NationStates Jolt Archive

Be careful. As a true neo-con fascist and all-around bastard I support free trade capitalism, private property, abhor socialism in any way shape or form, and believe in a small government that stays out of my business. So if you are reading this with the pre-conceived notion that things like socialized medicine are are good and use the words, "proletariat" and "bourgeois" in your internet bloggs quite often along with obtuse railing for what you consider the "greater good" you will seethingly hate me with a passion of the Christ. (And though I am a Christian, to piss off all you christian activists, I will honestly say I hated that movie. Stick to Braveheart, Gibson.)

I apologize for the obscenely long run-on sentences that I was always so berated by my English teachers for, but simple sentences just don't seem to capture a rant quite as well, somthing most internet liberals can even agree with, I'm sure. To clear the air, I am not a supporter of Bush, a Republican, or a rich guy sitting behind a desk pushing my evil agenda to make money and destroy the lives of proletarians everywhere (by the way, if you haven't caught a whiff of the satire yet, you're an idiot). Similarly as you have probably guessed by now, I am not a supporter of the Democrat (not Democratic, an all too common gramatical error, It's like saying "chocoholic", come on, there's no such thing as "chocohol") Party. I am simply a guy who looks out for himself and the people he has chosen to love, who tries his hardest to accomplish his own personal goals for what makes him happy.

I can live with or without you and I exist only for myself. Does this make me a base, barbaric, simple, idiot who doesn't care for anyone but himself? No, It means that I have the choice of living and loving as I please (as long as the actions in this life don't infringe upon another's right to do so). I can help others in need however and whenever I please, with more sincerity based on my own moral principles in a more effective way than the government could their way just taking my money and redistributing it through taxes. It's called giving. Not giving back, giving. These people I help through my gifts and my services did nothing for me and never helped me in any way, so the phrase "giving back" is a mistake encouraged by peolple who think success and wealth are given to a lucky winner who doesn't deserve it but needs to share it. Thus the phrase "more fortunate" serves the same purpose. Less than one percent of the millionaires in this country inherited their money so I doubt that's the case.

The thing is, we live in a society that is based on the principle of free-market capitalism. Wealth is created, earned, competed for, and this competition drives people and companies to perform and live up to expectations. We hate monopolies as a society because the lack of competition means that there is no incentive to offer better products and working conditions. Let's say you are the sole propriator of a necessary product, if no one else is vying for the wealth brought in by customers, you can do as crappy of a job as you want to and even if people complain you don't necessarily have to do anything about it, because they need you and you know it. Now supplement the government for the "you" part and and the necessary product becomes healthcare. Socialized medicine would have the same results as a private monopoly over medicine. Exept now you have the added bonus of going through an inefficient government beaurocracy. Ever been to the DMV? Imagine waiting in that line for healthcare approval, and then another month for the actual care to take place. That's what It would be like. Don't beleive me? Take a look at Canada or Europe, that's exactly what happens. In fact, people come to the United States from these countries with socialized medicine in order to immediently receive surgury that would take months to get in their respective home nations. But it's free right? Wrong. Instead you get a big tax hike added to your bill each year, you still pay for it, you sap. Exept now, you have no choice in who provides your healthcare, in the quality of your care, or even when you receive it. I hate the idea because as a country it would mean the admittance that the government knows what's better for us collectively than we do individually.

People can talk all they want about how the poor of this country cannot afford healthcare unless the government provides it for them. That only the rich, and the rich alone have adequate care. Well, i hate to break it to you liberals out there, but yes, yes they can. For alot of people it's hard to admit that the poor of this country put themeselves into poverty through incompetance and bad decisions; barring of course serious mental/physical handicappes as well as the loss of a primary income-earner or collapse of a business, my heart goes out to the small fraction of those who face those circumstances. But competent poor people who face unfortunate circumstances manage to afford healthcare and other necessities because they manage their finances well enough to get themselves out of poverty. It is unimaginably, and extremely possible in this country. Most poor people spend too much of their money on things they shouldn't or don't need, or wind up having children they know they can't afford and they pay the price for it. My aunt "Carissa" is a good example of this with two illegitamite children from different fathers, who could live somewhat comfortably if their mother had gotton an education and a suitable job, or married the men who impregnated her or if she didn't spend her money on frivolous things like new cars and clothes and shoes. She has no insurance, and relies on my grandparents to raise my cousins. Both my father and my uncle found some way to afford college despite the low income of my grandparents, and now have good jobs and families in good neighborhoods and yes, with insurance.

People like to complain how the world Americans live in makes the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. All I have to say is, "Well duh...and your point is?" Because the poor, who make bad decisions and squander the boundless opportunities offered to them in this nation, are making the same stupid decisions that made them poor in the first place. And the rich, are still making the good decisions that made them succeed.

You may hate me and denounce me as a rich and bitter hater of all things markedly plebian, looking to turn the world over on it's head for my own profit. In reality, I am a sixteen year old high-school student who knows that my success or failure in life will depend on how hard I work to get into a college I will have to afford on my own and to obtain a job that others will be competing for. I know that even if I fall into povery and hard times, I live in a country where the poor can grow fat and that the ladder I climb is infinite until I am satisfied. How I make out depends on the decisions I make, and I am free to determine what those decisions are. People who give up this responsibility for the secure, yet limited and incomplete life of a colletivized, socialist society do not understand this, and rely on the government and the people around them to make their decisions for them. I live for no man. I am me. And I am free to live as I wish because of this idea.

Life-Liberty-Property. Hell, yeah.

B.l.o.g.

tl;dr

Similarly as you have probably guessed by now, I am not a supporter of the Democrat (not Democratic, an all too common gramatical error, It's like saying "chocoholic", come on, there's no such thing as "chocohol") Party.

http://www.democrats.org/img/logo.gif

From the "Democrat" Website. You are WRONG. The rest of your rubbish is a load a bull I won't even bother to go through.

http://www.democrats.org/img/logo.gif

From the "Democrat" Website. You are WRONG.

Well if s/he's wrong about that, they must be wrong as well about chocohol and its party.
Sad, sad day.
*sobs*

I too hate babies and poor people, which is why I don't want to become either one.

I too hate babies and poor people, which is why I don't want to become either one.

Too bad age brings that all right back to a person, what with being infirm of mind and bladder, having to wear diapers and having people help you eat, dress and groom yourself, and hope you had enough sense to cover your estate wisely.

Well if s/he's wrong about that, they must be wrong as well about chocohol and its party.
Sad, sad day.
*sobs*

Someone restart the NS General Elections so we can start a Chocohol Party.

Someone restart the NS General Elections so we can start a Chocohol Party.

You mean there wasn't one already? I could *swear* there was one.
WYTYG was in it (honorarily or otherwise), iirc.

You are not a fascist.

In terms of 'big government v. small government', fascists are the extreme of big government.

You are a capitalist. Good for you.

You are a capitalist. Good for you.

http://libertyparachuteteam.com/images/lpt_flag.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/applause_crowd.gif


Yeah, now that we're past that, bring on the chocolate.

http://libertyparachuteteam.com/images/lpt_flag.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/applause_crowd.gif


Yeah, now that we're past that, bring on the chocolate.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/13/chocolate_narrowweb__300x435,0.jpg

there's no such thing as "chocohol"

Apparently, it's equal parts Bailey's Irish Cream and Chocolate Milk (http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink7640.html).

14 people give it 9.8 out of 10.

EDIT: :eek: Or how about The Communist (http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink1t5s291.html)

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/13/chocolate_narrowweb__300x435,0.jpg

Thank you. *bows*
The party now has my vote ...

check's in the mail. :)

Apparently, it's equal parts Bailey's Irish Cream and Chocolate Milk (http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink7640.html).

14 people give it 9.8 out of 10.

So amazingly and humiliatingly pwned.

*bows*

Thank you. *bows*
The party now has my vote ...

check's in the mail. :)

Yay, a check!

You realize it will likely be spent on goodies rather than anything useful.

(Although if college is any indication goodies are the best publicity stunt ever.)

You mean there wasn't one already? I could *swear* there was one.
WYTYG was in it (honorarily or otherwise), iirc.

That was the Alcohol Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499772). Close enough.

He/she is only 16 and has much to learn yet.......

* takes bite of the chocohol cake!! :)

So amazingly and humiliatingly pwned.

*bows*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svAtY7D0-bw

*returns the bow, only slightly out of sync, like in a poorly dubbed movie*

...I hate babies...

I live for no man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPK6aewVO_o

tl;dr

Yeah, this.

Neocons don't believe in small government btw, in fact they believe in a big corporate/religious behemoth which has 'ethical and moral' regard for all, I am taking Strauss as my source just so you know. You probably should look up on the differences between traditional pro-community/family conservatives (old school ones) and the new free-market heartless cold utilitarian liberals you spoke of. Old conservatives (which has been re-animated by neoconservatism) believe is a strong nation and community with family-based private property/inheritance etc, but with ethical regard for those less fortunate. The new liberals are those who think eventually the cold utility of the unfettered market will consume all social institutions, including the family, in it's pursuit of accumulation. The alliance between the two has never been friendly, and it won't last forever.

Also, tl;dr and blog.

That was the Alcohol Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499772). Close enough.

Yeah. We seem to be having a real party in the making. :)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13024395&postcount=18
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13024382&postcount=16
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13024362&postcount=12

i don't know about any other evil then to knowingly, willingly and unprovoked cause avoidable suffering, but i do know that the artificial reality of symbolic value is not a default condition of the tangable universe. and i do kind of wish a few more people would pull their heads out long enough to realize this and consider other possibilities besides the only assumptions the're all too familiar with.

=^^=
.../\...

I too hate babies and poor people, which is why I don't want to become either one.

As a commie, I love babies. Well done and with some olive oil and rosemary for me, thank you.

B

I can live with or without you and I exist only for myself.

Then I suppose you grow your own food, built your own house, ran your own cable connection to the computer, operate the power plant shunting electricity to it, and administrated this website (the most notable function of which *is* communicating with other people) for the last four years?

Everyone needs someone else. Most people need many other people, regardless of whether or not they know them by name, or even know if they exist. The reason I believe in socialized medicine is that, beyond just allowing me to contribute to helping others in their time of need, I know their contributions will be there to help me in mine.

Don't be silly. Cappies don't hate babies, they eat them.

I did read the whole of the OP, and now would like to demand the last 10 minutes of my life back.

Life-Liberty-Property. Hell, yeah.
This is the part where I roll my eyes . . .

I did read the whole of the OP, and now would like to demand the last 10 minutes of my life back.
. . . And this is the part where I point and laugh.

I'm not exactly sure what's going on, but here is another Simpson's Youtube clip. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dZsX7kZS28

How could anyone hate babies? They're so delicious!

Wall of text crits you for 235860..
You have been slain...



Soo, how about this Chocohol party then ? :D

Who doesn't hate babies is my question.

How could anyone hate babies? They're so delicious!

You get five points for that one! :p

I read all of the OP's post, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. We capitalists always to get a bad rap because we happen to believe that we're better off without government interference than with it, which leads, in a round-about way, to people thinking that we hate poor people/disabled people/minorities etc as a group (which is blatantly false).

Anyway, kudos to the OP. Good work.

I read all of the OP's post, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. We capitalists always to get a bad rap because we happen to believe that we're better off without government interference than with it, which leads, in a round-about way, to people thinking that we hate poor people/disabled people/minorities etc as a group (which is blatantly false).

Anyway, kudos to the OP. Good work.

You might be better off without government interference, but some people rely on minimum wage laws, import tariffs and the like to protect their jobs (and therefore their income).

BTW I don't like governments either, and I do think they stick their nose into our business more than they should, but they're a necessary evil.

You get five points for that one! :p

Been better if it hadn't been the third baby eating post in the thread. :(

I read all of the OP's post, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. We capitalists always to get a bad rap because we happen to believe that we're better off without government interference than with it, which leads, in a round-about way, to people thinking that we hate poor people/disabled people/minorities etc as a group (which is blatantly false).

Anyway, kudos to the OP. Good work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr4wT_B5dT8

:)

Been better if it hadn't been the third baby eating post in the thread. :(

Meh. I'll give it to you anyway.

You might be better off without government interference, but some people rely on minimum wage laws, import tariffs and the like to protect their jobs (and therefore their income).

Wages are better protected by the market for jobs and the individual's skills. Minimum wage laws are either completely ineffective or put a burden on the market such that unemployment rises and thus hurt the lower class even more. Tariffs are a similar story.

BTW I don't like governments either, and I do think they stick their nose into our business more than they should, but they're a necessary evil.

I applaud you; less government is good for us all! However, I think that the government's only job is to ease commercial exchange (i.e. building highways, etc.) and fight wars. Anything beyond that is overstepping its bounds.

Wages are better protected by the market for jobs and the individual's skills. Minimum wage laws are either completely ineffective or put a burden on the market such that unemployment rises and thus hurt the lower class even more. Tariffs are a similar story.

Minimum wages are very low as they are, and so abiding by minimum wage laws doesn't cut into a businesses profits much at all.

Unemplyment is often caused by a lack of jobs in the area... a loss that can often be prevented by protecting local jobs with tariffs.

Minimum wages are very low as they are, and so abiding by minimum wage laws doesn't cut into a businesses profits much at all.

Not true. In fact, the way they were, the federal minimum wage was below the equilibrium minimum wage, which means: people who are earning market-defined minimum wages are making more than what the government said they should be making.

Unemplyment is often caused by a lack of jobs in the area... a loss that can often be prevented by protecting local jobs with tariffs.

True, but unemployment is also caused by minimum wage laws that are too high. Also, if the tariffs are high, companies are generally forced to stay in the US. If their costs are too high (i.e., they can't afford to pay their employees their wages) they would have 2 options: 1: move to a country where the workers can be paid less, or 2: declare bankruptcy. If the tariffs high enough that it would cost more to move away, said company is forced to close its doors, and its employees are unemployeed anyway.

Ummm.. yeah... a federal minimum wage is a good thing for all locations in the country...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hzoktWGf63RJcNzctvWwflexvXcw

ooops...

Looks like you'll have to pay people 10 dollars an hour to flip burgers in Montana.

You'll have to pay then 16 dollars an hour in Herndon, Va - or they won't even apply for the job.

Neocons don't believe in small government btw, in fact they believe in a big corporate/religious behemoth which has 'ethical and moral' regard for all, I am taking Strauss as my source just so you know. You probably should look up on the differences between traditional pro-community/family conservatives (old school ones) and the new free-market heartless cold utilitarian liberals you spoke of. Old conservatives (which has been re-animated by neoconservatism) believe is a strong nation and community with family-based private property/inheritance etc, but with ethical regard for those less fortunate. The new liberals are those who think eventually the cold utility of the unfettered market will consume all social institutions, including the family, in it's pursuit of accumulation. The alliance between the two has never been friendly, and it won't last forever.

Also, tl;dr and blog.

Well you supposedly don't believe in government either just a "community".

I'm an evil capitalist, I hate babies and poor people (At least that's what I'm told)

Be careful. As a true neo-con fascist and all-around bastard I support free trade capitalism, private property, abhor socialism in any way shape or form, and believe in a small government that stays out of my business. So if you are reading this with the pre-conceived notion that things like socialized medicine are good and use the words, "proletariat" and "bourgeois" in your internet bogs quite often along with obtuse railing for what you consider the "greater good" you will soothingly hate me with a passion of the Christ. (And though I am a Christian , to piss off all you Christian activists, I will honestly say I hated that movie. Stick to Brave heart, Gibson.)

So how is George W. Bush working out for you? Is he staying out of your business? I think not. Just so you know I support capitalism too but with one difference I support old school capitalism. You know where business owners cared about their fellow man and charged fair, economically sound prices instead of over pricing everything. Oh and by the way since you say you are a Christian I would like to remind you of a scripture …. “ To those whom much is given, much is expected. ” Them are not my words, but those of the Lord Jesus himself. Further I want you to know that I do not hate you, I feel sorry for you.


I apologize for the obscenely long run-on sentences that I was always so berated by my English teachers for, but simple sentences just don't seem to capture a rant quite as well, something most internet liberals can even agree with, I'm sure. To clear the air, I am not a supporter of Bush, a Republican, or a rich guy sitting behind a desk pushing my evil agenda to make money and destroy the lives of proletarians everywhere (by the way, if you haven't caught a whiff of the satire yet, you're an idiot). Similarly as you have probably guessed by now, I am not a supporter of the Democrat (not Democratic, an all too common grammatical error, It's like saying "chocoholic", come on, there's no such thing as "chocohol") Party. I am simply a guy who looks out for himself and the people he has chosen to love, who tries his hardest to accomplish his own personal goals for what makes him happy.

While I am glad that you don’t support George W I have to in some ways agree with at least your spelling teacher. Your spelling needs some work … ok? So here is a bit of advice …. Make use of the spellchecker. Also I’d like to remind you that by your standards the Lord himself could be considered a proletarian using this definition: “ proletarian ;- belonging to or characteristic of the proletariat, low-class, lower-class - occupying the lowest socioeconomic position in a society.” So if I fit that category I consider myself in extremely good company. Can you say the same? There is nothing wrong with looking out for the people you love as long as you are not harming other people in the process. Please remember that .... then live your life accordingly.


I can live with or without you and I exist only for myself. Does this make me a base, barbaric, simple, idiot who doesn't care for anyone but himself? No, It means that I have the choice of living and loving as I please (as long as the actions in this life don't infringe upon another's right to do so). I can help others in need however and whenever I please, with more sincerity based on my own moral principles in a more effective way than the government could their way just taking my money and redistributing it through taxes. It's called giving. Not giving back, giving. These people I help through my gifts and my services did nothing for me and never helped me in any way, so the phrase "giving back" is a mistake encouraged by people who think success and wealth are given to a lucky winner who doesn't deserve it but needs to share it. Thus the phrase "more fortunate" serves the same purpose. Less than one percent of the millionaires in this country inherited their money so I doubt that's the case.

