NationStates Jolt Archive

Americans are having trouble buying a week's necessities on their biweekly paychecks. Prices are going up and up so they have to cut out healthy foods and medical needs. Thank whoever invented rent controls for these poor souls. How long before we start helping them instead of saying it's their fault for mismanaging their money? You can't save money when you struggle to get by and then everything gets even more expensive.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_bi_ge/stretching_paychecks)

NEW YORK - The calculus of living paycheck to paycheck in America is getting harder. What used to last four days might last half that long now. Pay the gas bill, but skip breakfast. Eat less for lunch so the kids can have a healthy dinner.

Across the nation, Americans are increasingly unable to stretch their dollars to the next payday as they juggle higher rent, food and energy bills. It's starting to affect middle-income working families as well as the poor, and has reached the point of affecting day-to-day calculations of merchants like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 7-Eleven Inc. and Family Dollar Stores Inc.

Food pantries, which distribute foodstuffs to the needy, are reporting severe shortages and reduced government funding at the very time that they are seeing a surge of new people seeking their help.

While economists debate whether the country is headed for a recession, some say the financial stress is already the worst since the last downturn at the start of this decade.

From Family Dollar to Wal-Mart, merchants have adjusted their product mix and pricing accordingly. Sales data show a marked and more prolonged drop in spending in the days before shoppers get their paychecks, when they buy only the barest essentials before splurging around payday.

"It's pretty pronounced," said Kiley Rawlins, a spokeswoman at Family Dollar. "It seems like to us, customers are running out of food products, paper towels sooner in the month."

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, said the imbalance in spending before and after payday in July was the biggest it has ever seen, though the drop-off wasn't as steep in August.

And 7-Eleven says its grocery sales have jumped 12-13 percent over the past year, compared with only slight increases for non-necessities like gloves and toys. Shoppers can't afford to load up at the supermarket and are going to the most convenient places to buy emergency food items like milk and eggs.

"It even costs more to get the basics like soap and laundry detergent," said Michelle Grassia, who lives with her husband and three teenage children in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, N.Y.

Her husband's check from his job at a grocery store used to last four days. "Now, it lasts only two," she said.

To make up the difference, Grassia buys one gallon of milk a week instead of three. She sometimes skips breakfast and lunch to make sure there's enough food for her children. She cooks with a hot plate because gas is too expensive. And she depends more than ever on the bags of free vegetables and powdered milk from a local food pantry.

Grassia's story is neither new nor unique. With the fastest-rising food and energy prices since the 1980s, low-income consumers are stretching their budgets by eating cheap foods like peanut butter and pasta.

Industry analysts and some economists fear the strain will get worse as people are hit with higher home heating bills this winter and mortgage rates go up.

It's bad enough already for 85-year-old Dominica Hoffman.

She gets $1,400 a month in pension and Social Security from her days in the garment industry. After paying $500 in rent on an apartment in Pennsauken, N.J., and shelling out money for food, gas and other expenses, she's broke by the end of the month. She's had to cut fruits and vegetables from her grocery order — and that's even with financial help from her children.

"Everything is up," she said.

Many consumers, particularly those making less than $30,000 a year, are cutting spending on nutritious food like milk and vegetables, and analysts fear they're further skimping on basic medical care and other critical services.

Coupon-clipping just isn't enough.

"The reality of hunger is right here," said the Rev. Melony Samuels, director of The BedStuy Campaign against Hunger, a church-affiliated food pantry in Brooklyn.

The pantry scrambled to feed 5,000 new families over the past 12 months, up almost 70 percent from 3,000 the year before.

"I am shocked to see such numbers," Samuels said, "and I am really concerned that this is just the beginning of what we are going to see."

In the past three months, Samuels has seen more clients in higher-paying jobs — the $35,000 range — line up for food.

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York, which covers 23 counties in New York State, cited a 30 percent rise in visitors in the first nine months of this year, compared with 2006.

Maureen Schnellmann, senior director of food and nutrition programs at the American Red Cross Food Pantry in Boston, reported a 30 percent increase from January through August over last year.

Until a few months ago, Dellria Seales, a home care assistant, was just getting by living with her daughter, a hairdresser, and two grandchildren in a one-bedroom apartment for $750 a month. But a knee injury in January forced her to quit her job, leaving her at the mercy of Samuels' pantry because most of her daughter's $1,200 a month income goes to rent, energy and food costs.

"I need it. Without it, we wouldn't survive," Seales said as she picked up carrots and bananas.

John Vogel, a professor at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of Business, worries that the squeeze will lead to a less nutritious diet and inadequate medical or child care.

In the meantime, rising costs show no signs of abating.

Gas prices hit a record nationwide average of $3.23 per gallon in late May before receding a little, though prices are expected to soar again later this year. Food costs have increased 4.5 percent over the past 12 months, partly because of higher fuel costs. Egg prices were 44 percent higher, while milk was up 21.3 percent over the past 12 months to nearly $4 a gallon, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The average family of four is spending anywhere from $7 to $10 extra a week — $40 more a month — on groceries alone, compared to a year ago, according to retail consultant Burt Flickinger III.

And while overall wage growth is a solid 4.1 percent over the past 12 months, economists say the increases are mostly for the top earners.

Retailers started noticing the strain in late spring and early summer as they were monitoring the spending around the paycheck cycle.

Wal-Mart and Family Dollar key on the first week of the month, when government checks like Social Security and public assistance generally hit consumers' mailboxes.

7-Eleven, whose customers are more diverse, looks at paycheck cycles in specific markets dominated by a major employer, such as General Motors in Detroit, to discern trends in shopping.

To economize, shoppers are going for less expensive food.

"They're buying more peanut butter and pasta. And they're going for hamburger meat," Flickinger, the retail consultant, said. "They're trying to outsmart the store by looking for deep discounts at the end of the month."

He said the last time he saw this was 2000-2001, when the dot-com bubble burst and the economy went into a recession after massive layoffs.

For now, low-price retailers are readjusting their merchandising and pricing.

Wal-Mart is becoming more aggressive on discounting. It announced Thursday it is expanding price cuts to 15,000 items, ranging from Motts apple juice and Progresso soups to women's fleece tops, heading into the holidays.

Family Dollar, whose food offerings were limited to candy and snacks until two years ago, has expanded its mix of groceries like fruit cups, cereal and such refrigerated items as milk and ice cream while cutting back on shoes. This summer the chain began accepting food stamps.

Food pantries are also getting creative. Samuels said her church, Full Gospel Tabernacle of Faith, just started offering free cooking classes to teach clients who are diabetic or have other health conditions how to prepare vegetables like squash. It's also offering free exercise classes.

"We are trying to make them health conscious," Samuels said. "It's not right to give them just anything. Our mantra is eat well and live well."

Yay! One step closer to being able to afford a manservant.

edit: Why do people cut out vegetables, fruits and nuts first. These can be some of the cheapest things. If you want to cut costs, cut the meat out first and go vegetarian.

I'm glad a few anecdotes satisfy you.

Americans are having trouble buying a week's necessities on their biweekly paychecks. Prices are going up and up so they have to cut out healthy foods and medical needs. Thank whoever invented rent controls for these poor souls.
No, despise them, because rent control is pure evil.

It's a violation of sacred individual rights.

Maybe their situation isn't their fault.

It doesn't matter.

It's still THEIR PROBLEM.

I am not obligated to give up my sacred liberty and sacred property for them.

I am not a slave.

Why do you endorse slavery?

How long before we start helping them instead of saying it's their fault for mismanaging their money?
Replace "we" with "I", and that sentence starts to get some meaning.

And I'm gonna ignore that little bit on rent control because I'm not in the mood right now. Let it just be said that the Vietnamese leadership came to the conclusion that rent control did more damage to Hanoi than American bombs ever could.

Well the state now is a bureaucratic caste with interests hostile to those of the working class. If we want change We need to have Support for social revolution in the country through working class mass action.

Replace "we" with "I", and that sentence starts to get some meaning.

And I'm gonna ignore that little bit on rent control because I'm not in the mood right now. Let it just be said that the Vietnamese leadership came to the conclusion that rent control did more damage to Hanoi than American bombs ever could.

You know, I'd like to see a little more personal commitment from those that want to help poor people, too. It's silly to think that ALL the help should come from governmental sources. A donation to a shelter, some volunteer time at a soup kitchen, ... It sure would make a better impression than just saying WE should help.

You know, I'd like to see a little more personal commitment from those that want to help poor people, too. It's silly to think that ALL the help should come from governmental sources. A donation to a shelter, some volunteer time at a soup kitchen, ... It sure would make a better impression than just saying WE should help.

Private contribution to help the poor is far better then government support any day. As far as things going up I say our inflation rate over the past 5 years has been about 8% annually in real dollars. The value of the US currency itself has dropped 35% since 2002. Inflation is a real problem but people need to get with it and educate themselves or suffer.

You know, I'd like to see a little more personal commitment from those that want to help poor people, too. It's silly to think that ALL the help should come from governmental sources. A donation to a shelter, some volunteer time at a soup kitchen, ... It sure would make a better impression than just saying WE should help.

Amen to that. Oh and let us not forget celebrities that do it for camera and publicity purposes only.

Private contribution to help the poor is far better then government support any day. As far as things going up I say our inflation rate over the past 5 years has been about 8% annually in real dollars. The value of the US currency itself has dropped 35% since 2002. Inflation is a real problem but people need to get with it and educate themselves or suffer.

Amen to that. Oh and let us not forget celebrities that do it for camera and publicity purposes only.
So Sel, buddy, what have YOU done to help the poor?

The government shouldn't give tax money to the poor, i.e., welfare. That's my money. I earned it. Not them. They didn't earn it. It equates to theft, really.

It's revolution time, bitch!

It's revolution time, bitch!

That train left 90 years ago at the Finland Station.

That train left 90 years ago at the Finland Station.

lol :p

It's revolution time, bitch!

Sorry. Had one over 140 years ago. 600,000 died in it. We do not want a repeat performance.

Sorry. Had one over 140 years ago. 600,000 died in it. We do not want a repeat performance.

I bet that if the same states seceded now, they'd be able to pull it off.

I bet that if the same states seceded now, they'd be able to pull it off.

That itself may be a thread all on it's own. I have an opinion on it but I won't participate in a thread jack about the poor. ;)

That train left 90 years ago at the Finland Station.

If at first you don't succeed, then try try again. :p

I bet that if the same states seceded now, they'd be able to pull it off.

Actually I doubt it.

Besides that, any secession now or any revolution period in America would be far more deadly than the American Civil War of 1861-1865 and alot more costly to. You think people are poor now? Another revolution will most definitelly make them poorer along with millions of others as industries get destroyed.

Edit: Amazing how one can link a hypothetical war to a thread about the poor :D

Americans are having trouble buying a week's necessities on their biweekly paychecks. Prices are going up and up so they have to cut out healthy foods and medical needs. Thank whoever invented rent controls for these poor souls. How long before we start helping them instead of saying it's their fault for mismanaging their money? You can't save money when you struggle to get by and then everything gets even more expensive.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_bi_ge/stretching_paychecks)

Why is this the fault of rent control?

Housing is one of the biggest expenses people have. Especially in places like New York where this article is focused.

The biggest thing that's hurting the poor is a weakening labor movement. If one person has to work three jobs to get by, then they're putting two people out of a job, which means they'll take less money elsewhere. Add to that the fact that it's often cheaper to have materials shipped abroad, assembled, then shipped back than it is to simply assemble them here, the working class are being cut off at the knees and the mouths.

Things that would help the poor:
*Increased overtime pay. People who work more than 40 hours per week should all be entitled to overtime, and that shift begins when the employee shows up and ends when they leave. All shifts should be separated by at least 8 hours so that employers don't simply make employees clock out when work is slow to skimp.

This will have two benefits. One, it encourages employers to hire more people to avoid having to pay anyone overtime. This increases competition for workers rather than between them, bringing wages up. Two, it increase the money earned by individual workers because, duh, they get paid more.

*Raise the minimum wage. All the harping about inflation is bullshit. Every study into the actual results of minimum wage increases show that the resulting inflation is slight and more than offset by the increased spending power. And employers have no trouble paying the increased wages because the increased spending power of the working class creates greater demand for goods and services, thus spurring the economy. On top of that, there's an upward ripple effect. As people at the bottom get lifted, people who were slightly above them want similar raises, as do their superiors.

*Encourage unions. Heavy penalties for attempts to intimidate unionization efforts. Simply the prospect of unions has been enough to encourage employers to raise wages in the hopes of convincing employers that unions are unnecessary.

*Centralized industry. Since the 50's there has been an effort to encourage businesses to spread themselves out geographically into the suburbs. Traditionally, cities had been the place to go for jobs. As those jobs left, poverty and crime increased in the cities making "inner city" synonymous with "poverty and crime." When most of the jobs are in the city it increases the mobility of the working class. All jobs are close at hand, so if your current job is bad one you can easily switch to another. When the only prospect of a new job is 50 miles away, trying to trade up can be a daunting proposition. Which of course, makes it easier for bosses to offer lousy terms.

That's just off the top of my head. There's a lot more that government could easily do, but it's been determined to do the opposite in this country for the last 30 years because of conservative voodoo economics.

You know, I'd like to see a little more personal commitment from those that want to help poor people, too. It's silly to think that ALL the help should come from governmental sources. A donation to a shelter, some volunteer time at a soup kitchen, ... It sure would make a better impression than just saying WE should help.

*has worked in a shelter*

Now will you help?

Things that would help the poor:
*Increased overtime pay. People who work more than 40 hours per week should all be entitled to overtime, and that shift begins when the employee shows up and ends when they leave. All shifts should be separated by at least 8 hours so that employers don't simply make employees clock out when work is slow to skimp.

An illegitimate, despicable violation of individual rights. Government has no place interfering in private agreements between employer and employee.

*Raise the minimum wage. All the harping about inflation is bullshit.
(A) no, it's not
(B) Even if it were, it still wouldn't matter, because it's still yet another illegitimate and despicable violation of individual rights. Government, as a matter of OBJECTIVE MORAL PRINCIPLE, has no place interfering in private agreements between employer and employee.

[qutoe]Every study into the actual results of minimum wage increases show that the resulting inflation is slight and more than offset by the increased spending power.[/quote]
Are you referring to the Card-Krueger study (the only study of note in that area)? Because if you are, you should know that the their methodology is highly suspect.

And employers have no trouble paying the increased wages because the increased spending power of the working class creates greater demand for goods and services,
It only increases the spending power for those who were previously making below the previous minimum wage--and then only if their jobs are actually retained.

And if it even does that, it won't be by much--as people have more money in their pockets, sellers charge more because their customers can afford it.

*Encourage unions. Heavy penalties for attempts to intimidate unionization efforts.
Why? My property, my rules. If I don't want to allow the unions in my place of business, that is MY PREROGATIVE.

Why do you give sanction to all these blatant and despicable violations of sacred individual rights? Why do you endorse slavery and murder of the human spirit? Simply the prospect of unions has been enough to encourage employers to raise wages in the hopes of convincing employers that unions are unnecessary.

That's just off the top of my head. There's a lot more that government could easily do, but it's been determined to do the opposite in this country for the last 30 years because of conservative voodoo economics.

Actually, no.

Even if everything you mentioned would have the desired effect (it wouldn't), the government still shouldn't do it BECAUSE IT IS NOT WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT'S LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY. It is not the government's place to care about the economy; it is government's place to protect sacred individual rights and property. Everything you mention runs directly counter to that purpose.

Scumbag.

*has worked in a shelter*

Now will you help?

I have donated to a soup kitchen. What about you?


Been helping in Appalachia since 1993. Churches are wonderful things... You ought to give them the credit they deserve. We take our turn rebuilding homes for people that can't afford to do the repairs. It's only a week, but when many help, many are helped.

Yay! One step closer to being able to afford a manservant.

edit: Why do people cut out vegetables, fruits and nuts first. These can be some of the cheapest things. If you want to cut costs, cut the meat out first and go vegetarian.

Because they ARE expensive. Especially in cities where it all has to be brought in from farms. That's IF they can even get them.

I'm glad a few anecdotes satisfy you.

Would you prefer statistics (the greatest art of lies, deceit, and trickery?)

No, despise them, because rent control is pure evil.

It's a violation of sacred individual rights.

Maybe their situation isn't their fault.

It doesn't matter.

It's still THEIR PROBLEM.

I am not obligated to give up my sacred liberty and sacred property for them.

I am not a slave.

Why do you endorse slavery?

WTF...

Private contribution to help the poor is far better then government support any day. As far as things going up I say our inflation rate over the past 5 years has been about 8% annually in real dollars. The value of the US currency itself has dropped 35% since 2002. Inflation is a real problem but people need to get with it and educate themselves or suffer.

