|
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ.
|
On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ.
I don't understand how you can say, "We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country can fix all their problems" when pretty much every other developed nation has more government intervention in the economy than us and yet we have some of the highest rates of unemployment and income inequality and some of the lowest rates of access to education/healthcare and social mobility, etc.
|
On February 27 2012 13:26 BlackJack wrote:
Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want.
Pretty much. Agreeing with Rick Santorum is an odd feeling xD
|
On February 27 2012 14:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I don't understand how you can say, "We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country can fix all their problems" when pretty much every other developed nation has more government intervention in the economy than us and yet we have some of the highest rates of unemployment and income inequality and some of the lowest rates of access to education/healthcare and social mobility, etc.
I can say that because we have had big government for a long time ( 40% of the GDP is government spending) and look at our problems. The proof is there if you want to go look. I don't know how to measure amount of government involvement in other countries, but whenever a sector of the economy is in trouble the first question is what will government do. We used to be and somewhat still are a tax haven compared to the other stable western countries so you attract these "filthy rich" people from around the world. Having their money here is a lot better than having it in another country. We have universal health care and public education so I don't even know what you are talking about anymore.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ.
I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma.
Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground.
|
On February 27 2012 12:44 dabom88 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the title of the video says it all.
I don't get it. He says it was a mistake. Then he says we shouldn't apologize. Is it wrong to apologize for mistakes?
And how does he get off saying "We're tolerant." and then say "These people have no respect for human life." Like it just seems so insulting and generalized it sickens me.
|
On February 27 2012 14:08 xavra41 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I don't understand how you can say, "We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country can fix all their problems" when pretty much every other developed nation has more government intervention in the economy than us and yet we have some of the highest rates of unemployment and income inequality and some of the lowest rates of access to education/healthcare and social mobility, etc. I can say that because we have had big government for a long time ( 40% of the GDP is government spending) and look at our problems. The proof is there if you want to go look. I don't know how to measure amount of government involvement in other countries, but whenever a sector of the economy is in trouble the first question is what will government do. We used to be and somewhat still are a tax haven compared to the other stable western countries so you attract these "filthy rich" people from around the world. Having their money here is a lot better than having it in another country. We have universal health care and public education so I don't even know what you are talking about anymore.
So, in other words, you're looking at two completely different facts and drawing a conclusion of causation between them with no actual evidence to support this conclusion.
Right.
|
On February 27 2012 14:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:08 xavra41 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I don't understand how you can say, "We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country can fix all their problems" when pretty much every other developed nation has more government intervention in the economy than us and yet we have some of the highest rates of unemployment and income inequality and some of the lowest rates of access to education/healthcare and social mobility, etc. I can say that because we have had big government for a long time ( 40% of the GDP is government spending) and look at our problems. The proof is there if you want to go look. I don't know how to measure amount of government involvement in other countries, but whenever a sector of the economy is in trouble the first question is what will government do. We used to be and somewhat still are a tax haven compared to the other stable western countries so you attract these "filthy rich" people from around the world. Having their money here is a lot better than having it in another country. We have universal health care and public education so I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. So, in other words, you're looking at two completely different facts and drawing a conclusion of causation between them with no actual evidence to support this conclusion. Right.
What two facts? I just disproved every sentence of yours. We have big government, entitlement programs, education, and universal health care.
|
On February 27 2012 14:17 xavra41 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 xavra41 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I don't understand how you can say, "We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country can fix all their problems" when pretty much every other developed nation has more government intervention in the economy than us and yet we have some of the highest rates of unemployment and income inequality and some of the lowest rates of access to education/healthcare and social mobility, etc. I can say that because we have had big government for a long time ( 40% of the GDP is government spending) and look at our problems. The proof is there if you want to go look. I don't know how to measure amount of government involvement in other countries, but whenever a sector of the economy is in trouble the first question is what will government do. We used to be and somewhat still are a tax haven compared to the other stable western countries so you attract these "filthy rich" people from around the world. Having their money here is a lot better than having it in another country. We have universal health care and public education so I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. So, in other words, you're looking at two completely different facts and drawing a conclusion of causation between them with no actual evidence to support this conclusion. Right. What two facts? I just disproved every sentence of yours. We have big government, entitlement programs, education, and universal health care.
You have medium government, shitty entitlement programs, shitty education and shitty universal healthcare (sort of but not really). Most (and in many cases ALL) westernized developed countries have greater government involvement and better of all of the above programs you listed. You haven't proved anything actually.
|
On February 27 2012 14:08 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma. Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground.
