These people are our future

[surviva316]

I also worked in three factories packing boxes, stuffing envelopes, and on a manufacturing assembly line. I babysat and cleaned other people's cars. I cleaned schools after hours. I worked as an auto mechanic and in an auto body shop. I worked weekends tending a stand at the flea market, getting up at 3 am to wait in line for a good spot at the market. I managed a university cafe. I worked as a painter.

Additionally I cleaned the family house and did all the dishes every day 2-3 times per day. I walked to school every day. I wore used clothes. I was the oldest and took care of my siblings.

Eventually I started bidding on drywalling and painting jobs with the skills I learned working as a construction laborer. I began fixing my friend's cars with the skills I leaned working as a mechanic. I started buying things in bulk from a co-op and mailed ads/placed ads on cars to re-sell them at a profit. I collected golf balls from lakes and sold them.

I was determined to work hard and find ways to make money. I began looking for ways to buy and sell and be more and more productive with my time and learned skills. I had drive and focus and seriously considered med school and law school because I was so viciously determined to pull myself out of poverty.

If I had enough charity to live comfortably but not well, had enough food and a decent car etc, I may have stayed that way for life, never having any desire to learn or work or do anything but watch TV and sit on the couch. I don't mind all the work I did and I don't see any benefit to giving me money as a child. My father was constantly borrowing money and our neighbors helped u out just enough to keep us alive and get the power back on etc. The government doesn't need to be giving people like me free money or making my life easier. It needs to stay the fuck out of my way instead of encouraging complacency and existing as a huge drag on the productive members of society by "helping" the poor an "spreading the wealth around.".

I know I'm late on this, but this touching little story doesn't argue against anything in a system with progressive taxation, and regulations on corporations and the market in general other than welfare, unemployment, etc. i think this represents a huge reason why there is no stasis in the fight between teabaggers and the boogey man progressive policies. teabaggers seem to think the debate is whether the poor should be given handouts or should their taxes be lower, and that's why they think that they're the movement of the middle class. really probably the biggest debate is over the merits and application of the trickle down effect.

let's say that in your story, welfare and unemployment benefits don't exist (and since welfare and unemployment benefits are a microscopic portion of what comes out of everyone's taxes, they essentially are a rounding error in the course of this debate anyway). now, your use of this story to argue against regulations and taxation means that you're living in a world with pre-Teddy Roosevelt regulations. I don't see how you having to work 60 hrs/wk instead of 40 in order to make 1/2 the amount of money, etc really helps your situation instead of hurting it. of course, you could argue all that teabagger rhetoric that if it weren't for these regulations, then the business for which you work would have more money which they would reinvest into the business, or allow for there to be enough profit margin for more business (hence, more competition w00t w00t!) to survive, hence more competition in the job market, etc. so in this free market, you magically get more wages, better products, etc.

of course, this is actually fairly how it works when you're talking about small businesses where there's no mega-wealthy board of trustees, and the CEO/owner/president are all one dude who's not exactly pinching pennies to keep is business running and is probably keeping a few hundred thousand a year or maybe even a mil or two, but hey the risk and hard work and stress and contribution to the economy, etc all make this small business owner more than worthy of keeping this margin. in THIS case, more money for the business, almost directly means reinvestment into the business itself, which means better product, more jobs, and hence more job competition, and hence better wages/benefits/etc. HOORAH!

YOU CAN IGNORE THIS PARAGRAPH: (there is nothing in the definition, theoretical structure or even practice of a progressive system that demonstrates that small business owners get dicked and are worse off than regressive tax systems. Obama tax cuts actually heavily benefitted small business owners by not giving near as much relief to the top 1% as bush cuts did, and in turn helped small businesses more than bush did. Also, the healthcare plan was actually v v good for small businesses as they got a lot of relief and rebates in the bill for providing health care even though the percentage of employment that already had benefits pre-healthcare plan was WAY higher among small busninesses than with the walmarts and sodexhos of the world. It’s too complicated for me to understand, but basically all independent reports that I’ve seen on it have concluded that small businesses benefit, while mega-corporations lose from their bottom line. The reason I put this paragraph in parentheses is because clearly this debate isn’t about obama vs. bush because that’d be retarded because obama policy doesn’t come all that close to repping MY ideal vision for how our economy would work, and I know that even coming close to coming up with an argument for how bush’s policies aren’t desirable is a MASSIVE motherfucking strawman for the teabaggers much less for lyric, isf, etc. this paragraph is simply meant to demonstrate that it’s a false dichotomy to put progressive policies as being anti-employers and conservative/libertarian economic policy as being pro-employers. This is why we’ve cried “STRAWMAN” so much itt because a lot of the arguments (especially with the island bs) have been illustrations on how communism just doesn’t work, to which we can only reply “csb, who didn’t know that already?”)

this trickle down effect is at best an extreme exaggeration, and at worst a complete rhetorical myth, though, when applied to mega-corporations like walmart or sodexho or any number of other companies with whom your factory work could've been. My post is already getting long, and I have shit to do today, so I’ll just oversimplify it by saying, that basically ANY addition to the bottom line (whether it be through not having to pay workers as much or through tax cuts or etc.) doesn’t get reinvested into the business because the business doesn’t need that money to survive. Instead it makes the executives’ bonuses go from a few hundred million, to a few more hundred million. This means that the money doesn’t trickle down directly back into the business. Also, the mega-millionaire executives don’t need these few extra 100s of millions to buy groceries or even put their kids through college, so a vastly smaller percentage of this revenue goes back into the economy AT ALL than would be if the same revenue were among the employees.


Anyway, point is, regulations (or at least the ones I cherry picked J) only help your condition; they don’t hurt it as the conclusion remarks. If you can find me a similar story, except the hero in that one has leukemia and is better off paying for their cancer treatment exclusively off of factory work and finding golf balls in bushes rather than having government intervention make sure that insurance companies aren’t raping them, THEN you would be cutting closer to how progressive gov’ts are a detriment rather than a help to the lower class.

[Lyric]

So you wouldn't have an age of consent?

What about rape? Is that ok?

While I'm there, if I want to add a really ugly obnoxious extension to my house that blocks all my neighbours views and spoils how the street looks, am I ok to do that?

Like I said, gray area. Age of consent should be determined and enforced based on local morals. It's a blur between being a teen and being an adult and we simply have to pick a number where someone becomes an adult. That's fine. We prevent enslavement, and this is part of it, even if it's not clear when someone can make their own decisions. We just have to pick a number and go with it because growing up is like dying -- we don't just "click" into adulthood anymore than we die suddenly. Most of the time we deteriorate for years before finally kicking the bucket.

Blocking a view is part of theft. The view has value.

[Ash256]

What about if a big pharma company claimed to have created a drug that prevents cancer, ran a massive PR campaign including horseshit scientific journals, paid off all the media to rep the drug and not mention any possible disagreements etc. when the science said it didn't do shit? Would that be cool?

[Lyric]

I know I'm late on this, but this touching little story doesn't argue against anything in a system with progressive taxation, and regulations on corporations and the market in general other than welfare, unemployment, etc. i think this represents a huge reason why there is no stasis in the fight between teabaggers and the boogey man progressive policies. teabaggers seem to think the debate is whether the poor should be given handouts or should their taxes be lower, and that's why they think that they're the movement of the middle class. really probably the biggest debate is over the merits and application of the trickle down effect.

let's say that in your story, welfare and unemployment benefits don't exist (and since welfare and unemployment benefits are a microscopic portion of what comes out of everyone's taxes, they essentially are a rounding error in the course of this debate anyway). now, your use of this story to argue against regulations and taxation means that you're living in a world with pre-Teddy Roosevelt regulations. I don't see how you having to work 60 hrs/wk instead of 40 in order to make 1/2 the amount of money, etc really helps your situation instead of hurting it. of course, you could argue all that teabagger rhetoric that if it weren't for these regulations, then the business for which you work would have more money which they would reinvest into the business, or allow for there to be enough profit margin for more business (hence, more competition w00t w00t!) to survive, hence more competition in the job market, etc. so in this free market, you magically get more wages, better products, etc.

of course, this is actually fairly how it works when you're talking about small businesses where there's no mega-wealthy board of trustees, and the CEO/owner/president are all one dude who's not exactly pinching pennies to keep is business running and is probably keeping a few hundred thousand a year or maybe even a mil or two, but hey the risk and hard work and stress and contribution to the economy, etc all make this small business owner more than worthy of keeping this margin. in THIS case, more money for the business, almost directly means reinvestment into the business itself, which means better product, more jobs, and hence more job competition, and hence better wages/benefits/etc. HOORAH!

