On October 24 2011 15:07 TanGeng wrote: You want to go further. I'll take it one step at a time. Said "artificial productivity" is actually corporate welfare.
So by "artificial" you don't mean "man-made", you mean "derogatory term for something you don't like".
I'm glad we got that sorted out. Personally, I think you should stick to the normal definition, just to keep things clear.
Admittedly, your speech on the virtues of poverty just doesn't sound right with "derogatory term for something I don't like". "Artificial" sounds much snappier. Like "Death Taxes"!
I guess, with "corporate welfare" he meant stuff like the music industry and copyrights. Their business is practically artificial and would not exist without copyrights. So he really does not only want regulations about poverty, like lay-off protection or minimum wage or something, gone.
Actually, I think he was referring to the various ways that the government picks winners and losers, and protects established companies. Subsidies like for corn and oil, bailouts, regulations that act as barriers to entry, certain licensure requirements, etc. He can elaborate if he wishes, there is much more depth. It's not fair to reduce it to copyright laws. It's not superficial, it's a crux of the argument for proponents of the free market that what we have now isn't really a free market because of all the government intervention.
edit: A broader example is that we use taxpayer money to help industries externalize costs like pollution. That's the environmentalist in me speaking, and I don't particularly subscribe to the theories of free market environmentalists.
edit2: That's actually a whole can of worms when talking about environmental issues within globalization. Factories can operate much cheaper in countries that don't care how much harm they do to the environment. Is the solution to let them do all those things in the U.S. in order to stay competitive? If you ask me, hell no. I like breathing easier, drinking cleaner water, and living longer. This is an issue, along with eventual demographic collapse, that will hinder China a lot in the coming decades.
On October 24 2011 15:13 TanGeng wrote: Umm... every civil institution is man-made, and no one I know refers to such policies as artificial productivity increases. It's called welfare and when it benefits big business, it's corporate welfare.
So, how're you defining "artificial", then? Is "artificial" your synonym for "welfare"? Tautology much?
I don't see any reason to use "artificial" to describe the productivity. Productivity is always artificial. There is, however, examples of corporate welfare when the jurisdiction is too large.
Every type of social institution has its optimum organizing scope - a certain size where the economies of scale and diseconomies of scale are best. At that size, government solutions will work well. Police, fire department, education, and roads will service the residents with minimum free-riders, evenly shared costs, evenly shared benefits, and optimum benefits.
Roadways, especially interstate highways, is an example of corporate welfare that aids automakers and the trucking industry because road build is being directed at the national level instead of city-state level.
On October 24 2011 15:27 semantics wrote: Why not make health care in American universal, make it available for everyone, so then people are more healthy on avg and thus can be more productive it also removes this cost from business, depending on how it's funded. But then again the medical lobby is quite large and would never allow that... hell they don't allow new better drugs to hit the market because they want their older drug which does a similar function 1 2 more years of profits same deal with generics and that is seen as okay. And that's the problem, those in power aren't working to better society as a whole but rather better themselves which i don't think enlightenment thinkers would so readily agree with.
Haha. Good one semantics. America is full of religious conservative blowhards, not enlightenment thinkers. Surprising that so many debt slavers still don't get it.
If we actually had enlightenment thinkers, it might not be so easy for our corporate owners to continue exploiting us.
Yet america is the first democracy built upon the ideals of that time.
On October 24 2011 15:07 TanGeng wrote: You want to go further. I'll take it one step at a time. Said "artificial productivity" is actually corporate welfare.
So by "artificial" you don't mean "man-made", you mean "derogatory term for something you don't like".
I'm glad we got that sorted out. Personally, I think you should stick to the normal definition, just to keep things clear.
Admittedly, your speech on the virtues of poverty just doesn't sound right with "derogatory term for something I don't like". "Artificial" sounds much snappier. Like "Death Taxes"!
I guess, with "corporate welfare" he meant stuff like the music industry and copyrights. Their business is practically artificial and would not exist without copyrights. So he really does not only want regulations about poverty, like lay-off protection or minimum wage or something, gone.
