Fission warheads are one part of this. But we certainly could not survive if even some of the U.S.'s nukes went off. The radiation would be so damaging...though I guess there could be some terribly deformed individuals left, but they'd probably die off because they would be incapable of getting any food. But, believe me, humans certainly have enough explosives to kill off all humans.

Despotism is absolutist rule which is just what your brand of tyranny constitutes. Even democracy can be despotic, didn't you know?
Absolutism is absolutist rule. Dictatorial or totalitarian government are closer to this. But despotism is military rule, though I am aware that some people use it differently. However, real despotism requires there to be power in a monarchy or an oligarchy, and that isn't real democracy. Democracy comes from the Greek dêmos, common people, and -kratia, power. If the power isn't in the hands of the people, it isn't true democracy.

We own the planet, not the other way around.
Though the planet doesn't own us, we certainly cannot own the planet we live on. Ownership is in the eyes of the beholder, but has no significance objectively.

*cough*no incentive for people to do necessary jobs because they get an equal amount of everything for doing stuff like selling magazines *cough*
The incentive for people doing those necesary jobs would be those people deciding that those jobs are necessary.

Well, social animals do a lot more than just move dirt...though I admit it is pretty much restricted to social insects and humans.


That doesn't impact in the least bit on anything I said.


Well, to be more accurate, we use our knowledge of nature. We actually can't "thwart" it, though we can attack it. And do you know why nature could never possibly sustain the current amount of humans? Because we've exceeded the population limit that is reasonable. So I guess we do thwart nature...and we will pay the consequences.


I'm thwarting nature right now by being inside an artifically heated home. Everytime we alter nature we in effect thwart it unless you want to say we are a part of nature and everything we do is thus natural. I'm not sure how you have come to the conclusion that we have exceeded the planet's population limit. We have large amounts of sparsely inhabited land left and much more food production potential.


I know, I know. But I've tried doing that, and the subject is just too hard to explain over the medium of an internet forum. Would you like me to explain biodiversity, ecological thermodynamics, the trophic tree, the biogeochemical cycles, the fatty magnification of chemical pesticides as they go up the food chain, acid rain, global warming, etc.? I can try with some of them if you're willing to learn, but for some reason I'm doubtful.

If something is relevant to the discussion and you want to use it then you're going to have to put a little more effort into it than just saying 'I know ecology.' That kind of appeal to authority is pointless since it is hard to confront an arguement that you don't detail.


Well, it does infringe on liberties, though I wouldn't say it's "anti-democratic", per se. But when it comes to the environment, I am for life before liberty.


At least you are upfront about your anti-liberty, anti-democracy, despotic tendacies. Now if we could just get you to lay out an arguement to support your position we might get somewhere.

Yes, and then we get into the aforementioned ignorance on multiple levels.

Ah, so you who no better than your fellow man shall dictate to them how they should live their lives? Perhaps someone else comes along who thinks they are smarter than you. According to your logic we should let them run your life.


You also typically don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Not sure what this is getting at.


Ignorance is bliss until you realise you've been lied to and f**ked up the ass.


Do you have a point?

Perhaps not Bush's science, but it is happening. Humans are certainly influencing global warming. The real issue is just how much that is. It may be there are larger factors at work, though I personally think that humans have a big chunk of it at least.

Re-stating the same assertion isn't proving it. The fact of the matter is that science is not in uniform agreement about if global warming is happening. It is also a fact that the people on the side of global warming also have political axes to grind and an agenda to push. Lets stick to the subject, but if you want to start questioning motives the pro-global warming crowd has a lot more skeletons in their closet than you can hope to match by flailing around with snide pointless remarks about 'Bush's science.'



Fission warheads are one part of this. But we certainly could not survive if even some of the U.S.'s nukes went off. The radiation would be so damaging...though I guess there could be some terribly deformed individuals left, but they'd probably die off because they would be incapable of getting any food. But, believe me, humans certainly have enough explosives to kill off all humans.

The US doesn't have enough nukes to cause total destruction over the entire landmass of the US, let alone the world. You'd have higher rates of cancer, but in a realistic nuclear war scenario most rural people would survive. There would still be survivors even if we went about bombing in a systematic fashion. Radiation also wouldn't be as big an issue as it was 50 years ago. Modern nukes explode more cleanly and at optimal air burst range there would be very little vaporization of dirt to cause atmospheric loading of radioactive material. Most radiation would be short term ionizing radiation from the blast itself.


Absolutism is absolutist rule. Dictatorial or totalitarian government are closer to this. But despotism is military rule, though I am aware that some people use it differently. However, real despotism requires there to be power in a monarchy or an oligarchy, and that isn't real democracy. Democracy comes from the Greek dêmos, common people, and -kratia, power. If the power isn't in the hands of the people, it isn't true democracy.

Maybe you should consult the friendly dictionary (since you've obviously not read Tocqueville or else you'd know what I was talking about in the abstract)
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=absolutism
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=despotism

If you'll note, despotism can be characterized as absolutism and absolutism can be characterized as "government by an absolute ruler or authority." In this case the government is that despotic absolute authority.

In any case you completely blew past the point I was getting at, namely that your policies are unjust and anti-democratic.



Though the planet doesn't own us, we certainly cannot own the planet we live on. Ownership is in the eyes of the beholder, but has no significance objectively.

Possession is ownership is it not? I think we all know who possesses the planet.

Also, how would you implement it in the first place? Humans are bastards at heart, most places would never accept it and therefore would be at an advantage over the communes because they could have enormous wealth and be able to buy lots of big shiny weapons
First, you start in places where the humans have decided to not be bastards and get along and share equally. If this happens and is successful enough, people everywhere will wish to follow the example. If it isn't, oh, well.

That isn't wrong, thats just. The rich people drive the economy forward and benefit us all along the way. The software I'm using on my computer was cheap and its effective. If it were not for the rich people, namely Gates, in the computer industry I'd be poorer, I'd have less free time, and I'd be doing more work. Thats just one obvious example, I can point to almost any object in my home that makes my life easier, more enjoyable, and richer while saying the same thing.
If Gates didn't do what he did, then Linux or someone else would have.

That's a completely different issue. No one said that allowing companies to commit illegal and harmful acts was ok.
If you have huge income inequality, then by definition you are allowing companies to commit illegal and harmful acts.

If Gates didn't do what he did, then Linux or someone else would have.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, that isn't the point. If Gates or someone else don't stand to benefit then they won't have an incentive to do anything. If they arn't allowed to keep the money they earn they won't have the capital, ie the ability, to do anything. Keeping the money with the people who earn it is the best way to make us all rich and keep the economy strong.

OK.

*takes out a loan*
*fails college*
*can't pay back loan*
*credit blacklisted*
Or, more accurately:

*takes out a loan*
*passes college, gets degree*
*can't get a job, can't pay back loan*
*credit blacklisted, can't get new loan to go back to college*

The fundamental problem is that people always want more. Why learn to be a doctor or a lawyer?
Because you want to be a doctor or a lawyer, because it satisfies you personally. Perhaps this goal is achieved because you're helping people and you enjoy it.

If you have huge income inequality, then by definition you are allowing companies to commit illegal and harmful acts.

Its so cute how you state your subjective and niave opinions as fact. ;)

I agree. The best way to accomplish those goals are to get the government completely out of it. The people, left to their own devices, will create a wealthier society, more jobs, and more opportunity for everyone who wants it.
While your idea hasn't been implemented totally, the further it has been implemented, historically speaking, the greater the poverty and inoppurtunity there's been.

If Gates didn't do what he did, then Linux or someone else would have.
And then all you do is change the name of the rich person who was referred to.

Both the janitor and the CEO are free to quit their jobs...
and starve.

If you have huge income inequality, then by definition you are allowing companies to commit illegal and harmful acts.
And how does that one work? Just because there is an income difference does not mean that anything illiegal is going on, it just means that the company has decided that a CEO is worth more than a janitor(which is true, seeing how a CEO earns the company millions and the janitor scrubs toilets which produces no income for the company).

Social equality has no place in a free and just society.
It's the opposite, you can't have a free and just society without social equality.

Government jobs to oversee wealth redistribution don't create wealth,
So? A system where the GDP is X and it is distributed equally is better than a system where the GDP is 2X, but 1% of people have 99% of the GDP.

While your idea hasn't been implemented totally, the further it has been implemented, historically speaking, the greater the poverty and inoppurtunity there's been.

You must have a secret version of history that only you know about. In real history we see that greater liberty has been followed by greater prosperity for all classes.

So? A system where the GDP is X and it is distributed equally is better than a system where the GDP is 2X, but 1% of people have 99% of the GDP.

Your strawman arguement has no bearing on the situation at hand. Also, quit spamming the thread, if you want to have your snipes responded to then make one or two comprehensive posts instead of a dozen tiny one line posts in rapid succession.

God damn it! Do certain people honestly believe that the act of hiring an employee is THEFT? Sure, if you REDEFINE THEFT, HIRING AND EMPLOYMENT, Mr Clinton.

I'm sorry I'm losing my temper here, I just don't understand how one can have such a god damn messed up viewpoint!

So? A system where the GDP is X and it is distributed equally is better than a system where the GDP is 2X, but 1% of people have 99% of the GDP.
In an ideal world this is correct, however in the real world it has never worked out that way. On a side note, I think your percentages there are a lot out of wack, I don't think 1% of people control 99% of the GDP, but I could be wrong, I'm too lazy to look up the numbers at the moment.

Your strawman arguement has no bearing on the situation at hand. Also, quit spamming the thread, if you want to have your snipes responded to then make one or two comprehensive posts instead of a dozen tiny one line posts in rapid succession.
If there's an easy way to do so, feel free to tell me. If you wish to tell me, then that's fine and I will do it.

In an ideal world this is correct, however in the real world it has never worked out that way. On a side note, I think your percentages there are a lot out of wack, I don't think 1% of people control 99% of the GDP, but I could be wrong, I'm too lazy to look up the numbers at the moment.
I was using it as an example against the idea that simply a country having more wealth isn't beneficial to the country as a whole.

You must have a secret version of history that only you know about. In real history we see that greater liberty has been followed by greater prosperity for all classes.
Not familiar with Victorian England, to name one, are we?

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, that isn't the point. If Gates or someone else don't stand to benefit then they won't have an incentive to do anything.
What was Linux's benefit for creating Linux?

Its so cute how you state your subjective and niave opinions as fact. ;)And it's even cuter how you ignore the fact that in a place that's already committing illegal and harmful acts, then they will also bribe the people who are coming to investigate those illegal and harmful acts. Do you actually believe we hear about every company that commits illegal and harmful acts on a regular basis?

And then all you do is change the name of the rich person who was referred to.
While I don't know what Linux's income is (Yes, I know his real name isn't Linux, but people are more familiar with Linux than they are with his real name) I do know that he created Linux and distributed it freely, thus not making a profit from it, and thus not becoming rich from it.

God damn it! Do certain people honestly believe that the act of hiring an employee is THEFT?
Not in and of itself, no. But how do you define the rightful owner of something that nobody creates, such as land?

look, this can so easily be resolved.
either you envy
http://www.erebus.info/rich_small.jpg

or you pity & want to help the champion of hobos
http://www.erebus.info/hobo_small.jpg
simple. :D

and Vox Humana, im gonna argue back to your post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7683592&postcount=86) tomorrow - too tired (& stoned) to do it now :) , plus its a good post! gonna have to think about it :D

I'm thwarting nature right now by being inside an artifically heated home. Everytime we alter nature we in effect thwart it unless you want to say we are a part of nature and everything we do is thus natural.
Then I guess, by your logic, bees are thwarting nature, not adapting, when they "huddle" together for warmth in the winter. And that nomadic ants are thwarting nature when they make nests out of their own bodies. And that chimpanzees are thwarting nature when they use stipped vegetative matter to get insects from their colonies. That is not thwarting, that is adapting.

We have large amounts of sparsely inhabited land left and much more food production potential.
Alright, would you like to move ot Siberia together? How about Antartica? I've heard it's getting warmer down there, and the scenery id just lovely!

If something is relevant to the discussion and you want to use it then you're going to have to put a little more effort into it than just saying 'I know ecology.' That kind of appeal to authority is pointless since it is hard to confront an arguement that you don't detail.
I admit, you are correct. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as adept as Rachel Carson at explaining things to people who are not on my level of biological and ecological understanding. I will attempt to explain my point, but I'll probably end up frustrated with my inability to properly articulate my argument. What do you wish for me to try to support?

At least you are upfront about your anti-liberty, anti-democracy, despotic tendacies. Now if we could just get you to lay out an arguement to support your position we might get somewhere.
I should have been more specific. I am not "anti-liberty", "anti-democratic", or "despotic". I am anti-ignorance.

Not sure what this is getting at.
We are destroying the very planet that gives us life. That is figurative, just to establish that.

Do you have a point?
You are convinced that we're not harming the environment too much, and, if we are, we will find ways to overcome it. When humans realise this is all fabrication, they're going to curse and say "What the f**k were we thinking?!?" Read Biophilia by Edward O. Wilson. It explains some things I'd like to, although you need some knowledge of biology and ecology to really understand what he's saying.

Re-stating the same assertion isn't proving it. The fact of the matter is that science is not in uniform agreement about if global warming is happening.
No, not really. The fact that the ocean temperature is rising a few degrees Fahrenheit yearly, and that the polar areas are doing this at an exponentially higher rate, is pretty damn conclusive. It's kind of like saying that Jew are divided on the divinity of Jesus, since there's a group called "Jews for Jesus".

It is also a fact that the people on the side of global warming also have political axes to grind and an agenda to push.
I am sure that some do, though I'm not quite sure what they would be. I certainly do not, unless you consider concern for life and our environment an agenda. And please, before you go around citing scientists on issues, understand it yourself. Do you understand how greenhouse gases work, and do you understand thermodynamics? Because I could try to explain some of that to you.

The US doesn't have enough nukes to cause total destruction over the entire landmass of the US, let alone the world. You'd have higher rates of cancer, but in a realistic nuclear war scenario most rural people would survive.
Fission warheads, especially coupled with fusion warheads, have a global impact. They mess up weather patterns for a bit. The amount of energy released in an atomic blast is incredible. Praytell, what happens when the only survivors are severely weakened by nuclear fallout? When animals die in mass numbers? In a realistic scenerio, if the U.S. used all of its nukes, it would be at least as severe as an Ebola Zaïre pandemic.

In this case the government is that despotic absolute authority.
We're just quarreling over terminology now. Despotism, in my opinion, is military rule. You think of it as absolutism. It really isn't relevant.

In any case you completely blew past the point I was getting at, namely that your policies are unjust and anti-democratic.
Well shoot me now! Forget the fact that I think that democracy is the best form of government after collectivism, which is impossible in humans! What I want is for people to be educated on environmental science, ecology, and biology. I think it should be requisite for everyone, simply so they understand the repercussions of their actions. I know this is itself unjust, but I place nature over man in my list of priorities. We will die off or evolve into something else. What will happen then? What if we have turned our planet into Venus, with it's thick atmosphere?

Possession is ownership is it not? I think we all know who possesses the planet.
Gravity?

But, again, what points would you like me to back up? Overpopulation? Global warming? What?

Or, more accurately:

*takes out a loan*
*passes college, gets degree*
*can't get a job, can't pay back loan*
*credit blacklisted, can't get new loan to go back to college*

Don't major in English next time.

