Low incomes make poor more conservative, study finds

Nov 16, 2010 By George Lowery

You might think that in a time when more money is concentrated in fewer hands and incomes vary wildly from billions to subsistence, poor people might increase their support for government policies that offer some help.

Not in America.

New research findings add complexity to the basic assumption that humans act in their own economic self-interest. By analyzing hundreds of survey questions from 1952 to 2006, Peter Enns, assistant professor of government, and Nathan Kelly of the University of Tennessee found that as inequality rises, low income individuals' attitudes toward redistribution become more conservative. Their paper appears in the October issue of the American Journal of Political Science.

"It's a bit of a conundrum," Enns admits.

The researchers also examined public opinion data on the question: Should government increase spending on welfare, keep it the same or decrease it? "As inequality rose, the high- and low-income respondents on average become less supportive of spending on welfare," Enns said. "And this is not because low-income people are unaware of inequality; our results show they are more aware of it than most people."

The researchers found that higher levels of household income inequality in the United States generate more conservative public opinion. "We broke down pubic opinion by income group and found the high- and low-income groups responding in a similar way, both becoming more conservative when inequality rises," Enns said. "We were very surprised to observe that the self-reinforcing aspect of inequality holds for high- and low-income groups, and how they move together in parallel over time."

Previous economic models predicted that low-income individuals will consistently support government redistribution. "If anything, when inequality rises, low-income people should become more supportive, and that's not what we observe in the data," said Enns, a member of the Institute for Social Sciences theme project on Judgment, Decision Making, and Social Behavior and faculty director of the Cornell Prison Education Program.

Conversely, when inequality declines, the public becomes more liberal. The public works projects and other social programs following the Great Depression helped promote decades of declining inequality into the 1960s, Enns said. "And then there's a shift," he said. "Once inequality starts going back up, it appears to be perpetuated by . If inequality declined in the United States, our results suggest that then the public would become more supportive of government redistribution."

Nevertheless, people in the lowest income group favor more redistribution than those in the highest income group.

How might political parties make use of his research? "I could envision both parties finding an angle from these research conclusions to support what they want," Enns said. "On the one hand, someone could say that even low-income individuals want less government redistribution when inequality rises and we should listen to the people. Alternately, you could envision Democrats saying, inequality is rising, so it's necessary for the government to intervene."

Enns and Kelly are developing a proposal to the National Science Foundation to fund research on why conservatism appeals to the poor more when inequality rises, perhaps including an extensive content analysis of news media in print, on TV and online. One hypothesis: The public is following how media talks about household income inequality and how it relates to , as opposed to itself.

Explore further: Power struggles, doubt all found in the Facebook of Egypt's revolution

Related Stories

Risk of disability rises in states with income inequality

Nov 13, 2007

A massive survey conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto reveals Americans living in states with high rates of income inequality are significantly more likely to have a disability that limits the completion ...

'Happiness gap' in the US narrows

Jan 26, 2009

Happiness inequality in the U.S. has decreased since the 1970s, according to research published this month in the Journal of Legal Studies.

Recommended for you

Scholar tracks the changing world of gay sexuality

49 minutes ago

With same-sex marriage now legalized in 19 states and laws making it impossible to ban homosexuals from serving in the military, gay, lesbian and bisexual people are now enjoying more freedoms and rights than ever before.

User comments : 486

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Corban
4.3 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2010
Instead of imagining it as a two-sided battlefield between rich and poor, consider a totem model: high inequality means that not only are the rich richer than the poor, the poor are also richer than the super-poor. Everyone's worried about redistribution downwards, so even the poor will ignore their feud with those above them to defend against those below them.

Inequality makes people more defensive.
Donutz
4.4 / 5 (15) Nov 16, 2010
Or: when you have very little and you're just scraping by, even the thought of the guvmint taking some of it away from you to give it to someone else is offensive. The reality that these people would be net receivers is pretty much irrelevant against the emotional reaction.
VOR
3.5 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2010
no, they are just stupid. And I'm not saying that to be insulting. They blame the gov't for the problems, but the gov't on whole keeps things from being worse. Not that the gov't couldnt do better,
but it could do much worse, especially by doing nothing. To be indiscriminately against the gov't out of fear during hard times is just, plain, stupid.
marjon
1.5 / 5 (23) Nov 16, 2010
To be indiscriminately against the gov't out of fear during hard times is just, plain, stupid.

Not when the govt created and perpetuates the hard times to create a dependent class.

Is a study being prepared to find out why the rich prefer supporting liberals?

No study needed:

"There is no reason to wonder why those who lust for power are drawn to the left; or why the left has been consistently "chic" among the intellectuals, continuously for much more than a century. Socialism may impoverish and enslave, but it is the means by which the intellectual can hope to become the enslaver: through the creation of bureaucracies to advance and perpetuate fashionable progressive agendas."
{This is certainly proven true here.}
"Moreover, under present conditions in the Nanny State, big business and big government are mutually enabling. "
http://www.realcl...952.html
marjon
1.5 / 5 (14) Nov 16, 2010
It coldn't be the 'do as we say, not as we do' practice of the govt?

"Deficit cutters struggling to make ends meet in Washington are eyeballing an unusual pot of potential revenue: back taxes owed to the government by federal employees themselves. "
http://www.cnbc.c...40215318
mplee
4.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2010
does this mean that it's in conservatives' interest to keep income equality high? i don't know how they did it but how clever of them to subvert karl marx. workers unite...to keep taxes low for the rich!
marjon
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 16, 2010
"New research findings add complexity to the basic assumption that humans act in their own economic self-interest. By analyzing hundreds of survey questions from 1952 to 2006, Peter Enns, assistant professor of government, and Nathan Kelly of the University of Tennessee found that as inequality rises, low income individuals' attitudes toward redistribution become more conservative."

The assumption that people act in their self interest is not flawed. The flaw is assuming that people believe govt redistribution of income is in their self interest. They observe that a government that has the power to give everything to you also has the power to take everything from you.
They also observe that the redistributed income has strings attached and leads to dependency upon the govt.
People with lower incomes have demonstrated higher moral values and don't appreciate socialism.
Thrasymachus
3.1 / 5 (29) Nov 16, 2010
People with lower incomes have demonstrated higher moral values...
Are you high? Virtually all violent crime in any society, from homicide to armed robbery, is committed by the poorest individuals of that society.

The truth is that conservatism as a political philosophy is grounded in the fear of others. Fear that what you have will be taken away by someone else, fear that others will have the power to order you around. Fear increases at both ends of the social spectrum when inequality increases. The wealthy fear for their income potential, and the poor fear for their survival. When inequality abates, so does fear of the other, for he is more like you now, and the political philosophy of cooperation and hope for the future becomes more plausible and alluring.
marjon
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2010
Fear that what you have will be taken away by someone else,

When we have an govt that literally puts their hands in your pants before boarding an airplane, the fear has turned into reality.