That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint?
|
On February 27 2012 14:26 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:17 xavra41 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 xavra41 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I don't understand how you can say, "We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country can fix all their problems" when pretty much every other developed nation has more government intervention in the economy than us and yet we have some of the highest rates of unemployment and income inequality and some of the lowest rates of access to education/healthcare and social mobility, etc. I can say that because we have had big government for a long time ( 40% of the GDP is government spending) and look at our problems. The proof is there if you want to go look. I don't know how to measure amount of government involvement in other countries, but whenever a sector of the economy is in trouble the first question is what will government do. We used to be and somewhat still are a tax haven compared to the other stable western countries so you attract these "filthy rich" people from around the world. Having their money here is a lot better than having it in another country. We have universal health care and public education so I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. So, in other words, you're looking at two completely different facts and drawing a conclusion of causation between them with no actual evidence to support this conclusion. Right. What two facts? I just disproved every sentence of yours. We have big government, entitlement programs, education, and universal health care. You have medium government, shitty entitlement programs, shitty education and shitty universal healthcare (sort of but not really). Most (and in many cases ALL) westernized developed countries have greater government involvement and better of all of the above programs you listed. You haven't proved anything actually.
I actually said disproved, but its not like you read anything anyways. None of these things are working so you answer is to put even more money into it. Some other geniuses have had that idea before. We have had surges of money into the education system and it never returns any results. All of the private/individual counter parts work better so we ought to give them a chance to shine by going the opposite direction of everyone else; which is small government.
|
On February 27 2012 14:17 xavra41 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 xavra41 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I don't understand how you can say, "We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country can fix all their problems" when pretty much every other developed nation has more government intervention in the economy than us and yet we have some of the highest rates of unemployment and income inequality and some of the lowest rates of access to education/healthcare and social mobility, etc. I can say that because we have had big government for a long time ( 40% of the GDP is government spending) and look at our problems. The proof is there if you want to go look. I don't know how to measure amount of government involvement in other countries, but whenever a sector of the economy is in trouble the first question is what will government do. We used to be and somewhat still are a tax haven compared to the other stable western countries so you attract these "filthy rich" people from around the world. Having their money here is a lot better than having it in another country. We have universal health care and public education so I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. So, in other words, you're looking at two completely different facts and drawing a conclusion of causation between them with no actual evidence to support this conclusion. Right. What two facts? I just disproved every sentence of yours. We have big government, entitlement programs, education, and universal health care.
Every developed country that has more government involvement than ours has better/better fiscally balanced entitlement programs, better education, and far, far, FAR better universal healthcare.
I actually said disproved, but its not like you read anything anyways. None of these things are working so you answer is to put even more money into it. Some other geniuses have had that idea before. We have had surges of money into the education system and it never returns any results. All of the private/individual counter parts work better so we ought to give them a chance to shine by going the opposite direction of everyone else; which is small government.
The problem is that you're finding two things that might correlate and automatically thinking causation. Again, you can't just completely and blindly denounce government involvement when every other case of government involvement (which also turns out to be more government involvement) in the developed world has significantly better outcomes than ours.
|
On February 27 2012 14:29 xavra41 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:26 Focuspants wrote:On February 27 2012 14:17 xavra41 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 xavra41 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:02 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I don't understand how you can say, "We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country can fix all their problems" when pretty much every other developed nation has more government intervention in the economy than us and yet we have some of the highest rates of unemployment and income inequality and some of the lowest rates of access to education/healthcare and social mobility, etc. I can say that because we have had big government for a long time ( 40% of the GDP is government spending) and look at our problems. The proof is there if you want to go look. I don't know how to measure amount of government involvement in other countries, but whenever a sector of the economy is in trouble the first question is what will government do. We used to be and somewhat still are a tax haven compared to the other stable western countries so you attract these "filthy rich" people from around the world. Having their money here is a lot better than having it in another country. We have universal health care and public education so I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. So, in other words, you're looking at two completely different facts and drawing a conclusion of causation between them with no actual evidence to support this conclusion. Right. What two facts? I just disproved every sentence of yours. We have big government, entitlement programs, education, and universal health care. You have medium government, shitty entitlement programs, shitty education and shitty universal healthcare (sort of but not really). Most (and in many cases ALL) westernized developed countries have greater government involvement and better of all of the above programs you listed. You haven't proved anything actually. I actually said disproved, but its not like you read anything anyways. None of these things are working so you answer is to put even more money into it. Some other geniuses have had that idea before. We have had surges of money into the education system and it never returns any results. All of the private/individual counter parts work better so we ought to give them a chance to shine by going the opposite direction of everyone else; which is small government.
