NationStates Jolt Archive

Supposing you had two options:

Option one: gain absolute power over Europe or the United States (your choice); the chosen territory becomes your personal empire. But if you decide to accept this power, you will never find true love, and if anybody does love you, he/she will not anymore. Thus, somebody may say they care for you, but deep down you will know you are alone (this includes relatives and friends who no longer love you, if they ever did). Of course, sexual pursuits will stay open, but relationships can never progress past lust.

Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those about you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.

Which option would you pick?

Power.

Power.

*shakes hand*

I don't have to even think about it before saying Option 2. I think I could do a lot of good if given some power, but that level of power is intrinsically corrupting. In my life I'd much rather be loved by one than feared by many.

love.because,what do you do power,if your not happy?i've never been too big ino glory and power,as long i've got video games and a few other things i'm happy.

I don't have to even think about it before saying Option 2. I think I could do a lot of good if given some power, but that level of power is intrinsically corrupting. In my life I'd much rather be loved by one than feared by many.

Power is normally intrinsically corrupting, but sometimes it is reforming: Julius and Augustus Cæsar were both greatly improved by it.

I'm a writer, there's no way in fuck I'm choosing anything that will prevent me from writing.

love.because,what do you do power,if your not happy?

Napoléon never really believed in love, but he found power enormously satisfying.

I've honestly never wanted power, or fame, or any of those things we're supposed to long for. I just want to do my best in life to be a good person, to be a good mother, and to do as much as I can to make things a little better for my people. I don't give a shit if none of that is ever recognised officially.

Power is normally intrinsically corrupting, but sometimes it is reforming: Julius and Augustus Cæsar were both greatly improved by it.

I don't think I'd be strong enough to push through my vision of the world though if I *knew* that I'd never find love. I'd find it hard to work up the motivation to care enough about other people if this theoretical deal had been made. So probably wouldn't do much good in that situation anyway.

I'm a writer, there's no way in fuck I'm choosing anything that will prevent me from writing.

I do not believe either of the options would hinder you.

I've honestly never wanted power, or fame, or any of those things we're supposed to long for. I just want to do my best in life to be a good person, to be a good mother, and to do as much as I can to make things a little better for my people. I don't give a shit if none of that is ever recognised officially.

You are very honorable, but power is not a matter of recognition for me; I would choose it even if I had to remain anonymous.

You are very honorable, but power is not a matter of recognition for me; I would choose it even if I had to remain anonymous.

Power behind the scenes type thing?

I mistrust it. I think it's too easy to lose perspective, and to allow your own particular needs/desires/beliefs to dictate your actions. I'd rather serve. The 'power' I've gained via my education and experience is always tempered by the reality of my nation's current situation...sometimes I think I know what would be best for us, and I discover through the perspectives of others that there might be better ways.

Don't get me wrong...I don't mind being unloved, or disliked...I wouldn't choose blind adoration.

Power. I could make so many lives better with absolute power.

To be honest, when I was younger and more fatalistic, I might have given up the love I have right now in order to have the power to make lasting change...

But anymore, I don't think that's necessary. This incredible feeling just inspires me to work harder.

Love, in a second. I don't want power.

Power, of course. As I've never loved/been loved yet, I cannot miss that which I never had.

That, and love would blind me and bias me to decisions I'd have to make with that sort of power. Namely, making decisions to get more power. <.<

Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those abound you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.


I do not believe either of the options would hinder you.

Option two would, as I bolded.

Supposing you had two options:
Option one: gain absolute power over Europe or the United States (your choice); the chosen territory becomes your personal empire. But if you decide to accept this power, you will never find true love, and if anybody does love you, he/she will not anymore. Of course, sexual pursuits will stay open, but relationships can never progress past lust.
That's way too generous and a no-brainer. I prefer healthy relationships in a clear state of mind over amphetamine and endomorphine intoxication called love, and all the jealousy and insanity it involves.


Thus, somebody may say they care for you, but deep down you will know you are alone (this includes relatives and friends).
So you lose all the friends and relatives?
That's too harsh, since even dictators had their friends - and, no less, put them into positions. And you can't stay in power without friends anyway.

Power, of course. As I've never loved/been loved yet, I cannot miss that which I never had.

That, and love would blind me and bias me to decisions I'd have to make with that sort of power. Namely, making decisions to get more power. <.<

Thus speaks youth :D

Are you sure you could make that sort of decision without have first have experienced 'love'?

That's way too generous and a no-brainer. I prefer healthy relationships in a clear state of mind over amphetamine and endomorphine intoxication called love, and all the jealousy and insanity it involves.


You're doing it wrong.

You're doing it wrong.
It's not "you" who does love, it's the instincts and biochemistry.

It's not "you" who does love, it's the instincts and biochemistry.

You overcome 'instincts' and 'biochemistry' all the time. Just because your body reacts in certain ways, doesn't mean your course of action is therefore decided.

There are various physical and emotional reactions that are imprinted on us as a function of being human, but we still have the incredibly ability to defy our programming, physical and social. There is nothing inherent in 'love' that necessitates jealousy and insanity. It simply takes work to overcome social conditioning and deep-seated instincts.

There are various physical and emotional reactions that are imprinted on us as a function of being human, but we still have the incredibly ability to defy our programming, physical and social. There is nothing inherent in 'love' that necessitates jealousy and insanity. It simply takes work to overcome social conditioning and deep-seated instincts.
Yeah, you can overcome yourself, your instincts and stuff. But why do you need love anyway, and which part of it do you need? You can get just as much fun without it.


BTW you haven't asked what I'd do with the absolute power.

I would be forced to chose power. I was 'in love' with a girl once, but to be honest she didn't like me. So basicly fuck her, and love. Lets see what she has to say when I've built a mile high statue of me at the north pole.

Power hands down while executing love by firing squad.:D

Joke but seriously I would pick power

Power. Improving the lives of many, in exchange for just me not having love? One for all. *Leans on throne, grim look on his face*:D

love. for those who choose power because they were never loved, there is a saying:
if you want to be loved, love.
with power you are never fully satisfied.

Yeah, you can overcome yourself, your instincts and stuff. But why do you need love anyway, and which part of it do you need? You can get just as much fun without it.


BTW you haven't asked what I'd do with the absolute power.
I'm not interested in what you'd do with that power, I'm interested in your reasons for the choice...what you'd do with it is irrelevant in my mind.

It's not about fun, in my mind...love (hopefully) is what inspires us to do anything. Self-love, love for family, community, for humanity, or for a specific person that just rocks our world. Fair enough, there are other motivators...anger, loathing, contempt...but the most sublime expressions of human capacity seem to have been motivated by love. Without it, 'fun' seems like it would be pretty meaningless and empty.

Both scenarios are are a massive improvement on my current life, so I'd just flick a coin and win no matter what.

It's not about fun, in my mind...love (hopefully) is what inspires us to do anything. Self-love, love for family, community, for humanity, or for a specific person that just rocks our world. Fair enough, there are other motivators...anger, loathing, contempt...but the most sublime expressions of human capacity seem to have been motivated by love.
I was under the impression the OP meant love in the sexual sense, or at least individual sense.

Things like "self-love" (read: self-preservation instinct), "love for the community" (read: loyalty), "love for humanity" (read: vision of the world), etc., are entirely different in nature.
You could go further, BTW, and explain anger, loathing and all other feelings as sublimations of love too.


Without it, 'fun' seems like it would be pretty meaningless and empty.
Well, I agree. Without loving life, it's meaningless and empty to try getting fun from, say, putting it at risk. But you're extending the definition of love far beyond any sensible bounds.


I'm not interested in what you'd do with that power, I'm interested in your reasons for the choice...what you'd do with it is irrelevant in my mind.
Well, it might be a bit relevant, I'd say. I would use that power to take down governmental institutions, one by one, and then make sure they are never recreated, and no one gains unfair power over others.
In other words, I'd force others to renounce their power, and then renounce my own.

And losing love is a fairly cheap price to pay for the unshackling the world, or at least a large nation.

Love.

The kind of power you describe sounds like more of a burden to me, filling up my days with things I don't necessarily want to do and people I don't necessarily want to talk to, and precious little that is personally, emotionally pleasant and satisfying to me. Just another big-ass, boring, bitter job, that's all.

Love, on the other hand, contributes to happiness, and what else is the point of living except to find happiness?

Recent psychological and sociological research as well as the ancient philosophies of Epicurus indicate that happiness is far more likely to come from emotionally satisfying relationships with a few friends, family and lovers whom you enjoy being around than from being in charge of the fates of millions of fat-ass stupid Americans or weak-chinned whining Brits.

Supposing you had two options:

Option one: gain absolute power over Europe or the United States (your choice); the chosen territory becomes your personal empire. But if you decide to accept this power, you will never find true love, and if anybody does love you, he/she will not anymore. Thus, somebody may say they care for you, but deep down you will know you are alone (this includes relatives and friends). Of course, sexual pursuits will stay open, but relationships can never progress past lust.

Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those abound you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.

Which option would you pick?
Love for the following reasons.
1) bolded

2) in Red. that will give me influence over those that matter to me.

3) in Green. I never wanted great power.

4) option one is too much of a headache. if the people don't love me, then I will expend that power in trying to stay alive and retain that power.

Originally Posted by The Parkus Empire
Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those abound you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.
Option two would, as I bolded.
Sorry, I don't get it. What does "great" have to do with your writing? ;) :tongue:

<snip>
And losing love is a fairly cheap price to pay for the unshackling the world, or at least a large nation.
What makes you think the world or a large nation would be "unshackled" by having you put in charge of it?

In fact, several people have commented on how they could improve things for others if they had absolute power, but I wonder how they would define "improve" and if their definition would match that of the people whose lives they'd be meddling with.

One poster mentioned that Julius Caesar was made a better person by absolute power, but I wonder if that notion depends on which of his contemporaries we ask.

So you lose all the friends and relatives?

No, they just no longer love you (if they ever did).

And you can't stay in power without friends anyway.

An expert in these matter once said "it is better to feared than loved".

An expert in these matter once said "it is better to feared than loved".
Was that written on his tombstone?

What makes you think the world or a large nation would be "unshackled" by having you put in charge of it?
Because I wouldn't use my power, unlike any government I'd be replacing.



No, they just no longer love you (if they ever did).
Well, I don't think they ever did *love* me, apart from parental love.
Just as long as they can still like and respect me (and not try to kill me).

I would be forced to chose power. I was 'in love' with a girl once, but to be honest she didn't like me. So basicly fuck her, and love. Lets see what she has to say when I've built a mile high statue of me at the north pole.

Sigged.

I've honestly never wanted power, or fame, or any of those things we're supposed to long for. I just want to do my best in life to be a good person, to be a good mother, and to do as much as I can to make things a little better for my people. I don't give a shit if none of that is ever recognised officially.

^This, pretty much. I can think of few things I want less than absolute power over some country.

Supposing you had two options:

Option one: gain absolute power over Europe or the United States (your choice); the chosen territory becomes your personal empire. But if you decide to accept this power, you will never find true love, and if anybody does love you, he/she will not anymore. Thus, somebody may say they care for you, but deep down you will know you are alone (this includes relatives and friends who no longer love you, if they ever did). Of course, sexual pursuits will stay open, but relationships can never progress past lust.

Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those abound you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.

Which option would you pick?

Love. I need as much as I can get.

Sigged.

Yay! I'm finally in someones Sig! And not a n00bs!

Thus speaks youth :D

Are you sure you could make that sort of decision without have first have experienced 'love'?

Yes. As I've never known it, I can't know the consequences of losing it, and would never experience a loss of something I never had in the first place.

Absolute Power.

And I'll change the world.

Founding something that will last long, carving my name on the rock of history.

And I make this statement even if I live now with the women who is my true love, at least in my mind.

Because I wouldn't use my power, unlike any government I'd be replacing.

What makes you think that would be good?

Silly idealists. If you people actually had power, I doubt any of you would actually "omg help" the world. At least admit you'd be a little selfish with the power.

Supposing you had two options:

Option one: gain absolute power over Europe or the United States (your choice); the chosen territory becomes your personal empire. But if you decide to accept this power, you will never find true love, and if anybody does love you, he/she will not anymore. Thus, somebody may say they care for you, but deep down you will know you are alone (this includes relatives and friends who no longer love you, if they ever did). Of course, sexual pursuits will stay open, but relationships can never progress past lust.

Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those abound you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.

Which option would you pick?

This is a total no-brainer, i'd go for power anyday, I don't care if people don't love me, just if they can act exactly like they would if they did love me. The OP doesn't say you don't love anything, just no-one loves you. So i'd go round, and any women i did happy to love would have to pretend to love me under pain of death. Its just like no. 2, but you get to do it with whomever you want whenever you like!

What makes you think that would be good?
Governments are the evil, hence gradually reducing them to nil is good. Oppression is evil, freedom is good. Death and taxes are evil, long and prosperous life is good.


But it has to be done gradually, not through revolution, but through taking control and reducing the governments.

Power, cause it's fucking awesome.

Supposing you had two options:

Option one: gain absolute power over Europe or the United States (your choice); the chosen territory becomes your personal empire. But if you decide to accept this power, you will never find true love, and if anybody does love you, he/she will not anymore. Thus, somebody may say they care for you, but deep down you will know you are alone (this includes relatives and friends who no longer love you, if they ever did). Of course, sexual pursuits will stay open, but relationships can never progress past lust.

Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those abound you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.

Which option would you pick?

Love. Since after I die I become supreme ruler of the world rather than leader of one dinky little nation it would be nice to have someone to keep me company.

Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those abound you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.


You have presented me with a loophole.

I would simply choose love, and use the admiration of others to my advantage. I would craft a scenario that would set off a chain reaction of events that would change the world upon the moment of my death. This way I get both the satisfaction of love and the satisfaction of power. I just have to live with the knowledge that I will only see one of the two come to fruition.

To be honest, I could care less about love, or even my own happiness. I could care less about superficial power as well, like the power of a nation. I want a deeper, stronger power than that.

Edit:

Love. Since after I die I become supreme ruler of the world rather than leader of one dinky little nation it would be nice to have someone to keep me company.

Damn...

It is always just one post before mine too, just to rub it in.

Also, how do you intend to rule the world after you die? I just figured I would change the world for the better after I died, not outright rule it. I thought this because, you know, I would be dead at the time.

I guess you are going to pull out the "I clone myself, implant my memories in the clone then kill myself" trick, right?

Power. If I had absolute power, why would I even need love.

Power, cause i could make a giant Pyramid out of Titanium. And Batman lights.

All the bitter loners are voting power...are these really the best people to have it?

One poster mentioned that Julius Caesar was made a better person by absolute power, but I wonder if that notion depends on which of his contemporaries we ask.

Before he came to power, by his own confession, he had women and children massacred. After he came to power, he was extremely forgiving and compromising, perhaps to the point of folly; even his enemies admitted this.

Because I wouldn't use my power, unlike any government I'd be replacing.
but you will.

the fact that you want the power means you will use it. Even if you use it to keep those YOU think shouldn't have power from getting it.

Silly idealists. If you people actually had power, I doubt any of you would actually "omg help" the world. At least admit you'd be a little selfish with the power.

I bellieve I had with my inspired plan for a mile high statue of myself.

All the bitter loners are voting power...are these really the best people to have it?

it's a better moral question than the one about the child-like alien... :tongue:

Yay! I'm finally in someones Sig! And not a n00bs!

Indeed. My signature has held many quotes over the years, but you are the first NS'er to say something that graced it's space; that is because what you said merged pathos, ethos, and logos together so well.

Pathos: The pleasure of finding something more enjoyable than "her" or love", and at hammering your frustrations. This element was greatly augmented by your use of an obscenity concerning what you previously valued.

Ethos: Justice is served when the woman you pursued feels distraught over the sight of your statue.

Logos: Love is an emotion which makes no sense, it was exhausting and not satisfying; you therefore choose a more useful endeavor.

Was that written on his tombstone?

It does not apply to personal relationships, just to power. To stay in power it helps to have people fear you more than love you. But it must be a fear that contains "respect", not "hate".

but you will.
the fact that you want the power means you will use it. Even if you use it to keep those YOU think shouldn't have power from getting it.

Yes, I don't deny, I will use it. But not against people, rather against those who try to control them.

Yes, I don't deny, I will use it. But not against people, rather against those who try to control them.

like... yourself?

Also, how do you intend to rule the world after you die? I just figured I would change the world for the better after I died, not outright rule it. I thought this because, you know, I would be dead at the time.

I guess you are going to pull out the "I clone myself, implant my memories in the clone then kill myself" trick, right?

The OP said that one could affect things after one's death, like Christ. Since I'm like Christ I apparently have achieved apotheosis after death. I'd have omnipotence and so would incarnate myself on a magnificent throne to rule as god-emperor.

Supposing you had two options:

Option one: gain absolute power over Europe or the United States (your choice); the chosen territory becomes your personal empire. But if you decide to accept this power, you will never find true love, and if anybody does love you, he/she will not anymore. Thus, somebody may say they care for you, but deep down you will know you are alone (this includes relatives and friends who no longer love you, if they ever did). Of course, sexual pursuits will stay open, but relationships can never progress past lust.

Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those abound you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.

Which option would you pick?

Of course I would pick option two. That's obvious. I'm not sure I would fully trust myself with the kind of power offered in option one; not ever really having had such power, I don't know if it would corrupt me or not, and I'd rather not risk it.

like... yourself?
Ultimately, yes. Once liberty is secured, I'd also think of a way to protect it from myself.

I bellieve I had with my inspired plan for a mile high statue of myself.

Indeed. I like you.

Ultimately, yes. Once liberty is secured, I'd also think of a way to protect it from myself.
ultimately...

and "once liberty is secured" if the people don't want "liberty" as you define it, then what? you force it upon them because YOU think it should be?

and what if you can't find a way to secure liberty? even consitutions can change if enough people want it to change.

Of course I would pick option two. That's obvious. I'm not sure I would fully trust myself with the kind of power offered in option one; not ever really having had such power, I don't know if it would corrupt me or not, and I'd rather not risk it.

And besides, the only reason I'd ever even SEEK that kind of power is to try to do as much good with it as possible anyway. I certainly wouldn't be getting it for myself, and if we're talking about getting things for ourselves here, then it's gotta be love.

Governments are the evil, hence gradually reducing them to nil is good. Oppression is evil, freedom is good. Death and taxes are evil, long and prosperous life is good.
Why do you assume that lack of government automatically leads to freedom and a long and prosperous life? Have you ever lived in a place without a government?


But it has to be done gradually, not through revolution, but through taking control and reducing the governments.
Oh, so you actually would use your power then, eh? To ease us into your little utopia?

All the bitter loners are voting power...are these really the best people to have it?
Ain't it always that way?

Before he came to power, by his own confession, he had women and children massacred. After he came to power, he was extremely forgiving and compromising, perhaps to the point of folly; even his enemies admitted this.
Like I said, it depends on who you ask. I've read a lot of less flattering descriptions of him.

Also, then, even if we accept the suggestion that absolute power improved Julius, it hardly did any good for Rome, now did it? They lost their ability to self-govern and were locked into several generations of mostly disastrous rule that ended finally in the loss of their empire, after causing uncounted numbers of people to suffer horribly from both their excesses and their incompetence.