Virtually all violent crime in any society, from homicide to armed robbery, is committed by the poorest individuals of that society.


And most of these individuals live in cities governed by liberals. Why do liberals like poverty and crime?

panorama
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2010
When we have an govt that literally puts their hands in your pants before boarding an airplane, the fear has turned into reality.


Sure, but it beats a pre-flight drink...and it's complimentary...
Thrasymachus
3.1 / 5 (25) Nov 16, 2010
Ok, yep you're high. First you claim that the poor are somehow more moral than everybody else, then when confronted with the fact that they are the ones committing most of the violent crime, you blame the fact that they're not more moral than everybody else on liberals. You contradict yourself and you blame everybody else for your own contradictions. Take responsibility for your own inadequacies, marjon.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2010
the fact that they are the ones committing most of the violent crime,

"The much-studied links between poverty and crime rates – which helped give rise to many Great Society programs – have not materialized so far in the Great Recession. Even with 15 percent of Americans now officially poor, both violent crime and property crime continued to drop in the United States in 2009, the FBI reported Monday."
"The idea of crime as a rational response helped to inspire Great Society welfare programs, in which income redistribution and social justice policy took center stage in reducing crime.

Current crime statistics, conservative critics say, shows that as thinking as faulty. "There's enough evidence now presented [to prove] that there's no correlation or a very small correlation between poverty and crime statistics," says long-time conservative social critic John Leo, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute."
http://www.csmoni...-but-FBI
marjon
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 16, 2010
" San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.

San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to "care more" about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot. "
""The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."

We saw that in Sioux Falls, S.D. The workers at the meat packing plant make about $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees there than anywhere else. "
"The nonworking poor -- people on welfare -- are very different, even though they have the same income. The nonworking poor don't give much at all. "
http://townhall.c..._charity
AG123
5 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2010
Bad science, with an even worse title. Correlation does not imply causation. Let me offer an alternative theory: During the 50's - 70's, people were more redistributionist. Then such theories fell into disrepute, and a more conservative economic model was pursued. Income inequality rose, but the economy improved considerably. It continued to grow, with hardly an interruption, from 1981-2006 (when the study ends). Perhaps people's opinions just changed. Fifty years ago, people thought FDR and his policies rescued the economy. In the eighties, people thought Reagan and his policies rescued the economy. Opinions change over time.

Furthermore, those more likely to vote for left-wing economic policies are consistently at either end of the economic spectrum. Voter poll after voter poll says so. Conversely, those who are in between the extremes tend to vote for conservative policies.
moebiex
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2010
By needing charity people feel they deserve it less but by understanding that need they want to share. Does that summarize the observations in this study? It kind of supports the contention that respect has to be earned and that one is usually one's own harshest critic.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2010
Fifty years ago, people thought FDR and his policies rescued the economy. In the eighties, people thought Reagan and his policies rescued the economy. Opinions change over time.

It is not just opinion. Data shows FDRs policies worsened the depression and Reagan's policies improved the economy.
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2010
It is not just opinion. Data shows FDRs policies worsened the depression and Reagan's policies improved the economy.

Why do you lie marjon? You know I hate it when you lie. The data shows precisely the opposite. The economy was improving under the New Deal until the deficit hawks started screaming about cutting spending, then it dips back down until spending resumed, finally to be rescued by the largest socialist endeavor in American history, the prosecution of WWII. The only thing Reagan did to help the economy was allow the very wealthy to sequester large amounts of capital which slowed down inflation. The economy didn't begin to improve until after he was forced to raise the taxes he campaigned on cutting.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2010
"After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years."
http://newsroom.u...409.aspx
"Amity Shlaes of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bloomberg News argues that government policies, beyond the Federal Reserve's tight money, deepened and prolonged the Depression. The policies included encouraging strong unions and wages higher than lagging productivity justified, on the theory that workers' spending would be stimulative. "
"Hoover's 1932 increase in the top income tax rate, from 25 percent to 63 percent, was unhelpful. And FDR's hyperkinetic New Deal created uncertainties that paralyzed private-sector decision-making. Which sounds familiar. "
http://townhall.c...new_deal
marjon
1 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2010
The economy didn't begin to improve until after he was forced to raise the taxes he campaigned on cutting.

"This study assesses the Reagan supply-side policies by comparing the nation's economicperformance in the Reagan years (1981-89) with its performance in the immediately preceding Ford-Carter years(1974-81) and in the Bush-Clinton years that followed (1989-95).
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan yearsthan during the pre- and post-Reagan years."
"This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagantax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's."
http://www.cato.o...a261.pdf
Look, sourced data. This is what is called research.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2010
In a survey of economic historians ... Members were asked to either disagree, agree, or agree with provisos with the statement that read: "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." While only 6% of economic historians who worked in the history department of their universities agreed with the statement, 27% of those that work in the economics department agreed. Almost an identical percent of the two groups (21% and 22%) agreed with the statement "with provisos"(a conditional stipulation), while 74% of those who worked in the history department, and 51% in the economic department disagreed with the statement outright.
Robert Whaples, "Where Is There Consensus Among American Economic Historians? The Results of a Survey on Forty Propositions", Journal of Economic History, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 139-154 in JSTOR via http://en.wikiped..._note-73
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (20) Nov 16, 2010
The job growth under the Reagan administration was an average of 2.1% per year, with unemployment averaging 7.5%. Comparing the recovery from the 1981-82 recession (1983–1990) with the years between 1971 (end of a recession) and 1980 shows that the rate of growth of real GDP per capita averaged 2.77 under Reagan and 2.50% under Nixon, Ford and Carter. However, the unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), while the average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%), and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%). Furthermore, real wages declined sharply during the Reagan Presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

See, I can do that too. It's not too surprising that you can find hack conservative economists that cook the books for hack conservative politicians.
js81pa
not rated yet Nov 16, 2010
I like the first two comments and you guys make a good point. I would add that maybe it has to do also with the fact that they are aware of the inequality issues and want a FIX and not a band-aid. I don't get in to politics but I am all for equality and less for handouts unless needed.

When those at the top stop trying to capitalize on those at the bottom and those with the large bank accounts start realizing they aren't better than anyone else, then maybe things will change and don't count on it. I don't care how smart someone is, if they can work a job, they should. I wish more people worked, were paid fairly and accordingly whether it is intellectually or physically and we could then all work less and take siestas like some European countries. The education system is whacked too. Paying for education? Education can fix many of the issues we face today. I would like to see US backed or more state backed colleges that assist or pay for education after high school for those that care
ekim
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2010
And most of these individuals live in cities governed by liberals. Why do liberals like poverty and crime?

Do you have facts to back this up?
I've checked based on states and I find no correlation between political preference and crime. California has the highest crime rates followed by Texas.
fishskicanoe
not rated yet Nov 17, 2010
Marx wouldn't have disappointed/surprised by this research. Marx would probably see this as a perfect example of the lumpen-proletariat as a counter-revolutionary force.

ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2010
Should government increase spending on welfare, keep it the same or decrease it?


The poor realize that it is the economy that feeds them, not the state, which merely takes from the economy and redistributes the wealth. The more it takes, the more poor there will be to feed, because of increasing dependency on welfare and making more people poor by high taxes and corruption. Thats why they want low welfare and taxes, for their own sake.

One exception could be healthcare, where majority of poor supported the reform..
Ethelred
4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2010
Look, sourced data.


Cato Institute? Sourced DATA?

Cato lies is what that is. They are so deranged there that they believe the Gold Standard does not require magical thinking.

I lived through the Reagan Admin. Its why I quit the Republican Party. The only he had going for him is that the oil prices dropped and that wasn't because of anything he did. Even with that he got us into MAJOR debt.

Then there were all those people that got convicted for corruption. Mostly by Republicans. Heck they even sent a hit squad from the FBI to try to catch Democratic members of the State Assembly in corruption. They wound up prosecuting and convicting NO Democrats but they did get TWO Republicans.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2010
The assumption that people act in their self interest is not flawed. The flaw is assuming that people believe govt redistribution of income is in their self interest.
No Marjon. Your definition of self interest is lacking.

Self interest is within the interests of self benefit. The problem is most people are too ignorant to recognize a self outside of themselves.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2010
The problem is most people are too ignorant to recognize a self outside of themselves.

It does not matter as long lying and stealing are not permitted

Do you have facts to back this up?

Observations, the first step in science. Did you account for the TX border in your 'observations'?

I am all for equality and less for handouts unless needed.

Equality of what? Equal opportunities or equal outcomes?

It's not too surprising that you can find hack conservative economists that cook the books for hack conservative politicians.

It's not too surprising that you can find hack socialist economists that cook the books for hack socialist politicians. That has been the state of 'liberal education' for decades.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2010
It does not matter as long lying and stealing are not permitted
Because the non-permission of it has really stemmed the tide of theft, hasn't it. After all, those laws about not coveting your neighbor's property came out yesterday, right? /sarcasm
Observations, the first step in science. Did you account for the TX border in your 'observations'?
Same country borders California. It is a non-element in statistical studies of crime.
That has been the state of 'liberal education' for decades.
You keep citing some liberal education bogeyman, truth is, it doesn't exist. You can't even begin to sum up what it looks like, where it's from, what it does, or how it works.

It's the educational red scare of McCarthyism once again.

Marjon, I've figured you out. You want to live in the 1950's where your women were ignorant housewives (Palin, Bachmann, etc) Your cars were giant gas guzzlers, America was seemingly the top of the world, and idiots like you ran the show.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2010
Same country borders California. It is a non-element in statistical studies of crime.

One major border town vs many is not significant?
marjon
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2010
women were ignorant housewives

What a chauvinist!
Palin should be a shining example of feminism to women.
She hunts, fishes, likes being outdoors, cooks, raises children, hold politic office...
She is more of a man than most men in the US today. But she is typical of the pioneer women who settled the US. It is no coincidence WY recognized women's voting rights long before the US did.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2010
One major border town vs many is not significant?
Making crap up like that doesn't make it true. Nor does the number of cities match the number of immigrants. And YOU were talking about immigrants. If it was drugs then you are even farther off of reality.

Both states ARE on the Mexican boarder. BOTH states have heavy influx of immigrants AND drugs.

BOTH states CONTROL the text books for that matter. So if the education is liberal TEXAS has a lot to do with it. More then California in fact. Texas is responsible for the idiotic way the texts avoid dealing with evolution.

It does not matter as long lying and stealing are not permitte


So why do you permit yourself to make up so much and even when you don't pull it out of your ass you take it from sources that pulled it out their ass. Like the Cato Institute of Ignorance and Nonsense.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2010
Palin should be a shining example of feminism to women.
That is ridiculous. She is a ignorant fool who QUIT when the going got tough. She was an embarrassment to McCain.
hold politic office...
No she doesn't. That is another falsehood. Even YOU must know she isn't Governor anymore. SHE QUIT.
She is more of a man than most men in the US today.
You really shouldn't use yourself as model for all men like that. Ignorance IS NOT a sign of manhood.
It is no coincidence WY recognized women's voting rights long before the US did.
It is also completely irrelevant to Palin being ignorant, incompetent and a quitter.

Ethelred
marjon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2010
Violent crime stats, per 100,000; 2007 data:

CA: 523
TX: 511
VT: 137 (no state gun laws)
SD: 171
ND: 128
NH: 139
NM: 563
AZ: 501
DC: 1508
http://www.census...0297.pdf

Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2010
women were ignorant housewives

What a chauvinist!
No, it would be chauvinism if it wasn't the social norm to have an under educated housewife, or if I was advocating for a return to the undereducated housewife.
Palin should be a shining example of feminism to women.
There are a lot of women reading this who would like to put the hurt on you right now, I'm sure.
She hunts, fishes, likes being outdoors, cooks, raises children, hold politic office.
So physical activity is the hallmark of an enlightened woman? Last I checked it was education and intellect. You know, like being able to tell someone what you read and where you read it when asked in a vice-presidential candidate interview.
She is more of a man than most men in the US today.
Hunting and fishing do not make one a man. Having a penis makes one a man.
But she is typical of the pioneer women who settled the US.
Yeah, uneducated, that's exactly my point.
marjon
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2010
No she doesn't. That is another falsehood. Even YOU must know she isn't Governor anymore. SHE QUIT.

She defeated the incumbent Rep. governor in a primary and then beat the dem.
She won two elections to earn the governorship and had more executive experience than either Obama or Biden, and it really shows today.
under educated housewife

She has a degree from an accredited university. Are you condemning the US education system?
a vice-presidential candidate interview.

Reading from a teleprompter and looking good on TV is more important than accomplishments?
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2010
TX: 511
VT: 137 (no state gun laws)


And what laws does Texas have on guns?

Funny how you just close your eyes and hope no one notices that the statistics you pull up DON'T support you.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2010
Reading from a teleprompter and looking good on TV is more important than accomplishments?
Ask Bush and Reagan.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2010
She defeated the incumbent Rep. governor in a primary and then beat the dem.
And that changes what I wrote HOW?

She IS NOT IN ANY OFFICE. Is that too much for you to accept? I know you don't like reality but this is ridiculous. She quit.
had more executive experience than either Obama or Biden, and it really shows today.
How does quiting show experience that WE need in government?
She has a degree from an accredited university. Are you condemning the US education system?
Not me. She is self made ignoramus. You have to work at it to know as little as she does and still get a degree.
Reading from a teleprompter and looking good on TV is more important than accomplishments?
Is reading from her HAND and looking good on TV more important than the fact that she quit when things got tough.

Ethelred
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2010
The people who did this study were surprised? They clearly weren't thinking out of their own comfortable box.