It's entirely about the size of jurisdiction. There is almost nothing that the federal government does that the states can't do just as well without all of the corporate welfare that happens because government is so distant from the people.
On October 24 2011 15:07 TanGeng wrote: You want to go further. I'll take it one step at a time. Said "artificial productivity" is actually corporate welfare.
So by "artificial" you don't mean "man-made", you mean "derogatory term for something you don't like".
I'm glad we got that sorted out. Personally, I think you should stick to the normal definition, just to keep things clear.
Admittedly, your speech on the virtues of poverty just doesn't sound right with "derogatory term for something I don't like". "Artificial" sounds much snappier. Like "Death Taxes"!
I guess, with "corporate welfare" he meant stuff like the music industry and copyrights. Their business is practically artificial and would not exist without copyrights. So he really does not only want regulations about poverty, like lay-off protection or minimum wage or something, gone.
Actually, I think he was referring to the various ways that the government picks winners and losers, and protects established companies. Subsidies like for corn and oil, bailouts, regulations that act as barriers to entry, certain licensure requirements, etc. He can elaborate if he wishes, there is much more depth. It's not fair to reduce it to copyright laws. It's not superficial, it's a crux of the argument for proponents of the free market that what we have now isn't really a free market because of all the government intervention.
edit: A broader example is that we use taxpayer money to help industries externalize costs like pollution. That's the environmentalist in me speaking, and I don't particularly subscribe to the theories of free market environmentalists.
edit2: That's actually a whole can of worms when talking about environmental issues within globalization. Factories can operate much cheaper in countries that don't care how much harm they do to the environment. Is the solution to let them do all those things in the U.S. in order to stay competitive? If you ask me, hell no. I like breathing easier, drinking cleaner water, and living longer. This is an issue, along with eventual demographic collapse, that will hinder China a lot in the coming decades.
I cant even tell what side of the Left/Right spectrum this guy is coming from, but truth is truth. I always throw in my 2cents in these threads... but the awareness of Subsidized food, oil, bailouts, special tax breaks... really shows how our institutions work against free market. Socialism but only for the few who, already, really don't need it.
Another lesser known one is Professional Sports. Cities pay a LOT towards the cost of those huge stadiums, just because as usual- the companies smooze with the right people. But, taking away Government subsidies, and leaving the costs of those overly elaborate stadiums just to the Teams, none of the 3 major sports are out of the red. It's funny to think of the traditional criticism that Americans know more about sports than they do politics or current events, then to realize it is government subsidized at the moment.
On October 24 2011 15:41 TanGeng wrote: I don't see any reason to use "artificial" to describe the productivity. Productivity is always artificial. There is, however, examples of corporate welfare when the jurisdiction is too large.
Every type of social institution has its optimum organizing scope - a certain size where the economies of scale and diseconomies of scale are best. At that size, government solutions will work well. Police, fire department, education, and roads will service the residents with minimum free-riders, evenly shared costs, evenly shared benefits, and optimum benefits.
Roadways, especially interstate highways, is an example of corporate welfare that aids automakers and the trucking industry because road build is being directed at the national level instead of city-state level.
On October 24 2011 16:03 TanGeng wrote: It's entirely about the size of jurisdiction. There is almost nothing that the federal government does that the states can't do just as well without all of the corporate welfare that happens because government is so distant from the people.
I don't agree with everything you're saying here, but I'm glad we're finally out of deep Austria.
On October 24 2011 14:58 IgnE wrote: As a side note, people who are religious and believe in the afterlife, should have no say in the policy decisions that determine how people live their lives here on earth.
Watch out here. Don't generalize religion, and don't assume believing in the afterlife and religion is the same thing.
While some religions and views are terrible, especially the extreme forms of Christianity, Islam, etc, religion "light" is support for many people. I don't follow the religions myself, but in my country there are many churches and slightly religious people, mainly Christians, who forget about all of the bad things written in the bible and only look at the good stuff, for example loving each other.