It is our duty as society to help the poor. This means the government should do something. Private contribution cannot fix these problems; that's what government is for. How do you expect a 30-year old single mom with 5 kids to "educate" herself. And education does not guarantee you better pay, it just has shown to correlate. Many high school dropouts are now m/billionaires.

So Sel, buddy, what have YOU done to help the poor?

I have donated to a soup kitchen. What about you?

The government shouldn't give tax money to the poor, i.e., welfare. That's my money. I earned it. Not them. They didn't earn it. It equates to theft, really.

Die. You are a plague and cancer on this earth. Stop being such a selfish brat. It's your duty to help all members of society who need it, not just your own selfish ass.

Why is this the fault of rent control?
*snip*

I understand how my statement could have been misinterpreted. I am not blaming rent control. I am offering gratitude to whoever came up with it that allows the poorer sectors of society a chance at life.

It is our duty as society to help the poor. This means the government should do something. Private contribution cannot fix these problems; that's what government is for. How do you expect a 30-year old single mom with 5 kids to "educate" herself. And education does not guarantee you better pay, it just has shown to correlate. Many high school dropouts are now m/billionaires.

.

It is funny that you mention the 30 yr old single mom with kids. You know why? Because my wife and I give about $10,000 a year to an organization in our county that does exactly that. Guess what else? They are completely funded by private donation. What the hell you say? Yes that is right no government interest at all.

Education is a factor if you use the broad term for it. Education may be as simple as educating someone on how to properly handle home finances.

Been helping in Appalachia since 1993. Churches are wonderful things... You ought to give them the credit they deserve. We take our turn rebuilding homes for people that can't afford to do the repairs. It's only a week, but when many help, many are helped.

So, I'm confused, what was your complaint originally?

An illegitimate, despicable violation of individual rights. Government has no place interfering in private agreements between employer and employee.


(A) no, it's not
(B) Even if it were, it still wouldn't matter, because it's still yet another illegitimate and despicable violation of individual rights. Government, as a matter of OBJECTIVE MORAL PRINCIPLE, has no place interfering in private agreements between employer and employee.

[qutoe]Every study into the actual results of minimum wage increases show that the resulting inflation is slight and more than offset by the increased spending power.
Are you referring to the Card-Krueger study (the only study of note in that area)? Because if you are, you should know that the their methodology is highly suspect.


It only increases the spending power for those who were previously making below the previous minimum wage--and then only if their jobs are actually retained.

And if it even does that, it won't be by much--as people have more money in their pockets, sellers charge more because their customers can afford it.


Why? My property, my rules. If I don't want to allow the unions in my place of business, that is MY PREROGATIVE.

Why do you give sanction to all these blatant and despicable violations of sacred individual rights? Why do you endorse slavery and murder of the human spirit? Simply the prospect of unions has been enough to encourage employers to raise wages in the hopes of convincing employers that unions are unnecessary.



Actually, no.

Even if everything you mentioned would have the desired effect (it wouldn't), the government still shouldn't do it BECAUSE IT IS NOT WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT'S LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY. It is not the government's place to care about the economy; it is government's place to protect sacred individual rights and property. Everything you mention runs directly counter to that purpose.

Scumbag.[/QUOTE]

Making and spending money is neither a sacred right nor a right. The government is the speaker and administrator of society and it HAS A MORAL OBLIGATION to ensure all members of society receive adequate care and opportunities for "life, liberty, and happiness". Who are you to say what a government has the legitimate authority to do? A government has the authority to do whatever the constitution says or if there is no constitution, then whatever it wants.

It is funny that you mention the 30 yr old single mom with kids. You know why? Because my wife and I give about $10,000 a year to an organization in our county that does exactly that. Guess what else? They are completely funded by private donation. What the hell you say? Yes that is right no government interest at all.

Education is a factor if you use the broad term for it. Education may be as simple as educating someone on how to properly handle home finances.

Two separate points. Private contributions cannot do much more than patch up problems.

You can't educate someone to manage their finances when half their pay goes to rent and the other half is spent on utilities and food. It's not like they have any money left over to save.

It is our duty as society to help the poor.
No, it isn't.

This means the government should do something.
No, it shouldn't.

Private contribution cannot fix these problems;
Then so be it.

How do you expect a 30-year old single mom with 5 kids to "educate" herself.
That doesn't matter. It's her life, so it's her problem. I'm not her slave; I have no obligation to provide for her.

Die. You are a plague and cancer on this earth. Stop being such a selfish brat. It's your duty to help all members of society who need it, not just your own selfish ass.
Incorrect.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, the individual exists solely for his own sake, to serve his own rational self-interest. He has no obligation whatsoever towards others except to leave them alone if they do not wish to associate with him.

Selfishness is in fact the highest of virtues.

Two separate points. Private contributions cannot do much more than patch up problems.

You can't educate someone to manage their finances when half their pay goes to rent and the other half is spent on utilities and food. It's not like they have any money left over to save.

You fail to recognize what people are telling you here and possibly fail at how society works as well. You cannot have the government do everything for you. You do not want the US to be more of a nanny state then it already is. In the end if that happens their will be more poor, not less.

So, I'm confused, what was your complaint originally?
Not enough of the advocates for the poor are willing to put any of themselves into their cause. It's not enough of "I can do this to help", it's too much of "We need to help". "We" meaning the government...

There are so many private charitable organizations around that , given a fair chance, they could deal with poverty far better than any governmental organization.

I'd far rather donate $10,000 to a charity that I know is administered well and fairly, than to give it to a government that can't even seem to manage a simple thing like hurricane relief...That's another thing. I had Katrina families living in my empty rental properties until they could find housing on their own. One became a very good tenant and we're trying to find a way for them to buy the house that I've been renting to them.

Making and spending money is neither a sacred right nor a right.
Incorrect; it most certainly is.

The government is the speaker and administrator of society
No, it isn't.

"Society", as such, does not exist, and thus neither needs nor can have an administrator.

There is only the individual.

and it HAS A MORAL OBLIGATION to ensure all members of society receive adequate care and opportunities for "life, liberty, and happiness".
Incorrect, because it can only do so by violating the rights of and enslaving some to others--which is utterly despicable.

What you support is slavery, no matter how you choose to dress up.

How dare you!

Who are you to say what a government has the legitimate authority to do?
I'm not saying it--objective moral principles is.

A government has the authority to do whatever the constitution says or if there is no constitution, then whatever it wants.

Incorrect. The proper role of government is a matter of objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe. It is metaphysically independent of and prior to any Constitution or the lack thereof.

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

There are so many private charitable organizations around that , given a fair chance, they could deal with poverty far better than any governmental organization.

Meaning...?

Meaning...?

A fair chance would be a preferred tax status -- exempt like churches. [my church still pays sales tax on supplies we buy -- that cuts into the help we can give by anywhere from 5 to 7 percent]

Also, the potential donors need the money to donate. Reduce the tax rate and watch the charitable donations rise. Eliminate the income and payroll taxes and donations will rise even further.

Let the government fund private outreach programs that operate far more efficiently than the government could ever hope to...

Two separate points. Private contributions cannot do much more than patch up problems.
And government just has thicker patches, which generally go to the wrong holes. Fact is that you can't give people money and expect their problems to go away. Not having money is a symptom, not a problem in itself.

You can't educate someone to manage their finances when half their pay goes to rent and the other half is spent on utilities and food. It's not like they have any money left over to save.
Well, I work at a Pizza place. I think it's fair to say that all the adults who work there are "lower class".

You know what they do? They party a lot. They spend $50 or more a week on catching a cab back from the city at 4am. They bet on football games. And they have much more expensive clothes than me.

This is not made up stuff. It's not even all that surprising - people like entertainment and they like fun. These things give them easy, quick satisfaction without having to worry about it too much.

Yes, rent and groceries make up a large part of their spending. But don't pretend they don't have some leeway in what they do. I'm not saying there aren't some who actually don't have any money whatsoever to spend, but it just doesn't apply to the majority of poor people. You're not going to tell me that the multi-billion dollar betting industry in this country makes its profits out of suburban husbands and wives betting on NRL games.

They're people, and people make choices about what they do with their time and other resources. It'd be silly of us to expect that they, who may never have met someone who knows how to use money properly, are proficient enough in managing their finances that their poverty is due to them not having a chance. If everyone knew what money is, how it works and what to do with it, and then there are still some people left over in really serious poverty, then we can talk about policies to fix that. But not to try education first would be a waste.

If charities were so great at taking care of peoples needs in the first place, then why did welfare ever even come about? If old people were being taken care of why did they create social security?

Incorrect; it most certainly is.


No, it isn't.

"Society", as such, does not exist, and thus neither needs nor can have an administrator.

There is only the individual.


Incorrect, because it can only do so by violating the rights of and enslaving some to others--which is utterly despicable.

What you support is slavery, no matter how you choose to dress up.

How dare you!


I'm not saying it--objective moral principles is.



Incorrect. The proper role of government is a matter of objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe. It is metaphysically independent of and prior to any Constitution or the lack thereof.

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

The goal of life is to advance the species, not the individual. Much more is accomplished working together. If you want to be an individual, go live as a hermit in a forest.

Ayn Rand is a dirtbag whose grave should be desecrated and her body dug up and smashed, ground, powdered, burned, subject to acid, burned again, finely pulverized, and then enclosed in a capsule that is nuked.

The goal of life is to advance the species, not the individual. Much more is accomplished working together. If you want to be an individual, go live as a hermit in a forest.
Where the fuck did that come?

Ayn Rand is a dirtbag whose grave should be desecrated and her body dug up and smashed, ground, powdered, burned, subject to acid, burned again, finely pulverized, and then enclosed in a capsule that is nuked.
She is not a dirtbag, she's a sleazy Russian opportunistic bitch with a wraspy voice and an ego that could skullfuck a mammoth to death.

If charities were so great at taking care of peoples needs in the first place, then why did welfare ever even come about? If old people were being taken care of why did they create social security?

Massive vote buying schemes propagated by FDR and LBJ? Now what did I just say about giving charity a fair chance?

A fair chance would be a preferred tax status -- exempt like churches. [my church still pays sales tax on supplies we buy -- that cuts into the help we can give by anywhere from 5 to 7 percent]

Also, the potential donors need the money to donate. Reduce the tax rate and watch the charitable donations rise. Eliminate the income and payroll taxes and donations will rise even further.

Let the government fund private outreach programs that operate far more efficiently than the government could ever hope to...

Eliminate Income tax and you eliminate almost everything. If the government actually printed its own money, it wouldn't need income tax.

The government is only inefficient when people have no faith in it and are brainwashed to be individuals, rather than parts in a large machine.

Where the fuck did that come?


She is not a dirtbag, she's a sleazy Russian opportunistic bitch with a wraspy voice and an ego that could skullfuck a mammoth to death.

Logic. Look at evolution. It's the species that evolves, not the individual. We're not Pokemon.

Yes she is.

Logic. Look at evolution. It's the species that evolves, not the individual. We're not Pokemon.

Pff, maybe you aren't.

*uses Dig*

Logic. Look at evolution. It's the species that evolves, not the individual. We're not Pokemon.
Fuck you, I'm Squirtle, goddamn it. :)

Fuck you, I'm Squirtle, goddamn it. :)

*casts Thunder on you*

It's Super Effective!

*runs*

*casts Thunder on you*

It's Super Effective!

*runs*

Gawd, I hate those fast ones, flee instantly...

Eliminate Income tax and you eliminate almost everything. If the government actually printed its own money, it wouldn't need income tax.

The government is only inefficient when people have no faith in it and are brainwashed to be individuals, rather than parts in a large machine.

I think people are brainwashed when they no longer believe they are individuals.

I am an individual, not a part in a machine.

*pops up from underground and attacks*

The goal of life is to advance the species,
Man is superior to the lesser beings.

If you want to be an individual, go live as a hermit in a forest.
I'm not obligated to leave. Everyone else is obligated to just leave me alone.

Ayn Rand is a dirtbag whose grave should be desecrated and her body dug up and smashed, ground, powdered, burned, subject to acid, burned again, finely pulverized, and then enclosed in a capsule that is nuked.

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

Forests are awesome.

Pff, maybe you aren't.

*uses Dig*

Ditto! :p

Ditto! :p

http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/music024.gif

Eliminate Income tax and you eliminate almost everything. If the government actually printed its own money, it wouldn't need income tax.

The government is only inefficient when people have no faith in it and are brainwashed to be individuals, rather than parts in a large machine.
I'm just going to chuckle and let that first part slide on by...

I can go to a shelter and get a meal. They just give it to me because they trust that I know I need it. I've not done this, but I've certainly never refused anyone Thanksgiving dinner when they come to the church. Nor have I ever refused anyone food from the pantry when it's my turn to work there.

If I go to the government for that same meal, I see eighteen different clerks that find out whether or not I need that meal... And they get it wrong much of the time...

Who's more efficient?

You need to have more faith in your fellow man. Most of us are good people and we take care of each other.

The active devaluing of the US dollar plays a significant role, here. Since 2000, the US treasury has produced about one trillion extra dollars above and beyond what previous production rates would have produced. As such, the US dollar is worth significantly less than in was 7 years ago, and that causes inflation.

Comsumers, particularly poor consumers, are getting seriously screwed over by the government's fiscal management.

If charities were so great at taking care of peoples needs in the first place, then why did welfare ever even come about? If old people were being taken care of why did they create social security?
Well, in Germany's case it was because Bismarck was scared of the socialists.

Massive vote buying schemes propagated by FDR and LBJ? Now what did I just say about giving charity a fair chance?

So you want massive vote buying schemes by other politicians to give charity a "fair" chance. How ironic.

The active devaluing of the US dollar plays a significant role, here. Since 2000, the US treasury has produced about one trillion extra dollars above and beyond what previous production rates would have produced. As such, the US dollar is worth significantly less than in was 7 years ago, and that causes inflation.

Comsumers, particularly poor consumers, are getting seriously screwed over by the government's fiscal management.

Poor consumers generally have few savings and wages gnerally keep up with inflation. I fail to see how they are particularly hurt. Do you have a source for increases in the Consumer Price Index?

The poor ARE getting poorer

You just figured that out?

The poor have been getting poorer for the past 35 years...if it took people that long to realize this is a problem, I am greatly concerned. The signs of it have been in place for a long time, even during the 1992-2000 expansion and the past three years of the current expansion; real wages are rising, but they're not benefiting the bottom anywhere near as much as they are the middle and upper classes. Even the lower middle class is receiving little benefit.

And rent controls are a terrible idea, end of story. They create housing shortages, drive down land values and are a major reason for the rapid urban decay of cities during the 1960's-1980's. To help the poor, we should design welfare systems that go with the flow of the economy, not against it; a system that helps them afford basic necessities while providing free or reduced cost opportunities for education would be a major step in the right direction.

I think people are brainwashed when they no longer believe they are individuals.

I am an individual, not a part in a machine.

I agree. Government works best when people barely know it's there, serving primarily as a way to help those unable to help themselves in any other way and leaving the rest to decisions of individuals.

edit: Why do people cut out vegetables, fruits and nuts first. These can be some of the cheapest things. If you want to cut costs, cut the meat out first and go vegetarian.

Yeah it's cheaper, but you have to eat a ton more before you're full. I know I do.

Poor consumers generally have few savings and wages gnerally keep up with inflation. I fail to see how they are particularly hurt. Do you have a source for increases in the Consumer Price Index?

Wages have kept up with inflation (and in 2004, 2006 and this year are outpacing inflation by a fairly sizable amount), but the problem is that different types of inflation affect people differently. For example, even if overall inflation is relatively low, as it is now, it may be masking much larger increases in specific sectors, sectors that will impact the poor much more than they would higher income brackets.

I'd have to rummage through CPI data to find out specifics. Real wages are rising solidly, which is a very good thing especially with the weak housing market, but these benefits are going towards the top more than the bottom.

Wages have kept up with inflation (and in 2004, 2006 and this year are outpacing inflation by a fairly sizable amount), but the problem is that different types of inflation affect people differently. For example, even if overall inflation is relatively low, as it is now, it may be masking much larger increases in specific sectors, sectors that will impact the poor much more than they would higher income brackets.

Very true. Healthcare inflation usually increases more than the average. Same with housing, of course with this is over the long run

I'd have to rummage through CPI data to find out specifics. Real wages are rising solidly, which is a very good thing especially with the weak housing market, but these benefits are going towards the top more than the bottom.

I asked for a CPI data because some posters have assumed that because the dollar has been devalued vis-a-vis other currencies that automatically means that the inflation has increased, and increased greatly at that.

