there would likely be various agencies with various ways to obtaining their opinions. It is to the discretion of the populace to judge what is trustworthy and what isn't. Not perfect, but more trustworthy than something like the EPA which is funded through stolen money.
A major problem is that it's a powerful monopoly on the business of "protecting" the environment. People naturally believe that the environment is safe when the EPA approves of a product or action because they hold little reason to question the public sector.
There's no accountability when the EPA makes a mistake or continues a dangerous method. Instead of people actually wondering what is and isn't safe, they see the EPA as their only reassurance that the environment is in good hands. They wash their own hands of the responsibility of protecting their environment.
The same could be said for the FDA and various public regulation agencies.
If we wanted to compare Communist Dictatorships to Nazi dictatorships, I'd vote Communist.
However, the ideology of Communism is not worse than Nazism. Communism specifically goes against government, against property and money, against competition, religion, etc. Nazism is an extreme form of Fascism, purporting ethnic cleansing and executions of anyone deemed unworthy (including political dissidents.) There is no real argument here.
Stalinism and Maoism are, in ways, forms of Fascism and Statism. They purport a Socialist distribution of resources while also creating a ruling class (Democratic or not) and a non-ruling class. The ideologies support authoritarianism while Communism (in the Marxist sense) is against theoretically all hierarchy. As well, there's a major hostility towards so-called Capitalist (wealthy men that work with government in exploiting the lower class).
I could go on and on, but Stalin and Mao's rule were not actually Marxist Communism. They were "state" Communism, dictatorships, etc. Statism is bad in any form.
I remember our last few debates were pretty hostile.
I should have been the better one and just not use insults, but w/e.
All in all, I can only recall our vile nature of debate. We probably agreed on more shit earlier, but maybe not.
I think I also just said things because I knew it would piss her off.
She's gone now. Sure I had something to do with it, or maybe she just got bored of CD.
Yeah, sales were pretty low since Xbox360 was less money at the time.
eventually the prices went down, bundles were provided, etc.
People who buy things when they first come out tend to just have a butt-load of money to blow. I don't, so i take my time. not like i care that much anyway.
What's this obsession with statists in insisting that services that seem important ought to be rights?
Nearly every country in the developed world, and more and more in the developing world, provide free primary and secondary education.
As my mother used to say "if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?"
It doesn't matter what other countries are doing. Slavery used to be common. Currently, the drug war is very common. Should we demand that Holland and Portugal make drugs illegal because practically every other country is doing the same thing? Governments are these twisted little things that force people to conform. Collectivism is the greatest evil. We aren't born to serve others. We are born, for the fuck sake of it, and we should hold this ability to do whatever we want. Sure, murder is undesirable, but murder invites murder. What does not hurting people invite? Yeah, fuckin' not hurting people.
Such education is generally uncontroversial and accepted as necessary by both liberals and conservatives around the world.
Not controversial? I suppose the elitism and snobbery that comes from Ivy leaguers isn't controversial when we cherish Aristocracies. If anything, we should end intellectual property rights and open up the ability for hackers to release all the information that their sacred research journals hold. Education should be free, but only when demand is so high that the people find ways to make it free. Knowledge is everywhere. With a simple google search you can learn most of the shit that you'd learn in college. Eliminating IP will make all that information forever available until they find more secure ways to keep it locked up in some encrypted software. However, subsidized education is not free; we're asking tax-payers to pay for it. And it's not like all of a sudden poor people are going to start entering these places. It will likely be the same crowd, but with possibly less debt (depends on how you subsidize it.) We're asking the American people to pay for the education of elitists.
In the case of university education, however, there is a great deal of disparity between countries’ education policies. In many states students must pay fees to attend university, for which they may seek student loans or grants. Often states offer financial assistance to individuals who cannot afford to pay fees and lack other methods of payment. In other states, university education is completely free and considered a citizen’s right to attend. Debates center on the issues of whether there is in fact a right to university education, and on whether states can feasibly afford to finance such education.
The state always finds a way to finance things and never admit that it was wrong to do it in the first place (Drug War, all other wars, Social Security, FDA, etc.)
The issue is what will this do to the quality of education if it is no longer competitive? For one thing, I know that subsidizing the actual Universities just allocates funding to more buildings so that they can bring in more students. Subsidizing via grants and loans has sparked the costs of education since the ability to pay for it is so laxed (same thing that health insurance does to the cost of healthcare.)
A half-private system that we currently have is terrible and destroys competition. A public system would destroy quality and enslave the students. A completely private system (not in the hands of corporations, but in all individuals for various intent, methods, etc.) would open competition, innovation, end bureaucracy, and practically eliminate the stress in believing that one MUST attend a University in order to thrive. Imagine how much better off the impoverished would be if they were just left alone and allowed to find their own ways to improve their conditions? Schools and communities would teach children about the dangers that crack does to the community, and maybe other communities would teach children to use drug sales as a means of bringing revenue into the community. But currently there is this major enemy that is the state, and the state cripples us greatly and forces us to pay for a shitty crutch and in the case of public schooling "you can buy a better crutch if you'd like, but only until you pay for the production of this shitty crutch first."
What's this obsession with statists in insisting that services that seem important ought to be rights?
Nearly every country in the developed world, and more and more in the developing world, provide free primary and secondary education.
As my mother used to say "if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?"
It doesn't matter what other countries are doing. Slavery used to be common. Currently, the drug war is very common. Should we demand that Holland and Portugal make drugs illegal because practically every other country is doing the same thing? Governments are these twisted little things that force people to conform. Collectivism is the greatest evil. We aren't born to serve others. We are born, for the fuck sake of it, and we should hold this ability to do whatever we want. Sure, murder is undesirable, but murder invites murder. What does not hurting people invite? Yeah, fuckin' not hurting people.
Such education is generally uncontroversial and accepted as necessary by both liberals and conservatives around the world.
Not controversial? I suppose the elitism and snobbery that comes from Ivy leaguers isn't controversial when we cherish Aristocracies. If anything, we should end intellectual property rights and open up the ability for hackers to release all the information that their sacred research journals hold. Education should be free, but only when demand is so high that the people find ways to make it free. Knowledge is everywhere. With a simple google search you can learn most of the shit that you'd learn in college. Eliminating IP will make all that information forever available until they find more secure ways to keep it locked up in some encrypted software. However, subsidized education is not free; we're asking tax-payers to pay for it. And it's not like all of a sudden poor people are going to start entering these places. It will likely be the same crowd, but with possibly less debt (depends on how you subsidize it.) We're asking the American people to pay for the education of elitists.