As far as news reporting goes:
Liberals tax more to support their programs.
Conservatives generally support overall tax cuts.

Poor people generally don't want to be taxed more because, well, they're poor. This stance lacks farsightedness, but it makes sense as to why poor would tend towards conservative.
Javinator
5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2010
She has a degree from an accredited university. Are you condemning the US education system?


Sarah Palin attended 6 colleges in 6 years. She has a university degree in journalism with a minor in politics.

http://www.nydail...was.html

Which means she essentially went to university to learn how to be interesting on TV?
marjon
1 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2010
Hey Ethel, you're just angry that most of the candidates Palin actively campaigned for around the country won.
Most that Obama campaigned for, lost.
As for 'quitting' the AK gov job, she left the state in good hands and had more important tasks to accomplish.
But, I guess a 'liberal' can't understand giving up power.
Now many democrats are urging Obama to 'quit' by not running in 2012.
Rham quits. Where is the outrage?
panorama
5 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2010
a vice-presidential candidate interview.

Reading from a teleprompter and looking good on TV is more important than accomplishments?

So reading off of your hand is better?

http://www.youtub...VMTZkTZQ

edit: didn't refresh, you beat me to it Ethelred
marjon
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2010
Biden: "when the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed he said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’"

How many times have the 'liberals' elected him?
marjon
1 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2010
She has a university degree in journalism with a minor in politics.

Gore majored in govt, made an attempt at journalism and dropped out of law school. But he is an expert on world climate.
Oh, and Gore's father was a US senator and was wealthy from oil.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2010
Gore majored in govt, made an attempt at journalism and dropped out of law school. But he is an expert on world climate.
Oh, and Gore's father was a US senator and was wealthy from oil.
Palin dropped out 5 times, married a secessionist and you think she's pro-America.

If she's so pro-america why did she marry someone who advocated leaving it?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2010
Violent crime stats, per 100,000; 2007 data:

CA: 523
TX: 511
VT: 137 (no state gun laws)
SD: 171
ND: 128
NH: 139
NM: 563
AZ: 501
DC: 1508
http://www.census...0297.pdf

Or better yet, perhaps we should heed the reasons why they say to not use this report for state to state ranking.
http://www2.fbi.g...ime.html
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2010
women were ignorant housewives

What a chauvinist!
Palin should be a shining example of feminism to women.
She hunts, fishes, likes being outdoors, cooks, raises children, hold politic office...
She is more of a man than most men in the US today. But she is typical of the pioneer women who settled the US. It is no coincidence WY recognized women's voting rights long before the US did.


Ha! you sound like my brother. He thinks fishing, hunting, and being outdoors make people manly and are the most important things in the world. I think it's time we started valuing education and honesty as traits of both men and women. Palin has neither.
marjon
1 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2010
I think it's time we started valuing education and honesty as traits of both men and women. Palin has neither.

What an intolerant bigot!
People who hunt and fish are some of the most honest and intelligent people I know.
My grandfather knew more as an 8th grade graduate than PhDs know today. He knew FDRs New Deal was wrong because he lived through it.
marjon
1 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2010
If she's so pro-america why did she marry someone who advocated leaving it?

"Nothing America has done in Michelle Obama’s adult life, which at 44 goes back 26 years to 1982, has made her proud of her country? Nothing?"
Why did she want her husband to be president of a country did not like?
http://hotair.com...6-years/
marjon
1 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2010
Correction:
Why did Michelle Obama want her husband to be president of a country she did not like?

it's time we started valuing education[q/]
How do you want to reward education? Completion of a degree without any other accomplishments?
The USA used to value accomplishments. People were rewarded for what they did, not what they know.
What used to make the USA great was a Harvard dropout (Bill Gates) could become a billionaire. OR Andrew Carnegie or Henry Ford or ...
[/blockquote]
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2010
it's time we started valuing education

How do you want to reward education? Completion of a degree without any other accomplishments?
The USA used to value accomplishments. People were rewarded for what they did, not what they know.
What used to make the USA great was a Harvard dropout (Bill Gates) could become a billionaire. OR Andrew Carnegie or Henry Ford or ...
DamienS
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2010
People who hunt and fish are some of the most honest and intelligent people I know.

What's the correlation between killing animals and IQ? That's a ridiculous linkage.
My grandfather knew more as an 8th grade graduate than PhDs know today.

An even more ridiculous assertion.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2010
How do you want to reward education? Completion of a degree without any other accomplishments?
The USA used to value accomplishments. People were rewarded for what they did, not what they know.
What used to make the USA great was a Harvard dropout (Bill Gates) could become a billionaire. OR Andrew Carnegie or Henry Ford or ...
runner up for Ms. Wasilla Alaska? The woman who has been quoted as saying that 15 year olds who are raped by immediate family members should not be able to get abortions?

My grandfather knew more as an 8th grade graduate than PhDs know today.
Then why didn't he teach you anything?
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2010
Hey Ethel, you're just angry that most of the candidates Palin actively campaigned for around the country won.
Still making up more stuff to defend making stuff up I see.

She quit. That is enough to say she is not fit for office. If you can't see this your blind. Then again we already knew that.
As for 'quitting' the AK gov job, she left the state in good hands and had more important tasks to accomplish.
Yes. Lying on TV while reading from her hand. She quit and left the job to someone that was far more able. Heck LOTS of people are far more able. Not you of course as you have the same flaws. An inability to learn and a need to blame others for their problems.
But, I guess a 'liberal' can't understand giving up power
Liberal, which I am not, is NOT an insult. Quitter is. She quit because she couldn't take the heat.
Where is the outrage?
I am shocked Shocked I say that you are outraged that anyone would expect a person to do the job.

Ethelred
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2010
I think it's time we started valuing education and honesty as traits of both men and women. Palin has neither.

What an intolerant bigot!
People who hunt and fish are some of the most honest and intelligent people I know.
My grandfather knew more as an 8th grade graduate than PhDs know today. He knew FDRs New Deal was wrong because he lived through it.


You're an idiot. How am I a bigot? For stating that too many people value certain activities with masculinity? Did I say that people who hunt and fish are dumb? Your grandfather knew more than a Ph.D? Really? A Ph.D in what? A Ph.D isn't a degree in a single field. A Ph.D in physics or taxidermy? There's a difference. I doubt he knew more than all Ph.D's since he wasn't an expert in everything. Just sit back and stop posting until you get your "wits" about you.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2010
What an intolerant bigot!
People who hunt and fish are some of the most honest and intelligent people I know
Is that where you learned to lie so much?
My grandfather knew more as an 8th grade graduate than PhDs know today
I think my grandfather would have thought that was a fool thing to say. He was a cop. Later he caught quacks who had Mds. He thought his brother was foolish to pass up his chance at High School also to join the LAPD.