Yeah it's cheaper, but you have to eat a ton more before you're full. I know I do.
Being full doesn't have nutritional value.

Fruits, nuts and veggies are expensive in big cities because they have to be transported further.

I live in a mid-sized town surrounded by farmland in a largely agrarian state, and produce here is exceptionally affordable because it's only thirty miles, tops, from field to market and typically the produce is transported without benefit of semi. In season, I can even get some kinds of fruit (apples, grapes, peaches, berries) for free.

You can be poor and still afford meat. Get chicken and the cheaper cuts like oxtails and stew meat, and throw them in a slow cooker with some veggies. Anyone can afford a slow cooker, they're only $15 and you can start dinner in the morning and let it simmer all day. Oatmeal can be had for 25¢ a serving, soup is $2 a serving.

I've been living on a $200/month grocery bill for almost fifteen years now. Look around your community for gleaning groups; these are networks of people who have fruit trees in their back yards and sometimes established farms that have produce not suitable for the markets, but still edible.

Deciding between breakfast and gas tank? With the further spread of biofuels that should adjust in our favour in the next year or so.

Being full doesn't have nutritional value.

But it has subjective value...being hungry is pretty unpleasant, even if you're nutritionally satisfied. And, of course, it's the subjective value that motivates decisions.

serving primarily as a way to help those unable to help themselves in any other way

It shouldn't even do that much.

Government's sole proper role is to enforce contracts, punish violent offenders, and defend against foreign aggression.

It shouldn't even do that much.

Government's sole proper role is to enforce contracts, punish violent offenders, and defend against foreign aggression.

Quoted for truth.

It doesn't matter.

It's still THEIR PROBLEM.

I am not obligated to give up my sacred liberty and sacred property for them.



"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Either you should give it back to France, or you should change it to.


"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
So that I may mock and despise them"

America, land of the selfish.

Either you should give it back to France, or you should change it to.



America, land of the selfish.

*raises eyebrow*

Not all of us in America are selfish.

America, land of the selfish.

You're dealing with more of an issue with Libertarianism than Americans.

The government shouldn't give tax money to the poor, i.e., welfare. That's my money. I earned it. Not them. They didn't earn it. It equates to theft, really.

I agree with you 100%, and taxes are another reason for the increasing impoverishment of middle-class working families; if Uncle Sam would let us keep some of our money, we could pay our rent/mortgage, utilities, car payments, and afford to eat occasionally.

*raises eyebrow*

Not all of us in America are selfish.

Enough of you, voting blocs and decision makers, are that it hardly makes a difference where it matters.

It shouldn't even do that much.

Government's sole proper role is to enforce contracts, punish violent offenders, and defend against foreign aggression.

Quoted for truth.

QFT again. If the government would stick to that, we middle-class people could make ends meet.

QFT again. If the government would stick to that, we middle-class people could make ends meet.

And the federal government would have no money.

You're dealing with more of an issue with Libertarianism than Americans.

Pardon?Is it to much to ask that the government follow the constitution and butt out of our lives?

The government shouldn't give tax money to the poor, i.e., welfare. That's my money. I earned it. Not them. They didn't earn it. It equates to theft, really.

AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!!

Either you should give it back to France, or you should change it to.



America, land of the selfish.

First off the Statue of Liberty bit you suggest is idiotic.

The most selfish people in the world I have seen is the Western Europeans. Seems that it is always someone else that should take care of societies problems such as the "government". Problem is that if you give one group of people to much power they will take it all.

You're dealing with more of an issue with Libertarianism than Americans.

Indeed, America should be effectively called 'aspirational', but in reality this means that everyone blindly seeks profit and doesn't care squat for his fellow citizens, all that matters to him is the next buck. America is a decadent and grotesquely deformed corporation in the disguise of a country.

Wages have kept up with inflation (and in 2004, 2006 and this year are outpacing inflation by a fairly sizable amount), but the problem is that different types of inflation affect people differently. For example, even if overall inflation is relatively low, as it is now, it may be masking much larger increases in specific sectors, sectors that will impact the poor much more than they would higher income brackets.

I'd have to rummage through CPI data to find out specifics. Real wages are rising solidly, which is a very good thing especially with the weak housing market, but these benefits are going towards the top more than the bottom.

How do you calculate in the fall of the dollar into your calculations. It has fallen 35% since '02. If you adjusted for that inflation is there. Do you agree?

An illegitimate, despicable violation of individual rights. Government has no place interfering in private agreements between employer and employee.

That would make sense if there was parity between the employer and employee.

Read the Constitution. The very first paragraph states that the governments job is to "promote the general welfare." That means that whatever's going on that's leading to a break down in society is the governments duty to intervene.

(A) no, it's not
(B) Even if it were, it still wouldn't matter, because it's still yet another illegitimate and despicable violation of individual rights. Government, as a matter of OBJECTIVE MORAL PRINCIPLE, has no place interfering in private agreements between employer and employee.

Again, horseshit. These bargains don't just affect the two parties making the agreement. If I have a toilet and a house by the river I can't just empty my toilet into the river, because that river affects other people. The economy is just another river. It's the government's job to keep shit out of it.

Are you referring to the Card-Krueger study (the only study of note in that area)? Because if you are, you should know that the their methodology is highly suspect.

It's a matter of history. Take a look at all the localities in the US that have increased their minimum wages. Conditions always improve afterwards. And I notice you have no evidence of the conservative "it'll ruin the economy" mantra, of which there is no evidence.

It only increases the spending power for those who were previously making below the previous minimum wage--and then only if their jobs are actually retained.

And if it even does that, it won't be by much--as people have more money in their pockets, sellers charge more because their customers can afford it.

Again, there's never been any evidence of that. There has been ample evidence to the contrary. This isn't a matter of what would happen. It's a matter of what has happened. You're responding to fact with hypotheticals.

Why? My property, my rules. If I don't want to allow the unions in my place of business, that is MY PREROGATIVE.

Extortion is against the law. You control the money and it's your bargaining chip. Labor controls the labor, it's their bargaining chip. You have no right to tell them that they can't decide together what their labor is worth.

Why do you give sanction to all these blatant and despicable violations of sacred individual rights? Why do you endorse slavery and murder of the human spirit? Simply the prospect of unions has been enough to encourage employers to raise wages in the hopes of convincing employers that unions are unnecessary.

Why do you resort to nonsense? That's rhetorical. You resort to nonsense because that's all your position is based on.

Actually, no.

Actually yes.

Even if everything you mentioned would have the desired effect (it wouldn't), the government still shouldn't do it BECAUSE IT IS NOT WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT'S LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY. It is not the government's place to care about the economy; it is government's place to protect sacred individual rights and property. Everything you mention runs directly counter to that purpose.

But none of this is about one persons property. It is about setting the rules of behavior between individuals. The job of society (in a democracy that means government) is to set standards of behavior between people. That standard is not supposed to be set by the bully with the most power, it's supposed to be a matter of civility. The incentives that I mentioned are based on that principle. Yours are based on a philosophy of greed, bullying and incivility.

Scumbag.

Did I mention the incivility?

You're dealing with more of an issue with Libertarianism than Americans.

Said it once and will say it again. Most Libertarians are the self-serving assholes in zombie films that'll hang the other survivors out to dry if it gives them safety and comfort to do so.

Indeed, America should be effectively called 'aspirational', but in reality this means that everyone blindly seeks profit and doesn't care squat for his fellow citizens, all that matters to him is the next buck. America is a decadent and grotesquely deformed corporation in the disguise of a country.

Again do I need to point out that Americans as private citizens give the most to charity then any other people on the planet per capita. Do we need to break out the charts and graphs once again to prove this point over and over. Don't let your blind ignorance obscure the facts please.

Said it once and will say it again. Most Libertarians are the self-serving assholes in zombie films that'll hang the other survivors out to dry if it gives them safety and comfort to do so.

Strangely that made me think of the new Romero movie with the hotel safe from the zombies that only the rich people can afford.

Again do I need to point out that Americans as private citizens give the most to charity then any other people on the planet per capita. Do we need to break out the charts and graphs once again to prove this point over and over. Don't let your blind ignorance obscure the facts please.

Charity is an atrocious and disgustingly 'pity' industry, it's probably the most undignified creation of humanity, it puts the 'poor person' at the behest and mercy of the 'generous' donor. Also at the more practical level having multiple charities causes duplication of effort and waste which could be avoided through government redistribution policies. Charity moreover is a spit in the face of egalitarianism.

No, despise them, because rent control is pure evil.

It's a violation of sacred individual rights.

Maybe their situation isn't their fault.

It doesn't matter.

It's still THEIR PROBLEM.

I am not obligated to give up my sacred liberty and sacred property for them.

I am not a slave.

Why do you endorse slavery?

If the situation is not their fault, it logically is someone elses. It is far easier for the state as a whole to help them than it is to find the specific person that is responsable.

Yay! One step closer to being able to afford a manservant.

edit: Why do people cut out vegetables, fruits and nuts first. These can be some of the cheapest things. If you want to cut costs, cut the meat out first and go vegetarian.

Because

1) they go off if you don't eat them in a few days and you have to throw them, pasta and tinned foods last for years

2) They can be difficult / bulky to carry if you don't have a car and by the time you get home the apples have bruised and the bananas are mush.

3) They can and are eaten by pests like rats and mice

4) it's also a pride thing - being poor is one thing, being too poor to eat meat is another.

5) cooking time / costs - a squash takes an hour to bake in an oven, pasta and burgers take minutes. If fuel is expensive it can make veg an expensive option. Also if you are on a coin / card meter your fuel can run out half way through cooking and you may be a few hours without - if the burger is already in the pan you just cover it with a plate or foil and it will finish cooking with the residual heat.

Again do I need to point out that Americans as private citizens give the most to charity then any other people on the planet per capita. Do we need to break out the charts and graphs once again to prove this point over and over. Don't let your blind ignorance obscure the facts please.

Show me one system of private charity in the world that works to the same level of effectiveness of a state social security system and you will be listened to. The state is required to provide for the very basic level for people who are hardworking and suffer because of circumstances beyond their control.

How do you calculate in the fall of the dollar into your calculations. It has fallen 35% since '02. If you adjusted for that inflation is there. Do you agree?

Well, not necessarily. A weaker currency makes imports more expensive, but it has no effect on domestic goods, many of which make up the primary expenditures of lower-income households. At the same time, it increases demand for exports, which increases demand for US workers as companies open and expand plants and distribution systems to meet demand. That in turn increases real wages, and so on.

However, we also have to take in to account the structure of our trade balance; the Eurozone and the UK primarily export goods at the higher end of the spectrum, so changes in currency values will have more effect at the higher end of the market. Since the US is generally competitive in these sectors, higher import prices simply shift demand from imported to domestically produced goods.

Meanwhile, Japan and China have seen little currency fluctuation, and the lower cost of manufacturing has put downward pressure on prices, above and beyond the increased cost of raw materials caused by economic development in China.

Well, not necessarily. A weaker currency makes imports more expensive, but it has no effect on domestic goods, many of which make up the primary expenditures of lower-income households. At the same time, it increases demand for exports, which increases demand for US workers as companies open and expand plants and distribution systems to meet demand. That in turn increases real wages, and so on.


It only increases real wages in production based sectors of the economy, which in America, is shrinking. America and most of Europe are service based economies.

Charity is an atrocious and disgustingly 'pity' industry, it's probably the most undignified creation of humanity, it puts the 'poor person' at the behest and mercy of the 'generous' donor. Also at the more practical level having multiple charities causes duplication of effort and waste which could be avoided through government redistribution policies. Charity moreover is a spit in the face of egalitarianism.

Lol, ok just gonna laugh a bit. So you think the government is more efficient then a private org and never duplicates any of it's services?

Again do I need to point out that Americans as private citizens give the most to charity then any other people on the planet per capita. Do we need to break out the charts and graphs once again to prove this point over and over. Don't let your blind ignorance obscure the facts please.

Er yes and no

There are tax breaks for giving to charity, and I know this applies more to corporations than individuals but it can cause more trouble for the world's poor.

do you remember a few years ago there was a scare about silicone breast implants? some countries banned them and others took action to check their safety.

At the time there was a civil war in Africa (can't remember the exact one) so some American company donated "medical supplies" to the Africans, and lowered their tax bill as a result.

So what did the poor of Africa needing aid recieve? you've guessed it 20 000 silicone breast implants.

Well, not necessarily. A weaker currency makes imports more expensive, but it has no effect on domestic goods, many of which make up the primary expenditures of lower-income households. At the same time, it increases demand for exports, which increases demand for US workers as companies open and expand plants and distribution systems to meet demand. That in turn increases real wages, and so on.

However, we also have to take in to account the structure of our trade balance; the Eurozone and the UK primarily export goods at the higher end of the spectrum, so changes in currency values will have more effect at the higher end of the market. Since the US is generally competitive in these sectors, higher import prices simply shift demand from imported to domestically produced goods.

Meanwhile, Japan and China have seen little currency fluctuation, and the lower cost of manufacturing has put downward pressure on prices, above and beyond the increased cost of raw materials caused by economic development in China.


One thing I have noticed as companies become more global the idea of "domestic" prices is going out the window. Will give you an example of Pepsico which I had worked at for a time. They would adjust prices around the world when currencies dropped to meet their profit projections due to it being held hostage by Wallstreet. So in many ways the "domestic" pricing is going away for global companies. I bet if you were to price a 20oz soda in 2002 vs today in 2007 you would see about a 35% rise. The dollar has dropped 35% in that time. It would probably not be much different in many other companies as well. I know for one that inflation is much higher then what the government officially puts out.

Wages are higher in my opinion because people are working more. Not really because of wage increases.

Also want to add that most of the housing bubble increases over the past 5 yrs would be erased if one were to take into account the dollar dropping.

First off the Statue of Liberty bit you suggest is idiotic.

Not when you don't live up to its statement. But then again, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at a country which promised freedom and equality to all at its founding while doing its level best to enslave an ethnic group while dispossessing another. The trend of saying one thing and doing another never goes away.


The most selfish people in the world I have seen is the Western Europeans. Seems that it is always someone else that should take care of societies problems such as the "government".

And Americans with the "Let the poor die. I don't care. My money!" attitude is somehow less selfish? Take Linus for example. You're telling me that isn't selfish?

Er yes and no

There are tax breaks for giving to charity, and I know this applies more to corporations than individuals but it can cause more trouble for the world's poor.

do you remember a few years ago there was a scare about silicone breast implants? some countries banned them and others took action to check their safety.

At the time there was a civil war in Africa (can't remember the exact one) so some American company donated "medical supplies" to the Africans, and lowered their tax bill as a result.

So what did the poor of Africa needing aid recieve? you've guessed it 20 000 silicone breast implants.


That is an extreme example of the silicon breast implants. Do you understand how the charity tax break works? Lets say you give a $100 to charity. You have a tax rate of lets say 18% for the year 2007. You do not get the whole $100 back from the government in your refund. You only get $18 back. So the idea that corporations are giving money because they want to evade taxes is a bit of a misnomer.

Not when you don't live up to its statement. But then again, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at a country which promised freedom and equality to all at its founding while doing its level best to enslave an ethnic group while dispossessing another. The trend of saying one thing and doing another never goes away.



And Americans with the "Let the poor die. I don't care. My money!" attitude is somehow less selfish? Take Linus for example. You're telling me that isn't selfish?

The vast majority of the poor in this country do not die because of neglect. Hospitals are free to them and there is plenty of places to get food. Housing is available if they look for it. If you ever travel into the third world you will see what really being poor is about. The US poor have it far better then the poor of many third world countries that I have seen. There is help out there if one looks for it.

That is an extreme example of the silicon breast implants.

The point he is making is that if thats an extreme example, then whats a 'normal' one and, more to the point, how many are there.

The most selfish people in the world I have seen is the Western Europeans. Seems that it is always someone else that should take care of societies problems such as the "government".

The rather large gaping hole in your theory there is that the government is only able to solve the countries problems if the greedy W.Europeans in question give up their money to the state. So how they can be greedy when they are expecting to give their money to the state, and indeed are giving it (petrol in the UK is taxed, in the US its subsidised) is frankly beyond me.

Not when you don't live up to its statement. But then again, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at a country which promised freedom and equality to all at its founding while doing its level best to enslave an ethnic group while dispossessing another. The trend of saying one thing and doing another never goes away.


Again total bull crap that I am not going to even waste my time trying to put this garbage to rest.