Truth be told a business owner can not live without the rest of us. If not us who would be their employees? Who would do the things they need done but refuse to do themself. Who would buy their companies products? Who would help them bear the burden of taxes? Do not decieve yourself business owners need us more then you want to admit.
Also anything you do have was given (or will be given) to you by the Lord, because of this if you really are a Christian then you must follow the scripture mentioned above regardless of whether or not the people receiving your gifts as you call them did anything for you or not.
I’m not saying that you have not worked hard to get where you are in life. But so have a lot of the poor people you are putting down by using terms they may not even be familiar with.
Please remember the poor people were the ones the Lord himself walked among and cared about. How can you do any less and still say you are Christian?


The thing is, we live in a society that is based on the principle of free-market capitalism. Wealth is created, earned, competed for, and this competition drives people and companies to perform and live up to expectations. We hate monopolies as a society because the lack of competition means that there is no incentive to offer better products and working conditions. Let's say you are the sole proprietor of a necessary product, if no one else is vying for the wealth brought in by customers, you can do as crappy of a job as you want to and even if people complain you don't necessarily have to do anything about it, because they need you and you know it. Now supplement the government for the "you" part and the necessary product becomes healthcare. Socialized medicine would have the same results as a private monopoly over medicine. Except now you have the added bonus of going through an inefficient government beaurocracy. Ever been to the DMV? Imagine waiting in that line for healthcare approval, and then another month for the actual care to take place. That's what It would be like. Don't believe me? Take a look at Canada or Europe, that's exactly what happens. In fact, people come to the United States from these countries with socialized medicine in order to immediately receive surgery that would take months to get in their respective home nations. But it's free right? Wrong. Instead you get a big tax hike added to your bill each year, you still pay for it, you sap. Except now, you have no choice in who provides your healthcare, in the quality of your care, or even when you receive it. I hate the idea because as a country it would mean the admittance that the government knows what's better for us collectively than we do individually.


Yes we Americans do live in a society based on the principle of free-market capitalism but that doesn’t give anyone the right to take advantage because you have the corner on the market. Again you are describing a business ran by a person who doesn’t believe in the basic teachings of Christ.
I do agree that socialized medicine has it’s problems. But those problems could be addressed and changed if the people who provide it really cared about there citizens instead of using programs such as this for gaining a political office they want.


People can talk all they want about how the poor of this country cannot afford healthcare unless the government provides it for them. That only the rich, and the rich alone have adequate care. Well, I hate to break it to you liberals out there, but yes, yes they can. For allot of people it's hard to admit that the poor of this country put themselves into poverty through incompetence and bad decisions; barring of course serious mental/physical handicappes as well as the loss of a primary income-earner or collapse of a business, my heart goes out to the small fraction of those who face those circumstances. But competent poor people who face unfortunate circumstances manage to afford healthcare and other necessities because they manage their finances well enough to get themselves out of poverty. It is unimaginably, and extremely possible in this country. Most poor people spend too much of their money on things they shouldn't or don't need, or wind up having children they know they can't afford and they pay the price for it. My aunt "Carissa" is a good example of this with two illegitimate children from different fathers, who could live somewhat comfortably if their mother had gotten an education and a suitable job, or married the men who impregnated her or if she didn't spend her money on frivolous things like new cars and clothes and shoes. She has no insurance, and relies on my grandparents to raise my cousins. Both my father and my uncle found some way to afford college despite the low income of my grandparents, and now have good jobs and families in good neighborhoods and yes, with insurance.

Excuse me but can you say that you know for sure that all poor people across the board could afford healthcare. I beg to differ, I work a fulltime job and help to support my daughter and her three girls yet we can’t afford healthcare insurance. Don’t even try to tell me that you know more about my finances then I do. I do agree that we spend to much of our money on other things then healthcare. Things like rent / mortgages, utilities, vehicle cost, food, and gas. Lets take gasoline for example; I am now forty-nine years old, when I was sixteen gas was under thirty cents per gallon, now it is three dollars or more at times. That is ten times what it was during my teens. You are a teenager now, if prices continue at this rate of climb how much will you be paying for gas when you are my age? Maybe you should consider these facts before you attack poor people. Beyond that what would Jesus do concerning these people. For that matter what would he do concerning your aunt? Do you really think he would turn his back on them or her? Maybe she has made mistakes, she is human like everyone else. Forgive her, then help her because it’s the right thing to do. Teach her how not to make the same mistakes. That’s what family is for.


People like to complain how the world Americans live in makes the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. All I have to say is, "Well duh...and your point is?" Because the poor, who make bad decisions and squander the boundless opportunities offered to them in this nation, are making the same stupid decisions that made them poor in the first place. And the rich, are still making the good decisions that made them succeed.
You may hate me and denounce me as a rich and bitter hater of all things markedly plebian, looking to turn the world over on it's head for my own profit. In reality, I am a sixteen year old high-school student who knows that my success or failure in life will depend on how hard I work to get into a college I will have to afford on my own and to obtain a job that others will be competing for. I know that even if I fall into poverty and hard times, I live in a country where the poor can grow fat and that the ladder I climb is infinite until I am satisfied. How I make out depends on the decisions I make, and I am free to determine what those decisions are. People who give up this responsibility for the secure, yet limited and incomplete life of a collectivized, socialist society do not understand this, and rely on the government and the people around them to make their decisions for them. I live for no man. I am me. And I am free to live as I wish because of this idea.


The point is the scripture above, you as a Christian have a obligation because of all the Lord has given you (or will give you) to take care of your fellow man. Pray about it, ask the Lord what he would have you do. Consider the scriptures and the life of Christ as you pray. Life, Liberty and Property should be the rights of all not just a chosen few. Also I dare say that life may have a few bad days planned for you. How well you are able to deal with these set backs will not be governed just by what you do, but by what others do as well. You seem like a smart kid, so why don't you use that intelligence for more then personal gain. Stop finding reasons to put other people down. Instead find ways to help the more unfortunate or else the Lord may decide to allow you to experience life as a member of the lower class so you can learn what it's like first hand.

The point is the scripture above, you as a Christian have a obligation because of all the Lord has given you to take care of your fellow man.

I already do. However, I'm not obligated in any way, shape, or form, to enlist the government in making that happen.

Matthew 22:21.

I already do. However, I'm not obligated in any way, shape, or form, to enlist the government in making that happen.


I'm glad you do but you are mistaken .... we are all responsible for each other. Should I allow my daughter to fall into poverty because she hurt her back at work and can no longer do the job she loves? Should I allow my grand daughters to be taken by the government and put into the system? Would that not cost the tax payers money that isn't necessary? Do you think that helping her doesn't effect my living standard? Would not helping her harm my walk with Jesus Christ? Yes it would, christ said that we are to care for each other. Yet he did give each one of us free will. But even if you decide that you will use your free will to harm others. Free will .... will not protect you from his wraith in the end days. Make your choice, but be ready to face the consequences of your own actions.

Ummm.. yeah... a federal minimum wage is a good thing for all locations in the country...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hzoktWGf63RJcNzctvWwflexvXcw

ooops...

Looks like you'll have to pay people 10 dollars an hour to flip burgers in Montana.

You'll have to pay then 16 dollars an hour in Herndon, Va - or they won't even apply for the job.
What exactly do you think this proves?

What exactly do you think this proves?

Maybe he thinks the minimum wage is too low?

Maybe he thinks the minimum wage is too low?

I would agree with that statement, as well as that prices are much to high to maintain a stable economy.

B.l.o.g.

I caught a subtle wiff of a very careful and cunning t.r.o.l.l.

Don't feel bad. We are who we are. I'm an evil socialist. I hate babies and rich people.:p

Don't forget: we also hate hard working, honest Americans. ;)

Edit: Time Warp!

Don't feel bad. We are who we are. I'm an evil socialist. I hate babies and rich people.:p

What exactly do you think this proves?

That a "federal" winner take all system that imposes an artificial minimum wage is completely meaningless in large parts of the US.

Amen to that brother. I guess the definition of Capitalist has changed and we just didn't get the memo. Well if the Man gets in my way, I don't know what will happen.:mp5::sniper:

Let's say you are the sole propriator of a necessary product, if no one else is vying for the wealth brought in by customers, you can do as crappy of a job as you want to and even if people complain you don't necessarily have to do anything about it, because they need you and you know it. Now supplement the government for the "you" part and and the necessary product becomes healthcare. Socialized medicine would have the same results as a private monopoly over medicine.
Socialised medicine doesn't necessarily mean a monopoloy, public and private systems can co-exist.


Exept now you have the added bonus of going through an inefficient government beaurocracy. Ever been to the DMV? Imagine waiting in that line for healthcare approval, and then another month for the actual care to take place. That's what It would be like. Don't beleive me? Take a look at Canada or Europe, that's exactly what happens.
Not in my experience, and given I live in Europe I'd say it outranks your experience, as far as anecdotal evidence is worth anything.


In fact, people come to the United States from these countries with socialized medicine in order to immediently receive surgury that would take months to get in their respective home nations. But it's free right? Wrong. Instead you get a big tax hike added to your bill each year, you still pay for it, you sap. Exept now, you have no choice in who provides your healthcare, in the quality of your care, or even when you receive it. I hate the idea because as a country it would mean the admittance that the government knows what's better for us collectively than we do individually.

Or that economies of scale work. Your primary argument against monopolies is that the person in charge has no incentive to offer a high quality service. The comparison with a private monopoly doesn't hold since it's not an actual monopoly, if you don't like the service provided you can get rid of the people in charge and bring in new ones to make changes via democracy, elections etc etc.

And people coming to the US for health-care? I'll believe when I see something resembling evidence.


People can talk all they want about how the poor of this country cannot afford healthcare unless the government provides it for them. That only the rich, and the rich alone have adequate care. Well, i hate to break it to you liberals out there, but yes, yes they can. For alot of people it's hard to admit that the poor of this country put themeselves into poverty through incompetance and bad decisions;
I'm sure a fair few do. But I don't believe that being stupid should force someone to lack healthcare etc, same as I think it shouldn't force them to lack food.


People like to complain how the world Americans live in makes the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. All I have to say is, "Well duh...and your point is?" Because the poor, who make bad decisions and squander the boundless opportunities offered to them in this nation, are making the same stupid decisions that made them poor in the first place. And the rich, are still making the good decisions that made them succeed.
The point being that as the next generation are born into 'the rich' and 'the poor' the difference between the opportunities they get is widening. Poverty traps etc etc.


You may hate me and denounce me as a rich and bitter hater of all things markedly plebian, looking to turn the world over on it's head for my own profit. In reality, I am a sixteen year old high-school student who knows that my success or failure in life will depend on how hard I work to get into a college I will have to afford on my own and to obtain a job that others will be competing for. I know that even if I fall into povery and hard times, I live in a country where the poor can grow fat and that the ladder I climb is infinite until I am satisfied. How I make out depends on the decisions I make, and I am free to determine what those decisions are.
And also a fair amount of luck. The US is a long way from the pure meritocracy you seem to see it as.


People who give up this responsibility for the secure, yet limited and incomplete life of a colletivized, socialist society do not understand this, and rely on the government and the people around them to make their decisions for them. I live for no man. I am me. And I am free to live as I wish because of this idea.
You don't think it's possible to 'climb the ladder' in a socialist country? Big companies etc do exist in the Socialist Collective that is Europe, the ladder is there to climb, we just like having a safety net at the bottom so dare I say it the incompetent, the stupid, and the unlucky don't die from lack of food/healthcare/basic necessities etc. Inalienable rights and so on.


Not true. In fact, the way they were, the federal minimum wage was below the equilibrium minimum wage, which means: people who are earning market-defined minimum wages are making more than what the government said they should be making.
No, the government is saying no-one should earn less than that. If the market situation means everyone earns more than that, everyone is happy.

Why is it that every internet capitalist comes out as an anarchist instead?

In case there was no government, no rulership, there would be no meaningful capital outside of personal and group power - Power referring mainly to firepower or controlship (incl. knowledge) of critical resources, like water & food.

In order for capitalism to work there has to be a control structure that limits the power and means of its operators...In social democracies that same control structure is also used for giving better chances to those not lucky enough to be born to rich families thus improving the average quality of the society (just look at US crime rates).

OK. I'll bite and try to answer the question. I'm on the leftward side of the Democratic party as far as economics go, though a complete libertarian where social issues are concerned. I think this probably makes me almost the opposite of you.

First off, I'm not an economic libertarian. I have nothing against private ownership, however, I do have a problem with some business practices.

For example, worker safety. Your right to a free market economy does not include the unfettered right to ignore the safety of people you employ. The government does have a duty to make sure that its citizens aren't in danger of some factory machine chopping off their arm while they're working for you. If a worker becomes disabled, then there is no way he can support himself at all, so he'll either be a begger, or live off of a government check.

Secondly, you don't have the right to destroy the environment. You can't pump out poison, be it lead, carcinogens, mercury, or other dangerous chemicals into the environment. The government has every right to protect its citizens from these chemicals -- including requireing the factory owner to clean up any chemical spills and put scrubbers on his smokestack.

Now as far as wages -- one thing that does keep people in poverty is that a good number of entry level jobs don't pay enough to live on. Now before you give me the standard "get an education" spiel, I want you to explain to me how a family is supposed to have both parents work 2 full time jobs, and have time to raise the kids, let alone attend the "education" that you want them to get. It's not easy, and in many cases, its downright impossible for someone who's already struggling to make ends meet to find time to go to classes. And that's assuming she has access to a babysitter or a daycare. It's not possible. Two people working full time should be able to survive on that income alone.

Health care is a tough nut, however, medical care isn't optional -- it's like food. So it should be a priority to make sure that every American has access to decent healthcare. A sudden and unexpected illness should not force a family to go deeply into debt, or give up their house. :cool:
What I find absolutely fascinating about Christian Conservatives is that you have no objection to big government in private matters. You don't scream "ZOMG Big Brother" when the government tries to outlaw abortion. You don't quote the founders or whine much when the government regulates what can and cannot be said on the aiwaves or in print. Nary a peep of protest against those who think that the government should teach Christian Creationism or lead Christian Prayers in school. The Right simply can't get harsh enough on gayness -- they can't marry, telling people that being gay isn't the same as leprosy is "prosletizing", and they can't serve openly in the millitary.

I don't think it's about the size of government so much as that you want the government to be regulating the things YOU don't like.

Amen to that brother. I guess the definition of Capitalist has changed and we just didn't get the memo. Well if the Man gets in my way, I don't know what will happen.:mp5::sniper:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=83vL7DdXUQ0&mode=related&search=
HELL YEAH!!

You must be a pretty crappy fascist to like small government.

Ummm.. yeah... a federal minimum wage is a good thing for all locations in the country...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hzoktWGf63RJcNzctvWwflexvXcw

ooops...

Looks like you'll have to pay people 10 dollars an hour to flip burgers in Montana.

You'll have to pay then 16 dollars an hour in Herndon, Va - or they won't even apply for the job.

Notice I said federal minimum wage laws. The individual states have their own. It's what we like to call federalism.

Anyway, if the equilibrium minimum wage is lower than the minimum wage dictated, then employers won't be able to afford as many workers, creating unemployment. Which do you want: no job (but remember,your fellow workers have higher wages!), or a job period?

No, the government is saying no-one should earn less than that. If the market situation means everyone earns more than that, everyone is happy.

Right. In which case, the minimum wage law is completely ineffective, wouldn't you say? It's almost like Congress passing a law stating that all citizens must weigh at least 5 oz. Both are completely and totally unnecessary.

I caught a subtle wiff of a very careful and cunning t.r.o.l.l.

Quite probably, yes.
*nods*

I'm not exactly sure what's going on, but here is another Simpson's Youtube clip. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dZsX7kZS28

We should make a new forum rule whereby political/religion debates can be conducted only by providing links to Simpsons clips. I'll start.

Item: Evolution

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dEyt8qqaWD8&mode=related&search=

DISCUSS!

We should make a new forum rule whereby political/religion debates can be conducted only by providing links to Simpsons clips. I'll start.

Item: Evolution

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dEyt8qqaWD8&mode=related&search=

DISCUSS!

You're so awesome.
*mega-BOW*

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474991&highlight=Straughn+Simpsons

Evolution (http://youtube.com/watch?v=FoNmNmXExZ8)? I thought this was about chocohol and how capitalists eat babies and commies that murdered at least 20 million people in a single country for philosophical disagreement were saints. Either that or a rant that turned into a joke.

Evolution (http://youtube.com/watch?v=FoNmNmXExZ8)? I thought this was about chocohol and how capitalists eat babies and commies that murdered at least 20 million people in a single country for philosophical disagreement were saints.
Erm ... it says you're "new" here. *scratches chin*
Well, welcome to NS. *bows*

Either that or a rant that turned into a joke.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/1370.gif

You're so awesome.
*mega-BOW*

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474991&highlight=Straughn+Simpsons

This is NS General. I should have figured it had been done already.

Evolution (http://youtube.com/watch?v=FoNmNmXExZ8)? I thought this was about chocohol and how capitalists eat babies and commies that murdered at least 20 million people in a single country for philosophical disagreement were saints. Either that or a rant that turned into a joke.

Thus this thread is like a tiny little NS General. A forum fractal. Spiffy.

By the way, Family Guy clips are also acceptable.

New Topic: Big Bang Theory

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wzLSCIiHtsk

Capitalism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLe6fhBejNI

:)

Thus this thread is like a tiny little NS General. A forum fractal. Spiffy.

By the way, Family Guy clips are also acceptable.Wait, i haven't exactly contributed to the first one. Hold on!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7079290349652755994

This is NS General. I should have figured it had been done already.

Surprisingly enough, not NEARLY as often an idea as one might hope.

Capitalism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLe6fhBejNI

:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwdfXa0CfYg&mode=related&search=

Animal Rights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpHb_EKfjto&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwdfXa0CfYg&mode=related&search=

Animal Rights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpHb_EKfjto&mode=related&search=

Some more Evolution:

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

:)

Wait, i haven't exactly contributed to the first one. Hold on!

Sorry!

I'll just merge the Big Bang thread back into the Evolution thread:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3OFmAsjV-OQ&mode=related&search=

What? There's no such thing as chocohol? :(

Some more Evolution:

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

:)

Rock on. :D

Not only Darwin making out with Satan,
but Frink's definition of god's power ... arm flatulence ...