Your healthcare system is driven by private industry. It is a business in your country. You pay FAR more per capita on healthcare than any of the "socialist" countries the US despises, yet your quality of care, mortality rate, average life expectancy, etc... are all lower. Its a perfect example of why things that are of vital importance to ALL of the people in your country (namely education and healthcare) should not be a business, and should not be out of the reach of anyone. Its a matter of spending your money intelligently, in a functioning system. Take the money from stupid things such as your ridiculous amount of military presence around the world, your wars over nothing, then actually tax corporations, and use some of that money to pay for things that matter, you know, like your own citizens.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 27 2012 14:29 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:08 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma. Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground. That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint? Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality.
This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality.
|
On February 27 2012 13:41 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 13:26 BlackJack wrote:
Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want. True, but there's also something to be said for being the bigger party, especially when you have overwhelming power. Truth be told, the little guys and the big guys never play by the same rules. Especially when in this case, you've knowingly done something disrespectful that caused the tantrum, and I don't believe in this case it's particularly irrational. God knows what would happen if mass bible burning took place in the US, and the amount of shit it'd stir up from people like Santorum. You can argue that it's just a book without any external significance but what you're really making is an anti-religion argument, which is just a fruitless, impertinent ideal and has no context or pull in real life situations, even if it's logically correct. If you're sticking with the tantrum argument, I think the better comparison is between an older and younger sibling. For the older sibling, proving yourself right feels good emotionally, but it doesn't help you accomplish your goals.
The goal should be to get them to stop going nuts every time they get offended, not to beg for forgiveness so we can have a little peace until the next guy draws a cartoon of Muhammad. Apologizing treats the symptoms instead of the disease. It just dignifies their actions with a response.
|
Yeah they are basking in their success over in Europe. Greece has bigger government and look at how well their programs are doing. But I don't support education, healthcare and all that other stuff anyways so they can have better versions of those for all I care. I care about the important things like property rights and right to privacy that are being abused. I think it's ridiculous we talk about expanding the role of government when these basic needs are not being met. And trust me they aren't being met in europe either. France already has its SOPAesque bill already with their internet providers forced to spy on their customers. I am glad I live in USA and if you are pro liberal or w/e I encourage you to move so everybody can be happy.
|
On February 27 2012 13:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 09:27 Djzapz wrote:On February 27 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 27 2012 07:45 Djzapz wrote:On February 27 2012 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 27 2012 06:28 xavra41 wrote:On February 27 2012 05:51 BallinWitStalin wrote:On February 27 2012 05:44 xavra41 wrote:On February 27 2012 05:30 BallinWitStalin wrote:On February 27 2012 05:13 xavra41 wrote:
[quote]
If it isn't a right, then the government doesnt HAVE TO provide it and we are back to square one. Getting a good job often requires higher education and you can still have it, it just won't be free. What liberals don't understand is that you are TAKING money from somebody else to offer this service. The middle class pay highest proportionally so you are also making people poor while raising others. For example, I am middle class and I barely get any financial aid while others get most of it free. Because I have to pay for it with my own money I do research to make sure i can get a job with my degree. People who get it free (and easier admissions) don't value their choice because they never have to work for it. So they are fine with getting some dumb art major and being unemployed. The free market system ensures that scarce resources are being used optimally by society. You view you're notion of "liberty" and "right to property" as rights, but other people view things like education and healthcare as rights. It's just basically comes down to different assumptions about what consitutes a right. Other people (myself included) make vastly different assumptions about what constitutes a "right", particularly when it comes to a view on an unfettered right to private property. It's fine to disagree on this stuff too, different people have different opinions. But your post sounds like you have an absolutist position about the things you view as rights, which I just generally don't agree with. How you define what is a right is determined by basic moral assumptions you make, and different people make different assumptions than you do. Like I said, that's okay, but don't act like your definition of rights is the be-all-end-all abosolute definition. Different people make different moral assumptions than you do, which is okay. It's not that "liberals" (hello Foxnews) don't realize they're "taking" money from someone else. It's just that they view taxation as a legitimate means through which to provide services to other people which they consider basic rights (e.g. education and healthcare). Different people have well thought out criteria for rights as well, and ones that differ from yours. Also, the motivations for providing services like healthcare and education can be different than one focused on "rights". Utilitarians wouldn't provide those things because they're rights, but because they provide maximum utility. Additionally, someone who's pro free-market, but has a somewhat marxist view of social history and class struggle, might want those services provided to curb capitalist excess and poverty such that the capitalist system is preserved from destruction by pissed off poor people. Long