In the case of university education, however, there is a great deal of disparity between countries’ education policies. In many states students must pay fees to attend university, for which they may seek student loans or grants. Often states offer financial assistance to individuals who cannot afford to pay fees and lack other methods of payment. In other states, university education is completely free and considered a citizen’s right to attend. Debates center on the issues of whether there is in fact a right to university education, and on whether states can feasibly afford to finance such education.
The state always finds a way to finance things and never admit that it was wrong to do it in the first place (Drug War, all other wars, Social Security, FDA, etc.)
The issue is what will this do to the quality of education if it is no longer competitive? For one thing, I know that subsidizing the actual Universities just allocates funding to more buildings so that they can bring in more students. Subsidizing via grants and loans has sparked the costs of education since the ability to pay for it is so laxed (same thing that health insurance does to the cost of healthcare.)
A half-private system that we currently have is terrible and destroys competition. A public system would destroy quality and enslave the students. A completely private system (not in the hands of corporations, but in all individuals for various intent, methods, etc.) would open competition, innovation, end bureaucracy, and practically eliminate the stress in believing that one MUST attend a University in order to thrive. Imagine how much better off the impoverished would be if they were just left alone and allowed to find their own ways to improve their conditions? Schools and communities would teach children about the dangers that crack does to the community, and maybe other communities would teach children to use drug sales as a means of bringing revenue into the community. But currently there is this major enemy that is the state, and the state cripples us greatly and forces us to pay for a shitty crutch and in the case of public schooling "you can buy a better crutch if you'd like, but only until you pay for the production of this shitty crutch first."
but I'm quite sure children with guns kill far more people with guns than children without guns do.
Then bringing up Somalia was an ignorant tactical ploy.
I'm not overly committed to debating you on the subject.
Based on your statements so far, this makes sense.
I'm more of a debate with Jesus nuts rather than gun nuts kinda guy.
Your lack of confidence to protect beliefs in gun-control is understandable. Gun-control is irrational and often a contradiction in terms.
In this world where everything is owned by the wealthy and powerful, an arbitrary measure of worker capability is made by a standardized and lowly creative system called "schooling."
It is lucky enough for us that we are at least allowed to homeschool in quite a few states, but the very predicament that neighborhoods are forced to 40 hour work weeks, mortgage and taxes, and various regulatory laws on the issues of their children's education is enough to impede even the capability or even realization that public schooling is a cancer on their developmental potential.
They only care about getting a job for a random corporation so that they can somehow make it to a slightly safer neighborhood instead of the neighborhood getting together to better their impoverished areas.
State Capitalism is much like a collectivist nightmare, ironically. Working for the good of society as opposed to the good of themselves and close friends and family.
Children are better parented by their parents than they are by bureaucrats and legislators.
This perverted sense of interfering with the various practices of individuals is kind of annoying. Children would not typically "bear arms" as parents do. But a restriction on that ability is in itself immoral and opens up the ability for government to disrupt the family setting. It may very well be better for society for parents to train their kids the proper use of firearms and to even allow them to carry a gun if they see fit. Legislating this is simply paranoia of the potential, nothing more.
Atheism by itself has no cause. Atheists simply don't believe in God.
New Atheists are people that tend to dislike religion in many aspects and also criticize believers for being irrational in their beliefs.
I don't necessarily agree with most of what they have to say, but I don't really see them as a problem. They will tend to be more highlighting of the issues that the religious can present, while I only go after religious problems after I've come to notice them in the first place. New Atheists may be a bit extreme for my taste, but they're a bit useful.
This question represents the failed institution of monogamy and dating.
Children grow-up to believe that dating is a necessary aspect of finding your "soul-mate" and continue this patriarchal and restricting system.
We should all love each other and not limit it to be "in love" with some "one".
That being said, when you spend a certain amount of time with a girl and you all of a sudden can't stop thinking about her and constantly want to be around her and can envision yourself being with her for a long time, you've probably fallen "in love."
But love is an illusion. It's a construct. That euphoria you get is a neurotransmitter. You don't need these promises of long-term in order to secrete the neurotransmitter.
Prohibition causes more problem than it rectifies. And the main issue is why is it that a governing body all of a sudden has the right to tell us what we can and can't put into our bodies? How is it even possible for them to eliminate a plant from this world?
Cocaine raids has resulted in burning acres of crops. What the fuck, people? Destruction of environments is acceptable just to get rid of a fuckin' plant?
Marijuana legalization in one country isn't enough. Dr. King said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Shit guys, marijuana prohibition is definitely an injustice.
Funny, I'm smoking pot as I write this.
Further education and realizations of the issues with making abortion illegal show why government should have nothing to do with abortion.
Same goes with everything else.
As much as people have a moral issue with something, it is not moral for them to force their beliefs onto everyone else via government. If their morality is so great, they would be able to convince everyone else to do it through very good argument and reasoning.
the point is moot because morality is not neurological either
Morality, empathy, and concern are all formed via neurological processes. I never said that one was neurological and the other wasn't.
morality is doing what is inherently right for one's self, whether it be within the confines of the law or not
I'd say doing what is inherently right TO one's self. Morality in a person can be to do what's right for others and not thyself. Now, I do believe that even altruistic behavior is for one's own benefit (to not feel guilt or other negative feelings), however morality without dissection on the true existence of altruism doesn't have to be "for" one's self.
an avoidance of humans doesn't discount empathy or concern for animals or the environment
empathy towards animals... maybe. Humans that believe they can empathize with animals do not understand the minds of animals. A psychologist that spends a lot of time with apes may be able to get an idea, but enough to "empathize" is sketchy. As for the environment... the environment doesn't even have any thought processes.
One can be concerned for the well-being of animals or the environment, and with that wording, sure, morality has a sense of concern. But that was one of a few points I was making.
I believe that a person's morality can in fact be partly defined by empathy and concern for others when the "others" is loosely defined.
