Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
NEWS BOX
We last left off where Seth decided to go to Valor on his black dragon Erath. And when he got there...And if anyone forgot the story, Kyan found his long lost friend Seth on Valor, and his black dragon Erath. Kyan is a mamkute that can still use swords as well as dragon stone attack.
Welcome to BEHG. We hope you enjoy your trip through our cesspool of hatred and lies.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
at least half of Americans = TRASH
Topic Started: Apr 12 2007, 08:07:01 PM (1,904 Views)
Hammer Kirby
Member Avatar
Go outside
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
A) Explain public education?

Public education should be privatized. People should have more of a choice over their education.

Quote:
 
B) Explain how hunger, lack of income, that sort of thing isn't coercion on your utility?

It's not external coercion. It's a self-caused problem.

Quote:
 
) What's military spending up to in our buget nowadays? 25%? 30%? If you accept that, you accept that taxes are good for truly nessecary things. Now imagine a world without an moderatly educated workforce, roads, airports, national parks, the Food and Drug Administration (e.g still eating out of The Jungle), banks that don't fail about 193618723 times a year, and every invention that has ever come out of government-subsidized research. You're telling me that taxing for tanks is cool, but taxing for all that isn't?

Well, I think that the amount of military spending we have today is ridiculous. We really need to cut back.

Quote:
 
A) Oh, yay, we have Founders on our side. Just 'cuz they did it doesn't mean that it's cool. Slaveholding? Women's rights, anyone?

*rolls eyes*

Yes, the Founders were hypocritical in some respects, but overall their basic idea was excellent.

Quote:
 
D) You STILL haven't adressed the fact that under every democracy of free human beings, with people given a choice of governments, NOBODY has EVER voted Liberterianism into play in the past 50 years. The closest we came was Reagan, and he still wasn't much of a Liberterian. The only countries which have truly lost control of their economies tend to be post-regional-apocalypic governments like Pinochet's Chile and post-Communist Russia. And those tanked. Rapidly.

Were Chile and Russia truly free economies? I doubt it. After all, they were lacking in other freedoms.

Quote:
 
E) Those founders kinda lived in a time when America was heavily aricultiralized, information technology didn't exist, transportation was slow, and discrimination rampant. Do we go back to horses and buggies 'cuz the Founders used them?

Times change, human nature and proper morals don't.

I'll answer the rest later.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Unregistered

Quote:
 
C) What's military spending up to in our buget nowadays? 25%? 30%? If you accept that, you accept that taxes are good for truly nessecary things. Now imagine a world without an moderatly educated workforce, roads, airports, national parks, the Food and Drug Administration (e.g still eating out of The Jungle), banks that don't fail about 193618723 times a year, and every invention that has ever come out of government-subsidized research. You're telling me that taxing for tanks is cool, but taxing for all that isn't?


To be fair, I don't think he ever said he was against all of that.

Quote:
 
B) You're right. Government's not like the free market at all. Government:
- Never suffers an economic crash.


...Yes they do. When the economy crashes, it takes the government with it. You can't tax people with nothing.

Quote:
 
- Has honesty regulated to some extent in law (FDA and stuffs)


In my experience, private companies are more prone to deception/misdirection than outright lies. They can't list something as classified like the government can.

Quote:
 
- Has legislated ahead of private buisness to remove discrimination in the workplace.


Not even close. A truly competitive market makes discrimination impossible, because it sacrifices profits. In fact, a railroad company in Louisiana, IIRC, vehemently opposed segregation of its railcars - they only conformed to this government-sanctioned racism after threats of boycott and arresting the president of the company.

Quote:
 
- Does not create monopolies.


It doesn't? Why do I only have one power company, then?

Quote:
 
- Does not have incentive to charge more than it has to on services.


Yes it does. Everyone likes money.

Quote:
 
- Does not have incentive to agressivly industrialize and fuck up the enviroment.