Hello!

I went for this one,
'Limits on the wealth anyone can earn with the excess spread among the rest of the population'
I think this is best and the fairest. I dont think anyone should earnover £200,000 a year. Big Businesses that earn substantial profits should be taxed more. Rich Soccer players like David Beckham could easily be taxed 80%of his yearly Salary and still have loads of money left over to be richer than the rest of us, and that cash could be put into all sortsof useful projects.

If no one made that much where would the capital to create new businesses come from?

Beckham's wealth is put back into the system. He doesn't stuff it under his matress.

It is wrong for the government to steal money in taxes. But it is far more wrong
OK, your first problem is that you subscribe to the mistaken notion that there are degrees of moral virtue and vice. That is not the case. An act is either wholly good or wholly evil--there is not, nor, logically, can there be, any middle ground.
to have millions dying on the streets because they can't afford a home or food. That is the end result of a free economy, and there's nothing moral about it.
Yes, it is. The end does not justify the means--and using violent coercion against any human being is never morally justified.

And, frankly, one's mere existence does not give others a moral obligation to support him. One only has a moral obligation to another if he explicitly accepts it--either by declaring as such or by causing another individual to exist (birth).

Yes, because it is morally proper to allow large companies to maim and use human beings however they wish to as long as it makes them money.

Nice straw man; try again.

Because it is morally proper that some kid who was born with a silver spoon up his ass and has never had to work a day in his life should sit around and squander daddy's money while a kid who was born into poverty should work hard all of his life and still end up homeless and struggling to find work.

Yeah, that's morally proper.
Sure is. See my post above for an explanation of why.

OK, your first problem is that you subscribe to the mistaken notion that there are degrees of moral virtue and vice. That is not the case. An act is either wholly good or wholly evil--there is not, nor, logically, can there be, any middle ground.
So there can never be a lesser of two evils? One cannot believe that an act is neither right not wrong? There can never be gray?

I'm not sure "a free ride" is the right way to describe someone who is ill and on benifits. If someone is incapacitated, and out of work, would you like to see them starve on the street?

No, I don't. And I'd hope that these socialist supporters of the welfare nation would do the morally right thing and help them out without being forced or coerced to.
Obversely, I don't want to see my hard earned money supporting a fatass mother of seven whose prime contribution to society is watching Oprah and eating bon-bons (or worse, smoking Crack) while poor old Grandma watches the kids. Do you think she's spending this money on the children? Whose checking to make sure?
In a truly free society, I should have the choice as to which individuals I'd like to help out. I'd research the charities in my community, find the ones that hands over the highest percent of proceeds to the needy and donate that money I've saved on Big Government.
As I've said before, if you are forced or coerced into giving up your hard earned cash to *help* someone, that doesn't make you good. That hardly even qualifies as helpful.

If there's an easy way to do so, feel free to tell me. If you wish to tell me, then that's fine and I will do it.

Just look at how everyone else crafts their posts.


Not familiar with Victorian England, to name one, are we?


As I recall Victorian England didn't have enough widespread freedom for the general population to actually be termed as what we today consider to be capitalism. Of course the establishment of some capitalistic principles such as free trade did bring England out of economic hard times and make them the fabulously rich 'workshop of the world.' I suppose you'll complain that there were harsh conditions for the poor, which of course there were, and there always is when an economy is in transition. The difference is that you can squish economic development and have hard times indefinately or you can do like all the first world nations have done and move into widespread prosperity.


What was Linux's benefit for creating Linux?


There is no one Linux. The groups like Red Hat that put out a more professional version generally try to make money. Of course their product is so unusable for the general person that their main motivation is for educational and personal purposes. However, if there were no Windows no doubt some company(s) would put out another software package which would be most easily usable and it would gain market. If it were super popular like Windows is it would dominate the market and make a few people rich. That is as it should be. If you're suggesting that a bunch of people are going to make a product and market it like Linux in a situation other than the one that the software market is already in is simply naive. I would be interested to hear you string together a line of reasoning to support such an assumption.


And it's even cuter how you ignore the fact that in a place that's already committing illegal and harmful acts, then they will also bribe the people who are coming to investigate those illegal and harmful acts.

We're debating political and economic philosophy here, not if something is or is not legal.

Do you actually believe we hear about every company that commits illegal and harmful acts on a regular basis?

So you assume that something you have no knowledge of must surely be happening on a massive scale...why?


I do know that he created Linux and distributed it freely, thus not making a profit from it, and thus not becoming rich from it.

He didn't lose much money by distributing it freely because of its immense unpopularity among the average user.


Not in and of itself, no. But how do you define the rightful owner of something that nobody creates, such as land?

There is no one way, but most generally its a totality of the circumstance approach analysis of history.

Then I guess, by your logic, bees are thwarting nature, not adapting, when they "huddle" together for warmth in the winter. And that nomadic ants are thwarting nature when they make nests out of their own bodies. And that chimpanzees are thwarting nature when they use stipped vegetative matter to get insects from their colonies. That is not thwarting, that is adapting.

Huddling together to share body heat is hardly comparable to massive industrail complex designed to produce and disperse massive amounts of artifically created power. In any event, you've managed to fly right past the point, which was that human manipulation of nature is far beyond adaptation, it is dominance. We adapted when we built fires and made tents out of animal skins.


Alright, would you like to move ot Siberia together? How about Antartica? I've heard it's getting warmer down there, and the scenery id just lovely!

Or how about the millions of sparsely populated acres in the United States, South America, etc Even Europe is not that densely populated, and we still have a great potential to build upward and downward in cities.


I admit, you are correct. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as adept as Rachel Carson at explaining things to people who are not on my level of biological and ecological understanding. I will attempt to explain my point, but I'll probably end up frustrated with my inability to properly articulate my argument. What do you wish for me to try to support?

Whatever point it was you were making and supporting by claiming you know ecology. Don't ask me what it was, go look it up if you still want to make that point.


I should have been more specific. I am not "anti-liberty", "anti-democratic", or "despotic". I am anti-ignorance.

Good, so am I, got anymore irrelevant points to make? Maybe we can get them all out of your system so we can move this discussion forward.


We are destroying the very planet that gives us life. That is figurative, just to establish that.

What you call destroying I call shaping to suit our needs.


You are convinced that we're not harming the environment too much, and, if we are, we will find ways to overcome it. When humans realise this is all fabrication, they're going to curse and say "What the f**k were we thinking?!?" Read Biophilia by Edward O. Wilson. It explains some things I'd like to, although you need some knowledge of biology and ecology to really understand what he's saying.

How about if you have a point to make you make it instead of expecting me to go out and waste my time reading some book so I can make your point for you.


No, not really. The fact that the ocean temperature is rising a few degrees Fahrenheit yearly, and that the polar areas are doing this at an exponentially higher rate, is pretty damn conclusive. It's kind of like saying that Jew are divided on the divinity of Jesus, since there's a group called "Jews for Jesus".

We have no clue about whether or not these things are related to global warming or not because out of the millions of years that this globe has had a climate we've measured maybe a couple hundred poorly, and possibly fifty competantly. This could just be a burp in the planet's normal cycle for all we know. Thirty years ago science was bemoaning a new ice age. Now its global warming. You can't get tomorrow's forcast right, so why should we infringe on liberties and wreck our economies for your lastest phantom problem?


I am sure that some do, though I'm not quite sure what they would be. I certainly do not, unless you consider concern for life and our environment an agenda. And please, before you go around citing scientists on issues, understand it yourself. Do you understand how greenhouse gases work, and do you understand thermodynamics? Because I could try to explain some of that to you.

The agenda I can identify is the leftist anti-American agenda which simply oozes from the environmentalist movement. Environmentalism is being used as a vehicle to try to erode American economic dominance. While all kinds of efforts are being made to force the US to conform to restrictive regulations "for the environment" third world nations and nations like China are being given free reign to pollute however they like. Only one conclusion can be drawn, mainstream environmentalism is about "leveling the playing field" and "redistributing wealth across north\south borders," not about "saving the planet." You may want to cling to your view of the noble hippy trying to save mother earth, but the actions of the international environmental movement put the lie to it.


Fission warheads, especially coupled with fusion warheads, have a global impact. They mess up weather patterns for a bit. The amount of energy released in an atomic blast is incredible. Praytell, what happens when the only survivors are severely weakened by nuclear fallout? When animals die in mass numbers? In a realistic scenerio, if the U.S. used all of its nukes, it would be at least as severe as an Ebola Zaïre pandemic.

I'm quite familiar with the expected results from a typical nuclear payload at optimal airburst. Even the population of the (large) city targeted would not suffer 100% casualities, let alone the critters sitting fifty miles away upwind.


We're just quarreling over terminology now. Despotism, in my opinion, is military rule. You think of it as absolutism. It really isn't relevant.

No, it isn't relevant, and both definations are right, its just that you don't want to seem to acknowledge the rest of the defination for some reason.


Well shoot me now! Forget the fact that I think that democracy is the best form of government after collectivism, which is impossible in humans! What I want is for people to be educated on environmental science, ecology, and biology. I think it should be requisite for everyone, simply so they understand the repercussions of their actions. I know this is itself unjust, but I place nature over man in my list of priorities. We will die off or evolve into something else. What will happen then? What if we have turned our planet into Venus, with it's thick atmosphere?

I want people to be educated in political philosophy, economics, and history.
I want people to realize that scientists have agendas too, and good science can be used to reach bad conclusions. How you can logically place some abstract concept of nature over humankind is quite puzzling to me. What will it profit us if we die so that some vague concept of nature can live on? We should preserve nature to the extent that we require it to live, nothing more.


Gravity?

But, again, what points would you like me to back up? Overpopulation? Global warming? What?

I'm not going to do your footwork for you. Don't tell me to read books or that your point is too complicated for my feeble layman's brain to understand. Say what you want to say, back it up with a reasoned analysis, and if I don't get something I'll ask or look it up for myself.

All I know is that the USA has a way too huge gap between rich and poor. The combined net-worths of the top 1% is more than that of the combined net-worths of the bottom 40%. That's jsut wrong. And the the thing is, the bottom 40% are the ones who do the hard labor that drives the nation forward. Many in the top 1% do nothing but manipulate money and get rich without contributing anything to the economy.
If you check the statistics you would see that the top 2% of people in the nation pay 80% of the tax burden.... But they also generate the most income potential for others by investing in other businesses. You can not get rich by sitting on your money...It just does not work that way.Regardless of what you think. I do not feel tha tyou cut taxes for the truly poor since in all actuality the poorest of the US do not pay any income taxes especially taking into consideration the Earned Income Credit and other tax breaks for the poor....The sad thing is that way too many people of all income levels have found ways to get out of paying the taxes they should.... I would prefer to do away with the income tax system we have and go to a 15% flat tax and a national 3% sales tax...All would pay a fair share and the government coffers would fill to bursting....Thanx all...

All I know is that the USA has a way too huge gap between rich and poor. The combined net-worths of the top 1% is more than that of the combined net-worths of the bottom 40%. That's jsut wrong. And the the thing is, the bottom 40% are the ones who do the hard labor that drives the nation forward. Many in the top 1% do nothing but manipulate money and get rich without contributing anything to the economy.

...all I see in your statement is pure jealousy of that 1%.

So there can never be a lesser of two evils? One cannot believe that an act is neither right not wrong? There can never be gray?

Precisely.

It saddens how many communist welfare queens there are voting here.

It saddens me to read rather ignorant comments such as this.

OK, your first problem is that you subscribe to the mistaken notion that there are degrees of moral virtue and vice. That is not the case. An act is either wholly good or wholly evil--there is not, nor, logically, can there be, any middle ground.

What, an act is either wholly one subjective measure, or wholly another subjective measure. And you're accusing another NS of subscribing to mistaken notions. Tssk tssk R&R

Yes, it is. The end does not justify the means--and using violent coercion against any human being is never morally justified.

Alright, another subjective analysis. You are speaking of your maxims as though they are practical laws. Tssk Tssk.


And, frankly, one's mere existence does not give others a moral obligation to support him. One only has a moral obligation to another if he explicitly accepts it--either by declaring as such or by causing another individual to exist (birth).

Hmm, first the existence of one human does not give others a moral obligation to be supported, followed by some circumstances in which it does. Consistently inconsistent. However, like where you are going, would encompass that into the idea that a moral obligation exists on the part of one human to another when a human commits an act or promise that places another in detrimental reliance on completing that act, or fulfilling that promise.

Ideally, wealth should be abolished and goods shared.

Why should I work, then, if my goods are going to be shared with envious people like you?

You are convinced that we're not harming the environment too much, and, if we are, we will find ways to overcome it. When humans realise this is all fabrication, they're going to curse and say "What the f**k were we thinking?!?" Read Biophilia by Edward O. Wilson. It explains some things I'd like to, although you need some knowledge of biology and ecology to really understand what he's saying.

Sure, and follow that with you can't eat GNP. That will also play on peoples understanding of biology, in a way that appears to make sense, but after in depth analysis, you will find out that, in actuality, it does not.

Oooh, and for a great analysis of agriculture read farmegeddon, that has a real wealth of information as well.

No, not really. The fact that the ocean temperature is rising a few degrees Fahrenheit yearly, and that the polar areas are doing this at an exponentially higher rate, is pretty damn conclusive. It's kind of like saying that Jew are divided on the divinity of Jesus, since there's a group called "Jews for Jesus".

Yeah, and these changes can not be explained by the increases in human activity, as they are not enough to effectuate such changes.

Conclusive that environmental changes are occuring in parts of the world, yes, that we are to blame, no. As our activity is not the only factor that could cause such changes at present. Orbital changes, sunspots, etc...

Do you understand how greenhouse gases work, and do you understand thermodynamics? Because I could try to explain some of that to you.

I do, but challenge you to enlighten others. As yours appears to be general, not in depth or analytical.

Well shoot me now! Forget the fact that I think that democracy is the best form of government after collectivism, which is impossible in humans! What I want is for people to be educated on environmental science, ecology, and biology. I think it should be requisite for everyone, simply so they understand the repercussions of their actions. I know this is itself unjust, but I place nature over man in my list of priorities. We will die off or evolve into something else. What will happen then? What if we have turned our planet into Venus, with it's thick atmosphere?

Yeah... you might want to add chemistry, atmospheric science, and behavorial ecology, which would lead you towards economics, to that very short sighted list. In fact, to reach the perfect information you seem to think you have, a person would have to spend their entire life educating themselves in all academic areas.

Collectivism does exist in small interelated tribal communities. As it does in other such small communities of varying species.

Might want to add physics and cosmology to understand how the atmospheres of Venus came into being, and cannot be the same.

But, again, what points would you like me to back up? Overpopulation? Global warming? What?

All of them, and using concrete sources, or explanations using your knowledge. Not novels disguised scientific analysis of physical phenomena.

I'm thwarting nature right now by being inside an artifically heated home. Everytime we alter nature we in effect thwart it unless you want to say we are a part of nature and everything we do is thus natural. I'm not sure how you have come to the conclusion that we have exceeded the planet's population limit. We have large amounts of sparsely inhabited land left and much more food production potential.