Caring about something exists in everything that has a thought process. In this case, everyone is "concerned" for the "well-being" of "something." However, empathy does not exist in sociopaths, and I would suggest their own morality is whatever they find important (maybe a world with less of the people they hate is what they find morally right.) Obama is a sociopath that strives for money and power, his moral concern is for his own benefit (same with most other politicians). He may care about his family, but it may not be empathetic, it's probably because he feels that he owns them and they provide for his personality as a "good person." This is often found with sociopaths that get married and have kids.
Genetic engineering is the thing of the future. And when the moral assholes finally have no power, the potential for human creativity in our genetics is limitless.
Choosing orientation is the tip of the iceberg. Although, from my studies I believe that there's a lot more to sexuality than simple genetics. People are born with a tendency, but you have to realize that genetics aren't these self-aware beings. There's no gene to drive one to choose one sexuality. There are genes that blended with our culture will create the gay or straight person that you see today.
Who's us? I've never gotten an abortion...
I suppose some of them support sending a woman to jail if she does get an illegal abortion, but i've never really heard that argument from the pro-life sect. It's usually just against the legality to do so. Abortion doctors, however, may face more of a penalty in the world of a pro-life legislation.
#statistproblems
but if you are comparing it to similar social programs across the globe
Socialized medicine agrees to some extent in most of these countries you're probably alluding to, but it has always existed to some extent in America. the ACA, however, is not the same as what is happening in Canada or Cuba or Spain or England. And England is not the same as Canada or Cuba or Spain and the same goes for all of them.
Another fallacy.
or social programs in the U.S. currently, none have ever caused a single bubble of any sort ever
Increase of debt and inflation is an automatic bubble. Even Paul Krugman admits that creation of more bubbles is necessary to curb current bubbles. He's a liberal, but he's not politically correct in avoiding the fact that they are bubbles.
You are confusing a generalized (and quite faulty I'd argue) theory that ALL and ANY government automatically no matter what is more expensive and less efficient than private services doing the exact same thing
This is usually the case, however my views don't rest on that one case. They rest on the morality of using coercion to reinforce social programs, devaluing the means to production via a federal reserve and land grants to major corporations, and this cultist belief that government will solve our problems. I believe that free people are necessary as a morality. The blend of government with the private sector was quite successful in expanding military powers in the USA and Nazi Germany; hell, the GPS came to be because of it. None of that matters when I see the blood shed that resulted from all of this. A lot of Third Way economists see the potential for business and government to work together as empirically satisfying since we do know that government can provide unlimited funding for businesses to sell them extremely powerful artillery, and the internet gets created during the middle of all that and everyone just shouts out that it was because of government involvement. No one really seems to care that a consumer populace demands efficient communicative services but don't really demand (nor can they afford) tanks and missiles. Your support of government keeps these harsh realities alive. The DEA, NSA, CIA, FBI, ATF, FDA, EPA, are paid by your fear of losing them and fear of violating them. It's like a brain tumor that doesn't necessarily kill you. Some people don't try to get them removed because the procedure itself could kill them. They figure they might as well live with it. Now let's say that person lives for thousands of years and basically learns to accept that that tumor is just a natural part of the body and shouldn't be touched. In fact, that tumor sometimes grants short term highs and adrenaline rushes.
Eh, I'm getting off topic. Most of this you probably disagree with anyway.
it is not a fair comparison because private insurance is still available.
It's a scam that drives up costs. The worst thing to happen was when government initially gave tax incentives for employers to provide their employees with health insurance. it took away from their wages and gave them health insurance chosen by the employer, which fed revenue into health insurance companies. The more people who have insurance, the less doctors care about the costs of their services. The less doctors care about the costs, the less pharmaceutical companies and healthcare industries care, and the costs go up. Companies that practiced alternative health plans (like Whole Foods) made employees more conscious of what the medical care they were getting costed them. It made them shop around for cheaper doctors, and also increased their likeliness of getting yearly check-ups. With the government supported insurance styles, people don't care about how much their medical care costs. This drives up prices.
I can see it being a natural process, that once government gets involved, it will only get bigger and bigger to cover new problems that came from government being involved in the first place. Now the ACA requires that every citizen have some kind of insurance plan (unless they're poor enough to get government provided health care), which will, if history of increased demand for health insurance means anything, drive up the costs of health care. This also gives government more incentive to be involved in the health decisions of Americans in order to lower their own costs.
None of this needs to happen, and I know you think it does because the alternative seems so awful to you (leaving people responsible for their own problems), but people really aren't that dumb. We don't need to expand this hierarchical structure where the business owners (Capitalists, CEOs, whatever) become a vital aspect of government policies. Canada's healthcare is slow as shit for average Canadians, but Canada also has a huge amount of poverty that doesn't give a shit about the quality and speediness of healthcare. They get free healthcare, and that's all they care about.
I understand this idea that a fucked up healthcare system needs "reform." But more government isn't the answer. It's like hitting a kid harder and harder as his behavior gets worse. But I suppose that's another thing that contributes to acceptance of authority and violent coercion... the idea that physical punishment is an effective method of raising a child.
Obamacare has been verified by reputable consumers in Massachusetts
Not all of them.
And it's a smaller economy with less people to impress in the first place. Most Floridians agree with the strict anti-marijuana laws, this doesn't make strict marijuana laws moral or practical on an even larger scale.
There has never in the history of the world been any instance of a privatized system being less expensive or offering better care.
The private sector in the Soviet Union owned only 1% of the agricultural industry (the rest was owned by the government) and provided over a third of the food to the people. Without the private sector it is likely that that third of the population that WASN'T starving would have died.
And as previously pointed out, the government is pretty good at expanding the military and greatly improving their methods of warfare. The private sector has little financial incentive to produce such weapons of mass destruction other than the promise of a huge government check. Forced mobilization of large governments (i'm talking Fascism here) has greatly utilized the private sector into providing for government needs. This doesn't say anything about whether this actually benefited society... it's all a numbers game. The Death Star employs plenty of jobs and keeps the economy going... in the direction of the Empire.
you are operating under the wrong assumption that all government programs are less efficient than any private program
I hope you've read everything that I read and reconsider this statement.