YOU CAN IGNORE THIS PARAGRAPH: (there is nothing in the definition, theoretical structure or even practice of a progressive system that demonstrates that small business owners get dicked and are worse off than regressive tax systems. Obama tax cuts actually heavily benefitted small business owners by not giving near as much relief to the top 1% as bush cuts did, and in turn helped small businesses more than bush did. Also, the healthcare plan was actually v v good for small businesses as they got a lot of relief and rebates in the bill for providing health care even though the percentage of employment that already had benefits pre-healthcare plan was WAY higher among small busninesses than with the walmarts and sodexhos of the world. It’s too complicated for me to understand, but basically all independent reports that I’ve seen on it have concluded that small businesses benefit, while mega-corporations lose from their bottom line. The reason I put this paragraph in parentheses is because clearly this debate isn’t about obama vs. bush because that’d be retarded because obama policy doesn’t come all that close to repping MY ideal vision for how our economy would work, and I know that even coming close to coming up with an argument for how bush’s policies aren’t desirable is a MASSIVE motherfucking strawman for the teabaggers much less for lyric, isf, etc. this paragraph is simply meant to demonstrate that it’s a false dichotomy to put progressive policies as being anti-employers and conservative/libertarian economic policy as being pro-employers. This is why we’ve cried “STRAWMAN” so much itt because a lot of the arguments (especially with the island bs) have been illustrations on how communism just doesn’t work, to which we can only reply “csb, who didn’t know that already?”)

this trickle down effect is at best an extreme exaggeration, and at worst a complete rhetorical myth, though, when applied to mega-corporations like walmart or sodexho or any number of other companies with whom your factory work could've been. My post is already getting long, and I have shit to do today, so I’ll just oversimplify it by saying, that basically ANY addition to the bottom line (whether it be through not having to pay workers as much or through tax cuts or etc.) doesn’t get reinvested into the business because the business doesn’t need that money to survive. Instead it makes the executives’ bonuses go from a few hundred million, to a few more hundred million. This means that the money doesn’t trickle down directly back into the business. Also, the mega-millionaire executives don’t need these few extra 100s of millions to buy groceries or even put their kids through college, so a vastly smaller percentage of this revenue goes back into the economy AT ALL than would be if the same revenue were among the employees.


Anyway, point is, regulations (or at least the ones I cherry picked J) only help your condition; they don’t hurt it as the conclusion remarks. If you can find me a similar story, except the hero in that one has leukemia and is better off paying for their cancer treatment exclusively off of factory work and finding golf balls in bushes rather than having government intervention make sure that insurance companies aren’t raping them, THEN you would be cutting closer to how progressive gov’ts are a detriment rather than a help to the lower class.

Please read all my island BS posts. We can't hope to understand the modern world unless we begin at the beginning, and talking about health insurance and big business and gov't without understanding where it all began is like telling me how computers work without beginning with ones and zeros.

Without the basics we are all lost; pointing to "experts" who "understand." No. I want to build an understanding myself, from scratch, and determine my own belief system. I don't need an "expert" to instruct me on complex systems and I don't need faith to understand economics.

[Lyric]

What about if a big pharma company claimed to have created a drug that prevents cancer, ran a massive PR campaign including horseshit scientific journals, paid off all the media to rep the drug and not mention any possible disagreements etc. when the science said it didn't do shit? Would that be cool?

The alternative is finding angels to run the FDA and trusting them to avoid the million dollar bribes from Merk. Currently we have an FDA that bans stevia and burns books because the makers of NutraSweet say so.

Do we need a Federal agency to approve cars for us? To eventually release a car after ten years and ten billion in testing? Should we approve construction techniques in the same way? Is it acceptable that the FDA and DEA ban poppy flowers and marijuana because they are cheap alternatives to Xanax and Oxycontin?

Do we need federal approval to purchase a candy bar? What if the chocolate is too strong it doesn't keep you going strong all day like Snickers claims? Do we need an agency to make sure paper fits in our printer? Should they test Red Bull for ten years to make sure it gives you wings?

Regulatory agencies are there to protect monopolies, nothing more. People easily decide if Red Bull works and avoid it if it does not. Consumer reports exists to give us previews, and without the FDA there would be multiple drug approval companies.

USP labs is one such example. They test drugs for purity and offer a label for bodybuilding supplements and vitamins. They are more trusted than the FDA. People who want to try a risky new drug that is not approved or tested by USP or any of the myriad companies that would exist to test drugs with double blind placebo tests should be allowed to do so.

If someone is dying of cancer, who are we to tell them they cannot gamble on a new drug? They are dying 100% of the time; don't make it illegal to take a risk on saving their own life!

[Lyric]

what about my toeless feet?

People will choose to live in cities where mutant-feet children are tossed outside city walls about as often as they choose to live in Afghanistan. Would you stay in a city with this law if the next city over were Disney Land clean with no foot laws?

[Ash256]

The alternative is finding angels to run the FDA and trusting them to avoid the million dollar bribes from Merk. Currently we have an FDA that bans stevia and burns books because the makers of NutraSweet say so.

Do we need a Federal agency to approve cars for us? To eventually release a car after ten years and ten billion in testing? Should we approve construction techniques in the same way? Is it acceptable that the FDA and DEA ban poppy flowers and marijuana because they are cheap alternatives to Xanax and Oxycontin?

Do we need federal approval to purchase a candy bar? What if the chocolate is too strong it doesn't keep you going strong all day like Snickers claims? Do we need an agency to make sure paper fits in our printer? Should they test Red Bull for ten years to make sure it gives you wings?

Regulatory agencies are there to protect monopolies, nothing more. People easily decide if Red Bull works and avoid it if it does not. Consumer reports exists to give us previews, and without the FDA there would be multiple drug approval companies.

USP labs is one such example. They test drugs for purity and offer a label for bodybuilding supplements and vitamins. They are more trusted than the FDA. People who want to try a risky new drug that is not approved or tested by USP or any of the myriad companies that would exist to test drugs with double blind placebo tests should be allowed to do so.

If someone is dying of cancer, who are we to tell them they cannot gamble on a new drug? They are dying 100% of the time; don't make it illegal to take a risk on saving their own life!

FWIW I described the cancer drug as a preventative drug.

Your line of thinking is definitely interesting, and I certainly see your perspective on several points.

Out of interest how would you deal with anticompetitive practices such as price fixing, cartels, etc. Are they fair game? Who regulates intellectual property?

[Lyric]

FWIW I described the cancer drug as a preventative drug.

Your line of thinking is definitely interesting, and I certainly see your perspective on several points.

Out of interest how would you deal with anticompetitive practices such as price fixing, cartels, etc. Are they fair game? Who regulates intellectual property?

Preventative drugs are the same as cures IMO.

Cool, I'm happy to have someone thinking and talking instead of reacting and regurgitating at me.

Price fixing, cartels, monopolies cannot exist unless they provide a product or service that is benefiting society at low cost. If they corner the market on mousetraps and I build one with laser beams for less money, controlled by proprietary software, I win and they have no shot unless they use force to block my traps from the market.

Intellectual property is something I'm still thinking about a lot. Seems to me that without restrictions society is benefited more heavily and people will still create without a promised protection via copyright and patents. I'm not quite sure. It sucks to have your work stolen, especially with digital reproduction so easily accessible.

Apple runs on an open source skeleton AFAIK. Red Hat is just Linux in a fancy box, etc. The million posts on this site are "open source" and not protected, but we are human; we want to help each other and put a lot of time and effort into helping others for no reason other than personal satisfaction/entertainment.

If a new medicine is made people will trust the original owner more than knock offs, just like people still buy brand name Tylenol. Songs will be stolen and copied, but artists will still be paid a ton for live performances.

Currently I think patent and copyright laws are dangerously close to being bad for society and good for corporations and should probably not exist at all.

[CoccoBill]

No, ownership doesn't equal productivity; I want to encourage wealth (wealth=something valued by humans) creation as much as possible. I don't purport to be able to control how people produce shit any better than the next guy, and I think anyone who does is a charlatan.

Forcing the billionaire to move his wealth to people with less has been talked about 50 times in this thread already, please read the history.

It has, and you seem to still not grasp what we are trying to say. All you are creating is this strawman about taking hard-earned money away from self-built billionaire philanthropists and giving it to poor stupid lazy bums, as if that would be the only consequence of income taxation. I'm saying that having the 400 or so billionaires that currently exist in America gain more and more wealth at the expense of the less fortunate is not something that would be allowed in CoccoBillLand, and I'm stunned that some people actually defend those practices. Do you think those 400 are the only intelligent hard-working people in the US?

[CoccoBill]

Finlanders (my immediate ancestors) are doing well both in their home country and abroad. There are no poor people in Finland or in the US, in general. You decide why this is the case; we don't know.

Asking me why their public education system works is like asking me why homeopathy works. We just don't know, and it certainly isn't because the schools are public or the homeopathic pills have active ingredients.[/QUOTE]

So you think they are good despite of being public and they would benefit from being privatized?

BBC News - World News America - Why do Finland's schools get the best results?
Privatisation and Public Ownership in Finland

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Are commercial interests to e.g. protect the environment, ensure safety of products, maximize welfare and human progression, combat injustice or to maximize profits? I think the burden of proof is on you to show that commercial interests do in practice equate those goals. The fact that they "can" is not proof in the least.

Is there a difference between what we say and what we do?

Do you think if we acted on our interests to protect the environment, ensure safety of product, maximize welfare and human progression and combat justice then would, in turn, a company who did this maximize profit? More specifically, if people wanted safety and reliability in their car, do you think the company who made the safest and most reliable cars would maximize their profits? If not, please explain.

[IowaSkinsFan]

It has, and you seem to still not grasp what we are trying to say. All you are creating is this strawman about taking hard-earned money away from self-built billionaire philanthropists and giving it to poor stupid lazy bums, as if that would be the only consequence of income taxation. I'm saying that having the 400 or so billionaires that currently exist in America gain more and more wealth at the expense of the less fortunate is not something that would be allowed in CoccoBillLand, and I'm stunned that some people actually defend those practices. Do you think those 400 are the only intelligent hard-working people in the US?