Now, I don't know about you, but I am perfectly capable of securing my own happiness without weilding absolute power over a whole nation. If I am going to take on such a burdesome chore, I would want to at least feel like I hadn't completely fucked it up by the time I die. I'm not sure Julius Augustus would have had any right to feel that way on his death bed.

It does not apply to personal relationships, just to power. To stay in power it helps to have people fear you more than love you. But it must be a fear that contains "respect", not "hate".
A) I don't entirely believe that.

B) Then it's only relevant to people who desire power. It doesn't serve in a comparison between the power option and the love option. Well and good.

Supposing you had two options:


Not even a question.

I'd take the 'power' option, in a second.

Why? Because I want to be loved, as I suspect most people probably do... but it's a small price to pay for being able to make the world a better place. The need of the one doesn't outweigh the need of the many.

Like I said, it depends on who you ask. I've read a lot of less flattering descriptions of him.

After gaining power, I would say his only real flaw was his rakishness (which was always there), and it can be be debated whether or not that is really a flaw.

Also, then, even if we accept the suggestion that absolute power improved Julius, it hardly did any good for Rome, now did it? They lost their ability to self-govern and were locked into several generations of mostly disastrous rule that ended finally in the loss of their empire, after causing uncounted numbers of people to suffer horribly from both their excesses and their incompetence.

Rome was screwed long before Julius. The Republic had degenerated into a morass of bribery and murder, which only did less harm than Caligula because it lacked the willpower.


Now, I don't know about you, but I am perfectly capable of securing my own happiness without weilding absolute power over a whole nation. If I am going to take on such a burdesome chore, I would want to at least feel like I hadn't completely fucked it up by the time I die. I'm not sure Julius Augustus would have had any right to feel that way on his death bed.

Julius reformed Rome greatly, and Augustus is considered by many to be the greatest ruler of all time; in fact, he is the top ruler-rating in Civ IV :tongue: (Dan Quayle is the lowest).

All the bitter loners are voting power...are these really the best people to have it?

I admit that I more agree with this post than most of the rest. I have been and still am in a position of power that, while not nearly as absolute or encompassing as the OP, is higher than you will usually find in the civie world. The responsibility, heartache etc that I've experienced ensure that I do not ever want any greater sort of power. So this is easy for me, love because no matter what I have to do in this capacity I need someone to come home to and look me in the eyes.

Power Corrupts
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

good lord i would vote LOVE even if i felt that i never wanted love.

i have NO interest in absolute power. there is too much responsibility, too much work, too many headaches, too many decisions, too many sleepless nights involved in power of that kind.

no thank you. ill take my little powerless family and sleep through the night.

A) I don't entirely believe that.

The fellow who said it was probably more of an expert at politics than you are, eh?

B) Then it's only relevant to people who desire power. It doesn't serve in a comparison between the power option and the love option. Well and good.

If you trace back the conversation, you will see the statement was merely made in response to the idea that one needed some people to love one, in order to hold power.

Power Corrupts
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

What about Augustus?

Why do you assume that lack of government automatically leads to freedom and a long and prosperous life? Have you ever lived in a place without a government?
There are no such places. And no, mafia's dictatorship isn't lack of government.
Lack of government, in any form, leads to freedom because there's no one to oppress it.
Freedom leads to prosperity, the first proof of that is called the United States of America.


Oh, so you actually would use your power then, eh? To ease us into your little utopia?
Well, yes. If 95% of the people were white and 95% of them wanted all non-whites to be distributed as slaves, that doesn't mean it's right to do so.

People should be granted liberty - and then they'll decide themselves what to do with it, but everyone should decide on his/her own liberty, not on others'.
You want to live in a socialist nanny state, fine, create a Nanny Club, and have every member give it 80% of their income to be spent on nanny programs. But you don't have the right to force others into it.

There are no such places. And no, mafia's dictatorship isn't lack of government.
Lack of government, in any form, leads to freedom because there's no one to oppress it.

How will you form anarcho-capitalist fantasyland?

ultimately...
and "once liberty is secured" if the people don't want "liberty" as you define it, then what? you force it upon them because YOU think it should be?
Why force? They don't get to have any government controlling them, and that's it. No one is forced to anything.


and what if you can't find a way to secure liberty? even consitutions can change if enough people want it to change.
I thought "absolute power" kinda covers up that I can. Just hold the power without actually using it.

No, a constitution should be such that it would prevent formation of governments, and couldn't be changed on majority's whim.

Supposing you had two options:

Option one: gain absolute power over Europe or the United States (your choice); the chosen territory becomes your personal empire. But if you decide to accept this power, you will never find true love, and if anybody does love you, he/she will not anymore. Thus, somebody may say they care for you, but deep down you will know you are alone (this includes relatives and friends who no longer love you, if they ever did). Of course, sexual pursuits will stay open, but relationships can never progress past lust.

Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those abound you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.

Which option would you pick?

I would argue that the ability to love IS "great."

What about Augustus?

He didn't have absolute power, he had the guises and set up a system for tyranny that wasn't really realized until Caligula and was abhorred and led to Caligula's death. Augustus was a masterful statesman but he always had to disguise his motives and keep the Senate in the loop, hence why it is called the Principate; different from the Dominate that Diocleatian established that was much more an absolute. Augustus knew that he had to tread lightly or enjoy the fate of his Uncle. So I would say he did not have absolute power because the Roman Aristocracy still had a great amount of power as can be seen in the deaths of Emperors who tried to rule too absolutely under the system Augustus established.

I would argue that the ability to love IS "great."

A few persons enjoying themselves?

Why force? They don't get to have any government controlling them, and that's it. No one is forced to anything. ah, so might makes right then.

after all, no Government, no police force, no laws

and once you "set things so that no one gets the same level of power you have/had" what's stopping anyone from forming their own little powerbase and raising hell?

I thought "absolute power" kinda covers up that I can. Just hold the power without actually using it. in order to hold that 'absolute power', you need to use it.

No, a constitution should be such that it would prevent formation of governments, and couldn't be changed on majority's whim. in other words, you are forcing the people away from governments and keeping them penned in to whatever you decided. some "liberty" you got there.

He didn't have absolute power, he had the guises and set up a system for tyranny that wasn't really realized until Caligula and was abhorred and led to Caligula's death. Augustus was a masterful statesman but he always had to disguise his motives and keep the Senate in the loop, hence why it is called the Principate;

He merely disguised his power, and made the nation "officially" a Republic, but in actuality he held all control.

different from the Dominate that Diocleatian established that was much more an absolute. Augustus knew that he had to tread lightly or enjoy the fate of his Uncle. So I would say he did not have absolute power because the Roman Aristocracy still had a great amount of power as can be seen in the deaths of Emperors who tried to rule too absolutely under the system Augustus established.

The assassins and the armies held the power to get angry at those who abused them.

There are no such places. And no, mafia's dictatorship isn't lack of government.
Lack of government, in any form, leads to freedom because there's no one to oppress it.
Freedom leads to prosperity, the first proof of that is called the United States of America.


How circular. America is prosperous, by the definitions it uses itself, because of freedom, by the definitions it uses itself.

Your proto-anarchistic libertarianism would be funny, if I didn't think you actually believed it.


People should be granted liberty - and then they'll decide themselves what to do with it, but everyone should decide on his/her own liberty, not on others'.
You want to live in a socialist nanny state, fine, create a Nanny Club, and have every member give it 80% of their income to be spent on nanny programs. But you don't have the right to force others into it.

Why?

The current model forces an ideal on everyone else. The rich have all the power, have all the means of making wealth - and have managed to carry out the silent coup of actually convincing people that being financially insecure, and democratically powerless... is a symbol of 'freedom', and something good.

He merely disguised his power, and made the nation "officially" a Republic, but in actuality he held all control.

If you are forced to disguise your power then is it really absolute? Augustus was very good at balancing powers so that he could get what he wanted.


The assassins and the armies held the power to get angry at those who abused them.

And the army was instigated by aristocracy when they were tired of the attempted absolutism. The fact is that the Emperors who tried to get near absolutism were taken care of, showing that the power was not absolute.

He didn't have absolute power, he had the guises and set up a system for tyranny that wasn't really realized until Caligula and was abhorred and led to Caligula's death. Augustus was a masterful statesman but he always had to disguise his motives and keep the Senate in the loop, hence why it is called the Principate; different from the Dominate that Diocleatian established that was much more an absolute. Augustus knew that he had to tread lightly or enjoy the fate of his Uncle. So I would say he did not have absolute power because the Roman Aristocracy still had a great amount of power as can be seen in the deaths of Emperors who tried to rule too absolutely under the system Augustus established.

I think Cincinnatus is a better example of 'absolute power' not 'corrupting absolutely'.

ah, so might makes right then.
after all, no Government, no police force, no laws
Get private security contractors, there's your police. Agree on setting up a civil court to resolve conflicts.
Get insurance if you're concerned about losing the job.


and once you "set things so that no one gets the same level of power you have/had" what's stopping anyone from forming their own little powerbase and raising hell?
So that no one gets the power level even a tenth that of a modern government.
What's stopping? Well, that's what absolute power is for.


in other words, you are forcing the people away from governments
No, governments away from the people. Big difference. It's just that no one asks for your tax reports.

Although less idealistically, a small government would be in order, mostly for defense. But that's it. No intrusions into personal freedoms, whatsoever. And stopping "little HOA dictatorships" from such intrusions.


and keeping them penned in to whatever you decided.
Whatever they decide. But each for his own, not for the others.

I want power, but not "empire" power, that's dull and too easy. I want "super villain" power, I want people to whisper my name with dread and live in constant terror that, some day, I'll come to them. Give me that, and you can keep all the love in the world for yourself.

I think Cincinnatus is a better example of 'absolute power' not 'corrupting absolutely'.

I agree, too bad he is mostly in the world of myth and legend. Especially since the Romans are known to love a bit of political theatre.

How circular. America is prosperous, by the definitions it uses itself, because of freedom, by the definitions it uses itself.

From its very beginning until just a few decades ago, America used to be a really free country. And it steadily climbed up from some small colonies to the world's prime superpower.


Why?
And why do you think anyone deserves the power to bind others to his will, tell them what to wear, what to smoke and how to live?

The current model forces an ideal on everyone else. The rich have all the power, have all the means of making wealth - and have managed to carry out the silent coup of actually convincing people that being financially insecure, and democratically powerless... is a symbol of 'freedom', and something good.
Financially insecure, my ass. The US of A has the highest income level in the world among large nations, coupled with some of the lowest prices in the civilized world. Whether you take average, median or low-mid class, people in US live better than elsewhere. Yet.

If that's bad for you, IDK what you call good. (Well, maybe Obama will fix it for you).

Get private security contractors, there's your police. Agree on setting up a civil court to resolve conflicts.
Get insurance if you're concerned about losing the job. ah, so the RICH who can afford private security contractors will dictate the law?

who agrees? you got people here dissagreeing on the Death Penalty. and you desolved the 'Government', so who decides?

So that no one gets the power level even a tenth that of a modern government.
What's stopping? Well, that's what absolute power is for. the "Absolute Power" you said "You won't use" will be used by you... gotcha! ;)

No, governments away from the people. Big difference. It's just that no one asks for your tax reports. so this Government won't have any connection to the people they Govern? what is that... a higher 'ruling' class of citizens?

Although less idealistically, a small government would be in order, mostly for defense. But that's it. No intrusions into personal freedoms, whatsoever. And stopping "little HOA dictatorships" from such intrusions. America did start as a small government, too bad it grew.

Whatever they decide. But each for his own, not for the others.??? yet you just said that the constitution cannot be changed, they cannot form the type of Government they want...

btw, this is why I don't want the power... too much headaches.

Get private security contractors, there's your police. Agree on setting up a civil court to resolve conflicts.


So - basically.... re-form the government? Except, this time, you hold all the chips.

You probably even think it's original.

Sorry, I don't get it. What does "great" have to do with your writing? ;) :tongue:

I use a lot of words. Therefore, my work can reasonably be called "great" in content.

I want power, but not "empire" power, that's dull and too easy. I want "super villain" power, I want people to whisper my name with dread and live in constant terror that, some day, I'll come to them. Give me that, and you can keep all the love in the world for yourself.

But there are also plenty of women who are in to that sort of thing, like the ones that fall in love with serial killers. I wonder if that's a loophole in this decision?

I admit that I more agree with this post than most of the rest. I have been and still am in a position of power that, while not nearly as absolute or encompassing as the OP, is higher than you will usually find in the civie world. The responsibility, heartache etc that I've experienced ensure that I do not ever want any greater sort of power. So this is easy for me, love because no matter what I have to do in this capacity I need someone to come home to and look me in the eyes.

Power Corrupts
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
^^ Quoted for truth.

The fellow who said it was probably more of an expert at politics than you are, eh?
How do you know?

If you trace back the conversation, you will see the statement was merely made in response to the idea that one needed some people to love one, in order to hold power.
I know that.

From its very beginning until just a few decades ago, America used to be a really free country. And it steadily climbed up from some small colonies to the world's prime superpower.


Horsehit.

America has never been a 'free' anything. When it was mainly smaller, mainly agricultural states... it was only 'free' if you lived outside of it, or you were one of the privileged few.

The option to hit the frontier is largely gone, now - and that leaves only the ridiculously wealthy with any kind of real 'freedom'.

And, even from it's founding, it has been based on principles of removing freedom. Freedom to worship - but only if you're a christian. Freedom to pursue happiness, but only if you're straight. And white. Freedom from unjust persecution - unless you're a Native American. Or black. Or foreign - especially, lately, Arab.

Maybe your entire perception of 'free' revolves around the ownership of guns (for the privilged majority), or really low taxes? You know why America doesn't tax like that anymore? Because it still could - IF it's citizens were happy with being a third world nation.

Welcome to the 20th century. If you like it here, you're free to stay, but you should quit your bitching and actually contribute.


And why do you think anyone deserves the power to bind others to his will, tell them what to wear, what to smoke and how to live?


Did you get dropped on your head a lot, as a child? Did your parents used to play catch with you on the stairs?

Where did I say that? Any of it?


Financially insecure, my ass. The US of A has the highest income level in the world among large nations, coupled with some of the lowest prices in the civilized world. Whether you take average, median or low-mid class, people in US live better than elsewhere. Yet.

If that's bad for you, IDK what you call good. (Well, maybe Obama will fix it for you).

Highest income level? How so? I notice the little qualifier 'among large nations' - I thought that was cute. Picking the select groups you want to be compared to.

Highest income level versus pure cost of living is one thing. If it's so economically viable, why does the US GINI compare to Sub-Saharan Africa? And... best prices of what? Big ticket items like healthcare? We both know the US has punitive prices on healthcare. Insurance. Housing.

SOME people in the US live better than a lot of people elsewhere. Some might live here better than ANYONE else, anywhere. But a nation is ultimately judged by how it treats it's least fortunate... and by that measure, the US is shit.

There are no such places. And no, mafia's dictatorship isn't lack of government.
Lack of government, in any form, leads to freedom because there's no one to oppress it.
Active war zones are without government.

Freedom leads to prosperity, the first proof of that is called the United States of America.
The USA has and always has had a government.

Well, yes. If 95% of the people were white and 95% of them wanted all non-whites to be distributed as slaves, that doesn't mean it's right to do so.

People should be granted liberty - and then they'll decide themselves what to do with it, but everyone should decide on his/her own liberty, not on others'.
You want to live in a socialist nanny state, fine, create a Nanny Club, and have every member give it 80% of their income to be spent on nanny programs. But you don't have the right to force others into it.
But how will you set up your utopia to last? What is to stop people from oppressing other people the moment you decide liberty has been secured and step down from power and set up whatever failsafe you have in mind to protect society from having you come back? In other words, how will you ever be able to feel that liberty has been secured?

He didn't have absolute power, he had the guises and set up a system for tyranny that wasn't really realized until Caligula and was abhorred and led to Caligula's death. Augustus was a masterful statesman but he always had to disguise his motives and keep the Senate in the loop, hence why it is called the Principate; different from the Dominate that Diocleatian established that was much more an absolute. Augustus knew that he had to tread lightly or enjoy the fate of his Uncle. So I would say he did not have absolute power because the Roman Aristocracy still had a great amount of power as can be seen in the deaths of Emperors who tried to rule too absolutely under the system Augustus established.
More truth. Thanks. :)

A few persons enjoying themselves?
Sounds great to me.

ah, so the RICH who can afford private security contractors will dictate the law?
If you can afford paying the police, you can afford paying a private security contractor.


who agrees? you got people here dissagreeing on the Death Penalty. and you desolved the 'Government', so who decides?
Who agrees on the court? Probably people of a specific city or district. Court for resolving conflicts is one of the three essential governmental functions.

On death penalty? If you sign a contract giving a certain entity the right to kill you, given specified circumstances, then it applies to you. Otherwise, I don't see how would any entity have the right to take your life.


so this Government won't have any connection to the people they Govern? You misunderstood. Take the government away from the people and flush it down the drain, just that.

the "Absolute Power" you said "You won't use" will be used by you... gotcha!
Of course. But only to stop smaller powers from trying to elevate themselves to governmental status.

yet you just said that the constitution cannot be changed, they cannot form the type of Government they want...
If 100% of people, unanimously, agree to form some form of government, then, of course, they can. But if there's just 1% that disagrees, and the government would be forced on them, which is a violation of freedom.

So any forms of governance, apart from basic necessity, should be small and strictly voluntary.
Social security, medical insurance, road construction, and other things the government returns to the society, have to be funded and handled on a private basis.


America did start as a small government, too bad it grew.
Yes. And the bad has only started. So the best possible thing to do with power would be to return it to having a very small government.

If you can afford paying the police, you can afford paying a private security contractor. police are paid though local taxes. not directly from individuals. Private Security Contractors can leave one person and get hired by someone else for more money. those with the most money will literally own the police.

Who agrees on the court? Probably people of a specific city or district. Court for resolving conflicts is one of the three essential governmental functions. your small government is slowly sounding like the status quo.

On death penalty? If you sign a contract giving a certain entity the right to kill you, given specified circumstances, then it applies to you. Otherwise, I don't see how would any entity have the right to take your life. CONTRACTS?!?! my God... your country will be run by... *gulp* LAYWERS!!! :eek: ;)


You misunderstood. Take the government away from the people and flush it down the drain, just that. yet your plan requires a government. otherwise, again. Might makes right. weither that might is financial or military it won't matter.

Of course. But only to stop smaller powers from trying to elevate themselves to governmental status. thus again, forcing others to your ideals.

If 100% of people, unanimously, agree to form some form of government, then, of course, they can. But if there's just 1% that disagrees, and the government would be forced on them, which is a violation of freedom. ah. so tyranny of the minority... or worse, a lame duck government. After all, if 1% disagrees that nature preserves must be kept free from drilling, then no such ban will be inplace.

if 1% disagrees with removal of the death penalty then the DP stays.

if 1% disagrees with your form of Government or your definition of 'liberty'... would you change your government and redefine 'liberty'?

So any forms of governance, apart from basic necessity, should be small and strictly voluntary. *cough*

Social security, medical insurance, road construction, and other things the government returns to the society, have to be funded and handled on a private basis. and if 1% of the people disagrees with this?

Yes. And the bad has only started. So the best possible thing to do with power would be to return it to having a very small government. errr... slavery was around when that Government was small, it took the larger Government to abolish slavery.
I'm sure the Native American Tribes will agree with you that the small Government that was America is far better than the Government Today.
and think about women's rights.

