|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 08 2015 12:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 12:13 oneofthem wrote:
sort population by productivity. delete bottom 20% rows rank 'em and yank 'em :3 Edit: also, what if you missclick and sort ascending instead of descending? Que horrible....
mm yea human error is a problem. gotta automate it
|
On May 08 2015 12:25 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 12:14 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 11:45 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 10:59 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:54 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 09:41 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:11 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:
All you ever need is abstinence right?
right? What becomes of our world when we can not even trust our teenagers to always do the responsible most counterinstinctual thing? @Millitron why would you think that? cultures and people can be very varied even at close proximity. i guess you advocate some "if you don't like it here and are the minority leave"-attitude? and more to the general point: why do you think larger than family sized political organisations ever evolved? people saw value in them. just because you do not see it, doesnt mean it is absent for everyone. i agree that historically grown political entities sometimes feel very ill fitted and slow to adapt, because they hardly ever change. so they could be improved upon by redistricting. i am still not sure if you are categorically against involuntary wealth transfers or if you see that there might be a general good possible with structurally stronger regions helping out weaker ones? Larger-than-family sized political organizations evolved out of fear, or greed. Either "Lets group up and rob all these dumb farmers." or "Lets group up and fight off these bandits." Neither of these are real problems anymore. So big capital decides where you can live and where you can not, as you can only provide a living for yourself when you get a job? We then all live clustered around harbors, mines and factories like people in the 3rd world. Grouping up is a general advantage, not only against violent intruders, but also in negotiation situations like infrastructure development and competition for employment related investment. Just think for a moment about how it works out if every little town becomes independend, the currently poor ones will fail even worse, the richest wont care, and all the rest will either join the rich through luck and competition, or fall down to the poorer and poorer. On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:
Also, the "if you don't like it here and are the minority, leave"-attitude is the exact one you're defending. You're arguing in favor of NYC ruling with an iron fist right now; you see that right?
I'm ok with taxation if it's to pay for really basic stuff that directly benefits everyone, and doesn't have a privately-run alternative. So police, fire dept, roads, things like that. Anything else, nope.
How about disability benefits, unemployment benefits, general financial support for people in need? On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Shiragaku wrote:
Condoms are also pretty good at stopping STDs Abstinence is even better. Bending the rules of physical foundations of biology to make diseases impossible and pregnancies only possible through rational deliberation would be even better, but equaly as realistic. That's actually not true puerk. City-States in order to survive have to adopt very liberal economic doctrines (e.g. free-trade, low-tax rates, low regulatory environments (do not read this as pollute pollute pollute, but things like licensing, fees, etc.), etc.), which in turn makes these entities more well-to-do. Why do you think Italian city-states initiated the renaissance and were the wealthiest entities in Europe? Why do you think German culture produced more institutions of worth (museums, music, architecture, etc.) during their city-state time than when they became unified/nationalized? Look at places like Singapore, Hong Kong, all these so-called tax-havens of Europe like Liechtenstein that have higher per capita-income than places like France, Germany, etc. You're simply either delusional, or ignorant of history to say that a devolution to city-statism would make people poorer. What makes people poor are large centralized Nation-States, that concentrate wealth in the political classes from an enormous geographical territory and population. Never mind the stifling of competition, and yes, more 'nations' would mean more competition which means better economic outcomes. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I specifically stated that some towns will be better of. The notion that i was actually arguing is that the wealth gap will grow even further. By picking the winners and telling me: look how much fun the richest in a time of widespread misery had! We should totally go back to that system because i consider myself a prospective winner. You consistently advocate policies for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer and more disenfranchised but pretend to be advocating something that will make it better for everyone. Just drop the pretending and be honest with us..... On May 08 2015 Wegandi wrote:
Self-governance is the ideal. Anyways, for practical purposes (and I really dislike this in principle) a plurality would probably have to suffice for it to not to be a clusterfuck, but I suppose you wouldn't need that if folk who wanted to form their own governments could simply 'opt-out' of their current institutional chains without the need for anyone who doesn't want to be a part to be so, but that runs into problems of right of ways and isolating folk which wouldn't be a problem if there were contractual agreements like what ATM's and the like use (reciprocity of infrastructure), though this wouldn't really be a problem if all infrastructure was private so there would be no conflict of use. I'm under no delusion though that, that would be a reality any time soon, so hence the plurality bit. Also, who said I had some objective truth? You're the one who wants disparate peoples to be subjugated under a central authority - the burden is up to you to argue this arrangement is both just and practical, not me. You are the one wanting to overthrow the system your parents born you into therefore accepting the