Then explain why, until recently, the US Navy was the largest consumer of oil in the world.

Quote:
 
C) If you don't like it, you can move out to your libertarian la-la-la...oh, right, no free people in the world have ever decided to create one.


One must consider that people on Earth haven't been truly free for very long. Outside of Australia, Europe, and North America, people haven't really ever been truly free - highly coercive (feudalism and the like) governments have existed and continue to exist in most places. These types of governments weren't removed from Europe, NA, and Australia until 1789-1820, or so - some even later (Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Austria-Hungary/Nazi Germany/Mussolini Italy... a long list). The Soviet Union didn't collapse until my life time - my grandmother can remember Nazi Germany. People haven't truly been free except for the last 200 years or so - if that. And, given that Dart would be extremely satisfied with a system very similar to the one George Washington employed... I'd say you're assumption that it's never happened is a bit misguided. And, even then, so what? Since when are popular ideas inherently good?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flarebringer
Comrade
[ *  *  * ]
(odd. either I'm getting very BAD at board tags or I'm missing something incredibly obvious.)

(there we go)

@ Darts

Quote:
 
Public education should be privatized. People should have more of a choice over their education.


Implementation, impacts, possibilities, warrants? Start backing up statements like this, especially, when you're advocating something whose rightness isn't 100%. For example, private schools aren't obligated to accept any student, and they get to charge money for an education. Besides, some state constitutions have public education written right into their constitution, and that was in the age of your Founders.

Quote:
 
It's not external coercion. It's a self-caused problem.


Even when caused by your glorious market influences, e.g economic depression?

Quote:
 
Well, I think that the amount of military spending we have today is ridiculous. We really need to cut back.


Great, we agree on something. Now how'd you like to live in a world without all those excellent government goodies I listed?

Quote:
 

*rolls eyes*

Yes, the Founders were hypocritical in some respects, but overall their basic idea was excellent.


A) Warrant it. If they were hypocritical in some respects, you need to show that they weren't on libertarianism, not just say it.
B) Explain the Jefferson and Franklin cards plorx?

Quote:
 
Were Chile and Russia truly free economies? I doubt it. After all, they were lacking in other freedoms.


I guess, yeah. Point. Still, kindly address the other half of that argument, which you've been dodging the whole time?

Quote:
 
Times change, human nature and proper morals don't.


Governmental models do, however. As an example, democracy in order to govern a large country was a shitty idea before the development of transportation networks and the printing press, since the public wouldn't know jack. Nowadays, with that in place, democracy is IMHO the best government, because of those technology changes. A changing world can invalidate or validate governmental models.

Quote:
 
I'll answer the rest later.


You said that about my last argument too. >.>;;;

@ Jeff:

Quote:
 
...Yes they do. When the economy crashes, it takes the government with it. You can't tax people with nothing.


Then, leaving debates over whether it was a good idea or a bad idea out of the picture for now, you can't deny that FDR found enough money to start up the New Deal out of somewhere during the greatest economy crash we've ever had. Explain plorx?

Quote:
 
In my experience, private companies are more prone to deception/misdirection than outright lies. They can't list something as classified like the government can.


Security, defense, nuclear research, that sort of stuff is classified. The latest report on the, say, efficiency of public schools or something, even if it bashes the government, isn't classified.

Quote:
 
Not even close. A truly competitive market makes discrimination impossible, because it sacrifices profits. In fact, a railroad company in Louisiana, IIRC, vehemently opposed segregation of its railcars - they only conformed to this government-sanctioned racism after threats of boycott and arresting the president of the company.


A) Whoamg cheap <insert minority here> labor that we don't have to pay as much cuz they're human shit! How is that not profitable?
B) One case. Can you cite more cases of the private sector going against racism than going for it? Or, in other words, when the government legislated against publicly-funded segregation in 1964, care to guess what percentage of private companies had no-segregation policies?

Quote:
 
It doesn't? Why do I only have one power company, then?