That said the water heater analogy is perfect. Congress based on something already bought, paid for, voted for twice, and upheld in the Supreme Court, decided they wanted to shutdown the entire government.
yeah, I hate it when my slave masters bicker over things that don't have to do with ending slavery.
Not a government takeover. There has been and will be no government takeover.
Oh really? So I guess it's legal for you to buy LSD since government hasn't taken over. If they did takeover, they'd be controlling what you can and can't do, right? I guess you can ask a hospital to treat you with THC instead of chemo. That hospital would suffer no legal ramifications.
It cost 24 Billion. Shutting down the government, refusing a range of services, putting people out of work cost more money than had they kept all of that stuff open and all of those people employed.
I'm guessing you based that off of a recent study that examined the limited growth along with the shutdown. I've tried dissecting this thing, but it sort of leaves a lot of info out.
But basically it's because employees will still get their checks and a lot of what some organizations consider "drives the economy" has lowered in service providing. It's kind of fucked up, because this is under the idea that government isn't a parasite on the "economy," but I guess it also reflects a lot about the symbolic nature of the economy itself.
But yeah, mostly bullshit. I think it's cause the shutdown was just a word... it didn't really get shut down. The services that got cut were useless in the first place, and now they're back. It's not like the DEA stopped throwing people into cages.
So I take back my statement that it was revolutionary. It was more of a just a red herring.
Since you bought this new more efficient water heater that is going to save us thousands over the lifetime of this home
Little bit dat Broken Window. The expectations is of increased employment via bureaucracy and steady inflation. Historically that has never actually happened (Bubble after bubble.)
but it cost 20% more than the junk water heater we have now that is leaking money worse than it's leaking water
More disregard of other factors. Obamacare isn't a new water-heater that has been verified by reputable consumer advocates. It is not voluntary (referencing towards your mortgage idea, which comes with a non-coerced contract and agreed upon ramifications. If the contract gives full rights of the water-heater to the bank that owns the house, the owner is liable if they give up mortgage payments for that reason. paying for Obamacare is not the same thing in anyway possible. you basically made a terrible analogy...)
By leaders, let's be clear, the tea party
I'm actually surprised by the Republican Party's carefully planned efforts to destroy a bill that would expand the scope of government. Given, they're still evil on everything else, but I will have to give them a bravo for actually fighting back against government takeover. It's a shame, however, that they are still in favor of the FDA, healthcare regulations, subsidizing health insurance companies (driving up the cost of healthcare), and support of the DEA and controlled substance Act (which also drives up the cost of healthcare, eliminates job opportunities for the poor, and further schisms society.)
In the end, I find that my article explains it pretty well. The shutdown is bullshit because it will eventually end and not that much money will have been saved. Republicans have made a good effort at giving themselves power over when it will eventually shut down, but they're for big government, so it's not like they're being that revolutionary.
But just to see it happen. It's like seeing Jury Nullification actually happen. The existence may not save most lives, but to see it happen in its rare times is so hope inspiring. That maybe we can fight back against such a monstrosity.
We gave them power to rule above us
I did not.
We gave them power to remain in rule
How do I opt out of supporting people ruling over me?
We have the power to get rid of them
If we can keep our guns, we'd have an advantage. I think it's going to take a lot more than that, though.
Morality is arbitrary ethics. If you don't care about others, your morality may have more concern for the environment, or maybe you are against scarring yourself for some moral reason.
Morality is nice and all, but it doesn't define any neurological aspects of humanity. Morality is the result of the human mind, not the other way around.
People who lack empathy will just have a morality that avoided that concern.
There is no part of the Constitution that dictates how States may establish tax exempts.
Religion is whatever, but my concern is more with taxation in the first place. If there's a tax cut somewhere, I support it. Less taxes means less money in the hands of bureaucrats and more money in the hands of private citizens. Churches feed the poor and shit. Doesn't matter if they worship a zombie, they're helping people.
But regardless, who cares what people even believe in? I find belief in the ability of people to take away our money and spend it however they want is way more dumb than belief in some magic that happened to illiterate poor people in the Middle East.
Because the citizens gave them the power.
I didn't give them power. Most of the people I know didn't give them power.
Did you give them power?
I have no idea who "gave them power." They just have power for all I know.
Do you mean voting? Between one guy and the other? Why choose either? Why give anyone power?
Especially to take away our only means of defending ourselves from them.
Nietzsche wrote in a very convoluted way, so we can't really take his ramblings as "insane."
As for the content of his book, it's really just based on how much you like Nietzsche, Nihilism, and Post-structuralism. I personally agree with much of what he has to say, and he's a lot more complex than simply pointing out his style of philosophy (i.e., he's a Nihilist). He developed Nihilism, attacked Nihilism, and simply said that Nihilism was a step towards truth. It's like Nihilism is a road. Who knows, I'm still slowly studying his works.
The default will not destroy the economy.
Taxes and inflation have slowly "destroyed" the economy for over a century. The Default will merely shift how the federal government handles their bonds. We're 16 trillion dollars in debt; the default is nothing.
Here's a good article explaining some of the math behind it all.
A law prohibiting Iowa from passing further gun regulations?
Makes perfect sense.
A blind man pointing a gun at an intruder is more safe than a blind man hoping to God that the intruder doesn't do anything. It doesn't matter if he even intends to use it when the time comes, it's that he has the option. Disarming the blind won't save lives, and a governing policy that has armed soldiers (aka police officers) hold disarming power over coerced citizens is definitely not desirable.
Crime against women is already pretty low. As women get more rights, their victimization has gone up, but their role as criminals has also gone up.
Education seems to be a good way in our current system for people to get jobs. In our current system, a job for a corporation is good security since the rich and powerful already own most of the resources necessary for survival.
Luckily, no matter how many laws are in the way, the poor are finding ways of being able to self-sustain.
But the true key to stop crime in general is to eliminate this system of force in the first place. How do we teach children that violence is wrong when their are so many examples of it being part of the LAW for use of force to be necessary? To throw someone down on the ground and lock him in a cage for having marijuana on him. Cops kick in people's doors if they're suspected of selling narcotics. They arrest prostitutes for offering a service that's high in demand. The legal restriction of prostitution only turns prostitutes into victims of violence. And the prostitutes that survive their underground world still have to worry about police officers throwing them into cages.
Education is just a red herring. The root core of crime is spawned by our very government and obsession with control.