How do billionaires gain wealth at the expense of the less fortunate?

What do you consider hard work? Is what Bill Gates oes hard? Is what a coal miner does hard? Is there a difference between the hard and hardship? Should people be paid based on how physically demanding their job is? Should people be paid based on how mentally demanding their job is?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Is there a difference between what we say and what we do?

Do you think if we acted on our interests to protect the environment, ensure safety of product, maximize welfare and human progression and combat justice then would, in turn, a company who did this maximize profit? More specifically, if people wanted safety and reliability in their car, do you think the company who made the safest and most reliable cars would maximize their profits? If not, please explain.

I'd add to this: Do you think a company that did not make safe and reliable cars would succeed?

[CoccoBill]

Is there a difference between what we say and what we do?

Do you think if we acted on our interests to protect the environment, ensure safety of product, maximize welfare and human progression and combat justice then would, in turn, a company who did this maximize profit? More specifically, if people wanted safety and reliability in their car, do you think the company who made the safest and most reliable cars would maximize their profits? If not, please explain.

Ok one more time. The fact that a company _can_ operate using those values or those goals, does _not_ mean that all companies will. In fact, many will not, since they are counterproductive for their raison d'être, creating shareholder value. Protecting the environment, for example, can be a way to polish a company's public image, use for taxation benefits or to clean up the beach of their CEO's summer cottage, but to posit that all companies would automatically do this without regulation is incredibly naive. Even with regulation companies left and right are getting caught with using child labor, dumping waste wherever they want, fixing prices and all sorts of abusive practices against their employees, competition and customers. Regulation is needed to ensure that _all_ companies, not just those that happen to feel like it, make safe products and adhere to environmental and safety standards.

This is the whole disconnect here, the foundations of free market are that every component in it (individuals) are all rational and benevolent, which simply isn't true. Assuming they do just leaves the whole system open for the most ruthless players to work the system for an unfair advantage.

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? | Video on TED.com
Are irrational economic choices baked into the human psyche? - SmartPlanet
Irrational Economic Man by Michael Shermer, City Journal 11 January 2009

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Ok one more time. The fact that a company _can_ operate using those values or those goals, does _not_ mean that all companies will.

You are right. They are going to operate under the values and goals of the people who use their product because they want people to support (aka buy) their products. Or do you think that people will buy products or use services against their will? Maybe this is the part of the argument I don't understand...

[Numbr2intheWorld]

This is the whole disconnect here, the foundations of free market are that every component in it (individuals) are all rational and benevolent, which simply isn't true. Assuming they do just leaves the whole system open for the most ruthless players to work the system for an unfair advantage.

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? | Video on TED.com
Are irrational economic choices baked into the human psyche? - SmartPlanet
Irrational Economic Man by Michael Shermer, City Journal 11 January 2009

What is rational? Should I tell a person who lives in a forest because he thinks the trees talk to him that he can't live there because it isn't rational? What is unfair? If a stupid person kicks a wall as hard as he can because he didn't know it would hurt, and then breaks his toe because of it unfair?

You call these rich business men and companies like wal-mart selfishbut your ideals are the most selfish of them all, you think that your beliefs and opinions are the absolute truth and that everyone should follow them, and if they don't, they are wrong.

[CoccoBill]

How do billionaires gain wealth at the expense of the less fortunate?

Lobbying and pressure to ensure legislation that benefits them passes (Bush tax cuts), cronyism, abusive business practices etc.

"Small capitalists go bankrupt, and their production means are absorbed by large capitalists. During the process of bankruptcy and absorption, capital is gradually centralized by a few large capitalists, and the entire middle class declines. Thus, two major classes, a small minority of large capitalists, and a large proletarian majority are formed."

Wealth Redistribution? Wealthy Americans Are Taxed Less Now Than When Reagan Was President | Progress In Action

What do you consider hard work? Is what Bill Gates oes hard? Is what a coal miner does hard? Is there a difference between the hard and hardship? Should people be paid based on how physically demanding their job is? Should people be paid based on how mentally demanding their job is?

All labor should be rewarded based both on their physical and mental "hardness". Both are hard, valuable and should be rewarded. I do not, however, think that rewarding one a billion times more than the other is either fair, beneficial or sustainable.

I'd add to this: Do you think a company that did not make safe and reliable cars would succeed?

You mean like Toyota? I do actually think the whole industry did for something close to a 100 years, and I'm not sure they're all still there yet. Obviously I'm not saying technological advances haven't played a role in this, but how long has the industry been in any way interested in safety, 20-30 years? A much better example though might be a new drug and the safety testing performed during its development, as noted earlier. After the drug has been selling a few million orders a day for a year until the effects come known, it's a bit late to start voting with your wallet.

[CoccoBill]

You are right. They are going to operate under the values and goals of the people who use their product because they want people to support (aka buy) their products. Or do you think that people will buy products or use services against their will? Maybe this is the part of the argument I don't understand...

I'm sure many people will only buy an unsafe car once.

[!Luck]

I read many of the post here. What I didn't see, but I suspect would be very relevant, is having the arguing parties define their beliefs in Property Rights. Do they exist, are they, should they, be an intrinsic right?

Also, as a side note to lyric, just because the FDA has some corruption in it doesn't mean it doesn't produce some benefits (I for example love calories being displayed on food packages along with ingredients). I doubt (I cannot back up my claim) the ignorant public would care enough about this if it wasn't forced on to the manufactures of mass produced foods. But, again talking about federal agencies one has to define their rights.

So, I feel like after 8 pages ( I read over 50% of it), you guys discussing complicated issues, and you may be better served starting a simple concepts and going from there (Property rights)?

Just a thought.

!luck

[CoccoBill]

What is rational? Should I tell a person who lives in a forest because he thinks the trees talk to him that he can't live there because it isn't rational? What is unfair? If a stupid person kicks a wall as hard as he can because he didn't know it would hurt, and then breaks his toe because of it unfair?

Rational means making making the best decision or reaching the correct conclusion based on available knowledge. Humans don't act that way, there are several ways we have been shown to operate or be inclined to operate irrationally, go read the links I posted. Having an economical system that's based on human rationality is perhaps not the optimal solution.

You call these rich business men and companies like wal-mart selfishbut your ideals are the most selfish of them all, you think that your beliefs and opinions are the absolute truth and that everyone should follow them, and if they don't, they are wrong.

I think the irony of your statement escapes you.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I read many of the post here. What I didn't see, but I suspect would be very relevant, is having the arguing parties define their beliefs in Property Rights. Do they exist, are they, should they, be an intrinsic right?

Also, as a side note to lyric, just because the FDA has some corruption in it doesn't mean it doesn't produce some benefits (I for example love calories being displayed on food packages along with ingredients). I doubt (I cannot back up my claim) the ignorant public would care enough about this if it wasn't forced on to the manufactures of mass produced foods. But, again talking about federal agencies one has to define their rights.

So, I feel like after 8 pages ( I read over 50% of it), you guys discussing complicated issues, and you may be better served starting a simple concepts and going from there (Property rights)?

Just a thought.

!luck

I appreciate every facet of this post, thanks for posting.

I actually like a lot of the things the government does too. For example, Washington DC has a bunch of 'free' museums, most of which are awesome. I often take friends visiting there. The display of nutrition is one I really enjoy as well.

The thing is though that the government doesn't have to force these results if people actually value them. Everyone really pays for the museum in DC anyways through taxes. Going to them and paying is really no different than paying more taxes and going for free. The Museums would run profitably if they offer people value, which they undoubtedly would.

Same for nutritional facts. Lets say we are in a grocery store where we want to buy almonds. We are faced with a choice of two brands of almonds. One has nutritional facts on it, including calories and food content. One doesn't have it at all. The one with nutritional facts is slightly more expensive. Which one would we buy? If the answer for a majority of the population is the one with nutritional facts, than this company would make much more money than the one that doesn't post nutritional facts. People still could buy the one without them because they may not value them at all. So if people care about nutritional facts, the FDA really didn't do anything, besides protecting people from making a bad choice by forcing no companies to not post nutritional facts.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

I think the irony of your statement escapes you.

There's a reason why they call what I'm arguing for Laissez Faire.

[Lyric]

Asking me why their public education system works is like asking me why homeopathy works. We just don't know, and it certainly isn't because the schools are public or the homeopathic pills have active ingredients.

So you think they are good despite of being public and they would benefit from being privatized?

BBC News - World News America - Why do Finland's schools get the best results?
Privatisation and Public Ownership in Finland[/QUOTE]

Yes, they are good in spite of being socialized. Trying to analyze them to find the reason they are best is like looking at basketball coaches and trying to figure out exactly what they are doing right, but ignoring the quality of the players on the coach's team. It isn't necessarily that the players are best, but we can't ignore that possibility and assume all players are the same.

[Lyric]

Even with regulation companies left and right are getting caught with using child labor, dumping waste wherever they want, fixing prices and all sorts of abusive practices against their employees, competition and customers. Regulation is needed to ensure that _all_ companies, not just those that happen to feel like it, make safe products and adhere to environmental and safety standards.

This is the whole disconnect here, the foundations of free market are that every component in it (individuals) are all rational and benevolent, which simply isn't true. Assuming they do just leaves the whole system open for the most ruthless players to work the system for an unfair advantage.