The vast majority of the poor in this country do not die because of neglect. Hospitals are free to them and there is plenty of places to get food. Housing is available if they look for it. If you ever travel into the third world you will see what really being poor is about. The US poor have it far better then the poor of many third world countries that I have seen. There is help out there if one looks for it.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I am meant to take you seriously here. Yes the third world is a great deal worse than the USA, but lets put things into some logical sense here. Firstly you do not have free healthcare at the point of demand in the US. You need health insureance, which a large percentage of your population do not possess. Secondly, housing is not provided by the government and as such is not "available if they look for it" as you so blasely put it. It is not that simple. Do you really think the man on the street is there because he didn't look hard enough in the home section adds in the paper. Seriously.

The point he is making is that if thats an extreme example, then whats a 'normal' one and, more to the point, how many are there.



The rather large gaping hole in your theory there is that the government is only able to solve the countries problems if the greedy W.Europeans in question give up their money to the state. So how they can be greedy when they are expecting to give their money to the state, and indeed are giving it (petrol in the UK is taxed, in the US its subsidised) is frankly beyond me.

Europeans in the west at least have created nanny states. Hand over half of everything you have or more for the expectation someone else to take care of you. What kind of system is that? Greed for one can be defined in many ways. What I call the nanny state is not greed but complete lunacy. You give up a lot of your freedoms and rights when you put someone else in control of your life. I bet if you were to take the UK, France and or Germany and slashed the tax rate down to what it is in the US you would see an economic boom like never before. Of course you would have to slash social programs to do it. What happens when you have a booming economy you have more money. More money equals more of an ability to take care of things. Get it?

I also find it hilarious that you think gas is subsidized in the US. Where did you hear that garbage from?

Again total bull crap that I am not going to even waste my time trying to put this garbage to rest.

Why? Not going to try and do some revisionist history are you?

The vast majority of the poor in this country do not die because of neglect. Hospitals are free to them and there is plenty of places to get food.

I seem to remember hospitals required by law to treat emergency patients, but tend to stick crippling bills on the poor after that. Bills that they can't really pay. And then there was that bit about patient dumping.

Food, you mean as in the soup kitchen equivalents which have been recorded saying that they're running out of money?


Housing is available if they look for it. If you ever travel into the third world you will see what really being poor is about.

News flash. I don't live in a first world country. I've seen the real poverty first hand.

But that has squat to do with American attitudes of selfishness. And don't even think of trying to go on about American's donating more than other nations. That's a smokescreen that falls apart the moment you cut out the crap "donations" that corporations dump for tax breaks and break down the cash given per person.

1,000 people giving $0.1 each does not make them more generous than 10 people giving $10 each.

And since you're going on and on about the availability of this housing and whatnot, why don't you actually show it?

I seem to remember hospitals required by law to treat emergency patients, but tend to stick crippling bills on the poor after that. Bills that they can't really pay. And then there was that bit about patient dumping.

Food, you mean as in the soup kitchen equivalents which have been recorded saying that they're running out of money?



News flash. I don't live in a first world country. I've seen the real poverty first hand.

But that has squat to do with American attitudes of selfishness. And don't even think of trying to go on about American's donating more than other nations. That's a smokescreen that falls apart the moment you cut out the crap "donations" that corporations dump for tax breaks and break down the cash given per person.

1,000 people giving $0.1 each does not make them more generous than 10 people giving $10 each.

And since you're going on and on about the availability of this housing and whatnot, why don't you actually show it?

Everything you are saying here is again bs and has no basis. You don't even know what your talking about. Read what I have posted above about tax breaks. Check the net about donations because I am not going to be your teacher here. Hospitals right off bills all the time. The poor never have to pay them if they don't have money. As far as homeless go there are very little actual "homeless". 99.9% of the population does not sleep under a bridge.

Your bias against the US is truly outrageous.

There are tax breaks for giving to charity, and I know this applies more to corporations than individuals but it can cause more trouble for the world's poor.

do you remember a few years ago there was a scare about silicone breast implants? some countries banned them and others took action to check their safety.

At the time there was a civil war in Africa (can't remember the exact one) so some American company donated "medical supplies" to the Africans, and lowered their tax bill as a result.

So what did the poor of Africa needing aid recieve? you've guessed it 20 000 silicone breast implants.

That story cannot possibly be true. There would be absolutely no tax advantage in donating unmarketable inventory. If they couldn't sell the stuff the production costs would be written off against income anyway - regardless of how they disposed of them.

Secondly, for it to actually be a donation, there would have to be some charity or non profit corporation which actually accepted the breast implants. You can't just give stuff away and expect a write off.

You can fiddle charity a bit around the edges as a private individual, but once any serious amount is involved the IRS requires documentation. (I've donated a few cars to charity over the years, and even on that small scale the IRS has wanted to see paperwork).

Everything you are saying here is again bs and has no basis.

Prove it.


You don't even know what your talking about. Read what I have posted above about tax breaks.

Which are abused as easy ways out to dump unsaleable goods. Or are you going to pretend that doesn't happen?


Check the net about donations because I am not going to be your teacher here.

There were long arguments about donations on NSG before. Per capita donations in the US were lower than in smaller and economically poorer European nations. What's you're counter argument?


As far as homeless go there are very little actual "homeless". 99.9% of the population does not sleep under a bridge.


At about 300 million people, that'd have to be a lot of bridges.


Your bias against the US is truly outrageous.

I'm a cynic. The world doesn't disappoint me that way. And if it's so outrageous, prove me wrong.

hmm, if people are poor, I think it's their own fault. I only work 3-4 months a year, and go to school for the rest. Nobody helps me pay my bills, but I don't waste my money. The government takes a goodly portion of my money (I'm sure most of you pay taxes and knows how that one feels) to help the "poor" and elderly meanwhile I live off of about $5,500 a year. Yet I've managed to afford housing, food, internet, electricity, gas, and a car, school is setting me back, but not by that much, considering the benefits I expect to reap.

Most poor do seem to waste their money, all the poor people I know like to buy new cars and drink lots of beer (some smoke cigarettes too). When I was growing up I felt that the poor people had more luxuries than I did (my parents were middle class). I live in the second poorest city in the country (Buffalo, NY), and even though there are considerable amounts of farmland in relative proximity its still hard to find cheap veggies(my g/f who came here from NYC says we have far more expensive vegetables than they do- I've heard this is due the distribution system whereby produce is sent to us from NYC, even though mostly they pass us by on their way to NYC, adding transportation costs), when you consider that your number one need is calories, its easy to see why people are adverse to them. The only thing cheap here is housing because no one wants to live here (gasoline costs are higher than average for the country).

Though, I don't disagree with the premise that the poor and getting poorer- everything is costing me more this year than last, I can tell you my wages didn't rise as much as gas and milk went up, and I really like milk too :( .

One thing I have noticed as companies become more global the idea of "domestic" prices is going out the window. Will give you an example of Pepsico which I had worked at for a time. They would adjust prices around the world when currencies dropped to meet their profit projections due to it being held hostage by Wallstreet. So in many ways the "domestic" pricing is going away for global companies. I bet if you were to price a 20oz soda in 2002 vs today in 2007 you would see about a 35% rise. The dollar has dropped 35% in that time. It would probably not be much different in many other companies as well. I know for one that inflation is much higher then what the government officially puts out.

Do you have sources for this increase in the price level? If you don't trust the government's official rate of inflation then can you find an idependent CPI that backs your claim of relatively high levels of inflation?

wait, if the value of the dollar was down to 65%...that'd require about a 154% increase in price, aye?

Again do I need to point out that Americans as private citizens give the most to charity then any other people on the planet per capita. Do we need to break out the charts and graphs once again to prove this point over and over. Don't let your blind ignorance obscure the facts please.

Do you have a source on that? Does this charitable giving reduce the US's poverty rate below Western Europe's?

Do you have sources for this increase in the price level? If you don't trust the government's official rate of inflation then can you find an idependent CPI that backs your claim of relatively high levels of inflation?

There are a few organizations that independently compile these sort of things. Shadow Stats is one of them. They have the CPI running at around 6-8% YoY.

Core CPI is pretty much meaningless for the man in the street anyway.

Again do I need to point out that Americans as private citizens give the most to charity then any other people on the planet per capita. Do we need to break out the charts and graphs once again to prove this point over and over. Don't let your blind ignorance obscure the facts please.

Is seem to recall from last time this was brought up that by far the largest field of US donations was to religious congregations. So a chunk of that will be passed on to the needy, but a chunk will also be spent on mending the church roof or going straight into a televangelist's pocket.

And I think the second highest was to educational institutions. So comparing that to countries with far more subsidised or free education is less than useful. Likewise donations to the arts and culture vs countries with governments that might subsidise the arts more.

There are a few organizations that independently compile these sort of things. Shadow Stats is one of them. They have the CPI running at around 6-8% YoY.

Eh, I'm reading the data and I'm highly skeptical. Anecdotal evidence aside, such as the new stores and commercial construction I can literally see, the numbers just don't add up; the performance of the world economy and the overall ratings of consumer confidence, other private data collection firms, as well as the results from state-level agencies and other economic data from around the world...it doesn't add up.

If the economy were doing this poorly, we'd be seeing it, and we're just plain not unless every single level of business and government were conspiring to deceive us. Nothing reflects the kind of economic performance these "statistics" are showing. And using CPI data from 1980 or 1990 makes as much sense as using 1900 as the base year for calculating real GDP; heuristic adjustments for quality have to be made or else you will massively overstate inflation. I don't think anyone can argue that a $1,200 computer in 2007 should be valued equally to a (in real dollars) $1,200 computer from 1987 or 1977. As plausible as it seems governments manipulate statistics for their own ends, they're generally not. The data they provide is as accurate as is possible for the scale of the data they are trying to measure and is a broadly accurate picture of the state of the macroeconomy.

The government and the various related NGOs that prepare data (IMF, WMF, etc.) really are trying to tell the truth about the world economy...they have a much bigger incentive to do so than to lie, so even if every single one of them was an amoral and manipulative homo economicus, they'd still tell the truth. The economy is generally working how they say it is, and that's pretty much it.

Again do I need to point out that Americans as private citizens give the most to charity then any other people on the planet per capita. Do we need to break out the charts and graphs once again to prove this point over and over. Don't let your blind ignorance obscure the facts please.

We don't give the most per capita. We aren't even close. We give the most as a total in some years, although Japan usually beats us.

Indeed, America should be effectively called 'aspirational', but in reality this means that everyone blindly seeks profit and doesn't care squat for his fellow citizens, all that matters to him is the next buck. America is a decadent and grotesquely deformed corporation in the disguise of a country.

And the day you prove that....

Eh, I'm reading the data and I'm highly skeptical. Anecdotal evidence aside, such as the new stores and commercial construction I can literally see, the numbers just don't add up; the performance of the world economy and the overall ratings of consumer confidence, other private data collection firms, as well as the results from state-level agencies and other economic data from around the world...it doesn't add up.

I'm not endorsing shadowstats. I was just throwing it out to show that the idea that the core CPI may not accurately reflect inflation is not some invention of this forum. Anyway, I think the point of using the 1980s methodology is to provide a better historical reference frame for people, rather than a criticism of hedonics &c. Rather like the UK government still publishing the RPI and RPIX even thought it no longer 'uses' them for the most part.

Of course, different people will choose to interpret what they mean in different ways.

*raises eyebrow*

Not all of us in America are selfish.

Only the moral, virtuous ones are.

But yes, there are plenty of evil, selfless people in this country.

And the federal government would have no money.

And that's a problem because...?

The sole proper means of funding government is through seizing the assets of bona fide criminals and then putting them to work for awhile before torturing and executing them.

After all, they're the ones whose existence and actions necessitate any government at all, so they can pay for it.

Indeed, America should be effectively called 'aspirational', but in reality this means that everyone blindly seeks profit and doesn't care squat for his fellow citizens, all that matters to him is the next buck.

Yes; that's a good thing.

That would make sense if there was parity between the employer and employee.
Parity is irrelevant.

Read the Constitution. The very first paragraph states that the governments job is to "promote the general welfare." That means that whatever's going on that's leading to a break down in society is the governments duty to intervene.
The Constitution is wrong. The proper role of government is metaphysically independent of and prior to the Constitution; thus, when the Constitution contradicts this then it is wrong.

It's a matter of history. Take a look at all the localities in the US that have increased their minimum wages. Conditions always improve afterwards. And I notice you have no evidence of the conservative "it'll ruin the economy" mantra, of which there is no evidence.
Because I don't care; the economy is none of the government's business. That doesn't mean that studying the economic effects of different actions is meaningless--it's not; it's very interesting, and also useful for planning. It's just that it's not a relevant criterion in deciding upon government policy.

Again, there's never been any evidence of that. There has been ample evidence to the contrary. This isn't a matter of what would happen. It's a matter of what has happened. You're responding to fact with hypotheticals.
The great thing about economics is that empirical evidence is meaningless. Why? Because HUMAN ACTIVITY IS SO FRIGGIN' COMPLEX!

All economic pronouncements are made with the caveat ceteris paribus.

The fact is, all else being equal, an increase in the minimum wage will worsen the general economic condition. To the extent that the general economic condition actually improves subsequent to a minimum wage increase, that is because other factors were at play, and had the minimum wage increase not taken place the improvement would have been even greater.

Extortion is against the law.
It shouldn't be, because it violates no one's rights.

You control the money and it's your bargaining chip. Labor controls the labor, it's their bargaining chip. You have no right to tell them that they can't decide together what their labor is worth.
I'm not telling them that.

They can decide what they think it's worth all they want. I can decide for myself what I think it's worth. If there's an overlap, we have a deal. If not, I'm not going to hire them.


But none of this is about one persons property. It is about setting the rules of behavior between individuals. The job of society (in a democracy that means government) is to set standards of behavior between people. That standard is not supposed to be set by the bully with the most power
No, it's supposed to be set based upon sacred individual rights. The sole proper purpose of government is to prevent interactions that involve a violation of sacred property and individual rights. Beyond that, government had damn well better stay out of the way.

And Americans with the "Let the poor die. I don't care. My money!" attitude is somehow less selfish? Take Linus for example. You're telling me that isn't selfish?

I most certainly am selfish.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, selfishness is the highest of virtues.

No, despise them, because rent control is pure evil.

It's a violation of sacred individual rights.
No such thing as sacred individual rights. You get what you're given in that respect, and as history has shown, rights can be taken away pretty damned quickly.
Maybe their situation isn't their fault.

It doesn't matter.

It's still THEIR PROBLEM.
And they can absolutely say the same to you.

"I want their money, I don't give a flying fuck if they want it, no reason it shouldn't be as much mine as theirs."
I am not obligated to give up my sacred liberty and sacred property for them.

I am not a slave.
The law doesn't care about your opinion, nor those who form government policy.

In your super magical world where everyone is free and things are lovely for people like you, you can happily sing the praises of Ayn Rand - although she herself said that the last thing that Objectivism needs is a bunch of sycophants with no opinions other than her own.
Why do you endorse slavery?
Ask that question to yourself - why do you endorse the slavery of the poor to the rich?

I most certainly am selfish.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, selfishness is the highest of virtues.

Which according to you make ENRON holier than the Vatican.

edit: Why do people cut out vegetables, fruits and nuts first. These can be some of the cheapest things. If you want to cut costs, cut the meat out first and go vegetarian.
Yeah really, and a bag of dried beans for $1 goes pretty far in soups and curries. Add some potatos (for cheap filler) and some veggies and you're good.

No such thing as sacred individual rights. You get what you're given in that respect, and as history has shown, rights can be taken away pretty damned quickly.
Incorrect.

Your rights are an inherent part of your existence.

Certainly, governments (and others) are practically capable of violating your rights--but you still possess those rights.

Lack of practical ability to exercise a right is not the same as absence of that right--it is the fact that you still have that right that justifies you in fighting back against your oppressors so that they won't violate it anymore.

And they can absolutely say the same to you.

"I want their money, I don't give a flying fuck if they want it, no reason it shouldn't be as much mine as theirs."
The difference is that they are sanctioning the violation of sacred individual rights; I'm not.

The law doesn't care about your opinion, nor those who form government policy.
First off, this isn't my opinion--it's an objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe.

Second, if the law contradicts or violates my rights, then THE LAW IS WRONG and I am under no moral obligation to obey it. They might still be able to practically get away with enforcing it, but that doesn't make it right.

Ask that question to yourself - why do you endorse the slavery of the poor to the rich?

I don't endorse anyone holding a gun to anyone's head. You do.

I bet that if the same states seceded now, they'd be able to pull it off.

LOL we cant even get people to VOTE let alone summon enough energy and passion to secede anything. The effort would drop with the same dull thud of the NBC fall television lineup.

The Constitution is wrong. The proper role of government is metaphysically independent of and prior to the Constitution; thus, when the Constitution contradicts this then it is wrong.


So my question is: Why live here if you disagree with the law of the land? If the Constitution says something here, it is LAW until taken off.