Also to claim there is no afterlife because current science cannot find proof for it is foolish, our science of today has many fundamental flaws even if we don't want to admit it. Believing in or not instantly denying an afterlife has nothing to do with having a say in the policy decisions. Maybe you should give something like ayahuasca a try once, you'll instantly know the afterlife exists
On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote: Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense...
Partially. But let's look at the original theories of evolution, and not at the ones changed by people like you to fit your agenda. Natural selection has nothing to do with economics, if you think it does we might as well remove all laws and police. They interfere in natural selection after all, because if I want to kill everyone the police will stop me? See how this is ridiculous?
And evolution like it is applied today by many people is totally flawed. Look at fish and birds. Do they fight each other until there is only 1 fish/bird left? No. They swim and fly together, like a hive mind. Look at monkeys. Surely there is a "boss" who gets the female of his choice, but this guy doesn't try to kill all of his friends or take everything they have. He tries to lead them, to feed them and more.
On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote: Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense...
Partially. But let's look at the original theories of evolution, and not at the ones changed by people like you to fit your agenda. Natural selection has nothing to do with economics, if you think it does we might as well remove all laws and police. They interfere in natural selection after all, because if I want to kill everyone the police will stop me? See how this is ridiculous?
And evolution like it is applied today by many people is totally flawed. Look at fish and birds. Do they fight each other until there is only 1 fish/bird left? No. They swim and fly together, like a hive mind. Look at monkeys. Surely there is a "boss" who gets the female of his choice, but this guy doesn't try to kill all of his friends or take everything they have. He tries to lead them, to feed them and more.
Anyways that form of thought means we should go back to the old ways which marriage was just a form of property and you owned your woman, we should also adopt polygamy after all the successful should be able to have as many women as he wants.
Also that's not evolution that's social darwinism, it ignores the major role of environment all it is, is nothing more then survival of the fittest. Also what darwin proposed as the theory of evolution was too limited and not as correct as the version we have today.
On October 24 2011 15:07 TanGeng wrote: You want to go further. I'll take it one step at a time. Said "artificial productivity" is actually corporate welfare.
So by "artificial" you don't mean "man-made", you mean "derogatory term for something you don't like".
I'm glad we got that sorted out. Personally, I think you should stick to the normal definition, just to keep things clear.
Admittedly, your speech on the virtues of poverty just doesn't sound right with "derogatory term for something I don't like". "Artificial" sounds much snappier. Like "Death Taxes"!
I guess, with "corporate welfare" he meant stuff like the music industry and copyrights. Their business is practically artificial and would not exist without copyrights. So he really does not only want regulations about poverty, like lay-off protection or minimum wage or something, gone.
Actually, I think he was referring to the various ways that the government picks winners and losers, and protects established companies. Subsidies like for corn and oil, bailouts, regulations that act as barriers to entry, certain licensure requirements, etc. He can elaborate if he wishes, there is much more depth. It's not fair to reduce it to copyright laws. It's not superficial, it's a crux of the argument for proponents of the free market that what we have now isn't really a free market because of all the government intervention.
edit: A broader example is that we use taxpayer money to help industries externalize costs like pollution. That's the environmentalist in me speaking, and I don't particularly subscribe to the theories of free market environmentalists.
edit2: That's actually a whole can of worms when talking about environmental issues within globalization. Factories can operate much cheaper in countries that don't care how much harm they do to the environment. Is the solution to let them do all those things in the U.S. in order to stay competitive? If you ask me, hell no. I like breathing easier, drinking cleaner water, and living longer. This is an issue, along with eventual demographic collapse, that will hinder China a lot in the coming decades.
I cant even tell what side of the Left/Right spectrum this guy is coming from, but truth is truth. I always throw in my 2cents in these threads... but the awareness of Subsidized food, oil, bailouts, special tax breaks... really shows how our institutions work against free market. Socialism but only for the few who, already, really don't need it.
