| NEWS BOX | ||
| Welcome to BEHG. We hope you enjoy your trip through our cesspool of hatred and lies. |
| at least half of Americans = TRASH | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 12 2007, 08:07:01 PM (1,904 Views) | |
| Hammer Kirby | Apr 15 2007, 08:56:38 AM Post #91 |
![]()
Go outside
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Public education should be privatized. People should have more of a choice over their education.
It's not external coercion. It's a self-caused problem.
Well, I think that the amount of military spending we have today is ridiculous. We really need to cut back.
*rolls eyes* Yes, the Founders were hypocritical in some respects, but overall their basic idea was excellent.
Were Chile and Russia truly free economies? I doubt it. After all, they were lacking in other freedoms.
Times change, human nature and proper morals don't. I'll answer the rest later. |
![]() |
|
| Jeff | Apr 15 2007, 09:14:33 AM Post #92 |
|
Unregistered
|
To be fair, I don't think he ever said he was against all of that.
...Yes they do. When the economy crashes, it takes the government with it. You can't tax people with nothing.
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.
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.
It doesn't? Why do I only have one power company, then?
Yes it does. Everyone likes money.
Then explain why, until recently, the US Navy was the largest consumer of oil in the world.
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? |
|
|
| Flarebringer | Apr 15 2007, 12:54:06 PM Post #93 |
|
Comrade
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
(odd. either I'm getting very BAD at board tags or I'm missing something incredibly obvious.) (there we go) @ Darts
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.
Even when caused by your glorious market influences, e.g economic depression?
Great, we agree on something. Now how'd you like to live in a world without all those excellent government goodies I listed?
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?
I guess, yeah. Point. Still, kindly address the other half of that argument, which you've been dodging the whole time?
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.
You said that about my last argument too. >.>;;; @ Jeff:
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?
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.
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?
Because, apparently, your vaunted free market decided that it wasn't economical to give your region power, so the government had to do it?
Then why does the state pay for public education?
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.
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.
Eludicate, plorx? Remember, in Washington's time, you weren't allowed to criticize the government. If you did, you went to jail.
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? |
![]() |
|
| reknamarken | Apr 15 2007, 01:05:28 PM Post #94 |
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| Stone Kirby | Apr 15 2007, 01:06:10 PM Post #95 |
![]()
¢¾¢Ü!?
![]()
|
Flare, don't be surprised if nobody decides to answers you. >_> |
![]() |
|
| Flarebringer | Apr 15 2007, 01:11:27 PM Post #96 |
|
Comrade
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm getting tired of bashing on the same points anyways. -.- Dibs on the net neutrality debate, though. >.>;;; |
![]() |
|
| Jeff | Apr 15 2007, 01:42:49 PM Post #97 |
|
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.
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.
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 rather difficult to have a no-segregation policy when the government's policy is pro-segregation.
I was referring to the ability of high-level politicians to seal their records, regardless of content, for years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. |
|
|
| Flarebringer | Apr 15 2007, 02:30:59 PM Post #98 |
|
Comrade
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In that case, I agree with you. I just don't think public education should be removed completely.
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.
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? |
![]() |
|
| Jeff | Apr 15 2007, 02:48:09 PM Post #99 |
|
Unregistered
|
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).
Enough of a point. We're only going to go in circles in a debate about morals.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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). |
|
|
| Stone Kirby | Apr 15 2007, 02:56:41 PM Post #100 |
![]()
¢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. |
![]() |
|
| Jeff | Apr 15 2007, 03:04:44 PM Post #101 |
|
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). |
|
|
| reknamarken | Apr 15 2007, 03:44:45 PM Post #102 |
|
Gnarls Barkley
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
IIRC, The Pentagon releases a ridiculous amount of toxic waste a day. |
![]() |
|
| F3nr1L | Apr 15 2007, 04:22:35 PM Post #103 |
|
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. |
|
|
| Chaffeemancer | Apr 15 2007, 05:27:41 PM Post #104 |
![]()
Open your heart to the light of googly eyes.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why fill it with people of a certain belief? |
| |
![]() |
|
| F3nr1L | Apr 15 2007, 07:48:40 PM Post #105 |
|
Unregistered
|
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>. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Serious Business · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
3:56 AM Jul 11
|
Auspice Zeta created by sakuragi-kun of the ZBTZ
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy






![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







3:56 AM Jul 11