Evolution was disproven in the spirit war...The difference between humans and animals is obviously that humans think and socialize. Its because people have the spirit, and it makes them conscious and seeing. Therefore humans coming from apes is impossible. Its impossible for apes to have developed DNA within the time frame that evolution says they did too.
You obviously have no faith in total freedom, and I am not going to change your mind. About the mining towns though, that mustv'e been an adaptation to the time. And people mustv'e went there for the mining jobs, and then if they didn't like them, they couldv'e caught a road out of there. With the railroads, I heard the companies bought up all the land for cheap or something...chrony capitalism. As for the other monopolies...they were only consired that for their scale and lack of immediate competition. As for the 'pay inequity,' the dollar amount workers are paid doesn't matter because prices will be lower with competition if pay is lower, which will cancel everything out. Because the only thing that matters is buying power...unless you are saying that the inequities were caused by monopolistic powers that companies held.
You evidently do not know much about history. Most people were not paid adequately, if paid at all; wage theft (if there were wages) was also very common. I never read that any wages were stolen in any of the history books that I have read. Can you prove this? And why would that be? because they didn't enforce labor contracts...? I doubt it. Low pay compared to today is what you expect; the economy was developing. How about how people were payed in 1600? Its not because they were 'underpayed'
People worked in mines or in dangerous factories not for the money, they worked there because they had no other choice and they needed to feed their families. There was no choice in the matter, really. It was work for nothing or starve for sure. Often times there were co-ops where the wages of all the mining companies in the region paid the same wages, so you really had no "choice." The "liberty" remained in the hands of the stronger party--the employer. Yes you work because you have to live, duh. Why do you work? And there was supposed be another choice besides working to live? And, as far as no choice on what mining company they worked for. Nonsense, they chose to leave the city and go out to work at a mining town in the mining industry. Industies typically pay some base amount right?
Exactly, corporations are not people. People are people. This argument is exactly like saying, "the government is a person because people work for it." No, I didn't say a corporation was a person, I said that it was a group of people which mutually own a thing and coordinate together to run it.
Most CEOs will tell you that their corporate non-human entity does not exist to create jobs. "Job creation" is something they say when its election time, or the people are asking them to pay taxes. If corporations really existed to provide jobs, today, with the horrible wealth distribution we have, EVERYONE would have a job that paid well. That is an ad-hominem against CEOs. And um, corporations like to create jobs because that means they expanding, selling more stuff and making more money.
No. Not at all. When a corporation dominated an industry, its pricing was arbitrarily high. Look at the Central Pacific railroad's history. Prove it
Kids shouldn't be working to support themselves. Their parents should be paid enough to support their kids while they go to school and get an education. I cannot believe there are people like you who are against that now! That was such a basic thing for a long time in this country! Tnat was an impossibility in that time because our economy was not developed enough.
Actually living standards were lower because the wealth distribution was horrible, and corporations had so much power that they were able to do things without any regulation, which means things were not done safely. I just tol you the reason for that gap in income distribution. And things were inherently dangerous.
History has never worked that way. When everyday people have money, there is demand in the markets because people buy things, and then the suppliers have to hire people to meet the demand. That's how it works in history. That's how we got out of the great depression. The great depression was created by deregulation and supply-side economic hypothesis, like you're talking about.
Not to be a jerk, but could you use two asterisks before and after what you quote of mine so it's bold? Italics was hard to differentiate your writing from mine. Whatever.
It is not slavery, but the Government owns us since we must pay to live. Taxation = pay period...I live and I pay and that is just how it is because the Government me and everything I produce. If you spend some time in an anarchaic society in Africa where you are absolutely free, you will understand exactly what I am saying.
All you supposed intellectuals here lack something totally vital to good intellect and that is common sense. Your going through a web of thought in your head and weaving crazy theories to answer simple questions. I have nothing more to say in this debate... Not everything is relative, some things are definite and common sense. If one says its OK to be gay because "don't judge," then they say its OK to commit any biblical sin because "don't judge," right? But anybody with common sense knows that the Bible is does not say its just fine to sin. And therefore, no one who honestly interprets the bible can say its just fine for people to be gay.
Sometimes, in order to be intellectual you have to simply use common sense. Common sense says some things are certain. That is all I will say, and this argument is closed because you apparently believe in absolute moral relativity or something, and I have already made my points about moral absoluteness, and there is nothing more I can say.
HISTORY has proven that a lack of minimum wage means that employers will not pay their workers in money at all. The vast majority of workers were payed money. And why would working have went to those mining towns if their pay was so terrible? The government is there to represent the interests of the people that it derives its power from, not corporate non-humans. Corporations are businesses OWNED by humans who made those jobs available for those workers. Beyond that, the entire history of industry shows that those companies had to keep their prices low for the most part, does it not? And the the businesses were charged with price gouging based on evidence that was not concrete. Children shouldn't be working anyway. They should be in school. Corporations do not care about the interests of the common people, or the six year old coal miner. So, we have to have referees ensuring the markets function properly and fairly, and that's why we have regulation. No family should be able to have their kids work to support themselves no matter what?