If you can afford paying the police, you can afford paying a private security contractor.

What happens to those who are can't afford paying the police or for private contractors? What is stopping these private contractors from becoming governments?

Who agrees on the court? Probably people of a specific city or district. Court for resolving conflicts is one of the three essential governmental functions.

How will the courts enforce their rulings what if the verdicts are unpopular? How do you avoid social disruption if say a mob murders a suspected child molester and while all contracts and court precedents indicate they should be prosecuted but market forces force indicate that such a verdict won't be enforced?

You misunderstood. Take the government away from the people and flush it down the drain, just that.

Proof?

If 100% of people, unanimously, agree to form some form of government, then, of course, they can. But if there's just 1% that disagrees, and the government would be forced on them, which is a violation of freedom.

How are conflicts resolved when people disagree about property rights? Will coercion be used when people disagree with the courts?

And, even from it's founding, it has been based on principles of removing freedom. Freedom to worship - but only if you're a christian. Freedom to pursue happiness, but only if you're straight. And white. Freedom from unjust persecution - unless you're a Native American. Or black. Or foreign - especially, lately, Arab.
Yes, there have been problems. Nonetheless, note that the things you mention came not from a government, but from the overwhelming prejudices of these times.


You know why America doesn't tax like that anymore? Because it still could - IF it's citizens were happy with being a third world nation.
You become a third world nation through taxing the hell out of people (see the East), not through promoting free enterprise (see the West).


Highest income level? How so? I notice the little qualifier 'among large nations' - I thought that was cute. Picking the select groups you want to be compared to.
US has the second highest median income after Switzerland.
US also has its GDPPC second only to a few small nations, like Qatar, Brunei and Norway, living off oil.


Highest income level versus pure cost of living is one thing. If it's so economically viable, why does the US GINI compare to Sub-Saharan Africa?
Because Gini coefficient is not an index of prosperity. Three people earning $1000, $10,000 and $100,000 will have higher Gini coefficient than three earning $100 each, yet the first group is far more prosperous.

And... best prices of what? Big ticket items like healthcare? We both know the US has punitive prices on healthcare. Insurance. Housing.
Compared to what? See how much a house in Europe costs, say.


But a nation is ultimately judged by how it treats it's least fortunate... and by that measure, the US is shit.
If a nation is focused on best treating its least fortunate, by natural selection, it will soon be filled with these least fortunate - and ultimately become the least fortunate nation of the world.

A nation should be ultimately judged on how easy it is to become successful and prosperous there.

How do you know?

...

Because, that was his job: he devoted his whole life to the study, wrote numerous books on the subject, and was considered the greatest in his field by many people, such as Napoléon and Henry Kissinger. If that is not a measure of political expertise, nothing is.

police are paid though local taxes. not directly from individuals. Private Security Contractors can leave one person and get hired by someone else for more money. those with the most money will literally own the police.
Like they do now, you mean?
Nope, you don't have to hire a PSC alone, you can hire it through a regular payment from the people living in a specific community. Or form community's own force.
The difference from governmental police is that you're not forced to do it, and can select a community with preferred level of security.


your small government is slowly sounding like the status quo.
The three essential functions are: Arbitrage (courts); Monetary system; Constitution protection. The lack of all leads to anarchy, the lack of the third to anarcho-capitalism.

CONTRACTS?!?! my God... your country will be run by... *gulp* LAYWERS!!! :eek: ;)
Lawyery, yes, that's a problem, fortunately mitigated through maximally simple laws.
But that's not the problem. Have you transferred to anyone the right to your life? If no, how can you agree with DP?



ah. so tyranny of the minority...
No, wrong, no minority powers. It's just not a tyranny of anyone, lack of legislation.

After all, if 1% disagrees that nature preserves must be kept free from drilling, then no such ban will be inplace.
It's the owner of the resources who is to decide whether to drill them or not.

if 1% disagrees with removal of the death penalty then the DP stays.
DP is a violation of human rights. If you haven't signed your rights away, no one has the right to violate them.

and if 1% of the people disagrees with this?
It doesn't matter who agrees with what, when nothing is forced upon them.

You should consent to losing your freedom, not to getting it.


I'm sure the Native American Tribes will agree with you that the small Government that was America is far better than the Government Today.
and think about women's rights.
There was a fight, European colonists won, they took the land. It's not like it wasn't the way between the tribes before. Just that now we re-read the history books and rain down our crocodile tears of guilt.
Most women's rights have been successfully secured by the women themselves, and others will be. It was a result of women's own activism, not government smart boys deciding "let's give them rights".

Ehhh all the things I imagine doing if I came across money/power would be in either two categories

1) Personal entertainment/growth
2) Spend it on friends/partners

Without number 2 number 1 would get old fast. It does not even have to be romantic love without love of friends or family it would be boring as heck to have power/money.

There was a fight, European colonists won, they took the land.


No, there was a genocide. There was no 'fight'. European colonists arrived, and spent the next several hundred years systematically wiping out everyone that was already here.

'There was a fight' makes it sound like a border skirmish, or some kind of contratemps.


It's not like it wasn't the way between the tribes before.


Systematic genocide? It is quite a lot like that, actually.

No, there was a genocide. There was no 'fight'. European colonists arrived, and spent the next several hundred years systematically wiping out everyone that was already here.
And a big government morass would stop that how?


Systematic genocide? It is quite a lot like that, actually.
Yes, indeed. It was normal for low-developed tribes to wipe the enemy off entirely once defeated.

Like they do now, you mean?
Nope, you don't have to hire a PSC alone, you can hire it through a regular payment from the people living in a specific community. Or form community's own force.
The difference from governmental police is that you're not forced to do it, and can select a community with preferred level of security.

It sounds like different nations in which one can immigrate/emmigrate between.

Lawyery, yes, that's a problem, fortunately mitigated through maximally simple laws.
But that's not the problem. Have you transferred to anyone the right to your life? If no, how can you agree with DP?

Who creates the laws? How are they enforced? What if people disagree with them?

It's the owner of the resources who is to decide whether to drill them or not.

How is ownership of unowned items acquired? What do you do if people disagree? Left-libertarians say believe natural resources are owned in common. They and right libertarians obviously have a problem. How do they resolve their conflict? How do items such as the sky, where property rights are hard to define, come into play?

There was a fight, European colonists won, they took the land. It's not like it wasn't the way between the tribes before. Just that now we re-read the history books and rain down our crocodile tears of guilt.

So might makes right?

Most women's rights have been successfully secured by the women themselves, and others will be. It was a result of women's own activism, not government smart boys deciding "let's give them rights".

It was female activism to influence the government that helped gave them rights. They didn't try to weaken the state, hell Steve Lott and Ann Coulter say that giving women the vote increased the government more than any other thing.

No, there was a genocide. There was no 'fight'. European colonists arrived, and spent the next several hundred years systematically wiping out everyone that was already here.

Didn't something like 80% of the native population die in fairly short order from unintentionally spread diseases in the aftermath of contact with Columbus? It wasn't a systematic genocide so much as small groups independently fighting and killing the remaining native populations. That certainly doesn't make it right, but to imply the entirety of the process was a systematic genocide is highly inaccurate. In addition, there were plenty of native cultures that were willingly involved in that process, so it's not exactly a one-sided issue by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, there have been problems. Nonetheless, note that the things you mention came not from a government, but from the overwhelming prejudices of these times.


So - the government was good? And it was the will of the people that was bad?

Hoist by your own petard.


You become a third world nation through taxing the hell out of people (see the East), not through promoting free enterprise (see the West).


No, you become a third world nation by having a small centralised corrupt government, and no resources or infrastructure in the rest of your nation.

Whether you do that by taxation, or simply by centralising wealth and power is irrelevent.

If the US were ever to be allowed to degenerate to what you seem to want (and it's well on the way, now), it will be a third world nation.


US has the second highest median income after Switzerland.
US also has its GDPPC second only to a few small nations, like Qatar, Brunei and Norway, living off oil.


'Living off oil'? You say that like it's a bad thing. What it comes down to is - there are other nations that are 'doing better'. If your argument has merit, we should see that Switzerland (being top of your list) and Norway are libertarian, anti-socialist, capitalist havens, right?


Because Gini coefficient is not an index of prosperity. Three people earning $1000, $10,000 and $100,000 will have higher Gini coefficient than three earning $100 each, yet the first group is far more prosperous.


Wow. They don't do economics at your school, then?

If all your workers earn $100 the market will centre around that price range. If your workers fall into three categories (as in your example) the market will centre at whichever level brings the greatest return (the balance point between cost and quantity). In your three-tier model, the person making $1000 will be 'poor', even though he's making ten times what the people in the other paradigm are making.


Compared to what? See how much a house in Europe costs, say.


We bought a house in rural Lincolnshire, on an acre of land, for 120k (which would be about $250,000). When I lived with a friend in Leicester, she bought a small townhouse just outside the city centre, for 30k (about $50,000).

Considering how much larger than the UK, the US is... and how 'cheap' your housing is (notice - I said cheap, not inexpensive), American housing should be way below the cost of housing somewhere like the UK (which manages to fit a fifth the American population in a space about as big as Georgia), not higher.


If a nation is focused on best treating its least fortunate, by natural selection, it will soon be filled with these least fortunate - and ultimately become the least fortunate nation of the world.


So - people being homeless and without food is necessary to keep the US profitable?

You realise, it makes a liar of the whole 'everyone can suceed' logic.


A nation should be ultimately judged on how easy it is to become successful and prosperous there.

You think? So - a corrupt, fascistic regime that favours an elect few based on skin colour, would be judged better than a benign liberal society where no one was hungry or cold?

Didn't something like 80% of the native population die in fairly short order from unintentionally spread diseases in the aftermath of contact with Columbus? It wasn't a systematic genocide so much as small groups independently fighting and killing the remaining native populations. That certainly doesn't make it right, but to imply the entirety of the process was a systematic genocide is highly inaccurate. In addition, there were plenty of native cultures that were willingly involved in that process, so it's not exactly a one-sided issue by any stretch of the imagination.

I think the diseases came more from Cortez's venture and then traveled North.

And a big government morass would stop that how?


You didn't say anything about the government.

But, I'll indulge you... the simplest answer would be that 'big government' might have been able to stop such an action taking place. If only by tying it up in red tape. (But, more likely, by intervention, or threat of it).


Yes, indeed. It was normal for low-developed tribes to wipe the enemy off entirely once defeated.

No, it wasn't.

It sounds like different nations in which one can immigrate/emmigrate between.
It would be if migrating or creating your own nation was easy and quick.


Who creates the laws? How are they enforced?
General small set of laws, with right for local community to adjust them. Enforced by the community or PSC, disagreements between the violator and the prosecutor resolved in court.

What if people disagree with them?
First of all, it should be ensured to minimize the number of laws, and protect some basic rights. If they disagree with additional laws, they have to be a part of a community not making them.
But most of all it's just the number and extent of laws being kept to minimum to prevent such issues.


How is ownership of unowned items acquired? What do you do if people disagree? Left-libertarians say believe natural resources are owned in common. They and right libertarians obviously have a problem. How do they resolve their conflict?
That's a conflict indeed. But the ownership/use of unowned items can be acquired through purchasing or renting them from the government.

How do items such as the sky, where property rights are hard to define, come into play?
Either government or common property, and as we see it as a non-intrusive government, free for all.

So might makes right? Well, it's the Europeans (Americans) who have written all these rights, not the natives.


It was female activism to influence the government that helped gave them rights. They didn't try to weaken the state, hell Steve Lott and Ann Coulter say that giving women the vote increased the government more than any other thing.
Yes, it was done with the help of the government, because in this society everything is done that way.
But here we start out with equal rights. "Equal opportunities", i.e. promotion and enforcement of equality - well, sorry, real equality would have to come naturally.

So - the government was good? And it was the will of the people that was bad?
The government was carrying out the will of the people, through its military.


If the US were ever to be allowed to degenerate to what you seem to want (and it's well on the way, now), it will be a third world nation.
Proof? Maybe an example?
What's on the way, BTW, is raising taxes and further fattening the gov't.


'Living off oil'? You say that like it's a bad thing. What it comes down to is - there are other nations that are 'doing better'.
They are selling their oil, because they have lots of oil and few people. US doesn't have lots of oil. But it does best among large countries with moderate resources.


If all your workers earn $100 the market will centre around that price range. If your workers fall into three categories (as in your example) the market will centre at whichever level brings the greatest return (the balance point between cost and quantity). In your three-tier model, the person making $1000 will be 'poor', even though he's making ten times what the people in the other paradigm are making.
Yes, he will be "poor", but he won't be poor - he'll still be able to enjoy more goods than the people in the other paradigm. Through import if nothing else.


We bought a house in rural Lincolnshire, on an acre of land, for 120k (which would be about $250,000).
That's about the same as a decent house in US costs.


So - people being homeless and without food is necessary to keep the US profitable?
It's sad. Fortunately, there's the concept of charity.


You realise, it makes a liar of the whole 'everyone can suceed' logic.
You think? So - a corrupt, fascistic regime that favours an elect few based on skin colour, would be judged better than a benign liberal society where no one was hungry or cold?
By how easy, I meant how easy it is for everyone (average of their chances) - in other words, primarily on how many will be able to achieve success, and secondarily on how high a success it is.
"elect few" isn't for everyone.

Like they do now, you mean?
Nope, you don't have to hire a PSC alone, you can hire it through a regular payment from the people living in a specific community. Or form community's own force.
The difference from governmental police is that you're not forced to do it, and can select a community with preferred level of security.

still might makes right. rich dictate how the poor live.

now, the police are not paid by the rich. Lawyers are.

The three essential functions are: Arbitrage (courts); Monetary system; Constitution protection. The lack of all leads to anarchy, the lack of the third to anarcho-capitalism. and who enfoces Constitutional protection?

by what rulings guide the courts?

and money is not spread evenly among the people.
Lawyery, yes, that's a problem, fortunately mitigated through maximally simple laws. simple laws... like what?
But that's not the problem. Have you transferred to anyone the right to your life? If no, how can you agree with DP? how can you argue against it. if someone takes a life, shouldn't their life be forfeit?

simple laws? you kill you die. simple.

No, wrong, no minority powers. It's just not a tyranny of anyone, lack of legislation. yet you said if 1% doesn't want it, then it doesn't happen.

It's the owner of the resources who is to decide whether to drill them or not. and you turned the police into a resource that can be owned.

DP is a violation of human rights. If you haven't signed your rights away, no one has the right to violate them. and this is enforced how... by the government and the laws they set up. so again, your government is growing.

It doesn't matter who agrees with what, when nothing is forced upon them. but you are forcing things on them.

You should consent to losing your freedom, not to getting it.yet freedom and liberty is all on YOUR TERMS.

There was a fight, European colonists won, they took the land. It's not like it wasn't the way between the tribes before. Just that now we re-read the history books and rain down our crocodile tears of guilt. so your small government, the one YOU advocate as being perfect, believed in MIGHT vs RIGHT. and I suggest you re-read those history books to see WHO fought the Native Americans. hint: it wasn't European Colonists. ;)
Most women's rights have been successfully secured by the women themselves, and others will be. It was a result of women's own activism, not government smart boys deciding "let's give them rights". so Sufferage wasn't necessary? is that what you're saying?

Didn't something like 80% of the native population die in fairly short order from unintentionally spread diseases in the aftermath of contact with Columbus? It wasn't a systematic genocide so much as small groups independently fighting and killing the remaining native populations. That certainly doesn't make it right, but to imply the entirety of the process was a systematic genocide is highly inaccurate. In addition, there were plenty of native cultures that were willingly involved in that process, so it's not exactly a one-sided issue by any stretch of the imagination.

The spread of disease isn't inconsistent with European colonialism, but - even if 80% of the population did die (I'm not saying that's a realistic number, I'm just taking your assumption into consideration in my response) from our accidental biological warfare - that doesn't mean that the continued predation on the natives wasn't genocide. It just means it had a running start.

I'm not sure why 'highly inaccurate' is appropriate. If one entire 'population' wipes out another entire population, and does it as a cultural 'plan', it doesn't matter if it originates in the mind of one man, or many - it's still both systematic, and genocide. The 'cultural plan' was Manifest Destiny, and the genocide was perpetrated against pretty much any native population found, by pretty much any population that found them. "Systematic Genocide" is more than appropriate.

Vault 10. all you're doing is illustrating the headaches involved with 'Absolute Power'.

...

Because, that was his job: he devoted his whole life to the study, wrote numerous books on the subject, and was considered the greatest in his field by many people, such as Napoléon and Henry Kissinger. If that is not a measure of political expertise, nothing is.
Oh, so you're a resume-humper, eh? :tongue:

Well, (a) you don't know my resume, and (b) what does your resume look like? Because Machiavelli may well have the expertise to say something, but do you have the expertise to understand him? Let's start with, have you read his other book?

EDIT: By the way, it wasn't his job. His job was as a low- to mid-level civil servant. The study of politics was a hobby that came out of his job and his other personal time interest of supporting republican revolutionaries. But he never really had time from his job until his other interest landed him in prison.

It would be if migrating or creating your own nation was easy and quick.

How is it different?

General small set of laws, with right for local community to adjust them. Enforced by the community or PSC, disagreements between the violator and the prosecutor resolved in court.

How is the above not a government if laws are set by the community?

First of all, it should be ensured to minimize the number of laws, and protect some basic rights. If they disagree with additional laws, they have to be a part of a community not making them.
But most of all it's just the number and extent of laws being kept to minimum to prevent such issues.

How would the minimization of laws be ensured? Which basic rights? How are communities defined?

That's a conflict indeed. But the ownership/use of unowned items can be acquired through purchasing or renting them from the government.

I doubt everyone will agree that the default ownership of property is the government. Also, I thought governments were going to be abolished.


Either government or common property, and as we see it as a non-intrusive government, free for all.

How is free for all a useful concept? Free to pollute the skies, overfish the oceans, or overuse the radio spectrum does not seem the best use of these resources. I doubt that everyone will agree on how the right to use these should be divvied out.

Well, it's the Europeans (Americans) who have written all these rights, not the natives.

Leaving them free to assign few if any rights to the natives.

Yes, it was done with the help of the government, because in this society everything is done that way.
But here we start out with equal rights. "Equal opportunities", i.e. promotion and enforcement of equality - well, sorry, real equality would have to come naturally.

How do equal rights and equal opportunities differ? Can you show that the two are separate issues in women's movements?

I'm a writer, there's no way in fuck I'm choosing anything that will prevent me from writing.

I'm a writer, and I can't imagine writing anything without experiencing any love in my life. I mean, aside from the incredibly poetic and existential suicide note.