Is theft, murder, slavery, and kidnapping all justifiable if a scientist does it?
Would Nazi Germany have been better off if the scientists running those experiments were instead in charge?
Scientists aren't moral agents or even right just because they've dedicated a certain amount of years to a certain discipline. I have quite a few friends who dedicate much of their lives to chemistry and biology, and they simply don't care about the rights of others.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge. It holds no authority over the role of society. It's just a tool for us to better understand how certain things work.
Psychologists are the only scientists that understand people themselves, but even so Psychologists (and I study Psychology, so it's not like I hate them) can be detached from humanity. They see humans as mathematics.
Government is a mistake that dumb ape descendants made up a long time ago. Over time it seemed to just make more sense to diminish the scope of government over people. A Democratic Republic WITH a Constitution came to try and make every human being as protected and a part of government as possible without getting rid of it. Much of Socialist ideas are to have government serve the people completely.
But I think more and more people are starting to realize that the answer is to just get rid of government. While the problem originally was humans hurting other humans, all that did was make it systematic. Simply that idea of a few ruling over many and organizing an entire society to be able to do God knows what; it's resulted in the Holocaust, the Communist work camps and mass murders, the Inquisition, the Guillotine age of fear, the Crusades, inflation, the Great Depression, the expansion of poverty, destruction of environments, War on Drugs, the War on Terror.
The thing about government is that in order to get something done, you only need to convince the people already in charge. Even in a Republic we really only have a choice between a Democrat and Republican, and both of them support most of the same shit, or support some good things but support a bunch of bullshit. No matter what, we all have to agree to whatever the majority decided on (with little belief that their vote mattered anyway.)
I was looking through how they determined these results... not as accurate as last time i took this quiz.
anyway:
Libertarians - 84%
Green Party - 46%
Republicans - 39%
Democrats - 18%
Socialists - 12%
This makes sense because the Libertarian Party is the only party in the list that is overall for less government.
Considering that the Right Wing and Left Wing have to do with Economic centralization, I'd say that Fascism is sort of the middle of the road.
The whole point was to incorporate "third way" economics; between Socialism and Capitalism. It allowed for private enterprise, but had full control over the currency and the production of resources (especially during war time). As well, it would tend to incorporate a centralized health-care system (once again going back to war time). Fascism, as an authoritarian system, needs to centralize the economic system to fit the goals of an oppressive regime.
Third way economics is still alive and well in the American system. It is a bit less socialist than that of Hitler and Mussolini's regime, but the merits remain the same. I would say that America's economics lean right wing while historically Fascist economics have leaned left.
Extreme right wing would be full privatization among the citizens, while extreme left wing would be full collective ownership of everything. The means to achieve these goals are rated as Libertarian-Authoritarian (more government to less government).
Fascism was extremely authoritarian with a middle of the ground economic system.
conservative economies, ignorance to big corporation greed, ignorance to the environment, and in the United states, where you can go away to prison for ten years for a non-violent drug offense, or go to jail for sadly being on drugs, and come out a worse person and with a ruined life, and where it is ok to spy on people using mass warrants like the unconstitutional Patriot act
last thirty years, we have gone into wars without reason, fueled by corporate greed. Gulf War, Iraq War, Afghanistan. Need I say more. I believe in giving foreign aid, but do so peacefully, by giving aid not to the armies, but to the people who are caught in war zones
Absolutely. I'm against all of this, and the government has screwed this nation over and is a mass murdering tyrant.
where it is okay to run around with a assault rifle, claiming you ARE GOING HUNTING.
Why trust that very government that you criticized the shit out of to take away our only means of fighting back?
It's not about hunting. It's about protection, not just from criminals, but from the government itself.
Or how most Americans are in complete fucking denial that there is a Gun violence problem with 30k+ deaths a year, but yet we blow a lid when some third World country goes to war that not even our fucking business lol.
Yet we still have less overall violence. People just prefer to use guns cause it's sort of easier.
But murder is only stopped by the potential victim. Not legislation.
Somalia is not oppressed by a corrupted government like its neighboring African countries.
As well, Somalia was not better off when it did have a government.
The argument that Somalia is some kind of "libertarian" dream is basically just Statists giving up on arguing via logic and reasoning since Statists can not justify violence and coercion to progress the morality of a few special interests.
If you eliminate the State within America it will not be the same as Somalia. Just how if you add a government to Somalia it will not be the same as the United States.
comparing apples with oranges. Typical statist arguments.
Some government employees have to just work without pay.
Lulz since government is a monopoly on force. Talk about labor unions, amirite?
So anyway, I don't see this effecting me at all. I still can't smoke a joint in public and I still can't start a business without facing many fees and taxes.
This government shut down is just a temporary lack of spending of theoretical dollars. When it starts back up everything will still be going down hill.
Now a permanent shut down... that could actually fix things.
I don't support Hitler.
And this argument is from 5 years ago, so I don't even agree with my views within the argument. Regardless, I've never been a supporter of Nazism.
You're merely reacting emotionally to a symbol that you know little about.
How sad.
If I give you information that is only given to you under the presumption that you wil never, even under extreme duress and torture, disclose it to anyone and then you go and spread it to some idiot working for wikileaks I will hate you and get revenge on you and in fact if I don't it makes me stupid.
Trust em tough, if I were running the government drugs users and whistleblowers would be treated much more harshly, public spanking and shit.
That's because you are an elitist that promotes tyranny.
Drugs are illegal.
Interracial dating was once illegal.
Running away from your slave master was once illegal.
Serving blacks in a certain space was once illegal.
Doesn't make it right. Legality is simply just legality. It is coercion.
Whistleblowers are violating the bond of trust which was the only reason they were permitted to get access to secret information in the first place.
If someone informs you that your neighbor is spying on you, you'd thank them.
Whistleblowers are important for they expose the misdeeds of government.
There's a lot of Libertarians within OWS, and the Tea Party seems to consist of a lot of typical Conservatives.
I prefer a collaboration of citizens that hate the Financial sector than citizens that want government to shrink a bit.