Because, apparently, your vaunted free market decided that it wasn't economical to give your region power, so the government had to do it?

Quote:
 
Yes it does. Everyone likes money.


Then why does the state pay for public education?

Quote:
 
Then explain why, until recently, the US Navy was the largest consumer of oil in the world.


A perfect example of why libertarianism doesn't work. The government suffers strong pressure from its voters to become greener when it's not, and, being responsible for all the shit that happens in the country if it doesn't, does. In your scenario, if company XYZ is making loads of money off of screwing up the environment, and there's no government to get in its way, what's stopping it from doing so? And please, don't say that the company would stop itself since it damages its own profits, since that's exactly what's not happening in today's world.

Quote:
 
One must consider that people on Earth haven't been truly free for very long. Outside of Australia, Europe, and North America, people haven't really ever been truly free - highly coercive (feudalism and the like) governments have existed and continue to exist in most places. These types of governments weren't removed from Europe, NA, and Australia until 1789-1820, or so - some even later (Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Austria-Hungary/Nazi Germany/Mussolini Italy... a long list).


You still haven't answered why, with increasing amounts of increasingly uncensored information at their fingertips, newfound freedom after throwing off the shackles of coercive governments, not a single libertarian government has ever been created by democratic vote ever in those past 200 years.

Quote:
 
And, given that Dart would be extremely satisfied with a system very similar to the one George Washington employed...


Eludicate, plorx? Remember, in Washington's time, you weren't allowed to criticize the government. If you did, you went to jail.

Quote:
 
And, even then, so what? Since when are popular ideas inherently good?


Since the entire thesis and point of libertarianism is to give people as much freedom as can be, so popular ideas had better be good under your model?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
reknamarken
Member Avatar
Gnarls Barkley
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
tl;dr

But is it safe to assume that darts is stereotyping all christians into agreeing with everything our church says?
If so...

lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stone Kirby
Member Avatar
¢¾¢Ü!?

Flare, don't be surprised if nobody decides to answers you. >_>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flarebringer
Comrade
[ *  *  * ]
I'm getting tired of bashing on the same points anyways. -.-

Dibs on the net neutrality debate, though.

>.>;;;
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Unregistered

...Debate? It's the internet. Unless for some reason you're in favor of limiting free speech on line, there isn't going to be much debate.

Quote:
 
Then, leaving debates over whether it was a good idea or a bad idea out of the picture for now, you can't deny that FDR found enough money to start up the New Deal out of somewhere during the greatest economy crash we've ever had. Explain plorx?


Borrowing, taxing the rich to the hilt (90-99%). The New Deal was also stalled (not saying it was good or bad, as I'd like to avoid that debate as well) by the desperation of the times - not until WWII did things really get going again.

Quote:
 
A) Whoamg cheap <insert minority here> labor that we don't have to pay as much cuz they're human shit! How is that not profitable?


I was referring to discrimination against customers, really. Is it suddenly wrong for a person to try to make money by hiring people who are willing to work for less?

Quote:
 
B) One case. Can you cite more cases of the private sector going against racism than going for it? Or, in other words, when the government legislated against publicly-funded segregation in 1964, care to guess what percentage of private companies had no-segregation policies?


It's rather difficult to have a no-segregation policy when the government's policy is pro-segregation.

Quote:
 
Security, defense, nuclear research, that sort of stuff is classified. The latest report on the, say, efficiency of public schools or something, even if it bashes the government, isn't classified.


I was referring to the ability of high-level politicians to seal their records, regardless of content, for years.

Quote:
 
Eludicate, plorx? Remember, in Washington's time, you weren't allowed to criticize the government. If you did, you went to jail.


Please, stop lying. The Alien & Sedition Acts were put into law by John Adams, not George Washington. I'm not even sure what you're trying to attack here.

Quote:
 
You still haven't answered why, with increasing amounts of increasingly uncensored information at their fingertips, newfound freedom after throwing off the shackles of coercive governments, not a single libertarian government has ever been created by democratic vote ever in those past 200 years.