Well of course it is only sensible to say we are part of nature and what we do is natural. We dont cause the natural facts that determine the ability to artificially heat a home. We access and make use of natural facts that already exist, including our own biological potentials. Artificial in reality means natural things that exist in a way that is considered to be primarily due to human efforts/actions. So while a beaver damm and a nuclear weapons factory are both equally natural (confirming to and arising as a consequent of entirely natural physical facts), the nuclear weapons factory can also be described as artificial. This isnt primarily a semantic issue, because the implications that you construe dont exist unless you apply a definition to natural that is ultimately unsound.

Not novels disguised scientific analysis of physical phenomena.

Don't expect it. It's impossible to summarize scientific evidence in layman's terms without taking away some of the content. If you want all of the scientific evidence, get a degree in the field and read the journals. Otherwise, all the public can get, really, is a simplification. Any explanation intended to summarize a lifetime of research to somebody with, at most, a couple of years of education in the subect - a high school education or even a college education in a different field - will, by necessity, be a simplification, an approximation.

That said, I would like to hear what the evidence is that suggests that global warming is, in part, human-caused. I generally take part in the evolution/creationism debates, and that's a publicized enough subject so that I can find volumes of information; I don't know anywhere near as much about global warming (unfortunately, since it's a lot more important), I don't know the evidence for/against the theory that humans are causing a change in global climate.

1)As I recall Victorian England didn't have enough widespread freedom for the general population to actually be termed as what we today consider to be capitalism. Of course the establishment of some capitalistic principles such as free trade did bring England out of economic hard times and make them the fabulously rich 'workshop of the world.' I suppose you'll complain that there were harsh conditions for the poor, which of course there were, and there always is when an economy is in transition. The difference is that you can squish economic development and have hard times indefinately or you can do like all the first world nations have done and move into widespread prosperity.

2) There is no one Linux. The groups like Red Hat that put out a more professional version generally try to make money. Of course their product is so unusable for the general person that their main motivation is for educational and personal purposes. However, if there were no Windows no doubt some company(s) would put out another software package which would be most easily usable and it would gain market. If it were super popular like Windows is it would dominate the market and make a few people rich. That is as it should be. If you're suggesting that a bunch of people are going to make a product and market it like Linux in a situation other than the one that the software market is already in is simply naive. I would be interested to hear you string together a line of reasoning to support such an assumption.

3) So you assume that something you have no knowledge of must surely be happening on a massive scale...why?

4) There is no one way, but most generally its a totality of the circumstance approach analysis of history.

1) While it is true that Victorian England didn't have enough freedom in general (i.e. women can't vote, etc.) they were more free economically than we are today. It was actually due to riots in the late 1880s that people realized that there wasn't going to ever be enough private charity to eliminate the type of poverty that they had, and that government intervention was the only way to do so.

2) If someone conceives of an idea to make his life easier but can't make a profit from it, he will still implement the idea on his own, assuming that he has the necessary materials to do so. And unless he's a hermit, other people will see that it makes life easier, and copy his idea.

3) How long did Enron, Tyco, etc. get away with their illegal acts before finally being caught? How long did WalMart (allegedly) discriminate against women before they filed the class action lawsuit against them? There is a trend of companies getting away with illegal acts for any number of years, and there has been for quite some time. It is illogical to assume that it has suddenly stopped, unless you can give me some reason to believe it has. And the more income inequality that you have, the more likely it is that this will happen. Can you came a historical instance where rising income inequality didn't lead to an increase in crime?

4) Could you explain how a totality of circumstance scenario might work? Since you're loath to pick examples, I'll give you one. How would it work in determining who is the rightful owner of the land that makes up the U.S.?

Don't major in English next time.
My aren't you clever? Congratulations on not taking the post in the context it was posted in before replying.

What level of economic equality do you think a society should have? I think that everyone willing to work should get a living wage, even if it must be subsidized through tax dollars. What do you think?
i think you make what you earn. if you can't earn a million dollars you don't get a million dollars, and if you can't earn 10K you don't get 10K. it isn't the government's job to take care of those who can't work...that is a responsibility i believe belongs to the society. members of the society should voluntarily care for those who are in need, but they should not have their wages garnished (i.e. taxes) to pay for those who they do not choose to support.

1)they were more free economically than we are today.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Part of the reason that England moved toward a more complete democracy in the late 19th century is because their economic activities were still hindered by government. In typical state fashion Parliament enacted things like the Poor Law Act which all at once lulled private charities by supposedly providing government help to the poor and at the same time grinding the poor in harsh conditions. The Poor Law Act is not capitalism, it was the beginnings of modern socialism.

2) If someone conceives of an idea to make his life easier but can't make a profit from it, he will still implement the idea on his own, assuming that he has the necessary materials to do so. And unless he's a hermit, other people will see that it makes life easier, and copy his idea.

So you're going to gamble all of human progress on the rogue inventor who will just happen to whip up some new innovations to help himself in his free time and kindly share it with the world? This is so rediculous I can't believe you're serious. Modern technical advances only come about, for the most part, as a result of large expendatures of capital into dedicated, systematic research. That type of research is best carried out by private companies working for profit.

3) How long did Enron, Tyco, etc. get away with their illegal acts before finally being caught?

You forget, capitalism is about transparancy. What Enron did was just as illegal in a free market system as it is in your system.

How long did WalMart (allegedly) discriminate against women before they filed the class action lawsuit against them?

Why do you hate freedom of association so badly?

There is a trend of companies getting away with illegal acts for any number of years, and there has been for quite some time.

Yes, they're getting away with illegal acts, under America's un-capitalistic regulatory socialist government controlled economic system. Oops.

It is illogical to assume that it has suddenly stopped, unless you can give me some reason to believe it has.

Its even more illogical to assume any unprovable level of corruption. Lets stick to the facts shall we, instead of your biased suppositions.

And the more income inequality that you have, the more likely it is that this will happen. Can you came a historical instance where rising income inequality didn't lead to an increase in crime?

A system that doesn't have income equalities is a crime in and of itself since in order to eliminate income inequalities you must have an oppressive government, the more equal the more oppressive.

4) Could you explain how a totality of circumstance scenario might work? Since you're loath to pick examples, I'll give you one. How would it work in determining who is the rightful owner of the land that makes up the U.S.?

The land that the US currently possesses was taken from the natives by European powers and subsequently conquered or purchased from those European powers by the US. If the US had not taken the land the natives would have still lost it to Europeans. Thus the US is the rightful owner of the lands, the natives were out of luck the instant they saw the first spanish flag, and the Europeans lost their conquests under international norms of conduct during that era.

Huddling together to share body heat is hardly comparable to massive industrail complex designed to produce and disperse massive amounts of artifically created power.
Did you know that bees are cold-blooded? It is the community's constant movement and friction hta keeps the center of the ball over 90°F when the outside is far below freezing.

In any event, you've managed to fly right past the point, which was that human manipulation of nature is far beyond adaptation, it is dominance. We adapted when we built fires and made tents out of animal skins.
An organism cannot dominate nature. It can only adapt to a changing nature. I did not "fly right past the point". I was addressing the real point, which is that humans do not "dominate" nature.

Or how about the millions of sparsely populated acres in the United States, South America, etc Even Europe is not that densely populated, and we still have a great potential to build upward and downward in cities.
So you think that we just need to cram as many humans into an area as is physically possible? The whole concept of overpopulation deals with food supply, which humans have taken care, but biodiversity also comes in. The health of any ecosystem is measured by the biodiversity.

What you call destroying I call shaping to suit our needs.
So it's advantageous to make our planet unsuitable for life? My bad.

We have no clue about whether or not these things are related to global warming or not because out of the millions of years that this globe has had a climate we've measured maybe a couple hundred poorly, and possibly fifty competantly. This could just be a burp in the planet's normal cycle for all we know. Thirty years ago science was bemoaning a new ice age. Now its global warming. You can't get tomorrow's forcast right, so why should we infringe on liberties and wreck our economies for your lastest phantom problem?
Do you know what "coring" is? We actually can measure the climate much, much further than five decades. And yes, it is true, this might "just be a burp in the planet's normal cycle", as you put it, but it's still global warming. And it also might not just be that, and we have to be careful of that. And global warming is more than just that, it also includes climatic extremes.

The agenda I can identify is the leftist anti-American agenda which simply oozes from the environmentalist movement. Environmentalism is being used as a vehicle to try to erode American economic dominance.
Oh yeah, I really want the U.S. to lose its economic dominance. Even though I live in it. And would prefer for it to stay that way. You're obviously a conspiracy theorist. Have we been to the moon, either, Vox Humana?

While all kinds of efforts are being made to force the US to conform to restrictive regulations "for the environment" third world nations and nations like China are being given free reign to pollute however they like.
Umm...ever heard of the Kyōto Protocol? Yeah...that kind of pokes a large hole in your argument. And if you're referring stricly to the U.S. in that...well we don't really have the power to force other nations to be more environmentally safe.

Only one conclusion can be drawn, mainstream environmentalism is about "leveling the playing field" and "redistributing wealth across north\south borders," not about "saving the planet." You may want to cling to your view of the noble hippy trying to save mother earth, but the actions of the international environmental movement put the lie to it.
Though that's still just fanciful conspiracy theory there, I will admit that there may be some environmentalists who actually have that motive. I'm not familiar with that, and my motivation is actually for the environment.

I want people to be educated in political philosophy, economics, and history.
Yes, though I don't think that political philosophy is necessary in school. But I can't help but notice the history part. People were saying the exact same thing about chemical pesticides as they are about global warming right now. And you want to know something? Rachel Carson was right.

I want people to realize that scientists have agendas too, and good science can be used to reach bad conclusions.
Some may, but not all by far. Obviously you're not a scientist, because there are many who do science for the mere joy, and many that do it because they want to see their research do good.

I'm not going to do your footwork for you. Don't tell me to read books or that your point is too complicated for my feeble layman's brain to understand. Say what you want to say, back it up with a reasoned analysis, and if I don't get something I'll ask or look it up for myself.
I don't think that my point is too complicated for your "feeble layman's brain to comprehend". It is just that I can't go and explain ecological concepts so easily over an internet forum. It takes time to reach biological and ecological knowledge. It is not something that can just be said. If I was adept as Rachel Carson was in Silent Spring, perhaps I could try. But You are asking me to do what I just can't. I cannot just easily explain biodiversity to you through this medium. You have to take classes on it. And I am done with this thread, because obviously you are stuck in a rut, and you are unwilling to take the necessary steps to get out of it. Rest in peace in your bubble of human superiority.

Not novels disguised scientific analysis of physical phenomena.
Biophilia is not a novel, and is not "disguised scientific analysis of physical phenomena". It is written by one of the most respected minds in the biological and ecological field. And what Wilson explains is not quite as phenomenal after he's done with it.

Don't expect it. It's impossible to summarize scientific evidence in layman's terms without taking away some of the content. If you want all of the scientific evidence, get a degree in the field and read the journals. Otherwise, all the public can get, really, is a simplification. Any explanation intended to summarize a lifetime of research to somebody with, at most, a couple of years of education in the subect - a high school education or even a college education in a different field - will, by necessity, be a simplification, an approximation.
Though I said I was done with this thread, I guess I'm just really bored. Which I am. But thank you, this is what I've been trying to tell Vox Humana. He asks me to explain, all by myself without asking him to read outside information, ecological concepts which I've spent quite some time learning, which is much easier said that done.

That said, I would like to hear what the evidence is that suggests that global warming is, in part, human-caused. I generally take part in the evolution/creationism debates, and that's a publicized enough subject so that I can find volumes of information; I don't know anywhere near as much about global warming (unfortunately, since it's a lot more important), I don't know the evidence for/against the theory that humans are causing a change in global climate.
Huzzah! A voice of reason! Yes, anthropocentricity (;)) is the real debate when it comes to global warming, not whether it is occuring or not. If you want something that is kind of enlightening on the issue, and I know some environmentalists will groan when I mention this, The Day After Tomorrow. It shows extremes, and much of what it is in it is really impossible, but there is a large kernel of truth in it. If you strip away the Hollywood part, you'll have the potential effects of global warming. I personally have no doubt in my mind that humans are contributing to global warming. The greenhouse gas emissions are far too high not to. What I'm not sure is how much humans are contributing. And, in my view, I think we need to find out how much before we take it for granted that we're not. The potential consequences are too severe to just toss aside. As I said earlier, Americans were saying precisely the same thing about chemical pesticides in the 50's and 60's as they are about global warming in the 90's and now. And Rachel Carson turned out to be completely correct in Silent Spring. But it may turn out that there really isn't much that humans can do to blunt global warming. But it may also turn out that we are the sole ones responsible. Unfortunately, only time will tell. And we'll never know the answer if we continue in our current vein.

OK, I saw some REAL communism bashing earlier, and being a communist, I need to clear that up. The system works like this. You are responsible for a group. Not yourself. This is the biggest problem with most people's ideas about Communism. See, you work with a group (the smaller the better, or it could be many many small groups organized together, forming a country (many small worker co-ops) and anyone slacking off in the group hurts the group. Thus the group, to get their earnings up, will advise the infractor that 20 people having a blanket party on him or her might not be a good idea. It also works like this. The worker co-op earns all their goods in bulk, and distributes them (Marx talks about this in Das Capital) based on whatever principle they have. If everyone works hard, then it gets shared evenly. If someone is lazy, then the rest of the group decides that person gets less. Tough shit for the lazy ass. And if someone works really hard, then the group gives more to them (if they aren't jerks that is. But you would have to get a ton of really nasty people in the same group, most people recognize hard work and reward it.)

This can be applied on a larger scale as well, like it was done in Yugoslavia (before the ethnic cleansing mess). A factory worker owns the plant he works for (the same thing as when a business gives out shares of stock), and because of the group organization mentioned above, there becomes a greater incentive to work hard, knowing that the fruits of the overall labor are greater. This had extremely good effects in Yugoslavia. The standard of living rivaled that of the United States, though the personal buying power was not as high (not that it needed to be, there was a very small consumerist culture, not anywhere near that of the U.S.)


I can explain more if you want, or offer the success of other countries. Just as long as I can tear apart that myth that Communism is a Utopian vision. The truth of the matter is, it's a practical one. As many resources as we have in the U.S. it would be incredibly effective in our country, if only people believed in it. The standard of living would be far higher than what it is now.

I can explain more if you want, or offer the success of other countries. Just as long as I can tear apart that myth that Communism is a Utopian vision. The truth of the matter is, it's a practical one. As many resources as we have in the U.S. it would be incredibly effective in our country, if only people believed in it. The standard of living would be far higher than what it is now.
What you detailed is anarchy. Which is the ultimate goal of all communism. But it really is utopian vision, in the "outopia" sense, because people are inherently greedy and will steal form others. What you detailed might work occasionally, but as nice as it sounds, it really won't work too well. And it would take something like 2.7 Earths for the world to have the average standard of living in the U.S. And this isn't swimming-pool living, either. I'm talking about middle to lower-middle class.

What you detailed is anarchy. Which is the ultimate goal of all communism. But it really is utopian vision, in the "outopia" sense, because people are inherently greedy and will steal form others. What you detailed might work occasionally, but as nice as it sounds, it really won't work too well. And it would take something like 2.7 Earths for the world to have the average standard of living in the U.S. And this isn't swimming-pool living, either. I'm talking about middle to lower-middle class.


You bought into the McCarthyist version of Communism. The pre-McCarthy textbook version is what I detailed for you. Anarchy is almost solely controlled by each individual person. In Communism, the person is relegated to the small group.