Both suck in their own way, though. Anarchists are ideal, and you'll probably find a bit more in OWS, but what you have is a lot of any-means-socialists that view the disproportion of wealth and say "that should be shared because look at the starving kids in Africa" and sort of eliminate the fact that Statism causes that in the first place. Now, there are actual Anarchists within the group that realize this and point out how the financial sector is strengthened by government and that the problem IS government, while among the Tea Party you just have people who want lower taxes and maybe less government... it's not as much of a bipartisan movement... just neo-republicans responding to the trend of growing government (a similar thing happened with the Reagan era). I can at least get behind OWS since they encourage getting rid of poverty, and the ideals are coming from many different directions (Statist, Capitalist, Anarchist, and variations of the three); it seems that since the OWS the Obama approval ratings have plummeted, meaning that people aren't as blindly following the Two-Party system anymore (hopefully...) and possibly are listening more to alternative methods for Society to run (hopefully more Anarchists).
the children of the rich automatically have an unfair head start due to an unimaginably higher level of education,
Knowledge isn't bought. The education system is a means to obtaining knowledge, but it's not like it's the only way.
Plus, the public education system is far more detrimental towards poor people than simply letting them find their own ways to educate the children, sustain their own economies, etc. Impoverished children, in today's regulated and heavily taxed society, STILL receive some charitable education that is far better than public schooling. Remove all those barriers that the state creates and you open up the door for free people to pretty much find their own ways, expand charity, etc. Removing the state removes hierarchies and places all people equally (especially since removal of the federal reserve would greatly decrease the strength the financial sector has, getting rid of the "unimaginably" rich.) Even if some people have more than others, without a state that having of more is dependent on how many people you can please, not on how many resources you can "buy".
They may have been as intelligent and perhaps even more capable of business acumen than Bill Gates and Steve Jobs but never had the chance to prove it.
Because of patent laws, regulations, and contracting that came from the government.
Left-wing ensures every child has a fair chance at success despite their ancestor's income.
Without a state, it doesn't really matter whether a community identifies as Right wing or Left Wing. Supposed Left Wingers will allocate their communal resources in a collective fashion which may or may not work, but Right Wingers will allow for the pursuit of self interest and free trade, which may or may not work. Regardless, elimination of State is key to ensure that people ACTUALLY have a fair chance, because maintaining the state allows for predatory type entrepreneurship. And it's not like they have much of a choice. If Bill Gates and Steve Jobs DIDN'T try to patent every bit of code they could get their hands on, others would, causing them to quickly lose everything and creating new giant corporations. The State actually reinforces predatory type business dealings.
The New Deal did not fix the economy. It actually slowed down economic recovery until the War increased debt and passed on the debt to future citizens.
Ayn Rand laissez faire capitalism is completely outdated if we had no regulations on businesses,if we had no Federal Reserve, if we had no National Industrial Recovery Act there would be no middle class, the middle class would simply be non existent! Don't believe me? The top 1% has 40% of the nations wealth, now just imagine laissez faire capitalism applied to that. case closed
Not sure if trolling, but here we go:
Ayn Rand did not create Laissez Faire Capitalism. In fact, she still supported government and the Federal Reserve. She supported Aristocracies. She was just more for economic liberty than the progressive movement of the time (and the Socialists from her home country.) Most Market Anarchist views do not come from Ayn Rand. She's just a philosopher/writer that is influential in our view-points, but there are plenty of things that she conflicts with Libertarians and Anarchists.
As for the rest, clearly the regulations and Federal Reserve have failed considering that the top 1% has 40% of the nation's wealth. Don't believe me? You just said it.
You obviously don't understand the concept of aristocracy and inherited income
Aristocracies are formed by the State. Land grants, subsidies, patents, copyrights, etc. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't magically make billions of dollars. They seized the right to specific coding and kept competition from selling the same type of products for years because government gave them the ability to.
There are people who just own thousands of acres of land with no justification other than a government approved deed. In a free society that would be impossible unless a large amount of people actually agreed to that ownership in the first place, and they would likely agree upon certain parameters.
The "aristocracies" today are mostly the owners of the largest banks since the US pays them to maintain the Federal Reserves paper currency, and the largest banks will never go down for the US accepts them as "too big to fail." A whole Aristocracy could have been eliminated by the economic collapse, but it was the State that kept them rich and unaccountable.
The free market is simply free trade among the resources created and distributed by the people. You can build a house and I can provide food and provisions for you while you build me a house. There is no paper currency unless a private bank decides to provide the service, but the difference in a free market is that there would be hundred of small private banks that people can choose to accept their own currency or not. There is no standardization and a practical impossibility to accumulate so much wealth.
Statism fuels the aristocracies in so many ways that you can't even imagine.
Those born into poverty have no means of escape in a right-wing community
They have no means of escape in a Statist community where the State serves the interests of those who can influence the power structure. In a Free Market, all businesses rely heavily on pleasing the consumers and pulling in labor. What mostly prevents the poor from creating or having jobs is the State's heavy regulation and prohibitions. If you legalize marijuana but regulate and tax it, only the corporations will benefit. If you legalize marijuana and do not involve the state in its regulation, the poor can easily grow their own and provide for a profit. The state makes growing your own food illegal. The state makes providing food for the homeless illegal unless heavily regulated, which is expensive.
the state is the enemy of the poor. Not entrepreneurs. We are all entrepreneurs in pursuit of our own interests. Privately we donate to charity and the only thing that destroys private contributions is the State and it's monopoly on power and taxation.
Depends on what you're listening to, but elegant language, to me, is a great way for elitist to close their minds to the beauty of various vernaculars.
Poetry isn't defined by the clear level in verbal education that the writer seems to have; it's defined by the expression the artist is making through simple words on a piece of paper. People can criticize hip-hop all they want, especially when they only cite pop-artists (yet the hipsters that hate Lil' Wayne will worship Macklemore just because he made a song about gay marriage), but there is much genius to be found in the artists that create hip-hip (production and/or lyrics). I will even say that while Macklemore is a terrible lyricist, Ryan Lewis is a pretty catchy producer. Eminem and Dr. Dre are both geniuses and pretty much changed hip-hop and rap. Eminem doesn't try to impress us with big words; in fact, he doesn't give a shit about impressing us. He expresses himself and is almost non-stop in what he provides. Dr. Dre has the ability to turn a rapper into a hip-hop artist by providing the perfect beats for these guys.