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? | Video on TED.com
Are irrational economic choices baked into the human psyche? - SmartPlanet
Irrational Economic Man by Michael Shermer, City Journal 11 January 2009

Companies are not allowed to pollute or enslave (child labor) in my world. A free market that allows people to make their own choices does not depend on them making logically correct choices. If I enjoy McDonald's and it is killing me slowly and shortening my life, I would argue that it's better to let me make that poor decision instead of allowing angels in government to force me to avoid french fries because it isn't logical to eat them and it is killing me.

Please see my other post regarding the FDA. We don't need government testing everything and selecting "safe" products to allow us to purchase, and private companies like USP labs and consumer reports do the same thing for less money. Free market systems don't assume people are rational and ot certainly doesn't assume we are all benevolent. Hurting each other is prohibited, and leaders are given as little power as possible to allow each person to try to make themselves happy instead of being told what to do.

Do you think people are happier when government makes decisions for them? Do you really think we can find angels to make laws that are benevolent and avoid the temptation of bribes from large companies? Is it really ok to stop a terminal cancer patient from trying a new drug even if he knows he will die 100% without it? Is it okay to stop him from taking it, allow a million to die during the ten year approval process in a similar way, and finally discover that the drug works? Doesn't that mean the FDA just killed a million people by preventing the drug from being tried by terminally ill patients?

We should be free to make our own decisions, however irrational they may be, because if i can't make decisions that make me happy you certainly can't be expected to make decisions that work out any better. Doing this is like assuming that leaders would be Gods, and forcing me to avoid irrationality will make me happier.

[IowaSkinsFan]

In a public school, what will happen if the education being provided is poor in quality? In a private school, what will happen if the education being provided is poor in quality?

[boost]

Please read all my island BS posts. We can't hope to understand the modern world unless we begin at the beginning..

see, but I take issue with this. You claim to be starting at the beginning, yet when it was pointed out that your starting point is not the start at all since you are granting the sole islander knowledge that was collected over eons you just brushed it off. I know you probably think that I am nit picking but I really think that this is the faulty ground that your entire analogy is built on.

Furthermore I am near the point of being offended when you dodge peoples points by insisting that they be rephrased to fit your broken analogy. This is not your debate, but a debate that we are all participating in. If someone wishes to reference your analogy, or comment on it, fine. Otherwise it is quite rude to insist on its use.

[boost]

I want to build an understanding myself, from scratch, and determine my own belief system. I don't need an "expert" to instruct me on complex systems and I don't need faith to understand economics.

You seem to be utterly opposed to the idea that it may be impossible to accurately model society at the scale you wish to use. This stubbornness is worrying. You're putting all your eggs in one basket, and I'm not saying the basket is going to break, but you seem vehemently against the idea that it even could.

[Lyric]

see, but I take issue with this. You claim to be starting at the beginning, yet when it was pointed out that your starting point is not the start at all since you are granting the sole islander knowledge that was collected over eons you just brushed it off. I know you probably think that I am nit picking but I really think that this is the faulty ground that your entire analogy is built on.

Furthermore I am near the point of being offended when you dodge peoples points by insisting that they be rephrased to fit your broken analogy. This is not your debate, but a debate that we are all participating in. If someone wishes to reference your analogy, or comment on it, fine. Otherwise it is quite rude to insist on its use.

Why does it matter if the island man is educated or not? We can begin with a man 200,000 years ago with no knowledge. That will work as well, but a modern man is easier for us to understand. Either will get the job done. Does the first man on earth, 200k years ago not apply either because he evolved from other animals? I don't understand your point here. It isn't relevant if he is a modern human or not.

The only people who think the island analogy is "broken" are people who can't get a very simple system to fit their world view, and cognitive dissonance is imploring them to dismiss it as "broken" or not applicable in some way. No one has offered convincing arguments for why it is broken, and it would be lovely if you didn't dismiss it because your ideas don't fit and you can't explain what, exactly, is wrong with the island analogy except to say your ideas don't work there and it therefore must be a worthless thought exercise.

[boost]

Why does it matter if the island man is educated or not? We can begin with a man 200,000 years ago with no knowledge. That will work as well, but a modern man is easier for us to understand. Either will get the job done. Does the first man on earth, 200k years ago not apply either because he evolved from other animals? I don't understand your point here. It isn't relevant if he is a modern human or not.

The only people who think the island analogy is "broken" are people who can't get a very simple system to fit their world view, and cognitive dissonance is imploring them to dismiss it as "broken" or not applicable in some way. No one has offered convincing arguments for why it is broken, and it would be lovely if you didn't dismiss it because your ideas don't fit and you can't explain what, exactly, is wrong with the island analogy except to say your ideas don't work there and it therefore must be a worthless thought exercise.

Because a man with out the benefits of societies collected knowledge cannot be wealthy nor poor. He cannot preserve the extra fish he catches, he has no knowledge of building a shelter, and certainly does not know how to domesticate animals, much less make cheese. Possibly over a long stretch of time if he is lucky enough to not twist an ankle, which would mean death, he can learn some skills to make his life a bit easier.

But even if I concede that he can be "wealthier" on his own without the gift of societies knowledge, it is to such a small degree that it does not matter. To illustrate this, if we had a second island in which we put another man that was "lazy" and they both lived into their 60's, their lives would be hardly distinguishable, if at all.

Now when we drop in another person, the fisherman can now catch two fish without much more effort than it took him to catch the one. Both men do not need to fish, so the second can afford to become proficient at something else. On a lucky day the fisherman has caught one fish and on the second spear throw two fish line up and he spears both. Now the second man with his free time can use the extra fish to develop a method of preservation(this takes a bit of a leap, but if you take issue with it I'm sure I can tighten it up.) Now that extra fish can be stored, the fisherman can catch three fish in a day, and every third day both men can have free time to become proficient at other tasks.

As we add islanders, eventually we have enough people specialized in building shelters, collecting food, etc, that we will start to see people specialized in healing. Now when our islanders have an unfortunate accident and twist their ankle, through the benefits of society, there is someone to help them heal and avoid death. There is also plenty of smoked herring to sustain the unfortunate while they are unable to work. Society has created a value, and therefore the islanders are in debt to it. For society to continue to create value, they will need to continue to pay down their debts.

I still think that my analogy is broken, but that could probably be mostly fixed by replacing fish with fruit foraging-- even so I think we are creating a world that can never be analogous to our world as a whole. When we create these worlds to support our points they are for that purpose alone. I actually think that the island was my idea, and the point was to illustrate that a man alone is neither poor nor wealthy. And I think when he don't gift the man with libraries of knowledge this is as true as it is true that pi is equal to 3.14159265. The island was never intended to tackle the issue of healthcare, a progressive or regressive tax system, etc. That's not to say that it can't, but that if we want it to, we need to be very careful to make sure we don't cheat ourselves out of the truth with a broken analogy.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Because a man with out the benefits of societies collected knowledge cannot be wealthy nor poor.

What in god's name does the word wealthy mean to you

[boost]

What in god's name does the word wealthy mean to you

I believe whatever it means, it is relative. And being relative, he cannot have it or a lack of it with one man. But that is venturing into the abstract, so I digress-

To answer your question, I think that wealth is equal to the amount of time and ability a person has to pursue their interests or better their standing in life. For a lucky few they are able to generate wealth while pursuing their interest, they have hit the nuts. Back to the island- the lone man cannot gain wealth because he is living hand to mouth. He has little or no free time to improve his standing or pursue interests. That is, unless we somehow magically hand him the knowledge of society... society being something that does not exist in this world we have created for him.


edit: also I think I explained this in my post in a different manner, but explained it nonetheless. So if you already got that and I am just repeating what you didn't get, then let me know.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Lets be specific, who in society does the wealthy person owe something to? Everyone?

[boost]

Lets be specific, who in society does the wealthy person owe something to? Everyone?

thats the problem, there is no specific. He owes it to society. So yes, I guess "everyone" would be accurate. But then again, I feel like you will want to take that answer out of context and say that we are robin hooding the poor, rich(ha) guy. But what I think you fail to realize is that by paying his debts to society the rich guy is benefiting himself as well. And while its hard (impossible?) to quantify I do not think that his benefit would be disproportional to that of anyone else. A strong society is what made him, and what continues to support him. When that society falls, so does he.

edit: that last sentence bounced around in my head after writing it. And I think that it offers us another mode of examining our world. Instead of starting at the "beginning." Why not start at the end? When the rich do not pay their debts and society collapses, are the rich still rich?


Hell, if we want to put it in your terms, the rich can be paying for stability, even though that's now how I see it. But when wealth is consolidated to the top, as is the natural flow of wealth, societies become increasingly unstable. This can be viewed all over the world and throughout history. Stable societies have relatively small wealth gaps.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I believe whatever it means, it is relative.
This is something we both agree with.

And being relative, he cannot have it or a lack of it with one man.
Lets say there is one man in the world. This man can decide to do two things. One is just kill animals or grow vegetables for food and then do nothing else. The other is to do that and to also use the time he would have spent doing nothing to develop technology to benefit himself, such as possibly a stove to help cook food so he can enjoy his food more. Would you say that both choices represent equal wealth?