Finally, a religion thread:

Topic: Reformation: Protestant or Catholic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RMzA82H-Qo&mode=related&search=

EDIT: Better have a thread for the role players too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1q1rNeEgTY&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwdfXa0CfYg&mode=related&search=

Animal Rights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpHb_EKfjto&mode=related&search=

Brownie points for grizzly bear underwear. *bows*

You might be better off without government interference, but some people rely on minimum wage laws, import tariffs and the like to protect their jobs (and therefore their income).

Tough for them.

Their need does not justify violating the rights of others.

The proper justification for a free market has nothing to do with its economic benefits and everything to do with the fact that it is free.

That liberty is desirable in and of itself, for its own sake, regardless of its practical consequences.

For example, worker safety. Your right to a free market economy does not include the unfettered right to ignore the safety of people you employ.
Sure it does. Working conditions are a private matter between employer and employee. If one doesn't like what he is offered, he is free to do without.

The government does have a duty to make sure that its citizens aren't in danger of some factory machine chopping off their arm while they're working for you.
No, it doesn't. That would be a violation of freedom of contract.

If a worker becomes disabled, then there is no way he can support himself at all, so he'll either be a begger, or live off of a government check.
One's need does not justify violating the sacred rights of another to provide for him. Slavery is evil.

Secondly, you don't have the right to destroy the environment. You can't pump out poison, be it lead, carcinogens, mercury, or other dangerous chemicals into the environment.
Sure you can. As long as you can keep it on your own property, more power to you. If you can't, well, vandalism is already illegal.
The government has every right to protect its citizens from these chemicals -- including requireing the factory owner to clean up any chemical spills and put scrubbers on his smokestack.
The government has no place trying to prevent potential harm to others before it happens, because that can only be done by violating the rights of those who are able to engage in the action in question without hurting others.

For example, that drug use sometimes causes people who are high to go out and hurt others is not a valid justification for banning drug use, because it is a violation of the rights of those who can get high and still maintain control.

Similarly, government has no place banning, restricting, or regulating certain polluting activities because that violates the rights of those who can perform these activities and keep the effects to their own property.

Government's sole role is to punish the perpetrators of harm after the fact.

Now as far as wages -- one thing that does keep people in poverty is that a good number of entry level jobs don't pay enough to live on. Now before you give me the standard "get an education" spiel, I want you to explain to me how a family is supposed to have both parents work 2 full time jobs, and have time to raise the kids, let alone attend the "education" that you want them to get. It's not easy, and in many cases, its downright impossible for someone who's already struggling to make ends meet to find time to go to classes.
That's their problem. Again, need is not a justification for enslaving others.
Health care is a tough nut, however, medical care isn't optional -- it's like food. So it should be a priority to make sure that every American has access to decent healthcare.
Your life is your problem; your need does not give you a valid claim to the life and property of others, because that is nothing more than slavery.

A sudden and unexpected illness should not force a family to go deeply into debt, or give up their house. :cool:
Tough shit for them. I'm not their slave.

What I find absolutely fascinating about Christian Conservatives is that you have no objection to big government in private matters. You don't scream "ZOMG Big Brother" when the government tries to outlaw abortion. You don't quote the founders or whine much when the government regulates what can and cannot be said on the aiwaves or in print. Nary a peep of protest against those who think that the government should teach Christian Creationism or lead Christian Prayers in school. The Right simply can't get harsh enough on gayness -- they can't marry, telling people that being gay isn't the same as leprosy is "prosletizing", and they can't serve openly in the millitary.
Yes, Christianity is just another form of socialism; therefore, it is pure evil.

Sure it does. Working conditions are a private matter between employer and employee. If one doesn't like what he is offered, he is free to do without.
This is correct. The worker should be free to agree to work in an unsafe environment.

To prohibit this limits worker freedom.
One's need does not justify violating the sacred rights of another to provide for him. Slavery is evil.
Again, correct. If a worker was injured as a result of voluntarily working in an unsafe area, he made his own bed.
Sure you can. As long as you can keep it on your own property, more power to you. If you can't, well, vandalism is already illegal.
This is an excellent explanation of how property rights can be used to solve environmental problems.

The tragedy of the commons doesn't happen if there's no common property.
The government has no place trying to prevent potential harm to others before it happens, because that can only be done by violating the rights of those who are able to engage in the action in question without hurting others.

For example, that drug use sometimes causes people who are high to go out and hurt others is not a valid justification for banning drug use, because it is a violation of the rights of those who can get high and still maintain control.

Similarly, government has no place banning, restricting, or regulating certain polluting activities because that violates the rights of those who can perform these activities and keep the effects to their own property.
Agreed. Harm to non-voluntary participants is the only reason to prohibit behaviour.
Government's sole role is to punish the perpetrators of harm after the fact.
And in doing so consistently, they deter that harm.
That's their problem. Again, need is not a justification for enslaving others.
Furthermore, most poverty I see is the result of unreasonable expectations and inefficient application of resources on the part of the poor people themselves.

Plus, no one fat is so poor they require assistance. They're clearly wealthy enough to overeat.

How the hell did this thread get back on topic?!? :confused:

Agreed. Harm to non-voluntary participants is the only reason to prohibit behaviour.
And the only way to do that without violating the rights of people who can act without harming others is to only punish transgressors after the fact--thus, laws banning the use of certain industrial chemicals or requiring smokestack scrubbers, etc. are unacceptable.

And in doing so consistently, they deter that harm.
Of course, I would argue that, while true, that is irrelevant; punishment of those who cause harm to others is desirable for its own sake.

One's need does not justify violating the sacred rights of another to provide

What are these rights, and how are they sacred?

Also, why do you decry a lot of the things mentioned as "slavery"

(PS this implies you are a theist, though your last paragraph in this context confused me)

What are these rights, and how are they sacred?
One has the right to do whatever he wants so long as he refrains from initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another individual without his consent.

They are sacred because they are what separates man from the lesser beasts.

Also, why do you decry a lot of the things mentioned as "slavery"
Because that's what they are.

(PS this implies you are a theist,
I don't see how.

One has the right to do whatever he wants so long as he refrains from initiating, attempting to initiate, or threatening to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another individual without his consent.

Judging from your reply, I'm guessing you are an atheist or agnostic (not asying this perjoritively, so am I). With this in mind it seems odd you can say this with absolute certainty, since it implies there is an overarching moral rule to the universe.

They are sacred because they are what separates man from the lesser beasts.

I always thought that it was our sentience.

Because that's what they are.

That makes no sense. My retort may as well be "no they are pink"

I don't see how.

Because "sacred" usually has heavy religous association

Of course, I would argue that, while true, that is irrelevant; punishment of those who cause harm to others is desirable for its own sake.
I would disagree with that. Punishing people with no corresponding benefit is evil behaviour. If all your action (punishment) does is cause harm, it should probably be prohibited itself.

The point of the punishment is to deter bad acts. Otherwise it's just more harm - what good does that do?

They are sacred because they are what separates man from the lesser beasts.
That seems like an arbitrary distinction. You're positing the existence of some rights, and then arguing that their existence (which you haven't shown) is some sort of relevant demarcation.

Judging from your reply, I'm guessing you are an atheist or agnostic (not asying this perjoritively, so am I). With this in mind it seems odd you can say this with absolute certainty, since it implies there is an overarching moral rule to the universe.
This isn't an uncommon position. I've never understood how it made any sense, but it's not uncommon.

It seems to be based on the belief that one can be aware of moral rules intuitively, and thus doesn't need some sort of divine will offering instruction.
I always thought that it was our sentience.
I usually go with cognitive ability, but yes.
That makes no sense. My retort may as well be "no they are pink"
The slavery thing I get. He's calling all things slavery if they require the seizure of wealth non-voluntarily, because then you were working for someone without your consent. Just like slavery.

It's a fair comparison.

Judging from your reply, I'm guessing you are an atheist or agnostic (not asying this perjoritively, so am I). With this in mind it seems odd you can say this with absolute certainty, since it implies there is an overarching moral rule to the universe.
You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

That makes no sense. My retort may as well be "no they are pink"
Then I guess I don't understand your original question, sorry.

Tough for them.

Their need does not justify violating the rights of others.

The proper justification for a free market has nothing to do with its economic benefits and everything to do with the fact that it is free.

That liberty is desirable in and of itself, for its own sake, regardless of its practical consequences.

Then a restaurant or a hospital should be free to refuse service to black clientele. And a hitman should be able to make money killing others. After all, the freedom of the market is more important than the welfare of the individuals who use the market, right?

The thing about many people is that they don't realise that there is more than one type of freedom. Freedom from slavery comes from the lack of freedom to enslave.

In order to be free to trade, we need to be free from theft. In order to be free to decide our own community's sovereignty, we need to be free from external parties who wish to control us. The method by which we commonly attain this freedom from obstacles and harm is through the state.

Freedom to purchase different things is not freedom from these obstacles. There has never been a real historical example of the free market providing freedom from oppression and harm.

I would disagree with that. Punishing people with no corresponding benefit is evil behaviour. If all your action (punishment) does is cause harm, it should probably be prohibited itself.

The point of the punishment is to deter bad acts. Otherwise it's just more harm - what good does that do?

It serves the purpose of giving those who transgress against the rights of others what they deserve.

In other words, it serves the purpose of justice--something desirable in and of itself, for its own sake.

Judging from your reply, I'm guessing you are an atheist or agnostic (not asying this perjoritively, so am I). With this in mind it seems odd you can say this with absolute certainty, since it implies there is an overarching moral rule to the universe.
You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

That makes no sense. My retort may as well be "no they are pink"
Then I guess I don't understand your original question, sorry.

Then a restaurant or a hospital should be free to refuse service to black clientele.
Yup.
And a hitman should be able to make money killing others.
Nope; one does not have the right to initiate, attempt to initiate, or threaten to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another without his consent.

After all, the freedom of the market is more important than the welfare of the individuals who use the market, right?
Exactly. And when the initiatory use of coercive force is permitted--by ANY party--it cannot be said to be "free", so your second example above is false.

Yup.

Nope; one does not have the right to initiate, attempt to initiate, or threaten to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another without his consent.


Exactly. And when the initiatory use of coercive force is permitted--by ANY party--it cannot be said to be "free", so your second example above is false.

Right. So there are limits to freedom. You don't have the freedom to back out of a contract, for example. How is this freedom different than being free to conduct business with other individuals regardless of the colour of your skin?

Please enlighten me.

Then a restaurant or a hospital should be free to refuse service to black clientele.

The argument is that naturally this wont happen, since there will usually be considerable business loss.


And a hitman should be able to make money killing others. After all, the freedom of the market is more important than the welfare of the individuals who use the market, right?


Maybe among some free marketers.

I would like to point out that this thread has been jacked by a Randroid, and is way far away from its point of origin.

I would like to point out that this thread has been jacked by a Randroid, and is way far away from its point of origin.

Then again, wasn't much good about the origin either...

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

It's only natural that Ayn Rand would write what she did... she came from a very wealthy Russian family and so if anyone was going to profit from an unregulated free market it would be people in the same position as her. Is anyone else getting a whiff of self-interest here?

Socialized medicine would have the same results as a private monopoly over medicine. Exept now you have the added bonus of going through an inefficient government beaurocracy. Ever been to the DMV?

My DMV runs fine, and socialized medicine would mean socialized insurance, so people would still be running private practices that compete against each other. Unless you think there is a huge difference in the quality of paperwork done by different insurance companies, most of which you can't choose between anyways, since you can only get the plan purchased by your employer.

It's only natural that Ayn Rand would write what she did... she came from a very wealthy Russian family and so if anyone was going to profit from an unregulated free market it would be people in the same position as her. Is anyone else getting a whiff of self-interest here?

But don't you see, Greed is Good! Even if it means liberty must die.

It's only natural that Ayn Rand would write what she did... she came from a very wealthy Russian family and so if anyone was going to profit from an unregulated free market it would be people in the same position as her. Is anyone else getting a whiff of self-interest here?

Oh, because Marx was so street right? :rolleyes:

But don't you see, Greed is Good! Even if it means liberty must die.

I always wonder one thing: why do free marketeers consider the free market to be the most realistic and practical market system, yet we have never seen a historical example of the free market providing all, or even most, of the things that free marketeers claim?

At least socialism has a history that we can look at and say: this worked (healthcare, for example), and that didn't (centralisation of power).

But don't you see, Greed is Good! Even if it means liberty must die.

I got the sarcasm. :p

BTW in regards to socialised medicine I experienced it myself last year. Didn't fill out a form, didn't wait to see a doctor and I only paid for the morning newspaper every morning for the three days I was in hopsital.

I would much rather have a comfortable wage and be happy, as opposed to becoming wealthy, working so long at the office that I couldn't enjoy it and then dropping dead from stress at the age of 50.

Oh, because Marx was so street right? :rolleyes:

And who said I liked Marx? You know, it is possible to be a capitalist without being greedy. Just try. It won't hurt. Unless you worship Ayn Rand.

And who said I liked Marx? You know, it is possible to be a capitalist without being greedy. Just try. It won't hurt. Unless you worship Ayn Rand.

Lies! :p

It serves the purpose of giving those who transgress against the rights of others what they deserve.

In other words, it serves the purpose of justice--something desirable in and of itself, for its own sake.
No, see now you're presupposing the existence of both desert and justice. You'll need to justify those if your point is to remain compelling.

You're making some good points, but you're basing everything on a very firm but entirely foundationless moral stand.

It's only natural that Ayn Rand would write what she did... she came from a very wealthy Russian family and so if anyone was going to profit from an unregulated free market it would be people in the same position as her. Is anyone else getting a whiff of self-interest here?
Self-interest is a necessary consequence of free will. Tautological, even.

At least socialism has a history that we can look at and say: this worked (healthcare, for example), and that didn't (centralisation of power).
You think socialised medicine works?

You think socialised medicine works?

Yes.

You think socialised medicine works?

Yes, I do.

EDIT: I do live in a country that has a successful socialised healthcare system. As a parent, I have used it many times and always enjoyed the ease, quality and speed of the treatment.

and socialized medicine would mean socialized insurance, so people would still be running private practices that compete against each other.
Not in the Canadian model, where healthcare provision is also run by the government. It's single-payer and single-provider.

Not in the Canadian model, where healthcare provision is also run by the government. It's single-payer and single-provider.

No. In Canada, many doctors are private professionals who bill the government for their work. They are not all employees of the government.

Yes, I do.

EDIT: I do live in a country that has a successful socialised healthcare system. As a parent, I have used it many times and always enjoyed the ease, quality and speed of the treatment.
Funny, I thought you were in Canada.

Funny, I thought you were in Canada.

And I thought you were being serious.

No. In Canada, many doctors are private professionals who bill the government for their work. They are not all employees of the government.
They are paid by the government. The government limits the number and type of procedures they can bill and the price they can charge. How are they not employees?

Find me a private medical practice with overnight beds.

They are paid by the government. The government limits the number and type of procedures they can bill and the price they can charge. How are they not employees?

Find me a private medical practice with overnight beds.

They are paid by the government because the government is the client, not the employer. Price controls do not change that relationship. Nor do the presence of overnight beds, or lack thereof.

Don't move the goalposts. You said 'single payer, single provider'. That is not the case.

The slavery thing I get. He's calling all things slavery if they require the seizure of wealth non-voluntarily, because then you were working for someone without your consent. Just like slavery.

It's a fair comparison.

That's the beauty of a democratic system. By living in one, you get to vote. By having the right to vote, you acknowledge that the rules put in place by the government are rules you will abide by. Hence, taxes are fair, if enough people want em' there. Then it's up to you to get people voting the other way if you don't want taxes.

You think socialised medicine works?

Why yes, yes it does. A basic level of healthcare can certainly be provided in this manner.

When you reach more specialized fields, it becomes more of a problem.

However, there's nothing stopping socialised and private medicine working side by side, co-operating And competing.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

I'd rather not, not after Anthem


Then I guess I don't understand your original question, sorry.

My question really was quite simply. And I'm not sure how old you are but "because it is" stopped washing with me when I was about five, sorry.

Why yes, yes it does. A basic level of healthcare can certainly be provided in this manner.

When you reach more specialized fields, it becomes more of a problem.

However, there's nothing stopping socialised and private medicine working side by side, co-operating And competing.
There is in Canada. In most of the country private insurance is illegal.

That's the beauty of a democratic system. By living in one, you get to vote. By having the right to vote, you acknowledge that the rules put in place by the government are rules you will abide by. Hence, taxes are fair, if enough people want em' there. Then it's up to you to get people voting the other way if you don't want taxes.
How does that make sense to you? Because someone says I'm allowed to vote I'm somehow required to abide by the decision of the majority? Why?

If I'm idiosyncratic, the majority with always disagree with me, making my preferences entirely worthless.

Not to mention the marginal value of voting in the first place.

Democracy is antithetical to individual freedom.

There is in Canada. In most of the country private insurance is illegal.

Tell me, why the hell would you want to buy private insurance as well as pay into the generally more efficient socialized insurance fund?

They are paid by the government because the government is the client, not the employer. Price controls do not change that relationship. Nor do the presence of overnight beds, or lack thereof.

Don't move the goalposts. You said 'single payer, single provider'. That is not the case.
If I want to build a hospital and provide surgical services to compete with the government hospitals, can I do that?

No I can't. Only the government is permitted to provide those services. Surgical procedures are performed almost exclusively in government-run facilities, which is why we have such long waiting times for those procedures. Need I refer you to a detailed measurement of those wait times province by province?

Waiting Your Turn 2006 (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/wyt2006.pdf)

Tell me, why the hell would you want to buy private insurance as well as pay into the generally more efficient socialized insurance fund?
If I want to buy services from someone other than the socialised system (perhaps to avoid the long waits for procedures), I might not be able to afford them without private insurance.

And why do you assume the socialised system is more efficient?

If I want to buy services from someone other than the socialised system (perhaps to avoid the long waits for procedures), I might not be able to afford them without private insurance.