And then you have Kanye West and Tyler, The Creator whom turn their entire albums into a work of art.
Immortal Technique and Dead Prez have highly politicized lyrics and go after the system they see as corrupt and immoral.
Then again, the value I see in much of Hip-hop today (not even going to touch old school stuff) is the ability of self-expression through a creative channel. Now, I don't want people to confuse my appreciate of Ryan Lewis's catchy productions with some kind of appreciate for Macklemore's terrible pandering to the progressive, impressionable youth. I feel that Macklemore is an example of the pop music that really crushes actual political or pro-civil rights rap that has been ahead on these issues for so long. Pro-gay rap artists have been talking about the anti-gay culture that is in this country for a while and have actually been expressing their right o personal liberty, and then Macklemore comes out with a song basically saying "yo, legalize gay marriage, and fuck hip-hop and black people for being so homophobic" while making millions of dollars like an asshole. He's basically the Michael Moore of hip-hop. But don't let Macklemore deter you from political hip-hop, because there IS hip-hop, good hip-hop, that came out years earlier that has expressed something much more complex than simply saying "lol, gay marriage guyz" here and here.
Sorry about the rant.
If he means complete sacrifice, then he was an idiot. It makes no sense to throw everything you have away just to help a few people.
As previously stated, he said "give a man a fish, teach a man a fish" and that meant providing for the ability for people to provide for themselves. Capitalists can and do do this. Anarcho-Socialism believes in collective ownership of all land and resources, but State Socialism is the idea of government owning all means for production and redistributing accordingly. Neither "philosophies" has Jesus supported.
According to his own words, unless he was a complete dumbass (based on your statement), he was a compassionate Capitalist. Make what you can and help others with the extra profits that you don't need for yourself. If you give away everything, you'll die and so will everyone who depends on you.
capitalism is based off the core ideology of how much richer can you get by competing with other people
No it isn't.
It feeds off of greed, sure, but that's human nature. Capitalism, itself, is the concept of people using capital to progress their own innovations and goals. In today's financial economy (heavily fueled by the State and Federal Reserve), many find it desirable to gather as much money as possible instead of actually engaging in something productive. Capitalism is a non-thinking entity that is merely corrupted by tyranny and coercion. However, in order for the poor to better their lives, they would engage in capitalism. It is natural.
Socialism and Marxism are responses to State Capitalism and its atrocities. but the true culprit is the State.
Jesus's statement on rich men going to Heaven was simply attacking the sin of greed, which is hoarding things for yourself and not helping others. If you are rich, you have more than the average citizen (the Roman emperor was very rich and lived in luxury while people begged in the streets.) Jesus preached God as a loving God, and a loving God would not permit a selfish person into heaven.
But people who become rich from Capitalism still can (and do) give to charity. Welfare has turned charity into a racket via a bureaucratic process and is much more sinful than simple profits through Capitalism (since welfare requires coercion through taxation.)
Jesus would not attack Capitalism. He attacks the greedy. And as Milton Friedman said, greed can be seen in Communist/Socialist countries as much or even more than in Capitalist countries.
Just busy-body-porn for the statists that love to believe that taking away liberties from Americans will fix problems.
1. Some studies have shown an increase in car accidents after a ban. Now, who knows why this is actually happening, or how prevalent it actually is, but a good reasoning for it is because people don't stop texting, they just text out of view to avoid cops from seeing them, which is more dangerous.
2. It's unenforceable. Depending on the state, texting and driving laws are limited to texting. With smart phones, you can do a shit load more than just text, and really, i wouldn't even find it better to just completely ban the use of phones while driving (I use my phone to play music through my stereos or create videos or snapchats.) Is a law even worth it if there are a thousand loopholes that are just as dangerous? And, once again, all people will do is text out of sight. In my state, Florida, texting and driving will come in to effect soon, which means I'll have to resort to hiding my phone as I use it instead of putting it up against the steering wheel where I can still see the road.
But traffic laws aren't meant to be reasonable. If they were, BAC levels would be elevated to around .15. Instead, they are reactionary and eventually Draconian (as most laws are.)
Saudi Arabia and Iran are pretty horrible in a tyrannical sense, and I'd find Saudi Arabia to have pretty shitty combinations with government and religion. Iraq and Afghanistan are backwards and heavily ruled by Muslim doctrine, but given that Saudi Arabia combines that with heavy government power, I'd say that Saudi Arabia is THE worst (at least of the countries I can think of.)
None of them I find a threat to the United States. That comes more from heavy influence over the decades and support of Israel's government despite their crimes against humanity.
It's a cluster fuck and the only thing that's gonna save it is Free Trade, which will never happen (at least, not in this political climate.)
Christian Conservatives tend to give more to charity... and Jesus opposed the State in much of his doctrine.
Ayn Rand was AGAINST charity. Conservatives are just against the Welfare state, which if you truly believe in helping the poor you would eliminate the welfare state (well, the state in general, but Conservatives aren't that smart on economics, unfortunately).
Ayn Rand was an atheist. Jesus believed in turning the other cheek, but Ayn Rand was an isolationist... so really, Ayn Rand was closer to Jesus in comparison than Conservatives themselves on foreign policy.
I'd say the only thing linking Conservatives with Ayn Rand is their love for American Capitalism (keep in mind, not Free Market Capitalism, both of them are essentially Statists). Jesus, on the other hand, has no real say on the ideas of State Capitalism. He does, however, believe in "give a man a fish, eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for eternity" which once again falls more in line with Free Market Capitalism.
It's sort of like the triple Venn-Diagram. You can find similarities between all three at different points.
Should they? I don't really think so.
It's a nice idea, and if people firmly believe in limiting human harm towards animals, go for it. I highly encourage Veganism if they truly believe in what they're saying (because Vegetarianism doesn't make much sense if you do it for moral reasons. we can do whatever we want towards animals so long as we don't kill them in the end? you do realize that animals are unaware of the killing part... right?)
I personally can't find it morally wrong to eat meat and use animals for whatever humans want. Sure, maybe torture is wrong in a cultural sense, but really it's an outlet for troubled humans, and this should be attacked at the parenting level since Aggressive Sociopaths are formed over time, not just born that way.