I don't know why - presumably they do not want one. However, does this lack of popularity somehow invalidate the idea? If no one has ever tried this system, can it be accurately judged? Not really. Unfortunately, you can't just experiment with governments.

Quote:
 
A perfect example of why libertarianism doesn't work. The government suffers strong pressure from its voters to become greener when it's not, and, being responsible for all the shit that happens in the country if it doesn't, does. In your scenario, if company XYZ is making loads of money off of screwing up the environment, and there's no government to get in its way, what's stopping it from doing so? And please, don't say that the company would stop itself since it damages its own profits, since that's exactly what's not happening in today's world.


Actually, they've converted their large ships to nuclear power because it's better suited to the task - it takes a lot of energy to move an aircraft carrier, and securing all that oil is no easy task - and carrying it reduces the range of the craft. Nuclear submarines can also have more space than oil submarines. Now, I don't recall saying their shouldn't be a way for the government to reduce the pollution externalities created by many companies (though I'd prefer taxes/pollution licenses to hard caps). You're right in this regard: Barring outrageous public outcry, the companies won't change much.

Quote:
 
Then why does the state pay for public education?


Because anyone who tried to eliminate public education would get absolutely demolished in the next election. Allow me to clarify that I think there should be more competition introduced to public education by allowing people to choose where their tax dollars for education go to.

Quote:
 
Since the entire thesis and point of libertarianism is to give people as much freedom as can be, so popular ideas had better be good under your model?


There's a difference between personal freedoms. Under a libertarian system, populist movements would need more than simple popularity to be effective, generally: A limited government would not, say, engage in an aggressive war, genocidal campaign, or the like simply because its citizens wanted it.

Quote:
 
Because, apparently, your vaunted free market decided that it wasn't economical to give your region power, so the government had to do it?


No, that's actually horribly, horribly wrong. You see, power is one the markets where monopolies are best suited, since it would be difficult for multiple companies to coexist due to the limited space for lines in cities. You said that government does not create monopolies - I presented a counterpoint that it does. This is a natural monopoly, which aren't always the worst (for example, two water companies drawing from one river would have nasty consequences). Regulation, when prompted by entrenched businesses (which it is, at times) can, however, limit competition in otherwise free markets - one must be eternally skeptical of all things government does, because it's obvious that some lawmakers just aren't looking out for the public good.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flarebringer
Comrade
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Borrowing, taxing the rich to the hilt (90-99%). The New Deal was also stalled (not saying it was good or bad, as I'd like to avoid that debate as well) by the desperation of the times - not until WWII did things really get going again.


So the Government was able to stay afloat during an economic depression. And by taxing the rich and borrowing, no matter if you think it was a good idea or bad idea, the government at least still has more resilience than the private markets.

Quote:
 
I was referring to discrimination against customers, really. Is it suddenly wrong for a person to try to make money by hiring people who are willing to work for less?


It's wrong to make a profit off of an immoral thing. If I make my living covering or doing accounting or otherwise drawing off a drug cartel, I'm being immoral, even though I'm not actually distributing the drugs. Or if a drug cartel doesn't sound immoral to you, insert something that does, like a slaving ring or something.

Quote:
 
It's rather difficult to have a no-segregation policy when the government's policy is pro-segregation.


Why? I'm a liberal when the government's policy is conservative. It's not like there was a law mandating segregation in 1964. The only thing stopping them from doing the moral thing was A) prejudice, or B) yay-cheap-labor.

Quote:
 
I was referring to the ability of high-level politicians to seal their records, regardless of content, for years.


And large companies can't? Corporations have their own confidentiality agreements and sealed-box information. And in their case, the voters don't make a stink about it.

Quote:
 
Please, stop lying. The Alien & Sedition Acts were put into law by John Adams, not George Washington. I'm not even sure what you're trying to attack here.