I already showed evidence that Communism is not utopian. True, in the current state, the United States couldn't practice communism. Equality and Fraternity are not inherent in our social culture. But in any country or tribe that has these values and practices, it is possible. Capitalism is the one idea that seperates the U.S., Japan and Britain from the rest of the world. Or more over, the insistence that it is the only workable system.

Besides, if you debate that it is impossible to work in countries with certain types of resources, think again.

In Yugoslavia it worked with Manufacturing/Commercial resources
In Cuba it works (though it worked better before the trade sanctions) with cash-crop/entertainment
In the Congo it worked with subsistence/mining/cash crop
In the USSR it worked (prior to the party corruption during Kruschev and Bruschev) on Industrial/Farming

This pretty much covers it, except for high technology, and that could be argued for in Norway and Finland, where a system of Capitalistic Socialism/Communism is being implemented.

Want to debate specifics any more, or just admit that it is workable?
It isn't a loss, it just means that you have to rethink the system (even if you wouldn't like to)

In Yugoslavia it worked with Manufacturing/Commercial resources
In Cuba it works (though it worked better before the trade sanctions) with cash-crop/entertainment
In the Congo it worked with subsistence/mining/cash crop
In the USSR it worked (prior to the party corruption during Kruschev and Bruschev) on Industrial/Farming
Though I don't know much about Yugoslavia, I will take your word for it that there actually was some real communism there. And never bring up Zaïre as an example of how things work. Bad idea. And Cuba and the U.S.S.R. both practised pseudo-communism. Cuba is actually a fascist state, and the Soviet Union was fascist. And if you want to show how people can be better off, don't bring up the industrialisation of Russia. Do you know how horrible that was? Stalin might've made Russia a superpower insanely quickly, but the price was terribly high, humanitarianly.

Want to debate specifics any more, or just admit that it is workable?
It isn't a loss, it just means that you have to rethink the system (even if you wouldn't like to)
I agree that communism is workable, just not at a large level. There can be communes, but it has never proven to work on a larger scale, and I personally don't think it ever will. And believe me, I'm not anti-communism at all, and I do not need to rethink the system. I just know that it is too delicate for humankind.

Did you know that bees are cold-blooded? It is the community's constant movement and friction hta keeps the center of the ball over 90°F when the outside is far below freezing.

This isn't backyard trivia, most insects are considered cold blooded, but for the purposes of this discussion no one cares.


An organism cannot dominate nature. It can only adapt to a changing nature. I did not "fly right past the point". I was addressing the real point, which is that humans do not "dominate" nature.

We don't merely adapt to a changing nature, we alter what would have happened naturally on a wide scale. We level entire forests, create massive artificial lakes, drain swamps, dig huge artificial rivers, arrigate vast tracts of land for industrial farming, etc What we do is so far beyond what any other animal does that calling it adaptation leaves, in my opinion, a rather distinct misimpression about what activities we engage in.


So you think that we just need to cram as many humans into an area as is physically possible? The whole concept of overpopulation deals with food supply, which humans have taken care, but biodiversity also comes in. The health of any ecosystem is measured by the biodiversity.

I'm not particularly interested in a healthy ecosystem except as it is necessary for human survival.


So it's advantageous to make our planet unsuitable for life? My bad.

If it suits our needs then its hardly unsuitable for life now is it?


Do you know what "coring" is? We actually can measure the climate much, much further than five decades. And yes, it is true, this might "just be a burp in the planet's normal cycle", as you put it, but it's still global warming. And it also might not just be that, and we have to be careful of that. And global warming is more than just that, it also includes climatic extremes.

You can get a rough estimation of the climate back for further than five decades, but don't act like you can take a core sample and affixed to the bottom is a 8x10 kodak glossy of yesteryear.


Oh yeah, I really want the U.S. to lose its economic dominance. Even though I live in it. And would prefer for it to stay that way. You're obviously a conspiracy theorist. Have we been to the moon, either, Vox Humana?

It doesn't take a conspiracy, all it takes is a frank and honest analysis of the open unashamed actions of the mainstream environmental movement. When the nation targeted first and formost for punishing regulation is the United States and when an up and coming polluter like China is given a free pass it can only mean one thing. It isn't about the environment, its about spreading out the economic pie. If what I'm saying is so outlandish then it should be simple for you to demonstrate why I'm wrong instead of churlishly making snide irrelevant remarks.


Umm...ever heard of the Kyōto Protocol? Yeah...that kind of pokes a large hole in your argument. And if you're referring stricly to the U.S. in that...well we don't really have the power to force other nations to be more environmentally safe.

The Kyoto protocol is one of the main things that support the accusations I'm making. First of all, old Kyoto and new Kyoto do almost nothing to stave off global warming. The UN's own projections show that they would reduce the supposed temperature increase a fraction of a degree out of the 4.5 degree increase that is generally put forth these days. The biggest up and coming polluters China and India are not going to do anything, so its up to Europe, Japan, Canada, and the US to see this change happen. The US isn't going to bother, and if Europe does its going to totally wreck its economy while the third world keeps pumping out the waste. Were the US to engage in Kyoto we would take a bigger hit than even Europe, and Europe knows it. Kyoto would cost the US about 3% of its GNP every year were it in effect. So, what have we learned. Kyoto does almost nothing to combat global warming, but it would wreck all the first world economies, espeically the United States. Not surprisingly the people with the most economic advantage to gain are the ones making the biggest stink about everyone signing Kyoto. I'm sure there are some dupes who honestly think Kyoto is a good thing that we should all want, but with enough education and public awareness we'll get through to them.

Yes, though I don't think that political philosophy is necessary in school. But I can't help but notice the history part. People were saying the exact same thing about chemical pesticides as they are about global warming right now. And you want to know something? Rachel Carson was right.

You mean how we banned DDT, then realized that it was saving human lives from malaria and had to reinstate its use? Rachel Carson was a lier.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_techs/3124ddt_africa.html


Some may, but not all by far. Obviously you're not a scientist, because there are many who do science for the mere joy, and many that do it because they want to see their research do good.

You are far too trusting of human nature. Scientists can and do grind political axes all the time. They may engage in their field out of 'sheer joy' but that doesn't prevent them from taking their findings and then trying to meddle in public policy with them. When you have been in a field for years and are highly educated its easy to believe that you know more than everyone else about your subject. This arrogence can and does lead to scientists pushing unscientific policy. Now obviously this doesn't apply to every scientist everytime, but if we just take an honest look at the facts surrounding much of the militant environmental movement thats the only conclusion to be drawn.


I don't think that my point is too complicated for your "feeble layman's brain to comprehend". It is just that I can't go and explain ecological concepts so easily over an internet forum.

That may be, but I'm still not going to accept your appeals to authority nor am I going to listen to your cries for me to go read some foolish book. If I wanted to talk to you about Emerson's theories on individualism I wouldn't tell you to go read his essay on self reliance, I'd briefly identify the relevant points.

It takes time to reach biological and ecological knowledge. It is not something that can just be said. If I was adept as Rachel Carson was in Silent Spring, perhaps I could try.

You're still going on about that fraud? I'm beginning to get a pretty good picture of what kind of scientist you are if you're going to continually lick his intellectual (and I use the term loosely) boots.

But You are asking me to do what I just can't. I cannot just easily explain biodiversity to you through this medium. You have to take classes on it. And I am done with this thread, because obviously you are stuck in a rut, and you are unwilling to take the necessary steps to get out of it. Rest in peace in your bubble of human superiority.

This is priceless, you know so much yet you can't possibly explain it to me, or even construct an arguement based on it without using empty appeals to authority. Just what good is your supposed knowledge anyways?

Use the poor and stupid as entertainment for the rich. Pay em good because I'm sure there will be a market for it. Hell, don't porn stars do this?

Market forces rule.

This isn't backyard trivia, most insects are considered cold blooded, but for the purposes of this discussion no one cares.
Thank you. This shows immense biological ignorance right here. All insects are cold-blooded.

We don't merely adapt to a changing nature, we alter what would have happened naturally on a wide scale. We level entire forests, create massive artificial lakes, drain swamps, dig huge artificial rivers, arrigate vast tracts of land for industrial farming, etc
The sad thing is, you're proud of some of these things... I can understand being proud of irrigation, but some of your other examples are nothing to be proud of. And, in case you didn't know, there are ants that can kill off everything in an area. Driver ants. African villages in the way retreat and return to their homes later when those things go through. They are terrifying beyond belief. And ants also happened to come up with agriculture before humans did. Leafcutters are the most famous exmaples, growing mycelium that they feed off of from all of the vegetable matter they grow it with.

I'm not particularly interested in a healthy ecosystem except as it is necessary for human survival.
Which, again, shows that you need further education.

If it suits our needs then its hardly unsuitable for life now is it?
The problem here is that there are short-term things that are incredibly advantageous, but in the long-term will result in an apocalytic situation. That's the flaw in your reasoning.

You can get a rough estimation of the climate back for further than five decades, but don't act like you can take a core sample and affixed to the bottom is a 8x10 kodak glossy of yesteryear.
But we don't need an "8x10 glossy of yesteryear" to be able to tell the climate centuries and millenia ago. I really don't see what your argument is.

When the nation targeted first and formost for punishing regulation is the United States and when an up and coming polluter like China is given a free pass it can only mean one thing. It isn't about the environment, its about spreading out the economic pie.
If that's true, than there are indeed some people who use the environmentalist movement for economic reasons. But there are many others who don't. Everyone should have to adhere to the same regulations, in my opinion.

You mean how we banned DDT, then realized that it was saving human lives from malaria and had to reinstate its use? Rachel Carson was a lier.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_techs/3124ddt_africa.html
That...that is terrifying. Read Silent Spring before you call Carson a lier. There is extensive proof that DDT actually increases malaria, because it kill of the mosquito's natural predators, while the mosquito itself develops resistance to the biocide. I cannot believe that people are so ignorant as to even propose this... It is just...inconceivable...

That may be, but I'm still not going to accept your appeals to authority nor am I going to listen to your cries for me to go read some foolish book. If I wanted to talk to you about Emerson's theories on individualism I wouldn't tell you to go read his essay on self reliance, I'd briefly identify the relevant points.
Why not? The only way to really learn is to get to the source. And I'd guess anyone you referenced would be a lot more convincing than you are.

You're still going on about that fraud? I'm beginning to get a pretty good picture of what kind of scientist you are if you're going to continually lick his intellectual (and I use the term loosely) boots.
Two things. Rachel Carson was a woman. So it's be a "her". Good to know you're informed. And if you think that Silent Spring was fraud...well then your just a few decades behind in the science field. But I now know better than to recommend you read the book...you would say she's just lying and all that anyway.

Thank you. This shows immense biological ignorance right here. All insects are cold-blooded.

Not all animals, or insects, fall neatly into the cold vs. warm blooded category. As already mentioned bees can increase their body temperature through movement. The Hawk Moth is another example of an insect which can raise its body temperature higher than the surrounding environment. Some 'warm blooded' creatures like bats who lose their warmth when not active. Any child can google such information in about five seconds. Your desperation to stick some error onto me is telling though.


The sad thing is, you're proud of some of these things...Leafcutters are the most famous exmaples, growing mycelium that they feed off of from all of the vegetable matter they grow it with.

Whats really sad is that you'd compare anything that humans do to the instinctual activities of ants.


Which, again, shows that you need further education.

Saying I need more education isn't rebutting my statement. Your unwillingness to engage is getting tedious.


The problem here is that there are short-term things that are incredibly advantageous, but in the long-term will result in an apocalytic situation. That's the flaw in your reasoning.

You just pull some doom and gloom prediction out of thin air and you think you've accomplished something? If this is the best you can do you should pack it in.


But we don't need an "8x10 glossy of yesteryear" to be able to tell the climate centuries and millenia ago. I really don't see what your argument is.

My arguement is simple. Science doesn't support the radical conclusions being drawn. The proposed solutions to these radical conclusions are ineffective at dealing with said radical conclusions. The mainstream environmental movement is a joke, a sick joke at that, designed to bring down American economic dominance.


If that's true, than there are indeed some people who use the environmentalist movement for economic reasons. But there are many others who don't. Everyone should have to adhere to the same regulations, in my opinion.

There may be many others who don't, that isn't the point, the point is that these solutions are politically driven and useless. As to whether or not everyone should adhere to the same regulations, I can't imagine a compelling reason as to why. Each region has different needs which need different regulations.


That...that is terrifying. Read Silent Spring before you call Carson a lier. There is extensive proof that DDT actually increases malaria, because it kill of the mosquito's natural predators, while the mosquito itself develops resistance to the biocide. I cannot believe that people are so ignorant as to even propose this... It is just...inconceivable...

Lets see, Carson systematically omitted everything that didn't support her conclusions. When some african nations banned DDT their rates of malaria skyrocketed while the nations that didn't ban it stayed at an even, lower, rate. You sputter about ignorence, yet you ignore the information in the article I posted, hardly scientific. Thus far you've only spouted propaganda, but have curiously failed to produce a shred of hard evidence to support your theories. You've appealed to authority and now I'm attacking that authority, unsurprisingly you're at a loss for words.


Why not? The only way to really learn is to get to the source. And I'd guess anyone you referenced would be a lot more convincing than you are.

Appeals to authority are not how you conduct a discussion. If I wanted to talk to Carson about DDT then I'd go talk to Carson. I want to talk to you about these issues, not watch you use someone else as your intellectual shield because you're incapable of defending your own positions.

Two things. Rachel Carson was a woman. So it's be a "her". Good to know you're informed. And if you think that Silent Spring was fraud...well then your just a few decades behind in the science field. But I now know better than to recommend you read the book...you would say she's just lying and all that anyway.

Anyone who read that tripe with an analytical eye would say she was lying. Have fun pounding down that leftist propaganda.

Not all animals, or insects, fall neatly into the cold vs. warm blooded category. As already mentioned bees can increase their body temperature through movement. The Hawk Moth is another example of an insect which can raise its body temperature higher than the surrounding environment. Some 'warm blooded' creatures like bats who lose their warmth when not active. Any child can google such information in about five seconds. Your desperation to stick some error onto me is telling though.
That movement always raises body temerature. It increases cellular respiration. The body temeperature of humans goes down when we sleep. There actually are cold- and warm-blooded animals.

Whats really sad is that you'd compare anything that humans do to the instinctual activities of ants.
You, apparently, do not realise the full awesomeness of ants. They are incredible. And it is still unknown whether colony behaviour is genetic or not. Myrmecologists pretty much agree that we have no idea yet how much of it is genetic or not.

You've appealed to authority and now I'm attacking that authority, unsurprisingly you're at a loss for words.
I'm at a loss for words because I am terrified. It is true, I admit, that there is some advantage to DDT use, but the consequences of using it are just so terrifying that we'd be going backwards like that. Insects develop resistance to chemical pesticides unbelievably quickly. .The rapid generations are the reason for this. DDT will lose its potency on insects, and stay constant for humans if we do this. There are more problems than just short-term malaria in Africa.

Your unwillingness to engage is getting tedious.
As is yours.

That movement always raises body temerature. It increases cellular respiration. The body temeperature of humans goes down when we sleep. There actually are cold- and warm-blooded animals.
You, apparently, do not realise the full awesomeness of ants. They are incredible. And it is still unknown whether colony behaviour is genetic or not. Myrmecologists pretty much agree that we have no idea yet how much of it is genetic or not.