To answer your question, I think that wealth is equal to the amount of time and ability a person has to pursue their interests or better their standing in life. For a lucky few they are able to generate wealth while pursuing their interest, they have hit the nuts.

Have you ever met someone with a lot of ability and time who doesn't do anything with their life? Would you consider them wealthy?

Yeah

[IowaSkinsFan]

thats the problem, there is no specific. He owes it to society. So yes, I guess "everyone" would be accurate. But then again, I feel like you will want to take that answer out of context and say that we are robin hooding the poor, rich(ha) guy. But what I think you fail to realize is that by paying his debts to society the rich guy is benefiting himself as well. And while its hard (impossible?) to quantify I do not think that his benefit would be disproportional to that of anyone else. A strong society is what made him, and what continues to support him. When that society falls, so does he.

I actually want to see society succeed just as much as you do because I understand just like you that from free trade with others we are able to live much much better lives than we would be alone. And free trade is worth more to me when I am living with a bunch of people who are intelligent and who are able to create things of value to me and the rest of the world.

Why does giving his money to other people create a stronger society? Why would giving other people money prevent it from falling?

[WillburForce]

In a public school, what will happen if the education being provided is poor in quality? In a private school, what will happen if the education being provided is poor in quality?

Public school - nothing happens, because people don't care and don't want to pay higher taxes, but their kids aren't effected so who cares?

Private School - no one sends their kids there so the school fails.

whats your point?

[boost]

Yay! We agree

See, but again, you are gifting this lone man with abilities you cannot possibly posses. Before the advent of society, man did not have the luxury of free time. As people banded together and began to specialize, free time was their reward.

Time and ability to pursue their interest. By ability I meant means, not potential(as you seem to have taken it), and if they sit around all day with their abundant free time and potential they will not be wealthy.

[boost]

I actually want to see society succeed just as much as you do because I understand just like you that from free trade with others we are able to live much much better lives than we would be alone. And free trade is worth more to me when I am living with a bunch of people who are intelligent and who are able to create things of value to me and the rest of the world.

Why does giving his money to other people create a stronger society? Why would giving other people money prevent it from falling?

But again, we are not paying out debts to other people, we are paying our debts to society. In one of these posts that I've made in the last 30 minutes I point out that increasing wealth gaps are the bane of a stable society. This is why paying your debt to society keeps it from falling. Public systems can be put in place that allow those without a chance to pick themselves up. When that is possible the masses will not be incited to violence. They have a chance, and therefore want to support the system.

What is happening now is that our window of chance is quickly closing yet we are being told that it is because of the systems that are actually keeping it open. When people believe this and support those who spread these lies, it only expedites the closure.

In a society with a strong public sector where upward mobility is actually possible, the upper classes can sit back and be comfy.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Public school - nothing happens, because people don't care and don't want to pay higher taxes, but their kids aren't effected so who cares?

Private School - no one sends their kids there so the school fails.

whats your point?

I think your post on public school is wrong. The public school doesn't fail because the government will pay for it no matter its results, not because people don't care or don't pay higher taxes. It may do better when people put more money into to it, through higher taxes, but so would the private school.

My point: Part of the reasons public schools suck is because they aren't allowed to fail.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Yay! We agree

See, but again, you are gifting this lone man with abilities you cannot possibly posses. Before the advent of society, man did not have the luxury of free time. As people banded together and began to specialize, free time was their reward.

Time and ability to pursue their interest. By ability I meant means, not potential(as you seem to have taken it), and if they sit around all day with their abundant free time and potential they will not be wealthy.

All a man has to do to live is to eat and have shelter, protect themselves from others, and move around I suppose. Animals do this and have tons of free time. Where is this no free time you speak of?

Ah, I see what your saying, you mean the literal capability/ability of being able to pursue their interests. Do the poor not have the ability to pursue their interests?

[WillburForce]

I think your post on public school is wrong. The public school doesn't fail because the government will pay for it no matter its results, not because people don't care or don't pay higher taxes. It may do better when people put more money into to it, through higher taxes, but so would the private school.

My point: Part of the reasons public schools suck is because they aren't allowed to fail.

may be diff in USA.

what if all private schools were banned - would the public schools still be so under funded and shite?

[IowaSkinsFan]

may be diff in USA.

what if all private schools were banned - would the public schools still be so under funded and shite?

I don't get what this means....

[WillburForce]

I don't get what this means....

I mean, if there is no option but public school, maybe people would actually care, couldn't buy their child out and perhaps all schools and ALL children would benefit

Like I say could be diff in USA.

But something ridic like 80% of Oxbridge students went ot private schools. 5% of the UK public go to priavte school.

Is this fair?

[Ash256]

I know I've mentioned this already ISF, but what concerns me the most about your attitude within this thread is your seeming complete lack of empathy for your fellow man. It comes across as almost psychopathically callous. The ongoing theme within your posts is that "I'm the rich guy in my utopia, I'm the entrepreneurial genius, and the poor, disabled and unfortunate can go fuck themselves and live in misery because I want ALL my money".

You should take a step back and place yourself as the kid working down the mines, as the startup being raped by the cartels, as the dude living in the slums on a pittance getting owned by price-fixing food companies, as the working man who can't feed his family after his bank goes bust. How does your utopia feel now?

[Lyric]

Public school - nothing happens, because people don't care and don't want to pay higher taxes, but their kids aren't effected so who cares?

Private School - no one sends their kids there so the school fails.

whats your point?

The point is that bad schools fail in a private system and only good schools remain.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

I mean, if there is no option but public school, maybe people would actually care, couldn't buy their child out and perhaps all schools and ALL children would benefit

No they wouldn't. The kids whose family values education would not be able to get a better education than those who don't.

But something ridic like 80% of Oxbridge students went ot private schools. 5% of the UK public go to priavte school.

Is this fair?

Let's pretend there are no public schools instead. How much do you think going to an avg school would cost? How about a great school? Are there some other ways a child could get into a good school besides their family paying for it themselves?

[Lyric]

Yay! We agree

See, but again, you are gifting this lone man with abilities you cannot possibly posses. Before the advent of society, man did not have the luxury of free time. As people banded together and began to specialize, free time was their reward.

Time and ability to pursue their interest. By ability I meant means, not potential(as you seem to have taken it), and if they sit around all day with their abundant free time and potential they will not be wealthy.

Let's define the word wealth. According to dictionary.com it is:

a. all things that have exchange value.

b. anything that has utility and is capable of being exchanged.

This is a good definition and is in line with my previous assertion that wealth is anything that humans value. Wealth is not an abundance of free time per se. We value free time but it is only one type of "thing that has utility." We must stick with an economics definition to continue a meaningful discussion.

[Lyric]

may be diff in USA.

what if all private schools were banned - would the public schools still be so under funded and shite?

Public schools are over-funded and the money spent on public schools does not correlate to the educations provided. Here is a graph showing test scores vs spending:

A Picture Is Worth $300 Billion | Cato @ Liberty

Spending is about $26,000 for each student signed up at a DC public school. $28,000 for each student who actually attended.

The cost of the average private school is only $6,620. So they cost a quarter of what public schools do, but still they do better.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I mean, if there is no option but public school, maybe people would actually care, couldn't buy their child out and perhaps all schools and ALL children would benefit

Like I say could be diff in USA.

But something ridic like 80% of Oxbridge students went ot private schools. 5% of the UK public go to priavte school.

Is this fair?

Is it unfair that private school students get a better education than public school students? No. If someone gives me a car for free I don't expect it to work better than a car I pay $11,000 dollars a year for.

Your right, I think if you forced everyone to choose public schools public schools would be better. I think if we didn't have public schooling at all we would be even better.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Public schools are over-funded and the money spent on public schools does not correlate to the educations provided. Here is a graph showing test scores vs spending:

A Picture Is Worth $300 Billion | Cato @ Liberty

Spending is about $26,000 for each student signed up at a DC public school. $28,000 for each student who actually attended.

The cost of the average private school is only $6,620. So they cost a quarter of what public schools do, but still they do better.

And imagine how much better we would be at education if we didnt waste all that money giving to terrible schools.

[Lyric]

I know I've mentioned this already ISF, but what concerns me the most about your attitude within this thread is your seeming complete lack of empathy for your fellow man. It comes across as almost psychopathically callous. The ongoing theme within your posts is that "I'm the rich guy in my utopia, I'm the entrepreneurial genius, and the poor, disabled and unfortunate can go fuck themselves and live in misery because I want ALL my money".

You should take a step back and place yourself as the kid working down the mines, as the startup being raped by the cartels, as the dude living in the slums on a pittance getting owned by price-fixing food companies, as the working man who can't feed his family after his bank goes bust. How does your utopia feel now?

You're begging a lot of questions here; ISF isn't heartless. "Fuck the poor" is not the idea. Preventing power from being consolidated at the top raises the quality of life for everyone, especially the poor and disabled. Avoiding a consolidation at the top is your goal and my (and ISF's) goal.

My method to prevent consolidation is giving as much power to each person as possible. You see free markets as the worst option because it leads to some men becoming very wealthy, and very wealthy people represent the consolidation at the top that we both fear. I don't consider wealthy men a danger if they are prevented from theft, murder, use of force, enslavement, and pollution by government. Wealthy men are only dangerous if they are permitted to use force against others.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I know I've mentioned this already ISF, but what concerns me the most about your attitude within this thread is your seeming complete lack of empathy for your fellow man. It comes across as almost psychopathically callous. The ongoing theme within your posts is that "I'm the rich guy in my utopia, I'm the entrepreneurial genius, and the poor, disabled and unfortunate can go fuck themselves and live in misery because I want ALL my money".