And why do you assume the socialised system is more efficient?

I'm sorry, but the whole idea of socialized medicine is to make is so that everyone gets access to the same health care. Under any other system, the rich get good health care, and the poor get little or no health care. Just wait in fucking line, and don't use money to put your life in front of another person.

I do not assume the socialized system is more efficient, the facts tell us this. Canadians get more and pay less for health care because the profit overhead is removed, and more people get preventative health care, something that the private system in the US discourages financially.

I often see people complaining about socialized health care. I know for a fact many of them are American. I just wonder how many of those who complain about socialized health care have actually EXPERIENCED it.

The argument is that naturally this wont happen, since there will usually be considerable business loss.But of course this argument assumes that the loss of profit by excluding blacks would be greater than the gain of profit by catering to racists.

How does that make sense to you? Because someone says I'm allowed to vote I'm somehow required to abide by the decision of the majority? Why?Because that's what democracy means: you get to give your opinion, but the opinion that the majority holds is abided by.

Democracy is antithetical to individual freedom.Having your opinion taken into consideration, which democracy does, is one aspect of individual freedom.

How the hell did this thread get back on topic?!? :confused:

A socialist/capitalist reverse threadjack. Equally nonsensical, just less fun.

Oh well, we tried.

How the hell did this thread get back on topic?!? :confused:
Lack of due dilligence. :(

Oh well, we tried.

Truer words were never ... typed.

Even by the Infinite Probability Machine scenario ... ya know, the monkey/typewriters/Shakespeare one.

I often see people complaining about socialized health care. I know for a fact many of them are American. I just wonder how many of those who complain about socialized health care have actually EXPERIENCED it.

I have been fortunate to have lived under socialized health systems as well as the US system (which is very far from being free market).

The problem with socialized health is that you end up with rationing. Medical care is expensive, so care is limited to keep from bankrupting government. Yes, you could tax the economy out of existence to provide unlimited medical services for all, but that is not exactly a viable option.

It is the regulatory framework in the US that makes it so incredibly expensive. What free market services are available have negligible waiting and plenty of providers. When you have socialized medicine you have women who wait years for a medically necessary breast reduction surgery.

Look at any problem with the US health system and you can point to legislation that caused it. We have the worst of both worlds - politicians who try to score easy points by passing populist legislation which is usually ineffective and adds an extra layer of problems. This raises compliance costs, provides a significant barrier to entry (thus restricting the number of service providers), and reduces the incentive to provide those services.

Of course one big complaint is the use of the tax code to try to manipulate the insurance markets. What sense does it make to force health insurance to be something provided by the employer? Not only does it make an individual reliant upon their employer (thus making them less able to change jobs), skews benefits to higher end employees (easier to enroll high value long term employees while lower paying higher turnover jobs are too difficult to enroll) but also means the client (the one the insurance company is trying to please) is the corporation and not the individual in need of health care.

Anyway, ranting about the health care system belongs to another thread.
Having lived under both, I prefer the American system. If the massive bureaucratic mess of red tape could be swept away*, it would be the best system in the world.

*Please note that I am not arguing for junking it all and going to a completely unregulated free-for-all, just that it is currently layers upon layers of fixes that cause other problems which is further 'fixed' by more political fluff written by politicians and lobbyists on top of yet more garbage, to which scrapping all the political panderings and creating a very basic framework from scratch would be so much better (of course I have no trust in politicians to be able to do such anyway).

Even by the Infinite Probability Machine scenario ... ya know, the monkey/typewriters/Shakespeare one.

What we need is a giant computer to give the final answer to all these socialism/capitalism/various-other-ism debates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GUV7zz-8Oc&mode=related&search=

EDIT: on a side note, God doesn't exist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA&mode=related&search=

There is in Canada. In most of the country private insurance is illegal.

Please try to be more clear. In Canada, medicare is not universal coverage, therefore most people have some sort of private insurance for things like dental costs, eyewear, prescription drugs, and other expenses that aren't covered by medicare. You could probably also buy medical insurance for all the things that medicare covers too, but I doubt you'll find an insurance company that offers it in Canada, as they would be competing with the free product provided by the government.

How does that make sense to you? Because someone says I'm allowed to vote I'm somehow required to abide by the decision of the majority? Why?

If I'm idiosyncratic, the majority with always disagree with me, making my preferences entirely worthless.

Not to mention the marginal value of voting in the first place.

Democracy is antithetical to individual freedom.

Democracy is more than just the rule of the majority. It also implies checks and balances to government power, and most importantly, accountability to the people. If you feel that the system is unfair, there is a process by which you may address the issue. Democracy is necessary for individual freedom, as it is only in democracies that civil rights are protected.

If I want to build a hospital and provide surgical services to compete with the government hospitals, can I do that?

No I can't. Only the government is permitted to provide those services. Surgical procedures are performed almost exclusively in government-run facilities, which is why we have such long waiting times for those procedures. Need I refer you to a detailed measurement of those wait times province by province?

Waiting Your Turn 2006 (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/wyt2006.pdf)

Are you sure about that? Montreal has a Shriner's hospital, and according to the Shriner's website, the Shriners own it. And Vancouver has the Cambie Surgery Centre, a private surgery hospital. So I guess you are wrong. Sorry.

As for wait times, that has nothing to do with your claims about a single payer and single provider, which I have shown is incorrect.

I have been fortunate to have lived under socialized health systems as well as the US system (which is very far from being free market).

The problem with socialized health is that you end up with rationing. Medical care is expensive, so care is limited to keep from bankrupting government. Yes, you could tax the economy out of existence to provide unlimited medical services for all, but that is not exactly a viable option.

It is the regulatory framework in the US that makes it so incredibly expensive. What free market services are available have negligible waiting and plenty of providers. When you have socialized medicine you have women who wait years for a medically necessary breast reduction surgery....

I would like to see a source for these two bolded claims.

I would also point out that rationing occurs in free market health care systems.

Link. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wait25jul25,0,1330225.story?coll=la-home-center)

Link 2 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76295.php)

I would like to see a source for these two bolded claims.
The 5 years waiting for breast reduction surgery happened to a friend of mine - her 48F size breasts had been causing her problems for years, so she finally got a doctor to say it was not elective - at which point she got put on a waiting list and it took 5 years before she could have the surgery.

As far as rationing goes, just google health care rationing and you get tons of results such. Britain's NHS has especially come under a lot of fire lately for its rationing system. Every social system has to do cost control by limiting certain procedures or outright banning them. Without any personal cost, people consume far more resources than they would otherwise (this is also part of the problem with the insurance schemes in the US - since the patient is not directly paying for it, they have a lot of unnecessary tests so the doctor can both bill more and cover his ass for any potential liability)

I would also point out that rationing occurs in free market health care systems.No, it doesnt. if there is rationing, it isnt free market. Calling the US a free market health system is a joke - it is so highly regulated and distorted that it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered free market. There is a substantial barrier to entry, significant legal limits on what can and cannot be provided, massive compliance costs associated with certain procedures, etc.

In a free market system, any significant backlog would provide a significant incentive to increase capacity to capture that market. New facilities and providers will be created to fill that demand. If there are customers, someone will provide them service in a free market.

The 5 years waiting for breast reduction surgery happened to a friend of mine - her 48F size breasts had been causing her problems for years, so she finally got a doctor to say it was not elective - at which point she got put on a waiting list and it took 5 years before she could have the surgery.

As far as rationing goes, just google health care rationing and you get tons of results such. Britain's NHS has especially come under a lot of fire lately for its rationing system. Every social system has to do cost control by limiting certain procedures or outright banning them. Without any personal cost, people consume far more resources than they would otherwise (this is also part of the problem with the insurance schemes in the US - since the patient is not directly paying for it, they have a lot of unnecessary tests so the doctor can both bill more and cover his ass for any potential liability)

No, it doesnt. if there is rationing, it isnt free market. Calling the US a free market health system is a joke - it is so highly regulated and distorted that it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered free market. There is a substantial barrier to entry, significant legal limits on what can and cannot be provided, massive compliance costs associated with certain procedures, etc.

In a free market system, any significant backlog would provide a significant incentive to increase capacity to capture that market. New facilities and providers will be created to fill that demand. If there are customers, someone will provide them service in a free market.

So your source is some anecdote that I'm supposed to simply believe at face value. Even if it were true, the surgery was not urgent. There are far more important things that need to be taken care of. If the only criticism of some unnamed socialised healthcare system is that 1 person had to wait for several years to get some nonessential surgery done on the taxpayer's dime, then I would argue that it works a lot better than the US model.

And if you are going to claim that the US is not a free market system, then show me one that has actually worked to provide a level of healthcare equal to what socialised healthcare provides. As far as I have researched, I have not been able to find any. This leads me to the idea that free market health care solutions are largely theoretical, with no practical experience or grounding.

If we do accept that the US model is as close as we are going to get, we see how it does have rationing, as shown by the two articles I posted.

Adults with no health insurance face waits up to a year or longer for gallbladder or hernia surgery in Los Angeles County, a backlog that community clinic doctors say has worsened since the county downsized Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital last year.

Rationing by ability to pay is still rationing.

A Commonwealth Fund study of six highly industrialized countries, the U.S., and five nations with national health systems, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, found waiting times were worse in the U.S. than in all the other countries except Canada. And, most of the Canadian data so widely reported by the U.S. media is out of date, and misleading, according to PNHP and CNA/NNOC.

And look, reality disagrees with your economic theories.

I'm sorry, but the whole idea of socialized medicine is to make is so that everyone gets access to the same health care.
Is that the point? I've heard it said that the point is that everyone gets access to healthcare. Making sure no one gets better care isn't usually a requirement (because if no one gets care, they're still all the same).
I do not assume the socialized system is more efficient, the facts tell us this. Canadians get more and pay less for health care because the profit overhead is removed, and more people get preventative health care, something that the private system in the US discourages financially.
The US/Canada comparison isn't terribly helpful because of how different the two systems are. I'd suggest comparing the Canadian system (extremely limiting single-payer system) to other universal systems in OECD countries.

Look. Someone else already did:

How Good is Canadian Health Care? (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/HowGoodHealthCare2006.pdf)

Rationing by ability to pay is still rationing.
That's true. Gasoline is a great comparison.

Currently, gasoline is rationed by price. When the supply is lower, prices go up. Where prices are controlled, gasoline is rationed by waiting lists (that's where you see gas lines). Is that better?

Why is rationing by waiting better for healthcare?

Because that's what democracy means: you get to give your opinion, but the opinion that the majority holds is abided by.
And if my opinion doesn't coincide with the opinion of the majority, I'm never heard.
Having your opinion taken into consideration, which democracy does, is one aspect of individual freedom.
Individual freedom involves not being dictated to by the majority just because I'm different.

Democracy is more than just the rule of the majority.
No it isn't. Look it up.
It also implies checks and balances to government power, and most importantly, accountability to the people.
Am I going to have to haul out my general denial of implication again?
And Vancouver has the Cambie Surgery Centre, a private surgery hospital. So I guess you are wrong. Sorry.
The ban on private insurance still limits Canadians' access to those facilities.

Plus, getting permission to open them is exceedingly difficult (and not possible in some provinces - the Alberta government was fined by the federal government for allowing the operation of a private hospital in the 1990s).

And if my opinion doesn't coincide with the opinion of the majority, I'm never heard.Sure you're heard, but your opinion isn't always enacted.
Are you suggesting others should cater to your whims?

Individual freedom involves not being dictated to by the majority just because I'm different.If your opinion is being given and considered, you're not being dictated to.

Private health care is just a recipe for rich people to have better health and care than those of a lower socio-economic bracket, health is a human right as defined by the UN. I am glad I am not American, I have never paid for health care.

Here's how democracy works:
Three guys get together. Two of them (the wolves) decide to they don't like the third and want to kill him (the lamb). They put it to a vote and the third guy loses. Under a democracy he'll swing or be shot no questions asked and it won't matter how many appeals he makes.

Liberty works like this:
The third guy from the last blurb decides he doesn't want to die to he arms himself and says he doesn't want to die and if the other two guys try to kill him he'll going out guns-a-blazin' but that he'll leave them be if they do the same for him.

The reason that no lasting government runs like the latter is that if people could just say "Screw you guys, I'm going home" to every law they didn't like the government would collapse or at the very least be rendered as powerful as a castrated goldfish. That doesn't work out so well for those that seek money and power through government so they tell those that would say "screw it" to fall in or else. Sometimes that sparks a rebellion and sometimes it works. No matter what you cannot have liberty with government and without government there is nothing to stop someone from taking your liberty and maybe your life. Democracy is not liberty, it's two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Here's how democracy works:
Three guys get together. Two of them (the wolves) decide to they don't like the third and want to kill him (the lamb). They put it to a vote and the third guy loses. Under a democracy he'll swing or be shot no questions asked and it won't matter how many appeals he makes.

I can't begin to tell you wrong that assumption is. You're forgetting that a requirement for democracy is the respect of the opinion of the minority. If the majority stops respecting the minority, than the minority is obligated to leave for greener pastures and not tolerate that abuse.

Quite frankly, the thought that people would capriciously destroy the minority if given real democracy is so frankly absurd as to no even be worth dignifying it with a response. But, I will anyway. If the majority we're really so dead set on abusing the minority for their own self-interest, they'd already be doing it right now. Outside of panic situations, people do not act as deranged mobs. If the majority truly wanted to do in a minority for their own self-interest, than no State would be able to stop them.

Here's how democracy works:
Three guys get together. Two of them (the wolves) decide to they don't like the third and want to kill him (the lamb). They put it to a vote and the third guy loses. Under a democracy he'll swing or be shot no questions asked and it won't matter how many appeals he makes.

Liberty works like this:
The third guy from the last blurb decides he doesn't want to die to he arms himself and says he doesn't want to die and if the other two guys try to kill him he'll going out guns-a-blazin' but that he'll leave them be if they do the same for him.

The reason that no lasting government runs like the latter is that if people could just say "Screw you guys, I'm going home" to every law they didn't like the government would collapse or at the very least be rendered as powerful as a castrated goldfish. That doesn't work out so well for those that seek money and power through government so they tell those that would say "screw it" to fall in or else. Sometimes that sparks a rebellion and sometimes it works. No matter what you cannot have liberty with government and without government there is nothing to stop someone from taking your liberty and maybe your life. Democracy is not liberty, it's two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Liberty is anti-democratic in the extreme, it gives disproportional power to minorities to control society.

Liberty is anti-democratic in the extreme

Since people generally like to be free... not at all.

Since people generally like to be free... not at all.
Freedom should never be put to the extent of enabling minority elites to control the economy. Nothing should be at the cost of the community.

Freedom should never be put to the extent of enabling minority elites to control the economy.

Minority elites controlling the economy doesn't sound like freedom to me.

Nothing should be at the cost of the community.

If I want to be a loner, who are you to stop me?

Freedom should never be put to the extent of enabling minority elites to control the economy. Nothing should be at the cost of the community.

That's not what Soheran was suggesting. Basically, he's echoing Bakunin's old maxim that "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice. Socialism without liberty is brutality and slavery."

That's true. Gasoline is a great comparison.

Currently, gasoline is rationed by price. When the supply is lower, prices go up. Where prices are controlled, gasoline is rationed by waiting lists (that's where you see gas lines). Is that better?

Why is rationing by waiting better for healthcare?

Are you seriously trying to argue one tiny point about rationing? If you want to look it at that way, then all economies are about rationing in one way or another. And consequently, a free market economy is no better than any other either.

Or you could address my actual point: While socialised healthcare systems are often accused of rationing by waiting, there is no evidence that is so, while other systems such as the US model ration by ability to pay and waiting times.

No it isn't. Look it up.

Am I going to have to haul out my general denial of implication again?

Okay, I looked it up, and guess what? I was right and you were wrong. Democracy does involve protection of the rights of minorities, and having a government accountable to the governed.

Democracy describes a number of related forms of government. The fundamental features of democracies include government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of political minorities, respect for basic human rights, equality before the law, due process, and political pluralism.

The ban on private insurance still limits Canadians' access to those facilities.

Plus, getting permission to open them is exceedingly difficult (and not possible in some provinces - the Alberta government was fined by the federal government for allowing the operation of a private hospital in the 1990s).

Your information is several years old. Canada ended that ban (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/15/2) over two years ago, and even before that, private insurance was available.

You have yet to make one correct claim about the Canadian healthcare system. It would appear that your criticisms of it are based on erroneous information.

Minority elites controlling the economy doesn't sound like freedom to me.
But yet that's what happens when you don't control the economy.

How does that make sense to you? Because someone says I'm allowed to vote I'm somehow required to abide by the decision of the majority? Why?

If I'm idiosyncratic, the majority with always disagree with me, making my preferences entirely worthless.

Not to mention the marginal value of voting in the first place.

Democracy is antithetical to individual freedom.

Typical Libertarian bullsh*t. You may not like it, but you're not the only person in the world that has rights. Your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa. The world does not exist to cater to your whims. If you'd rather not be bothered with society because you can't always get your own way, move to some remote island and set up your own micronation. Otherwise, call the waah-mbulance and get over it.

Libertarians just can't handle the fact that they live in a community with other people, and that life is social, he like to talk about everyone living in an anarchic way but yet can't explain how to get around the fact that we are interdependent beings.

Your information is several years old. Canada ended that ban (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/15/2) over two years ago, and even before that, private insurance was available.

You have yet to make one correct claim about the Canadian healthcare system. It would appear that your criticisms of it are based on erroneous information.

Considering that Llewdor is Canadian and would almost certainly know this, I think it far more likely that his post was a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Be careful. As a true neo-con fascist and all-around bastard I support free trade capitalism, private property, abhor socialism in any way shape or form, and believe in a small government that stays out of my business. So if you are reading this with the pre-conceived notion that things like socialized medicine are are good and use the words, "proletariat" and "bourgeois" in your internet bloggs quite often along with obtuse railing for what you consider the "greater good" you will seethingly hate me with a passion of the Christ. (And though I am a Christian, to piss off all you christian activists, I will honestly say I hated that movie. Stick to Braveheart, Gibson.)