There still isn't anyone who cares about playing the game of 501 facts.
There still isn't anyone, except you (hopefully), who is more in awe of some ants than in a hydroelectric dam or the Panama Canel. I'm even more hopeful that there isn't anyone other than you who honestly thinks that human activity is remotely equatable to the instinctual activities of animals.


I'm at a loss for words because I am terrified.

You're at a loss because you're apparently devoid of any facts or reasoning of your own, you only know how to hide behind Rachel Carson.

It is true, I admit, that there is some advantage to DDT use, but the consequences of using it are just so terrifying that we'd be going backwards like that.

Tell that to the estimated 500 million people who have been saved by the use of DDT.

Insects develop resistance to chemical pesticides unbelievably quickly.

Lets keep using it until its no longer effective then, shall we? After all, we've been using it for decades now and its still effective.


DDT will lose its potency on insects, and stay constant for humans if we do this. There are more problems than just short-term malaria in Africa.


Malaria isn't a short term problem. Its a problem costing thousands of people their lives. If we have a product that can help save those lives we shouldn't be talking about whether or not insects will grow immune to it in fifty years, we should be using it.

As is yours.

Not content with blindly parroting Carson's arguements, actually not even parroting, just pointing at them furiously, you've now taken to regurgitating my own statements back at me. Do you have any originality in you at all?

Though I don't know much about Yugoslavia, I will take your word for it that there actually was some real communism there. And never bring up Zaïre as an example of how things work. Bad idea. And Cuba and the U.S.S.R. both practised pseudo-communism. Cuba is actually a fascist state, and the Soviet Union was fascist. And if you want to show how people can be better off, don't bring up the industrialisation of Russia. Do you know how horrible that was? Stalin might've made Russia a superpower insanely quickly, but the price was terribly high, humanitarianly.



I do not advocate any of Stalins actions, although frankly, it was incredibly impressive, from a history major's standpoint that he managed to bring about the full industrialization of Russia within 10 years. Granted, it involved Memocide and near slave labor, but it was impressive.

I will say that Cuba and USSR are psuedo-communism. Both are authoritarian interpretations made by either Stalin (in the USSR) or Lenin (in Cuba). However, only Cuba was facist.

The definition if Facism is a singular party in power with huge support of the nationalistic people. It isn't really a bad word, considering that after 9-11, America was facist. Not saying it should have been though.

The Congo was doing brilliantly, up until the US led coup that started all the diamond problems, and all the tribal wars. Lumumba was a great leader, and then he got killed by the CIA, those bastards. Read up on your history, particularly Lumumba.

Why are you guys even arguing with that foolish objectivist libertarian anyway? I'd have left him to his exploitation hours ago. His "objectivism" was invented by a woman who had her father's factory taken away from her, and thus all of her money. So Ayn Raynd fled to the US, and started musing about "objective thought" which seems more subjective than anything else, given that the only benefitors are the A type personalities and people who are entreprenurial, like me.

I know some very notable Communists, and these are my musings on them. They have the ability, the knowledge, the cunning, and the ambition to be objectivist capitalists. But they choose not to, for they also have a thing beating between their lungs.

The libertarians I know have all been like this. They are intellectual and idealistic enough to dream about themselves as objective capitalists, but hold none of the ability, cunning, or craftiness necessary to accomplish this. They are just waaay too predictable.

Don't fight with Vox, he's obviously just being subjective right now. He'll get over it, when he snaps to his senses in a few years, or dies. Either way, why should we care? After all, that's his attitude!

I know some very notable Communists, and these are my musings on them. They have the ability, the knowledge, the cunning, and the ambition to be objectivist capitalists. But they choose not to, for they also have a thing beating between their lungs.

The libertarians I know have all been like this. They are intellectual and idealistic enough to dream about themselves as objective capitalists, but hold none of the ability, cunning, or craftiness necessary to accomplish this. They are just waaay too predictable.

Ah, so the communists are "cunning" able human beings, but they have a heart, whereas the capitalists are idiots. Strange that the capitalists are always the rich corporate types that supposedly control the world whilst the communists are usually scruffy rabble rioting outside G8 summits. Its also strange how you make broad assumptions about myself and my political philosophy when you know almost nothing about me. I guess that kind of made up knowledge is what makes you communists so "cunning."

I do not advocate any of Stalins actions, although frankly, it was incredibly impressive, from a history major's standpoint that he managed to bring about the full industrialization of Russia within 10 years. Granted, it involved Memocide and near slave labor, but it was impressive.
It was, but I certainly wouldn't call it communism. It was economic authoritarianism, which communism and fascism share, but certainly not promoting social equality.

I will say that Cuba and USSR are psuedo-communism. Both are authoritarian interpretations made by either Stalin (in the USSR) or Lenin (in Cuba). However, only Cuba was facist.
I dunno...the U.S.S.R. got pretty damn close to fascism...

The definition if Facism is a singular party in power with huge support of the nationalistic people. It isn't really a bad word, considering that after 9-11, America was facist. Not saying it should have been though.
That is almost correct. Fascism is an authoritarian utopia. In true fascism, there is all power vested in one leader, not just a party. Nazism requires popular support, but not fascism. And the U.S. cannot be fascist, because it has branches of government. It got to be fascistic, but not fascist. And all types of government, in theory, are perfect. There is nothing wrong with any conceptually. It's just in practise that fascism deteriorates. It is always the people in government that make a government not work.

The Congo was doing brilliantly, up until the US led coup that started all the diamond problems, and all the tribal wars. Lumumba was a great leader, and then he got killed by the CIA, those bastards. Read up on your history, particularly Lumumba.
I will. Most of my knowledge on the Congo is filovirus-centric. I can tell you a bit on the outbreak of Ebola Zaïre there, but not quite as much on the government.

Why are you guys even arguing with that foolish objectivist libertarian anyway? I'd have left him to his exploitation hours ago.
Good, good point. Thank you, sir/madam, I think you just helped my mindset a little.

I agree. The best way to accomplish those goals are to get the government completely out of it. The people, left to their own devices, will create a wealthier society, more jobs, and more opportunity for everyone who wants it.

The problem with many Libertarians is that they have to ignore thousands of years of history to hold to their "ideals."

There still isn't anyone who cares about playing the game of 501 facts.
There still isn't anyone, except you (hopefully), who is more in awe of some ants than in a hydroelectric dam or the Panama Canel. I'm even more hopeful that there isn't anyone other than you who honestly thinks that human activity is remotely equatable to the instinctual activities of animals.

you're out of luck on that one. i am definitely more in awe of some ant than i am in awe of a hydroelectric dam or the Panama Canal, and i most certainly think there can be some (emphasis on some) parallels drawn between human activity and ant activity. why should it horrify you so much to think that there are people who are fascinated by such things? is it really that distasteful for you to know that not everybody likes the same things as you?

The problem with Libertarians is that they have to ignore thousands of years of history to hold to their "ideals."
depends on your definition of Libertarian ;).

The problem with Libertarians is that they have to ignore thousands of years of history to hold to their "ideals."
Democrats (and some Republicans) have to ignore thousands of years of thought by modern psychologhists back to leaders of ancient times to ignore the fact that creating a Dependant Class destroys everything from the economy to their private lives and those of their children.
In fact, it requires a blindness and ignorance that borders on repression.

You're an idiot. Democrats (and some Republicans) have to ignore thousands of years of thought by modern psychologhists back to leaders of ancient times to believe that creating a Dependant Class destroys everything from the economy to their private lives and those of their children.
In fact, it requires a blindness and ignorance that borders on repression.
cut the insult. you're making Libertarians look bad, dagnabbit.

Why are you guys even arguing with that foolish objectivist libertarian anyway? I'd have left him to his exploitation hours ago. His "objectivism" was invented by a woman who had her father's factory taken away from her, and thus all of her money. So Ayn Raynd fled to the US, and started musing about "objective thought" which seems more subjective than anything else, given that the only benefitors are the A type personalities and people who are entreprenurial, like me.

You are so misinformed about a topic you obviously know nothing about, you should shut your piehole and seal it shut with an industrial adhesive.
Anne Raynd was an author. Some people enjoyed her viewpoints and wrote about an idea called Objectivism.
Libertarianism and Objectivism are similar, not synonymous, dumbass.
Please, stop pissing on your own shoes.

cut the insult. you're making Libertarians look bad, dagnabbit.
I'm trying, but I'm only human. Well, really I don't try. Gross generalizations and attacks like that only deserve the like.
I'm not a softy, ya know. I'm nice until someone isn't.

I'm trying, but I'm only human. Well, really I don't try. Gross generalizations and attacks like that only deserve the like.
I'm not a softy, ya know. I'm nice until someone isn't.
i guess i can understand that, just be aware that insults will only serve to further muddy the already-murky debate.

i was surprised to hear Demi making such a ludicrous statement, i'll admit...i'm a libertarian, by many definitions, and i have never been accused of ignoring history (or any objective data, for that matter). perhaps my interpretation of history or data will not align with hers, but to say that it is impossible to be libertarian while attending to historical facts is insulting and narrow minded.

cut the insult. you're making Libertarians look bad, dagnabbit.
There, edited that ONE post. I don't see nice working. It won't last long...

There, edited that ONE post. I don't see nice working. It won't last long...
i know, i know...nice isn't usually my forte either, i just have to get the good karma points when i can ;).

I do notice that whenever a little estrogen is injected into the conversation, we attacking alpha males do get a lil' nicer. Where would we be without your gender?
Probably killed off by now ;)

i was surprised to hear Demi making such a ludicrous statement, i'll admit...i'm a libertarian, by many definitions, and i have never been accused of ignoring history (or any objective data, for that matter). perhaps my interpretation of history or data will not align with hers, but to say that it is impossible to be libertarian while attending to historical facts is insulting and narrow minded.
I'm seeing a nasty Libertarian boyfriend in her past...

depends on your definition of Libertarian ;).

This would be true, but as far as I can tell, the "standard" libertarian (including the one I was replying to) feels that the world would be perfect if they didn't have to pay taxes. All the poor people would go away (because they would miraculously stop being poor or something) and the world would be a utopia.

Obviously, people who actually *think* about that don't believe it, but the vast majority of Libertarians I have run across do.

Personally, I lean towards Libertarian in the "leave my civil liberties alone and reduce the size of the government" kind of way. It's the "get rid of all taxes and all the bad things will go away" type that worries me.

Democrats (and some Republicans) have to ignore thousands of years of thought by modern psychologhists back to leaders of ancient times to ignore the fact that creating a Dependant Class destroys everything from the economy to their private lives and those of their children.
In fact, it requires a blindness and ignorance that borders on repression.

...which would be why I think Democrats (and Republicans) are generally idiots as well.

However, the idea that removing all taxes and *all* government aid would make the world perfect is just silly. I agree that there should be no dependent class, hence my assertion that government aid should focus on training and aiding the person in getting a job and becoming self-sufficient. Anyone not willing to do so (unless they are unable) should be cut off.

I'm seeing a nasty Libertarian boyfriend in her past...

No, just a bunch of nasty Libertarians at my school.

What I really meant was "extremist Libertarian" I suppose. I'll go back and change the post.

This would be true, but as far as I can tell, the "standard" libertarian (including the one I was replying to) feels that the world would be perfect if they didn't have to pay taxes. All the poor people would go away (because they would miraculously stop being poor or something) and the world would be a utopia.

Obviously, people who actually *think* about that don't believe it, but the vast majority of Libertarians I have run across do.

Personally, I lean towards Libertarian in the "leave my civil liberties alone and reduce the size of the government" kind of way. It's the "get rid of all taxes and all the bad things will go away" type that worries me.
We share the same views there. Perhaps you're more guilty of gross generalization than ignorance. You can't exclusively equate an entire party to it's most militant members, which is what the Right has done to the Democrats in the last two elections, and effectively.
Get rid of all taxes? Of course not, that's anarchy, not Libertarianism (and anarchists like to use the term to pretend they have a platform... they don't).
What the party seeks is to reduce the government greatly, by 75% or so, and do away with income taxes. A national sales tax would be a great way to provide a fair way to pay for the new, trimmed-down Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches. Without the pork, this simple approach could actually Some people hate this idea, but probably haven't though. Let's just say it's not a proposal that thrills the wealthy.
Politics isn't exempt from Ocham's razor.

No, just a bunch of nasty Libertarians at my school.

What I really meant was "extremist Libertarian" I suppose. I'll go back and change the post.
I hear ya. Som,etimes I feel like our party needs to be saved from it's followers.
Beware the trendies who just yearn for something generically *different* to make them feel *special*.
Every party has it's share of fools, not just one.

We share the same views there. Perhaps you're more guilty of gross generalization than ignorance. You can't exclusively equate an entire party to it's most militant members, which is what the Right has done to the Democrats in the last two elections, and effectively.

Well, I can honestly say that my blood sugar was low when I wrote that post. I am generally the one bitching at people about generalizations, so I fully admit it was wrong. Do I get forgiveness?

I hear ya. Som,etimes I feel like our party needs to be saved from it's followers.
Beware the trendies who just yearn for something generically *different* to make them feel *special*.
Every party has it's share of fools, not just one.

Personally, I think all political parties have a lot of fools. It may often be easy to align yourself more with one party or another (although there has yet to be a party in this country that really matches my political views, which would be why my votes are split between parties fairly equally -- I even voted for one Libertarian this time around =). I have little patience for those who take the lazy way of choosing a party (or being given one by their society) and blindly vote for it without thinking. Obviously, *all* party members are not like this - but I tend to trust more readily that someone who calls themself an independent is truly voting based on their own views.

You are so misinformed about a topic you obviously know nothing about, you should shut your piehole and seal it shut with an industrial adhesive.
Anne Raynd was an author. Some people enjoyed her viewpoints and wrote about an idea called Objectivism.
Libertarianism and Objectivism are similar, not synonymous, dumbass.
Please, stop pissing on your own shoes.

Ayn Rand, perhaps?

This would be true, but as far as I can tell, the "standard" libertarian (including the one I was replying to) feels that the world would be perfect if they didn't have to pay taxes. All the poor people would go away (because they would miraculously stop being poor or something) and the world would be a utopia.

Obviously, people who actually *think* about that don't believe it, but the vast majority of Libertarians I have run across do.

Personally, I lean towards Libertarian in the "leave my civil liberties alone and reduce the size of the government" kind of way. It's the "get rid of all taxes and all the bad things will go away" type that worries me.
the actual meaning of libertarian, as i understand it, is minimal government involvement in both social and economic arenas. basically, the idea that the government exists to keep us from directly interfering with each other (theft, murder, rape) but not to regulate any other aspects of our behavior and interactions with each other (prostitution, drug use, marriage, welfare vs charity, etc). i am fully libertarian in that sense, because i believe in personal responsibility and the idea that people should do what they damn well please as long as they aren't directly stopping anybody else from doing what they damn well please.

now, i do NOT affiliate myself with the Libertarian Party in America, and i never have, because i tend to have as many ideological differences with them as i do with any of the other "fringe" parties in this country. but i believe that calling me a libertarian is a relatively accurate description of my views, though it is something of an over-simplification.