Powah FTW

still might makes right. rich dictate how the poor live.
How can they dictate it?
They merely can enjoy better protection. But the PSC isn't given the right to infringe on the rights of others.

by what rulings guide the courts?
Mostly jury, plus constitutionally-set punishment limits.

and money is not spread evenly among the people.
Why should it be?


simple laws... like what? Only preventing you from infringing others' rights. But NOT, for instance, ganja bans, enforced bras, other crap.
Fines and/or exile as general penalties.

how can you argue against it. if someone takes a life, shouldn't their life be forfeit?
While destroying another's life is certainly bad, the act doesn't imply losing the right to yours. Social contract can make it so, though, but it should be explicit, not implied.

yet you said if 1% doesn't want it, then it doesn't happen.
Then LEGISLATION can't happen.

and this is enforced how... by the government and the laws they set up. so again, your government is growing.
RIGHTS, not laws. The government's function is to protect the rights. Laws and rules are the question of the specific community.

but you are forcing things on them.
yet freedom and liberty is all on YOUR TERMS.
Freedom and liberty are absolute values, not relative.
No laws telling you what to do -> full freedom.
Minimum laws, minimum taxes -> near-full freedom.
Law-ridden socialist state -> little freedom.


so your small government, the one YOU advocate as being perfect, believed in MIGHT vs RIGHT.
As the modern big one does, see iRaq.

so Sufferage wasn't necessary? is that what you're saying?
If there were no government to speak of, of course it wouldn't be necessary.

The government was carrying out the will of the people, through its military.


Slavery? Oppression of people of colour? Oppression of women? Persecution of non-Christians?

I think you're confusing one horrendous chapter of the US catalogue, with the rest.


Proof? Maybe an example?
What's on the way, BTW, is raising taxes and further fattening the gov't.


Proof of what? Proof that we're on our way down that road? Casual examination of the last (at least) 8 years of progressively cutting social programs, added to the lack of regulation on business (especially BIG business), the increase of central government agencies and over-ruling of constitutional precedents.

All of it together screams a lack of accountability for industry, a lack of checks and balances on government, and a general reduction in infrastructure and services for the least fortunate.

In fact, almost the textbook recipe for a third world nation.


They are selling their oil, because they have lots of oil and few people. US doesn't have lots of oil. But it does best among large countries with moderate resources.


And if we only look at countries CALLED the US, it's doing best of all, right?


Yes, he will be "poor", but he won't be poor - he'll still be able to enjoy more goods than the people in the other paradigm. Through import if nothing else.


In your paradigm, the man earning $1000 will likely be in poverty - because the market will likely settle out somewhere a little below the income of the middle group (depending on the relative SIZE of each group).

(Look at the US, which you keep saying has it's greater prosperity, but where the prices of goods and services are high enough that the lowest quartile can't afford proper healthcare... for example).


That's about the same as a decent house in US costs.


What is? The 30k or the 120k? And... where? Because I'm calling bullshit.


It's sad. Fortunately, there's the concept of charity.


That wasn't an answer.


By how easy, I meant how easy it is for everyone (average of their chances) - in other words, primarily on how many will be able to achieve success, and secondarily on how high a success it is.
"elect few" isn't for everyone.

In a corrupt, fascist society, achieving success is as easy as having the right skin colour, maybe... or knowing the right person. Or bribing the right office.

Your defintiion is bollocks, and you know it. Not to mention - it doesn't even translate into reality - you can't have EVERYONE achieving high degrees of success.

And, again - you fabricate some random nonsense that doesn't even answer the question you were asked.

How is it different?
I can't take my Ron Paul supporting friends and form the Libertarian Country.
I can move to another neighborhood.

How is the above not a government if laws are set by the community?
It is a form of governance, but unlike a government it's local, easily escapable, strictly limited in what it can do.

How would the minimization of laws be ensured? Which basic rights? How are communities defined?
Think of these detail for yourself. The way you'd prefer, maybe.


I doubt everyone will agree that the default ownership of property is the government. Also, I thought governments were going to be abolished.
Sort of rather minimized. Or abolished and rebuilt. But someone has to own what isn't owned, if only to prevent its abuse.


How is free for all a useful concept? Free to pollute the skies, overfish the oceans,
Gov't property, purchase the permit.
or overuse the radio spectrum
Develop devices that can use other frequencies if some are being overused.

Leaving them free to assign few if any rights to the natives.
Well, yes, if the natives aren't human. If they're human, they're under constitutional protection of their rights.

How do equal rights and equal opportunities differ? Can you show that the two are separate issues in women's movements?
Rights: "We want to have the right to employ or be employed, i.e. start business or be hired!"; "We want the right to walk braless!"
Opportunities: "We want employers to be forced to employ women, if there's a 'tie' between a woman and man!" (actual proposed law); "We want to mandate employers to let us take babies with us and provide breastfeeding breaks!"
Note: I'm not opposed to either, but the first is essential rights, and the latter is not.

BTW you haven't asked what I'd do with the absolute power.

If the choice to abandon love is so easy for you, I can safely assume that you'd do terrible things with absolute power.

How can they dictate it?
They merely can enjoy better protection. But the PSC isn't given the right to infringe on the rights of others.
"Officers, this vagrant is tresspassing. please remove him from these premises."

Mostly jury, plus constitutionally-set punishment limits. again with the constitution. it can be changed... oh sorry, it has to be written perfectly the first time since one vote can prevent any changes.

Why should it be? rich makes the rules then. after all, they can buy the lawyers, the judges, the police, and it will all be open and legal.


Only preventing you from infringing others' rights. But NOT, for instance, ganja bans, enforced bras, other crap.
Fines and/or exile as general penalties.
like slander laws?
Laws about killings?
no such thing as a simple law.

While destroying another's life is certainly bad, the act doesn't imply losing the right to yours. Social contract can make it so, though, but it should be explicit, not implied. hence the lawyers get more power. ever read lawyer speak?

Then LEGISLATION can't happen. still sounds like a big governemnt there.

RIGHTS, not laws. The government's function is to protect the rights. Laws and rules are the question of the specific community. community... like State? each has their form of Government kiddo. You're making Government BIGGER, not smaller

Freedom and liberty are absolute values, not relative. it is relative. Some like order, some like being controlled. to them that gives them a form of liberty that others can't visualize. some like no order, some like no control. a different level of freedom and liberty.

No laws telling you what to do -> full freedom.
Minimum laws, minimum taxes -> near-full freedom.
Law-ridden socialist state -> little freedom.and you are striving to have all three at the same time.

As the modern big one does, see iRaq. so your perfect government, the one that was way before it became corrupt was when there was NO government but tribes. gotcha.

If there were no government to speak of, of course it wouldn't be necessary.Really? so tribal women were free to do whatever they wanted back then?

RIGHTS, not laws. The government's function is to protect the rights. Laws and rules are the question of the specific community.


The whole nation is a community.


Freedom and liberty are absolute values, not relative.


Utter tripe.


No laws telling you what to do -> full freedom.


Anarchy is not the same as freedom. But then, of course, anarchy isn't what you are proposing, either - because even the most hardened anacchist wouldn't suggest that a simple removal of external government would equate to there being no 'laws'.


Minimum laws, minimum taxes -> near-full freedom.


Minimum laws and lots and lots of lovely taxes also = near full 'freedom'.


Law-ridden socialist state -> little freedom.


Only if you see some conflict between 'equality' and 'freedom'.

I can't take my Ron Paul supporting friends and form the Libertarian Country.


Sure you can.

"Officers, this vagrant is tresspassing. please remove him from these premises."
Yeah, so?

again with the constitution. it can be changed... oh sorry, it has to be written perfectly the first time since one vote can prevent any changes.
While I'm there to fix it, it's not a big problem. But yeah, it has to be perfect by the time it's finalized.

rich makes the rules then. after all, they can buy the lawyers, the judges, the police,
You mean like today?


like slander laws?
Screw them.

You're making Government BIGGER, not smaller
Gov't free of most institutions apart from defense and constitution protection is not bigger.

it is relative. Some like order, some like being controlled. to them that gives them a form of liberty that others can't visualize. some like no order, some like no control. a different level of freedom and liberty.
It's not freedom and liberty. It's just BDSM submissive types who don't like freedom and liberty.


and you are striving to have all three at the same time.
No, the second.

Really? so tribal women were free to do whatever they wanted back then?
Tribes had a full-power government.

The whole nation is a community.
Community is something you can easily leave and choose another.

Anarchy is not the same as freedom. But then, of course, anarchy isn't what you are proposing, either - because even the most hardened anacchist wouldn't suggest that a simple removal of external government would equate to there being no 'laws'.
Yes, there has also to be a body to keep state authorities, etc., from setting excessive laws.

Minimum laws and lots and lots of lovely taxes also = near full 'freedom'.
Except financial.

Only if you see some conflict between 'equality' and 'freedom'.
Of course I do. Everyone having what he has earned is freedom, but not equality. Everyone having the same is equality, but not freedom.
The two don't mix.

It's not freedom and liberty. It's just BDSM submissive types who don't like freedom and liberty.


I've been on Nationstates a while. I've seen some pretty stupid things posted. Even by Nationstates standards, this has to be one of the most stupid things I've ever seen. You should get, like, a medal or something.

Sure you can.

Naw, Ron Paul supporters would end of with some hyper-authoritarian theocracy.

Community is something you can easily leave and choose another.


I think you're talking out of your arse.

Where does this weird, local-centric, definition of 'community' come from?

And - let's be realistic - if you really think running away is the answer, you're not going to find a good fit anywhere.


Yes, there has also to be a body to keep state authorities, etc., from setting excessive laws.


Eh?


Except financial.


So what? We're defining our terms ONLY in dollar values, now?

So - your definition of 'free' is my definition of 'rich'?


Of course I do. Everyone having what he has earned is freedom,


Even if they live in cages?


...but not equality. Everyone having the same is equality,


Even if they're discriminated against because of their skin colour?


...but not freedom.
The two don't mix.

I don't think you should get involved in conversations where you don't understand the terms.

Naw, Ron Paul supporters would end of with some hyper-authoritarian theocracy.

Probable. But him (him?) and his friends COULD do it. (Assuming they're old enough to leave the house after dark).

Yeah, so? officers owe their allegence not to the government, or even the laws. but to the person paying them that is why the CITY pays for the cops and their juisdiction ends at the city limits.

While I'm there to fix it, it's not a big problem. But yeah, it has to be perfect by the time it's finalized. hence you use the Absolute power you said you won't use.

You mean like today? except today, if the police are found to be 'on the take' they are punished, your plan makes it ok.

Screw them. so much for simple laws...

Gov't free of most institutions apart from defense and constitution protection is not bigger.who defines the constitution. Judicary branch and in the case of the US, SCotUS.

otherwise, you will be using more of that power you said you won't be using. slowing becoming that which you strived to remove.

It's not freedom and liberty. It's just BDSM submissive types who don't like freedom and liberty. yep, because anyone who doesn't live your lifestyle must be into BDSM.

No, the second. not what you said so far.

Tribes had a full-power government.... so your perfect government that you are basing your government on is one that never existed?

I think you're talking out of your arse.
Where does this weird, local-centric, definition of 'community' come from?
And - let's be realistic - if you really think running away is the answer, you're not going to find a good fit anywhere.
Who talks about running away?
Recently, we've discussed the evilness of HOA somewhere, but look at it as rather more restrained.

When you're at work, you have to follow company's policies.
When you're at home, if you're in a HOA, you have to follow their rules.
Etc.
The good thing is that you can easily choose where to work (dress code or not) and where to live (with HOA or not).


So - your definition of 'free' is my definition of 'rich'?
No. Freedom to earn money and keep it is part of the overall freedom.

Even if they live in cages? Stop trying to replace my arguments. We were talking about economic freedom.

Even if they're discriminated against because of their skin colour?
Sad but true. But it's very sad indeed, and should be rectified.

I don't think you should get involved in conversations where you don't understand the terms.
I don't want to use commie redefinitions of well understood terms. Freedom is lack of restraints of any kind. That and just that.

officers owe their allegence not to the government, or even the laws. but to the person paying them that is why the CITY pays for the cops and their juisdiction ends at the city limits.
Yes.
As such, your own PSC's jurisdiction ends at your land's limit.

so much for simple laws...
I said screw the extra laws, slander's not a crime.

yep, because anyone who doesn't live your lifestyle must be into BDSM.
If you want to be controlled and ordered around, join an appropriate club. Domination/Submission Club.

... so your perfect government that you are basing your government on is one that never existed?
More like on the current, but very much reduced in power and extent.

Who talks about running away?
Recently, we've discussed the evilness of HOA somewhere, but look at it as rather more restrained.

When you're at work, you have to follow company's policies.
When you're at home, if you're in a HOA, you have to follow their rules.
Etc.
The good thing is that you can easily choose where to work (dress code or not) and where to live (with HOA or not).

More rubbish. The 'freedom' to choose where you works depends entirely on how much you need to work - which is the reason why 'at will' employers can still afford to give their employees such horrendous conditions - a lot of your work force is stuck putting up with your shit until they can go elsewhere.

But, you actually prove my point - if you don't like working under someone's rules, your'e saying that's okay - because you can choose to not work there (running away). And, if you don't like living under somene else's rules, you can choose to live elsewhere (running away).

Your solution to not liking the rules of your 'community', was to go somewhere else (running away).

You DO realise, you CAN actually leave your nation of birth, yes?


No. Freedom to earn money and keep it is part of the overall freedom.


By what definition? Money is a relatively new invention - was there no 'freedom' before it?


Stop trying to replace my arguments. We were talking about economic freedom.


No, we weren't. Go back and look. You simply decided that economic freedom is (apparently) what you now want us to be talking about.


Sad but true. But it's very sad indeed, and should be rectified.


Why? Equality is opposed to 'freedom', by your definitions.


I don't want to use commie redefinitions of well understood terms. Freedom is lack of restraints of any kind. That and just that.

Nope, that's a nonsense. I don't think you could find a single dictionary that presented the word 'freedom' and gave it JUST the definition you gave. But, it would be a nonsense ANYWAY - since, by your definition, a free man can't have a wife or children. Can't have a job. It's a nonsense definition.

You've come up with arbitrary interpretatins of terms. Pointing out that freedom doesn't end in the boardroom,a nd equality doesn't end in the pocketbook, is hardly a 'commie redefinition'.

I said screw the extra laws, slander's not a crime.


Yes, it is.

What you're saying is - you don't think it SHOULD be.

Although, to be honest, I don't believe you. If you were going for a job as a teacher, and the other guy going for the job said that you rape small boys, you'd probably want a system that demanded redress.


If you want to be controlled and ordered around, join an appropriate club. Domination/Submission Club.


Clearly you have as little knowledge of BDSM as you do of economics, history, and government.

Yes.
As such, your own PSC's jurisdiction ends at your land's limit. wrong. the PSC's juristiction would extend to where ever I physically was.

I said screw the extra laws, slander's not a crime. who said extra. we were talking about simple laws.

If you want to be controlled and ordered around, join an appropriate club. Domination/Submission Club. (see Grave's response.)

More like on the current, but very much reduced in power and extent. as I said... A lame duck government. only without the safeguards to prevent someone from taking over.

as I said... A lame duck government. only without the safeguards to prevent someone from taking over.

The paradigm we're supposed to accept here, I think, is that all our problems would just go away, if people stopped telling us what to do. We'd ALL earn fatpaid, we'd ALL respect each other's property, and there'd be no need for conflict. There'd be no centrally required programs, infrastructure would mysteriously materialise out of the ether just when we needed it, and there'd be abundant food for all, despite the fact we'd all be millionaire poets without dayjobs.

Also, I'd like a pony, and a helicopter, and some nice mittens.

Thank you Santa, see you on the 24th

Yes, it is.
What you're saying is - you don't think it SHOULD be.
Yeah. But we in this thread have kinda slipped to discussing vaultopia.

Although, to be honest, I don't believe you. If you were going for a job as a teacher, and the other guy going for the job said that you rape small boys, you'd probably want a system that demanded redress.
No way. It's free speech. Right here, you're making slight personal attacks on me (see below), it only pictures you as a flamer, not me. One has the right to say whatever he wants.


Clearly you have as little knowledge of BDSM [...]
I used the term "BDSM" not in its direct meaning.

The paradigm we're supposed to accept here, I think, is that all our problems would just go away, if people stopped telling us what to do. We'd ALL earn fatpaid, we'd ALL respect each other's property, and there'd be no need for conflict. There'd be no centrally required programs, infrastructure would mysteriously materialise out of the ether just when we needed it, and there'd be abundant food for all, despite the fact we'd all be millionaire poets without dayjobs.

Also, I'd like a pony, and a helicopter, and some nice mittens.

Thank you Santa, see you on the 24th

yep... agreed... except for the pony... I want this platypus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_the_Platypus).

wrong. the PSC's juristiction would extend to where ever I physically was.
Why?

who said extra. we were talking about simple laws.
Yes, and slander doesn't restrict any of your or mine freedoms. Thus, laws against it are an excess.

There'd be no centrally required programs, infrastructure would mysteriously materialise out of the ether just when we needed it, No, it would be paid for privately. The infrastructure we actually need, need enough to pay for it, of course.

yep... agreed... except for the pony... I want this platypus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_the_Platypus).

Well you would... it matches your avvy.

Oh, so you're a resume-humper, eh? :tongue:

Just so.

Well, (a) you don't know my resume,


Let us see it.


and (b) what does your resume look like?


Plenty of political reading, no practical experience; but one must start somewhere.

Because Machiavelli may well have the expertise to say something, but do you have the expertise to understand him?

It is fairly straightforward.

Let's start with, have you read his other book?

Which one? The Prince? The Discourses (his best by far)? The Art of War? The History of Florence?

EDIT: By the way, it wasn't his job. His job was as a low- to mid-level civil servant.

That was sent to negotiate with Cesare Borgia; the technical name for Machiavelli's job is Secretary of State.

The study of politics was a hobby that came out of his job

More of a passion.

and his other personal time interest of supporting republican revolutionaries.

There was no proof he had anything to do with them.

But he never really had time from his job until his other interest landed him in prison.

Prison briefly; he lived most of the rest of his life on an estate in the country.

Power is the ultimate love juice so how would need love if they have tons of power?

No, it would be paid for privately. The infrastructure we actually need, need enough to pay for it, of course.

Doesn't work. Never has. That's why third world nations have enclaves of sophistication in deserts of need.

The rich build the infrastructure they WANT (whether they 'need' it or not), and the services become local to those hubs. Your producer and your supplier need transport, so they build a rail-link. How does the ambulance get to your house when you trip on the stairs?

'Need' isn't equivalent to strategic planning, but maybe it should be.

So - we all pay a little bit towards the creation and upkeep of roads, and we all have access to emergency services when the unthinkable happens.

To be honest, people like you that balk at (let's face it, in America, quite reasonable) taxation, should be allowed to opt out of taxes. And they should keep a register. Have an accident? Ambulance turns up at the scene, they check the register and find out you opted out... they go get latte.

Why? because *I* am paying them. thus their jurisdiction is where *I* am as well as my property, family and anyone else *I* choose to include.

after all, who's gonna stop me? the COPS? under your 'Government', I would own the COPS!

Yes, and slander doesn't restrict any of your or mine freedoms. Thus, laws against it are an excess. :tongue:

No, it would be paid for privately. The infrastructure we actually need, need enough to pay for it, of course. oh... cutting corners, no government oversite, no safety regulations, no enforcement, no inspection, and definiately no Maintenance...

and so far, lawsuits would be excess thus non exsistant. :p

hey, I got some pre-rusted metal beams you can use for your 6 lane highway... cheap!

Yeah. But we in this thread have kinda slipped to discussing vaultopia.


You have. That probably explains why you seem incapable of using even basic terminology. It probably means something different, in your little world.