social contract on your behalf. I recognize your wish for greatness, but i value equity of outcome and dignity over principalistic "might makes right". That whole paragraph you wrote ignores everything we know about actual people in actual situations of need. People can not negotiate fair contracts for things they need in a world where wealth already exists and is distributed in a most uneven fashion. Nobody ever starts with a clean state in an empty world, and our methods of governance and social structuring have to take that into account. Either we go for a system of pure competition where you can adore your Singapores while ignoring all the failures and misery going on around it, or we can try to reduce inequalities by empowering institutions to transfer wealth. Neither approach is dishonest or categorically wrong, i prefer the latter because i do not care as much about the value of winning over others, but more about the value of winning as a society as a whole. You daft? Hong Kong, Singapore, Liechtenstein, et. al. are rich precisely because of their economic models and policies. Where do you think wealth comes from? Are you that dense you think it just magically 'is' and some countries steal it from other countries, and you didn't even explain how. Osmosis and diffusion is what I got from you. It's absurd on its face. Marxists are always so dense. Similarly, you seem to equate our current distribution of resources as the model of Lockeanism, which is laughable, and is always the argument made. There has to be a massive 'redistribution' of properties based on these principles of Lockeanism, of rightful possessor and owner. Of course, this little tidbit never gets any mention by Marxists because it shatters their little imaginary world where they play the 'gotcha' by comparing apples to peach cobbler. Indeed, people negotiate non-coercive (please define *fair*) contracts all the time under all sorts of different disparate economic stratums. If you have value to someone else, that is an extremely strong point of negotiating. Anyways, that's besides the point. You know why the countries around Singapore are poor and miserly as you put it? They were communist shitholes and in some cases still are. Then you have outliers like Singapore and Taiwan who went a different direction and guess what, they're not shitholes, they're wealthy. Your hand waving is ludicrous as is your wanton ignorance of what makes a person poor, what makes a person rich, and where wealth comes from. If you actually want to help bring people out of poverty stop advocating socialism and communism. They've never, in human history brought us from poverty to prosperity. Can some local institutions do fine? Sure. I subscribe to some local farmer coops, but you don't run industrial society this way. It also says as much about you that you think competition is anathema to prosperous society, when every empirical data around you tells you otherwise. Why be so blind? You for monopolies? You know how wealth concentrates? Via political power. You know the wealthiest counties and districts in the US? They're all in the little DC, Virgina, Maryland corridor. Go back in history and this trend is the same in every nation and every Empire. Even progressives like Gabriel Kolko understood this. I advocate policies that enrich society, not engender it to poverty like you do. You seem to have a hard time comprehending that there is more to the world than anarchocapitalism and marxism. On a european political scale i am pretty far from a marxist. I like social democracies with private ownership of the means of production with taxation and regulation to ensure a governmental guaranteed dignified existence for every human being in the society. I am a proponent of a basic income. You still do not understand that under your model not everyone can be a winner, not everyone can be a perfectly located trade hub, a historically grown independend tax haven with outside protective powers or some other unique lucky arrangement. I never said that i do not want competition at all, i want it limited. I do not want to give up on humans that fail. I do not want to give up on humans that have no value to the current holders of capital. On a related topic: Millitron can you answer my question what you think about government issued disability benefits? Sorry. I didn't see the question. I'm not sure what exactly I think about them. I really don't like the whole robin hood "steal from the rich, give to the poor" idea. Probably not a good idea to just let people starve though. Maybe they could incentivize charity, so people will be more likely to give the disabled money under their own free will, instead of having it forcibly transferred? Though about your point about a "governmental guaranteed dignified existence", I don't really think living on welfare is any more dignified than being a beggar on the streets. It's not as obviously shameful, but it's functionally identical.
Eh, Robin Hood is actually a good antecedent for just property rights. He 'stole' from the Kings to take back the properties for their rightful owners. The Kings stole the land in the first place (taxation, grants, appropriation, etc.). This whole mythos has been severely twisted around on itself lmao.
Also, this dichotomy between Government with a large administrative bureaucracy and nothing at all is plain silliness. Mutual aid societies, fraternal orders, local institutions, etc. handled the business of making sure communities were taken care of far better than the putrid stench we have today where you send your money off to DC to get gobbled up and spat back out where you're quite lucky to get 5 to 10% of it back. Yet, people actually think this 'works' and is the only option. Same goes for unions and the laws associated with here in the US. They do far more to harm labor than actual laborers coming together (as we saw with the fast food industry lately). If it's one thing these businesses are more scared of is definitely decentralized mass movements since they're a billion times more uncontrollable. The list goes on and on.
|
On May 08 2015 12:25 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's against them, several dozen or so pages back myself and GH had the exact same question in which the response "perhaps they should die." or something similar was the answer. If you are making the "utilitarian" argument "$50 for BC is way cheaper than a pregnancy." Then you are already dangerously close to that answer.