Ayn Rand, perhaps?
To reply to your pretensious, anally retentative post, sure. whatever.
Not a great author as I understand, haven't been able to get through Atlas Shrugged due to boredom.
If you're not in Lit class, I suggest you stop working for an A on grammer and spelling. It's unproductive and you've provided nothing more than a nitpicky tsk-tsk to the conversation.
I know you have more to offer than that.
Here's a good example for a correction: If I repeatedly insisted that I belonged to the *Librarian Party*.
That would warrant a correction.

Well, I can honestly say that my blood sugar was low when I wrote that post. I am generally the one bitching at people about generalizations, so I fully admit it was wrong. Do I get forgiveness?
I don't hold grudges. I have my moments of impatience, that's my worst trait.
(See post above) :headbang:

the actual meaning of libertarian, as i understand it, is minimal government involvement in both social and economic arenas. basically, the idea that the government exists to keep us from directly interfering with each other (theft, murder, rape) but not to regulate any other aspects of our behavior and interactions with each other (prostitution, drug use, marriage, welfare vs charity, etc). i am fully libertarian in that sense, because i believe in personal responsibility and the idea that people should do what they damn well please as long as they aren't directly stopping anybody else from doing what they damn well please.
Dead on! That's a great way to summarize it. (Couldn't have done better myself).

Well, I can honestly say that my blood sugar was low when I wrote that post.
Just smoked some hashish?

Don't expect it. It's impossible to summarize scientific evidence in layman's terms without taking away some of the content. If you want all of the scientific evidence, get a degree in the field and read the journals. Otherwise, all the public can get, really, is a simplification. Any explanation intended to summarize a lifetime of research to somebody with, at most, a couple of years of education in the subect - a high school education or even a college education in a different field - will, by necessity, be a simplification, an approximation.

I agree, that is why, before making the single comment you quote, I sarcasticly stated that if the person wanted to require courses in biology before engaging in this discussion, then a plethora of other courses would be needed as well to form a valid and sound viewpoint.

I was not asking for such a summary. Nor am I against them. What I was speaking against was the use of a book that makes an argument using a purposefully invalid representation of science. Playing on people not having such knowledge, mis-explaining concepts, and manipulating data.
If people are going to formulate an opinion, I would rather the NSF publish summary explanations of the issues for them to read, which are peer reviewed. As opposed to people having to turn to The Earth in Balance, the Day After Tomorrow, Beyond Beef, Global Village or Global Pillage, or other such sophistries in print.

That said, I would like to hear what the evidence is that suggests that global warming is, in part, human-caused. I generally take part in the evolution/creationism debates, and that's a publicized enough subject so that I can find volumes of information; I don't know anywhere near as much about global warming (unfortunately, since it's a lot more important), I don't know the evidence for/against the theory that humans are causing a change in global climate.

An anology. Look at our water supply. What you drink passed through Romans thousands of years ago. The Supply has been constant, though in different states. Some like to believe that our atmosphere is the same way. That, naturally, there are carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, etc... cycles which are naturally balanced. Allowing for a stable surface temperature.

Now, add to that supposed balance recent human activity, manufacturing a new source of CO2, SO2, etc.... Also, place some monitoring stations in select locations, particularly in growing populated areas, and some in sparsely populated areas, and in the ocean. Then observe that as population, cities, and human activity grows in those areas. The temperature rises at those monitoring stations. Take that data, and claim that since temp is increasing where a majority of those stations are kept, the temperature of the entire planet is increasing. Voila, global warming, and humans as the cause.

However, the opposite approach. Instead of looking at shells, exhume vostic ice glacier cores, the composition of CO2 in which, at different levels, indicates temperatures at the time. Plot the CO2 levels over time (tens of thousands of years) and you notice that: the atmosphere is hardly ever in a natural balance, it fluctuates greatly through the centuries, sometimes with slow transition, somestimes drasticly. Then observe that our present condition mirrors segments of those cycles. And, viola, human activity may be a factor. But not a but for cause. And, moreover, not likely a substantial one.

So, what could contribute to CO2 levels and temp in general increasing outside of human activity. A plethora of cyclical events from polar shifts, to the sun, to the earths very orbit and axis of rotation. So, despite our observations that the earth is warming, there are multiple factors that could be significantly leading to the changes. And, as a whole, far outweight human activity, and capable of causing such changes in a short amount of time. So, the question becomes, not that we are observing the changes, but how responsible are humans? And, whether such speculation justifies the economic burden of reaching decreases in human contributions in as short a time as possible.

Search UC Davis or other academic institutions and you should be able to find information on vostic ice glacier research, and other factors to global warming. The Fundamentals of Air Pollution is an engineering text that discusses the dynamics of air pollution, so does Environmental Engineering. The NSF also has a review on global warming. Any book published by an interest group member/advocate, that has not undergone actual peer review is not a good source, nor is it worth your time or money. This, five minute rant, should be considered as such. However, the information is not hard to find, and does not require a background in the sciences to understand. Reviewing the concepts discussed via a text on chemistry or atmospheric science, while reading the journals, should suffice.

The government should never allow anyone to be homeless.
Because government housing works sooo well.

To reply to your pretensious, anally retentative post, sure. whatever.
Not a great author as I understand, haven't been able to get through Atlas Shrugged due to boredom.
If you're not in Lit class, I suggest you stop working for an A on grammer and spelling. It's unproductive and you've provided nothing more than a nitpicky tsk-tsk to the conversation.
I know you have more to offer than that.
Here's a good example for a correction: If I repeatedly insisted that I belonged to the *Librarian Party*.
That would warrant a correction.


A bit hypersensitive are we? Making a mistake is one thing, butchering someone's name is quite another - it makes you look as if you have no idea what you're talking about.

I for one wouldn't mind being corrected if I badly misspelled an author's name.

What I was speaking against was the use of a book that makes an argument using a purposefully invalid representation of science. Playing on people not having such knowledge, mis-explaining concepts, and manipulating data.
I agree with you. But Silent Spring by Rachel Carson is not one such book. She really left out little. She presented both sides of the argument, overall. And I have no idea where the idea of Biophilia by E.O. Wilson is such a book, since I clearly stated that it requires substantial foreknowledge on what Wilson talks about.

And thank you, oh so much. You explained the global warming conflict very well. I wish I could do that with things such as biodiversity... Kudos on a very good job, Anti Pharisaism.

A bit hypersensitive are we? Making a mistake is one thing, butchering someone's name is quite another - it makes you look as if you have no idea what you're talking about.

I for one wouldn't mind being corrected if I badly misspelled an author's name.
Who cares? And no, not hypersensitive, just *hyperimpatient*. This is the internet, I don't need to spell or use grammar at all here. And you assume too much about reflections of intelligence (Einstein sucked at math in school FYI. Was he bad at math? Or did he find it boring. AYN RAND sucks. I find her boring.).
2 posts and you've still provided nothing on topic. Just add to the conversation, don't digress for several posts.
What are your views on the topic at hand?

Its been awhile since I read Biophelia, I will go back over it. Odds are I read inbetween Grasslands or Hard Green, my last round of the books I do not recomend a person read, unless you read them both at the same time, so that both are not being honest is self evident. As such, merely remembering the title from that list would have a recall response of associating it with those types.

Rachel Carson and E. O. Wilson are actual biologists. And Carson was supported with Government reasearch on DDT, particularly kesterson, if I remember correctly.

E. O. Wilson, I believe, has a history of being a prolific biologist as well. A main character in the development in biodiversity. However, if I also remember some things about him, of late he is associating with blacklisted scientists such as Jane Goodall, and interest groups. Which creates a new ora that takes him away from his reputation as a man whose ideals are based soley on science, and more into an advocate role. But I will look back into it.

Also, you are right, there is a grey area, acts need not be classified as wholly good or wholly evil. Next time someone tells you that, ask them to explain a virtue to you

Which creates a new ora that takes him away from his reputation as a man whose ideals are based soley on science, and more into an advocate role. But I will look back into it.
He is? Well crap...although I see why he would assume such a role, it reflects badly on his potential motives among people who might disagree with him. I still uphold that he's incredible, however. I experienced so many "Yeah, what he said!" moments. Everything he explains seems so obvious once he says it...

Why is inequality such a bad idea? It has the same meaning as variety or diversity, but with a negative connotation. And variety is the spice of life, right?

If everyone was economically equal we would live in a boring world. A lot of what we do in life is in order to achieve a higher social status. I am a currently a student, and the only reason I can justify this is because of the job that it will get me when I graduate. People that do more should be rewarded.

Yeah, our posts being case and point. But I will look back at the book, as character assisination does nothing against an argument.

Why is inequality such a bad idea? It has the same meaning as variety or diversity, but with a negative connotation. And variety is the spice of life, right?
I personally don't think that excitement is a justifiable reason for homeless and poor people. Why should someone have mutliple houses and cars, whilst someone else has neither? I don't think that variety is a good argument in this case, though I can see some ecologists potentially argue against this. If biodiversity is what is required for a healthy ecosystem, perhaps socio-economic inequality is what is required for a healthy community and/or economy. But my humanitarian instincts won't yet allow me to accept that.

If you are so socially conscious why dont you trade places with your friendly neighbourhood bum? I am perfectly content sitting in my house eating my food that i paid for because i am earning it. I am sure that you wont give up your position in life for the solely for the good of a less fortunate person, and I am sure that you would be even less happy if the government stole your hard earned money for that purpose.

If you are so socially conscious why dont you trade places with your friendly neighbourhood bum?
That's about as convincing as "If you love it so much, why don't you marry it?"

It isn't the same thing at all. My point is that if you were truely concerned about the welfare of the homeless, there is more effective ways than spending your time responding to posts on this forum. Your idealistic talk is cheap.

Why is inequality such a bad idea? It has the same meaning as variety or diversity, but with a negative connotation. And variety is the spice of life, right?

If everyone was economically equal we would live in a boring world. A lot of what we do in life is in order to achieve a higher social status. I am a currently a student, and the only reason I can justify this is because of the job that it will get me when I graduate. People that do more should be rewarded.
I won't argue some of your points, but I don't think I'd say poverty is that spicey either.
Some things aren't right, they just are and always will be. Unfortunately, no amount of intervention will eliminate human suffering. But kindness and generousity can help to alleviate at least some of the pain.
I think that at the heart of the matter, the fact remains that the Government never plays a good Robin Hood. In fact, they usually work in reverse (although they won't admit it). A lot of people seem to feel warm and fuzzy when money is taken from them and redistributed to the poor by Big Government. But how much money is really reaching them? How can we check the numbers when they're not accurate or forthright by any means?
Aren't we moral enough to help out ourselves? I'm sure most liberals and (hopefully although I make no promises) conservatives would still give to the poor and unforunate without being forced to, right?
And they'd be able to find out exactly how much their favorite charities were actually giving to the needy.

Who cares? And no, not hypersensitive, just *hyperimpatient*. This is the internet, I don't need to spell or use grammar at all here.


Yes you do (or rather, you should). The medium of communication is irrelevent.


And you assume too much about reflections of intelligence (Einstein sucked at math in school FYI. Was he bad at math? Or did he find it boring. AYN RAND sucks. I find her boring.).


I never questioned your intelligence. In fact I agree with most, if not all, of your points. I was merely pointing out that your arguments would have more merit if you avoided misspelling the name of a very prominent libertarian thinker.

I imagine that the math was way too easy for Einstein to bother with. As far as Rand goes, I rather like her writing, although she could make things a bit shorter.


2 posts and you've still provided nothing on topic. Just add to the conversation, don't digress for several posts.
What are your views on the topic at hand?

I think the presence of government safety nets creates a moral hazard - people don't try to avoid failure if they know they will be bailed out. They should 'sink or swim' on their own.

Aren't we moral enough to help out ourselves? I'm sure most liberals and (hopefully although I make no promises) conservatives would still give to the poor and unforunate without being forced to, right?


I do not feel pity for homeless people. I believe that it is a life that they, in some way or another, chose. I do not believe that life deals people hands that are bad enough that they have no way of shaping their future. Ask yourself where the money that you give them goes? Alcohol? Drugs? Starbucks Coffee? There is no acceptable reason in my mind why an ablebodied person should not be working unless they do not want to.

Disabled people are a little more difficult. They do need support that they can not provide themselves, but I do not feel that it is my responsibility to directly contribute to their welfare. If there was a disabled individual that I felt I was responsible for, I believe it would mean that I would have to work harder in order to support them. I do not believe in giving other people charity and I do not want charity from other people.

I believe allow those who don't work to live with food and a livable quality of life with things such as food, a bed, basic tv etc

I'm against communism because it doesn't reward those who succeed and work hard as opposed to those who are lazy, turn up to work late etc.

I do not feel pity for homeless people. I believe that it is a life that they, in some way or another, chose. I do not believe that life deals people hands that are bad enough that they have no way of shaping their future. Ask yourself where the money that you give them goes? Alcohol? Drugs? Starbucks Coffee? There is no acceptable reason in my mind why an ablebodied person should not be working unless they do not want to.

Disabled people are a little more difficult. They do need support that they can not provide themselves, but I do not feel that it is my responsibility to directly contribute to their welfare. If there was a disabled individual that I felt I was responsible for, I believe it would mean that I would have to work harder in order to support them. I do not believe in giving other people charity and I do not want charity from other people.

would you think differently if you were stuck in a wheelchair and completely unable to support yourself ?

would you think differently if you were stuck in a wheelchair and completely unable to support yourself ?

I do not think I would feel differently. I would feel like a burden on the people around me, although I would hope someone would take responsibility for me.

Similarily, when I am a senior, I will not want younger people to give up their seats on buses for me.

What, an act is either wholly one subjective measure, or wholly another subjective measure.
No, not subjective. Wholly objective, just like everything else in the Universe. And you're accusing another NS of subscribing to mistaken notions. Tssk tssk R&R
So?

Alright, another subjective analysis. You are speaking of your maxims as though they are practical laws. Tssk Tssk.
Nope, still wholly objective--and yes, they are laws of nature.

Hmm, first the existence of one human does not give others a moral obligation to be supported, followed by some circumstances in which it does. Consistently inconsistent.
No. Stating "X is true, except in situations Y and Z", is not inconsistent--it's merely stating the metaphysical nature of X. "All odd numbers are prime, except for 1" is not inconsistent--it's merely explaining the metaphysical nature of prime numbers. I have done the same.
However, like where you are going, would encompass that into the idea that a moral obligation exists on the part of one human to another when a human commits an act or promise that places another in detrimental reliance on completing that act, or fulfilling that promise.
Could you rephrase that, please? I'm not sure I quite get what you mean.

I do not think I would feel differently. I would feel like a burden on the people around me, although I would hope someone would take responsibility for me.

Similarily, when I am a senior, I will not want younger people to give up their seats on buses for me.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree though i think that the sick and disabled should be supported by society, surely it is the duty of society to defend those who cannot defend themselves, better to provide them with basic healthcare than a bullet (which might be the end of the line if they have no income and no one to help them.)

Ya, you are probably right about the basic healthcare. But then again whats the point of posting moderate statements?

would you think differently if you were stuck in a wheelchair and completely unable to support yourself ?

A wheelchair? No, considering I don't need my legs for what I do. A quadrapeligic on the other hand...yeah, I would hope someone would, erm, lend a hand...

Why are you guys even arguing with that foolish objectivist libertarian anyway? I'd have left him to his exploitation hours ago. His "objectivism" was invented by a woman who had her father's factory taken away from her, and thus all of her money. So Ayn Raynd fled to the US, and started musing about "objective thought" which seems more subjective than anything else, given that the only benefitors are the A type personalities and people who are entreprenurial, like me.