I apologize for the obscenely long run-on sentences that I was always so berated by my English teachers for, but simple sentences just don't seem to capture a rant quite as well, somthing most internet liberals can even agree with, I'm sure. To clear the air, I am not a supporter of Bush, a Republican, or a rich guy sitting behind a desk pushing my evil agenda to make money and destroy the lives of proletarians everywhere (by the way, if you haven't caught a whiff of the satire yet, you're an idiot). Similarly as you have probably guessed by now, I am not a supporter of the Democrat (not Democratic, an all too common gramatical error, It's like saying "chocoholic", come on, there's no such thing as "chocohol") Party. I am simply a guy who looks out for himself and the people he has chosen to love, who tries his hardest to accomplish his own personal goals for what makes him happy.

I can live with or without you and I exist only for myself. Does this make me a base, barbaric, simple, idiot who doesn't care for anyone but himself? No, It means that I have the choice of living and loving as I please (as long as the actions in this life don't infringe upon another's right to do so). I can help others in need however and whenever I please, with more sincerity based on my own moral principles in a more effective way than the government could their way just taking my money and redistributing it through taxes. It's called giving. Not giving back, giving. These people I help through my gifts and my services did nothing for me and never helped me in any way, so the phrase "giving back" is a mistake encouraged by peolple who think success and wealth are given to a lucky winner who doesn't deserve it but needs to share it. Thus the phrase "more fortunate" serves the same purpose. Less than one percent of the millionaires in this country inherited their money so I doubt that's the case.

The thing is, we live in a society that is based on the principle of free-market capitalism. Wealth is created, earned, competed for, and this competition drives people and companies to perform and live up to expectations. We hate monopolies as a society because the lack of competition means that there is no incentive to offer better products and working conditions. Let's say you are the sole propriator of a necessary product, if no one else is vying for the wealth brought in by customers, you can do as crappy of a job as you want to and even if people complain you don't necessarily have to do anything about it, because they need you and you know it. Now supplement the government for the "you" part and and the necessary product becomes healthcare. Socialized medicine would have the same results as a private monopoly over medicine. Exept now you have the added bonus of going through an inefficient government beaurocracy. Ever been to the DMV? Imagine waiting in that line for healthcare approval, and then another month for the actual care to take place. That's what It would be like. Don't beleive me? Take a look at Canada or Europe, that's exactly what happens. In fact, people come to the United States from these countries with socialized medicine in order to immediently receive surgury that would take months to get in their respective home nations. But it's free right? Wrong. Instead you get a big tax hike added to your bill each year, you still pay for it, you sap. Exept now, you have no choice in who provides your healthcare, in the quality of your care, or even when you receive it. I hate the idea because as a country it would mean the admittance that the government knows what's better for us collectively than we do individually.

People can talk all they want about how the poor of this country cannot afford healthcare unless the government provides it for them. That only the rich, and the rich alone have adequate care. Well, i hate to break it to you liberals out there, but yes, yes they can. For alot of people it's hard to admit that the poor of this country put themeselves into poverty through incompetance and bad decisions; barring of course serious mental/physical handicappes as well as the loss of a primary income-earner or collapse of a business, my heart goes out to the small fraction of those who face those circumstances. But competent poor people who face unfortunate circumstances manage to afford healthcare and other necessities because they manage their finances well enough to get themselves out of poverty. It is unimaginably, and extremely possible in this country. Most poor people spend too much of their money on things they shouldn't or don't need, or wind up having children they know they can't afford and they pay the price for it. My aunt "Carissa" is a good example of this with two illegitamite children from different fathers, who could live somewhat comfortably if their mother had gotton an education and a suitable job, or married the men who impregnated her or if she didn't spend her money on frivolous things like new cars and clothes and shoes. She has no insurance, and relies on my grandparents to raise my cousins. Both my father and my uncle found some way to afford college despite the low income of my grandparents, and now have good jobs and families in good neighborhoods and yes, with insurance.

People like to complain how the world Americans live in makes the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. All I have to say is, "Well duh...and your point is?" Because the poor, who make bad decisions and squander the boundless opportunities offered to them in this nation, are making the same stupid decisions that made them poor in the first place. And the rich, are still making the good decisions that made them succeed.

You may hate me and denounce me as a rich and bitter hater of all things markedly plebian, looking to turn the world over on it's head for my own profit. In reality, I am a sixteen year old high-school student who knows that my success or failure in life will depend on how hard I work to get into a college I will have to afford on my own and to obtain a job that others will be competing for. I know that even if I fall into povery and hard times, I live in a country where the poor can grow fat and that the ladder I climb is infinite until I am satisfied. How I make out depends on the decisions I make, and I am free to determine what those decisions are. People who give up this responsibility for the secure, yet limited and incomplete life of a colletivized, socialist society do not understand this, and rely on the government and the people around them to make their decisions for them. I live for no man. I am me. And I am free to live as I wish because of this idea.

Life-Liberty-Property. Hell, yeah.

Okay, you HAD to have copied and pasted this from Microsoft Word or something similar, because as long as it would take to type, NSG would log you off for inactivity before you got half of it typed.

Or at least that's how it always happens to me.

But yet that's what happens when you don't control the economy.

You're buying into the confused dichotomy of the "laissez-faire" advocates.

Economies--at least ones with systems of property, public or private--are always "controll[ed]" by some group. The real question is who controls it, not whether or not it is controlled.

A small minority elite controlling the economy for its own benefit necessarily involves the subjection of and a lack of freedom for everyone else.

Libertarians just can't handle the fact that they live in a community with other people, and that life is social, he like to talk about everyone living in an anarchic way but yet can't explain how to get around the fact that we are interdependent beings.

More stereotypes. This is like me calling every liberal on the planet a 'damn commie'. Interdependence can indeed exist without the help of the government, you know. Helping the poor can also exist without the government. Its called 'people working for the common good'. The government, however, takes a portion of your income and adds a portion to prices of commodities and uses this to fund various projects, among which is welfare. The difference is the coercion. I'm pretty sure volunteering/donating to the poor means a lot more to me than having my money taken away from me to do things that I don't support (who knows, it may go into the Iraq War, what with all we're spending there. Dammit.) But hang on. I'm a capitalist. That means I'm a greedy godless bastard who hoards all my money and never uses it, and views the accretion of wealth the ultimate goal in the universe. I'm sorry. :rolleyes:

Also, just because someone happens to be Christian, Conservative, Capitalist, or any combination does not mean that one is affiliated with the Republican Party USA or the current American Government. I despise it.

By the way, Socialized Medicine sucks ass; YES, I have experienced it, and had relatives experience it, and it is far from the utopian dream it is described as. Long waits, low quality (not the least of which is the burden that I am putting on the rest of the citizens, and are paying for me. I just don't like that, makes me feel in debt or something). Take this for example. Great Britain- a friend I was traveling with cracks his head open on a sharp part of the marble ceiling a historical building. Takes him a week to get into surgery to fully repair it. He had to have it checked out back in the states; it was a bad job. In America, he would have been in surgery in hours, and in no way would it have been such a bad job. Staples, stitches, the metal plate, the whole 9 yards.

By the way, Socialized Medicine sucks ass; YES, I have experienced it, and had relatives experience it, and it is far from the utopian dream it is described as. Long waits, low quality (not the least of which is the burden that I am putting on the rest of the citizens, and are paying for me. I just don't like that, makes me feel in debt or something). Take this for example. Great Britain- a friend I was traveling with cracks his head open on a sharp part of the marble ceiling a historical building. Takes him a week to get into surgery to fully repair it. He had to have it checked out back in the states; it was a bad job. In America, he would have been in surgery in hours, and in no way would it have been such a bad job. Staples, stitches, the metal plate, the whole 9 yards.

Anecdotal evidence FTL!

Okay, you HAD to have copied and pasted this from Microsoft Word or something similar, because as long as it would take to type, NSG would log you off for inactivity before you got half of it typed.

Or at least that's how it always happens to me.

Well, you can always log back in and it will post normally. They fixed that problem a while ago, IIRC. It used to suck losing long posts due to logouts.

Democracy is not liberty, it's two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Democracy might be two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner, but liberty is a well-armed lamb.

Good old Ben Franklin - an endless source of wonderful statements (ever so slightly paraphrased).

Democracy might be two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner, but liberty is a well-armed lamb.

Good old Ben Franklin - an endless source of wonderful statements (ever so slightly paraphrased).

I have little respect for the American founding fathers, they were for the most part rich landowners, oligarchs and the like, and their failure to deal with slavery (well a total intentional ignorance of it) in the constitution cannot be forgiven.

...their failure to deal with slavery...cannot be forgiven.

That door swings two ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag). If Putin is successful in restoring the "glory" of the former Soviet order, I expect you to ensure that he lectures the Narodny Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD) on the evils of slavery.

We kulaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak) are depending on you.

That door swings two ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag). If Putin is successful in restoring the "glory" of the former Soviet order, I expect you to ensure that he lectures the Narodny Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD) on the evils of slavery.

We kulaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak) are depending on you.
Your also ignoring that those in the camps were mostly Whites and their sympathizers.

Your also ignoring that those in the camps were mostly Whites and their sympathizers.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that people were put into camps and subjected to slavery to begin with. Go ahead and explain the difference between a "plantation" and a "gulag."

This should be entertaining.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that people were put into camps and subjected to slavery to begin with. Go ahead and explain the difference between a "plantation" and a "gulag."

This should be entertaining.

Look, I am not going to defend Stalin, because I do think he went way too far, but consider that this breakneck pace of industrialization was absolutely necessary under the conditions of the time; as Stalin said in a speech in 1931, "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us." Precisely ten years later, Adolf Hitler's Wehrmacht launched a massive, unprovoked invasion of the Soviet Union. So I think in that case the deaths caused by Stalin's industrialization were necessary or Hitler would have exterminated the Slavs.

Liberty is anti-democratic in the extreme

"WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"

There's some more to add to one's Newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen-Eighty_Four) collection, if one wishes.

...but consider that this breakneck pace of industrialization was absolutely necessary under the conditions of the time;


Bullshit. If the glorious republic couldn't survive without slavery and oppression, it should have immediately proceeded to the lowest corner of hell where it belonged.

People are not the means to an end, to be thrown away when used up. I would have expected a so-called socialist to understand that.

Besides, the Southern plantation owners (not to mention Northern industry...) used "industrialization" as an excuse for their system of slavery, exploitation, and extermination as well. Again, why do you appear to make excuses for the Soviets, but none for the "Founding Fathers?"


So I think in that case the deaths caused by Stalin's industrialization were necessary or Hitler would have exterminated the Slavs.

So extermination is justified in order to prevent extermination?

More doublethink nonsense.

Bullshit. If the glorious republic couldn't survive without slavery and oppression, it should have immediately proceeded to the lowest corner of hell where it belonged.

People are not the means to an end, to be thrown away when used up. I would have expected a so-called socialist to understand that.

As I said, I denounce Stalin, I was merely pointing out that his industrialization that killed so many wasn't done for the sake of it.

Besides, the Southern plantation owners (not to mention Northern industry...) used "industrialization" as an excuse for their system of slavery, exploitation, and extermination as well. Again, why do you appear to make excuses for the Soviets, but none for the "Founding Fathers?"

Well the founding fathers aren't too much at fault, I was simply saying that most of them were rich landowners and had a conflict of interest, and also that they barely even mentioned slavery when writing the constitution. Also the CSA never was threatened with invasion by the most advanced military in the world at that time who had a brutal dictator bent on exterminating your entire population.

As I said, I denounce Stalin,...

So long as slavery, political oppression and extermination are just "industrialization," I will remain unconvinced.


Well the founding fathers aren't too much at fault, I was simply saying that most of them were rich landowners and had a conflict of interest, and also that they barely even mentioned slavery when writing the constitution.

At least they had a Constitution.

Also the CSA never was threatened with invasion by the most advanced military in the world at that time who had a brutal dictator bent on exterminating your entire population.

...


Bullshit. If the glorious republic couldn't survive without slavery and oppression, it should have immediately proceeded to the lowest corner of hell where it belonged.
...
So extermination is justified in order to prevent extermination?

More doublethink nonsense.


^---- Continue re-reading the above, as necessary.

What we need is a giant computer to give the final answer to all these socialism/capitalism/various-other-ism debates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GUV7zz-8Oc&mode=related&search=


Good one. *bows*
I suspect i could look online to see what the net provides as "the question" to 42.

EDIT: on a side note, God doesn't exist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA&mode=related&search=

Thankfully, there's no shortage of "god"s while simultaneously a significant shortage of logic here, so i'm sure we can look forward to many, many more weeks/months oroboural titillation. :p

We hate monopolies as a society because the lack of competition means that there is no incentive to offer better products and working conditions. So why do you as a society have them then? I agree with the latter part of the statement but do not see how the US has any less monopolies than elsewhere.

People can talk all they want about how the poor of this country cannot afford healthcare unless the government provides it for them. That only the rich, and the rich alone have adequate care. Well, i hate to break it to you liberals out there, but yes, yes they can. For alot of people it's hard to admit that the poor of this country put themeselves into poverty through incompetance and bad decisions; barring of course serious mental/physical handicappes as well as the loss of a primary income-earner or collapse of a business, my heart goes out to the small fraction of those who face those circumstances. What makes you think that these people are necessarily a small fraction?


For example, that drug use sometimes causes people who are high to go out and hurt others is not a valid justification for banning drug use, because it is a violation of the rights of those who can get high and still maintain control.Which drugs are you referring to when you say this? The only half-way decent example I know of is alcohol. Cannabis for one makes people more relaxed rather than more violent. I should know.

Tough shit for them. I'm not their slave.
So you'd think it perfectly fair if noone helped you when got suddenly ill and the doctor told that he "wasn't your slave"?

The argument is that naturally this wont happen, since there will usually be considerable business loss.
You're assuming that the people that would otherwise bar blacks are smart enough to realise that.
Democracy is more than just the rule of the majority. It also implies checks and balances to government power, and most importantly, accountability to the people. If you feel that the system is unfair, there is a process by which you may address the issue. Democracy is necessary for individual freedom, as it is only in democracies that civil rights are protected.Are you referring to what used to be called a representative aristocracy (as in Rousseau's Social Contract) in which case you somehow think more direct democracy is not free or are you referring to the original meaning of democracy in which case there is no country around in which civil rights are protected? Or are you merely forgetting that direct democracy is a possibility?

Well, you can always log back in and it will post normally. They fixed that problem a while ago, IIRC. It used to suck losing long posts due to logouts.I always just make sure to copy it before I send it just in case.

btw none of the Simpsons links work apparently cos Fox are being dicks. :(

So you'd think it perfectly fair if noone helped you when got suddenly ill and the doctor told that he "wasn't your slave"?
If you go to the doctor and pay for a service (namely, treating the illness) and he said that he "wasn't his slave" then he'd be correct. He would just provide you with a service that you paid for. Otherwise he'd be a thief-doctor. (or if it was socialized medicine, he'd be stealing from the government.)

What makes you think that these people are necessarily a small fraction?
They are a small fraction. Just looking at today's societies show that there is a massive middle class and a small low and high class. Last I checked (a while ago) those above the poverty line were 7/8 of the population. 1/8 isn't a large fraction. Then there are those who apply to the poverty line, and yet is still able to afford everything they need. Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong regarding numbers or the status of those below the poverty line, the low classes are still a fraction of the population.

Which drugs are you referring to when you say this? The only half-way decent example I know of is alcohol. Cannabis for one makes people more relaxed rather than more violent. I should know.
Which has no real contradiction to what he just said. Most people (yourself, I assume) can maintain control when they use drugs. Which is why he said that the fact that some cannot is not a justification for banning drug use.

You're assuming that the people that would otherwise bar blacks are smart enough to realise that.
True, but they would lose business regardless of how smart/stupid they are.

If you go to the doctor and pay for a service (namely, treating the illness) and he said that he "wasn't his slave" then he'd be correct. He would just provide you with a service that you paid for. Otherwise he'd be a thief-doctor. (or if it was socialized medicine, he'd be stealing from the government.)What if you went to the doctor and you didn't have enough money to pay them? Do you think it would be fair if the doctor did not heal you? Do not think the doctor might heal you out of kindness even if it wasn't socialised?


They are a small fraction. Just looking at today's societies show that there is a massive middle class and a small low and high class. Last I checked (a while ago) those above the poverty line were 7/8 of the population. 1/8 isn't a large fraction. Then there are those who apply to the poverty line, and yet is still able to afford everything they need. Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong regarding numbers or the status of those below the poverty line, the low classes are still a fraction of the population. I was meaning how does he know whether the "serious mental/physical handicappes as well as the loss of a primary income-earner or collapse of a business" are a small or otherwise fraction of the poor people. Apparently, I did not make myself clear enough sorry.


Which has no real contradiction to what he just said. Most people (yourself, I assume) can maintain control when they use drugs. Which is why he said that the fact that some cannot is not a justification for banning drug use. Yes but what he said that "drug use sometimes causes people who are high to go out and hurt others" implying that the drugs are the cause of the violence which is inaccurate, at least in most cases.


True, but they would lose business regardless of how smart/stupid they are.No because if they were smart, they would realise that they would lose business should they do so.

Party. I am simply a guy who looks out for himself and the people he has chosen to love, who tries his hardest to accomplish his own personal goals for what makes him happy.

I can live with or without you and I exist only for myself.

It's called giving. Not giving back, giving. These people I help through my gifts and my services did nothing for me and never helped me in any way, so the phrase "giving back" is a mistake encouraged by peolple who think success and wealth are given to a lucky winner who doesn't deserve it but needs to share it. Thus the phrase "more fortunate" serves the same purpose. Less than one percent of the millionaires in this country inherited their money so I doubt that's the case.





People like to complain how the world Americans live in makes the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. All I have to say is, "Well duh...and your point is?" Because the poor, who make bad decisions and squander the boundless opportunities offered to them in this nation, are making the same stupid decisions that made them poor in the first place. And the rich, are still making the good decisions that made them succeed.