Again, I used to be a libertarian, but now I have an education, and I know better. I know history, and I know how things have gone when policies like what the Libertarian Party wants, were in effect. They did not benefit people like me. They benefitted factory owners, railroad companies, and robber barons. We had almost no middle class, and the US resembled a third world toilet. The "free market" is not the answer to every issue. Actually living standards were lower then because of a lack of technology, and profits were high because that is what happens during the development of cities. Businesses develope rapidly so the demand for their goods causes profits to soar and them to need workers which makes cities grow rapidly.
I would argue that SOME Libertarians do (particularly the rich ones), but the working class libertarians do not realize the horrible implications of their supposed philosophy.
The reason I say that is because liberty is an abstraction which implies the absence of justice. Justice is a hinderance to liberty. Justice says that the liberty of the strong must be curtailed in the interest of fairness. Libertarianism, on the other hand, trades justice for liberty. That means the stronger party (the rich) can get on to the weaker party (everyone else). Since corporations are not the "government," the libertarians turn a blind eye to the usurpations of liberty of the individual citizen. THAT is why I am not a Libertarian anymore. If I thought it had anything to do with me having more liberty, I would still be one. From my understanding all Libertarians uncompramizingly support property rights. Liberty doesn't imply the absence of justice, it implies an ability to choose. And I do not believe there is a weaker party in the voluntary system that is the free market. I'm not sure what you're talking about. The Socialist Party of the United States is tiny. According to the NY Times, there are no less than 1500 registered socialists nationally. Moreover, there are ZERO seats in the House held by the Socialist Party, and ZERO seats in the Senate held by Socialists. Businesses do not typically support socialism because it runs counter to their interests. So, I don't know where you are getting your information. Some big business lobby for liberal canditates and socailist candidates because heavy regulation greatly diminishes competition. Its why democratic have so many business lobbyists. And the ultimate ends of liberalism is socailism because they can never have enough regulation or spend enough money. I was probably wrong to assume you were a liberal though just for a lack of faith in the free market.
Libertarians forget history. In the 19th century (a time referred to as "the Guilded Age"), there was much less "government interference" in the markets. There was also monopolies, market failure, market crashes, child labor, and people being paid in company scrip. That is not a world I want to live in. I would argue that it is Libertarians, that are manipulated by corporate interests, and I can show you how the rise of the party was funded by vile elitists like the Koch Brothers. There was a banking crash caused by the Government in 1837, and there was a stock market crash in 1873 which coinsided with big losses in the rail road industry, and the failure of a major European bank. The combination of these things is what caused unemployment to go up so high. What are you talking about? Who are these "insane bureaucrats" that you seem to think are pulling strings? Please provide evidence of how public employees are trying to make me believe something. Beauracrats can never have enough rules, to me that is an inclanation to use maximum power over the industries they 'regulate.'
Nor do I need to. My point was that there is no "honest" Christianity. That point stands. As do all of my other points you have still failed to address. Interpretations can be grossly incorrect, and therefore there can be a true interpretation and a false interpretation.
The perception of consciousness in no way precludes spirituality being a delusion. If your argument made any sense whatsoever, then delusion in general would not exist which is simply not the case. Of course delusion exists -- that doesn't say my argument don't make sense. People aren't necessarily guided by or guide themselves by reason, but they still make delusional choices. And as far as conciousness proving the spirit, re-read my argument.
P.S. There is also no evidence that consciousness itself translates into any degree of free will in governing our thoughts; a growing body of research indicates rather the opposite.
The research only proves that things influence people to do things; people still have a choice. Sometimes a possibily undesirable choice seems obvious for a lack of information
particularly since there is zero evidence that spirituality is anything but a delusion. What about human conciousness? If you eliminate every part of a person's subconcious, there would still be a concious person inside. Maybe this bit or that bit, and no matter what a concious person is controlling the other half. Or maybe all of it, and a concious person is controlling nothing.
So there are gay people j--cking off to strieght magazines in sperm banks? I never heard of faciliation for homosexual donors. And if there was some where and in some place, 99.9999% of gays have parents still which shows that 99.9999% of gays couldn't have inherented a gay gene if it requires the sexual reproduction of strieght people (which it should).
You cannot prove that my understanding of Christianity is not absolutely true either. According to the christianity which believes it is just fine, it should also be just fine to steal or murder because they manifest their beliefs on God telling people to not judge (and therefore to say homosexuality is a-ok according to that interpretation of non-judgment).