Indeed. If your argument is this is cheaper, then why not go for sterilization instead of the recurring costs of BC? Government shouldn't be in the trenches of trying to fix its own problems with more Government (costs of Welfare, etc.). It's pretty comical. Always a Government problem is fixed with a solution that involves more Government.
|
On May 08 2015 12:50 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 12:25 cLutZ wrote:On May 08 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's against them, several dozen or so pages back myself and GH had the exact same question in which the response "perhaps they should die." or something similar was the answer. If you are making the "utilitarian" argument "$50 for BC is way cheaper than a pregnancy." Then you are already dangerously close to that answer. Indeed. If your argument is this is cheaper, then why not go for sterilization instead of the recurring costs of BC? Government shouldn't be in the trenches of trying to fix its own problems with more Government (costs of Welfare, etc.). It's pretty comical. Always a Government problem is fixed with a solution that involves more Government.
How is unwanted teen pregnancies a problem created by the government?
Or are you saying the Government spending money to help teen mothers is the problem? In which case your advocating that unwanted babies should be thrown out with the trash. I'm sure that will go down wonderfully at dinner conversations.
|
I think his position is that by providing IUDs and other contraceptives for free, it is incentivizing sex on the basis that these free (but not actually free) contraceptives prevent pregnancy, a big deterrent to sex.
On the other hand, before free contraceptives, people did throw unwanted babies out the trash. Or used clothes hangers. Or black market abortion methods.
|
On May 08 2015 12:25 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 12:14 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 11:45 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 10:59 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:54 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 09:41 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:11 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:
All you ever need is abstinence right?
right? What becomes of our world when we can not even trust our teenagers to always do the responsible most counterinstinctual thing? @Millitron why would you think that? cultures and people can be very varied even at close proximity. i guess you advocate some "if you don't like it here and are the minority leave"-attitude? and more to the general point: why do you think larger than family sized political organisations ever evolved? people saw value in them. just because you do not see it, doesnt mean it is absent for everyone. i agree that historically grown political entities sometimes feel very ill fitted and slow to adapt, because they hardly ever change. so they could be improved upon by redistricting. i am still not sure if you are categorically against involuntary wealth transfers or if you see that there might be a general good possible with structurally stronger regions helping out weaker ones? Larger-than-family sized political organizations evolved out of fear, or greed. Either "Lets group up and rob all these dumb farmers." or "Lets group up and fight off these bandits." Neither of these are real problems anymore. So big capital decides where you can live and where you can not, as you can only provide a living for yourself when you get a job? We then all live clustered around harbors, mines and factories like people in the 3rd world. Grouping up is a general advantage, not only against violent intruders, but also in negotiation situations like infrastructure development and competition for employment related investment. Just think for a moment about how it works out if every little town becomes independend, the currently poor ones will fail even worse, the richest wont care, and all the rest will either join the rich through luck and competition, or fall down to the poorer and poorer. On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:
Also, the "if you don't like it here and are the minority, leave"-attitude is the exact one you're defending. You're arguing in favor of NYC ruling with an iron fist right now; you see that right?
I'm ok with taxation if it's to pay for really basic stuff that directly benefits everyone, and doesn't have a privately-run alternative. So police, fire dept, roads, things like that. Anything else, nope.
How about disability benefits, unemployment benefits, general financial support for people in need? On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Shiragaku wrote:
Condoms are also pretty good at stopping STDs Abstinence is even better. Bending the rules of physical foundations of biology to make diseases impossible and pregnancies only possible through rational deliberation would be even better, but equaly as realistic. That's actually not true puerk. City-States in order to survive have to adopt very liberal economic doctrines (e.g. free-trade, low-tax rates, low regulatory environments (do not read this as pollute pollute pollute, but things like licensing, fees, etc.), etc.), which in turn makes these entities more well-to-do. Why do you think Italian city-states initiated the renaissance and were the wealthiest entities in Europe? Why do you think German culture produced more institutions of worth (museums, music, architecture, etc.) during their city-state time than when they became unified/nationalized? Look at places like Singapore, Hong Kong, all these so-called tax-havens of Europe like Liechtenstein that have higher per capita-income than places like France, Germany, etc. You're simply either delusional, or ignorant of history to say that a devolution to city-statism would make people poorer. What makes people poor are large centralized Nation-States, that concentrate wealth in the political classes from an enormous geographical territory and population. Never mind the stifling of competition, and yes, more 'nations' would mean more competition which means better economic outcomes. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I specifically stated that some towns will be better of. The notion that i was actually arguing is that the wealth gap will grow even further. By picking the winners and telling me: look how much fun the richest in a time of widespread misery had! We should totally go back to that system because i consider myself a prospective winner. You consistently advocate policies for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer and more disenfranchised but pretend to be advocating something that will make it better for everyone. Just drop the pretending and be honest with us..... On May 08 2015 Wegandi wrote:
Self-governance is the ideal. Anyways, for practical purposes (and I really dislike this in principle) a plurality would probably have to suffice for it to not to be a clusterfuck, but I suppose you wouldn't need that if folk who wanted to form their own governments could simply 'opt-out' of their current institutional chains without the need for anyone who doesn't want to be a part to be so, but that runs into problems of right of ways and isolating folk which wouldn't be a problem if there were contractual agreements like what ATM's and the like use (reciprocity of infrastructure), though this wouldn't really be a problem if all infrastructure was private so there would be no conflict of use. I'm under no delusion though that, that would be a reality any time soon, so hence the plurality bit. Also, who said I had some objective truth? You're the one who wants disparate peoples to be subjugated under a central authority - the burden is up to you to argue this arrangement is both just and practical, not me. You are the one wanting to overthrow the system your parents born you into therefore accepting the social contract on your behalf. I recognize your wish for greatness, but i value equity of outcome and dignity over principalistic "might makes right". That whole paragraph you wrote ignores everything we know about actual people in actual situations of need. People can not negotiate fair contracts for things they need in a world where wealth already exists and is distributed in a most uneven fashion. Nobody ever starts with a clean state in an empty world, and our methods of governance and social structuring have to take that into account. Either we go for a system of pure competition where you can adore your Singapores while ignoring all the failures and misery going on around it, or we can try to reduce inequalities by empowering institutions to transfer wealth. Neither approach is dishonest or categorically wrong, i prefer the latter because i do not care as much about the value of winning over others, but more about the value of winning as a society as a whole. You daft? Hong Kong, Singapore, Liechtenstein, et. al. are rich precisely because of their economic models and policies. Where do you think wealth comes from? Are you that dense you think it just magically 'is' and some countries steal it from other countries, and you didn't even explain how. Osmosis and diffusion is what I got from you. It's absurd on its face. Marxists are always so dense. Similarly, you seem to equate our current distribution of resources as the model of Lockeanism, which is laughable, and is always the argument made. There has to be a massive 'redistribution' of properties based on these principles of Lockeanism, of rightful possessor and owner. Of course, this little tidbit never gets any mention by Marxists because it shatters their little imaginary world where they play the 'gotcha' by comparing apples to peach cobbler. Indeed, people negotiate non-coercive (please define *fair*) contracts all the time under all sorts of different disparate economic stratums. If you have value to someone else, that is an extremely strong point of negotiating. Anyways, that's besides the point. You know why the countries around Singapore are poor and miserly as you put it? They were communist shitholes and in some cases still are. Then you have outliers like Singapore and Taiwan who went a different direction and guess what, they're not shitholes, they're wealthy. Your hand waving is ludicrous as is your wanton ignorance of what makes a person poor, what makes a person rich, and where wealth comes from. If you actually want to help bring people out of poverty stop advocating socialism and communism. They've never, in human history brought us from poverty to prosperity. Can some local institutions do fine? Sure. I subscribe to some local farmer coops, but you don't run industrial society this way. It also says as much about you that you think competition is anathema to prosperous society, when every empirical data around you tells you otherwise. Why be so blind? You for monopolies? You know how wealth concentrates? Via political power. You know the wealthiest counties and districts in the US? They're all in the little DC, Virgina, Maryland corridor. Go back in history and this trend is the same in every nation and every Empire. Even progressives like Gabriel Kolko understood this. I advocate policies that enrich society, not engender it to poverty like you do. You seem to have a hard time comprehending that there is more to the world than anarchocapitalism and marxism. On a european political scale i am pretty far from a marxist. I like social democracies with private ownership of the means of production with taxation and regulation to ensure a governmental guaranteed dignified existence for every human being in the society. I am a proponent of a basic income. You still do not understand that under your model not everyone can be a winner, not everyone can be a perfectly located trade hub, a historically grown independend tax haven with outside protective powers or some other unique lucky arrangement. I never said that i do not want competition at all, i want it limited. I do not want to give up on humans that fail. I do not want to give up on humans that have no value to the current holders of capital. On a related topic: Millitron can you answer my question what you think about government issued disability benefits? Sorry. I didn't see the question. I'm not sure what exactly I think about them. I really don't like the whole robin hood "steal from the rich, give to the poor" idea. Probably not a good idea to just let people starve though. Maybe they could incentivize charity, so people will be more likely to give the disabled money under their own free will, instead of having it forcibly transferred? Though about your point about a "governmental guaranteed dignified existence", I don't really think living on welfare is any more dignified than being a beggar on the streets. It's not as obviously shameful, but it's functionally identical.
No problem, thanks for answering.