No way. It's free speech. Right here, you're making slight personal attacks on me (see below), it only pictures you as a flamer, not me. One has the right to say whatever he wants.


How did I make a personal attack on you? Where did I flame you?

I don't think there is an implicit 'right' to say what you want about other people. And I don't think there's ever existed a culture where that was the norm. Indeed, the rules we have now, mainly exist as a polite alternative to getting stabbed in the guts.


I used the term "BDSM" not in its direct meaning.

No shit, Sherlock.

If you use the term to mean something other than what it means, then you're using it wrong.

Doesn't work. Never has. That's why third world nations have enclaves of sophistication in deserts of need.
It's because they're poor. Third world countries tend to have oppressive or at least totalitarianism-leaning governments.


The rich build the infrastructure they WANT (whether they 'need' it or not), and the services become local to those hubs. Your producer and your supplier need transport, so they build a rail-link. How does the ambulance get to your house when you trip on the stairs?
First through private electronic-toll road. Then through the road in my exurb community, included in the price of the house.

Hello, there's a lot of toll roads already, as well as suburban private roads.


To be honest, people like you that balk at (let's face it, in America, quite reasonable) taxation, should be allowed to opt out of taxes. And they should keep a register. Have an accident? Ambulance turns up at the scene, they check the register and find out you opted out...
And I've got to pay. Say, they deduct it from my credit card. Well, fair enough.

To be honest, people like you that balk at (let's face it, in America, quite reasonable) taxation, should be allowed to opt out of taxes. And they should keep a register. Have an accident? Ambulance turns up at the scene, they check the register and find out you opted out... they go get latte.
sounds interesting. I would rather tho. CASH UP FRONT. :tongue:

up to them if they will accept checks or credit cards. :p

well, gotta go, this is an interesting topic. Hope it's still viable tomorrow...

You have. That probably explains why you seem incapable of using even basic terminology. It probably means something different, in your little world.
Nope, it means the same. Minus commie redefinitions.


How did I make a personal attack on you? Where did I flame you?
"Clearly you have as little knowledge of BDSM as you do of economics, history, and government. "
Discussing the poster rather than the subject qualifies as flaming.


I don't think there is an implicit 'right' to say what you want about other people. And I don't think there's ever existed a culture where that was the norm.
Well, yes, freedom of speech isn't all pink goodness.

because *I* am paying them. thus their jurisdiction is where *I* am as well as my property, family and anyone else *I* choose to include.
after all, who's gonna stop me? the COPS? under your 'Government', I would own the COPS!
Right away? No one, neither in US, nor in Libertopia. Not even in US will cops arrive in time.
Later? My security or insurance company, conflicts resolved through the court or the government (which still has the army).

oh... cutting corners, no government oversite, no safety regulations, no enforcement,
Yeah, that's kinda the idea, particularly for people in less well-off suburbs.
But total cost drops a lot.

no inspection, and definiately no Maintenance... Pay for it and it will be.

I'm amazed that so far nobody has said "Power of Love" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeLV7WntttY)! http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/delorean.gif:fluffle:

It's because they're poor. Third world countries tend to have oppressive or at least totalitarianism-leaning governments.


So - your answer was two things, neither of which necessarily has anything to do with the other, and neither of which actually answers what I said.

A corrupt government in a third world country COULD afford infrastructure, but doesn't. The nation doesn't have to be poor, just bad distribution of that wealth. Amusingly - you were arguing this the other way, earlier...


First through private electronic-toll road. Then through the road in my exurb community, included in the price of the house.

Hello, there's a lot of toll roads already, as well as suburban private roads.


Why would YOU be allowed to live in those areas? You don't want to pay taxes - they don't want you.

You'd have to go live in some shanty town with others of your kind.


And I've got to pay. Say, they deduct it from my credit card. Well, fair enough.

Nope. Instant disqualification. You have to pay for the call-out, maybe, but they know that's just gonna be written off as bad debt anyway, because you won't even pay taxes.

No - such services shouldn't be allowed to pick you up, not for any amount. You wanted out, you opted out.

Vault 10, there is a book I believe you ought to read: Jennifer Government.

"Clearly you have as little knowledge of BDSM as you do of economics, history, and government. "
Discussing the poster rather than the subject qualifies as flaming.


You have continuously misused phrasing, apparently completely lost track several times, and have made basic and fundamental economics errors, etc.

Telling you you have no clue is not an insult, it's a statement of fact.

Vault 10, there is a book I believe you ought to read: Jennifer Government.
Read twice, and listened to audio version thrice. Love it.


A corrupt government in a third world country COULD afford infrastructure, but doesn't. The nation doesn't have to be poor, just bad distribution of that wealth.
Third world nations are poor all through. But maybe the government could, sometimes.


Why would YOU be allowed to live in those areas? You don't want to pay taxes - they don't want you.
Because I've paid [my share] for building up that area and its roads. Tada.


Nope. Instant disqualification. You have to pay for the call-out, maybe, but they know that's just gonna be written off as bad debt anyway, because you won't even pay taxes.
Don't you see it will be richer people who will opt out of the taxation system? They don't use most of the tax-provided services anyway, but are taxed the highest.
The poor, on the other hand, have no reason to opt out as they pay nothing anyway.

economics errors, etc.
No, I haven't.

It's just that I used capitalist and not commie economics.

No, I haven't.

Yes, you have.

And, as if by magic:


It's just that I used capitalist and not commie economics.

There are no 'capitalist' or 'commie' economics. There's just economics.

I wonder which system you think your fundamental error about distribution of wealth versus market value came under?

The 'commie economics' was a step too far, I'm afraid. Now I know you're just trolling. The rest of it was quite cute though. A little rabid to be convincing, maybe.

Power, probably.

Besides, if I had absolute power and didn't like I would have the power to declare a re-do!

I wonder which system you think your fundamental error about distribution of wealth versus market value came under?
There was no error. We were concerned about different things. You about wealth distribution (which I agree is more fair with taxes), I about wealth generation (which taxes harm).

Read twice, and listened to audio version thrice. Love it.


But, apparently, didn't understand it.


Third world nations are poor all through. But maybe the government could, sometimes.


Bullshit. 'Third World' refers to the UN Human Development Index, with such nations as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, China and India theoretically being 'Third World'.

The terminology is sometimes used politically, more often used of 'developing' nations... but most commonly, refers to the HDI rather than any other factor.

Being 'poor' has nothing to do with it. Another of your textbook mistakes.


Because I've paid [my share] for building up that area and its roads. Tada.


Irrelevent. The government wouldn't want freeloaders like you living on it's properties, when they can be used more profitably. You might be able to find a shanty somewhere, otherwise, you'll have to hop ovcer the border, and hope for a warmer reception.


Don't you see it will be richer people who will opt out of the taxation system? They don't use most of the tax-provided services anyway, but are taxed the highest.
The poor, on the other hand, have no reason to opt out as they pay nothing anyway.

More textbook errors. Have you ever actually seen how taxation relates to income levels?

There was no error. We were concerned about different things. You about wealth distribution (which I agree is more fair with taxes), I about wealth generation (which taxes harm).

No - you were making a textbook error of understanding about how income levels relate to market values, to whit - your assertion that the person on $1000 in an economy that ranges from that figure to 100 times as much, would be 'more prosperous' than the person on $100 in an economy set at that level.

And, it has to be said, taxes don't harm 'wealth generation' - they just change the proportions of what goes where.

I can't take my Ron Paul supporting friends and form the Libertarian Country.
I can move to another neighborhood.

How could you do so if/when other communities already claim jurisdiction over the area where you and your friend wish to form Libertarian Country?


It is a form of governance, but unlike a government it's local, easily escapable, strictly limited in what it can do.

How is it limited? What's to stop the government from surpassing those limits? What stops them from uniting with other communities or conquering other areas?

Sort of rather minimized. Or abolished and rebuilt. But someone has to own what isn't owned, if only to prevent its abuse.

Gov't property, purchase the permit.

Develop devices that can use other frequencies if some are being overused.

The government still faces tyranny of the majority. Unanimity is not created so some people are being oppressed

Well, yes, if the natives aren't human. If they're human, they're under constitutional protection of their rights.

Indians and Blacks weren't considered human, apparently.

Rights: "We want to have the right to employ or be employed, i.e. start business or be hired!"; "We want the right to walk braless!"
Opportunities: "We want employers to be forced to employ women, if there's a 'tie' between a woman and man!" (actual proposed law); "We want to mandate employers to let us take babies with us and provide breastfeeding breaks!"
Note: I'm not opposed to either, but the first is essential rights, and the latter is not.

From what I know of women's activism the above is a false dichotomy.

Read twice, and listened to audio version thrice. Love it.

Well, unless you were immortal, you would have to set-up some sort of government, or else after you died, society would quickly be taken over by those who possessed the most money. Chaos would later ensue, with the poor rebelling against the rich. Some leader of the poor would find much favor with them, then she would install herself as a despot, and things would end-up most unpleasant.

No - you were making a textbook error of understanding about how income levels relate to market values, to whit - your assertion that the person on $1000 in an economy that ranges from that figure to 100 times as much, would be 'more prosperous' than the person on $100 in an economy set at that level.
Yes, and it's not error, but truth. As long as there exists unrestricted international goods market, a person with $1000 will be able to afford more goods than a person with $100.

US has a high Gini coefficient, approaching 0.50, but even the lowest-earning minimum-wage workers in US are better off than average earners in Slovakia or Ukraine with 0.25-0.28 Gini coefficients, some of the lowest.


Bullshit. 'Third World' refers to the UN Human Development Index, with such nations as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, China and India theoretically being 'Third World'.
The terminology is sometimes used politically, more often used of 'developing' nations... but most commonly, refers to the HDI rather than any other factor.
"Third World" refers to nations not in league with the NATO (First) or ex-Warsaw (Second).

You once again have your own definitions, different from these everyone else has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world

Irrelevent. The government wouldn't want freeloaders like you living on it's properties, when they can be used more profitably.
For the government. Of course. More money to expand itself, more money to embezzle. That's why I would opt for power to cut it down, for everybody, rather than love for my own entertainment alone.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, China and India theoretically being 'Third World'. They are theoretically and practically, and their citizens are poor. It's just the governments which get rich off the oil supplies in Saudi, Kuwait and UAE. China and India are poor full stop.


Have you ever actually seen how taxation relates to income levels?
There is no relevant data for such a comparison.
But what's known is the law of supply and demand.


And, it has to be said, taxes don't harm 'wealth generation' - they just change the proportions of what goes where.
Wrong. BTW, it's not even a textbook mistake you're making here, but entirely "never saw the textbook" reading one.

The law of supply and demand not only demonstrates that even non-embezzled taxes harm the economy, but even gives a way to find the exact direct loss from taxes.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Tax_supply_and_demand.png


Part of that money, to the left of Qt, goes to the government (mostly to be wasted on administration, wars, pork barrel projects), and the part to the right is lost altogether. The deadweight loss grows quadratically with tax.

Simply speaking, tax means that the manufacturers have less profits, so they pay lower wages and grow slower, creating fewer jobs, thus producing more poor. At the same time, the prices increase, so the poor no longer can afford the goods they need.

Power, without question.

Power, without question.

Welcome aboard.

As the greatest genius the galaxy has ever known, I would choose power, fully knowing there are plenty of women out there in to that sort of thing thereby allowing me to reap the benefits of both!

Just so.


Let us see it.
No. Anonymity keeps presumptuous snobs on their toes.


Plenty of political reading, no practical experience; but one must start somewhere.
So...not an expert, then.


It is fairly straightforward.
Ya think? Then I wonder how come you opted for the most simplistic misapplication of one his most often misquoted comments.


Which one? The Prince? The Discourses (his best by far)? The Art of War? The History of Florence?
Heh, cute. You had the whole library stuffed down your pants, ready to be whipped out? I was referring to The Discourses, which I admit I was betting you were unfamiliar with because of your cliched use of that quote from The Prince.

That was sent to negotiate with Cesare Borgia; the technical name for Machiavelli's job is Secretary of State.
No, it wasn't. Please.

More of a passion.
I'll bet he wasn't as passionate as you, though. I'll bet he didn't walk around with libraries of books stuffed down his pants to impress other people.

There was no proof he had anything to do with them.
I disagree. There is no proof he did what he was accused of, but there is evidence that he supported the republican cause.

Prison briefly; he lived most of the rest of his life on an estate in the country.
Prison briefly a couple of times, during which times, he finished his books.

As the greatest genius the galaxy has ever known, I would choose power, fully knowing there are plenty of women out there in to that sort of thing thereby allowing me to reap the benefits of both!

Choosing power makes one incapable of loving or being loved by another being in this scenario.

Clearly you have as little knowledge of BDSM as you do of economics, history, and government.

I used the term "BDSM" not in its direct meaning.
:D :D :D This convo is way more hilarious than Parkus's Machiavelli act. This gem is especially immortal. Thanks, V10! *falls about*

Ahhh, anarchists are so cute.

Choosing power makes one incapable of loving or being loved by another being in this scenario.

Shit. Well, then, nevermind...I'll just go for a relatively solid amount of power instead and keep the love. I'm still the greatest genius the galaxy has ever known, however.

:D :D :D This convo is way more hilarious than Parkus's Machiavelli act. This gem is especially immortal. Thanks, V10! *falls about*

so, Mur, which would you want to talk about, government, history, economics or BDSM? I'm fluent in all of 'em :p

:D :D :D This convo is way more hilarious than Parkus's Machiavelli act. This gem is especially immortal. Thanks, V10! *falls about*

What the hell just happened here?

It's not freedom and liberty. It's just BDSM submissive types who don't like freedom and liberty.


It's true. In my fantasies, I regularly find myself thinking, "Spank me harder, sir! Then go overthrow the democratically elected government and install a totalitarian regime all night long! Oh YEAH!"

so, Mur, which would you want to talk about, government, history, economics or BDSM? I'm fluent in all of 'em :p
Is there any difference among them?

What the hell just happened here?
What happened is, I got amused. :)

Is there any difference among them?


sure there is, the difference is who's getting screwed, who's getting beaten, and whether or not they want it.

At least with BDSM you know where you stand

What happened is, I got amused. :)

I figured it was something degenerate. I mean, who doesn't appreciate a hearty discussion on BDSM?

It's true. In my fantasies, I regularly find myself thinking, "Spank me harder, sir! Then go overthrow the democratically elected government and install a totalitarian regime all night long! Oh YEAH!"
*spits midnight drinkie onto keyboard* Stop it! You're killin' me, I'm dyin'!! :D

It's true. In my fantasies, I regularly find myself thinking, "Spank me harder, sir! Then go overthrow the democratically elected government and install a totalitarian regime all night long! Oh YEAH!"
Oh, now I'm getting what's the deal.

You see, there are different kinds of masochism. Some enjoy it with sex. Some for the sake of it. And some love the government to bind and rape them.

It's true. In my fantasies, I regularly find myself thinking, "Spank me harder, sir! Then go overthrow the democratically elected government and install a totalitarian regime all night long! Oh YEAH!"

You too?

sure there is, the difference is who's getting screwed, who's getting beaten, and whether or not they want it.

At least with BDSM you know where you stand
That's true. And the others have no safe words.

You see, there are different kinds of masochism. Some enjoy it with sex. Some for the sake of it. And some love the government to bind and rape them.

Yes, remember kiddies, if someone disagrees with you, it's not because they might have a reasoned, informed opinion that runs counter to your own.

It's because they're degenerates who want to be raped by government's giant serrated penis.

Yes, remember kiddies, if someone disagrees with you, it's not because they might have a reasoned, informed opinion that runs counter to your own.

It's because they're degenerates who want to be raped by government's giant serrated penis.

Mmm....government penis....

It's because they're degenerates who want to be raped by government's giant serrated penis.

Surely bigger than any of ours.

Now I know who all this spam in my inbox is for.

Surely bigger than any of ours.

Now I know who all this spam in my inbox is for.

I'm surprised it's the word "giant" that caught your attention, not "serrated"

No. Anonymity keeps presumptuous snobs on their toes.

Oh, my.


So...not an expert, then.

It does not appear you have to be one, this day and age, in order to run the most powerful country in world.

Ya think? Then I wonder how come you opted for the most simplistic misapplication of one his most often misquoted comments.


There was no misapplication. Machiavelli specifically said men can choose whom they love, they cannot chose whom they fear. Therefore, fear controls the populace better. Of course, he also said the people must respect oneself, and it is pure folly to drive them to hate oneself.

Heh, cute. You had the whole library stuffed down your pants, ready to be whipped out?

Erotica may be used for the trousers; I prefer to keep political science in my head and on the bookshelf.

I was referring to The Discourses, which I admit I was betting you were unfamiliar with because of your cliched use of that quote from The Prince.

The Price is a tad over-quoted, and can only take one so far. It was apparently aimed at someone with a short attention span and a narrow mind; have you ever compared it's dedication with that of The Discourses? Remarkable, eh?

No, it wasn't. Please.

He was at least an adviser and an ambassador.

I'll bet he wasn't as passionate as you, though. I'll bet he didn't walk around with libraries of books stuffed down his pants to impress other people.

He was well-read, considering how many historical events he cites.


I disagree. There is no proof he did what he was accused of, but there is evidence that he supported the republican cause.

Evidence? In The Discourses he makes his convictions quite clear.


Prison briefly a couple of times, during which times, he finished his books.

I was under the impression he was tortured for a couple of weeks, then told to retire outside the city boundaries. Not that any of that is relevant.

Oh, my.
<snip>
Oh sush, you boring old buzzkiller! Can't you see that the convo has moved on to far more interesting topics?

I'm surprised it's the word "giant" that caught your attention, not "serrated"
"Serrated" is kinda a given with these guys.

Oh sush, you boring old buzzkiller! Can't you see that the convo has moved on to far more interesting topics?

No...I was possessed by the illusion that I started this thread.

Hold on, we're on The Internet and more people still chose love over power? Looks like these smarmy bastards are losing their edge!

I demand more Ladder Theory, general misanthropy, and self-diagnosed Aspergers ASAP!

No...I was possessed by the illusion that I started this thread.
The child always supplants the parent. You'd better catch up with your thread before it moves away and forgets your birthday.

Hold on, we're on The Internet and more people still chose love over power? Looks like these smarmy bastards are losing their edge!

I demand more Ladder Theory, general misanthropy, and self-diagnosed Aspergers ASAP!
It's only just starting Tuesday. Maybe they're all still hungover from the weekend. (I'm actually surprised at the poll so far, too.)

The child always supplants the parent. You'd better catch up with your thread before it moves away and forgets your birthday.

:confused: I do not believe I like you.

:confused: I do not believe I like you.
You're not sure? I guess I need to work harder.

You're not sure? I guess I need to work harder.

That goal seems incongruent with the choice of option number two.

Power or Love?

I'll take love...power is overrated.

That goal seems incongruent with the choice of option number two.
If you do not believe in working on relationships, then it is clear why you chose option #1.

And, no, it is not at all incongruent with option #2.

Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those abound you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.

There is nothing in there about not having enemies. You specifically state that I will be admired by "most of those abound (sic) you." Most =/= everyone. And the example of posthumous influence you cite is Christ, who, I believe, had enemies. See? You can be my Judas, if you play your cards right.

I am of the opinion that one should carefully cultivate the right kinds of relationships with one's enemies, just as one does with one's friends, lovers and family. Enemies are important. One should not be careless about them. I hope that, throughout my life, I will have as many enemies as I have friends, and that both groups will contain the people I think they should.