Please, assume good intentions. If I had meant the Alien and Sedition Acts I would have said Alien and Sedition Acts. Before the 1900s, the First Amendment really wasn't paid much heed to (constitutional challenges to the Alien and Sedition Acts were based on the Tenth amendment), and stuff that attacked the government and especially war efforts usually had "libel" or "slander" slapped on them and hauled into court. And I was saying that George Washington and his government definitly wasn't liberterian in execution.

Quote:
 
I don't know why - presumably they do not want one. However, does this lack of popularity somehow invalidate the idea? If no one has ever tried this system, can it be accurately judged? Not really. Unfortunately, you can't just experiment with governments.


Normally, no, it wouldn't invalidate the idea. However, the entire point of libertarianism is that people can handle themselves better than governments and think tanks can...if the sovereign people don't want libertarianism, it creates a paradox that IMHO casts serious doubt on the idea.

Quote:
 
Actually, they've converted their large ships to nuclear power because it's better suited to the task - it takes a lot of energy to move an aircraft carrier, and securing all that oil is no easy task - and carrying it reduces the range of the craft. Nuclear submarines can also have more space than oil submarines. Now, I don't recall saying their shouldn't be a way for the government to reduce the pollution externalities created by many companies (though I'd prefer taxes/pollution licenses to hard caps). You're right in this regard: Barring outrageous public outcry, the companies won't change much.


So, at minimum, the government is equivalent to the markets on this instance (though I honestly do think that things will change with the government if someone not in the pocket of oil companies gets into high office), and if there's no advantage to swapping to free markets in this case, it comes out neutral. At minimum. With the worst governmental offender you can name.

Quote:
 
Because anyone who tried to eliminate public education would get absolutely demolished in the next election. Allow me to clarify that I think there should be more competition introduced to public education by allowing people to choose where their tax dollars for education go to.


In that case, I agree with you. I just don't think public education should be removed completely.

Quote:
 
There's a difference between personal freedoms. Under a libertarian system, populist movements would need more than simple popularity to be effective, generally: A limited government would not, say, engage in an aggressive war, genocidal campaign, or the like simply because its citizens wanted it.


A) So under a liberterian system, if the citizens wanted to go back to the old style of government, they'd be ignored?
B) But if your presume that normal people have poor enough judgment that a populist movement needs to be controlled, what's to say that they have enough judgment to run themselves without big government.

Quote:
 
No, that's actually horribly, horribly wrong. You see, power is one the markets where monopolies are best suited, since it would be difficult for multiple companies to coexist due to the limited space for lines in cities. You said that government does not create monopolies - I presented a counterpoint that it does. This is a natural monopoly, which aren't always the worst (for example, two water companies drawing from one river would have nasty consequences). Regulation, when prompted by entrenched businesses (which it is, at times) can, however, limit competition in otherwise free markets - one must be eternally skeptical of all things government does, because it's obvious that some lawmakers just aren't looking out for the public good.


Waitaminit. I think I misinterpreted your original post. Do you mean to say that the only power supplier in your area is a governmental complany (e.g TVA) or that there's a private monopoly created by a government?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Unregistered

Quote:
 
So the Government was able to stay afloat during an economic depression. And by taxing the rich and borrowing, no matter if you think it was a good idea or bad idea, the government at least still has more resilience than the private markets.


I've sort of lost track of what we're arguing about here, actually. Though private companies can borrow (borrow less, but they don't need as much as the government, either).

Quote:
 
It's wrong to make a profit off of an immoral thing. If I make my living covering or doing accounting or otherwise drawing off a drug cartel, I'm being immoral, even though I'm not actually distributing the drugs. Or if a drug cartel doesn't sound immoral to you, insert something that does, like a slaving ring or something.


Enough of a point. We're only going to go in circles in a debate about morals.