I am a sixteen year old high-school student who knows that my success or failure in life will depend on how hard I work to get into a college I will have to afford on my own and to obtain a job that others will be competing for. I know that even if I fall into povery and hard times,

I live for no man. I am me. And I am free to live as I wish because of this idea.


We'll just ignore the undertones of "it's alright for people to suffer horribly as long as there's not too many of them and I get a second car" and the hilarious rhetorical device of dismissing arguments that you have invented yourself for your susposed idiotic opposition.

I want to ignore them because it seems the most remarkable thing here is that you've got brilliant english for a feral child. For someone who has been helped by nobody, who relies on no other man you seem to have an incredible grasp on language and society. Bravo. Scientists said it couldn't be done, they'll have to tear up the textbooks now, you've changed everything!

I tried to post before but it's not showing up. I cba to rewrite it so I'll just sum up what I said -

Unless the OP was a feral child then he isn't his fully own man reliant on nobody nor is he solely responsible for his fate in life. And if he was a feral child, science is very eager to speak to him.

Why do some people try to make the ludicrous statement that the only choice is to be a complete hermit that was left in the woods at birth or to be a socialist?

I am completely self-reliant. I do not require forcing other people to serve me to survive. I enter into completely voluntary agreements with people to exchange my productivity for theirs. Simply put, trade with another does not mean you are exploiting them, enslaving them, stealing from them, or are reliant upon their charity to survive.

Here is the not-so-subtle concept: everyone behaves out of their own self-interest and for their own benefit. Buying a loaf of bread is not being reliant upon the baker for his charity any more than he is relying on my charity to give him money. We both conduct that exchange out of our own self-interest and are both fully capable of calling ourselves self-reliant.

Being self-reliant means I am capable of surviving on my own - that could mean living as a hermit out in the wilderness, or it could mean voluntarily trading with other self-reliant people.

Why do some people try to make the ludicrous statement that the only choice is to be a complete hermit that was left in the woods at birth or to be a socialist?People are not assuming this. People can think of self-reliant as meaning doing everything without any help. dictionnary.com says it means trusting one's own judgement and powers which seems again different from your definition. adifference in one's interpretation of the word can change one's ideas about other things relating to the word.

I am completely self-reliant. I do not require forcing other people to serve me to survive. Thus you are not a slave driver. Good for you. But this does not necessarily mean you are self-reliant.
I enter into completely voluntary agreements with people to exchange my productivity for theirs. Simply put, trade with another does not mean you are exploiting them, enslaving them, stealing from them, or are reliant upon their charity to survive.

Here is the not-so-subtle concept: everyone behaves out of their own self-interest and for their own benefit. Buying a loaf of bread is not being reliant upon the baker for his charity any more than he is relying on my charity to give him money. We both conduct that exchange out of our own self-interest and are both fully capable of calling ourselves self-reliant.

Being self-reliant means I am capable of surviving on my own - that could mean living as a hermit out in the wilderness, or it could mean voluntarily trading with other self-reliant people.But the point is that you probly can't survive on your own as a hermit in the wilderness. And yes you have more or less given the definition of trade above but people can interact in ways other than trade and they can give freelly should they choose. I'm sure your mum didn't ask you for anything in particular in return for milk and her keeping you fed and warm etc at least not when you were a baby.

Why do some people try to make the ludicrous statement that the only choice is to be a complete hermit that was left in the woods at birth or to be a socialist?That isn't the argument. Someone is arguing that they live for themselves without the help of anyone. Pointing out that they don't live in the woods means that they receive help from someone.

I am completely self-reliant.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
self-re·li·ant /ˈsɛlfrɪˈlaɪənt, ˌsɛlf-/ Pronunciation Key Pronunciation[self-ri-lahy-uhnt, self-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective relying on oneself or on one's own powers, resources, etc

I do not require forcing other people to serve me to survive. That's not what not being self-reliant means.

I enter into completely voluntary agreements with people to exchange my productivity for theirs. Thus, you are not "completely self-reliant", as you rely on their powers and resources instead of your own.

Simply put, trade with another does not mean you are exploiting them, enslaving them, stealing from them, or are reliant upon their charity to survive.True, but it does mean that you're not self-reliant.

1. Get a blog.

2. I strongly encourage you to keep referring to yourself as Christian while you loudly espouse beliefs that directly contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ. This will annoy the snot out of Christians and will also make me giggle. Thanks!

Why do some people try to make the ludicrous statement that the only choice is to be a complete hermit that was left in the woods at birth or to be a socialist?

I am completely self-reliant. I do not require forcing other people to serve me to survive. I enter into completely voluntary agreements with people to exchange my productivity for theirs. Simply put, trade with another does not mean you are exploiting them, enslaving them, stealing from them, or are reliant upon their charity to survive.

Here is the not-so-subtle concept: everyone behaves out of their own self-interest and for their own benefit. Buying a loaf of bread is not being reliant upon the baker for his charity any more than he is relying on my charity to give him money. We both conduct that exchange out of our own self-interest and are both fully capable of calling ourselves self-reliant.

Being self-reliant means I am capable of surviving on my own - that could mean living as a hermit out in the wilderness, or it could mean voluntarily trading with other self-reliant people.

But you were reliant. As a child you were reliant on your parents to raise you, on an education system to teach you and maybe on a hospital to keep you alive. The OP said that he didn't have to "give anything back" because he was his own man, but - as they say - no man is an island and no one is truly self-reliant.

Having observed that your enviroment (parents, school, peers, money, house, healthcare etc etc) undeniably changes you as a person: can we ever claim to be truly self-made? Would a fully capitalist system be meritocratic or would it keep the wealth locked into families, eventually creating a feudal system based not on physical coercion but on economic coercion?

But you were reliant. As a child you were reliant on your parents to raise you, on an education system to teach you and maybe on a hospital to keep you alive. The OP said that he didn't have to "give anything back" because he was his own man, but - as they say - no man is an island and no one is truly self-reliant.

Having observed that your enviroment (parents, school, peers, money, house, healthcare etc etc) undeniably changes you as a person: can we ever claim to be truly self-made? Would a fully capitalist system be meritocratic or would it keep the wealth locked into families, eventually creating a feudal system based not on physical coercion but on economic coercion?
But a socialist government to the degree which most suggest is absurd in that it isn't dependence, its complete domination of the government over its people.

But you were reliant. As a child you were reliant on your parents to raise you, on an education system to teach you and maybe on a hospital to keep you alive. The OP said that he didn't have to "give anything back" because he was his own man, but - as they say - no man is an island and no one is truly self-reliant.

Having observed that your enviroment (parents, school, peers, money, house, healthcare etc etc) undeniably changes you as a person: can we ever claim to be truly self-made? Would a fully capitalist system be meritocratic or would it keep the wealth locked into families, eventually creating a feudal system based not on physical coercion but on economic coercion?

Yes, as a child I did rely upon my parents for care. Not having suddenly appeared as a full grown man does not mean that I am not a self-reliant individual. My parents chose to have me and care for me themselves until I could care for myself - thus I do owe my parents great thanks for having raised me, but this does not mean I owe the random stranger anything. What 'society' has provided for me is negligible and my family would have been better off without.

Edit: And I would like to add that even in socialist economies things like schooling and medical care are not, in any way, free. There is no such thing as a free education, free health care, or free anything. 'Society' doesn't provide you with it (unless you are a sponge that never contributes, never does anything productive, and just sits there free riding) but you pay for it, and you pay for the bureaucracy to oversee the collection of taxation to fund it, and bureaucrats to manage it, and the necessary corruption and graft that will occur no matter how idealistic you may be in thinking that human behavior will suddenly change just because you now call them a socialist. Just because you pay for it out of exorbitant taxation rather than paying a bill directly does not make it free.

Unless someone has grown up completely destitute and reliant upon charity (private or public), they do not need to 'give back' anything. My parents paid a lot of taxes while i was growing up to cover any service I may have received (which would have been better provided had they been able to keep that money and find that service themselves), and I am currently paying a lot of taxes to involuntarily subsidize others. Charity is laudable and should be encouraged - enforced charity against the donors will is nothing short of theft.

Capitalist systems wouldn't devolve into feudal states - unless you have state control to restrict people's economic freedom, feudal states will not arise. This is why communism devolves into oligarchy - the state restricts people's freedom until they have none left. A free society may have a high disparity in wealth, but I find that far preferable to everyone being equally poor (except for the oligarchy in control of the state 'on behalf of the people').

Sure you're heard, but your opinion isn't always enacted.
Are you suggesting others should cater to your whims?
Exactly the opposite. No one should have to cater to the whims of others, even if the others are the majority.
If your opinion is being given and considered, you're not being dictated to.
It's not being considered. It's being ignored by virtue of being outnumbered. There's no honest evaluation of competing opinions going on; the people don't care to hear ideas with which they don't already agree.

Your information is several years old. Canada ended that ban (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/15/2) over two years ago, and even before that, private insurance was available.
That case struck down the ban in one province (Quebec), and other provincial bans have not since been challenged. They still stand.

The the Alberta government was fined by teh federal overnment for allowing the operation of a private hospital (though, similar hospitals were in operation in Quebec and BC at the time).

That case struck down the ban in one province (Quebec), and other provincial bans have not since been challenged. They still stand.

The the Alberta government was fined by teh federal overnment for allowing the operation of a private hospital (though, similar hospitals were in operation in Quebec and BC at the time).

Please provide sources for these claims.

Please provide sources for these claims.Your link supports the first claim. The court struck down a provincial law. That law's reach can't extend beyond Quebec.

As for the second (that Alberta was fined by the federal government for allowing a private hospital to operate):

http://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Choudhry/table2.pdf

As this chart shows, in November of 1995 the federal government announced a $420,000/month penalty applied to Alberta for allowing healthcare service providers to charge user fees.

They also threatened penalites in 2000 with Alberta's passage of Bill 11, which allowed private facilities to allow overnight stays.

Yes, as a child I did rely upon my parents for care. Not having suddenly appeared as a full grown man does not mean that I am not a self-reliant individual. My parents chose to have me and care for me themselves until I could care for myself - thus I do owe my parents great thanks for having raised me, but this does not mean I owe the random stranger anything. What 'society' has provided for me is negligible and my family would have been better off without.

Edit: And I would like to add that even in socialist economies things like schooling and medical care are not, in any way, free. There is no such thing as a free education, free health care, or free anything. 'Society' doesn't provide you with it (unless you are a sponge that never contributes, never does anything productive, and just sits there free riding) but you pay for it, and you pay for the bureaucracy to oversee the collection of taxation to fund it, and bureaucrats to manage it, and the necessary corruption and graft that will occur no matter how idealistic you may be in thinking that human behavior will suddenly change just because you now call them a socialist. Just because you pay for it out of exorbitant taxation rather than paying a bill directly does not make it free.

Unless someone has grown up completely destitute and reliant upon charity (private or public), they do not need to 'give back' anything. My parents paid a lot of taxes while i was growing up to cover any service I may have received (which would have been better provided had they been able to keep that money and find that service themselves), and I am currently paying a lot of taxes to involuntarily subsidize others. Charity is laudable and should be encouraged - enforced charity against the donors will is nothing short of theft.

Capitalist systems wouldn't devolve into feudal states - unless you have state control to restrict people's economic freedom, feudal states will not arise. This is why communism devolves into oligarchy - the state restricts people's freedom until they have none left. A free society may have a high disparity in wealth, but I find that far preferable to everyone being equally poor (except for the oligarchy in control of the state 'on behalf of the people').


Firstly, the word free appears nowhere in my post. That's a complete irrelevancy.

Secondly, whilst you are probably awfully fond of them, that you relied on your parents rather than another person doesn't make a difference. The fact is that you were reliant upon another human being to become who you are. The hypothesis is - not controversially - that by demonstrating the effects of socialisation through such basic examples as feral children we demonstrate that who we are and the decisions we make are based on numerous external factors.

This has two important consequences:
1) It undermines everything that has been said about being self-reliant and needing no one else. It demonstrates that effort and talent are not rewarded fairly which has obvious consequences for the effectiveness of such a system. Which leads me nicely to:

2) This is almost a mirror image of communism. They both identify real problems with the current system but overlooked that with the proposed change they would lose something that would make the new system unworkable. With communism they identified real problems with class, wealth retention, exploitation etc but in their overly optimistic assumptions failed to consider the effect their classless society would have on motivation.
Here we have a real problem with entitlement, lack of motivation etc but in their overly optimistic assumptions failed to consider the effect their government-less society would have on competition, meritocracy, exploitation, wealth retention.

Current economic intervention by government stops us from seeing true private monopolies but with information asymetries and entrenched economic advantages, monoplies will lead to a select few holding all the money, wealth, land and power.

Exactly the opposite. No one should have to cater to the whims of others, even if the others are the majority.Then you propose a system without order.

It's not being considered. It's being ignored by virtue of being outnumbered.How can they ignore it while at the same time tallying it?

There's no honest evaluation of competing opinions going on; the people don't care to hear ideas with which they don't already agree.This presumes that all of the people who vote with the majority agreed with the majority at the start of the debate.
(This isn't always the case.)

Then you propose a system without order.
It's called freedom. Some of us like it.

It's called freedom. Some of us like it.A short-lived freedom indeed.

A short-lived freedom indeed.
It gives us each the freedom to succeed or fail on our merits.

A short-lived freedom indeed.

Well this is where your type of freedom got us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtU3vUOa2sw&mode=related&search=

It gives us each the freedom to succeed or fail on our merits.

Or to work hard, and fail at another's whim.


Well this is where your type of freedom got us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtU3vUOa2sw&mode=related&search=

Are you always this childish?

Are you always this childish?

Mostly when I feel like screwing with people who take themselves to seriously. Honestly it was a joke, if you can't take it then I'm really not the one having problems with being childish.

Mostly when I feel like screwing with people who take themselves to seriously. Honestly it was a joke, if you can't take it then I'm really not the one have problems with being childish.

Nice retort.:rolleyes: Did you forget that sarcasm and irony don't translate well to the internet? You made no indication it was a joke. Learn to be more clear.

It gives us each the freedom to succeed or fail on our merits.I fail to see how an infant getting tossed off a cliff failed on its own merits.

The problems with democracy are too numerable to list but can be easily summed up with the following statement: two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Even when the votes in favor of opposing ideals are tallied the popular opinion wins and the minority gets screwed, it's views ignored. That's the problem with democracy. "So it's the lesser evil," you might say, "it could always be worse." The lesser of two evils is still evil and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Under capitalism, if you don't like your job or if you are unsatisfied with services you are receiving you are free to take your business elsewhere. With a socialist monopoly you don't have that choice. You don't have that freedom.

Under capitalism your status in life is determined by you, your choices, your success. You choose where you go in life and have no one to blame for where you end up except yourself. It is nothing like throwing a child off a cliff. Stop demanding a teat to suckle and grow up.

I fail to see how an infant getting tossed off a cliff failed on its own merits.

If the infant was worth anything, it wouldn't have allowed itself to be tossed off a cliff.

If the infant was worth anything, it wouldn't have allowed itself to be tossed off a cliff.

The whole 'meritocracy' argument of capitalists is a sham anyways, it's like a society manipulating the socio-economic of an individual so they have no chance to become wealthy, and when they don't you say they have 'no merit'. Figures.

I think the original post was very well written, especially for someone 16. I somewhat agree with a lot of what was said, but I sense an almost, frustration you have for your beliefs, as if you feel compelled to defend them.

Your viewpoint is that of many Conservatives, most of which, are not impressed with Bushs' as Presidents, as a General Rule. We believe in the REAL Conservatism of Ronald Reagan, and he is sorely missed in American politics at this time. Whether the Republican party understands this, or not... I don't know... it doesn't seem that they do. They go headstrong into 2008 with a Quasi-Liberal Bush republicrat... (rudy) in the lead for the nomination!

Here is the deal with Nationalized Healthcare; it is the cornerstone of the Democrat platform, and they have pulled up all the stops to win this election. Not only is it vital for the fate of NH, but the Democrat party as we know it. If they lose in 2008, it will cause a massive shift in Democrat policy, and the Left-wing radicals who control the party now, will be kicked to the curb like Joe Lieberman's luggage. They have gone so far out on the Liberal Limb, there is no chance of 'moderating to the middle' as Clit-on was able to do! Hillary will sell nationalized healthcare like Bill sold Hope. She will become this courageous iconic woman of the ages, fighting to bestow free healthcare for all, blah blah frikin blah.

The whole 'meritocracy' argument of capitalists is a sham anyways, it's like a society manipulating the socio-economic of an individual so they have no chance to become wealthy, and when they don't you say they have 'no merit'. Figures.
That statement demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of meritocracy. In a meritocracy everyone starts out at the bottom, like a private, and works their way up through society based on their efforts. It's like running society as though it were a military, where everyone is ranked based on their achievements.

That statement demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of meritocracy. In a meritocracy everyone starts out at the bottom, like a private, and works their way up through society based on their efforts. It's like running society as though it were a military, where everyone is ranked based on their achievements.

I hope you are against inheritance and for communal parenting or forced adoption...

That statement demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of meritocracy. In a meritocracy everyone starts out at the bottom, like a private, and works their way up through society based on their efforts. It's like running society as though it were a military, where everyone is ranked based on their achievements.

Except of course real life doesn't run like that. Some are born higher up the ladder and get higher still not through merit but by nepotism. While others have a harder time reaching a more basic level.

That statement demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of meritocracy. In a meritocracy everyone starts out at the bottom, like a private, and works their way up through society based on their efforts. It's like running society as though it were a military, where everyone is ranked based on their achievements.
No I wasn't attacking meritocracy per-say, just the implementation of it, or the societies (US in particular) that say they are meritocratic but yet aren't. Also, you might know that in the military if you know someone high up it maybe easier to get promoted or whatnot, also those that decide promotions may become an oligarchy who do not promote based on merit but instead to form like-minded cliques.

Even when the votes in favor of opposing ideals are tallied the popular opinion wins and the minority gets screwed, it's views ignored.If you're tallying someone's views, you aren't ignoring them.