Also if you say Ayn Rand one more time I will metaphorically stab you in the face with the soldering iron of justice:p.

(In no way does this post advocate violence in any manner. The last sentence is only a metaphor:).)

Because the law is wrong and illegitimate, and my property is mine by right.

Because of this, I am not obligated to leave in order to avoid having my rights violated; everyone else is simply obligated to stop violating my rights.

Yay! One step closer to being able to afford a manservant.

edit: Why do people cut out vegetables, fruits and nuts first. These can be some of the cheapest things. If you want to cut costs, cut the meat out first and go vegetarian.

That sounds suspiciously like bullshit. Especially once you factor in what you need to replace what you were getting in meat.

Because the law is wrong and illegitimate, and my property is mine by right.

Because of this, I am not obligated to leave in order to avoid having my rights violated; everyone else is simply obligated to stop violating my rights.

Regardless of what you think, society decides rights not the individual. There is no universal law, only the law of the people. If everyone today decided you didn't have a right to that property, you wouldn't.

This is nothing new: Value of the dollar is decreasing; people are making the same amount of money (which is now worth less); and so are actually getting paid LESS... And while the Legislative branch has no problem giving themselves COL increases; no one else is getting them.

What are these 'first principles of the universe'? "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"? "Cause and effect"? "There's one born every minute"?

More to the point, how is one supposed to deduce sound socio-economic principles from them?

Click Stand;13150882']Regardless of what you think, society decides rights not the individual.
Actually, neither do.

Objective moral principle does.

One's rights are an intrinsic part of his existence.

There is no universal law, only the law of the people.
Incorrect.

If everyone today decided you didn't have a right to that property, you wouldn't.
Wrong. I most certainly would.

What are these 'first principles of the universe'?
A is A.

Both P and ~P cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense.

More to the point, how is one supposed to deduce sound socio-economic principles from them?

Through logic.

Incorrect.

Your rights are an inherent part of your existence.
No, they're not.
Certainly, governments (and others) are practically capable of violating your rights--but you still possess those rights.[QUOTE]
Err, no.
[QUOTE]Lack of practical ability to exercise a right is not the same as absence of that right--it is the fact that you still have that right that justifies you in fighting back against your oppressors so that they won't violate it anymore.
Rights such as?
The difference is that they are sanctioning the violation of sacred individual rights; I'm not.
Would you not say that the right to live is the most important of all rights?
First off, this isn't my opinion--it's an objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe.
Right. Any other new age bullshit up your sleive?
Second, if the law contradicts or violates my rights, then THE LAW IS WRONG and I am under no moral obligation to obey it. They might still be able to practically get away with enforcing it, but that doesn't make it right.
http://pics.livejournal.com/fridgemagnet/pic/000181p2
I don't endorse anyone holding a gun to anyone's head. You do.
Damned right, if the alternative is to let people needlessly suffer.

A is A.

Both P and ~P cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense.

Those are principles of logic, a human construct.

Through logic.

Care to demonstrate?

Americans are having trouble buying a week's necessities on their biweekly paychecks. Prices are going up and up so they have to cut out healthy foods and medical needs. Thank whoever invented rent controls for these poor souls. How long before we start helping them instead of saying it's their fault for mismanaging their money? You can't save money when you struggle to get by and then everything gets even more expensive.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_bi_ge/stretching_paychecks)

This is great. Soon, the poor will die out, and the country will be filled with those who are genetically inclined toward wealth. America will enter a new Golden Age!

Actually, neither do.

Objective moral principle does.

One's rights are an intrinsic part of his existence.

Rights have nothing to do with existence. They are an artificial construct of humanity. You could exist without rights, just look at lions.

Incorrect.

Wow now I'm convinced since you put it so well.

Edit:RLI stop stealin' my words.

Wrong. I most certainly would.

No you wouldn't. Only what is thought exists. If everyone thinks that you have no rights, you wouldn't. Same as if every single person on earth believed gravity didn't exist then it wouldn't.

This is great. Soon, the poor will die out, and the country will be filled with those who are genetically inclined toward wealth. America will enter a new Golden Age!

Until they realize that their cheap labor pool and consumer base went extinct along with the poor. That's when Steven Tyler becomes a prophet as food shortages set in.

Click Stand;13150988']Edit:RLI stop stealin' my words.

I'm so tempted to create a lolcat with the caption "I'm in ur hed, reding ur mindz". :)

Because the law is wrong and illegitimate, and my property is mine by right.

Because of this, I am not obligated to leave in order to avoid having my rights violated; everyone else is simply obligated to stop violating my rights.

Your property is now my property by strength of arms. The law is wrong. You're continued possession of my property is a violation of my rights. You are obligated to relinquish my property to me or I will appropriate your life as my property and dispose of it.

See how nicely that works?

Your property is now my property by strength of arms. The law is wrong. You're continued possession of my property is a violation of my rights. You are obligated to relinquish my property to me or I will appropriate your life as my property and dispose of it.

See how nicely that works?

Armed Robbery is the most direct exercise of Libertatian principles. Of course when a Libertarian is robbed, they usually turn to the government they despise so much for justice and restitution.

:D

That sounds suspiciously like bullshit. Especially once you factor in what you need to replace what you were getting in meat.
I can buy a pound of dried beans for less than a dollar. If I buy a couple of different varieties of beans (lentils, kidney beans, black beans, chickpeas et c) and mix them together in a soup or serve them over some rice with some veggies I can have all I need in terms of protein and vitamins for a fraction of the cost of cooking with meat.

And that's a problem because...?

The government would not be able to spend money on things such as roads, military, hospitals, schools, etc. I see you forgot about those.

The sole proper means of funding government is through seizing the assets of bona fide criminals and then putting them to work for awhile before torturing and executing them.

*dies of laughter*

After all, they're the ones whose existence and actions necessitate any government at all, so they can pay for it.

Oh brother :rolleyes:

The Constitution is wrong. The proper role of government is metaphysically independent of and prior to the Constitution; thus, when the Constitution contradicts this then it is wrong.

THis made me laugh so hard I nearly peed my pants.

THis made me laugh so hard I nearly peed my pants.

This thread is good for all sorts of laughs. :p

THis made me laugh so hard I nearly peed my pants.

The interesting thing is that you said this about one of the few things L&L gets right....

I'm not endorsing shadowstats. I was just throwing it out to show that the idea that the core CPI may not accurately reflect inflation is not some invention of this forum.

I figured that was common knowledge in the financial community. All core CPI shows is how much inflation in food and energy are bleeding in to other sectors of the economy. Anyone who reads in to it more than that isn't particularly knowledgeable about economic data.

Anyway, I think the point of using the 1980s methodology is to provide a better historical reference frame for people, rather than a criticism of hedonics &c. Rather like the UK government still publishing the RPI and RPIX even thought it no longer 'uses' them for the most part

It's an interesting data set, but any index, especially ones based on baskets of goods, just don't last for that long.

Click Stand;13150882']Regardless of what you think, society decides rights not the individual. There is no universal law, only the law of the people. If everyone today decided you didn't have a right to that property, you wouldn't.

Tyranny by majority FTL.

Which according to you make ENRON holier than the Vatican.
Actually, according to Rand lying is about as bad as things get. If objective reality exists, and your mind is your tool to understand it, then lying to someone else requires your actions to no longer be determined by your mind's understanding of reality, but by the need to pretend a different reality exists to other people in order to keep up the farce.

So you're no longer putting your mind (and indeed your body) to its rightful purpose, you're no longer devoting it through survival through value creation and -achievement. And according to her, that puts you firmly in the "existing, but not really alive...and travelling fast towards an early grave"-category.

Armed Robbery is the most direct exercise of Libertatian principles. Of course when a Libertarian is robbed, they usually turn to the government they despise so much for justice and restitution.

:D

Your post is filled with so many strawmen it's not even funny.

Actually, according to Rand lying is about as bad as things get. If objective reality exists, and your mind is your tool to understand it, then lying to someone else requires your actions to no longer be determined by your mind's understanding of reality, but by the need to pretend a different reality exists to other people in order to keep up the farce.

So you're no longer putting your mind (and indeed your body) to its rightful purpose, you're no longer devoting it through survival through value creation and -achievement. And according to her, that puts you firmly in the "existing, but not really alive...and travelling fast towards an early grave"-category.

That seems like metaphysical gobbly gook that has little practical value. Take for example a German citizen of Nazi Germany who is illegally harboring some Jews to protect them. Some Nazi officials ask that citizen whether or not s/he is harboring Jews. If saying no is out of the question then that leaves saying yes or staying silent, which would most likely be construed as an implicit yes. This would likely lead to the arrests of the citizen and the Jews. Who thinks that the citizen should not lie in this situation?

First off, this isn't my opinion--it's an objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe.

First principles can not be proven true or false. Different philisophical systems can have different first principles, be internally consistent, and yet contradict other systems.

I figured that was common knowledge in the financial community. All core CPI shows is how much inflation in food and energy are bleeding in to other sectors of the economy. Anyone who reads in to it more than that isn't particularly knowledgeable about economic data.

I've always taken it to be a smoother measure of inflation, because supposedly it averages out more volatile costs. (Though I suppose some form of MA for those components would work just as well.) To be honest, other than how people react to it, it is not all that interesting to me.

In any event, the person I was replying too originally seemed to think the idea that it didn't was, in fact, something that was made up on NSG. Which was why I threw it out there.


It's an interesting data set, but any index, especially ones based on baskets of goods, just don't last for that long.

People like historical comparisons. What can I say. Personally, I find the idea that central banks and governments used to make decisions and policy based upon data derived from that methodology and now they no longer do quite interesting. But only in an abstract way.

You are right of course. Society today is not society 30 years ago. Meaningful comparisons are problematic.

That seems like metaphysical gobbly gook that has little practical value. Take for example a German citizen of Nazi Germany who is illegally harboring some Jews to protect them. Some Nazi officials ask that citizen whether or not s/he is harboring Jews. If saying no is out of the question then that leaves saying yes or staying silent, which would most likely be construed as an implicit yes. This would likely lead to the arrests of the citizen and the Jews. Who thinks that the citizen should not lie in this situation?
Clearly, according to Rand, the citizen is wrong for saving the lives of other human beings and risking their own because they are not fullfilling their selfish purpose in life.

This would likely lead to the arrests of the citizen and the Jews. Who thinks that the citizen should not lie in this situation?
I was merely making the point that an objectivist wouldn't endorse lying, which is what the Enron bosses did.

To address the actual question, I think the objectivist wouldn't get into the situation where one is forced to lie to survive, but leave before it ever got to that stage. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure what Ayn Rand would say if the person hadn't left, but I would almost guess it would be something along the lines of "speak the truth, then try to defend yourself as best you can".

Somalia has a historic example of how anarcho-capitalism would work, the article is down there for those interested. Basically, it's a kind of "As long as you know how to fight, have a good gun and some armed buddies you're in business". And economically-wise, it wasn't a bad thing, but when we consider social issues, then it's imploded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia

I was merely making the point that an objectivist wouldn't endorse lying, which is what the Enron bosses did.

True. I didn't think Rand would endorse the Enron higher-ups.

To address the actual question, I think the objectivist wouldn't get into the situation where one is forced to lie to survive, but leave before it ever got to that stage. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure what Ayn Rand would say if the person hadn't left, but I would almost guess it would be something along the lines of "speak the truth, then try to defend yourself as best you can".

My example was fairly extreme I admit. A less extreme one would be what would Rand advise someone who lives in a country with an income tax. Should one lie about one's income if one can get away with it, tell the truth and be taxed fully, or report nothing and be audited? Would Ayn advise "speak the truth, then defend yourself against the tax collectors"?

Poorer? Thats total bullshit. I work at CVS and half the people that come in on medicaid are too busy talking on cellphones to pay their one dollar co-pays. As someone who has spent over a thousand hours volunteering at night shelters, I feel like I can say its easier than ever to get food, shelter and jobs. People may be more irresponsible, but more poor?

There are ways we can help the poor, a few things come to mind.

Eliminate minimum wage laws (makes more jobs and cheaper goods in the marketplace)
Eliminate the income tax
Give more money and time to charity

Though most charities are total bullshit. They give shit away without teaching poor people how to take care of themselves and thus promote irresponsible lifestyles.

To address the actual question, I think the objectivist wouldn't get into the situation where one is forced to lie to survive, but leave before it ever got to that stage. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure what Ayn Rand would say if the person hadn't left, but I would almost guess it would be something along the lines of "speak the truth, then try to defend yourself as best you can".

It's been about ten years since I read Atlas Shrugged (the Fountainhead is a better novel BTW), but I vaguely remember it was okay to lie to people who were lying themselves because it wasn't an honest relationship in the first place.

So telling a Nazi that there were no jews would be fine, because Nazi's had intentionally misdefined what it means to be a jew in the first place. You are simply doing no more than confirming their own idiocy, which you are under no burden to correct in the first place.

From what I remember that Francis D'Anaconia did that sort of thing quite a bit. (Though he used to feel bad about it too).

Eliminate minimum wage laws? Poor getting benefit from it? Cheaper goods or higher profits?

There were no minimum wage or worker rights when the Industrial Revolution began, poor people lived better in that time and had better life conditions because the liberals didn't put their hands in the labor free market?

Supply(Excess of Workforce) > Demand (Available Jobs)

Wage goes down... them desperate unemployed people accept to work for less and less wages... then soon they accept to work more than 12 hours per day... and the cycle goes on until the supply and demand balances.

My example was fairly extreme I admit. A less extreme one would be what would Rand advise someone who lives in a country with an income tax. Should one lie about one's income if one can get away with it, tell the truth and be taxed fully, or report nothing and be audited? Would Ayn advise "speak the truth, then defend yourself against the tax collectors"?

She'd say that you should pay the taxes and live with it. However, if you felt it was really oppressive you should look to either leave the country, or opt out of the system.

She'd say that you should pay the taxes and live with it. However, if you felt it was really oppressive you should look to either leave the country, or opt out of the system.

Ayn Rand, an ethical egoists and promoter of the "virtues" of selfishness, would advocate following a course of act that reduces one's resources and increases the resources of thieves, i.e. the government? How does that follow?

And the federal government would have no money.


Good.

Eliminate minimum wage laws? Poor getting benefit from it? Cheaper goods or higher profits?

There were no minimum wage or worker rights when the Industrial Revolution began, poor people lived better in that time and had better life conditions because the liberals didn't put their hands in the labor free market?

Supply(Excess of Workforce) > Demand (Available Jobs)

Wage goes down... them desperate unemployed people accept to work for less and less wages... then soon they accept to work more than 12 hours per day... and the cycle goes on until the supply and demand balances.

The free market, by itself, will find an equilibrium between supply and demand that best fits the nature of the economy. When you mess with this system, like the minimum wage law does, then there is less supply and less demand for all. Is this not what we all learned in economics class?

This is most clearly seen on the Big Mac index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index). Every time the minimum wage goes up, so does the price of a Big Mac.

Poorer? Thats total bullshit. I work at CVS and half the people that come in on medicaid are too busy talking on cellphones to pay their one dollar co-pays. As someone who has spent over a thousand hours volunteering at night shelters, I feel like I can say its easier than ever to get food, shelter and jobs. People may be more irresponsible, but more poor?
http://rss.msnbc.msn.com/id/21309318/
Two weeks work for a fridge?
In fact, many consumer goods are much cheaper than they were in the 1970s. A look at 1971 Sears catalog offers a glimpse of some plummeting prices. In 1971, a basic Sears refrigerator cost $399. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $2,000 in 2005 dollars, or nearly seven times the $297 price of a basic fridge in today’s Sears catalog. Put another way, a fridge costs more than two week’s work for an average earner in 1971, but less than two day’s labor today.
The price of electronics drops exponentially. And in America, you only have to pay a phone bill to get a phone for free. Other necessary costs increase at a rate greater than inflation, which is already more than the increase rate of income.

Eliminate minimum wage laws (makes more jobs and cheaper goods in the marketplace)
Ehhhh, wrong. This is the major fallacy of people like you - that businesses give a damn and, with less government pressure, would take moves that benefit the average worker and consumer. No, wrong. Facts and history show otherwise. Prices don't drop because businesses have less expenses. Prices stay the same while executive wages go up and company profits go up. The only way to drop prices is either price controls or direct, serious competition. Same goes to jobs.

The free market, by itself, will find an equilibrium between supply and demand that best fits the nature of the economy.

Ah, the "invisible hand" - the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard. Sure, back in early industrial Britain where it was made up in may have been relevant, but in the electronic age in a global economy? Not even remotely.


This is most clearly seen on the Big Mac index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index). Every time the minimum wage goes up, so does the price of a Big Mac.
Because of course the fast-food industry should be the top judge of who is or isn't getting poorer.