Are you aware of the real world problems of charity?
i.e. mainly nonreliability
There is a huge difference between welfare and being a beggar: stability.
A person with a societal guaranteed living standard can pursue its life safer and more relaxed. Persons scraping by and threatened with the end of their existence are in big turmoil.
A person receiving charity is dependent on the goodwill of that one benefector, a relationship that is highly tilted and emotionally even more strenuous than you can ever claim that between a welfare recipient and the state to be. There are huge moral hazards arising from a system where people are dependent on charity. And living in fear of dying from starvation because someone with wealth deems you not worthy of living is the epitome of indignified.
If you do not want to answer that next question that is perfectly fine, but i can not resist to ask it anyway: have i understood that correctly that you received federal disability benefits that constitute a forced wealth transfer even though you argue on internet forums that they are an injustice you abhor?
|
On May 08 2015 13:14 JinDesu wrote:
I think his position is that by providing IUDs and other contraceptives for free, it is incentivizing sex on the basis that these free (but not actually free) contraceptives prevent pregnancy, a big deterrent to sex.
On the other hand, before free contraceptives, people did throw unwanted babies out the trash. Or used clothes hangers. Or black market abortion methods.
People will have sex, nothing anyone is going to do will change that reproduction instinct is a powerful thing. Any position that assumes people will not have sex is fatally flawed from the start.
|
On May 08 2015 13:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 13:14 JinDesu wrote:
I think his position is that by providing IUDs and other contraceptives for free, it is incentivizing sex on the basis that these free (but not actually free) contraceptives prevent pregnancy, a big deterrent to sex.
On the other hand, before free contraceptives, people did throw unwanted babies out the trash. Or used clothes hangers. Or black market abortion methods. People will have sex, nothing anyone is going to do will change that reproduction instinct is a powerful thing. Any position that assumes people will not have sex is fatally flawed from the start.
You just have to assume hard enough!
|
Its just mind boggling that someone is seriously advocating for a system that is worse then the Dark Ages. Atleast then they had religious institutions guilting people into spending money on charity. Take that away aswell and what are you left with?
|
On May 08 2015 13:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 12:50 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 12:25 cLutZ wrote:On May 08 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's against them, several dozen or so pages back myself and GH had the exact same question in which the response "perhaps they should die." or something similar was the answer. If you are making the "utilitarian" argument "$50 for BC is way cheaper than a pregnancy." Then you are already dangerously close to that answer. Indeed. If your argument is this is cheaper, then why not go for sterilization instead of the recurring costs of BC? Government shouldn't be in the trenches of trying to fix its own problems with more Government (costs of Welfare, etc.). It's pretty comical. Always a Government problem is fixed with a solution that involves more Government. How is unwanted teen pregnancies a problem created by the government? Or are you saying the Government spending money to help teen mothers is the problem? In which case your advocating that unwanted babies should be thrown out with the trash. I'm sure that will go down wonderfully at dinner conversations.
Follow the conversation. The poster we're talking about said that the Government paying for BC is better because it reduces welfare costs due to 'unwanted pregnancies', which at that point if that is the argument you're making, why not go to sterilization since that offers even more cost-effectiveness for Welfare? That's the point - that he implicitly said that welfare costs are a problem so he advocated giving Government more power to intrude into our lives even more because of its previous intrusion. Robert Higgs wrote a great book called Leviathan which demonstrates how Government failures create more Government.
|
On May 08 2015 13:14 JinDesu wrote:
I think his position is that by providing IUDs and other contraceptives for free, it is incentivizing sex on the basis that these free (but not actually free) contraceptives prevent pregnancy, a big deterrent to sex.
On the other hand, before free contraceptives, people did throw unwanted babies out the trash. Or used clothes hangers. Or black market abortion methods.
LMAO. I have no position on this except insofar as Government shouldn't be taking our money to provide contraceptives (it shouldn't be taking our money in the first place, but let's not digress too much). Again, please follow the conversation here.
|
On May 08 2015 07:09 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 06:15 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 06:08 JinDesu wrote:
I think what Militron is going for, correct me if I'm wrong, is that NY should be split into the red part and the blue part. The blue part can have the S.A.F.E. law and the red part can be as hick as they want. That's called secession. I don't think it's popular in the US, there was some kind of war about it. In the UK however we're fine with letting Scotland choose if it wants to leave after years of rule by a government the Scots never voted for. Eye of the beholder. You call it secession, I call it independence. You call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters. Tomato, tomato, etc. etc. Abraham Lincoln was a rabid nationalist, so of course his view will be one of iron domination. Governments do not let their tax slaves easily go -
You heard it here first: Abraham Lincoln fought the civil war to promote slavery...