Another lesser known one is Professional Sports. Cities pay a LOT towards the cost of those huge stadiums, just because as usual- the companies smooze with the right people. But, taking away Government subsidies, and leaving the costs of those overly elaborate stadiums just to the Teams, none of the 3 major sports are out of the red. It's funny to think of the traditional criticism that Americans know more about sports than they do politics or current events, then to realize it is government subsidized at the moment.
So remove money from politics, any constitutionalist should know the drafting of the US was based on creating a system that doesn't work, it's based around controlling the base urges of man, which was evil (you have to remember the majority were protestant that good old top of the hill we'll show those corrupt catholic church goers how to really worship god! which is funny because they were most like russian communism then we would like to think.) Anyways funneling that evil to doing good for the greater society, In it's current form it fails to do that as money has seem to won out.
Also all those arguing religion, a religious man would give everything away think about it. fear of hell which is not all religion but the major ones in the US are like that
On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote: Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense...
Partially. But let's look at the original theories of evolution, and not at the ones changed by people like you to fit your agenda. Natural selection has nothing to do with economics, if you think it does we might as well remove all laws and police. They interfere in natural selection after all, because if I want to kill everyone the police will stop me? See how this is ridiculous?
And evolution like it is applied today by many people is totally flawed. Look at fish and birds. Do they fight each other until there is only 1 fish/bird left? No. They swim and fly together, like a hive mind. Look at monkeys. Surely there is a "boss" who gets the female of his choice, but this guy doesn't try to kill all of his friends or take everything they have. He tries to lead them, to feed them and more.
Anyways that form of thought means we should go back to the old ways which marriage was just a form of property and you owned your woman, we should also adopt polygamy after all the successful should be able to have as many women as he wants.
Also that's not evolution that's social darwinism, it ignores the major role of environment all it is, is nothing more then survival of the fittest. Also what darwin proposed as the theory of evolution was too limited and not as correct as the version we have today.
Yeah, I don't think we should do that. I'm only explaining how the ideas of social Darwinism and the idea that we all need to fight all the time are... stupid ideas.
On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote: Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense...
Partially. But let's look at the original theories of evolution, and not at the ones changed by people like you to fit your agenda. Natural selection has nothing to do with economics, if you think it does we might as well remove all laws and police. They interfere in natural selection after all, because if I want to kill everyone the police will stop me? See how this is ridiculous?
And evolution like it is applied today by many people is totally flawed. Look at fish and birds. Do they fight each other until there is only 1 fish/bird left? No. They swim and fly together, like a hive mind. Look at monkeys. Surely there is a "boss" who gets the female of his choice, but this guy doesn't try to kill all of his friends or take everything they have. He tries to lead them, to feed them and more.
LOL not you again...
My point of evolution with is that people try to provide for their children, and that it's an absolutely natural thing to want to do.
I disagree that natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with economics, because economics is largely about what people what and their incentives, and a lot of incentives are instinctual/evolutionary such as the instinct/drive to provide for ones family.
The competition in a free market doesn't have too much with evolution, other than the fact that more efficient business models that provide the most high quality product at the least price to their consumers are the ones that have the highest chance of survival.
On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote: Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense...
Partially. But let's look at the original theories of evolution, and not at the ones changed by people like you to fit your agenda. Natural selection has nothing to do with economics, if you think it does we might as well remove all laws and police. They interfere in natural selection after all, because if I want to kill everyone the police will stop me? See how this is ridiculous?
And evolution like it is applied today by many people is totally flawed. Look at fish and birds. Do they fight each other until there is only 1 fish/bird left? No. They swim and fly together, like a hive mind. Look at monkeys. Surely there is a "boss" who gets the female of his choice, but this guy doesn't try to kill all of his friends or take everything they have. He tries to lead them, to feed them and more.
LOL not you again...
My point of evolution with is that people try to provide for their children, and that it's an absolutely natural thing to want to do.
I disagree that natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with economics, because economics is largely about what people what and their incentives, and a lot of incentives are instinctual/evolutionary such as the instinct/drive to provide for ones family.