However I can see where you get your attitude towards education. Learning is anathema to you, though you do seem impressed with Palin's education. I guess it is the way she managed to stay ignorant.
He knew FDRs New Deal was wrong because he lived through it
I lived through Reagan. Reagan was not good for the US economy. He was good for Japans. He got five magabucks as a reward after he got out of office.
How many times have the 'liberals' elected him?
How many times did AMERICANS elect him? You got a problem with Americans?

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2010
How many times did AMERICANS elect him? You got a problem with Americans?
He supports a secessionist quitter, of course he has a problem with Americans.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2010
Well he could move to someplace that practices what he preaches. Such a place does exist. Probably more than the one I am thinking of.

Ethelred
MinnItMan
5 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2010
Assuming that redistribution from rich-to-poor is "fair," redistributionism still doesn't really deal with the problem that some "poor" get more than other "poor," and consequently is often not perceived as "fair" by "beneficiaries." Eric Hoffer explained this a long time ago that envy is the strongest when differences are the least. The guy with a crummy little fishing boat doesn't envy Trump's yacht so much as his neighbor's BassMaster. The "poor" get really frosted over very slight manifestations of "unfairness" - affirmative action, special education for "other" kids, public employees who retire at age 55, etc.

Rich liberals, on the other hand (and I respect this), get really spooked by how brutal economic forces are. They have pretty good access (a lot of rich friends) to how many enterprises have some kind of ripoff as their basic business model - e.g. selling bad mortgages to people who can't afford them makes you more money than selling good mortgages to people who can.
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2010
Gore majored in govt, made an attempt at journalism and dropped out of law school. But he is an expert on world climate.
Oh, and Gore's father was a US senator and was wealthy from oil.


That would be a great point if I'd ever said I was a Gore supporter, had supported the stance that Gore was a climate expert, or had ever expressed how impressed I was with Gore's educational background.

My grandfather knew more as an 8th grade graduate than PhDs know today.


Psh. MY grandfather knew more in the 7th grade than every scientist put together ever. See? I can do that too.

First of all, you can't assert everything your grandfather knew. Second of all, you can't assert what PhD's know (and as trekgeek said, PhD's come in all kinds of flavors). Your points are... well they're annoyingly illogical and not backed by anything.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2010
Marjon can do whatever he likes. He's a Libertarian and maybe they don't have to be rational. It's in the in the spec sheet. I am sure it is, as my Mother's cousins nieces uncles aunt said she saw the golden tablet that had Ann Rands promise that it was true that if you were a Randite you didn't actually have to try to think because she did it all for you.

And the Cato Institute agreed about gold. Or was that has a greed for. I can't remember but its all true because I said so and I can post links that agree.

http://www.everyt...true.org

See its even a .org site so money has nothing to with the results.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2010
He's a Libertarian and maybe they don't have to be rational.
Nope, he certainly isn't. He's an ultra right neo-conservative corporatist. Effectively, he's the exact opposite of what anyone would call a realist.
marjon
1 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2010
Geek, still wondering how you plan to 'value education'? I heard a Boston U or C Art History grad complain that she couldn't find a job. How should her education be valued and who should pay her for it?
Henry Ford valued education by hiring what he needed. He did not graduate high school, but he knew when to hire knowledge when he needed it.
The USA is 'valuing' education by making K-12 free and trying to make a college degrees free. People value what they pay for and we see that in the K-12 test results. The 'value' of bachelor's degree is less so now a master's is more valuable, but what of the education quality?
I hear now the jobs that are and will be in high demand are technical/trade jobs like plumbers, electricians, auto-mechanics, etc.
Do you value a trade school eduction?

See its even a .org site so money has nothing to with the results.

Wow, you will believe anything!
Javinator
5 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2010
Of course it's hard for an Art History Grad to get a job. What are the career paths? Teaching, working in a museum or library... I'm sure there are more, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

The 'value' of a bachelors degree is actually quite relative to how many jobs there are in that field at the time of graduation. Some bachelors degrees are more valuable than others.

An Art History major would likely need a masters/PhD to do anything because it would require them specializing in a field and becoming an expert making them more valuable as a teacher/curator/etc.

An engineering grad for example (depending on their discipline) would not necessarily need a masters to get into industry. They may acquire one later to specialize or move up in a company or just because they'd rather do research.

Trade/technical education is extremely valuable as well by the way.

Wow, you will believe anything!


Woosh right over your head...
KwasniczJ
1.4 / 5 (20) Nov 18, 2010
Actually there's a symmetry: very high income makes rich conservative, too. Only the perspective of further income increasing is what makes people liberal & creative.

Actually the above rule applies to ideas spreading, too. A people poor of ideas are quite conservative in the same way, like the people, who got high social credit from their ideas already.

Most of people here are fighting against proponents of new ideas just from pure jealousy.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2010
Of course it's hard for an Art History Grad to get a job. What are the career paths? Teaching, working in a museum or library... I'm sure there are more, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

The 'value' of a bachelors degree is actually quite relative to how many jobs there are in that field at the time of graduation. Some bachelors degrees are more valuable than others.

An Art History major would likely need a masters/PhD to do anything because it would require them specializing in a field and becoming an expert making them more valuable as a teacher/curator/etc.

An engineering grad for example (depending on their discipline) would not necessarily need a masters to get into industry. They may acquire one later to specialize or move up in a company or just because they'd rather do research.

Trade/technical education is extremely valuable as well by the way.

The question still remains, how is education to be valued?
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2010
"Hayek argues that exceptionally intelligent people who favor the market tend to find opportunities for professional and financial success outside the Academy (i.e., in the business or professional world). Those who are highly intelligent but ill-disposed toward the market are more likely to choose an academic career. For this reason, the universities come to be filled with those intellectuals who were favorably disposed toward socialism from the beginning."
"academics receive many direct benefits from the welfare state, and that these benefits have increased over time." {Is this how education should be valued?}
"To see why this government aid is so important to the higher education establishment, we need only stop to consider for a moment what academics would do in a purely free society. The fact is that most academics simply aren't that important. In a free society, there would be far fewer of them than there are today."
http://mises.org/daily/2318
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2010
Marjon can do whatever he likes. He's a Libertarian and maybe they don't have to be rational.

Ethelred
I beg to differ! While I know Marjon has actually written that he's Libertarian on here in the past, little else that he's written actually confirms this. I just can't think of him as any kind of genuine Libertarian...it's, hell, it's offensive. If anything, he's conforms more to right-wing anarchism or more specifically right-wing corporate anarchism, but Libertarian he is not. Of course, if anyone wants to make the sad case that Marjon is an upstanding example of what Libertarianism has mutated into in America, I understand...fearfully. Watching the States descend into the kind of utterly uncivil politically dysfunctional morass that it has over the last 25 yrs just leaves me bewildered and very, very worried.