...tax slavery.
|
On May 08 2015 13:40 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 07:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 06:15 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 06:08 JinDesu wrote:
I think what Militron is going for, correct me if I'm wrong, is that NY should be split into the red part and the blue part. The blue part can have the S.A.F.E. law and the red part can be as hick as they want. That's called secession. I don't think it's popular in the US, there was some kind of war about it. In the UK however we're fine with letting Scotland choose if it wants to leave after years of rule by a government the Scots never voted for. Eye of the beholder. You call it secession, I call it independence. You call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters. Tomato, tomato, etc. etc. Abraham Lincoln was a rabid nationalist, so of course his view will be one of iron domination. Governments do not let their tax slaves easily go - You heard it here first: Abraham Lincoln fought the civil war to promote slavery... ...tax slavery.
Only the ignorant of history will deny such things. Same reason why Andrew Jackson nearly invaded South Carolina after they threatened to secede in the 1830s, and the Northeastern States had the same threats levied prior/at the time of the War of 1812 for refusing to abet that atrocity. It's about power and money, and Governments do not their little piggies free without a fight. Mob works on the same ethos and if you just look objectively the only difference is one of ideology and propaganda on behalf of the States beneficence for you. Lol. I got some Franz Oppenheimer for that mythology.
|
On May 08 2015 13:40 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 07:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 06:15 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 06:08 JinDesu wrote:
I think what Militron is going for, correct me if I'm wrong, is that NY should be split into the red part and the blue part. The blue part can have the S.A.F.E. law and the red part can be as hick as they want. That's called secession. I don't think it's popular in the US, there was some kind of war about it. In the UK however we're fine with letting Scotland choose if it wants to leave after years of rule by a government the Scots never voted for. Eye of the beholder. You call it secession, I call it independence. You call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters. Tomato, tomato, etc. etc. Abraham Lincoln was a rabid nationalist, so of course his view will be one of iron domination. Governments do not let their tax slaves easily go - You heard it here first: Abraham Lincoln fought the civil war to promote slavery... ...tax slavery.
That is totally the wrong interpretation of what he wrote, he is saying the states fought for states rights and provided the rights for slaves to freely move to non slave states if they did not like being slaves, that is after all what the competitive nature of states is all about.
|
On May 08 2015 13:35 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 13:06 Gorsameth wrote:On May 08 2015 12:50 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 12:25 cLutZ wrote:On May 08 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's against them, several dozen or so pages back myself and GH had the exact same question in which the response "perhaps they should die." or something similar was the answer. If you are making the "utilitarian" argument "$50 for BC is way cheaper than a pregnancy." Then you are already dangerously close to that answer. Indeed. If your argument is this is cheaper, then why not go for sterilization instead of the recurring costs of BC? Government shouldn't be in the trenches of trying to fix its own problems with more Government (costs of Welfare, etc.). It's pretty comical. Always a Government problem is fixed with a solution that involves more Government. How is unwanted teen pregnancies a problem created by the government? Or are you saying the Government spending money to help teen mothers is the problem? In which case your advocating that unwanted babies should be thrown out with the trash. I'm sure that will go down wonderfully at dinner conversations. Follow the conversation. The poster we're talking about said that the Government paying for BC is better because it reduces welfare costs due to 'unwanted pregnancies', which at that point if that is the argument you're making, why not go to sterilization since that offers even more cost-effectiveness for Welfare? That's the point - that he implicitly said that welfare costs are a problem so he advocated giving Government more power to intrude into our lives even more because of its previous intrusion. Robert Higgs wrote a great book called Leviathan which demonstrates how Government failures create more Government.
So yes i am correct. thank you.
The problem is the pregnancies. Birth control is not the problem since it is actually working. Its cost is not a problem since it is cheaper then teen pregnancies and sterilization is not a solution you have decades of sexual urges and possibly the desire for a child somewhere in the middle of it.
|
On May 08 2015 13:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 13:35 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 13:06 Gorsameth wrote:On May 08 2015 12:50 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 12:25 cLutZ wrote:On May 08 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's against them, several dozen or so pages back myself and GH had the exact same question in which the response "perhaps they should die." or something similar was the answer. If you are making the "utilitarian" argument "$50 for BC is way cheaper than a pregnancy." Then you are already dangerously close to that answer. Indeed. If your argument is this is cheaper, then why not go for sterilization instead of the recurring costs of BC? Government shouldn't be in the trenches of trying to fix its own problems with more Government (costs of Welfare, etc.). It's pretty comical. Always a Government problem is fixed with a solution that involves more Government. How is unwanted teen pregnancies a problem created by the government? Or are you saying the Government spending money to help teen mothers is the problem? In which case your advocating that unwanted babies should be thrown out with the trash. I'm sure that will go down wonderfully at dinner conversations. Follow the conversation. The poster we're talking about said that the Government paying for BC is better because it reduces welfare costs due to 'unwanted pregnancies', which at that point if that is the argument you're making, why not go to sterilization since that offers even more cost-effectiveness for Welfare? That's the point - that he implicitly said that welfare costs are a problem so he advocated giving Government more power to intrude into our lives even more because of its previous intrusion. Robert Higgs wrote a great book called Leviathan which demonstrates how Government failures create more Government. So yes i am correct. thank you. The problem is the pregnancies. Birth control is not the problem since it is actually working. Its cost is not a problem since it is cheaper then teen pregnancies and sterilization is not a solution you have decades of sexual urges and possibly the desire for a child somewhere in the middle of it.