The competition in a free market doesn't have too much with evolution, other than the fact that more efficient business models that provide the most high quality product at the least price to their consumers are the ones that have the highest chance of survival.
Being born in Africa means your children have a bigger chance of dying. According to you, being born in Africa is some kind of insuperior trait? We should exploit them and let them die, because that is evolution? Really, you're using evolution as an excuse to justify mass murder, exploitation and destruction and that's retarded on every level.
Social Darwinism is not what Darwin intended with his theory of evolution. It also cannot be used to justify murder, war, greed, etc.
But alright, keeping this distorted image of evolution, what if the 99.9% of the people overthrow that 0.01% who own nearly everything, and what if they create a government with many regulations. What if they divide the wealth equally again and stop the destructive greed of the 0.01%. This would also count as evolution right? And that's what's happening right now... people are waking up and no longer accepting the huge amount of atrocities committed against them and others with the excuse of "evolution".
Hoi, There is no argument. No one mentioned Social Darwinism until you came along. Kiarip is only backing an old post of mine with the idea that strong concern for the welfare of one's children is human nature and reinforced by evolution. Mass murder, exploitation, ... what the hell?
PS. Kiarip, A hattip to a fellow emigrant out of socialism.
On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote: Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense...
Partially. But let's look at the original theories of evolution, and not at the ones changed by people like you to fit your agenda. Natural selection has nothing to do with economics, if you think it does we might as well remove all laws and police. They interfere in natural selection after all, because if I want to kill everyone the police will stop me? See how this is ridiculous?
And evolution like it is applied today by many people is totally flawed. Look at fish and birds. Do they fight each other until there is only 1 fish/bird left? No. They swim and fly together, like a hive mind. Look at monkeys. Surely there is a "boss" who gets the female of his choice, but this guy doesn't try to kill all of his friends or take everything they have. He tries to lead them, to feed them and more.
LOL not you again...
My point of evolution with is that people try to provide for their children, and that it's an absolutely natural thing to want to do.
I disagree that natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with economics, because economics is largely about what people what and their incentives, and a lot of incentives are instinctual/evolutionary such as the instinct/drive to provide for ones family.
The competition in a free market doesn't have too much with evolution, other than the fact that more efficient business models that provide the most high quality product at the least price to their consumers are the ones that have the highest chance of survival.
Being born in Africa means your children have a bigger chance of dying. According to you, being born in Africa is some kind of insuperior trait?
You just said that it is. Actually being born in Africa doesn't necessarily mean that your children have a higher chance of dying, because it's possible although not very probably to get out of Africa and live elsewhere before you start a family.
But being born in Africa does increase YOUR chance of dying for sure.
No one is really responsible for the traits they're born with, but people are still responsible for what they do with what they have.
We should exploit them and let them die, because that is evolution? Really, you're using evolution as an excuse to justify mass murder, exploitation and destruction and that's retarded on every level.
I'm not using evolution as an excuse for anything. Evolution isn't an excuse, it's the natural order of things, everyone has the right to try to make a better life for themselves, and since there's limited resources in the world this obviously creates a competition, still this competition shouldn't be able to infringe on your personal rights, such as speech, worship, property, contract, etc.
Social Darwinism is not what Darwin intended with his theory of evolution. It also cannot be used to justify murder, war, greed, etc.
I'm not trying to use social darwinism to justify anything. I'm just saying that it exists, and sometimes those are its unfortunate consequences. It doesn't however mean we should try to eliminate it... why would you bite the hand that feeds you so to speak? Social competition is what got us as far as are now, if we had socialism the whole way through there'd be no incentive to excel and people would get lazy, and then everyone would have very little.
But alright, keeping this distorted image of evolution, what if the 99.9% of the people overthrow that 0.01% who own nearly everything, and what if they create a government with many regulations. What if they divide the wealth equally again and stop the destructive greed of the 0.01%. This would also count as evolution right? And that's what's happening right now... people are waking up and no longer accepting the huge amount of atrocities committed against them and others with the excuse of "evolution".