By the way, Eth, nice to see you back.
Thrasymachus
2.4 / 5 (17) Nov 18, 2010
It's not too surprising that you can find hack socialist economists that cook the books for hack socialist politicians.
I like how in marjon's world, 94% of economic historians are socialist hacks. I also like how he quotes an academic on the failings of other academics.

It's too bad his corporate overlords have pulled the wool over his eyes so effectively. He is so dogged in his support for free markets (though he clearly has no understanding of what they are), and yet supports the party and ideology committed to taking the quickest and most destructive path to communism possible, through supply-side economics.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2010
his corporate overlords

It is interesting that is is the present socialist regime that is well supported by the corporate overlords.
Since the time of TR, 'progressives' have been supported by large corporate interests to limit competition. Oppressive 'progressive' regulations force small companies out of business. Minimum wage laws do the same for the labor market.
And yet the socialists here demand more govt regulation playing right into the hands of your corporate overlords.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2010
Wow, you will believe anything!

I don't believe you. So no.
To see why this government aid is so important to the higher education establishment, we need only stop to consider for a moment what academics would do in a purely free society.
Quoting idiots doesn't help. The reason so many go to college is because EMPLOYERS insist on degrees. That and it used be a way to avoid the draft but that one is gone. Just employers these days.
Since the time of TR, 'progressives' have been supported by large corporate interests to limit competition
Ah yes you hate TR. We know that already. After all he stopped the monopolists you so wish become. He was a Republican. They have been supported by corporations since they became part of the military-industrial complex during the Civil War. So you made up another bit of nonsense.

Just to remind you. Palin is a quiter not a role model, well except to those that are willfully blind. For those she is an excellent role model.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2010
Quoting idiots doesn't help. The reason so many go to college is because EMPLOYERS insist on degrees.

So Ethel, I don't have to prove you are wrong? I just need to state you are an idiot? That will certainly make science easier. All anyone who disagrees need to claim the author is an idiot.

Second, employers in the USA ask for degrees because they are not allowed by the govt to specifically state who they are looking for for a job.

Monopolies can only exist with govt protection, not in market competition.

As for Palin, I am sure she will not quit supporting the conservative take over of the senate and the white house in 2012. That is a higher calling that will most certainly irritate 'liberals' and 'populists'.
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2010
"Interest in Hayek and his work increased after the 1974 award (his Nobel speech being a reiteration of his Counterrevolution thesis) and has kept on that track until today - his stock being enormously boosted by the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. "
http://homepage.n...ayek.htm
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2010
I just need to state you are an idiot?

Go ahead show that EMPLOYERS don't want degrees. Quotes from fantasy land are NOT proof.
Second, employers in the USA ask for degrees because they are not allowed by the govt
Pretending the government is responsible won't change the job market.
Monopolies can only exist with govt protection, not in market competition.
Last time you claimed that you went on to redefine monopoly and ignore all the trusts that lost monopoly cases. And stonewall on Standard Oil instead.
As for Palin, I am sure she will not quit
I sure she will still have quit office of Governor of Alaska. Thus still be unfit to hold office.
That is a higher calling that will most certainly irritate 'liberals' and 'populists'
Pontificating out of ignorance on TV does not qualify as a 'higher calling' except to Radio Personalities.
So that's it, you want to work for FOX and tell lies on TV.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2010
Interest in Hayek and his work increased after the 1974


How nice. Too bad the quote in question was from Peter G. Klein. You really do want Rush's job.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2010
I hear now the jobs that are and will be in high demand are technical/trade jobs like plumbers, electricians, auto-mechanics, etc.
Do you value a trade school eduction?
You don't need to follow traditional education schemas to become educated. You also don't need to have any value whatsoever or maintain consistency in your field of study. You jsut need to not be a moron and continue to educate yourself.

School should teach you how to learn, not force memorization. Memorization is indoctrination, you know, like church.
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2010
I am still waiting for Geeks answer as to how he wants us to 'value education'?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2010
I am still waiting for Geeks answer as to how he wants us to 'value education'?

We're still waiting on your answer to the ideal government question. Perhaps you get a little when you give a little.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2010
I am still waiting for Geeks answer as to how he wants us to 'value education'?

We're still waiting on your answer to the ideal government question. Perhaps you get a little when you give a little.

I answered. If you don't like the answer, too bad.
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2010
And the 'liberal' navel gazing continues:
"Liberalism once embraced the mission of fostering upward mobility and a stronger economy. But liberalism’s appeal has diminished, particularly among middle-class voters, as it has become increasingly control-oriented and economically cumbersome."
"Modern-day liberalism, however, is often ambivalent about expanding the economy — preferring a mix of redistribution with redirection along green lines. Its base of political shock troops, public-employee unions, appears only tangentially interested in the health of the overall economy.
"Populism, a traditional supporter of liberalism, has been undermined by a deep suspicion that President Barack Obama’s economic policy favors Wall Street investment bankers over those who work on Main Street."
Read more: http://www.politi...o"
Populists are not 'liberals'?
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2010
I answered. If you don't like the answer, too bad.


You never answer questions in a straight forward manner. You usually just respond with an unrelated question or say you already answered the question earlier.

It's a long thread. Feel free to remind us (we repeat things for you all the time).
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2010
I answered. If you don't like the answer, too bad.


You never answer questions in a straight forward manner. You usually just respond with an unrelated question or say you already answered the question earlier.

It's a long thread. Feel free to remind us (we repeat things for you all the time).

This is the place to start:
http://www.uscons...nst.html
Populists don't like such standards because they are not popular.
panorama
5 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2010
No ethics except situational. Ends justify means.

I thought marjon already gave us his ideal government. I still don't like it.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2010
This is the place to start:
http://www.uscons...nst.html
Populists don't like such standards because they are not popular.
How about the rest of it, or do you just want to Taliban it into existence?

"Hey afghanistan, what're your government plans"
"Uh, who cares"

That's the answer you're giving. Perhaps I should park a tank on your lawn.
geokstr
1 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2010
...who QUIT when the going got tough.

Ethel the Red, you and the other leftists who keep spouting this "quitter" meme are disgusting, despicable human beings. Why exactly did the "going get tough" anyway? It was because the democratic party coordinated a massive campaign to bankrupt her and her family by filing dozens of absolutley frivolous "ethics" charges against her, all of which she was fully acquitted of, but after she had run up a $500,000 legal bill defending herself. Unlike most leftists who get rich campaign donors to fund their legal defenses, she was not allowed to do so by law.

So you and your leftist creeps try to destroy her and then when she does what she has to do to defend herself from you slimeballs, you get to scream "Quitter!". That's like a defendant in a murder trial blaming the victim for getting in the way of the bullet they had deliberately aimed at the victim's head. Puke.

Does the "red" in your name stand for Marxist?
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2010
No ethics except situational. Ends justify means.

I thought marjon already gave us his ideal government. I still don't like it.