/oblivious. Again, the poster we were talking about before you joined in, said that the point of Government providing BC was to lower welfare costs associated with unwanted pregnancies. Following this utilitarian line yet? So, if his argument is that it is prudent for Government to reduce its own Welfare costs associated with these unwanted pregnancies, then why advocate for recurring costs of BC, and not the one-time sterilization cost? Which was ironic given the fact this same poster then (before me and ClutZ posted) went on to say the poster he was responding to (Millitron) should be advocating for sterilization. Do you not see the hilariousness of his own dissonance? No? OK. I give up.
|
On May 08 2015 13:44 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 13:40 Yoav wrote:On May 08 2015 07:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 06:15 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 06:08 JinDesu wrote:
I think what Militron is going for, correct me if I'm wrong, is that NY should be split into the red part and the blue part. The blue part can have the S.A.F.E. law and the red part can be as hick as they want. That's called secession. I don't think it's popular in the US, there was some kind of war about it. In the UK however we're fine with letting Scotland choose if it wants to leave after years of rule by a government the Scots never voted for. Eye of the beholder. You call it secession, I call it independence. You call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters. Tomato, tomato, etc. etc. Abraham Lincoln was a rabid nationalist, so of course his view will be one of iron domination. Governments do not let their tax slaves easily go - You heard it here first: Abraham Lincoln fought the civil war to promote slavery... ...tax slavery. That is totally the wrong interpretation of what he wrote, he is saying the states fought for states rights and provided the rights for slaves to freely move to non slave states if they did not like being slaves, that is after all what the competitive nature of states is all about.
You are so witty. Where in Germany can I go to learn this as well? If we take a serious knack for a second, the Southern States weren't so different than Lincoln. They fought on behalf of their own institutions of power that enriched them, namely slavery. Many a fool joined the war on either side with the false belief that either power fought for what we look back on today as (Northern: freeing the slaves (LOL don't make me laugh too hard) South: tariffs (again, tariffs were lower in the 1850s than the 1820s for instance...)). Much of it had to do with the power of balance between the interests of slave-holding admission(s) of states and nominally free (though terribly racist) states of admission(s) which altered the # of House of Reps and Senators. Bunch more than that, but hey, who's got the time.
|
On May 08 2015 13:49 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 13:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 08 2015 13:35 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 13:06 Gorsameth wrote:On May 08 2015 12:50 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 12:25 cLutZ wrote:On May 08 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's against them, several dozen or so pages back myself and GH had the exact same question in which the response "perhaps they should die." or something similar was the answer. If you are making the "utilitarian" argument "$50 for BC is way cheaper than a pregnancy." Then you are already dangerously close to that answer. Indeed. If your argument is this is cheaper, then why not go for sterilization instead of the recurring costs of BC? Government shouldn't be in the trenches of trying to fix its own problems with more Government (costs of Welfare, etc.). It's pretty comical. Always a Government problem is fixed with a solution that involves more Government. How is unwanted teen pregnancies a problem created by the government? Or are you saying the Government spending money to help teen mothers is the problem? In which case your advocating that unwanted babies should be thrown out with the trash. I'm sure that will go down wonderfully at dinner conversations. Follow the conversation. The poster we're talking about said that the Government paying for BC is better because it reduces welfare costs due to 'unwanted pregnancies', which at that point if that is the argument you're making, why not go to sterilization since that offers even more cost-effectiveness for Welfare? That's the point - that he implicitly said that welfare costs are a problem so he advocated giving Government more power to intrude into our lives even more because of its previous intrusion. Robert Higgs wrote a great book called Leviathan which demonstrates how Government failures create more Government. So yes i am correct. thank you. The problem is the pregnancies. Birth control is not the problem since it is actually working. Its cost is not a problem since it is cheaper then teen pregnancies and sterilization is not a solution you have decades of sexual urges and possibly the desire for a child somewhere in the middle of it. /oblivious. Again, the poster we were talking about before you joined in, said that the point of Government providing BC was to lower welfare costs associated with unwanted pregnancies. Following this utilitarian line yet? So, if his argument is that it is prudent for Government to reduce its own Welfare costs associated with these unwanted pregnancies, then why advocate for recurring costs of BC, and not the one-time sterilization cost? Which was ironic given the fact this same poster then (before me and ClutZ posted) went on to say the poster he was responding to (Millitron) should be advocating for sterilization. Do you not see the hilariousness of his own dissonance? No? OK. I give up.