You should take a step back and place yourself as the kid working down the mines, as the startup being raped by the cartels, as the dude living in the slums on a pittance getting owned by price-fixing food companies, as the working man who can't feed his family after his bank goes bust. How does your utopia feel now?

You see a difference between making money and altruism. In my mind, making money is the most altruistic thing someone can do. That is why I would like to make a shit ton of it, I hope by the end of my life I will have made more money than everyone else in the world. This is because money is not just some magical evil thing, money is a tool of exchange. It is something you get when you provide value to someone. That is, if you do not force them to give it to you.

I want everyone to be well off and happy, and I think the best way to do that is through a total free market. So please don't say I'm heartless, but feel free to say im ignorant, even though I think you are wrong.

I don't feel bad when I get unlucky. For me, life isn't about trying to minimize bad luck, its about realizing that luck doesn't matter. All that matters to me is the quality of the decisions I make in my life.

[CoccoBill]

I know I've mentioned this already ISF, but what concerns me the most about your attitude within this thread is your seeming complete lack of empathy for your fellow man. It comes across as almost psychopathically callous. The ongoing theme within your posts is that "I'm the rich guy in my utopia, I'm the entrepreneurial genius, and the poor, disabled and unfortunate can go fuck themselves and live in misery because I want ALL my money".

You should take a step back and place yourself as the kid working down the mines, as the startup being raped by the cartels, as the dude living in the slums on a pittance getting owned by price-fixing food companies, as the working man who can't feed his family after his bank goes bust. How does your utopia feel now?

Ash don't be selfish.

[CoccoBill]

Companies are not allowed to pollute or enslave (child labor) in my world. A free market that allows people to make their own choices does not depend on them making logically correct choices. I I enjoy McDonald's and it is killing me slowly and shortening my life, I would argue that it's better to let me make that poor decision instead of allowing angels in government to force me to avoid french fries because it isn't logical to eat them and it is killing me.

You do realize that french fries are bad for you and that a lot of people eat them? So either what you posted in bold is incorrect, or you're supporting social darwinism. It's also another strawman, since I specifically said that in my opinion the role of the government is NOT to protect its citizen from themselves. But whatever, I'm done.

[boost]

Let's define the word wealth. According to dictionary.com it is:

a. all things that have exchange value.

b. anything that has utility and is capable of being exchanged.

This is a good definition and is in line with my previous assertion that wealth is anything that humans value. Wealth is not an abundance of free time per se. We value free time but it is only one type of "thing that has utility." We must stick with an economics definition to continue a meaningful discussion.

fine, we will stick with it. Do you see why you just made it far easier to prove that wealth is impossible with only one man?

[boost]

And imagine how much better we would be at education if we didnt waste all that money giving to terrible schools.

I feel like the issue with schools is compounded by unions. Unions have turned into an abomination that rarely are in the interest of the consumer or even the union worker. We should probably move on to another issue unless you can find a reasonable way to separate what problems are caused by unions and what are caused by the school being tax funded.

[boost]

It is something you get when you provide value to someone. That is, if you do not force them to give it to you.

How do you feel about con artists? I can find publicly available information on someone in college, then call their elderly grandma and pretend to be them. I can claim that I am in a bind and got into some trouble down in mexico. I need them to wire me money asap so I can bond out and cross the border. There are real cases of pretty much this exact scam being pulled. Is this "by force"? If so, where is the force? If not, what value has this person provided?

[IowaSkinsFan]

How do you feel about con artists? I can find publicly available information on someone in college, then call their elderly grandma and pretend to be them. I can claim that I am in a bind and got into some trouble down in mexico. I need them to wire me money asap so I can bond out and cross the border. There are real cases of pretty much this exact scam being pulled. Is this "by force"? If so, where is the force? If not, what value has this person provided?

Con artists steal money from people through manipulation. This situation you described is committing a crime, if the person if caught they will be thrown in jail for doing so. This person has provided no value. Add stealing to my exceptions, whether it be a person or a business who have provided false and misleading information that causes people to voluntarily give them money for a product. People are protected from this situation in our society now, I would not remove this law.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I feel like the issue with schools is compounded by unions. Unions have turned into an abomination that rarely are in the interest of the consumer or even the union worker. We should probably move on to another issue unless you can find a reasonable way to separate what problems are caused by unions and what are caused by the school being tax funded.

These are two completely different factors. I am not simply using two statistics. I am not saying "public schools are worse than private schools, public schools are funded by taxes, therefore tax funding causes public schools to be bad." That is not a logically true statement.

What I am saying is that if a public school is funded by taxes, it will never fail. This is a true statement. And if a public school can never fail, despite any of its results, a bad public school will continue to exist. Do you disagree that this proves that tax funding is a factor that would help cause a public school to be bad? I cannot mathematically prove the degree which this is the case, that would be totally absurd for anyone to state as total truth.

I actually have no idea how to make a logical statement on how unions cause public schools to fail. Not very educated on the problems of the unions. I'm very interested in seeing how this works because talking to Lyric outside this thread he seems to be very against unions but I have never really understood the issue with them.

[IowaSkinsFan]

You do realize that french fries are bad for you and that a lot of people eat them? So either what you posted in bold is incorrect, or you're supporting social darwinism. It's also another strawman, since I specifically said that in my opinion the role of the government is NOT to protect its citizen from themselves. But whatever, I'm done.

Lyric posted in bold that "A free market that allows people to make their own choices does not depend on them making logically correct choices."

So do you disagree that people should be allowed to eat french fries from McDonald's Coccobill? Lyric didn't post anything incorrect, if you want to eat french fries in Lyric's society, you can eat them, even if its bad for you. It doesn't have to be a "logically correct choice," its just a choice.

I'm not really sure what your saying here. Lyric's argument here is a strawman because you said that in your opinion the role of the government is not to protect citizens from themselves? How does this disprove the statement that a free market that allows people to make their own choices does not depend on them making logically correct statements?

[CoccoBill]

Lyric posted in bold that "A free market that allows people to make their own choices does not depend on them making logically correct choices."

So do you disagree that people should be allowed to eat french fries from McDonald's Coccobill? Lyric didn't post anything incorrect, if you want to eat french fries in Lyric's society, you can eat them, even if its bad for you. It doesn't have to be a "logically correct choice," its just a choice.

I'm getting the feeling that I'm being leveled, if so nh.

If french fries are bad for people, the rational choice is to not eat them, both from the individual's and the society's perspective. The society doesn't benefit from obese/sick individuals who are less able to provide value for it, and the person himself surely doesn't either. The only one benefiting is the french fry producer, at the expense of the society. Free market capitalism is based on the idea that people act rationally (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._choice_theory), if they don't, the whole foundation of capitalism breaks. The only way to interpret Lyric's statement is to assume that weeding out the weak is a desirable effect of capitalism (= social darwinism), or that his statement is false.

The role of the government is not to make eating french fries illegal, but to 1) ensure french fries are produced following health standards and 2) customers are made aware of the health consequences of eating them, in order to be able to make an informed decision about whether to eat them or not.

I'm not really sure what your saying here. Lyric's argument here is a strawman because you said that in your opinion the role of the government is not to protect citizens from themselves?

On top of being plain incorrect, yes.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...wiki/Straw_man

[WillburForce]

changing from the school example. to public transport.

We had lots of public transport privatised in the UK as everyone thought that private companies would run it better.

However the transport system in London is now a complete shambles.

The private companies sqeeze every last penny they can out of commuters and because there is no other choice (I can't get into the city without using the train/tube) and they have a captive audience there is not a lot I can do about it.

Yes I think the trains are terribley badly run and despise the company that runs them - how else though can I get to work?

When it was run by the government there was somethng I could do about it - not vote for them.

[boost]

What I am saying is that if a public school is funded by taxes, it will never fail. This is a true statement.
This is not a true statement. It is harder for a school to be closed down due to unions, as well as other factors, but failing public schools are closed.

I actually have no idea how to make a logical statement on how unions cause public schools to fail. Not very educated on the problems of the unions. I'm very interested in seeing how this works because talking to Lyric outside this thread he seems to be very against unions but I have never really understood the issue with them.

Well the issue is that while unions were at one point necessary and may one day be necessary in the future, at this time they are a power block that serves little purpose yet is reluctant to relinquish its power. A teachers union impedes good education because the people it supposedly serves are the teachers, not the children. This means that if you are a bad tenured teacher, as long as you show up on time and are in the class room and not molesting children, it will be VERY hard to fire you. But in the end, the protection of teachers is not even the unions true purpose, its own survival is its purpose.

Also of note- Unions are seniority based. When there is a budget crisis and the school district declares a state of emergency (which allows them to bypass pretty much every union rule set to protect the teachers) then young promising gifted teachers are kicked to the curb while old disillusioned and disgruntled teachers are the only staff left. Nothing is merit based, which is clearly detrimental to the kids.

[boost]

changing from the school example. to public transport.

We had lots of public transport privatised in the UK as everyone thought that private companies would run it better.

However the transport system in London is now a complete shambles.