Under capitalism your status in life is determined by you, your choices, your success. You choose where you go in life and have no one to blame for where you end up except yourself. It is nothing like throwing a child off a cliff. Stop demanding a teat to suckle and grow up.I did not say that that was what capitalism was, I said that that was what a system without order was.
Capitalism is not a system without order.

Under capitalism your status in life is determined by you, your choices, your success. You choose where you go in life and have no one to blame for where you end up except yourself. It is nothing like throwing a child off a cliff. Stop demanding a teat to suckle and grow up.
This is a lie. If capitalism is about everyone deciding their own status in life, then everyone would be rich, unfortunately this does not exist, and nor is it sustainable. Capitalism will always be about the many sustaining the lifestyle and wealth of the few.

Under capitalism, if you don't like your job or if you are unsatisfied with services you are receiving you are free to take your business elsewhere.

Bunk.

In many cases you aren't free to take your business elsewhere, because the business in question is the only game in town. Not everybody has the time, money, and resources to travel three towns over to find the competition. Some people have to carefully budget every gallon of gas they use. Some people have kids who need attention RIGHT FUCKING NOW, and can't possibly spare an extra 45 minutes to drive all the way across nowhere to get to another store.

Seriously, I'm all for capitalism, but let's not be naive about it. Just because you're an upper-middle-class suburban kid doesn't mean everybody enjoys the same luxuries you do.


Under capitalism your status in life is determined by you, your choices, your success.

Even more bunk.

I was born under capitalism, and my status in life has been determined far more by the circumstances of my birth than by anything I've done so far.

I was born into a family with two Ph.D white parents who came from middle class backgrounds. Right there, I was head and shoulders above many of my peers. I was born healthy, with no major birth defects or serious illnesses or drug addictions. I was not abused as a child. I had enough to eat. I had access to a good education and a supportive family.

I didn't earn any of this shit, I was just lucky. And, as a result, before I made my first individual choice about ANYTHING I already had a massive head start over countless other kids.


You choose where you go in life and have no one to blame for where you end up except yourself.

It's naive to think that the environment doesn't play a part. Rich hetero honky boys tend to assume that the environment doesn't hamper anybody else because it doesn't hamper them, of course, but they're wrong.

This is a lie. If capitalism is about everyone deciding their own status in life, then everyone would be rich, unfortunately this does not exist, and nor is it sustainable. Capitalism will always be about the many sustaining the lifestyle and wealth of the few.
Ahh, but you forget!

The reason poor people are poor is because they're stupid. They deserve to be poor, which is why rich people don't need to worry about helping them. If poor people WANTED to be rich, why, they could be!

I think the original post was very well written, especially for someone 16. I somewhat agree with a lot of what was said, but I sense an almost, frustration you have for your beliefs, as if you feel compelled to defend them.

Your viewpoint is that of many Conservatives, most of which, are not impressed with Bushs' as Presidents, as a General Rule. We believe in the REAL Conservatism of Ronald Reagan, and he is sorely missed in American politics at this time. Whether the Republican party understands this, or not... I don't know... it doesn't seem that they do. They go headstrong into 2008 with a Quasi-Liberal Bush republicrat... (rudy) in the lead for the nomination!

Here is the deal with Nationalized Healthcare; it is the cornerstone of the Democrat platform, and they have pulled up all the stops to win this election. Not only is it vital for the fate of NH, but the Democrat party as we know it. If they lose in 2008, it will cause a massive shift in Democrat policy, and the Left-wing radicals who control the party now, will be kicked to the curb like Joe Lieberman's luggage. They have gone so far out on the Liberal Limb, there is no chance of 'moderating to the middle' as Clit-on was able to do! Hillary will sell nationalized healthcare like Bill sold Hope. She will become this courageous iconic woman of the ages, fighting to bestow free healthcare for all, blah blah frikin blah.

You know, there's never a smilie making the "jerking off" motion around when you need one.

You know, there's never a smilie making the "jerking off" motion around when you need one.
I need a "jigga-WHAT?!" emote. That bit about the "left-wing radicals" controlling the Democratic party really got me.

Ahh, but you forget!

The reason poor people are poor is because they're stupid. They deserve to be poor, which is why rich people don't need to worry about helping them. If poor people WANTED to be rich, why, they could be!

You got me.

-snip-
Here is the deal with Nationalized Healthcare; it is the cornerstone of the Democrat platform, and they have pulled up all the stops to win this election. Not only is it vital for the fate of NH, but the Democrat party as we know it. If they lose in 2008, it will cause a massive shift in Democrat policy, and the Left-wing radicals who control the party now, will be kicked to the curb like Joe Lieberman's luggage. They have gone so far out on the Liberal Limb, there is no chance of 'moderating to the middle' as Clit-on was able to do! Hillary will sell nationalized healthcare like Bill sold Hope. She will become this courageous iconic woman of the ages, fighting to bestow free healthcare for all, blah blah frikin blah.

Left-wing radicals ? ?

Nobody in the democratic party is even close to being a left winger, let alone a left wing radical, it just seems this way, because true left wingers havent existed in american politics since Hoovers purges.

And ofcourse, the Republican party dearly wants everyone to consider the democrats as left wingers, because if the democratic party was placed in its correct center-right wing spot, the republican party would also be seen in its, correct, extreme-right-wing spot.

I always just laugh when people call the democrats left, its just too silly to be real. :)

Left-wing radicals ? ?

Nobody in the democratic party is even close to being a left winger, let alone a left wing radical, it just seems this way, because true left wingers havent existed in american politics since Hoovers purges.

And ofcourse, the Republican party dearly wants everyone to consider the democrats as left wingers, because if the democratic party was placed in its correct center-right wing spot, the republican party would also be seen in its, correct, extreme-right-wing spot.

I always just laugh when people call the democrats left, its just too silly to be real. :)
So glad I am not American.

Your link supports the first claim. The court struck down a provincial law. That law's reach can't extend beyond Quebec.

As for the second (that Alberta was fined by the federal government for allowing a private hospital to operate):

http://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Choudhry/table2.pdf

As this chart shows, in November of 1995 the federal government announced a $420,000/month penalty applied to Alberta for allowing healthcare service providers to charge user fees.

They also threatened penalites in 2000 with Alberta's passage of Bill 11, which allowed private facilities to allow overnight stays.

I'm not so sure about the legality of it. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Look back at the thread and you will see that I posted all this only to disprove your claim that Canada is a single-provider and single payer system. It's not. I,ve shown that quite clearly. You can bring up stories about Alberta breaking the law ten years ago all you want. You can talk about how hard it is to open a private overnight clinic. It doesn't matter. Rich Canadians have access to private healthcare.

Left-wing radicals ? ?

Nobody in the democratic party is even close to being a left winger, let alone a left wing radical, it just seems this way, because true left wingers havent existed in american politics since Hoovers purges.

And ofcourse, the Republican party dearly wants everyone to consider the democrats as left wingers, because if the democratic party was placed in its correct center-right wing spot, the republican party would also be seen in its, correct, extreme-right-wing spot.

I always just laugh when people call the democrats left, its just too silly to be real. :)

YES, LEFT-WING RADICALS! Read the DNC Platform, it sounds remarkably like the Communist Manifesto! Listen to the Democrat candidates, they sound amazingly like Karl Marx. If you ask the typical Democrat, where does the following statement originate; "To each according to need, by each according to means", they think it is found in the Bill of Rights!

It doesn't matter what you think the Republican party wants, they are only marginally less liberal! If Rudy and McCain were placed in a time machine and teleported back to the days of WWII, they would be sucking up to Neville Chamberlain, no doubt! George W. Bush has outspent the last 3 Democrat presidents combined, with more government bureaucracy, programs, and entitlements than any of them even dared to propose. There is nothing "Conservative" about the republican party any more, it is nothing more than "Liberal-Lite" as far as I can tell.

If you honestly think the Democrat party isn't "left-wing", you have to be smoking something strong, or maybe you are just dog-butt ashamed of what you are? Why is it Liberals want to hide from their ideology? See, The Sin? You have nothing to be ashamed of, at least you will admit you are "right-wing" unlike the vermin on the left who just want to lie about it.

YES, LEFT-WING RADICALS! Read the DNC Platform, it sounds remarkably like the Communist Manifesto! Listen to the Democrat candidates, they sound amazingly like Karl Marx. If you ask the typical Democrat, where does the following statement originate; "To each according to need, by each according to means", they think it is found in the Bill of Rights!

It doesn't matter what you think the Republican party wants, they are only marginally less liberal! If Rudy and McCain were placed in a time machine and teleported back to the days of WWII, they would be sucking up to Neville Chamberlain, no doubt! George W. Bush has outspent the last 3 Democrat presidents combined, with more government bureaucracy, programs, and entitlements than any of them even dared to propose. There is nothing "Conservative" about the republican party any more, it is nothing more than "Liberal-Lite" as far as I can tell.

If you honestly think the Democrat party isn't "left-wing", you have to be smoking something strong, or maybe you are just dog-butt ashamed of what you are? Why is it Liberals want to hide from their ideology? See, The Sin? You have nothing to be ashamed of, at least you will admit you are "right-wing" unlike the vermin on the left who just want to lie about it.

Isn't it time for your meds? I am a liberal. I feel no shame in that, and that you might think I should bothers me not at all. The Democratic Party is only left-wing by U.S. standards. In actuality they are center-right. Calling anyone you don't like or with whom you disagree a "communist", apart from being a variation on Godwin's Law, is ridiculous and juvenile, Senator McCarthy. (see, both sides can name-call, too.)

R.o.n. P.a.u.l.

Ah yes, Andaras, and how lucky you are not to be an American. I don't know what country you're from, but if you're a citizen of one of the snootier EU member nations that so often make statements like yours, congratulations! You get to live in a socialistic society that will never let you gain serious levels of prosperity because, at every turn, you, in the form of the government, will take from anyone who can produce and give to anyone who can't. Ever wonder why business, wealth, ingenuity, and entrepeneurship is fleeing your country? What a beautiful system.

Ah yes, Andaras, and how lucky you are not to be an American. I don't know what country you're from, but if you're a citizen of one of the snootier EU member nations that so often make statements like yours, congratulations! You get to live in a socialistic society that will never let you gain serious levels of prosperity because, at every turn, you, in the form of the government, will take from anyone who can produce and give to anyone who can't. Ever wonder why business, wealth, ingenuity, and entrepeneurship is fleeing your country? What a beautiful system.

Yeah! There are no rich or successful Europeans! Richard Branson is a figment of your imagination...(alright, he's British or English or however that's sorted out, but roll with it...)

I really liked the OP's post, even though I'm 14-15 pages late. I agree with a lot of what he said. The thing is that you alone don't determine your place in life. Your ancestors help. Whether you move up, down or sideways along the ladder is up to you in order to give a starting point to your descendants.

That's what I like about capitalism and what I hate about inheritance taxes. If your parents work in a shitty lifestyle in order to give you a head-start that is their choice. If they want their own luxuries that's their choice. Don't be naive about everyone succeeding or failing on their own merits. They succeed or fail based on their own merits plus the merits of their ancestors.

If a kid is born rich his parents and perhaps their parents worked to get him up their. If you tax inheritance you're destroying other people's work. If you worked shit-hard in order to give your children twice the start you had, why should the government dump all that work down the toilet?

Communism is flawed because if everyone has equal money no one is rich but no one is poor. They make the same money whether they do any work or not. This develops into a collapse of everyone doing the least amount of work possible for the greatest amount of money possible. In Capitalism, you can raise wages through a strike. You can get better service through a boycott. In Communism/Socialism you can't do that because there are no consequences to a strike or a boycott.

And that's my rant which may have deserved its own thread but...meh.

EDIT: Woohoo! 200th post.

Typical Libertarian bullsh*t. You may not like it, but you're not the only person in the world that has rights. Your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa. The world does not exist to cater to your whims. If you'd rather not be bothered with society because you can't always get your own way, move to some remote island and set up your own micronation. Otherwise, call the waah-mbulance and get over it.

One is not allowed to start a micro-nation. If you're born into a country, you're stuck there. Such is the quandry with Statism. Best to make your country as livable as possible by keeping as many of your rights as you can.

And what are your rights? Regardless of how much you might disagree, they're exactly the same as mine. How much you need something doesn't entitle you to it; how much you pay for it does. Our rights don't overlap unless you believe it is your right to control me.

Is it your right to prevent my drug use? Is it your right to forcefully steal my money in the form of tax and throw it at a war that is morally reprehensible to me? What about throwing my forcefully extorted income into welfare and social security programs that offend me on a religious and philosophical level?

No. And I don't know why both the Democratic and Republican party, (with the exception of Ron Paul) who both claim to represent freedom and preservation of the American interests in rugged individualism can stand for such authoritarian policies.

And the bigger question, why the hell do we support them?!

Yeah! There are no rich or successful Europeans! Richard Branson is a figment of your imagination...(alright, he's British or English or however that's sorted out, but roll with it...)

But my friend, the human flare is strong. We manage to overcome so much regulation that stands to hamper us. However, Europe (Scandinavian countries in particular) have been gradually losing entrepeneurship over their years as socialist States. Why work in Europe and earn only half as much? It's no coincidence that England, the least authoritarian of the European economies, is the richest.

But my friend, the human flare is strong. We manage to overcome so much regulation that stands to hamper us. However, Europe (Scandinavian countries in particular) have been gradually losing entrepeneurship over their years as socialist States. Why work in Europe and earn only half as much? It's no coincidence that England, the least authoritarian of the European economies, is the richest.

Is it?

I really liked the OP's post, even though I'm 14-15 pages late. I agree with a lot of what he said. The thing is that you alone don't determine your place in life. Your ancestors help. Whether you move up, down or sideways along the ladder is up to you in order to give a starting point to your descendants.

That's what I like about capitalism and what I hate about inheritance taxes. If your parents work in a shitty lifestyle in order to give you a head-start that is their choice. If they want their own luxuries that's their choice. Don't be naive about everyone succeeding or failing on their own merits. They succeed or fail based on their own merits plus the merits of their ancestors.

If a kid is born rich his parents and perhaps their parents worked to get him up their. If you tax inheritance you're destroying other people's work. If you worked shit-hard in order to give your children twice the start you had, why should the government dump all that work down the toilet?

Communism is flawed because if everyone has equal money no one is rich but no one is poor. They make the same money whether they do any work or not. This develops into a collapse of everyone doing the least amount of work possible for the greatest amount of money possible. In Capitalism, you can raise wages through a strike. You can get better service through a boycott. In Communism/Socialism you can't do that because there are no consequences to a strike or a boycott.

And that's my rant which may have deserved its own thread but...meh.

EDIT: Woohoo! 200th post.

The work of parents for their loved ones can be viewed as a good thing. Meritocracy can be viewed as a much better thing.

I was born under capitalism, and my status in life has been determined far more by the circumstances of my birth than by anything I've done so far.
Guess what? I'm going to dispute that.
I was born into a family with two Ph.D white parents who came from middle class backgrounds. Right there, I was head and shoulders above many of my peers.
So far, the only relevant point is that you are white. Unless being white carries with it specific advantages (and when I claim it does I tend to be acused of racism), that's not an advantage.
I was born healthy, with no major birth defects or serious illnesses or drug addictions.
Being born healthy is a major bonus. Luckily, it's also true of the majority of humans born in the western world. Being born drug addicted is a serious drawback, a lasting result of having been abused before birth. There needs to be harsher punishments for parents who do that so as better to deter than behaviour. What we're really talking about here is crime, and the victims of crime probably do warrant some sort of restitution.
I was not abused as a child.
See above.
I had enough to eat.
It's actually quite hard not to have enough to eat in America.
I had access to a good education and a supportive family.
Ignoring that some children are smarter than others, they all have the same capacity to learn. That said, not being taught to read or do mathematics at a young age is a serious handicap. This is a relevant point, but it's not directly related to economic station.
I didn't earn any of this shit, I was just lucky. And, as a result, before I made my first individual choice about ANYTHING I already had a massive head start over countless other kids.
Many of the things you received as a result of your family were, upon reflection, simply gifts. And receiving gifts isn't a process entirely without meritorious cause. To receive an inheritance, for example, you need to convince some rich person (usually a parent) to leave you some property. Success or failure in that endeavour is related to merit.

All humans have the capacity for rational thought. That many choose not to think or behave rationally is their own fault. Society could improve their lives by more strongly encouraging rational behaviour.

One is not allowed to start a micro-nation. If you're born into a country, you're stuck there. Such is the quandry with Statism. Best to make your country as livable as possible by keeping as many of your rights as you can.

And what are your rights? Regardless of how much you might disagree, they're exactly the same as mine. How much you need something doesn't entitle you to it; how much you pay for it does. Our rights don't overlap unless you believe it is your right to control me.

Is it your right to prevent my drug use? Is it your right to forcefully steal my money in the form of tax and throw it at a war that is morally reprehensible to me? What about throwing my forcefully extorted income into welfare and social security programs that offend me on a religious and philosophical level?

No. And I don't know why both the Democratic and Republican party, (with the exception of Ron Paul) who both claim to represent freedom and preservation of the American interests in rugged individualism can stand for such authoritarian policies.

And the bigger question, why the hell do we support them?!

You talk about your rights. How did you decide what your rights are?

Many of the things you received as a result of your family were, upon reflection, simply gifts. And receiving gifts isn't a process entirely without meritorious cause. To receive an inheritance, for example, you need to convince some rich person (usually a parent) to leave you some property. Success or failure in that endeavour is related to merit.


I am speechless.

Just... wow

R.o.n. P.a.u.l.

A. r.i.g.h.t.w.i.n.g. n.u.t.j.o.b.

Is it?

Not per capita, it isn't.