That was not my view. It was my description of the populist's govt philosophy.
marjon
1.3 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2010
""Hey afghanistan, what're your government plans"
"Uh, who cares"
"
Really, why do nation states care? They don't want to have to deal with tribal leaders that have no defined borders. Most conflicts today are the result of top down creation of nation states forcing people with different languages and cultures into an artificial nation.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2010
Really, why do nation states care?


This is why your form of government is going to be laughable, if you ever tell us what it is. You do realize that you're promoting the Constitution, and then undercutting the Constitution.

Truth is, you don't know what you want, you haven't given it any thought, and you have no repsonse because Glenn Beck hasn't told you what to tell us.
Most conflicts today are the result of top down creation of nation states forcing people with different languages and cultures into an artificial nation.
No, most conflicts are a direct result of corporatism, your ideal governance.
but after she had run up a $500,000 legal bill defending herself
You mean the one after she got her multimillion dollar forward for writing her book? (probably in crayon). If she wasn't corrupt, the AG of her state wouldn't have been able to mount an ethics investigation. FYI: He was a republican.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2010
Ethel the Red, you and the other leftists who keep spouting this "quitter" meme are disgusting, despicable human beings.
So you would rather hide under a rock than deal with reality. I am not the disgusting person that said I wasn't an American because I didn't agree with her. She did that while campaigning for VP.
Why exactly did the "going get tough" anyway?
Doesn't matter. She couldn't handle it.
So you and your leftist creeps try to destroy he
She self destructed. I had nothing to do with it. So quit lying that I did.
slimeballs, you get to scream "Quitter!".
She quit. And then you call us names for pointing it out. This sort of behavior is deeply disturbing and is the reason I would quit the Republican Party if I hadn't done so during the Reagan Admin.
Does the "red" in your name stand for Marxist?
Idiot. It stands for advice or rule. Get a clue.

http://en.wikiped..._Unready

Ethelred Hardrede
That's my alternate handle
DamienS
2 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2010
Does the "red" in your name stand for Marxist?
Idiot. It stands for advice or rule. Get a clue.

http://en.wikiped..._Unready

That link has a problem, but this one works:
http://en.wikiped..._Unready
DamienS
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2010
Bizarre, now the quoted link works, but not the one I posted. Oh well...
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2010
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2010
And your point is? I do like clarity.

I am not going to try to guess. I want to know what YOU think that is supposed to mean to me.

I go on reason not American Idol or whatever.

Well whatever you think that is supposed to mean to me SHE QUIT which makes her unfit for office. Kind of like Rev. Jesse Jackson had not business running for President. Some people just can't deal with politics. She can't even deal with reality. I suppose you might find that attractive.

Ethelred
TheWalrus
5 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2010
Maybe the poor figure that thinking like rich people will make them richer.

Or maybe people are poor because they can't think very well, and are very susceptible to the right's propaganda.
stvnwlsn
5 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2010
Sarah Palin is an airhead who's only in it for the money. I guess that makes her no different than any other Richpublican politician. As far as the hunting and outdoorswoman, that's just being in Alaska. She would however sell out that lifestyle by allowing Big Money to exploit her wilderness and ruin one of the last pristine places in America.
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2010
Sarah Palin is an airhead who's only in it for the money. I guess that makes her no different than any other Richpublican politician. As far as the hunting and outdoorswoman, that's just being in Alaska. She would however sell out that lifestyle by allowing Big Money to exploit her wilderness and ruin one of the last pristine places in America.

Why are socialists so interested in other people's money? I know, dumb question. They want to take it, of course.
stvnwlsn
5 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2010
You remind me, something I've observed about conservatives. They must label everything, put it in a nice neat box. If they can't define something it makes them very uncomfortable. Guess that's why they can't comprehend EVOLUTION, change, being pliable instead of being rigid. The universe is constantly changing, that is the essence of life.

Someone should do a study on this.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2010
If they can't define something it makes them very uncomfortable.

I've notices 'liberals' don't like be called socialists, even though that is what they support.
I guess that is why they can't comprehend individual liberty and personal property rights.
stvnwlsn
4.8 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2010
I do indeed comprehend individual liberty and have served to protect it, as have many in both parties. I believe the government should stay out of my bedroom and my stash. It should not be protecting me from myself by requiring me to wear seatbelts but compiling and desemenating the facts on how many lives they save.I also comprehend that "personal property" is only something borrowed while you are in this physical realtiy. Not some solid and unchanging commodity. You can't own another life and everything changes in value relative to experience of those observing it.
JimBlimm
1 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2010
Inequality makes people more defensive.


Actually, no. Redistribution makes people more defensive.
tigger
4.7 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2010
Gap between rich and poor is getting bigger and bigger, middle class are dissolving... this is happening in every single capitalist country... the only thing that re-distributes is world war... massive world war.

I thought humans were smarter than this, but no, "Capitalism is the best thing we've got" and if you talk about any of its shortcomings the response is "well communism doesn't work! what are you... a communist!??" or similar rants about socialism.

Get it through your thick skulls... saying there is a problem with capitalism DOES NOT MEAN SUPPORT FOR COMMUNISM OR SOCIALISM.
JimBlimm
1 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2010
Inequality makes people more defensive.


Actually, not quite: Redistribution makes people more defensive.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2010
It's really simple.

All the money that goes to welfare is taxed out of the middle class, who then won't have the money to spend, which means the poor people who actually work the low end market don't get enough pay and become dependent on the government handouts to a greater degree.

So all that accomplishes is cutting the blanket at one end to sow it back to the other, except with the additional caveat that the government invariably spends some, if not most of the new taxes collected into something completely different, like wasting it on wars or big corporate interests etc.

It is not in the interest of the poor to give their money away to the government, so that the government could give some of it back to them.

Even if it helps with the income disparity a little, the whole economy is still worse off due to government spending the money wrong, and the people's living standards are lowered.
stvnwlsn
5 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2010
In a nutshell I would say conservatives seem to be more motivated by fear (someone's gonna threaten me or what I have). That's why they have mastered using it in campaigns. On the other hand liberals are more logical and can't understand why people don't see voting republican is against their best interest unless they are rich or powerful.
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2010
In a nutshell I would say conservatives seem to be more motivated by fear (someone's gonna threaten me or what I have). That's why they have mastered using it in campaigns. On the other hand liberals are more logical and can't understand why people don't see voting republican is against their best interest unless they are rich or powerful.

How is it in anyone's best interest to have liberals gang up the minority and steal their wealth?
It is not in the interest of the poor to give their money away to the government, so that the government could give some of it back to them.

It is not in the best interest of anyone to have the govt take their wealth and buy voters.
marjon
1 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2010
Get it through your thick skulls... saying there is a problem with capitalism DOES NOT MEAN SUPPORT FOR COMMUNISM OR SOCIALISM.