The private companies sqeeze every last penny they can out of commuters and because there is no other choice (I can't get into the city without using the train/tube) and they have a captive audience there is not a lot I can do about it.

Yes I think the trains are terribley badly run and despise the company that runs them - how else though can I get to work?

When it was run by the government there was somethng I could do about it - not vote for them.

And this is where I feel the "privatize everything" mode of thinking falls apart. Building a rival subway system, or streetcar system is impossible in a city when you don't have the power of land appropriation. Even if it were possibly, it still is not in direct competition as it could not possibly serve all the same areas.

So I guess you could argue that if the subway raises their prices high enough, then buying a car might be around the same monthly cost. But now both of these modes of transportation are out of reach of the lower class. And as I've stated before, a mobile workforce is very important to a strong economy.

[boost]

Con artists steal money from people through manipulation. This situation you described is committing a crime, if the person if caught they will be thrown in jail for doing so. This person has provided no value. Add stealing to my exceptions, whether it be a person or a business who have provided false and misleading information that causes people to voluntarily give them money for a product. People are protected from this situation in our society now, I would not remove this law.

So this is a fairly simple con. Do you not agree that there exist extremely complex cons that can easily be hidden in the guise of honest business? Are there not also manipulations of the market that are fair game? Is price fixing illegal in your world? Are there any antitrust laws in your world? If so, aren't we on a slippery slope of regulation in a supposedly regulation free society? Who enforces these regulations? Who investigates them? How is this done with "small government?"

[IowaSkinsFan]

And this is where I feel the "privatize everything" mode of thinking falls apart. Building a rival subway system, or streetcar system is impossible in a city when you don't have the power of land appropriation. Even if it were possibly, it still is not in direct competition as it could not possibly serve all the same areas.

So I guess you could argue that if the subway raises their prices high enough, then buying a car might be around the same monthly cost. But now both of these modes of transportation are out of reach of the lower class. And as I've stated before, a mobile workforce is very important to a strong economy.

I am of the impression that something like subways and utilities basically have to be run by public funding because of exactly what your talking about. However, I'm ready to be proved wrong (Lyric mentioned the idea of cities being owned privately). This doesn't mean whatsoever that we wouldn't be better off with much less government control than we already have.

[IowaSkinsFan]

So this is a fairly simple con. Do you not agree that there exist extremely complex cons that can easily be hidden in the guise of honest business? Are there not also manipulations of the market that are fair game? Is price fixing illegal in your world? Are there any antitrust laws in your world? If so, aren't we on a slippery slope of regulation in a supposedly regulation free society? Who enforces these regulations? Who investigates them? How is this done with "small government?"

Give me an example that you think are cons from businesses, manipulations of the market, and I will tell you if I think they should be allowed or not. I'm guessing I will say they will all be okay, but I'd love to discuss a good example.

I'm not that educated on monopolies or price fixing, I tend to just go with public opinion that this is bad. Whatever the government absolutely has to do it has to do. The things that I think they should be doing I would guess from budget figures would cost under a trillion dollars a year total, if not much less. I would call a government that spends this much a small government.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Well the issue is that while unions were at one point necessary and may one day be necessary in the future, at this time they are a power block that serves little purpose yet is reluctant to relinquish its power. A teachers union impedes good education because the people it supposedly serves are the teachers, not the children. This means that if you are a bad tenured teacher, as long as you show up on time and are in the class room and not molesting children, it will be VERY hard to fire you. But in the end, the protection of teachers is not even the unions true purpose, its own survival is its purpose.

Also of note- Unions are seniority based. When there is a budget crisis and the school district declares a state of emergency (which allows them to bypass pretty much every union rule set to protect the teachers) then young promising gifted teachers are kicked to the curb while old disillusioned and disgruntled teachers are the only staff left. Nothing is merit based, which is clearly detrimental to the kids.

Thanks, this helps a lot. I still don't understand why though that people shouldn't have the right to band together over a common interest in engage in shared decision making for their own benefit. Is it just because of the bad result?

[IowaSkinsFan]

I'm getting the feeling that I'm being leveled, if so nh.

Nope, I guess I played that hand badly!

If french fries are bad for people, the rational choice is to not eat them, both from the individual's and the society's perspective. The society doesn't benefit from obese/sick individuals who are less able to provide value for it, and the person himself surely doesn't either. The only one benefiting is the french fry producer, at the expense of the society. Free market capitalism is based on the idea that people act rationally (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._choice_theory), if they don't, the whole foundation of capitalism breaks. The only way to interpret Lyric's statement is to assume that weeding out the weak is a desirable effect of capitalism (= social darwinism), or that his statement is false.

No one is forcing anyone to eat french fries. The obese person who is obese because of eating french fries decided to buy those french fries in a voluntary exchange, money for french fries. Both parties have believe they have benefited from this transaction. Whether or not an obese person actually made a bad choice is not my place to say.

Were not trying to kill all the weak people. That would be insane. Were for letting people learn on their own the merits of their own decisions, good or bad. The result of allowing everyone to make their own decisions is that some will be bad, some will be terrible. But in order to learn how to achieve good results you can't just be forced to engage in a certain activity or not engage in it or your just a robot. I don't want a society of robots, I think were all better off if each of us understands what right and wrong decisions are, rather than just doing all the "right" (which I'm not sure who is defining this) decisions because of force.

You seem to be saying that because capitalism means some people will be fat, unhealthy, or poor, that the system doesn't work. When in reality this system works great. People just make bad decisions, and natural law will cause the results of those decisions to be bad regardless if we change the results.

The role of the government is not to make eating french fries illegal, but to 1) ensure french fries are produced following health standards and 2) customers are made aware of the health consequences of eating them, in order to be able to make an informed decision about whether to eat them or not.

Actually, none of these have to or should be done by the government. There are some private businesses that provide this information to people in exchange for money, and there would be one to fill the hole if the FDA was gone. The government does the exact same thing but gives those businesses much more power than they should have. But yess, the food industry should be required to disclose what is used in its product, and it is.

[boost]

Thanks, this helps a lot. I still don't understand why though that people shouldn't have the right to band together over a common interest in engage in shared decision making for their own benefit. Is it just because of the bad result?

I can see how you misinterpreted what I wrote as to mean that I think unions should be illegal. I think the idea of a union is great, however so far in practice it has become a corrupt self serving, separate entity onto itself. In practice it is just a middle man, not an actual representation of the people who have banded together.

This is an issue that is not easy for me. Unions as they are do more bad than good IMO, especially in schools where the students interest is ignored for the adults. In theory a protected workforce should be able to serve its customers better, but really it just allows bad workers to keep their jobs. For schools specifically we need a system in which award and protection are given on merit, not on seniority. When good teachers are rewarded, there is incentive to be a good teacher. The problem is, in a large bureaucracy, how do we measure a teachers skills? Don't even get me started on the abomination that is standardized testing...

[CoccoBill]

No one is forcing anyone to eat french fries. The obese person who is obese because of eating french fries decided to buy those french fries in a voluntary exchange, money for french fries. Both parties have believe they have benefited from this transaction. Whether or not an obese person actually made a bad choice is not my place to say.

You're right, no one is forcing anyone to eat the fries. No one forced people to smoke smoke cigarettes before their health hazards became known, despite the tobacco industry's best efforts to cover this up. No one is stopping you from buying kid's toys that have lead in them, or laptops with exploding batteries. Completely up to you, but can you really blame the ones who did, if they did not know these things at the time of purchase. I personally would prefer that someone makes sure the stuff I buy doesn't have any unwanted side effects, I don't have time to investigate what is safe and what isn't, and I'm not interested in buying this information from someone else. I shouldn't have to be an expert of all areas just to be a consumer, my time is better spent being productive than worrying about basic shit like that. The safety of products and consumables should be the default, not an afterthought or someone's business edge.

There is far too little regulation as is, and the standards are not strict enough. Standards and regulations should create the framework within which businesses must operate, to ensure product safety, fair business practices and other things the system does not intrinsically have nor strive for. The standards and regulations are there to protect the consumer, the citizen, from abuse by corporations, just like the police is protecting them from crime and military from hostile external threats. So far you have failed to convince me there is something innately different about these three, that any of these could be replaced by a private alternative, nor that free market in any way ensures or even endorses these values. You argue that maximization of individual's value benefits everyone, but I fail to see how this happens. What my (arguably intrinsically flawed) intuition tells me, is that human altruism alone does not guarantee that the system is working justly towards a greater good, quite the opposite.

Were not trying to kill all the weak people. That would be insane. Were for letting people learn on their own the merits of their own decisions, good or bad. The result of allowing everyone to make their own decisions is that some will be bad, some will be terrible. But in order to learn how to achieve good results you can't just be forced to engage in a certain activity or not engage in it or your just a robot. I don't want a society of robots, I think were all better off if each of us understands what right and wrong decisions are, rather than just doing all the "right" (which I'm not sure who is defining this) decisions because of force.

If we're not actively aiming to ensure the weak are not put in conditions that will kill them, that is, supporting those unable to support themselves, that is the definition of social darwinism. I don't know how to reiterate this more clearly, but I'm in no way advocating forcing anyone to do or not do anything, I am absolutely and vehemently for individual freedoms. I don't see how providing someone the knowledge necessary to make his own fact-based decision and making it harder for him to get screwed over can be described as forcing someone to be a robot, unless you're still just punching the same old haydude. If someone chooses to be e.g. self-destructive knowing all the available information, that's his choice and right.