I know some very notable Communists, and these are my musings on them. They have the ability, the knowledge, the cunning, and the ambition to be objectivist capitalists. But they choose not to, for they also have a thing beating between their lungs.

The libertarians I know have all been like this. They are intellectual and idealistic enough to dream about themselves as objective capitalists, but hold none of the ability, cunning, or craftiness necessary to accomplish this. They are just waaay too predictable.

Don't fight with Vox, he's obviously just being subjective right now. He'll get over it, when he snaps to his senses in a few years, or dies. Either way, why should we care? After all, that's his attitude!

Do you have any actual arguments against Objectivism to put forth, or do you intend to continue to spew forth your irrational tripe that's based wholly on emotion (not to mention rather incorrect facts) rather than objective reason and objective reality?

Also, you irrational collectivists love to shout about your "compassion"--which it isn't. It's coercion. The two are mutually exclusive.

Grow up, and have a nice day.

Personally, I lean towards Libertarian in the "leave my civil liberties alone and reduce the size of the government" kind of way. It's the "get rid of all taxes and all the bad things will go away" type that worries me.

Nope, that's not Libertarianism. That's free-market pragmatism, which is base and just as despicable as any sort of collectivism. Libertarianism realizes that practical results are irrelevant--holding true to objective moral principles is all that matters, and so taxes should be abolished because they are totally and utterly evil.

Nope, that's not Libertarianism. That's free-market pragmatism, which is base and just as despicable as any sort of collectivism. Libertarianism realizes that practical results are irrelevant--holding true to objective moral principles is all that matters, and so taxes should be abolished because they are totally and utterly evil.
You're incorrect in one way. You are describing a militant Libertarian, not the official LP platform. You're describing Anarchocapitalism. Many Anarchocapitalists are Libertarians, not all Libertarians are Anarchocapitalists.

Libertarianism realizes that practical results are irrelevant--holding true to objective moral principles is all that matters

This is where I would diverge... a society in which everybody is free but 2/3 of the people are miserable is, in my opinion, worse than a society in which there are some restrictions on freedom but most people are content. I'll take a practical concern over a philosophical one anyday.

That's just my opinion though.

No, not subjective. Wholly objective, just like everything else in the Universe.

Nope, you are confusing the metaphysical with the physical.
Good and evil are subjective.

So?

Again, you should not do that because it is hypocritical.


Nope, still wholly objective--and yes, they are laws of nature.
Still subjective, and no, practical laws are not the same as natural laws. Practrical Law is that conclusion that all people would come to if guided by reason.


No. Stating "X is true, except in situations Y and Z", is not inconsistent--it's merely stating the metaphysical nature of X. "All odd numbers are prime, except for 1" is not inconsistent--it's merely explaining the metaphysical nature of prime numbers. I have done the same.

You did not make such a statement. You said a human has no moral obligation to another. To state an exception is to say it is not true. Take a look at you example and determine the factual difference between it, and what you said. There is a big one.

Could you rephrase that, please? I'm not sure I quite get what you mean.

1)A moral obligation exists when a person induces detrimental reliance on the part of another through an act or promise to act.

or

2)When detrimental reliance has been created, it would be immoral to discontinue the act or not fulfill the promise if it poses no threat of harm to the actor/promisor, sense discontinuing the act or not fulfilling the promise will result in harm to the person who is detrimentally relying on the act or promise.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Part of the reason that England moved toward a more complete democracy in the late 19th century is because their economic activities were still hindered by government. In typical state fashion Parliament enacted things like the Poor Law Act which all at once lulled private charities by supposedly providing government help to the poor and at the same time grinding the poor in harsh conditions. The Poor Law Act is not capitalism, it was the beginnings of modern socialism.

I was referring to the time before that. I will admit that the government of England practiced an openly mercantilist policy for the previous 200 years (which is why they became the industrial powerhouse that they were.) However, as far as the average citizen goes, England was less involved in their economic lives, as there wasn't any sort of state welfare at that point.


So you're going to gamble all of human progress on the rogue inventor who will just happen to whip up some new innovations to help himself in his free time and kindly share it with the world? This is so rediculous I can't believe you're serious. Modern technical advances only come about, for the most part, as a result of large expendatures of capital into dedicated, systematic research. That type of research is best carried out by private companies working for profit.

It would hardly take one inventor, (just about) everyone is capable of coming up with new innovations. Furthermore, there's no reason to assume that private companies working for profit would be the only ones who have the large expendatures of capital to carry out the decicated, systematic research.

You forget, capitalism is about transparancy. What Enron did was just as illegal in a free market system as it is in your system.

But what Enron did is more likely to happen in a society where there are great inequalities of wealth. As I stated, crime would increase.


Why do you hate freedom of association so badly?
I never said I hated freedom of association. People are free to practice it in private. However, when they enter the public arena, that's where the line is drawn.


Yes, they're getting away with illegal acts, under America's un-capitalistic regulatory socialist government controlled economic system. Oops.
It's laughable that you even consider America's government to be socialistic. Bureaucratic, yes, but the two are not synonymous.


Its even more illogical to assume any unprovable level of corruption. Lets stick to the facts shall we, instead of your biased suppositions.
No, it's logical to expect that unless things change, they will stay the same. As there has been a level of corruption, and nothing's changed, it's logical to assume that that level of corruption will be the same.


A system that doesn't have income equalities is a crime in and of itself since in order to eliminate income inequalities you must have an oppressive government, the more equal the more oppressive.
False. If people voluntarily choose to be enomically equal, there is no government necessary to enforce that.


The land that the US currently possesses was taken from the natives by European powers and subsequently conquered or purchased from those European powers by the US. If the US had not taken the land the natives would have still lost it to Europeans. Thus the US is the rightful owner of the lands, the natives were out of luck the instant they saw the first spanish flag, and the Europeans lost their conquests under international norms of conduct during that era.
So then what you're saying is that it's acceptable for the U.S to profit from the murder of the Natives and the theft of their land, because the U.S. wasn't the one who did it? (Although this doesn't hold true for the West, but we'll stick with the Eastern part for now.)

Democrats (and some Republicans) have to ignore thousands of years of thought by modern psychologhists back to leaders of ancient times to ignore the fact that creating a Dependant Class destroys everything from the economy to their private lives and those of their children.
In fact, it requires a blindness and ignorance that borders on repression.
I don't consider myself to be either, but thousands of years of human history indicate that cooperation is more necessary to human existence than competition.

I think the presence of government safety nets creates a moral hazard - people don't try to avoid failure if they know they will be bailed out. They should 'sink or swim' on their own.

You ignore something very important here - the shame that goes along with "living off the government cheese." The vast majority of citizens, while they know that the safety net is there, do *not* want to fall back on it - as doing so means that they are living off of others, which they see as shameful. Most people aren't going to just sit back and fail because there is a safety net, any more than acrobats are going to slack off and fall off the apparatus or a weightlifter with a spotter is going to slack off and drop all the weights.

I do not feel pity for homeless people. I believe that it is a life that they, in some way or another, chose. I do not believe that life deals people hands that are bad enough that they have no way of shaping their future. Ask yourself where the money that you give them goes? Alcohol? Drugs? Starbucks Coffee? There is no acceptable reason in my mind why an ablebodied person should not be working unless they do not want to.

You are *incredibly* naive.

There are all sorts of reasons a person could end up on the street. Some of them may come from poor decisions they made, others do not. Often it can come from a lack of education - which could be a direct result of being born into a poor family and having to drop out of school early to take care of your family.

Once you are on the street, the idea of getting a job is a joke. *No one* gives a job to someone with no home address or phone number, who doesn't have a sure-fire way to get to work on time every day, and who hasn't bathed in weeks.

I do not feel pity for homeless people. I believe that it is a life that they, in some way or another, chose. I do not believe that life deals people hands that are bad enough that they have no way of shaping their future. Ask yourself where the money that you give them goes? Alcohol? Drugs? Starbucks Coffee? There is no acceptable reason in my mind why an ablebodied person should not be working unless they do not want to.

just be careful with your generalizations, and remember that many studies have suggested that as many as 75% of the homeless population of America suffer from serious mental disorders, with as many as 39% of homeless people being schizophrenic. mental illnesses of that sort are very much a disability, even though the individuals may be well in body and physically capable of work.

Nope, you are confusing the metaphysical with the physical.
Good and evil are subjective.
Nope. They, along with everything else, are a matter of objective fact--your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Again, you should not do that because it is hypocritical.
No, it's not.

Still subjective,
NOTHING is subjective. Absolutely nothing.

You did not make such a statement.
I most certainly did. My exact words:
And, frankly, one's mere existence does not give others a moral obligation to support him. One only has a moral obligation to another if he explicitly accepts it--either by declaring as such or by causing another individual to exist (birth).
Please pay attention to what actually was written instead of what you would like to have been written since it would have been more convenient to you.
You said a human has no moral obligation to another. To state an exception is to say it is not true.
It's not true in the case of the stated exception, certainly.
Take a look at you example and determine the factual difference between it, and what you said.
Such a difference does not exist.

Nope. They, along with everything else, are a matter of objective fact--your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.


prove it.

Only things that are clearly defined can be objective. And "good" and "evil" are not clearly defined. There are lots of things in this world that are just too vague to be determined objectively.

Please pay attention to what actually was written instead of what you would like to have been written since it would have been more convenient to you.


And, frankly, one's mere existence does not give others a moral obligation to support him. One only has a moral obligation to another if he explicitly accepts it--either by declaring as such or by causing another individual to exist (birth).

I did, you are not properly analyzing what you wrote. Looking at the first and last parts of your comments, in essence, this is what you wrote: one is not owed a moral obligation because he exists, unless he is born, and to be born is to exist.

A breakdown:
If a person is born, then he exists.
If a person causes another to be born, they owe that person a moral obligation.
If a person causes another to be born, then they have caused the existence of that person.
If a moral obligation is owed because one causes a person to born, then a moral obligation is owed for causing that person to exist.
Therefore, because that person exists, they are owed a moral obligation.

What you said is inconsistent. You did not state an exception, but rather a contradiction. As it applies to everyone. Unless of course, you were not born, and therefore do not exist.

Nothing is subjective
Hmm.
Well then, if I were to say you were a fool, then you can not consider that subjective. You would consider your being a fool a matter of objective fact. Interesting.

It saddens how many communist welfare queens there are voting here.

It saddens me how many people are voting to keep giving money to corporate 'wefare kings.'

It saddens me how so many people decry the small handouts given to individuals who would otherwise starve or be homeless while they are funneling billions of taxpayer dollars into corporations that move their headquarters overseas in order to avoid regulations and move the jobs overseas in order to avoid having to pay anything near a liveable wage and benefits the citizens whose taxes are proping up said corporations.

It saddens me that the great majority of business subsides go to these huge mega-corporations who can use monopalistic tacics to further supress small business and those trying to succeed by merit. It saddens me that huge banks, corporate farms, and their ilk can conduct business practically risk free while family farmers, the small town store owners and thier type have to risk everything in an attempt to succeed.

It saddens me that politicians' careers live and die by donations from these mega-corporations and thus subvert the needs of the vast majority of the citizenry to benefit these conglomerates thus creating an oligarchy where the voices of the many are silenced.

It saddens me that both major political parties in my nation are in on this corporate scamming of my nation.

It saddens me that the corporate state uses some people's innate greed and need to feel superior to others to divert public attention away from where the majority of the welfare is going.

It saddens me that people will kick and scream about the government providing a few basic necessities for the most unfortunate of its citizens while completely turning a blind eye to the largess spread before its most fortunate citizens.

Want to save your tax dollars. Start calling for an end to susidies for the 1% that least need them.

I was going to choose the middle one, but then I noticed the Government-subsidised bit - I wouldn't let the employers get away with that - they should pay a minimum wage.

Incorrect. The owners are the producers. If I own a factory then all the goods produced by the machines that I own is mine. All the labor that the employee puts into running my capital is what he owns and is compensated for in the form of his wage which we mutually agreed on. Furthermore, the employee risks nothing, he is simply there. The owner on the otherhand has all the risk since he has sunk his capital into the means of production which he will lose should the company fail.

You accuse others of being naive yet your present a simplified rosy view of capitalism based around a small business model that is becoming increasing less common.

The reality is that the majority of supposedly free enterprise no longer carries any risk. A corportation has one its subsiary corporations take out a loan then diverts the funds elsewhere and when the subsidiary company fails, writes that off as a loss - at a gain for the parent corporation - and writes of the subsidiary's debts at great cost to the taxpayers. In doing so, because it is able to risk less, the corporation is also able to undercut new and small businesses which must begin the oldfashion way, ensuring that there will be very little competition and thereby keeping the majority of the wealth concentrated, and the pool of labor available for it to exploit is even greater.

Furthermore labor is also a resource, also a form of capital. Without it the owner would produce abolutely nothing. Yet labor is payed as little as possible, fractions of what it is worth. And it gets by with this because while the government is handing out billions of taxpayer dollars in the forms of subsidies and taxbreaks to the mega-conglomerates, it is refusing to support even the basic needs of the majority of the citizens, thereby forcing the citizens into unfavorable contracts which do not reward them even a fraction of what their labor is actually worth in order to survive. This in turn further limits the amount of wealth in the hands of the general populace so that it becomes even more difficult for a person to start a business to compete with the mega -corporations. And so the wealth gets driven further and further into the hands of a few.

I vote for abolishing inheritance.
If you want to live like a king, work like all of your subjects.
-> redistribute their property so noone is in the need.

I vote for abolishing inheritance.
If you want to live like a king, work like all of your subjects.
-> redistribute their property so noone is in the need.
all that would do is punish people who die suddenly. if laws of inheritance were abolished then all people who have property at the ends of their lives would give it away just before they die (which would still be their right, since it belongs to them and they can make gifts)...the only people who would be unable to do that would be people who die suddenly or unexpectedly and don't have the chance to give away their property before death. it seems especially cruel to further punish families who lose loved ones abruptly; "oh, so your Dad was killed in a car wreck? well, since he didn't have time to say goodbye to you kids, that means we get to take all his stuff and give it away to whomever we like! too bad he didn't get a chance to put his affairs in order before he died...SUCKER!!"

all that would do is punish people who die suddenly. if laws of inheritance were abolished then all people who have property at the ends of their lives would give it away just before they die (which would still be their right, since it belongs to them and they can make gifts)...the only people who would be unable to do that would be people who die suddenly or unexpectedly and don't have the chance to give away their property before death. it seems especially cruel to further punish families who lose loved ones abruptly; "oh, so your Dad was killed in a car wreck? well, since he didn't have time to say goodbye to you kids, that means we get to take all his stuff and give it away to whomever we like! too bad he didn't get a chance to put his affairs in order before he died...SUCKER!!"In my country, inheritance is taxed to death when is exceeds €80 000. Gifts are taxed even more, except when giving to registered non-profit public associations (like charity). I say it should be completely abolished, or limited to €50 000 max.