I study brains a lot... pretty much my focus of studying and research, and the human brain and it's ability for empathy, emotions, creativity, and abstract thinking are what make us different from the animals, and it also happens to make us sympathize with animals. Belief in animal rights is a phenomenon brought on by humans ability to over-sympathize with non-human things. Just how someone gets upset if an expensive car is smashed or a piece of art is shredded. Humans attach value and personality to things, and since animals have many characteristics that are similar to things that make humans attracted to other humans (Eyes, emitting sounds, movement, cohorts) some humans start to develop a strong sympathy for those animals, so strong that it makes them think that killing the animals for food or clothing is "evil" and "inhumane."
To me, animal ethics is a first-world philosophy, but it's created sort of out of boredom and privilege. People in under-developed areas do not give a shit about animals, and PeTA has released video of animal torture that occurs in nations where people are starving and have primal tools that they use to skin animals. To them, that's wrong. To me, it's life.
I don't approve of torture and unnecessary harm, but that's partly because of my own cultural upbringing in the Western hemisphere. I have a privilege (despite being poorer than the average American) from growing up in this richly Capitalist country, and because of that I've developed emotional bonds with animals. I do NOT, however, feel that my emotions should dictate any kind of objective ethics. Maybe I'll one day go Vegan because I can't stand it anymore, or maybe science will prevail in my understanding of the primal nature of animal brains (seriously, they don't understand death with the exception of some chimps that actually mourn their dead, and they don't think critically, and have a very limited ability for perceptual memory... most animal memory is from conditioning, which is as basic as salivating whenever you hear a bell or freaking out when you see a spider), but never will I tell others that eating meat is "wrong" because, well, it isn't.
The New Deal paved the way for our monster government that we have today (not completely, the Federal Reserve also had to do with it). and while Ronald Reagan expanded the war on drugs, FDR made marijuana illegal for the first time. Sure, we can blame Congress or the Senate, but Reagan has just as much power as FDR when it comes to government's involvement with drugs.
Reagan and FDR are both kind of assholes, but i'd say Reagan was at least a bit less of an asshole due to his philosophy of "less" government, even though he expanded the military. FDR was more like "fuck you, government must grow... grow ... GROW!!!" which still exists in the minds of elitists and Fascists today.
Oh, right, and FDR detained Japanese, Italians, and Germans for being Japanese, Italian, or German.
Both were war mongers, but Reagan was more of a Bush style War monger, while FDR was more just responsible for the Manhattan Project "lol, you want to create something that could possibly blow a hole in our atmosphere? go ahead".
I'd say when it comes to comparing presidents, it makes more sense to ask "who was worse?"
Classical Liberalism, or as the Liberals of today call it, Neo-Liberalism. Essentially, the Founding Fathers believed in small government. To them, Federalism meant State power, but Federalism has turned into basically Centralized power. The Constitution is pretty much a joke at this point, and no Founding Father would see the Controlled Substance Act, the Federal income tax, and the PATRIOT Act - NDAA - etc as a good thing.
Thomas Jefferson personally wanted power to be at the most of a district level, and Thomas Paine (who inspired the Declaration of Independence) was skeptical of ANY government power. George Washington didn't like paper currency. Benjamin Franklin and James Madison hated the idea of sacrificing liberty for security (gun control, invasion of privacy, etc.) Of today, they would disagree with the platforms of the Democratic AND Republican parties and would most likely support the Libertarian Party or the Constitutionalist Party. As previously stated, I say Liberalism because they were Classical Liberals, inspired by the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Hobbes. That platform does not fit the views of Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans.
The great thing about Capitalism is that even if you have no money, you can still have plenty of goods and services.
Free Market capitalism would practically remove the necessity for paper currency.
But consider how people in poverty have cable and shelter. This is because of capitalism. Unfortunately, heavy state involvement has skewed how much money people have, and, of course, we are heavily in debt, but we're still fine compared to other countries that do not try to engage in free trade (or are bombed by First world countries).
An example of how a system of Capitalism can provide for poor people their necessities can be noted by this African activist.
She basically explains how giving people welfare is not enough to save the African people. They need to have sustaining work and to have a market sector (given, she doesn't use the term market) in order to get themselves out of poverty. Her recommendation is to have an outside company create factories that employ the African people, but I feel that the African people would be better off creating their own factories. It would be better either way than what Africa is currently used to, which is enslavement by dictators and the only provisions that are provided are welfare that doesn't last them long. Outside corporations would have financial incentive to stop the violence in Africa, so maybe in that sense Globalization is still important, however I fear the power of Western influence, because while the private sector is mostly a system of voluntarism, the governments they come from are systems of coercion and politics.
inb4 off topic
Modernized political scales throw the wings into economic handelings while amount of government control is on a scale of Libertarian - Authoritarian.
Fascism, historically, is towards the middle since they do have a centralized bank and centralized health-care but they still allow for people to start their own businesses and trade somewhat freely (so long as the people aren't deemed inferior for elitist reasons.)
There's also a lot of businesses being told to manufacture for government, specifically the military industrial complex.
State Communism (seen under Stalin and Mao) are Left-wing Authoritarian systems, where the government runs most of the traditionally market duties. There is no or little private sector.
The issue with having a truly Right Wing Authoritarian system is that Authoritarianism that doesn't touch the market at all is rare. At the same time, extremely left wing economics tries to put the economic sector into the collective hand, not the hands of the state. That requires a different level of action, one that many anarcho-socialists try to persuade the people by.
Regardless of how we care about free speech, sports is a service industry with the goal of making as much money as possible. A person in this day and age who has a racist product (a sports team called the "redskins") is going to lose support, thus losing money.
So it's likely and recommended that he change the name of his team.
In general I find me talking about other people only because I'm kind of pushed into it by other people.
I'd prefer to talk about the Universe, our minds, and just shit that seems to seek a higher truth. Not what other people are doing.
But I'm also a strange person in other people's eyes. But the people I hang out with study biology and chemistry, so they aren't "dumb", but they seem to not give a shit about philosophy.
so i can't really say "low intelligence," and hell, the concept of working hard and studying to become someone who works for some corporation and attributes the Military Industrial Complex and apathetic Consumerism is despicable to me, but to them it's just the normal way.
So I'd say gossip is a sign of lacking self-awareness. These people are slaves, not "stupid" in the classical sense.