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-nominal-per-capita&id=EUR




SOURCE
World Bank Statistics, 2004DEFINITION
the value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. GDP dollar estimates here are calculated at market or government official exchange rates. Per capita figures expressed per 1 population.Economy Statistics > Statistics > GDP > Nominal (per capita) (Latest available) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals Per capita
Definition Source Printable version

Bar Graph Map Correlations

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Luxembourg: $66,463.78 per capita
#2 Norway: $54,467.23 per capita
#3 Switzerland: $47,999.07 per capita
#4 Ireland: $45,707.17 per capita
#5 Denmark: $44,742.82 per capita
#8 Sweden: $38,480.78 per capita
#10 Finland: $35,726.02 per capita
#11 Austria: $35,443.98 per capita
#12 United Kingdom: $35,421.29 per capita
#13 Netherlands: $35,183.76 per capita
#14 Belgium: $33,754.34 per capita
#15 France: $33,015.40 per capita
#16 Germany: $32,929.58 per capita
#18 San Marino: $30,470.91 per capita
#20 Italy: $28,781.68 per capita
#24 Spain: $24,576.53 per capita
#29 Greece: $19,066.46 per capita
#33 Slovenia: $16,002.98 per capita
#34 Portugal: $15,926.65 per capita
#38 Malta: $13,522.06 per capita
#41 Czech Republic: $10,452.79 per capita
#43 Hungary: $9,964.23 per capita
#47 Estonia: $8,108.03 per capita
#48 Croatia: $7,606.76 per capita
#49 Slovakia: $7,566.19 per capita
#52 Poland: $6,271.93 per capita
#54 Lithuania: $6,189.32 per capita
#56 Latvia: $5,951.53 per capita
#77 Romania: $3,276.62 per capita
#79 Bulgaria: $3,239.06 per capita
#86 Macedonia, Republic of: $2,565.28 per capita
#96 Belarus: $2,218.35 per capita
#97 Serbia and Montenegro: $2,215.90 per capita
#99 Albania: $2,130.23 per capita
#106 Bosnia and Herzegovina: $1,833.18 per capita
#140 Moldova: $582.49 per capita


In fact, not even in total $.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp-nominal&id=EUR

SOURCE
World Bank Statistics, 2004DEFINITION
the value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. GDP dollar estimates here are calculated at market or government official exchange rates.Economy Statistics > Statistics > GDP > Nominal (Latest available) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals Per capita
Definition Source Printable version

Bar Graph Pie Chart Map Correlations

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#3 Germany: $2,714,418,000,000.00
#4 United Kingdom: $2,140,898,000,000.00
#5 France: $2,002,582,000,000.00
#6 Italy: $1,672,302,000,000.00
#8 Spain: $991,442,000,000.00
#16 Netherlands: $577,260,000,000.00
#17 Switzerland: $359,465,000,000.00
#18 Belgium: $349,830,000,000.00
#19 Sweden: $346,404,000,000.00
#21 Austria: $290,109,000,000.00
#24 Norway: $250,168,000,000.00
#25 Denmark: $243,043,000,000.00
#26 Poland: $241,833,000,000.00
#28 Greece: $203,401,000,000.00
#29 Finland: $186,597,000,000.00
#30 Ireland: $183,560,000,000.00
#31 Portugal: $168,281,000,000.00
#39 Czech Republic: $107,047,000,000.00
#41 Hungary: $99,712,000,000.00
#49 Romania: $73,167,000,000.00
#58 Slovakia: $41,092,000,000.00
#60 Croatia: $34,200,000,000.00
#61 Slovenia: $32,182,000,000.00
#62 Luxembourg: $31,143,000,000.00
#67 Bulgaria: $24,131,000,000.00
#68 Serbia and Montenegro: $23,996,000,000.00
#70 Belarus: $22,849,000,000.00
#71 Lithuania: $22,263,000,000.00
#87 Latvia: $13,629,000,000.00
#95 Estonia: $10,808,000,000.00
#101 Bosnia and Herzegovina: $8,121,000,000.00
#105 Albania: $7,590,000,000.00
#118 Malta: $5,389,000,000.00
#121 Macedonia, Republic of: $5,246,000,000.00
#140 Moldova: $2,595,000,000.00
#158 San Marino: $880,000,000.00

Guess what? I'm going to dispute that.

So far, the only relevant point is that you are white. Unless being white carries with it specific advantages (and when I claim it does I tend to be acused of racism), that's not an advantage.

Being born healthy is a major bonus. Luckily, it's also true of the majority of humans born in the western world. Being born drug addicted is a serious drawback, a lasting result of having been abused before birth. There needs to be harsher punishments for parents who do that so as better to deter than behaviour. What we're really talking about here is crime, and the victims of crime probably do warrant some sort of restitution.

See above.

It's actually quite hard not to have enough to eat in America.

Ignoring that some children are smarter than others, they all have the same capacity to learn. That said, not being taught to read or do mathematics at a young age is a serious handicap. This is a relevant point, but it's not directly related to economic station.

Light reading (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/SI_Kozol_StLouis.html).

Many of the things you received as a result of your family were, upon reflection, simply gifts. And receiving gifts isn't a process entirely without meritorious cause. To receive an inheritance, for example, you need to convince some rich person (usually a parent) to leave you some property. Success or failure in that endeavour is related to merit..

http://comparestoreprices.co.uk/images/unbranded/s/unbranded-stretch-armstrong.jpg
Even Mr. Armstrong is impressed.

One is not allowed to start a micro-nation. If you're born into a country, you're stuck there. Nope. You can always emigrate to another country, or to a deserted island.

Many of the things you received as a result of your family were, upon reflection, simply gifts. And receiving gifts isn't a process entirely without meritorious cause. To receive an inheritance, for example, you need to convince some rich person (usually a parent) to leave you some property. Success or failure in that endeavour is related to merit.Give an objective definition of merit, then demonstrate how receiving gifts from rich people fits it.

If you have 18 Billion and the government takes away 1. How much does that hurt you?

A. r.i.g.h.t.w.i.n.g. n.u.t.j.o.b.

Perhaps, but A. f.u.n. o.n.e.

A. r.i.g.h.t.w.i.n.g. n.u.t.j.o.b.

Indeed, he would privatize the police force if he could.

Indeed, he would privatize the police force if he could.

Hee hee… we'd all be paying protection money.

YES, LEFT-WING RADICALS! Read the DNC Platform, it sounds remarkably like the Communist Manifesto! Listen to the Democrat candidates, they sound amazingly like Karl Marx. If you ask the typical Democrat, where does the following statement originate; "To each according to need, by each according to means", they think it is found in the Bill of Rights!

It doesn't matter what you think the Republican party wants, they are only marginally less liberal! If Rudy and McCain were placed in a time machine and teleported back to the days of WWII, they would be sucking up to Neville Chamberlain, no doubt! George W. Bush has outspent the last 3 Democrat presidents combined, with more government bureaucracy, programs, and entitlements than any of them even dared to propose. There is nothing "Conservative" about the republican party any more, it is nothing more than "Liberal-Lite" as far as I can tell.

If you honestly think the Democrat party isn't "left-wing", you have to be smoking something strong, or maybe you are just dog-butt ashamed of what you are? Why is it Liberals want to hide from their ideology? See, The Sin? You have nothing to be ashamed of, at least you will admit you are "right-wing" unlike the vermin on the left who just want to lie about it.

So why havent the DNC presidents enacted a communist revolution in the US then ?

I can imagine that if you think that the Republicans are *liberal* that you think the DNC is far left wing. However that just means you are an actual extremist right winger, not that the DNC is communist (which, incidently, couldn't be farther from the truth.)

YES, LEFT-WING RADICALS! Read the DNC Platform, it sounds remarkably like the Communist Manifesto! Listen to the Democrat candidates, they sound amazingly like Karl Marx.

The word is Democratic candidates. Don't far-right wingers do adjectives anymore, or do they call their party the Republic Party?

Secondly, I'd like to quote Marx on the issue of free trade.

From On the Question of Free Trade (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm)
by Karl Marx

[...]

Doubtless, if the price of all commodities falls -- and this is the necessary consequence of free trade -- I can buy far more for a franc than before. And the worker's france is as good as any other man's. Therefore, free trade will be very advantageous to the worker. There is only little difficulty in this, namely, that the worker, before he exchanges his franc for other commodities, has first exchanged his labor with the capitalist. If in this exchange he always received the said franc for the same labor and the price of all other commodities fell, he would always be the gainer by such a bargain. The difficult point does not lie in proving that, if the price of all commodities falls, I will get more commodities for the same money.

Economists always take the price of labor at the moment of its exchange with other commodities. But they altogether ignore the moment at which labor accomplishes its own exchange with capital.

When less expense is required to set in motion the machine which produces commodities, the things necessary for the maintenance of this machine, called a worker, will also cost less. If all commodities are cheaper, labor, which is a commodity too, will also fall in price, and, as we shall see later, this commodity, labor, will fall far lower in proportion than the other commodities. If the worker still pins his faith to the arguments of the economists, he will find that the franc has melted away in his pocket, and that he has only 5 sous left.

[...]

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

Now, please tell me where you have heard any of the current crop of Democratic runners—even Kucinich is admitted—say anything like this on free trade in any of their press conferences, stump speeches, or Democratic presidential debates. I've been following every one of the Democratic debates so far and I've never heard it. If I had, the sudden myocardial infarction would have made it memorable. All the Democrats I've ever seen in office irresistably get on their knees in front of the All Majestic Free Trade.

It doesn't matter what you think the Republican party wants, they are only marginally less liberal! If Rudy and McCain were placed in a time machine and teleported back to the days of WWII, they would be sucking up to Neville Chamberlain, no doubt!

Neville Chamberlain was the Conservative PM, not Labour. How soon they do forget. So in a way, you're right, but not in the way you intended. I also think that Giuliani would be sucking up to the politician with whom his heart lies: Benito Mussolini.

If you honestly think the Democrat party isn't "left-wing", you have to be smoking something strong, or maybe you are just dog-butt ashamed of what you are? Why is it Liberals want to hide from their ideology? See, The Sin? You have nothing to be ashamed of, at least you will admit you are "right-wing" unlike the vermin on the left who just want to lie about it.

I'm trying to parse your last paragraph and failing. Are you saying that the left-wing is made up right-wingers who are lying to themselves? I've occupied both wings in my life, moving from right-wing to a geniune left-wing not a center-right party like the Democrats, and can tell that there's a significant difference between what I believe and value and what the Democrats and Republicans and other right-wingers believe and value.

However, if you're trying to say that the mainstream Democrats are really on the right and deluding themselves about it, I'd have to agree, but that does undercut your thesis.

And where does the issue of sin come into it, and why is it capitalized? Are you trying to imply that being a Democrat is the original sin? If so, I have to inform you that the Democratic Party really doesn't stretch back that far.

Help a guy out in his bewilderment, please? :confused:

Guess what? I'm going to dispute that.

*reads ahead*

No, you're actually not. I don't think my point is what you think it is.


*snip a bunch of meandering non-disputing*

Ignoring that some children are smarter than others, they all have the same capacity to learn.

Nope, they don't. And I speak from personal experience, seeing as how my own younger brother has a radically different learning capacity than my own.


That said, not being taught to read or do mathematics at a young age is a serious handicap. This is a relevant point, but it's not directly related to economic station.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Whew. Wait, no, still not done...

Hahahahahahaha!

You heard it here first, folks: economic station does not directly relate to literacy!


Many of the things you received as a result of your family were, upon reflection, simply gifts. And receiving gifts isn't a process entirely without meritorious cause. To receive an inheritance, for example, you need to convince some rich person (usually a parent) to leave you some property. Success or failure in that endeavour is related to merit.

As I said, quite clearly, I know (for a fact) that I did nothing to receive these gifts that I was given. I know this because my parents have explicitly told me so.

But hey, if you want to tell my folks that you know more about my upbringing than they do, go right ahead. I love watching my mom lay people out! :D


All humans have the capacity for rational thought.

Actually, no, they don't. But that's beside the point, and doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about.


That many choose not to think or behave rationally is their own fault. Society could improve their lives by more strongly encouraging rational behaviour.
A post of that length, and you couldn't manage to address my actual point even ONCE? Why bother to quote me?

And where does the issue of sin come into it, and why is it capitalized? Are you trying to imply that being a Democrat is the original sin? If so, I have to inform you that the Democratic Party really doesn't stretch back that far.

Help a guy out in his bewilderment, please? :confused:

The OP's username is The Sins. He was talking to the OP in that sentence.

The OP's username is The Sins. He was talking to the OP in that sentence.

Ah, thanks.

I'll still need "at least you will admit you are "right-wing" unlike the vermin on the left who just want to lie about it" parsed, but at least that other bit makes a little more sense.

Ah, thanks.

I'll still need "at least you will admit you are "right-wing" unlike the vermin on the left who just want to lie about it" parsed, but at least that other bit makes a little more sense.

I can explain that one. Roughly translated it means "I'll throw out some slanderous nonsense to villify and dehumanize anyone who disagrees with me, and see who I can get to accept it as true without questioning me." Politicians do it all the time.

I'm still waiting for an answer.

If you have 18 billion and the government takes away 1 billion.

You still have 17 Billion. So is it that big of a deal.

It's called freedom. Some of us like it.

Meh.

From The Leviathan (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html) by Thomas Hobbes:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Every libertarian wannabe should be required to read The Leviathan until they understand the folly of their ways.

People can talk all they want about how the poor of this country cannot afford healthcare unless the government provides it for them. That only the rich, and the rich alone have adequate care. Well, i hate to break it to you liberals out there, but yes, yes they can. For alot of people it's hard to admit that the poor of this country put themeselves into poverty through incompetance and bad decisions; barring of course serious mental/physical handicappes as well as the loss of a primary income-earner or collapse of a business, my heart goes out to the small fraction of those who face those circumstances. But competent poor people who face unfortunate circumstances manage to afford healthcare and other necessities because they manage their finances well enough to get themselves out of poverty. It is unimaginably, and extremely possible in this country. Most poor people spend too much of their money on things they shouldn't or don't need, or wind up having children they know they can't afford and they pay the price for it.

People like to complain how the world Americans live in makes the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. All I have to say is, "Well duh...and your point is?" Because the poor, who make bad decisions and squander the boundless opportunities offered to them in this nation, are making the same stupid decisions that made them poor in the first place. And the rich, are still making the good decisions that made them succeed.

Oh, the irony. Thanks for making it perfectly clear that, while perhaps you don't "hate" poor people, you do have utter disdain for them. Your simplistic view that the poor are simply stupid and the rich are smart certainly borders on hatred.

You may hate me and denounce me as a rich and bitter hater of all things markedly plebian, looking to turn the world over on it's head for my own profit. In reality, I am a sixteen year old high-school student who knows that my success or failure in life will depend on how hard I work to get into a college I will have to afford on my own and to obtain a job that others will be competing for.

Ah, that explains it. You have no life experience so you find it easy to judge. Your naivete would be humorous if it were not so poisonous.

People who give up this responsibility for the secure, yet limited and incomplete life of a colletivized, socialist society do not understand this, and rely on the government and the people around them to make their decisions for them. I live for no man. I am me. And I am free to live as I wish because of this idea.

Life-Liberty-Property. Hell, yeah.

Per my response to Llewdor, read The Leviathan (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html). It more than adequately decimates your premises.

16 years old? You know even less than Sean Hannity.. and thats not much.

Just give us the link to Foxnews.com next time with the extension to the John Gibson show and save us the spam.

*Warning* overly long and rambling post

"In reality, I am a sixteen year old high-school student who knows that my success or failure in life will depend on how hard I work to get into a college I will have to afford on my own and to obtain a job that others will be competing for."


At 16, I would say this is near exactly how I felt.

Add high school graduation @ 17, full college scholarship, honors degree in Political Science @ 21, inability to obtain job over $10/hour, realization that the lower the pay the harder a job is likely to be, marriage @ 22 (to college educated chap), semi-comfortable existence on dual income with no health insurance and no ability to obtain for 4 years, single bad decision, past 11 months well below poverty having to rely on parents to pay rent, good fortune of consistently good health, fear of lucky streak running out (due to some potential, though unchecked health problems with the husband) and semi-desperation, application, acceptance, and entrance into law school with ranking higher than those offering scholarships, debt, debt, debt. This is in hopes of some better result than the previous "education" I've had, or competitions or scholarships or jobs I've "won".

Somewhere between the realization that all that work I put into school was worthless and the crappy worthless jobs I've had to take and the continual fear of not having enough money, during some part of that time spent outside of my comfortable middle class academic early years, any notion that ours is a fair system where hard work actually pays off has been eradicated, and I've changed my mind.

I hate to be so negative. If only I were an isolated case. I hope all the best for you and a wonderful fruitful life where you never realize how close you are to becoming one of those unsympathetic, worthless, lazy poor people. A life where you will never have to work with a woman who's running on 2 hours sleep because she works 3 jobs to make her house payment because her husband refuses to work, where your best friend never has to try to raise a child in a single trailer with 2 other families because she wrongly expected those student loans to pay for themselves.

Anyway, I don't mean this to be a moralistic rant. I'm about to fall asleep and I'm not sure what I've written is what I even mean. To put it simply;

I think you will change your mind. When, in a few years, you find yourself to be merely human like the rest of us slobs and a little more compassionate. I never would have expected it of myself.

No, you're actually not. I don't think my point is what you think it is.
You're right. I wandered off on a bit of a tangent, there.
As I said, quite clearly, I know (for a fact) that I did nothing to receive these gifts that I was given. I know this because my parents have explicitly told me so.
And you believe your parents without question.

Do you honestly believe there was absolutely no way you could have dissuaded your parents to give you those things?

What you did was identify some people who wanted to give you something and then didn't annoy them so much that they changed their minds. At some point, they had to sit down and decide to give you each thing in particular, and your characteristics somehow made them want to do that.

Voila. Merit.
Actually, no, they don't.
Then I'm tempted to amend me definition of human to include only those capable of rational thought. Because those who are not capable of rational thought are not meaningfully different from non-human animals.

Meh.

From The Leviathan (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html) by Thomas Hobbes:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Every libertarian wannabe should be required to read The Leviathan until they understand the folly of their ways.
I'm actually a big fan of Hobbes. There's a reason liberatarians are generally fans of the rule of law, and view their persons as property, and property as inviolable.

Meh.

From The Leviathan (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html) by Thomas Hobbes:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Every libertarian wannabe should be required to read The Leviathan until they understand the folly of their ways.

This is one of my favorite political texts along with The Social Contract, and yes it does point out the stupidity of libertarians.