Ummm... evolution isn't an excuse like i said...
like Tangpeng said I wasn't even talking about social darwinism till you brought it up. But since you watn to go there... if the 99.9 % is to overthrow the 0.01% it's gonna need leadership, and if it has leadership the leader is undoubtedly going to want a bigger part of what the 99.9% originally had, and he'll be able to take it too, so you're just gonna replace that 0.01% with another 0.01%...
The whole problem with the current situation is that the government is no longer defending our human rights, but rather trying to regulate the market in favor of those who pay it the most money... Property rights is one of human rights. Are you really planning on creating a society where human rights are protected, by violating the property rights of the rich?... There HAS been precedents of this in case you haven't studied any history... and they didn't go so well.
On October 24 2011 14:34 InRaged wrote: As a side note, people who are religious and believe in the afterlife, should have no say in the policy decisions that determine how people live their lives here on earth.
Are you you serious? He's talking about providing your children with a better life?
Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense...
It's in our genetics to try to create a better life for our kids, because if we didn't have that trait a long time ago we would have abandoned our kids and humans wouldn't have survived. This trait is one of the driving forces of the working class, or anyone for that matter, it's part of who we are as a society, and it has nothing absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.
You're just out of arguments so you're spouting garbage.
There we have it folks. Social Darwinism in the flesh. Kiarip, you have just been massively discredited. Social Darwinism is a farce created to pretty much crap on anybody who isn't in the "1%." I don't care how lightly you worded it or suggested it, you just basically labeled that those in the lower class are born inferior and must go through some "evolution" through generations of proving themselves.
On October 24 2011 14:34 InRaged wrote: As a side note, people who are religious and believe in the afterlife, should have no say in the policy decisions that determine how people live their lives here on earth.
Are you you serious? He's talking about providing your children with a better life?
Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense...
It's in our genetics to try to create a better life for our kids, because if we didn't have that trait a long time ago we would have abandoned our kids and humans wouldn't have survived. This trait is one of the driving forces of the working class, or anyone for that matter, it's part of who we are as a society, and it has nothing absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.
You're just out of arguments so you're spouting garbage.
There we have it folks. Social Darwinism in the flesh. Kiarip, you have just been massively discredited. Social Darwinism is a farce created to pretty much crap on anybody who isn't in the "1%." I don't care how lightly you worded it or suggested it, you just basically labeled that those in the lower class are born inferior and must go through some "evolution" through generations of proving themselves.
You're a moron. I said that the fact that we want to help our children get a better life is a result of natural selection. Not the SOCIAL darwinism natural selection, but result of actual fucking evolution. Because human babies can't survive on their own, we're not like fucking salmon that can just spray our shit all over some random eggs lying on the street, and become fathers.
And as for SOCIAL darwinism. the conclusions of social darwinism aren't always true, but the general presumptions are.
Meaning that, people do in fact try to create a better life for themselves... And those that get a better life for themselves... have... SUCCEEDED at creating a bette life for themselves... I'm not not trying to use social darwinism to prove some kind of racial superiority here, or even socio-economic superiority...
I'm simply stating the obvious that most of those in the "99%" would probably prefer to be in the "1%" and they're not... that's all. I'm not making a conclusion of whether it's because they're not as good, or not as lucky, or whether it's because they don't believe in santa clause... I'm just stating the premises of what is normally considered social darwinism, not its consequences.
On October 24 2011 23:05 TanGeng wrote: *facepalm*
Hoi, There is no argument. No one mentioned Social Darwinism until you came along. Kiarip is only backing an old post of mine with the idea that strong concern for the welfare of one's children is human nature and reinforced by evolution. Mass murder, exploitation, ... what the hell?
PS. Kiarip, A hattip to a fellow emigrant out of socialism.
Concern for your children can basically be equated to the same concern you would have for close friends. It is reinforced by the social community that we developed through evolution, but has less to do with preserving our own DNA. To use it as an excuse as to pick out who has better genetics is a huge fallacy.
EPT