Ayn Rand, an ethical egoists and promoter of the "virtues" of selfishness, would advocate following a course of act that reduces one's resources and increases the resources of thieves, i.e. the government? How does that follow?
Remember, she also went to be a witness at one of McCarthy's witch trials. I haven't quite understood yet why and how, but she did. And that's the reason I'm not a Randroid...something doesn't quite fall into place there.

Ayn Rand, an ethical egoists and promoter of the "virtues" of selfishness, would advocate following a course of act that reduces one's resources and increases the resources of thieves, i.e. the government? How does that follow?

Oooh, a man made of straw.

Just read the books. It's years since I have, but that was never her argument.

Remember, she also went to be a witness at one of McCarthy's witch trials. I haven't quite understood yet why and how, but she did. And that's the reason I'm not a Randroid...something doesn't quite fall into place there.

That's a bit tu quoque though.

Look, I'm very far from a randroid, as you know. (Though it's interesting to me how you've swept from being to the left of me to the right.) But it's not a fair criticism.

[url]
Ehhhh, wrong. This is the major fallacy of people like you - that businesses give a damn and, with less government pressure, would take moves that benefit the average worker and consumer. No, wrong. Facts and history show otherwise. Prices don't drop because businesses have less expenses. Prices stay the same while executive wages go up and company profits go up. The only way to drop prices is either price controls or direct, serious competition. Same goes to jobs.

Did I ever say that business' were the holy angels of the world who want to give and share their wealth? No, business' are selfish, and they need to be in order to be productive. According to the free market, the business that uses its profits to bring down the cost of their goods will sell more than the business that spends its profit on salaries. How does this concept fail?

How does price control give business' incentive to produce more? How does price control actually make things cheaper when the money used to subsidize them comes out of the working man's pocket?

I'm open to any explanations you wanna share with me. But seriously, this flies in the face of every economics text book in the world.

See (http://www.pro-fundity.com/archedits/041699b.html)

Ah, the "invisible hand" - the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard. Sure, back in early industrial Britain where it was made up in may have been relevant, but in the electronic age in a global economy? Not even remotely.


Why is the "invisible hand" no longer true? I really wanna know. Seriously, what did you learn in school?


Because of course the fast-food industry should be the top judge of who is or isn't getting poorer.

The Big Mac is one of the most heavily traded items in the world. Why is it a bad model for economy?

Did I ever say that business' were the holy angels of the world who want to give and share their wealth? No, business' are selfish, and they need to be in order to be productive. According to the free market, the business that uses its profits to bring down the cost of their goods will sell more than the business that spends its profit on salaries. How does this concept fail?

How does price control give business' incentive to produce more? How does price control actually make things cheaper when the money used to subsidize them comes out of the working man's pocket?

I'm open to any explanations you wanna share with me. But seriously, this flies in the face of every economics text book in the world.

See (http://www.pro-fundity.com/archedits/041699b.html)
Economists can sit around and mentally masturbate all they want, but when was the last time you saw an economic philosopher running a country? Common sense obviously dictates that if prices are lowered, more will be sold. Businesses don't run on common sense. Decrease company costs and it is only used to increase the salaries of the management for such a great job decreasing company costs as well as increasing its profitability.

Why is the "invisible hand" no longer true? I really wanna know. Seriously, what did you learn in school?

Common fucking sense. It isn't true any longer because the similarity between early industrial England and tech age, global market America is the difference between a three toed sloth and an Orca.

The Big Mac is one of the most heavily traded items in the world. Why is it a bad model for economy?
Because it is fast food. It is entirely unessential. A Big Mac is not sustenance. You want to know what is relevant? The prices of eggs, milk, and bread. Big Macs are irrelevant for the same reason looking at average credit card debt for the entire country is a bad judge of economy. A few people can completely skew the scale.

That's a bit tu quoque though.
I'm afraid that somehow it isn't. I think that generally Rand was pretty strict with herself and others on her philosophy.

I haven't done that much reading on it all, and I'm worried that there might just be something in there that would justify using state violence against people who disagree with you. I can't imagine that there is, but still.

And then there's that whole death penalty business, and a bunch of other little issues. I like objectivism as a philosophy and a personal belief system, I'm just not sure on the translation into real-life policies.

Decrease company costs and it is only used to increase the salaries of the management for such a great job decreasing company costs as well as increasing its profitability.
Methinks you're not going to bother much with proof on that one, are you.

Common fucking sense. It isn't true any longer because the similarity between early industrial England and tech age, global market America is the difference between a three toed sloth and an Orca.
You're gonna have to do better than that. Tell us why the concept doesn't work, not that Adam Smith lived in a different time to ours.

In fact, you almost make me want to go on a tirade against the phrase "common sense", but I'll leave that for some other time.

Methinks you're not going to bother much with proof on that one, are you.
Too many words to use in a Google search usefully, but I'm working on it.

You're gonna have to do better than that. Tell us why the concept doesn't work, not that Adam Smith lived in a different time to ours.
If you don't understand the difference, I can't help you.

Americans are having trouble buying a week's necessities on their biweekly paychecks. Prices are going up and up so they have to cut out healthy foods and medical needs. Thank whoever invented rent controls for these poor souls. How long before we start helping them instead of saying it's their fault for mismanaging their money? You can't save money when you struggle to get by and then everything gets even more expensive.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_bi_ge/stretching_paychecks)

I am not impressed with an ethos argument. Provide a logos one, then I'll see what I can do.

If you don't understand the difference, I can't help you.
If you can't even attempt to explain it, then you presume it's something that's not understood rationally, yes? So it's something you just happen to feel and if I don't share your feeling we just agree to disagree, yes?

There's a reason I sigged New Limacon the other day. ;)

Because it is fast food. It is entirely unessential. A Big Mac is not sustenance. You want to know what is relevant? The prices of eggs, milk, and bread. Big Macs are irrelevant for the same reason looking at average credit card debt for the entire country is a bad judge of economy. A few people can completely skew the scale.
You're missing the point of the Big Mac scale. It is used by The Economist magazine because it is more or less uniform throughout the world, is something that many people can buy, and is already a basket of goods (including the eggs, milk and bread you mentioned). It doesn't matter whether or not the goods in the basket are essential, most things sold aren't.

That being said, it's not something used by the IMF or World Bank, with good reason. But it's useful for someone just reading a magazine, who wants a rough idea of what the purchasing power parity or exchange rate is. (It would also be useful if one were traveling to a country whose native dishes he didn't trust.)

I am not impressed with an ethos argument. Provide a logos one, then I'll see what I can do.
Ignore the arguments from emotion than look at the facts and derive the logic.

You're missing the point of the Big Mac scale. It is used by The Economist magazine because it is more or less uniform throughout the world, is something that many people can buy, and is already a basket of goods (including the eggs, milk and bread you mentioned). It doesn't matter whether or not the goods in the basket are essential, most things sold aren't.
Uniform throughout the entire world? Doubly irrelevant. We are discussing America in other parts of the world they either have more government social aid or are developing nations. That makes my argument against using it for judging American economic problems even better, thanks. And no, it is not a basket of good. It is a prepared good. It is not the goods themselves. Bread comes in loaves, milk comes in bottles, and eggs come in dozens.

There's a reason I sigged New Limacon the other day. ;)

I feel so...happy. My joy would be even greater if I hadn't stolen it from Stephen Colbert. :( Oh well.

Ignore the arguments from emotion than look at the facts and derive the logic.

I said "ethos", not just "pathos".

Uniform throughout the entire world? Doubly irrelevant. We are discussing America in other parts of the world they either have more government social aid or are developing nations. That makes my argument against using it for judging American economic problems even better, thanks. And no, it is not a basket of good. It is a prepared good. It is not the goods themselves. Bread comes in loaves, milk comes in bottles, and eggs come in dozens.

Ah, I see. I thought you were talking about exchange rates or inflation, as that is what the index is usually used for. You're right then, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to use the Big Mac Index as an indicator of how well the country is doing.
But it is a basket of goods. The people at McDonalds have to get the meat, bread, and milk that goes into a Big Mac from somewhere, and they have to sell it at a price that is greater than the value of the goods that went into it if they want to make a profit. So if the price of a Big Mac rises, we can assume it is because of inflation, and use it like the Consumer Price Index.

I haven't done that much reading on it all, and I'm worried that there might just be something in there that would justify using state violence against people who disagree with you. I can't imagine that there is, but still.

While I don't endorse this viewpoint, you have to remember that for many people the HUAC hearings and McCarthy were about far more than just disagreeing with US official policy.

And from what I've read (which is basically only atlas shrugged and the fountainhead) Rand's opinion about when the legitimate use of state violence is warranted is never really addressed.


And then there's that whole death penalty business, and a bunch of other little issues. I like objectivism as a philosophy and a personal belief system, I'm just not sure on the translation into real-life policies.

There are bits about objectivism I like too. But foremost Rand was a writer of dystopia, not really a philosopher. A bit like Orwell, but without the essays.

Economists can sit around and mentally masturbate all they want, but when was the last time you saw an economic philosopher running a country? Common sense obviously dictates that if prices are lowered, more will be sold. Businesses don't run on common sense. Decrease company costs and it is only used to increase the salaries of the management for such a great job decreasing company costs as well as increasing its profitability.


mental masturbation, thats pretty hot, but I am inclined to believe science over common sense. And isn't every politician an economic philosopher, I mean, they all have ideas when it comes to spending money. And if profits are only used in business to make salaries for executives better, then how do business' expande? Where does the money needed to take risks come from?


Common fucking sense. It isn't true any longer because the similarity between early industrial England and tech age, global market America is the difference between a three toed sloth and an Orca.

What are you saying? The principles or supply and demand have been unequivocally altered because countries trade with each other? The principles of the free market have existed since the first early humans began to trade so yes, it still exists today, common fucking sense.


Because it is fast food. It is entirely unessential. A Big Mac is not sustenance. You want to know what is relevant? The prices of eggs, milk, and bread. Big Macs are irrelevant for the same reason looking at average credit card debt for the entire country is a bad judge of economy. A few people can completely skew the scale.

Big macs represent conspicuous consumption. They are indeed, not necissary to humanity and I am not a big fan of them either. But surely you must realize that the price of eggs, milk and bread are reflected in the price of a big mac. What do you think they are made out of?

hmm, if people are poor, I think it's their own fault. I only work 3-4 months a year, and go to school for the rest. Nobody helps me pay my bills, but I don't waste my money. The government takes a goodly portion of my money (I'm sure most of you pay taxes and knows how that one feels) to help the "poor" and elderly meanwhile I live off of about $5,500 a year. Yet I've managed to afford housing, food, internet, electricity, gas, and a car, school is setting me back, but not by that much, considering the benefits I expect to reap.

Most poor do seem to waste their money, all the poor people I know like to buy new cars and drink lots of beer (some smoke cigarettes too). When I was growing up I felt that the poor people had more luxuries than I did (my parents were middle class). I live in the second poorest city in the country (Buffalo, NY), and even though there are considerable amounts of farmland in relative proximity its still hard to find cheap veggies(my g/f who came here from NYC says we have far more expensive vegetables than they do- I've heard this is due the distribution system whereby produce is sent to us from NYC, even though mostly they pass us by on their way to NYC, adding transportation costs), when you consider that your number one need is calories, its easy to see why people are adverse to them. The only thing cheap here is housing because no one wants to live here (gasoline costs are higher than average for the country).

Though, I don't disagree with the premise that the poor and getting poorer- everything is costing me more this year than last, I can tell you my wages didn't rise as much as gas and milk went up, and I really like milk too :( .

I couldn't agree more. All the poor people I know are selfish pricks who don't have to work because my church gives them free food and shelter. But milk sux. Orange juice FTW!

Where does the money needed to take risks come from?
Cutting corporate costs without cutting consumer costs by the same degree? Like I have bene saying? :rolleyes:


But surely you must realize that the price of eggs, milk and bread are reflected in the price of a big mac. What do you think they are made out of?
Hardly, to make Big Macs, eggs, milk, and bred would be bought in bulk thus giving a false price compared to what the consumer would have to pay.

I couldn't agree more. All the poor people I know are selfish pricks who don't have to work because my church gives them free food and shelter.
The ignorant privileged can't see past the clouds that their pedestal rises past down to the downtrodden masses.

That is an extreme example of the silicon breast implants. Do you understand how the charity tax break works? Lets say you give a $100 to charity. You have a tax rate of lets say 18% for the year 2007. You do not get the whole $100 back from the government in your refund. You only get $18 back. So the idea that corporations are giving money because they want to evade taxes is a bit of a misnomer.

misnomer is not exactly the right word.

And even if it is 1% or even $1 it's money being given by the government to a corporation for dumping something useless on people who don't need it. Additionally those who don't need or want the implants have to pay to have them disposed of making them poorer.

But what should concern you is that the money given back to the corporation cannot be used for government programmes.

misnomer is not exactly the right word.

And even if it is 1% or even $1 it's money being given by the government to a corporation for dumping something useless on people who don't need it. Additionally those who don't need or want the implants have to pay to have them disposed of making them poorer.

But what should concern you is that the money given back to the corporation cannot be used for government programmes.

And as I told you, the breast implant story isn't true.

You are only taxed on profits. If you can't sell the breast implants because they become non-marketable, it doesn't matter what you do with them. The cost of production is a write off anyway.

The ignorant privileged can't see past the clouds that their pedestal rises past down to the downtrodden masses.

you mean these guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4teq7aKTNJ4&mode=related&search=)

Oooh, a man made of straw.

Oooohhh, a claim which you provide no evidence to support. Nice. Show me how I am misrepresenting Rand's beliefs.


Just read the books. It's years since I have, but that was never her argument.

Rand's arguments include the claims that taxation is theft. Neu Leonstein claimed, which I don't see any reason to doubt, that Rand saw lying as one of the worse things one can do. If true there is a conundrum of aiding one's opressors by being truthful or lying, an immoral act, to hinder one's opressors.

And from what I've read (which is basically only atlas shrugged and the fountainhead) Rand's opinion about when the legitimate use of state violence is warranted is never really addressed.

Rand wrote more than just fiction. In her nonfiction works such as The Virtues of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal she claims that the legitmate use of government force is limited to using force in retaliation against those who initiate its use.

There are bits about objectivism I like too. But foremost Rand was a writer of dystopia, not really a philosopher. A bit like Orwell, but without the essays.

Rand was actually foremost a philosopher, if not a good one in my opinion. She created her own philosophical system with its own metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and even aesthetics. This system in known as Objectivism.

Remember, she also went to be a witness at one of McCarthy's witch trials. I haven't quite understood yet why and how, but she did. And that's the reason I'm not a Randroid...something doesn't quite fall into place there.

Yeah I know. Rand was hardly consistent in a number of her actions and she sometimes just went overboard in her some of her views, look an Linus and Lucy's claim that all her views have been objectively proven true. I have always, since you admitted a fondness for Ayn, considered you a Randian influenced libertarian rather than one of those people that view her work as Holy Writ.

And as I told you, the breast implant story isn't true.

You are only taxed on profits. If you can't sell the breast implants because they become non-marketable, it doesn't matter what you do with them. The cost of production is a write off anyway.

This site quotes the breast implant story. If you click on the link for that it says that US companies can claim twice the cost of the drugs against tax, which would explain it. And they also save on disposal costs.
http://www.bpec.org/node/63

No, they're not.
Would you not say that the right to live is the most important of all rights?
All rights are of equal import.

Your right to live is just that--your right to live. It means that if you want to live, no one can stop you.

But that does not mean that you are automatically entitled to the means by which to live.

The right to do something is just a guarantee of the absence of interference. It is absolutely not a guarantee of practical ability.

Damned right, if the alternative is to let people needlessly suffer.

You are the one creating needless suffering, by violating sacred individual rights.

Click Stand;13150988']Rights have nothing to do with existence. They are an artificial construct of humanity. You could exist without rights, just look at lions.
Sure I could--but not as a human being. I would become a subhuman being. Just like a lion is.

No you wouldn't. Only what is thought exists. If everyone thinks that you have no rights, you wouldn't. Same as if every single person on earth believed gravity didn't exist then it wouldn't.

Wow.

Your grasp of basic metaphysics is absolutely horrendous.

Those are principles of logic,
Yup.

a human construct.
No, it isn't.

[QUOTE=Non Aligned States;13151020]Your property is now my property by strength of arms. QUOTE]

Except that is not what causes one to become the legitimate owner of a piece of property, so the rest of your example fails.

The government would not be able to spend money on things such as roads, military, hospitals, schools, etc. I see you forgot about those.
No, I didn't.