Option #2 allows for real and deep personal relationships, of both love and hate. Option #1 renders at least half of those false and shallow.

Love. I've got Asperger's and I'm not great people wise, and I would love to have ultimate control over either of those places, but love.

There is nothing in there about not having enemies. You specifically state that I will be admired by "most of those abound (sic) you." Most =/= everyone.
And the example of posthumous influence you cite is Christ, who, I believe, had enemies. See? You can be my Judas, if you play your cards right.

I believe Christ did not encourage Judas, nor did he try to make enemies, even if he had many.

I refuse the position of Judas, but I will be happy with Pontius Pilate "if you play your cards right".

No...I was possessed by the illusion that I started this thread.

started the thread you have
wandered the thread it did
control of the thread you have not. :p

Right away? No one, neither in US, nor in Libertopia. Not even in US will cops arrive in time. err... if I am paying the cops, they would be with me.

Later? My security or insurance company, conflicts resolved through the court or the government (which still has the army). and your small government is still growing and gaining power. this still seems so... status quo.

Yeah, that's kinda the idea, particularly for people in less well-off suburbs.
But total cost drops a lot. *Sputters* remember folks, this is from the man who wanted to clean up a corrupt government! :D

Pay for it and it will be.
again, the poor get shafted and the rich gain all the power. :D

I believe Christ did not encourage Judas, nor did he try to make enemies, even if he had many.
Christ did not deny the existence of his enemies, and he treated them very nicely.

The point is not whether one makes enemies or just accumulates them over time. The point is that having enemies is not incongruent with Option #2.

I refuse the position of Judas, but I will be happy with Pontius Pilate "if you play your cards right".
My enemies do not get to dictate the terms by which I play the game. You will be to me whatever I decide you are.

Power.

I can be happy and alone.

...You will be to me whatever I decide you are.

I wish it were that easy. People often have an affect on me that I would prefer they didn't.

It's true. In my fantasies, I regularly find myself thinking, "Spank me harder, sir! Then go overthrow the democratically elected government and install a totalitarian regime all night long! Oh YEAH!"

Awesome.

It's true. In my fantasies, I regularly find myself thinking, "Spank me harder, sir! Then go overthrow the democratically elected government and install a totalitarian regime all night long! Oh YEAH!"

"oh yeah... shred me baby!"

I wish it were that easy. People often have an affect on me that I would prefer they didn't.
I had that problem in spades until I realized I was letting them do that, i.e. I was still deciding what they would be to me. I was letting them jerk me around or trigger my emotions, etc. Ever since I realized that I have total control over my own reactions, other people have had a much harder time pushing my buttons.

I had that problem in spades until I realized I was letting them do that, i.e. I was still deciding what they would be to me. I was letting them jerk me around or trigger my emotions, etc. Ever since I realized that I have total control over my own reactions, other people have had a much harder time pushing my buttons.

I have a tendency to reclusion. Letting people in is probably good for me.

Also, we communicate by other ways than speech. Reacting emotionally is a form of communication.

Finally, there's an intern in our office who has Asperger's. He is very unsettling. He has an affect on me I wish he didn't. I end up being brusque with him when I should be more helpful. All I can say is, it's a struggle for me.

Yes, and it's not error, but truth. As long as there exists unrestricted international goods market, a person with $1000 will be able to afford more goods than a person with $100.


There is no such thing as an unrestricted international market. Even if you removed all controls imposed by national interests, the difference in international equity, the local markets, and other international market players... and, most importantly perhaps, the international transportation itself, are all 'restrictive' effects.

If you live in Canada, and have a thousand dollars - and you have a friend in Argentina with a hundred dollars... if you are both buying your food from the same market in Argentina, he's the one that's eating like a king, and you're the one that eats like a pauper.


US has a high Gini coefficient, approaching 0.50, but even the lowest-earning minimum-wage workers in US are better off than average earners in Slovakia or Ukraine with 0.25-0.28 Gini coefficients, some of the lowest.


I think you're talking crap. I also think that - once again - you're having to really reach to try to make any sort of a point... average earners (which average? Mean, median or mode?) in a former soviet republic is a bit of a cherry pick... and to be honest, I'm still not sure your point is valid.


"Third World" refers to nations not in league with the NATO (First) or ex-Warsaw (Second).


That's one of the possible meanings, but not considered key. Amusingly - it's what I talked about (political) rather than what you talked about (poor)... so you just made a liar of your own argument.


You once again have your own definitions, different from these everyone else has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world


EVen more amusingly - wikipedia actually backs me up:

"Today, however, the term is frequently used to denote nations with a low UN Human Development Index (HDI), independent of their political status. However, there is no objective definition of Third World or Third World country and the use of the term remains controversial.

The petroleum-rich countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, etc.) and the new industrial countries (India, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico etc.) as well as the rapidly growing countries such as (Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Russia, etc.) have little if anything in common with poor countries (Haiti, Chad, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, etc.)".

Your own source says you're wrong. It also validates practically every point I made.

Explain to me again how "(I) have (my) own definitions, different from these everyone else has"...?

You just got served so thoroughly, your grandchildren are still gonna be paying me tips.


For the government. Of course. More money to expand itself, more money to embezzle. That's why I would opt for power to cut it down, for everybody, rather than love for my own entertainment alone.


That doesn't address what I said. Nice prevarication.


They are theoretically and practically, and their citizens are poor. It's just the governments which get rich off the oil supplies in Saudi, Kuwait and UAE.

I was under the impression was that your argument was that the third world nations were poor, universally... and that it was MY argument that they instead had massive imbalance of internal income? You're trying to argue it both ways.

Do I need to go find the relevent posts?


China and India are poor full stop.


You like the pain or something?

China has the 4th greatest GDP in the world, the 2nd in terms of purchase power. It has a GDP growth rate of 11%. It's GINI is lower than the US (but not by much, admittedly). It has the world's number 1 current account balance - arguably the single most important economic metric.

If your 'logic' means anything, China is 'poor' like the US is 'poor'.


The law of supply and demand not only demonstrates that even non-embezzled taxes harm the economy, but even gives a way to find the exact direct loss from taxes.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Tax_supply_and_demand.png


A graph without data is just pretty lines.


Part of that money, to the left of Qt, goes to the government (mostly to be wasted on administration, wars, pork barrel projects), and the part to the right is lost altogether. The deadweight loss grows quadratically with tax.


I don't think you know what you're talking about - you're conflating taxation with spending, in your first sentence... and your second sentence is just rubbish. Money is 'lost altogether'? What do you think is happening, someone is eating it?


Simply speaking, tax means that the manufacturers have less profits, so they pay lower wages and grow slower, creating fewer jobs, thus producing more poor. At the same time, the prices increase, so the poor no longer can afford the goods they need.

Utter rubbish. Lower profits are not equal to lower wages. A company can run on no (effective) profit, and still pay the same wages ('not-for-profits' do it all the time). You are claiming an intrinsic effect where there is none. Similarly, a company can grow at the same rate regardless of 'profit', can create the same number of jobs, regardless of 'profit'.

I don't think you understand supply and demand as well as you think you do.

I have a tendency to reclusion. Letting people in is probably good for me.

Also, we communicate by other ways than speech. Reacting emotionally is a form of communication.

Finally, there's an intern in our office who has Asperger's. He is very unsettling. He has an affect on me I wish he didn't. I end up being brusque with him when I should be more helpful. All I can say is, it's a struggle for me.
It's a struggle for everyone. I am also somewhat reclusive, most comfortable with just my "inner circle" of OK people. But I'm also an obsessive perfectionist with a hyperactive ego-driven sense of integrity, so when I agree to do something for someone (like when I take a job), I feel driven to do it completely and as perfectly as I can, no matter what. Some people, especially people who don't know me well, or who I don't know well enough to spot their tricks and quirks, will try to take advantage of this by heaping more and more demands on me and constantly expanding the scope of the "job." About 10 years ago, I reached a breaking point on a job that expanded to the point that I was spending up to 6 days a week, 12-15 hours a day on the job, eating badly, sleeping worse, downing 10 cups of coffee every 8 hours, and showing the first symptoms of an ulcer -- all for an employer who seemed to think it was reasonable to demand this of workers.

Then I found out that they were paying me about 30% less than the state average for the kind of work I was doing, and something went *snap* in my mind. It was like waking up from the nightmare. Came the dawn, and suddenly, I could see exactly how they had been manipulating me emotionally to keep me working so insanely hard. It literally was like being in an abusive relationship, where the dynamic was that they kept dangling the promise of happy days ahead, if only I would do "the right thing" and "do it right" -- only nothing was ever right enough to suit them. Once I realized that, it was like the emotional switches they had been toggling on me didn't work anymore. All of my need or urge to respond to them was suddenly gone, and I was able to walk away from that job without any more stress or upset.

From that day since, I have been more aware of my own emotional reactions to things that people say and do, and that awareness has made it much harder to draw me into those kinds of traps, and, when I do blunder into one, much easier for me to just walk out again.

So, it's not a matter of not letting people in. It's a matter of not letting just anyone jerk you around like a puppet, but remaining master of yourself and always being in control of what you give to them, how you respond to them. That's what I meant when I said that my enemies are to me what I decide they are.

There is no such thing as an unrestricted international market. Even if you removed all controls imposed by national interests, the difference in international equity, the local markets, and other international market players... and, most importantly perhaps, the international transportation itself, are all 'restrictive' effects.
If you live in Canada, and have a thousand dollars - and you have a friend in Argentina with a hundred dollars... if you are both buying your food from the same market in Argentina, he's the one that's eating like a king, and you're the one that eats like a pauper.
Yes, if you order it through air mail. Thus you buy it at the local market, which ships the goods in bulk, and the price difference stays small.


I think you're talking crap.
Thanks. That's what we've come to - I give you figures you referenced, and you respond with not trusting them. Expectable. You're

I also think that - once again - you're having to really reach to try to make any sort of a point... average earners (which average? Mean, median or mode?) in a former soviet republic is a bit of a cherry pick...
Nope, it isn't. You said yourself that consider a country with $100 throughout to be better off than the one with $1000-$100,000 incomes.


I was under the impression was that your argument was that the third world nations were poor, universally... and that it was MY argument that they instead had massive imbalance of internal income?
There are a few third world nations which have a petroleum industry, which due to high oil prices generates high profits. And that's it.
But it's not income inequality which makes them poor - it's lack of any infrastructure and industry, outside the petroleum.

Third world countries without oil are poor.


China has the 4th greatest GDP in the world, the 2nd in terms of purchase power. It has a GDP growth rate of 11%. It's GINI is lower than the US (but not by much, admittedly). It has the world's number 1 current account balance - arguably the single most important economic metric.
No, the important economic metrics are ones like GDP per capita. China only has a high GDP due to its size, combining the earnings of a lot of poor people.
That doesn't make it a rich country, just like Switzerland's small absolute GDP doesn't make it poor.



A graph without data is just pretty lines.
I hoped you understood at least such a simple graph.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Tax_supply_and_demand.png

Pe is equilibrium price, Pt if taxed. Qe is equilibrium quantity, Qt if taxed.
The rectangle formed by lines of Pp, Pc, Qt is the money taken in tax.
The triangle between Pp:Qt, Pc:Qt, Pe:Qe is the deadweight loss due to taxation.


What do you think is happening, someone is eating it?
No. It's never created in the first place. The goods are never produced. It's deadweight loss, direct economy (GDP) reduction from taxation.



A company can run on no (effective) profit, and still pay the same wages ('not-for-profits' do it all the time).
Yes, theoretically. Practically, it just won't. When every company is forced to lose money to increased tax, they are forced to lower their wages. Those that ran on no profits already have to fire workers or shut down.
The only reason for companies to pay high wages is so that their employees don't leave for another company - but if all are harmed by tax, they all lower the wages.

Thats a tough one....

I picked Power, but, id be really unhappy about it...although choosing the latter id always wonder about what wouldve happened...

atleast with all that money i can get plenty of concubines, lol...

Yes, if you order it through air mail. Thus you buy it at the local market, which ships the goods in bulk, and the price difference stays small.


You're creating additional factors. You said an unrestricted market - now you're talking about being able to impose economies of scale (which is most certainly not guaranteed) and making assumptions about international transport costs (which are not guaranteed) to try to make your argument right.

You also totally ignore the fact that there are other limitations that might be imposed on an international market - not least of which is that there is no such thing as an unrestricted market.

EVen if there WAS an 'unrestricted market', the Argentinian market isn't going to ship ALL of it's goods to you, at the same price it could command at the local economy. It will, instead, do what always happens in supply and demand models, and match the economy of the purchase power.

In effect, you'd create a market in Argentina that the local couldn't shop at, but which would be making ten times the price, from international trade.


Thanks. That's what we've come to - I give you figures you referenced, and you respond with not trusting them. Expectable. You're


I don't trust your interpretation, not the figures themselves. I think you cherrypicked your data to try to make a point. I think you ignored my point about which average you mean. And I don't agree with the conclusion you reached, because I don't see any evidence for it.


Nope, it isn't. You said yourself that consider a country with $100 throughout to be better off than the one with $1000-$100,000 incomes.


Not only did I not say that, but you've not provided any evidence that actually addressed that point, anyway.


There are a few third world nations which have a petroleum industry, which due to high oil prices generates high profits. And that's it.
But it's not income inequality which makes them poor - it's lack of any infrastructure and industry, outside the petroleum.

You said third world nations are poor.

I showed that that is a bullshit statement. Your equivocation on it now is not changing what either of us said.

Your second sentence is ridiculous, it contradicts your first. Infrastructure and industry (which is what I was schooling YOU on earlier) outside of centralised resources, IS income inequality.


Third world countries without oil are poor.


Apparently you think so. It's a change from what you said earlier, and it's still not right... but, hey, why let facts get in your way?


No, the important economic metrics are ones like GDP per capita. China only has a high GDP due to its size, combining the earnings of a lot of poor people.
That doesn't make it a rich country, just like Switzerland's small absolute GDP doesn't make it poor.


Why is GDP per capita the important metric? Because you want it to be?

The MAIN measure of an economy, is the GDP. The secondary figure is the PPP, where China scores second only to the US. The two main measures of an trade in an economy, are the account balance and the capital account. On almost every count, China is a successful economy. I suspect you ONLY want to talk about per capita GDP, because you are aware that China would have to be three times more profitable/efficient than the US to match it on that score. More cherrypicking.


I hoped you understood at least such a simple graph.


I understand it. I said it's useless without data.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Tax_supply_and_demand.png

Pe is equilibrium price, Pt if taxed. Qe is equilibrium quantity, Qt if taxed.
The rectangle formed by lines of Pp, Pc, Qt is the money taken in tax.
The triangle between Pp:Qt, Pc:Qt, Pe:Qe is the deadweight loss due to taxation.

No. It's never created in the first place. The goods are never produced. It's deadweight loss, direct economy (GDP) reduction from taxation.


Again, all you do is show you don't understand the basic principles.

The reason I asked you about where this money is 'lost' to - is because you are trying to make out deadweight loss to be something other than what it is. What is is is a reduction in economic efficiency - in other words, how closely it matches an idealised supply-and-demand model. That doesn't mean 'money' is 'lost', and it would be fairly irrelevent anyway, since there ARE no ideal supply-and-demand models... there are always other factors (scarcity, external influences, relative control of the market, incentivisation).

It doesn't mean the goods are never produced - it means they WOULD never be produced IF production perfectly matched the IDEAL supply-and-demand model. Which is unlikely to ever happen. And what the model suggests would happen, is that the demand curve will artificially match the supply curve at a point where two unlikely factors meet - both the price is lower AND the quantity to market is lower.

In application, the most likely scenario is over-production, and a relative loss on the surplus - or underproduction, and the demand is fed by an alternate market.


Yes, theoretically. Practically, it just won't. When every company is forced to lose money to increased tax, they are forced to lower their wages. Those that ran on no profits already have to fire workers or shut down.
The only reason for companies to pay high wages is so that their employees don't leave for another company - but if all are harmed by tax, they all lower the wages.

Utter rubbish.

You seem to be confusing 'less profit' with 'losing money'. The two are not the same. And again - 'not for profits' are our guiding light. Their simple existence proves your base assumption to be false.

Add to which, your deductions FROM that assumption are bogus. If a company doesn't make as much profit as it WANTS, that does not mean it is 'forced' to cut wages. If ALL companies are under the same burden of tax (no matter how onerous you think it) there is no incentive for ALL of them to lower wages, because they are ALL competing for the same workers, under the same limitations.

They MIGHT all use that as a justification, but it would be horseshit when they said it, too.

I'm amazed that so far nobody has said "Power of Love" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeLV7WntttY)! http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/delorean.gif:fluffle:

i was going to say it! *is too late* :(

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6485/bttf20s220marty20doczb6.jpg

You're creating additional factors. You said an unrestricted market - now you're talking about being able to impose economies of scale (which is most certainly not guaranteed) and making assumptions about international transport costs (which are not guaranteed) to try to make your argument right.
And in the end, after all these "nonguaranteeds", we're still buying goods in US at prices pretty close to these in country of origin. From food and clothes to cars and gasoline. That's how it works in practice.


You said third world nations are poor.
I showed that that is a bullshit statement. Your equivocation on it now is not changing what either of us said.
No, you changed your definition of poor/rich to "how much money the Sultan/Leader/etc has in treasury", instead of "how well do the people live".


Your second sentence is ridiculous, it contradicts your first. Infrastructure and industry (which is what I was schooling YOU on earlier) outside of centralised resources, IS income inequality.
Yes, but the problem isn't income inequality. The problem is large number of people below the poverty line.
Income inequality in such countries as Qatar is a good rather than an evil, because it stems from discovering an extremely valuable resource and improving the economy of the capital, from the poverty it would stay in otherwise.


Why is GDP per capita the important metric? Because you want it to be?
The MAIN measure of an economy, is the GDP.
For the Dictator, yes.
For the people living there, no.


The reason I asked you about where this money is 'lost' to - is because you are trying to make out deadweight loss to be something other than what it is. What is is is a reduction in economic efficiency - in other words,
In other words, a reduction in production of goods.


In application, the most likely scenario is over-production, and a relative loss on the surplus - or underproduction, and the demand is fed by an alternate market.
In application, the scenario is that if a TV cost $500, median-income households could afford 2 TV sets, and did so. When due to tax it costs $1000, median-income households can only afford 1, and buy one. And that's it. Whatever the problems are in the market, tax only exacerbates them.


You seem to be confusing 'less profit' with 'losing money'. The two are not the same. And again - 'not for profits' are our guiding light.
The difference between lost profits and losing money is only a technicality. The result is the same.
"Not for profits" is a way to drive your economy into stagnation. Profit is essential for growth.

Companies don't "WANT" profits. They NEED profits in order to grow, develop, start new enterprises.


If a company doesn't make as much profit as it WANTS, that does not mean it is 'forced' to cut wages. If ALL companies are under the same burden of tax (no matter how onerous you think it) there is no incentive for ALL of them to lower wages, because they are ALL competing for the same workers, under the same limitations.
If ALL companies had a tax level of 10%, and it's then raised to a tax level of 40%, it DOES mean they will all cut their wages. They have to cut wages to retain profitability. And there's no reason for them not to cut wages, since everyone has incentive to do so.