You seem to be saying that because capitalism means some people will be fat, unhealthy, or poor, that the system doesn't work. When in reality this system works great. People just make bad decisions, and natural law will cause the results of those decisions to be bad regardless if we change the results.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that because the system in no way guarantees features and qualities beneficial for the well-being of the society, the system is broken. I find the maximization of profits for the top few per cent at the expense of the others a far lesser priority than the good for all, that is the difference.

I have purposefully avoided the selfish-card, but that is the only impression of your position I'm left with. Nothing must stand in the way of your personal success, who cares if someone else gets screwed over of left behind. don't get me wrong, I'm no money-hating hippie and I've done my fair share of corporate life, but I just find the whole ideology you're representing repulsive. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, none of these have to or should be done by the government. There are some private businesses that provide this information to people in exchange for money, and there would be one to fill the hole if the FDA was gone. The government does the exact same thing but gives those businesses much more power than they should have. But yess, the food industry should be required to disclose what is used in its product, and it is.

What do you think then should be the role of the government? What criteria are you using to determine which activities should be regulated? What are the goals of this regulation?

All evidence I've ever come across concerning privatization is neutral or negative. The only thing that usually improves is cost control at the expense of service quality, making the benefit at best a net zero in my eyes.

[IowaSkinsFan]

a

You're right, no one is forcing anyone to eat the fries. No one forced people to smoke smoke cigarettes before their health hazards became known, despite the tobacco industry's best efforts to cover this up. No one is stopping you from buying kid's toys that have lead in them, or laptops with exploding batteries. Completely up to you, but can you really blame the ones who did, if they did not know these things at the time of purchase. I personally would prefer that someone makes sure the stuff I buy doesn't have any unwanted side effects, I don't have time to investigate what is safe and what isn't, and I'm not interested in buying this information from someone else. I shouldn't have to be an expert of all areas just to be a consumer, my time is better spent being productive than worrying about basic shit like that. The safety of products and consumables should be the default, not an afterthought or someone's business edge.

No they shouldn't be a default, and yes, you shouldn't have to be an expert in all areas just to be a consumer. Thats why you pay someone else to provide this information for you, just like we pay the FDA.


There is far too little regulation as is, and the standards are not strict enough. Standards and regulations should create the framework within which businesses must operate, to ensure product safety, fair business practices and other things the system does not intrinsically have nor strive for. The standards and regulations are there to protect the consumer, the citizen, from abuse by corporations, just like the police is protecting them from crime and military from hostile external threats. So far you have failed to convince me there is something innately different about these three, that any of these could be replaced by a private alternative, nor that free market in any way ensures or even endorses these values. You argue that maximization of individual's value benefits everyone, but I fail to see how this happens. What my (arguably intrinsically flawed) intuition tells me, is that human altruism alone does not guarantee that the system is working justly towards a greater good, quite the opposite.

There's a huge difference between the government policing corporate abuse and the police protecting you from crime/military for external threats. In one case, we are being protected from the harm of others. In the other, the government is falsely claiming abuse based on peoples free choices and values. McDonalds isnt abusing anyone by offering unhealthy good, they are actually helping others get something that is valuable to them. Unhealthy isnt as valued as tasty, so people but the food. This isn't what your calling abuse right? And if not, what is?


If we're not actively aiming to ensure the weak are not put in conditions that will kill them, that is, supporting those unable to support themselves, that is the definition of social darwinism. I don't know how to reiterate this more clearly, but I'm in no way advocating forcing anyone to do or not do anything, I am absolutely and vehemently for individual freedoms. I don't see how providing someone the knowledge necessary to make his own fact-based decision and making it harder for him to get screwed over can be described as forcing someone to be a robot, unless you're still just punching the same old haydude. If someone chooses to be e.g. self-destructive knowing all the available information, that's his choice and right.

Your advocating that we are not free to spend our money the way we would like to spend it. You are advocating forcing people to give their money to businesses and other people without anything in return. That is not total individual freedom. I agree with what your saying, I think people should be allowed to be self destructive, I'm wondering who you think is hiding information that makes right choices so hard? You seem to know a lot of this hidden informatio, why doesn't anyone else?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that because the system in no way guarantees features and qualities beneficial for the well-being of the society, the system is broken. I find the maximization of profits for the top few per cent at the expense of the others a far lesser priority than the good for all, that is the difference.

A system that guarantees results in spite of the decisions of its users sounds like a terrible system.

I have purposefully avoided the selfish-card, but that is the only impression of your position I'm left with. Nothing must stand in the way of your personal success, who cares if someone else gets screwed over of left behind. don't get me wrong, I'm no money-hating hippie and I've done my fair share of corporate life, but I just find the whole ideology you're representing repulsive. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As I said before, you don't understand money whatsoever. If I don't make money that means I have helped no one. Making money means that someone has exchanged that money with you, not that you have screwed someone over for it. Laws should be there protecting people from being forced to give money or have money stolen from them.

It pisses me off that you say this because I am so incredibly altrustic. My argument was never to screw anyone over, I want everyone to live the best life possible. So if my ideas aren't the way to do it, call me ill-informed or stupid, not selfish.


What do you think then should be the role of the government? What criteria are you using to determine which activities should be regulated? What are the goals of this regulation?

Almost nothing should be regulated. The government should protect people from harm from others and protect their rights and freedom. The goals of government regulation is to create a result without the changes necessary within the actions and values of the people to create those results. That is not something I want. How people spend money is what regulates the economy.

All evidence I've ever come across concerning privatization is neutral or negative. The only thing that usually improves is cost control at the expense of service quality, making the benefit at best a net zero in my eyes.

[Ltrain]

To the extent it is relevant to the discussion, Teddy Roosevelt addressed the similar issues we are facing now at the turn of the century. His view, borne by his quotes on the Square Deal, are that you need to provide your citizenry with at least the "entitlement" for basics of life to allow all to pursue happiness rather than pursuing basic means of survival. It does not mean we are all the same or that you cannot have wealthy and poor, it means we at least provide basic needs above the levels of starvation, stealing and crime so that we all can benefit to pursue happiness (i.e., education, food, shelter). The alternative, at the time, was London (Oliver Twist) or Chicago (Upton Sinclair's The Jungle). For a modern example, look at Rio De Janiero. The poor barely survive in the sewers and the rich have bullet proof vests, decoys, helicopters and private enclaves to avoid theft, murder and kidnapping; neither are free to pursue any kind of liberty or freedom.

Square Deal

"Let the watchwords of all our people be the old familiar watchwords of honesty, decency, fair-dealing, and commonsense."... "We must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man. We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less.""The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
New York State Fair, Syracuse, September 7, 1903
"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have."
Speech to veterans, Springfield, IL, July 4, 1903
"We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal."
Letter to Sir Edward Gray, November 15, 1913

[IowaSkinsFan]

I can see how you misinterpreted what I wrote as to mean that I think unions should be illegal. I think the idea of a union is great, however so far in practice it has become a corrupt self serving, separate entity onto itself. In practice it is just a middle man, not an actual representation of the people who have banded together.

This is an issue that is not easy for me. Unions as they are do more bad than good IMO, especially in schools where the students interest is ignored for the adults. In theory a protected workforce should be able to serve its customers better, but really it just allows bad workers to keep their jobs. For schools specifically we need a system in which award and protection are given on merit, not on seniority. When good teachers are rewarded, there is incentive to be a good teacher. The problem is, in a large bureaucracy, how do we measure a teachers skills? Don't even get me started on the abomination that is standardized testing...

This is what I like about a free market. In a private school, a good teacher is simply what the collection of what everyone believes a good teacher to be. We don't need to try to approximate it. If a teacher does something bad or isn't good in the parents eyes, parents complain and the teacher is fired.

[a500lbgorilla]

Bullshit. Theorems can end as dead as an empty hole and are worthless until they work.

I'd tell you why it's not bullshit, but again it's my wheel house and even if I were, somehow, systematically wrong, you likely wouldn't be able to find it. {edit I put the reasons in and then removed them. It's not important}

I'm of the conclusion that money and wealth can be variably proportional and always intertwined, which leads to the difficult point that I need to learn things that I'm just not going to be learning any time soon.

To reconcile the chaotic but direct relationship between money and wealth would require knowledge of a lot, which is why I like thinking that they're two individual values, related only by some baser assumption that money is wealth. But I only like it for the clarity it brings, I don't think it's anything I can build from.

This thread has helped me appreciate some things that I wouldn't have before and right now I'm thinking an awesome form of gov't would be - regulatory only in making sure that consumers are fully informed and that businesses which generate wealth do not secretly shirk certain debts like pollution. "If I were a carrot farmer, I should also have to pay for the minerals I use on my farm, likely through purchasing them from soil producers which sounds obvious. But if I use a secret irrigation system tapping my neighbor's waterway, I should be discovered and held accountable for what I've taken from him."

That if you have a problem like Net Neutrality, you don't go to the central power and say "hey, guys, please make this a new rule for the game." And instead see to it that consumers know what they're buying and that any entrepreneur be made aware that consumers are demanding a net neutral provider. As demand goes, so should industry.

How this intersects with reality is still to be seen, but as far as idealisms go, I think it's a pretty good build.