Of everything you mentioned there, the only one that is in fact within government's legitimate purview is the military--and the method I described earlier would suffice for that.

That seems like metaphysical gobbly gook that has little practical value. Take for example a German citizen of Nazi Germany who is illegally harboring some Jews to protect them. Some Nazi officials ask that citizen whether or not s/he is harboring Jews. If saying no is out of the question then that leaves saying yes or staying silent, which would most likely be construed as an implicit yes. This would likely lead to the arrests of the citizen and the Jews. Who thinks that the citizen should not lie in this situation?

The Nazis have rejected reason.

Those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it.

Therefore, one is not obligated to act in an immediately rational manner towards them.

(I hope you understand what I mean by "immediately rational"...this is one of those situations where I have an excellent abstract conceptual understanding of what I want to say, but I'm not quite sure how to translate it into words).

All rights are of equal import.
Simply not true.
Your right to live is just that--your right to live. It means that if you want to live, no one can stop you.

But that does not mean that you are automatically entitled to the means by which to live.
I'm interested in letting people have their most important rights open to them. The right to live, and the means thereneededfor (I wish that was a real word :() is the most important thing that one can give.

Simply letting people have that right, but with no means, is a completely pointless and hollow gesture - it'd be like giving people the right to vote, but then shooting anyone coming within a 10 mile radius of a ballot box.
The right to do something is just a guarantee of the absence of interference. It is absolutely not a guarantee of practical ability.
You managed to self-destruct your argument. Good effort.
You are the one creating needless suffering, by violating sacred individual rights.
Here - allow me to express my position on such matters

http://www.javys.com/hario/violin_pic/glass_violin.jpg

you mean these guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4teq7aKTNJ4&mode=related&search=)
Oh of course, we shouldn't help homeless people. You realize you need an address to get a job right?

That whole video was a bunch of skimmed over bullshit designed for people like you. I could drive buses through the holes I see in the logic.

Sure I could--but not as a human being. I would become a subhuman being. Just like a lion is.

Lions aren't subhuman, humans are sublion. In the end determining which species is better is impossible. For every thing a human does that makes him above a lion, a lion will do something that is above a human.

Wow.

Your grasp of basic metaphysics is absolutely horrendous.

Maybe that last statement was out of the box but I stand by the whole human construct idea. If it wasn't you would see other lifeforms practicing it.

Click Stand;13152925']Lions aren't subhuman, humans are sublion.
Incorrect.

In the end determining which species is better is impossible.
Incorrect.

For every thing a human does that makes him above a lion, a lion will do something that is above a human.
Incorrect.

Maybe that last statement was out of the box but I stand by the whole human construct idea. If it wasn't you would see other lifeforms practicing it.

The reason they don't do it isn't because it's a human construct (it's not) but simply because they're not capable of it.

Incorrect.

Incorrect

Incorrect.

False

Incorrect.

Not True

The reason they don't do it isn't because it's a human construct (it's not) but simply because they're not capable of it.

They are capable of having Life, property (they defend their domain) and whatever other sacred rights you you are talking about.

No, they're not.

To possess rights, one must be capable of comprehending those rights.

Only humans have that capacity.

To possess rights, one must be capable of comprehending those rights.

So do children and the mentally disabled have rights?

No, it isn't.

There's nothing magical or metaphysical about logic, any more than there is about Mathematics. They are human constructs which is why there are so many conflicting models of logic.

There's nothing magical or metaphysical about logic, any more than there is about Mathematics. They are human constructs which is why there are so many conflicting models of logic.
Mathematics is magic.

So do children and the mentally disabled have rights?

well, obviously not. as the eminent 20th-century russian-american philosopher ayn rand objectively proved, raping those in comas is morally obligatory.

Linus, you, certain in the knowledge that you alone wield absolute truth and knowledge of the universe's fundamental principles, seem to have adopted Objectivism and Rand's philosophies with an odd sort of zeal that seems akin to that of a religious fundamentalist.

While I happen to agree with you on one solitary, lonely point--that the preservation of rights from government overreach is important-- it doesn't seem to me that you're supporting your beliefs very effectively. You've repeatedly cited the "first principles of the universe" and "objective moral principles" in support of your statements, but you've offered *nothing* in the way of argument to show why anybody should believe in the theory of Things As You And Ayn Rand Say They Are, as opposed to, say, Things As The Flying Spaghetti Monster Says They Are. As it is, I'm left wondering if you're actually serious and believe in that which you espouse, so I'm going to stick with the 8 "I'd Really Rather You Didn't"s for my basic principles. And they say that poor people getting poorer is bad, just to make this an on-topic post.:(

[QUOTE=Non Aligned States;13151020]Your property is now my property by strength of arms. QUOTE]

Except that is not what causes one to become the legitimate owner of a piece of property, so the rest of your example fails.

Actually force of arms is all that is needed to become the legitimate owner of a piece of property. That is a law of nature and those supersede the laws of man. While the deer may own its body, when taken by force it soon becomes the property of the wolf who fells it. When the bear shows up what is left of the carcass is now his as the wolf can't defend it. Maybe you need to check out the woods sometime.

No, they're not.

To possess rights, one must be capable of comprehending those rights.

Only humans have that capacity.

Actually to possess rights one must only be able to defend them...understanding is just a bonus.

And as I told you, the breast implant story isn't true.

You are only taxed on profits. If you can't sell the breast implants because they become non-marketable, it doesn't matter what you do with them. The cost of production is a write off anyway.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/06/09/1388257.htm
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/HVAN-6S5Q4J?OpenDocument

so they were never sent after the Tsunami and indonesian earthquake either?


"In the US the tax law states that if you donate a product for the sick, the needy or for humanitarian purposes then you can claim a maximum of twice the �cost basis� of the product to claim against tax which is called an �enhanced deduction�. �Cost basis� includes the component materials, labour costs, accounting costs and warehousing costs."

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/M/mark_thomas/2/1.html

Yes it does matter what you do with them (and drugs etc). They are dumped on poor countries who have to deal with disposing of them meaning they have less money to spend on the things governments should spend on things like education and healthcare.

So do children and the mentally disabled have rights?
Well, one might even construct what Rand argued to expand the cohort of people that have no rights. One of the major tenets (maybe the major one) of objectivism is that human beings have volitional consciousness, that is they choose to think.

If people don't choose that, choose to be irrational and live not by applying their mind to objective reality and produce something, but by wishing, hoping and...well, looting, then they can't really comprehend what "property" really is, or even what "life" really is.

Rand said that rights are earned. No one has a right, even to life, without being able to justify it through thought and action (and therefore through comprehending it). Someone who can't produce can't have a property right, and someone who refuses to live doesn't have a right to life.

It should be said though that she thought children were in fact capable of making the choice to think, until teachers and parents get to them and fill their heads with rubbish. Whether or not that initial choice is a moral one though I'm not sure, because she also says that a lack of choice doesn't allow for moral behaviour - so if kids are naturally predisposed to understand that A is A (eg that its mother and a curtain are two different entities which exist and which can't suddenly turn into one another), then they're not making the choice to do so and so they're not being moral. Only once they reach that stage where they can choose to believe all that crap about the non-existence of the self and don't can they really be said to be moral, rational beings - and only then can they be considered to have the rights of such a being.

Except that is not what causes one to become the legitimate owner of a piece of property, so the rest of your example fails.

Rights are accorded to those who can defend them or have others defend for them. Those who fail to defend their rights lose them. There are no inherent rights whatsoever. Laws of nature and consequence supersede any claims of rights.

Your "right to life" does not accord you a magical shield of which to stop my bullet from creating added ventilation to the obviously underused portion of your cranium and decorating the wall behind with biological matter.

Rights are accorded to those who can defend them or have others defend for them.
Just because you can violate them doesn't mean that rights don't exist though. In fact, rights imply a moral choice of some sort, so I'm not sure that if something was in fact inviolable it could be seen as a right.

Take my love, take my land, take me where I cannot stand. I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me. Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't comming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me...

Just because you can violate them doesn't mean that rights don't exist though. In fact, rights imply a moral choice of some sort, so I'm not sure that if something was in fact inviolable it could be seen as a right.

Rights are a societal construct to safeguard the continued functioning of a society as a workable framework that won't implode in the short term. If there is no one to defend them, then by that societies perception, the right does not exist.

Take equal rights for example. Concepts like that existed before, but were used even in societies that actively encouraged the holding of slaves without or limited (as early as Rome and Greece) rights as well as second class citizenship for women.

There is no such thing as an inviolable right that transcends natural laws.

Rights are a societal construct to safeguard the continued functioning of a society as a workable framework that won't implode in the short term. If there is no one to defend them, then by that societies perception, the right does not exist.
Well, how does a society perceive anything? Only people do. And it would be pretty hard for a person to convince himself or herself that he or she actually has no right to the product of one's labour at all.

And note that that would include tribal societies with no fixed concept of property - the unearned is still not allowed (try being lazy in an Aboriginal tribe, you'll get more curses hurled at you than you can shake a (death)stick at), so there is still a trade going on, which implies that one's labour is still something to be traded, which in turn implies that one owns one's labour.

Or, to be trivial, the Jewish victims probably felt they had a right to live in peace, even though the rest of Nazi society didn't feel that way and they had no way of defending that right.

Well, how does a society perceive anything? Only people do.

Since I assume we're talking about human societies, what do you think that societies are made up of? Unless you're a hermit living entirely in seclusion and isolated from any and all products/byproducts of human society, you will have to operate within the rules of that society. And that includes perceptions of rights.


And note that that would include tribal societies with no fixed concept of property - the unearned is still not allowed (try being lazy in an Aboriginal tribe, you'll get more curses hurled at you than you can shake a (death)stick at), so there is still a trade going on, which implies that one's labour is still something to be traded, which in turn implies that one owns one's labour.

I think you are making some very large errors in interpretation here.

I am not saying that perceived rights don't exist. I am saying that they are societal constructs.

A hermit who lives on a deserted island has no use for rights whatsoever, and one that grows up isolated from humanity may have no concept of rights at all beyond "if I can take it, it's mine".

Societies form rights as a framework of behavior (i.e. theft and murder is bad) so that they can function as a society, providing a semblance of order and stability. A society that doesn't form these codas of behavior quickly implode into anarchy whereby the fragments will absorb or crush the others while creating their own frameworks.


Or, to be trivial, the Jewish victims probably felt they had a right to live in peace, even though the rest of Nazi society didn't feel that way and they had no way of defending that right.

Natural laws at work. Not to seem callous, but if you cannot defend your rights or have those who will defend it for you in the face of those who wish to take it away, then for all intents and purposes, those rights are effectively gone.

Societies are the ones that create rights for the ones within the society to have, and if it chooses to take them away, those rights are gone.

There are no universal, inherent rights that transcend natural laws, as I've mentioned. We may be the dominant species on this planet, but that doesn't mean we stopped being a part of nature, or that at the very basic core of it, the law of the jungle followed us to that dominance.

Rather, ruthlessly following the law of the jungle was made us what we are.

A hermit who lives on a deserted island has no use for rights whatsoever, and one that grows up isolated from humanity may have no concept of rights at all beyond "if I can take it, it's mine".
So, just to get this straight, you're saying that a hermit on a desert island doesn't need morality?

So, just to get this straight, you're saying that a hermit on a desert island doesn't need morality?

Well I wouldn't say that. More like a hermit's morality would no doubt be different from a person who grow up within a society.

So, just to get this straight, you're saying that a hermit on a desert island doesn't need morality?

Rights in the sense that we understand. Everything that we call rights would merely collapse into the basic requirements of survival. Food, shelter, that sort of thing.

As for needing it. What's he going to apply it to?

let the lbeeding hearts bleed

bad things happen to good people? :eek:

Rights in the sense that we understand. Everything that we call rights would merely collapse into the basic requirements of survival. Food, shelter, that sort of thing.
"We"? I'm not sure I understand them quite the same way as you.

You're basically putting forward a view that rights (and therefore morality) can be different across different cultures. But can they be different as far as their purpose is concerned?

I quite like the idea that the most basic, objective, standard is life (=/= survival). So "good" is that which furthers one's life, bad is that which isn't. Even if you didn't agree with that statement, you'd have to agree that any standard in which this is not accepted is one that promotes death, or the sort of unfulfilled emptiness which happens when one has nothing to be proud of because one hasn't achieved anything.

So as far as one has the choice to think or not to think, to act or not to act, creating food, shelter and so on is a question of morality, it is a question of right and wrong courses of action. If I hit this coconut with a rock, will it split and allow me to eat the insides - right or wrong?

And just as you would interact with material reality, so there is no reason to act differently when you come across other people. Don't expect the unearned (just as you wouldn't on that desert island), and use your mind to sustain your life, and rights just appear as necessities for the smooth working of any such interaction.

If people don't choose that, choose to be irrational and live not by applying their mind to objective reality and produce something, but by wishing, hoping and...well, looting, then they can't really comprehend what "property" really is, or even what "life" really is.


I guess I can see now why you are worried that Objectivism could be used to justify killing those who disagree. Its a simple syllogism. A. Irrationional beings don't have rights. B. Those who reject Objectivism are irrational. C.Therefore non-objectivists don't have rights.

I quite like the idea that the most basic, objective, standard is life (=/= survival). So "good" is that which furthers one's life, bad is that which isn't. Even if you didn't agree with that statement, you'd have to agree that any standard in which this is not accepted is one that promotes death...

but i thought life was not being defined in terms of survival...

"We"? I'm not sure I understand them quite the same way as you.

Well, what does a right mean to you then? And no, not the directional version.


You're basically putting forward a view that rights (and therefore morality) can be different across different cultures. But can they be different as far as their purpose is concerned?

Yes for the former, no for the latter. Ultimately, the purpose of any moral and social (including the concept of rights) construct is to ensure that society can function without imploding on itself. They are meant to build stability.

The very basic fundamental drives of any individual, and collective society, is survival. To that extent, once a collection of individuals grows large enough where the concept of society becomes applicable, more and more elaborate social constructs are required to create a stable environment where that survival drive is upheld.


I quite like the idea that the most basic, objective, standard is life (=/= survival). So "good" is that which furthers one's life, bad is that which isn't.


"Good" in this case is a continuation of the survival instinct. Just about any living being identifies as anything that increases it's lifespan (short or long), as beneficial and thereby "good".


So as far as one has the choice to think or not to think, to act or not to act, creating food, shelter and so on is a question of morality, it is a question of right and wrong courses of action. If I hit this coconut with a rock, will it split and allow me to eat the insides - right or wrong?


That's not a moral situation. As I've mentioned before, at the basic levels of survival, without society, there is no applicable need for morality.

However, hitting you with the coconut might give rise to questions of morality. :p


And just as you would interact with material reality, so there is no reason to act differently when you come across other people.

I haven't been able to walk through people of late, or make them vanish by disbelieving them as much as I would like to. So I would imagine that they are of the same material reality that I am.

What's that got to do with morality though? Morality is a add on to reality interactions, it isn't reality interaction in itself.

I guess I can see now why you are worried that Objectivism could be used to justify killing those who disagree. Its a simple syllogism. A. Irrationional beings don't have rights. B. Those who reject Objectivism are irrational. C.Therefore non-objectivists don't have rights.
The only protection they have is that the rational have nothing to gain from hurting them. But Atlas Shrugged is about the refusal to help, and plenty of people die as a result of John Galt and company asserting their independence, simply because the life of the non-producers depends on the work of the producers.

This is, of course, my interpretation. Ayn Rand may have seen this very differently - but what does shine through is that everything is earned: respect, love, friendship, wealth, happiness, life. Don't earn it, and you have no right to any of these.

but i thought life was not being defined in terms of survival...
Hence my continuation of the sentence you so rudely interrupted. Survival is of course a major condition for life. But simply existing, taking up space and modifying the oxygen content of the air isn't living.

Life is overcoming challenges, and pretty much all of those are material in nature on some level and require interaction with physical reality on that level - which in turn requires absolutes.

And if life is to a large degree overcoming material challenges, then one's ability to live depends firstly on the choice to use one's brains properly and secondly on others leaving you alone to accomplish what you set out to do. Which in turn requires some sort of property right to the things you create, which are afterall your intermediate steps to overcoming the aforementioned challenge.

As for interpersonal relations not related to your life, health and property - that could be a different issue. Ayn Rand suggested that to use one's mind when dealing with the physical, but something else when dealing with other people is silly, particularly since dealing with others is part of creating your life and your mind is the tool you have to create it.

Well, what does a right mean to you then? And no, not the directional version.
A rule regarding relations with others that is correct, as in it allows everyone to function as they choose. A violation of it would deprive people of that choice, and thus the chance at happiness, just like failing to hit that coconut will deprive you of food.