It's like when you raise the tax on some product, that doesn't mean shops cut their profits - they just adjust the price up and take it from the customers. All of them raise the price. No sane businessman wants to work "not for profit".

i think that no matter how much i would want love,. i would give it up for power ...

but not for powers sake ..but so that with that supreme power, i will rule and create a new europe or america that will give importance to love and peace ...so though i may be the only one not to find love, i will ensure that evryone else has love ......

yay !!!. .i will sacrifice myself for the greater good ..though i am sorely tempted to take love and run ...

i was going to say it! *is too late* :(

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6485/bttf20s220marty20doczb6.jpg
Given the reference, can you be too late? Why not just go back in time and do it then?

Christ did not deny the existence of his enemies, and he treated them very nicely.

So he did not strive to be disliked.

The point is not whether one makes enemies or just accumulates them over time. The point is that having enemies is not incongruent with Option #2.

I would say wanting enemies is incongruent with the whole idea.

My enemies do not get to dictate the terms by which I play the game. You will be to me whatever I decide you are.

That is just dandy; so there is no argument I can muster if you tell me I am hiding "weapons of mass destruction"? If your towers get knocked-over, you can tell me I am the cause of it?

And in the end, after all these "nonguaranteeds", we're still buying goods in US at prices pretty close to these in country of origin. From food and clothes to cars and gasoline. That's how it works in practice.


Once again, you're talking crap. If you think we're paying in the US, what a Chinese person pays on the street, then you're delusional.


No, you changed your definition of poor/rich to "how much money the Sultan/Leader/etc has in treasury", instead of "how well do the people live".


I haven't changed any definitions. You were the one who introduced the 'poor' factor into the equation. You were also the one who has been arguing that a bigger inequity isn't a bad thing, and that a good quality of life for the 'peasants' was undesirable. You seem to change to suit your moods, since you're failing to even present a coherent version of your OWN argument.


Yes, but the problem isn't income inequality. The problem is large number of people below the poverty line.
Income inequality in such countries as Qatar is a good rather than an evil, because it stems from discovering an extremely valuable resource and improving the economy of the capital, from the poverty it would stay in otherwise.


Ah, here we go again - you're arguing that income inequity is good - when it suits you.

Again though - you are prevaricating, rather than actually dealing with my points.


For the Dictator, yes.
For the people living there, no.


What dictator? GDP isn't specific to dictatorships. Again, you seem to be shifting sides... and, regardless of dictators, GDP is still the main metric of economy.


In other words, a reduction in production of goods.


No.


In application, the scenario is that if a TV cost $500, median-income households could afford 2 TV sets, and did so. When due to tax it costs $1000, median-income households can only afford 1, and buy one. And that's it. Whatever the problems are in the market, tax only exacerbates them.


That's not what it says, at all.


The difference between lost profits and losing money is only a technicality. The result is the same.
"Not for profits" is a way to drive your economy into stagnation. Profit is essential for growth.


Wow. What a mouthful... I'll have to address these as bullets:

1) The difference between lost profits and lost money is only a technicality. No - 'lost profits' is only a technicality - you can't 'lose' profits, you can only not make as much. And - unless you 'lose' sufficient to take you below the losses, you're not 'losing money', either.

2) The result is the same: No - it's not. A company that is making less profit than it wants to can continue to operate exactly as it is, albeit - at a reduced profit level. A company that is losing money has to either increase revenue, or reduce expenditure, because otherwise it will (eventually) become bankrupt. (Eventually - because it will depend on how much stored wealth it has).

3) A market that is hanging dead level, neither 'growing' nor 'shrinking' is not necessarily a bad thing. You can't have universal growth in real terms.


Companies don't "WANT" profits. They NEED profits in order to grow, develop, start new enterprises.


No - they WANT profits so they can grow, develop and start new enterprises. A company doesn't NEED to do any of those things.


If ALL companies had a tax level of 10%, and it's then raised to a tax level of 40%, it DOES mean they will all cut their wages. They have to cut wages to retain profitability. And there's no reason for them not to cut wages, since everyone has incentive to do so.


No - they don't HAVE To cut wages at all. They might do it anyway, to ensure a certain level of profitability, but they don't HAVE TO.

You are confusing what people might WANT to do, with some force of compulsion. Reducing profits doesn't create a scenario where a company MUST do anything.


It's like when you raise the tax on some product, that doesn't mean shops cut their profits - they just adjust the price up and take it from the customers. All of them raise the price. No sane businessman wants to work "not for profit".

Not even true. Unless you've got a study somewhere that links insanity with charity.

i was going to say it! *is too late* :(

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6485/bttf20s220marty20doczb6.jpg
Given the reference, can you be too late? Why not just go back in time and do it then?
i was going to say it! *is too late* :(

No, wait...

"Time circuits on. Flux Capacitor... fluxxing. Engine running. All right!"
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/BTTF.gif

Once again, you're talking crap. If you think we're paying in the US, what a Chinese person pays on the street, then you're delusional.
As a matter of fact, customers in US aren't paying much more when they get the same goods. Just add transportation, tariff, tax, and higher profit margins.
This is, however, a small amount for international, low-margin goods such as electronics.


You were also the one who has been arguing that a bigger inequity isn't a bad thing, and that a good quality of life for the 'peasants' was undesirable.
I never said that. I only said that the good quality of life for 'peasants' shouldn't come at the expense of taking the money away from the laborers and entrepreneurs.

Ah, here we go again - you're arguing that income inequity is good - when it suits you.
Income inequity is good when it comes from one group gaining a new source of income, such as oil.
It's bad if it comes from one group losing its income.


and, regardless of dictators, GDP is still the main metric of economy.
GDP per capita is. GDP isn't.


1) The difference between lost profits and lost money is only a technicality. No - 'lost profits' is only a technicality - you can't 'lose' profits, you can only not make as much.
Which is a technicality. Whether I earn $1000 less or $1000 is stolen from me, doesn't change a thing for me.

2) The result is the same: No - it's not. A company that is making less profit than it wants to can continue to operate exactly as it is, albeit - at a reduced profit level.
Which means it can't operate as it is, because it can't grow and expand, and its stock becomes worthless.


3) A market that is hanging dead level, neither 'growing' nor 'shrinking' is not necessarily a bad thing. You can't have universal growth in real terms.
You can, as whole of the West demonstrates. And yes, such a market is much worse than a growing one.


No - they don't HAVE To cut wages at all. They might do it anyway, to ensure a certain level of profitability, but they don't HAVE TO.
But if they have at least half a brain, they WILL.

Reducing profits doesn't create a scenario where a company MUST do anything.
Company's job is producing profit. It's a machine. This machine operates and self-regulates in a way to maximize the profit. If cutting wages can do it, and it is viable, then it is done.


Not even true. Unless you've got a study somewhere that links insanity with charity.
Businesspeople run their companies for profit. Charity (apart from that done for PR and tax cuts) is what they do in their spare time with their disposable income.
BTW, if companies are deprived of profits, they won't be able to participate in charity. For that short while before they fire their workers and sell off their assets for scrap, of course, because that at least brings some profit.

As a matter of fact, customers in US aren't paying much more when they get the same goods. Just add transportation, tariff, tax, and higher profit margins.
This is, however, a small amount for international, low-margin goods such as electronics.


Or gasoline... which is maybe $2.5 dollars in China, or about half of what it is over here.

I think it's amusing that you say the people in the US aren't paying much more to get the same goods... and then list four factors that all increase the price.

It's even more pronounced if we choose a different example, since the Chinese economy is so strong.


I never said that. I only said that the good quality of life for 'peasants' shouldn't come at the expense of taking the money away from the laborers and entrepreneurs.


I don't think that's what you said, at all. I wonder if you can present your post that you think says what you're claiming it said?


Income inequity is good when it comes from one group gaining a new source of income, such as oil.


Why? Why is it 'good' then? AN increase in income is good, but why an increase in income INEQUITY?


It's bad if it comes from one group losing its income.


Why? Why is that any worse? Inequity is inequity.


GDP per capita is. GDP isn't.


I don't believe you. When I read economic reports, the most common metric discussed is GDP. It's usually taken as primary. Go somewhere like the CIA world factbook, look under 'economy' and you'll find that the three main indicators are all GDP (PPP, as I said earlier, the official exchange rate, and the real growth rate) before GDP per capita is even mentioned.

Look in your wikipedia, and it tells you that GDP is the measure of the 'size' of an economy.

I do believe it is YOU that is trying to renegotiate the terms, in this debate... not I.


Which is a technicality. Whether I earn $1000 less or $1000 is stolen from me, doesn't change a thing for me.


Doesn't it? So you consider a pay-cut to be equivalent to theft? What about the difference between realterms economy, and current economy? You're earning less now, in realterms, than you would have been on the same wage 10 years ago. Is that theft?


Which means it can't operate as it is, because it can't grow and expand, and its stock becomes worthless.


First - I could care less about stock.

Second - it can operate as it is, it just can't grow and expand. Those two concepts are not as integral as you seem to think.


You can, as whole of the West demonstrates. And yes, such a market is much worse than a growing one.


The whole of the West - this may surprise you to know - does not constitute the universe.


But if they have at least half a brain, they WILL.


If they have half a brain, maybe.

In the real business world, very few people jump to the sort of premature conclusions you like so much. Most companies will try to suck up increased costs, and even a loss of profitability, before they start cutting too much out of their human resource budgets... and when they do, 'benefits' are a long way ahead of layoffs and paycuts.


Company's job is producing profit. It's a machine. This machine operates and self-regulates in a way to maximize the profit. If cutting wages can do it, and it is viable, then it is done.


A company's job is not producing profit, unless you only consider companies in terms of their ability to make profit.

Sure, from an investment point of view, that's a fair analogy - but that doesn't mean that's what the company DOES.


Businesspeople run their companies for profit.


Not all of them. Not those that run charitable installations, for example.


Charity (apart from that done for PR and tax cuts) is what they do in their spare time with their disposable income.


No - some people actually run charities as their primary employment.


BTW, if companies are deprived of profits, they won't be able to participate in charity. For that short while before they fire their workers and sell off their assets for scrap, of course, because that at least brings some profit.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

So he did not strive to be disliked.
Irrelevant. Your own criteria make it so.


I would say wanting enemies is incongruent with the whole idea.
You can say anything you like NOW. In the OP, you said only that, with Option #2, I WOULD be liked and admired by most people. You said nothing about me having to WANT to be liked and admired by most people. You said nothing about me having to love people back.

It's a little late in the game now to be moving your goalposts, isn't it?

Or are you just pissed off the way George Bush was when, after he spent all that time insisting on democratic elections for Palestine, when they got them, they voted in Hamas? Are you just pissed off because you set up a situation that allows me to exploit it in a way you did not wish?

That is just dandy; so there is no argument I can muster if you tell me I am hiding "weapons of mass destruction"? If your towers get knocked-over, you can tell me I am the cause of it?
What do you care? You picked Option #1, in which nobody loves you. What do you care if I, hypothetically, were to come to hate you so much that I wouldn't allow you to pick which villain you wanted to play in my personal drama? You opted for absolute power, so what do you have to worry about?

Oh, wait, maybe the thing that's pissing you off is that it shows your power is not absolutely absolute. Even after having picked Option #1, you still don't get to dictate what I think of you or how I interact with you. And since I picked Option #2, you don't get to make people hate me for it. At least, not the people I care about. Heh, sorry. :tongue:

Or gasoline... which is maybe $2.5 dollars in China, or about half of what it is over here.
The oil alone for producing gasoline costs $3 per gallon, at the oil well, assuming all of it was converted to gasoline and diesel. In reality, only 70% is. And then there's transportation and processing, plus the infrastructure.
So the only reason some customers can get it for under $4 at a pump is government's help.


I think it's amusing that you say the people in the US aren't paying much more to get the same goods... and then list four factors that all increase the price.
Yes, but not 10-fold. And 3 of the 4 are government's intervention.


Why? Why is it 'good' then? AN increase in income is good, but why an increase in income INEQUITY?
Increase in average income is good, even if it involves an increase in income inequity.


Why? Why is that any worse? Inequity is inequity.
Inequity is a relative measure, like "I envy my neighbor, he has more than me!".
Income is an absolute one. Someone losing money is bad, someone gaining money is good.


Look in your wikipedia, and it tells you that GDP is the measure of the 'size' of an economy.
Exactly. Size, not quality.
But a small bag of gold (Switzerland) is better than a huge pile of junk (China).


Doesn't it? So you consider a pay-cut to be equivalent to theft?
It makes difference to one who does it, he may do a pay cut, may not steal. But the harm to me is the same.

What about the difference between realterms economy, and current economy? You're earning less now, in realterms, than you would have been on the same wage 10 years ago. Is that theft?
I didn't say it's theft. I said it's harm.


First - I could care less about stock.
Second - it can operate as it is, it just can't grow and expand. Those two concepts are not as integral as you seem to think.
Well, if I come to own a controlling interest in a company that brings no profit, and can't grow and expand, I'm closing it down, that's for sure.


The whole of the West - this may surprise you to know - does not constitute the universe.
Yes. It's just the best part of known universe, in terms of quality of life.

The rest are there as an example of what not to do.


In the real business world, very few people jump to the sort of premature conclusions you like so much. Most companies will try to suck up increased costs, and even a loss of profitability, before they start cutting too much out of their human resource budgets... and when they do, 'benefits' are a long way ahead of layoffs and paycuts.
"Benefits" are just indirect payment.
And yes, cutting down personnel expenses is what companies do when the profits go below reasonable. If an external factor (like taxes) is lowering a shop's sales (because customers have less money) and increasing their expenses (tax), the second thing they'll do after increasing the prices is firing some workers. Customers get worse service, and there's more unemployment.

But of course unemployment isn't a problem, we can always raise taxes on working people more and give the money out to the unemployed.


A company's job is not producing profit, unless you only consider companies in terms of their ability to make profit.
Sure, from an investment point of view, that's a fair analogy - but that doesn't mean that's what the company DOES.
Well, if you own a company, and you employ a worker, then his job is producing goods. That's what you keep him for. Same with owning a company. If the worker stops making products, you fire him, if a company stops bringing profits, and it can't be fixed, you sell it or close it down.

If companies in general stop making profit, no one's going to create new ones, and owners will start selling (or closing) those they own, to get at least something out of them.


Not all of them. Not those that run charitable installations, for example.
No - some people actually run charities as their primary employment.
If they get no profit out of it, they're not businessmen, then.

Given the reference, can you be too late? Why not just go back in time and do it then?

"hey, wait... it was me who stole my dad's keys!"

yay 80's movies! :D

Irrelevant. Your own criteria make it so.



You can say anything you like NOW. In the OP, you said only that, with Option #2, I WOULD be liked and admired by most people. You said nothing about me having to WANT to be liked and admired by most people. You said nothing about me having to love people back.

It's a little late in the game now to be moving your goalposts, isn't it?

What game?

Or are you just pissed off the way George Bush was when, after he spent all that time insisting on democratic elections for Palestine, when they got them, they voted in Hamas? Are you just pissed off because you set up a situation that allows me to exploit it in a way you did not wish?


You appear to be angry--not I.

What do you care? You picked Option #1, in which nobody loves you. What do you care if I, hypothetically, were to come to hate you so much that I wouldn't allow you to pick which villain you wanted to play in my personal drama? You opted for absolute power, so what do you have to worry about?

For one thing, I do not get absolute power.

Oh, wait, maybe the thing that's pissing you off is that it shows your power is not absolutely absolute. Even after having picked Option #1, you still don't get to dictate what I think of you or how I interact with you.

Of course not; it is only a hypothetical question.

And since I picked Option #2, you don't get to make people hate me for it. At least, not the people I care about. Heh, sorry. :tongue:

I cannot tell whether or not you are trying to be amusing; did my knowledge of Machiavelli really bother you this much?

Or gasoline... which is maybe $2.5 dollars in China, or about half of what it is over here.

Subsidies and price controls, plain and simple. There's a very good reason why China basically runs out of diesel fuel and gasoline at various times throughout the year and has to make it up somewhere else. Of course, you could do something like that here, but I'd be interested to find out where we'd get another $175 billion dollars per year to subsidize gasoline prices, let alone the roughly $400 billion per year for all oil production. China's having a hard enough time funding it as is, and we couldn't do any better.

And of course, China's economy is only strong because of us. On that $250 Ipod you buy, only $4 stays in China...they've got a long, long ways to go before they approach the economic strength of the OECD. Probably a good 20-30 years or more to build up their value-added chain, and another few decades to build on that to create a fully modernized economic base.

The oil alone for producing gasoline costs $3 per gallon, at the oil well, assuming all of it was converted to gasoline and diesel. In reality, only 70% is. And then there's transportation and processing, plus the infrastructure.
So the only reason some customers can get it for under $4 at a pump is government's help.


Relevence?

I'm curious about your figures anyway... the costs I have seen for transportation and processing, etc - come to about 60 cents on the gallon, and the costs I have seen for effective gasoline cost at the wellhead (INCLUDING the fact that more than half of the oil is not used in the gasoline production, and also allowing for deisel as separate... is still only about $3.50 per gallon.

Source?


Yes, but not 10-fold. And 3 of the 4 are government's intervention.


Are you sure? I suspect PPP is going to be something you'll cover next year, or something?

There are certainly nations that have a PPP below 20% of the US norm. Off the top of my head, I can't tell you if there are currently any actually AT 10%, but it's not impossible. That would mean, in real terms, that the goods available in that market, would be priced somewhere close to 10% of the US model.

And - what's wrong with government interventions being considered? You honestly think that, the minute you and your buddies set up the Anarchistic States of Liberarian-ia, other governments are going to be lining up to give you bargain prices?

(Math 101 - by the way, 2. Not 3).


Increase in average income is good, even if it involves an increase in income inequity.


Not necessarily. If the increase in average income is small, and the increase in equity is large, then most people will suffer, in real terms. We don't even need to look to esoterica for this one - we can look to our own economy over the last ten years.


Inequity is a relative measure, like "I envy my neighbor, he has more than me!".
Income is an absolute one. Someone losing money is bad, someone gaining money is good.


Of course inequity is a relative measure... that's it's definition. But, to pretend it has anything to do with envy is ridiculous. The millions of Americans that can't afford health insurance want a better equity model, not because they're envious, but because they need healthcare.


Exactly. Size, not quality.
But a small bag of gold (Switzerland) is better than a huge pile of junk (China).


I think you're prevaricating again. The Chinese economy is 'large', you've had to concede that, though you've not admitted you've changed direction. It's also 'strong' and growing. In terms of equity, it's better than the US economy, despite it's 'developing world' status.

I think you're playing with words, so you don't have to address the point.

Incidentally, I just looked back over your responses to my posts... and it's quite astonishing how many points you DO just drop. Everytime you get served, you just ignore that point.


It makes difference to one who does it, he may do a pay cut, may not steal. But the harm to me is the same.


Rubbish. If you're foolish enough to budget based on an income you may not get, the only person harming you, is you.


I didn't say it's theft. I said it's harm.


No - what you actually said was: "Whether I earn $1000 less or $1000 is stolen from me, doesn't change a thing for me".

The 'theft' motif, was all you.

That's the problem with pretending you said something else, on a recorded medium.