You are missunderstanding the whole conversation that you now try to explain to someone else.
Government provided BC is not there to lower welfare costs associated with unwanted pregnancies, that it also does that is an added benefit. The idea behind it (as was stated repeatedly) is that it incentivises personal birth control and familiy planning. People could theoretically do that without governmental influence, but they don't. Thats why that help is obviously superior to the alternatives.
|
Well this got way to meta for me. Unwanted children cost money regardless of what the government does. It just makes sense to make preventative measures inexpensive and easily accessible. Forced sterilization is a whole different ball of wax as is welfare.
|
On May 08 2015 13:57 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 13:49 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 13:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 08 2015 13:35 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 13:06 Gorsameth wrote:On May 08 2015 12:50 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 12:25 cLutZ wrote:On May 08 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's against them, several dozen or so pages back myself and GH had the exact same question in which the response "perhaps they should die." or something similar was the answer. If you are making the "utilitarian" argument "$50 for BC is way cheaper than a pregnancy." Then you are already dangerously close to that answer. Indeed. If your argument is this is cheaper, then why not go for sterilization instead of the recurring costs of BC? Government shouldn't be in the trenches of trying to fix its own problems with more Government (costs of Welfare, etc.). It's pretty comical. Always a Government problem is fixed with a solution that involves more Government. How is unwanted teen pregnancies a problem created by the government? Or are you saying the Government spending money to help teen mothers is the problem? In which case your advocating that unwanted babies should be thrown out with the trash. I'm sure that will go down wonderfully at dinner conversations. Follow the conversation. The poster we're talking about said that the Government paying for BC is better because it reduces welfare costs due to 'unwanted pregnancies', which at that point if that is the argument you're making, why not go to sterilization since that offers even more cost-effectiveness for Welfare? That's the point - that he implicitly said that welfare costs are a problem so he advocated giving Government more power to intrude into our lives even more because of its previous intrusion. Robert Higgs wrote a great book called Leviathan which demonstrates how Government failures create more Government. So yes i am correct. thank you. The problem is the pregnancies. Birth control is not the problem since it is actually working. Its cost is not a problem since it is cheaper then teen pregnancies and sterilization is not a solution you have decades of sexual urges and possibly the desire for a child somewhere in the middle of it. /oblivious. Again, the poster we were talking about before you joined in, said that the point of Government providing BC was to lower welfare costs associated with unwanted pregnancies. Following this utilitarian line yet? So, if his argument is that it is prudent for Government to reduce its own Welfare costs associated with these unwanted pregnancies, then why advocate for recurring costs of BC, and not the one-time sterilization cost? Which was ironic given the fact this same poster then (before me and ClutZ posted) went on to say the poster he was responding to (Millitron) should be advocating for sterilization. Do you not see the hilariousness of his own dissonance? No? OK. I give up. You are missunderstanding the whole conversation that you now try to explain to someone else. Government provided BC is not there to lower welfare costs associated with unwanted pregnancies, that it also does that is an added benefit. The idea behind it (as was stated repeatedly) is that it incentivises personal birth control and familiy planning. People could theoretically do that without governmental influence, but they don't. Thats why that help is obviously superior to the alternatives.
No one has made that argument, either in this thread, or in the Government. The argument is that these folks are too poor to afford 10-50$ of BC every so often, which is a cheaper cost to the Government than them having babies which then fall under the umbrella of Welfarism. Who on earth made the argument that the Government must provide BC because it incentivizes family planning? Really? IUD's are pretty much fire and forget (they last for a long time), and for couples/women/partners/what have you that generally fall under this lens (ages 17-26 or so) family planning doesn't enter the picture really. They just know they don't want kids. Which is fine, really, I'm 28 and I don't want kids so no fault there, but it's the hilarity that there are people out there who are so poor, they cannot afford birth control, without starving. Perhaps the homeless, but I'm not sure that sex is high up on their priority lists. We should be trying to feed and help them with shelter.
There are some people out there who would rather spend their money on other things than BC, which is their own personal decision and they should bear that responsibility not me or anyone else. (And before we talk about unwanted births we really need to talk about why it is so difficult and expensive to adopt) I'm sure there are the oddball cases where they're not homeless, and they really can't afford BC without starving/paying bare essential rent, but that's the exception, and in this case it is way more important to try and lift these people out of their predicament than to throw them some birth control. That should really be way down on the priority lists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