Ultimately, the purpose of any moral and social (including the concept of rights) construct is to ensure that society can function without imploding on itself. They are meant to build stability.
If you're saying they are meant for something beyond the immediate interests of the individual, then who decides? Who plans, creates and introduces?

The very basic fundamental drives of any individual, and collective society, is survival.
I don't like the term "drive". It implies that there is something natural about wanting to survive.

The thing is, while that may well be true if you ask people, and everyone might even make the same choices on that desert island (those that lead to survival through achievement), there clearly are some people who don't behave like they want to survive at all. Or rather, who are afraid of the challenges they need to overcome to live, but are also afraid of death.

So I would suggest there is an element of choice in it.

"Good" in this case is a continuation of the survival instinct. Just about any living being identifies as anything that increases it's lifespan (short or long), as beneficial and thereby "good".
But life is not the same as survival. Mere survival would be a pretty crappy existence, and I'm not sure how long a person would want to continue surviving until they can't take it anymore.

Life is survival + achievement = productiveness (in whatever sense you want to consider it) => happiness.

That's not a moral situation. As I've mentioned before, at the basic levels of survival, without society, there is no applicable need for morality.
So there's the core of the argument. I'm saying man is a being of volitional consciousness, implying a choice to think or not to think, and I think that since that choice is between right and wrong, life and death, it is also on any meaningful level a choice between good and evil, and therefore a moral one.

What's that got to do with morality though? Morality is a add on to reality interactions, it isn't reality interaction in itself.
Why not?

Why is there a right and wrong with the rock and the coconut, and a right and wrong with hitting me, but they are not the same? What's the real difference here?

A rule regarding relations with others that is correct, as in it allows everyone to function as they choose. A violation of it would deprive people of that choice, and thus the chance at happiness, just like failing to hit that coconut will deprive you of food.

So I see. But I note the important distinction is the term "relations with others". More on that later.


If you're saying they are meant for something beyond the immediate interests of the individual, then who decides? Who plans, creates and introduces?


When a group of individuals form together to create a society, the interests of the society as a whole affect the interests of the individual. Eventually, the society will produce or call for a leader of some sort to provide the necessary direction of efforts or at least the coordination thereof.


I don't like the term "drive". It implies that there is something natural about wanting to survive.

Statistical analysis of soon to be dead but aware living beings across many species indicates that it is an ingrained biological instinct.


The thing is, while that may well be true if you ask people, and everyone might even make the same choices on that desert island (those that lead to survival through achievement), there clearly are some people who don't behave like they want to survive at all. Or rather, who are afraid of the challenges they need to overcome to live, but are also afraid of death.

So I would suggest there is an element of choice in it.


That is rather an example of going against instincts.


But life is not the same as survival. Mere survival would be a pretty crappy existence, and I'm not sure how long a person would want to continue surviving until they can't take it anymore.

Life is survival + achievement = productiveness (in whatever sense you want to consider it) => happiness.

I would argue that isn't the case. Survival can be cut up into two definitions. Short term survival and long term survival. For example, you could survive in the short term living on berries. But you'd die of malnutrition in the end.

Any long term survival would take into account mental survival as well. And that means formation of some sense of mental occupation to keep from suffering psychological decay. Not that it's completely avoidable of course, but it is an attempt nevertheless. It doesn't have to be achievement though. Contentment is more than sufficient.


So there's the core of the argument. I'm saying man is a being of volitional consciousness, implying a choice to think or not to think, and I think that since that choice is between right and wrong, life and death, it is also on any meaningful level a choice between good and evil, and therefore a moral one.


Choice is between right and wrong? I suppose you ask yourself that when deciding what to have for dinner?

Tacos or pizza, the ethical dilemma of the ages. :p


Why not?

Why is there a right and wrong with the rock and the coconut, and a right and wrong with hitting me, but they are not the same? What's the real difference here?

There's never been a right or wrong with the rock and coconut, unless it's someone else's coconut of course, but I digress.

As for the difference.


A rule regarding relations with others that is correct,

Is the coconut an other?

When a group of individuals form together to create a society, the interests of the society as a whole affect the interests of the individual.
But aren't you inversing things here?

Statistical analysis of soon to be dead but aware living beings across many species indicates that it is an ingrained biological instinct.
Well, animals (most of them, anyways) don't have the choice to be rational, so they operate entirely on instinct.

But humans...well, instinct doesn't keep you alive, even on that desert island. And it certainly doesn't provide you with any of the comforts you enjoy today.

That is rather an example of going against instincts.
That's silly. If there's a choice involved, it's not instinct, it's a decision. Decisions are made through thought.

I would argue that isn't the case. Survival can be cut up into two definitions. Short term survival and long term survival.
You're just playing around with words, so we basically agree. Just having one's basic physiological needs satisfied doesn't make for a desirable existence.

It doesn't have to be achievement though. Contentment is more than sufficient.
And who do you imagine provides the contentment? Someone has to, and that person has to achieve. So you don't escape from the need for achievement, and therefore don't escape from the need for rights that make it possible and proper.

Or, to quote John Galt:
"You who've lost the concept of a right, you who swing in impotent evasiveness between the claim that rights are a gift of God, a supernatural gift to be taken on faith, or the claim that rights are gift of society, to be broken at its arbitrary whim - the source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A - and man is man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgement, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has the right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

Rights are a moral concept - and morality is a matter of choice. Men are free not to choose man's survival as the standard of their morals and their laws, but not free to escape from the fact that the alternative is a cannibal society, which exists for a while by devouring its best and collapses like a cancerous body, when the healthy have been eaten by the diseased, when the rational have been consumed by the irrational. Such has been the fate of your societies in history, but you've evaded the knowledge of the cause. I am here to state it: the agent of retribution was the law of identity, which you cannot escape. Just as man cannot live by means of the irrational, so two men cannot, or two thousand, or two billion. Just as man can't succeed by defying reality, so a nation can't, or a country, or a globe. A is A. The rest is a matter of time, provided by the generosity of its victims."

Choice is between right and wrong? I suppose you ask yourself that when deciding what to have for dinner?
No, but I ask it when I have decided and want to actually have it in front of me.

Is the coconut an other?
No, but the concepts of correct and incorrect, right and wrong, doesn't change.

What we commonly call "rights", and to which I referred above, is applying the question of correct and incorrect to human interaction. Nonetheless, the question you ask yourself to arrive at the decision you make is the same: does this course of action further my life? Yes, if you smash the coconut and have food, no if you steal someone else's wealth, because wealth is not a cause, it's a product of virtue and achievement and it is not wealth that makes us happy, but the achievement it represents. By stealing someone's money, you can wish as hard as you want, but it will not inverse the relationship and turn you into an achiever.

That's what people mean when they say "money can't buy happiness".

But aren't you inversing things here?

You're trying to compartmentalize the various aspects and provide them with a linear relationship. Human behavior doesn't work that way. It's an interlinked system on a two way road.


But humans...well, instinct doesn't keep you alive, even on that desert island.

Now that's just silly. Instincts are inherent to every being. And that very much includes the need for feed, shelter, etc, etc. Without instincts, the majority of marooned desert island dwellers would flop on the ground and expire. Or for that matter, anywhere.


And it certainly doesn't provide you with any of the comforts you enjoy today.


A whole lot of those comforts aren't exactly required for survival. They're add ons.


That's silly. If there's a choice involved, it's not instinct, it's a decision. Decisions are made through thought.

And thought isn't influenced by instinct at all?


You're just playing around with words, so we basically agree. Just having one's basic physiological needs satisfied doesn't make for a desirable existence.

My given stance and your two sentences create a logical conflict.


And who do you imagine provides the contentment?


Wal-Mart, at $9.99 by your reasoning apparently.

Contentment is a state of mind. It isn't provided. It's arrived at.


Or, to quote John Galt:
[SIZE="1"]"You who've lost the concept of a right, you who swing in impotent evasiveness between the claim that rights are a gift of God, a supernatural gift to be taken on faith, or the claim that rights are gift of society, to be broken at its arbitrary whim - the source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A - and man is man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival.



A rule regarding relations with others that is correct, as in it allows everyone to function as they choose. A violation of it would deprive people of that choice, and thus the chance at happiness, just like failing to hit that coconut will deprive you of food.

His definition of rights and yours do not coincide.


No, but I ask it when I have decided and want to actually have it in front of me.

You ask whether having a taco is good or evil?


No, but the concepts of correct and incorrect, right and wrong, doesn't change.

And if I were to take a liberal equal rights activist and put him/her in the same room as a Roman slave trader circa 120 BC, there wouldn't be a conflict of concepts of right and wrong?

Europeans in the west at least have created nanny states. Hand over half of everything you have or more for the expectation someone else to take care of you. What kind of system is that? Greed for one can be defined in many ways. What I call the nanny state is not greed but complete lunacy. You give up a lot of your freedoms and rights when you put someone else in control of your life. I bet if you were to take the UK, France and or Germany and slashed the tax rate down to what it is in the US you would see an economic boom like never before. Of course you would have to slash social programs to do it. What happens when you have a booming economy you have more money. More money equals more of an ability to take care of things. Get it?

Firstly, I agree with you to an extent. The social welfare programs in many European countries do need trimming back. HOWEVER I do not agree that the result of a massive tax cut would be an economic boom with no consequences for the people at the bottom. What you have to accept is that if there are hard working people at the bottom who have suffered as a result of forces beyond their control, it just isnt fair. We should give those people the help to get back up. Something you don't seem to understand.


I also find it hilarious that you think gas is subsidized in the US. Where did you hear that garbage from?

It is, its fact. Why do you think its ten times cheeper in the US than in the UK. We tax our petrol, you subsidise it. If you cut the subsidisys, people in the US would be a lot worse off.

It is, its fact. Why do you think its ten times cheeper in the US than in the UK. We tax our petrol, you subsidise it. If you cut the subsidisys, people in the US would be a lot worse off.

Its cheaper here because we do not have all the taxes that you do. Just because something is not taxed does not mean it is subsidized.

I don't care about the poor. They are surely welcome to starve to death in some gutter or ditch. And there's always suicide for the weak.

I don't care about the poor. They are surely welcome to starve to death in some gutter or ditch. And there's always suicide for the weak.

Shit that's harsh, and so by the same token I hope you loose all of your money and fall prey to your own recommendations.

Second post, well done.

Its cheaper here because we do not have all the taxes that you do. Just because something is not taxed does not mean it is subsidized.

No, but the vaule doesnt add up. Without taxes it would still be more expensive for you than it is now. American subsidies to the fossil fuels industry exceeds $20 billion a year. This is sourced from James Martin's book "The Meaning of the 21st century" which is in turn sourced this fact from "Perverse Subsidies: How Misused Tax Dollars Harm the Environment and the Economy" by Norman Myers and Jennifer Kent.

No, but the vaule doesnt add up. Without taxes it would still be more expensive for you than it is now. American subsidies to the fossil fuels industry exceeds $20 billion a year. This is sourced from James Martin's book "The Meaning of the 21st century" which is in turn sourced this fact from "Perverse Subsidies: How Misused Tax Dollars Harm the Environment and the Economy" by Norman Myers and Jennifer Kent.

They have to get their facts from elsewhere if they wrote a book about it. So source the links that we are subsidizing the fuel industry.

They're buying grocery items at the 7/11 and wondering why they can't afford it, and no mention at all of the huge percentage of the 'poor' who can afford to smoke (and not just cigarettes !) but we're supposed to feel badly that lousy choices are coming home to roost ?
I have family members who've been on food stamps since the first baby came home to a keg party - they can always afford beer, pot, and Newports, but they 'need' food stamps to get by and when they bother to work at all, they can't get more than min wage jobs because REAL jobs do drug testing ...
I have no sympathy.
:headbang:

They have to get their facts from elsewhere if they wrote a book about it. So source the links that we are subsidizing the fuel industry.

I don't have a copy of the Myres book to hand, but the fact that it is linked in the Martin book and that Lord Rees, head of the Royal Society supports it would suggest that its not inacurate.

I don't have a copy of the Myres book to hand, but the fact that it is linked in the Martin book and that Lord Rees, head of the Royal Society supports it would suggest that its not inacurate.

It also suggests that it may not be accurate either.

Rights are accorded to those who can defend them or have others defend for them. Those who fail to defend their rights lose them. There are no inherent rights whatsoever. Laws of nature and consequence supersede any claims of rights.
Incorrect.

Your "right to life" does not accord you a magical shield of which to stop my bullet from creating added ventilation to the obviously underused portion of your cranium and decorating the wall behind with biological matter.

Of course not. Rights are moral entities; they have no physical effect. That does not make their veracity or existence any less real.

Learn some basic metaphysics, please.

Incorrect.

prove it wrong then.

Of course not. Rights are moral entities; they have no physical effect. That does not make their veracity or existence any less real.

Learn some basic metaphysics, please.

Oh brother..

prove it wrong then.

A is A
Both P and ~P cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense.


Oh brother..
If this isn't a question of metaphysics, then what area of philosophy does it fall under? Epistemology? Ethics? Aesthetics? Politics?

NO, the question of the fundamental existence of rights is indeed a matter of metaphysics.

A is A
Both P and ~P cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense.

Um that's not proving the point wrong.

If this isn't a question of metaphysics, then what area of philosophy does it fall under? Epistemology? Ethics? Aesthetics? Politics?

If we are talking about rights, its falls under two categories. Nature and politics.

NO, the question of the fundamental existence of rights is indeed a matter of metaphysics.

Actually...it falls under either natural law or written law.

Um that's not proving the point wrong.

Yes, it is, because everything follows logically from that.


If we are talking about rights, its falls under two categories. Nature and politics.



Actually...it falls under either natural law or written law.


Congratulations; you have just demonstrated that you know jack shit about philosophy.

You are an anti-intellectual buffoon.

Yes, it is, because everything follows logically from that.

Congratulations; you have just demonstrated that you know jack shit about philosophy.

You are an anti-intellectual buffoon.

And your crypto-fascistic babble about principles of the universe, "A is A" and others being "anti-intelectual buffoon" has shown that you are conceded snob of the highest order.

He asked for proof, and you didn't give it. Put up or shut up.

Yes, it is, because everything follows logically from that.

And your proof?

Congratulations; you have just demonstrated that you know jack shit about philosophy.

"One who recognizes he knows nothing makes him the smartest person in the world."

You are an anti-intellectual buffoon.

Nice flame.

And your crypto-fascistic babble about principles of the universe, "A is A" and others being "anti-intelectual buffoon" has shown that you are conceded snob of the highest order.
It's spelled "conceited".

And yes, I am a snob--as I should be, because I'm better than him.

Why?

Because unlike him, I choose to be intellectualy honest.
Because unlike him, I choose to spend my time educating myself.
Because unlike him, I am right.

He asked for proof, and you didn't give it. Put up or shut up.

I most certainly did. That both he and you are either too dense, too ignorant, too lazy, or too dishonest to recognize it is your failing, not mine.

Your logic does not follow, Charlie Brown. It may be perfectly clear to you, but to any outside observer it is clear that either A) You're wrong or B) You've neglected a couple in between steps.

It is a pure non sequitor to suggest that "A is A" leads directly your definition of rights. You've given no inbetween there, so I call bullshit.

Explain your reasoning, or be ignored. That's our ultimatum. I'm glad that you can admit to being a snob, but don't think so highly of yourself for being one. Snobbery is the unique power of claiming you are right just because you think you are smarter and better educated.

Linus and Lucy
You seem to be an ardent capitalist. All successful businessmen and women in the country have a social responsibility to help the poor. Andrew Carnegie, one of the smartest and wealthiest businessmen in the history of the U.S., strongly believed in this. We have have a moral and ethical responsibility to help the poor. I'm not talking about lowlifes, drug addicts, or anyone who ended up poor through their own action.

Furthermore, your statements about governments role in business are incorrect. The US government, and every government can raise the minimum wage whenever they want. There is nothing unethical about it. By voting for the current government, YOU allow them to do what they will. Also, the minimum wage was already raised over the summer. It will be at $7.25/hr by summer 2009.

Also, It is the role of the government to protect the individual from monopolies. By breaking up monopolies the government actually helps business, by creating competition. This in turn strengthens the economy, and encourages innovation within the industry as companies try to get the competitive edge against their competition.

The government interferes in business when it must. When it will benefit the economy, and therefore business and people.

Also, the minimum wage was increased this summer. By summer 2009 it will be $7.25/hr.

By the way, Ayn Rand is only one philosopher. Thousands will tell you differently.

No, despise them, because rent control is pure evil.

It's a violation of sacred individual rights.

I am not obligated to give up my sacred liberty and sacred property for them.

Leavig rent control aside...Since when is owning personal property a "sacred right?" You just sound silly.