Well, if I come to own a controlling interest in a company that brings no profit, and can't grow and expand, I'm closing it down, that's for sure.


Which is okay. Hopefully, that'll never be a question we have to see answered. Given your shaky understanding of basic business principles, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.


Yes. It's just the best part of known universe, in terms of quality of life.

The rest are there as an example of what not to do.


WHat a curious response. Columbia is an example of the best part, and Japan is what not to do?


"Benefits" are just indirect payment.
And yes, cutting down personnel expenses is what companies do when the profits go below reasonable. If an external factor (like taxes) is lowering a shop's sales (because customers have less money) and increasing their expenses (tax), the second thing they'll do after increasing the prices is firing some workers. Customers get worse service, and there's more unemployment.


Benefits are not as simple as indirect payment - they often replace payment... sick days, days off, etc.

Shops often lay off workers, yes. But that is not the be-all-and-end-all of economy. Someone like Wal-Mart isn't encessarily the best example of a typical company.


But of course unemployment isn't a problem, we can always raise taxes on working people more and give the money out to the unemployed.


If the unemployment is long-term, rather than transitory (e,g, chronic shortage of work, rather than a statistic representing people CHANGING jobs)... is that such a bad thing? The percentages in terms of people unemployed are vanishingly small, and the claimiants are making up part of the lower end opf the economy, with disproportionately little 'unemployment' at the higher end.


Well, if you own a company, and you employ a worker, then his job is producing goods. That's what you keep him for. Same with owning a company. If the worker stops making products, you fire him, if a company stops bringing profits, and it can't be fixed, you sell it or close it down.


Your metaphors are unequal. The worker who stops working is not a parallel for the company that KEEPS working, but doesn't make enough profit to satisfy YOU.


If companies in general stop making profit, no one's going to create new ones, and owners will start selling (or closing) those they own, to get at least something out of them.


Speculation. A lot of people run small businesses, mainly in the interest of breaking even - so they can do the job they WANT to do, without taking a loss.


If they get no profit out of it, they're not businessmen, then.

Horseshit. I've run companies that made profit (which, one assumes, makes me a 'businessman', by your reckoning) and companies that were not-for-profit. I was as much a 'businessman' in each case.

Subsidies and price controls, plain and simple.

Irrelevent. The other poster is claiming that such price inequities don't exist. I don't care HOW they exist, the fact they DO exist is enough. I talked about oil prices in CHina, because we were discussing China, but I could have done the same, with much greater effect, by talking about gasoline prices in Saudi Arabia, for example.

What game?
The game of this thread. Using "game" as a generic for lots of different kinds of activities is a thing I do. Sorry.

You appear to be angry--not I.
I'm not angry at all.

For one thing, I do not get absolute power.
You don't? Then why bother giving up love?

Of course not; it is only a hypothetical question.
OK, you wouldn't get to hypothetically control how I hypothetically would think about and interact with you in the hypothetical event that your life in Option #1 (having power) would ever overlap my life in Option #2 (having both love and hate relationships).

I cannot tell whether or not you are trying to be amusing; did my knowledge of Machiavelli really bother you this much?
I never try to be amusing. If I am or not is entirely up to the person I'm talking to. I just talk the way I talk. Also, nothing about you bothers me. What makes you think I'm bothered?

I'm curious about your figures anyway... the costs I have seen for transportation and processing, etc - come to about 60 cents on the gallon, and the costs I have seen for effective gasoline cost at the wellhead (INCLUDING the fact that more than half of the oil is not used in the gasoline production, and also allowing for deisel as separate... is still only about $3.50 per gallon.

Source?

Current oil price is $116/bbl. 116/42=$2.76 per gallon of oil.
When oil was $143/bbl, it reached $3.40 per gallon of oil.


There are certainly nations that have a PPP below 20% of the US norm. Off the top of my head, I can't tell you if there are currently any actually AT 10%, but it's not impossible. That would mean, in real terms, that the goods available in that market, would be priced somewhere close to 10% of the US model.
Except it only works for minimal life sustenance. Industrial goods are priced much more closely. But that's OK, these countries with ultra-low PPP don't go above minimal sustenance anyway.


And - what's wrong with government interventions being considered? You honestly think that, the minute you and your buddies set up the Anarchistic States of Liberarian-ia, other governments are going to be lining up to give you bargain prices?
These interventions are from own government.
Nope, other corporations are going to sell goods just as they normally do.


Not necessarily. If the increase in average income is small, and the increase in equity is large, then most people will suffer, in real terms.
Yes. But when the inequity increase isn't greater in comparison to avg. income increase - say, the case with a corporation finding oil - it's still a benefit. Because after all some scraps from their table still fall to the rest, giving the economy a bit of ability to grow.


Of course inequity is a relative measure... that's it's definition. But, to pretend it has anything to do with envy is ridiculous. The millions of Americans that can't afford health insurance want a better equity model, not because they're envious, but because they need healthcare.
What they need is a system of budget healthcare, such as lower-price hospitals, and medical workforce import from the countries where it's cheap. Catering to clients with lower income.

Robin Hood tactics will simply make the lower classes able to pay whatever demanded and so let the healthcare costs keep climbing.


I think you're prevaricating again. The Chinese economy is 'large', you've had to concede that, though you've not admitted you've changed direction. It's also 'strong' and growing. In terms of equity, it's better than the US economy, despite it's 'developing world' status.
And yet, in terms of quality of life, it's crap.


Incidentally, I just looked back over your responses to my posts... and it's quite astonishing how many points you DO just drop. I can't respond to one-liners and self-satisfying remarks.


No - what you actually said was: "Whether I earn $1000 less or $1000 is stolen from me, doesn't change a thing for me".
The 'theft' motif, was all you.
It's not theft motif. It's loss motif. Both are losses.


WHat a curious response. Columbia is an example of the best part, and Japan is what not to do?
Now it's another demagogic response from you. You know what is called West in politics and economics.


Shops often lay off workers, yes. But that is not the be-all-and-end-all of economy. Someone like Wal-Mart isn't encessarily the best example of a typical company.
They just do what's good for their profits.

If the unemployment is long-term, rather than transitory (e,g, chronic shortage of work, rather than a statistic representing people CHANGING jobs)... is that such a bad thing?
It's not a good thing for sure. And it's part of the cost and a symptom of damage to the economy.


Your metaphors are unequal. The worker who stops working is not a parallel for the company that KEEPS working, but doesn't make enough profit to satisfy YOU.
If the company doesn't make a profit (which you referred to, with not-for-profit model mentioned), there's no reason to keep it, if by a different investment of money one can get profit. A company has to at least have a greater return on investment than the interest rate.


Speculation. A lot of people run small businesses, mainly in the interest of breaking even - so they can do the job they WANT to do, without taking a loss.
So they can do the job they want to do without getting paid?
Either way, spending your time and effort on running a business without trying to get an adequate compensation is not particularly capitalist.

Irrelevent. The other poster is claiming that such price inequities don't exist. I don't care HOW they exist, the fact they DO exist is enough. I talked about oil prices in CHina, because we were discussing China, but I could have done the same, with much greater effect, by talking about gasoline prices in Saudi Arabia, for example.

Technically, those price inequities don't exist.

That oil costs the same in both places but the costs are shouldered by different people at different points in the process. If you add up all of the subsidies and other costs that are shouldered by government and state-owned companies and include them in the retail price, you get the same number or something very close to it.

Current oil price is $116/bbl. 116/42=$2.76 per gallon of oil.
When oil was $143/bbl, it reached $3.40 per gallon of oil.


So, your numbers were bullshit, then?


Except it only works for minimal life sustenance. Industrial goods are priced much more closely. But that's OK, these countries with ultra-low PPP don't go above minimal sustenance anyway.


Which is... you conceding the point, right?


These interventions are from own government.
Nope, other corporations are going to sell goods just as they normally do.


When they could make more money elsewhere? Not even by your 'logic'.


Yes. But when the inequity increase isn't greater in comparison to avg. income increase - say, the case with a corporation finding oil - it's still a benefit. Because after all some scraps from their table still fall to the rest, giving the economy a bit of ability to grow.


You just don't seem to be able to decide where you sit on that issue at all... your position on income inequity shifts almost as much as your position on the third world.


What they need is a system of budget healthcare, such as lower-price hospitals, and medical workforce import from the countries where it's cheap. Catering to clients with lower income.


Yes. Poor quality healthcare for the poor people. Nice.

What they NEED is nationalised healthcare. But, let's be realistic, that's not what they are going to get.


Robin Hood tactics will simply make the lower classes able to pay whatever demanded and so let the healthcare costs keep climbing.


Only if you keep the same broken model that rewards those with money, and punished those without.

And there's nothing 'Robin Hood' about it - if the US did actually bring in nationalised healthcare, the cost of healthcare would drop across the board.


And yet, in terms of quality of life, it's crap.


For a lot of Americans, it's not much different.


I can't respond to one-liners and self-satisfying remarks.


Or anything else, apparently.

Go back and look at what you've dropped.


It's not theft motif. It's loss motif. Both are losses.


You said 'stolen'. That makes it a 'theft' motif. Seriously - are you not even pretending any more?


Now it's another demagogic response from you. You know what is called West in politics and economics.


You were wrong on the third world, already. Do we really need to get into definitions of 'the West'?


They just do what's good for their profits.


Which is irrelevent - they're not typical.


It's not a good thing for sure. And it's part of the cost and a symptom of damage to the economy.


I disagree (big surprise, right?). A safety net that helps people survive between jobs... that helps them get by when they're sick, injured... have children... those are ALL good things.


If the company doesn't make a profit (which you referred to, with not-for-profit model mentioned), there's no reason to keep it, if by a different investment of money one can get profit. A company has to at least have a greater return on investment than the interest rate.


I don't think you understand what 'not-for-profit' means.


So they can do the job they want to do without getting paid?


Again - I don't think you understand what 'not-for-profit' means. Apparently, you didn't manage to read my text, either.


Either way, spending your time and effort on running a business without trying to get an adequate compensation is not particularly capitalist.

Which is.. bad? "Not being particularly capitalist' is not good?

Me - I'd rather do a job I loved, that meant I could do that job without having to worry about food on table and healthcare, etc than a job I didn't like, that paid ten times as much.

All I need is 'enough'.

I don't believe in love, at least not the trivialized, stupidly romanticized, sentimental idiocy we have idealized as love.

Well this is a tough one for me. Power has always had a great draw for me, but without the companionship of loved ones I think I would end up regressing to a rather psychotic dictator. Without a reason to mold the state into one where my people can thrive and live happily, I would likely revert to total machiavellianism and lead a great state while the people lived in abject fear of me.

Long lasting love it is.

So, your numbers were bullshit, then?
My numbers were correct. I said, 3 dollars per gallon, which is the typical price over last months.

Which is... you conceding the point, right?
Not exactly. PPP figures are different for different goods. These ultra-low figures only apply to minimal sustenance, not to any quality of life to speak of in regards to US.

I could even go overboard and say that these PPP figures are wrong, since one can get a better living out of US junkyards than of a working life in an ultra-poor country.


You were wrong on the third world, already. Do we really need to get into definitions of 'the West'?
I wasn't wrong, my definition was the original political one and not the newer HDI definition you referenced. Of course, apparently you assume anyone disagreeing with you, even on the choice among common definitions, to be "wrong".
This is the same with "the West".
You understood precisely what I meant by the West, and it's what many people colloquially mean by it - the First World. But instead of responding to the actual point, you started a definitions argument.

Let's drop it, OK? I could argue on definitions and nitpick on wording too.

I disagree (big surprise, right?). A safety net that helps people survive between jobs... that helps them get by when they're sick, injured... have children... those are ALL good things.
You said this:
If the unemployment is long-term, rather than transitory (e,g, chronic shortage of work, rather than a statistic representing people CHANGING jobs)... is that such a bad thing?
To which I responded that unemployment is a bad thing.

I don't see what you disagree with.

---


When they could make more money elsewhere? Not even by your 'logic'.
Why would corporations NOT sell their goods and services? It's how they make money, anywhere.


You just don't seem to be able to decide where you sit on that issue at all... your position on income inequity shifts almost as much as your position on the third world.
It's simple. Income inequity is undesirable, but it's less important than median income itself.


Yes. Poor quality healthcare for the poor people. Nice.
What they NEED is nationalised healthcare. But, let's be realistic, that's not what they are going to get.
Nationalizing all healthcare will lead to lower quality healthcare for everyone, like in the Second World. And to high tax required to support it.


And there's nothing 'Robin Hood' about it - if the US did actually bring in nationalised healthcare, the cost of healthcare would drop across the board.
That being specifically how? Through downsizing, reducing salaries, something else?


For a lot of Americans, it's not much different.
Oh really. So where does an American have to live and work, to have a quality of life comparable to that typical in China?



Again - I don't think you understand what 'not-for-profit' means.
As I see it, not-for-profit organizations generally pursue charitable causes, and do not transfer any profit to their shareholders. But I'm ready to hear what you mean by this term.

However, they were created this way. A for-profit organization deprived of all its profits by tax doesn't become a non-profit, it becomes a failure.



Which is.. bad? "Not being particularly capitalist' is not good?

Me - I'd rather do a job I loved, that meant I could do that job without having to worry about food on table and healthcare, etc than a job I didn't like, that paid ten times as much.

All I need is 'enough'.
Well, good for you.

But it's not the approach that leads countries to prosperity. The desire to make more money than you can possibly use has been the moving force beyond the development of US as an economic superpower. And it's a good thing.

It's largely thanks to people who struggled for higher profits that today nearly any American can do the job they love, without having to worry about food on the table and other basic needs.

My numbers were correct. I said, 3 dollars per gallon, which is the typical price over last months.


So, your numbers were bullshit then.

I notice you've dropped all your other alleged figures, to try to pretend this is the argument you were making along. It's not - and you know it. And, you've only changed because I challenged you, and provided some data I'd heard.

The same as you've been doing all the way through. Presenting one bullshit answer after another, changing your tune when they're shown to be bullshit, [retending you didn't say what we both know you said... and then, finally, sweeping it under the carpet and pretending it didn't happen.


Not exactly. PPP figures are different for different goods. These ultra-low figures only apply to minimal sustenance, not to any quality of life to speak of in regards to US.


Show me your source.

PPP is primarily used as a modifier of GDP - it's a universal figure, not some product specific index.


I could even go overboard and say that these PPP figures are wrong, since one can get a better living out of US junkyards than of a working life in an ultra-poor country.


You could say it, but you'd be wrong.


I wasn't wrong, my definition was the original political one and not the newer HDI definition you referenced. Of course, apparently you assume anyone disagreeing with you, even on the choice among common definitions, to be "wrong".
This is the same with "the West".
You understood precisely what I meant by the West, and it's what many people colloquially mean by it - the First World. But instead of responding to the actual point, you started a definitions argument.


No - you were wrong. Even the source you rpesented said you were wrong.

When you said "the West", you were wrong again.


Let's drop it, OK? I could argue on definitions and nitpick on wording too.


Not really. That's why you keep getting your ass handed to you on a plate. Seriously. I'm sure you think you're doing really well, and - assuming that it's still two years till you finish school, you've done okay... but, you've been served, pretty much every post, on pretty much every point.


It's simple. Income inequity is undesirable, but it's less important than median income itself.


Which is an EXACT reversal of your original argument.


Nationalizing all healthcare will lead to lower quality healthcare for everyone, like in the Second World. And to high tax required to support it.


It doesn't, though.


That being specifically how? Through downsizing, reducing salaries, something else?


No - look at either the UK or Canada as examples. Both have nationalised healthcare models, and both of them actually turn out to be a substantial saving on the price of healthcare in the US.


As I see it, not-for-profit organizations generally pursue charitable causes, and do not transfer any profit to their shareholders. But I'm ready to hear what you mean by this term.


So, you don't know, then.


However, they were created this way. A for-profit organization deprived of all its profits by tax doesn't become a non-profit, it becomes a failure.


More strawmen - who said anything about depriving an organisation of all it's profits by tax?

Not to mention - your assumption is flawed. If that business becomes a failure, it's because either their model was wrong, or their leadership is no good.


Well, good for you.

But it's not the approach that leads countries to prosperity. The desire to make more money than you can possibly use has been the moving force beyond the development of US as an economic superpower. And it's a good thing.


Not really. The American Dream for the upper quartile in the US has become the American Nightmare for the lower quartile. Which is unfortunate, and definitely a 'bad thing'... but then, I think your claim about 'making more money than you can use' being the driving force of American economic growth is 'a bad thing', too - in as much as it's just not true.


It's largely thanks to people who struggled for higher profits that today nearly any American can do the job they love, without having to worry about food on the table and other basic needs.

What rubbish.

How about you leave the debate to the grownups, at least until you leave school and have to get a job.

So, your numbers were bullshit then.
I gave the price of oil, used to produce gasoline, at $3/gallon. I have provided proof to this price, in oil cost ranging as $115-$143 a barrel lately.

Show me your source.
PPP is primarily used as a modifier of GDP - it's a universal figure, not some product specific index.
Better still, show me the source proving PPP is universal. Say, a country where a Ford Mondeo or a similar-quality car costs 5 times less than in US. Or even make it 2 times less.

If you can't, it's specific to selection of products.



No - you were wrong. Even the source you rpesented said you were wrong.
They weren't.
Third World was a term first coined by Jawaharlal Nehru (First Prime Minister of India), originally to distinguish nations that aligned with neither the West or with the East during the Cold War, including many members of the Non-Aligned Movement. Today, however, the term is frequently used to denote nations with a low UN Human Development Index (HDI), independent of their political status. However, there is no objective definition of Third World or Third World country and the use of the term remains controversial.
[...]
Third World was a reference to the Troisieme État, the Third Estate, the commoners of France before and during the French Revolution, opposed to the priests and nobles who composed the First Estate and the Second Estate.


Not really.
Of course. You're arguing not to prove any point, but solely to show off your ability to pull out different definitions (Third World), pick on terms (the West), distort the arguments using that, and flame.



No - look at either the UK or Canada as examples. Both have nationalised healthcare models, and both of them actually turn out to be a substantial saving on the price of healthcare in the US.
UK spends about $4k per capita in its healthcare budget, which is quite comparable to the cost of health insurance elsewhere.
And it's still known to have some issues.

US stands out in its healthcare spending, but a number of other countries also have fully private, high quality healthcare.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/


Not to mention - your assumption is flawed. If that business becomes a failure, it's because either their model was wrong, or their leadership is no good.
OR that business simply can't be profitable under a high taxation level. For instance, if the cost to make the product plus tax is higher than the price a sufficient number of customers would pay for it.

Power.

Why? For the same reasons stated by several poster.

Right now I've got no true love and no power at all. Therefore both option will be an improvement over my current situation. However choosing "love" will give me happiness while choosing "power" will give me the ability to spread happiness.
So the question boils down (in my view) to happiness for one person (me) or for many people.

Therefore I chose "power".

love.because,what do you do power,if your not happy?i've never been too big ino glory and power,as long i've got video games and a few other things i'm happy.

A man that prefers the simple things in life.

I chose love, as long as I have people who love me (family, friends etc) along with my two main passions good food and excellent drink then I am will die a pleased man.

if Jack Daniels didn't love me my life would be an empty shell plus I'm not going to pretend I'd make people happy or even marginally improve their shitty lives I don't care for

Love! ~~~~