Quote:
 
Why? I'm a liberal when the government's policy is conservative. It's not like there was a law mandating segregation in 1964. The only thing stopping them from doing the moral thing was A) prejudice, or B) yay-cheap-labor.


The government's conservative policy lacks the support that racism had in the earl 20th century. I don't know of any specific laws supporting racism in 1964, but there were certainly "Jim Crow Laws" earlier. I'd guess they were still on the books in 1964, or there wouldn't have been quite as much conflict.

Quote:
 
And large companies can't? Corporations have their own confidentiality agreements and sealed-box information. And in their case, the voters don't make a stink about it.


They can, but that's because they're private institutions. We don't have a right to know how a certain product is made (If we did, it'd ruin a lot of businesses), but we do have the right to know how our government is doing things.

Quote:
 
So, at minimum, the government is equivalent to the markets on this instance (though I honestly do think that things will change with the government if someone not in the pocket of oil companies gets into high office), and if there's no advantage to swapping to free markets in this case, it comes out neutral. At minimum. With the worst governmental offender you can name.


Not quite equivalent. The current largest consumer of oil is now the Union Pacific Railroad - a nuclear reactor is not feasible or safe on a train.

To relate this back to what we were arguing about, the government does, at times, have an incentive to ignore environmental concerns - after all, there's a lot you can get away with when you have the strongest military in the world.

Quote:
 
A) So under a libertarian system, if the citizens wanted to go back to the old style of government, they'd be ignored?


Only if it were poorly planned. A libertarian system would (hopefully) have measures to prevent aggressive wars, but would allow people to leave it if they so chose - if it didn't, it would be the paragon of hypocrisy.

Quote:
 
B) But if your presume that normal people have poor enough judgment that a populist movement needs to be controlled, what's to say that they have enough judgment to run themselves without big government.


Problem with that: Government isn't run by people who know better, always. As a general rule, people know what they themselves need more than anyone else (after all, only we can tell when we're hungry, etc). It's very difficult to mislead people into not looking out for themselves, but it's not so difficult to make them ignore brutal violations of others' rights/lives.

Quote:
 
Waitaminit. I think I misinterpreted your original post. Do you mean to say that the only power supplier in your area is a governmental company (e.g TVA) or that there's a private monopoly created by a government?


It seems you must have. However, that was just a nitpick, and I see no need to further debate this issue. Monopolies can happen under just about any condition (and, generally, it is best if they are broken up).
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stone Kirby
Member Avatar
¢¾¢Ü!?

IIRC, I remember reading awhile ago that, in the United States, governments at various levels cause more pollution than all private corporations combined.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Unregistered

I'd attribute that more to the size and scope of government powers than an inherent polluting nature of the government's. Can't really fault them for doing what is asked of them (I'm quite certain much of their pollution comes from the military).
Quote Post Goto Top
 
reknamarken
Member Avatar
Gnarls Barkley
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Magus
Apr 15 2007, 19:56:41
IIRC, I remember reading awhile ago that, in the United States, governments at various levels cause more pollution than all private corporations combined.

IIRC, The Pentagon releases a ridiculous amount of toxic waste a day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Public education is still almost as bad as no education at all. Abolish public education(well, maybe not colleges), destroy teacher's unions, and set up a voucher system where a school gets funded so much money for each child the bring in. Oh, and then remove all people on the board of education and fill it with humanists. Or at least secular college professors.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chaffeemancer
Member Avatar
Open your heart to the light of googly eyes.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Why fill it with people of a certain belief?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Sir Captain Pants Face Man
Apr 15 2007, 15:27:41
Why fill it with people of a certain belief?

It is filling it with people with a lack of belief. Well, they can still be religious if they are a college professor, but they would know not to let their beliefs get in the way of logic.

Humanist are well..humanists. For the greater good. By humans, for humans. Rejecting superstition and basing beliefs and actions off logic and reason instead of <insert book here>.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Serious Business · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7

Auspice Zeta created by sakuragi-kun of the ZBTZ