story short, don't act like your moral position is the totally correct one, identify it based on the assumptions you make about morality. Additionally, try to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the people you're arguing against, and painting them as one homogenous group. There's lots of reasons why people might want government services. Actually I do have an absolutist view of rights, because law determines people's rights. The constitutions mentions liberty as a right, but it says nothing of education. Our society doesn't go around asking people what you want to be a right, we actually have something meaningful called laws. Okay, well, there's your assumption: laws = rights. That's a pretty big one, and I'm glad you identified it. I do not share your assumption that laws = rights. Rights come from laws not laws = rights. Soooociaaaaaalllll Contraaaaaactt. I was born here, I didn't sign anything 8) I'm guessing that you've never studied political philosophy. Cute guess, but I have a bachelor in political science, I know what a social contract is, but I'm not particularly fond of the concept. I'm guessing you've never studied political philosophy - David Humes questioned the notion of "social contract" by saying that the social contract is already active when we're born - they didn't ask my opinion. There has been more criticism of that concept, for instance from Foucault notably, and Nicole-Claude Mathieu who argued that we're "forced" to consent anyway, and the only escape is moving from the State - which other contract do I agree to simply by breathing? Cute guess, but I'm actually a history and philosophy double major with focuses in political history and political philosophy. My point was by simply saying "I didn't sign anything" makes you sound incredibly ignorant of the entire concept. It's far more complicated than that.
Yeah well "I didn't sign anything 8)" with a cute happy face, as a response to "Soooociaaaaaalllll Contraaaaaactt." should suggest it was a humor-packed reply, does it not? You're out of touch if you can't figure that out on your own and take it all with a grain of salt.
That said, "I didn't sign anything" summarizes my problem with the 400 year old concept that was thrown together by individuals who lived in monarchies.
|
On February 27 2012 14:38 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:29 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 27 2012 14:08 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote:
I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ. I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma. Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground. That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint? Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality. This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality.
People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too.
I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me?
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 27 2012 14:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 13:41 Jibba wrote:On February 27 2012 13:26 BlackJack wrote:
Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want. True, but there's also something to be said for being the bigger party, especially when you have overwhelming power. Truth be told, the little guys and the big guys never play by the same rules. Especially when in this case, you've knowingly done something disrespectful that caused the tantrum, and I don't believe in this case it's particularly irrational. God knows what would happen if mass bible burning took place in the US, and the amount of shit it'd stir up from people like Santorum. You can argue that it's just a book without any external significance but what you're really making is an anti-religion argument, which is just a fruitless, impertinent ideal and has no context or pull in real life situations, even if it's logically correct. If you're sticking with the tantrum argument, I think the better comparison is between an older and younger sibling. For the older sibling, proving yourself right feels good emotionally, but it doesn't help you accomplish your goals. The goal should be to get them to stop going nuts every time they get offended, not to beg for forgiveness so we can have a little peace until the next guy draws a cartoon of Muhammad. Apologizing treats the symptoms instead of the disease. It just dignifies their actions with a response.
Since when is an apology the same as begging for forgiveness? They can take it or leave it, but we (including Santorum) admitted a mistake, so you own it by apologizing for it and trying to correct it in the future. If they don't accept that response, then it's on them.
If you do something wrong and someone overreacts in response, you apologize for the wrong you've done. In some cases, you also condemn their overreaction. To be honest, I don't see the distinction between admitting a mistake you've made and apologizing.
|
On February 27 2012 14:39 xavra41 wrote:
Yeah they are basking in their success over in Europe. Greece has bigger government and look at how well their programs are doing. But I don't support education, healthcare and all that other stuff anyways so they can have better versions of those for all I care. I care about the important things like property rights and right to privacy that are being abused. I think it's ridiculous we talk about expanding the role of government when these basic needs are not being met. And trust me they aren't being met in europe either. France already has its SOPAesque bill already with their internet providers forced to spy on their customers. I am glad I live in USA and if you are pro liberal or w/e I encourage you to move so everybody can be happy.
Your post just took like 5 completely unrelated issues, jumbled them together, and then said get out liberals. I dont really know what youre trying to do here. You dont use any facts, stats, or anything other than opinion to defend positions that cause you hardship.
The mere fact that after being unable to defend any of your positions, you admit to not caring about education or healthcare, shows exactly why your system is allowed to fail, and corporations are allowed to walk away with your money, while providing extremely sub par results and services. The education and health of your citizens are the number one most important issues in being competitive and productive. An educated and healthy workforce can drive an economy like nothing else can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