In my country, inheritance is taxed to death when is exceeds €80 000. Giving is taxed even more, except when giving to registered non-profit public associations (like charity). I say it should be completely abolished, or limited to €50 000 max.
wow, so you don't think people should have the right to choose what to do with their own property? that basically eliminates the right to property (since what is the point of having it if you can't choose what to do with it), and i can't pretend to have anything but contempt for such a view...the government isn't your mommy or mine, so why shouldn't we simply expect adults to take responsibility for their own business? what entitles some stranger to the money i have earned? why should my life savings not pass to my (theoretical) children, who are the most important people in the world to me? why should my hard work not earn me the right to choose who benefits from my labors?

wow, so you don't think people should have the right to choose what to do with their own property? that basically eliminates the right to property (since what is the point of having it if you can't choose what to do with it), and i can't pretend to have anything but contempt for such a view...the government isn't your mommy or mine, so why shouldn't we simply expect adults to take responsibility for their own business? what entitles some stranger to the money i have earned? why should my life savings not pass to my (theoretical) children, who are the most important people in the world to me? why should my hard work not earn me the right to choose who benefits from my labors?Land is not the product of labor.
Moreover, there are many things you can do with "your" property beside giving it to your dynasty.

Land is not the product of labor.
buttons are pretty.

have i won the one-liner non-sequiter contest? can we get back to the discussion now?

^
|
whatever

Let's say I work very hard to steal your car.
Do I not have the right to do whatever the fuck I want to do with it since I worked hard?
I think that's the kind of logic you're trying to push down my throat.

I did, you are not properly analyzing what you wrote. Looking at the first and last parts of your comments, in essence, this is what you wrote: one is not owed a moral obligation because he exists, unless he is born, and to be born is to exist.

A breakdown:
If a person is born, then he exists.
If a person causes another to be born, they owe that person a moral obligation.
If a person causes another to be born, then they have caused the existence of that person.
If a moral obligation is owed because one causes a person to born, then a moral obligation is owed for causing that person to exist.
Therefore, because that person exists, they are owed a moral obligation.

What you said is inconsistent. You did not state an exception, but rather a contradiction. As it applies to everyone.
It is not inconsistent. You're totally misreading what I have said. One has no moral obligation to another just because that person was born, but only if he CAUSED that person to be born. Please pay attention. I'm sick and tired of dealing with such ignorant straw man arguments.


Hmm.
Well then, if I were to say you were a fool, then you can not consider that subjective. You would consider your being a fool a matter of objective fact. Interesting.
Yes, it is. But it would be a false fact. Everything being a matter of objective fact does not mean that every possible statement is true--it simply means that every statement has an objective true/false value. Please learn some basic philosophy before you make any more such errors.

That isn't wrong, thats just. The rich people drive the economy forward and benefit us all along the way. The software I'm using on my computer was cheap and its effective. If it were not for the rich people, namely Gates, in the computer industry I'd be poorer, I'd have less free time, and I'd be doing more work. Thats just one obvious example, I can point to almost any object in my home that makes my life easier, more enjoyable, and richer while saying the same thing.




If you took away the top 1% and their capital we would revert back into a primative society overnight. The rich contribute an overwhelming proponderance of the economies effectiveness and they also bear an inordinate amount of the risk associated with economic activity. I'm very grateful to the wealthy people and if you had any sense you would be too. Really? So other, more socialist nations are "primitive"?

What about the people who NEVER HAVE A CHANCE? Who are born poor, and so may be brilliant technicians or whatever - but don't have a chance to improve their skills?

Anyone noticed that 69% is basically liberal/conservative (1-3), and only 31% is Communist (4-5)? If politics made sense, this would mean that the liberal/conservative policy would be applied. Is it?

(Of kyrsä, this isn't a representative sample.)

^
|
whatever

Let's say I work very hard to steal your car.
Do I not have the right to do whatever the fuck I want to do with it since I worked hard?
I think that's the kind of logic you're trying to push down my throat.
riiiiight. okay. explain to me how my career steals from you, again? given that i have paid for my education, i have worked to get my jobs, i have spent the time and energy getting trained and getting skilled, and i am the one that puts the time and effort into the work itself, your implication that you own some part of my earnings is beyond insulting...it's just plain silly. you stealing my car is unjust because my property cannot justly pass to you against my will; similarly, you claiming ownership of my labor and my income against my will is theft.

Moreover, there are many things you can do with "your" property beside giving it to your dynasty.
yes, there are many things i can do with it beyond passing it to my family. so? why should you be entitled to make that decision for me, or to take control of my property against my wishes? how is that any different than theft? if i do not have the right to dispose of my own property in the way i judge best, then what point is there in working or earning anything for myself? can i not just order some other person to give me their life savings, as you propose?

it simply means that every statement has an objective true/false value.

NO, that is true only when the terms used in that statement are well-defined.

Something like "good" is not well-defined.

I'll use a simple example from something I know - a tennis match. I, personally, have criteria for deciding whether a tennis match is "good" or not - winner to error ratio, number of net approaches, "smoothness" of shots. This does not necessarily correspond to somebody else's definition of good - for example, some people might consider a match "good" if there are two stars playing, such as Andy Roddick vs. Lleyton Hewitt. I, for example, would consider the 2002 Wimbledon second round between Tim Henman and Scott Draper to be a "good" match, whereas I would consider the 2004 US Open final between Roger Federer and Lleyton Hewitt to be a downright crappy match.

The statement "Such and such a match was a good match" does not have an objective true/false value, because it depends on who is saying it and what criteria they use and so on. I.e. it's subjective.

You ignore something very important here - the shame that goes along with "living off the government cheese." The vast majority of citizens, while they know that the safety net is there, do *not* want to fall back on it - as doing so means that they are living off of others, which they see as shameful. Most people aren't going to just sit back and fail because there is a safety net, any more than acrobats are going to slack off and fall off the apparatus or a weightlifter with a spotter is going to slack off and drop all the weights.


I would agree with you were this the 1950s...but these days it seems like no one has pride anymore. It seems like it's actually 'uncool' to work in some cultural circles.

I would agree with you were this the 1950s...but these days it seems like no one has pride anymore. It seems like it's actually 'uncool' to work in some cultural circles.
Not for the people who can actually contribute to society.

I was going to vote the market forces one, but then I looked at myself.

I'm a student. I'd be dead by now


I'm a student, I'm still alive, get a job and quit living off the system, that is my answer to anybody who is having trouble making it.

It is not inconsistent. You're totally misreading what I have said. One has no moral obligation to another just because that person was born, but only if he CAUSED that person to be born. Please pay attention. I'm sick and tired of dealing with such ignorant straw man arguments.

What I stated was not a slippery slope, it was a stream illustrating how your use of terms creates an inconsistency. Seems like you are the ignorant one. Why?

Here is what you wrote:

And, frankly, one's mere existence does not give others a moral obligation to support him. One only has a moral obligation to another if he explicitly accepts it--either by declaring as such or by causing another individual to exist (birth).

Here is what you think you wrote, and are defending:

One has no moral obligation to another just because that person was born, but only if he CAUSED that person to be born

Two different things. The second makes sense. The first, well, continue to discredit yourself by defending it. Make sure you read what you write before calling others ignorant. The first statement is inconsistent, as everyone is born or exists because of the actions of another, and, by your logic, are owed a moral obligation by those who created them, therefore, that they exist means they are owed a moral obligation.



Yes, it is. But it would be a false fact. Everything being a matter of objective fact does not mean that every possible statement is true--it simply means that every statement has an objective true/false value. Please learn some basic philosophy before you make any more such errors.

A false fact? Interesting concept. Maybe you should retake your undergraduate coursework at a different institution. Your ability to pass multiple choice questions is great, but nobody appears to have spent much time allowing you to apply what is taught. A review of practical reason and the metaphysics of morals may help you distinguish between objectivity and subjectivity. See Reasonabilityness for the main rebuttal to your misunderstanding/misapplying concepts.

Really? So other, more socialist nations are "primitive"?

What about the people who NEVER HAVE A CHANCE? Who are born poor, and so may be brilliant technicians or whatever - but don't have a chance to improve their skills?
The USA was built by people who supposedly "never had a chance". Some of our greatest corporate success stories are those of immigrants who started with nothing. Just because you start poor does not mean you can not "make it" in our society with a little hard work and ingenuity.

The USA was built by people who supposedly "never had a chance". Some of our greatest corporate success stories are those of immigrants who started with nothing.
Yes, like the touching tale of a young Texan who managed to drive numerous oil companies into bankrupcy, later to assume one of the highest and most powerful positions in the world...

NO, that is true only when the terms used in that statement are well-defined.

Something like "good" is not well-defined.

I'll use a simple example from something I know - a tennis match. I, personally, have criteria for deciding whether a tennis match is "good" or not - winner to error ratio, number of net approaches, "smoothness" of shots. This does not necessarily correspond to somebody else's definition of good - for example, some people might consider a match "good" if there are two stars playing, such as Andy Roddick vs. Lleyton Hewitt. I, for example, would consider the 2002 Wimbledon second round between Tim Henman and Scott Draper to be a "good" match, whereas I would consider the 2004 US Open final between Roger Federer and Lleyton Hewitt to be a downright crappy match.

The statement "Such and such a match was a good match" does not have an objective true/false value, because it depends on who is saying it and what criteria they use and so on. I.e. it's subjective.

Incorrect. What constitutes "good" and "bad" is objectively defined. Certain individuals may use definitions of "good" and "bad" that differ from the objectively correct ones, but that does not mean that "good" and "bad" become subjective notions--it simply means that those individuals are wrong.

What I stated was not a slippery slope, it was a stream illustrating how your use of terms creates an inconsistency. Seems like you are the ignorant one. Why?

Two different things.
No.

There is no substantial difference between those two sentences, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

The first statement is inconsistent,
No, it's not.
as everyone is born or exists because of the actions of another,
Yes, but please READ the first statement:
And, frankly, one's mere existence does not give others a moral obligation to support him. One only has a moral obligation to another if he explicitly accepts it--either by declaring as such or (here is the relevant part) by causing another individual to exist (birth).
I emphasized the important part, since you obviously haven't seen it before.

A false fact? Interesting concept.
A common concept. A fact is something that is provably true or false. Labelling something a fact does not mean it is true; it simply means that it can be PROVEN to be true or false.
Maybe you should retake your undergraduate coursework at a different institution. Your ability to pass multiple choice questions is great,
What? What the hell are you talking about?

Yes, like the touching tale of a young Texan who managed to drive numerous oil companies into bankrupcy, later to assume one of the highest and most powerful positions in the world...
No, like the tale of Amedeo Obici, Italian emigrant at age 11:

Amedeo Obici (Ah-may-day-o O-bee-chee), founder of Planters, was born in 1876 in the small town of Oderzo near Venice, Italy. When Obici was old enough to read, his widowed mother would show him his uncle's glowing letters from America. Thus began Obici's dream.
At age eleven, reality had him pulling up at Bush Terminal in Brooklyn, New York. An Italian immigrant, 11 years old, not knowing any English, but going on to become prosperous business innovator. His willingness to work showed even at this early age. He started his career as a bellhop and fruitstand vendor in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Later, Obici moved to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and opened his own fruit stand and invested in a peanut roaster. Here he linked his life's fortune with the peanut. In a few years, Obici turned peddler, using a horse and wagon, and called himself "The Peanut Specialist". In 1906, Obici went into partnership with Mario Peruzzi. He had developed his own method of blanching whole roasted peanuts, doing away with the troublesome hulls and skins; and so with six employees two large roasters, and crude machinery, Planters was founded. Amedeo Obici realized that prices and first profits were not nearly so important as repeat business. He proved his operation based on quality and brand name were important for continued success. Two years later, the firm was incorporated as Planters Nut and Chocolate Company.

Source: http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story041.htm
Opportunities are available, they just must be developed with hard work and ingenuity.

Incorrect. What constitutes "good" and "bad" is objectively defined. Certain individuals may use definitions of "good" and "bad" that differ from the objectively correct ones, but that does not mean that "good" and "bad" become subjective notions--it simply means that those individuals are wrong.
I think what you are saying is that your "opponent" is taking the words "good" and "bad" and applying relativism to them. What's good for you is bad for me, and so on. There is an objective definition of good and an objective definition of bad, just that two people may not agree what that objective definition is.

There is an objective definition of good and an objective definition of bad, just that two people may not agree what that objective definition is.

Well, if there's more than one definition, and you can't say that one is right and one is wrong, both are equally valid, then it can't be objective, can it?

We're using the terms "objective" and "subjective" without defining them, I think we're not on the same page there either.
;)

riiiiight. okay. explain to me how my career steals from you, again? given that i have paid for my education, i have worked to get my jobs, i have spent the time and energy getting trained and getting skilled, and i am the one that puts the time and effort into the work itself, your implication that you own some part of my earnings is beyond insulting...it's just plain silly. you stealing my car is unjust because my property cannot justly pass to you against my will; similarly, you claiming ownership of my labor and my income against my will is theft.
I don't claim ownership of your labor, but I think the state can claim ownership of your property after your death. Property is not labor.

yes, there are many things i can do with it beyond passing it to my family. so? why should you be entitled to make that decision for me, or to take control of my property against my wishes? how is that any different than theft? if i do not have the right to dispose of my own property in the way i judge best, then what point is there in working or earning anything for myself? can i not just order some other person to give me their life savings, as you propose?
Well that's basically what you do when you inherit. Why work when you inherit a billion? Explain that to me please?

No.

There is no substantial difference between those two sentences, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.


No, it's not.

Yes, but please READ the first statement:

I emphasized the important part, since you obviously haven't seen it before.


A common concept. A fact is something that is provably true or false. Labelling something a fact does not mean it is true; it simply means that it can be PROVEN to be true or false.

What? What the hell are you talking about?


You claim ignorance where it does not exist, under the guise of being one well versed in philosophy, I challenge that guise.

Any way. No point in either of us being uncivil.

Your statement has been read, and it does not say what you meant it to say.

If a moral obligation arises when one causes another to exist, that new individual is owed a moral obligation because they exist. As you agreed that everyone who exists, exists because another caused them to exist, then a moral obligation is owed to them by another for their existing. So, it can not be said that ones existence does not entitle them to a moral obligation from another. Which is substantially different than No one owes another a moral obligation because the other exists. The two statement are not the same.

Now, however, if someone is injured by the negligent conduct of another, is that person entitled to recover from the one who caused the accident? Under your idealogy, no, as no moral obligation has been declared by the one causing the accident that harmed the other, nor did that person cause the existence of the injured person. Thus, the one causing the accident had no moral obligation to not act negligently so as to harm others. If you look at what was written that incorporates your initial thoughts, then yes, a moral obligation is owed. Which do you think works better?

A fact is something that has been proven true or false, and that proof can be repeated. Otherwise, it is speculative. labeling something a fact means that it is true. It is a fact that car is green. It is a fact that car is not green. It is a fact that x is true, It is a fact that x is false. It is a fact that something is true or false. Alternatively, it is true that x is true, it is true that x is false. That something can be a fact is a concept that treats both the meaning of the word true and the criteria by which we judge the truth or falsity.

I don't claim ownership of your labor, but I think the state can claim ownership of your property after your death. Property is not labor.

It is the fruit of his labor. He would not have it but for his labor. So, who are we to usurp what he has attained, and not allow him to bequeth it to those whom he wishes? Should it matter if he gives it to others before he dies, or leaves it in a will?

It is the fruit of his labor. He would not have it but for his labor. So, who are we to usurp what he has attained, and not allow him to bequeth it to those whom he wishes? Should it matter if he gives it to others before he dies, or leaves it in a will?
Land is not the fruit of anyone's labor.