Sure it is. How else do you plan to 'fix' capitalism?
The only problem I see with capitalism is too much govt intervention. Oh, wait, that is called socialism. So the only problem with capitalism is too much socialism.
stvnwlsn
5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2010
Be patient with Marjon, Tigger, he sees only black or white, true or false good or bad, 1s or 0s. There is no in between for him (no shades of grey). In his mind capitalism means only the rich having all the power and the only rules are those made up by the powerful and the big man in the sky, of course. As for the rest, if they suffer it is "must the will of god".
stvnwlsn
5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2010
"How is it in anyone's best interest to have liberals gang up the minority and steal their wealth?"

Well when a tiny minority control the overwhelming majority of wealth and in turn power I would say everyone should be a little concerned.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2010
capitalism means only the rich having all the power and the only rules are those made up by the powerful and the big man in the sky

That is the definition of the greedy, envious socialist.

Capitalism is a social system based upon individual property rights.

and in turn power

That's the double edged sword of socialism. As the state usurps more power to control private property, people will want to control those who control them. That is the democratic way. People try to influence politicians and bureaucrats for their best interest. Millions contact their member of Congress to resolve some issue they have with an agency.
In a capitalist system, the state protects and respects everyone's private property, equally.
BTW, the world is not gray. Gray on a newspaper is created by fewer black dots on a white background.
I would say everyone should be a little concerned.
Especially when the majority steals property.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2010
Sure it is. How else do you plan to 'fix' capitalism?
The only problem I see with capitalism is too much govt intervention. Oh, wait, that is called socialism. So the only problem with capitalism is too much socialism.

You certainly have a skewed definition of socialism and capitalism.

The Free market has brought us such lovely world wonders, like flammable rivers, SoCal Smog, Oil well disasters, and black markets.

I think it's time for a regulatory change, and regulations aren't socialism. Marjon, when you play with your coloring books do you keep your colors in the lines or do you jsut take a shit in the book and smush it closed?
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2010
The Free market has brought us such lovely world wonders, like flammable rivers, SoCal Smog, Oil well disasters, and black markets.

It did not.
What brought these was the failure of the state to protect private property rights.
The state decided industries that created jobs and profits were more important to protect than everyone's property rights.
Socialism is state control of private property. Regulations are the laws the state uses to control private property regardless of unintended consequence.
"The necessity to control environmental externalities is almost invariably given
as justification for commandandcontrol
regulation and other forms of state intervention in
related markets."
"A review
of the common law experience indicates that the rule of law can be effective in protecting
environmental rights. Indeed, it is quite possible that common law was too effective, which led
to special interest demand for statute law."
http://www.spring...66xx33n6
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2010
"Common law rights, protected by rules of law,
restricted the ability of polluters to avoid the cost of pollution. Polluters who disregarded the law were fined and enjoined."
"A review of the common law experience indicates that the rule of law can be effective in protecting
environmental rights. Indeed, it is quite possible that common law was too effective, which led
to special interest demand for statute law.""
"At common law, there
were no EPA permits or uniform technology requirements that blessed the
actions of the polluter."
http://www.spring...text.pdf
Imagine, SH supports the special interests he claims to oppose.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2010
"top trade association leaders (industry lobbyists) make multimillion-dollar salaries to "keep tabs on what the federal government was doing or might do." "
"These outsize earnings are symptomatic of a disease that is slowly killing the American economy. We are creating so much regulation - over tax policy, health care, financial activity - that smart people have figured out that they can get rich faster and more easily by manipulating rules on behalf of existing corporations than by creating net new activity and wealth. Gamesmanship pays better than entrepreneurship. "
"The more complexity, the more incumbents are favored. They have the capital to participate in complicated regulatory proceedings. They can hire high-priced lobbyists to present facts in a light most favorable to them. The more incumbents are favored, the harder it is for new companies to gain traction. "
http://www.washin...073.html
SH wants MORE regulation!
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2010
"Of course other people's money is only other people's money if you're one of the people in Washington spending it or one of the big businesses and special interests that profit from it. In reality, it's our money. But the power of other people's money allows the spenders to call the people greedy when they want to keep more of it and selfish when they demand that government spend less of it and wisely.
The problem, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once pointed out, is that the people doing the spending eventually run out of other people's money. "

http://www.mysana...storytop
How many times have I been called greedy and selfish? OPM is YOUR money, too.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2010
The Free market has brought us such lovely world wonders, like flammable rivers, SoCal Smog, Oil well disasters, and black markets.
It did not.
What brought these was the failure of the state to protect private property rights.
So you are for or against pollution controls, and cap and trade?
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2010
Sometimes I wonder why we bother to continue engaging with marjon. He has no clue, even how to run a single business, let alone how those businesses interact with one another and with consumers in the grand tapestry of an economy.

The flaw in modern Republican economic ideology (I won't even call it conservative, as that would insult real conservatives) is that they are obsessed with liberating producers, and believe that the rights and freedoms of consumers can take care of themselves. Even Democrats have been blinkered into accepting this focus, though they wisely recognize that there must be reasonable limits on the producers. Neither has yet accepted that for a free market to work, there have to be free consumers as well.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2010
like flammable rivers,


Burn on big river

That's my favorite line in the movie Major League and it comes in a song during the opening credits.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2010
reasonable limits on the producers.

These are called customers.

So you are for or against pollution controls, and cap and trade?

I support private property rights. Do you?
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2010
like flammable rivers,


Burn on big river

That's my favorite line in the movie Major League and it comes in a song during the opening credits.

Ethelred

"Also hampering the clean-up process were state laws--and inaction to enforce them for decades--enabling certain industries to continue to pollute with immunity against prosecution and the less civic-minded continued to dump waste into the waterway."
"Cleveland's hands had been tied where state laws overrode local authority and did not allow the city to take action against the polluters. "
http://www.eureka...1704.php
The city was prevented by other govt from protecting the river.
Just as Obama is suing AZ for trying to protect its border from invasion and crime.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2010
SH wants MORE regulation!
Protection of property rights, especially from property owning polluters, requires regulation. Three posts of RightWingNut fantasy to support the your anti environmental regulation rant. Typical of you.

You support people using property to repress people with little or no property and you call it stealing when people try to get together to defend themselves.

I support private property rights. Do you?


Yes I do and no you don't. You support the use of property as a weapon. That is what property becomes without legal protection for those without property. Or those with less property.

Ethelred
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2010
A person cannot be free when a threat to a person's life, health and well-being, or to his or her children's, hangs over the one or more of the choices he or she wishes to make. You need money to have food to eat, a roof over your head and clothes to wear, and without government intervention, the only reliable access to money comes from a job, and there's the rub.

The human input in production is worth less and less these days. A global reach means corporations can hire the cheapest labor in the world, fresh from subsistence living, and advancing technologies is making demand even for this labor fall off. (cont)
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2010
Furthermore, there just simply are no longer enough jobs to employ everyone who wants and needs one, no matter what they do. How can a potential consumer be free when he is told he will die because he cannot afford to buy food at the prices it's being offered, and is refused a job to make more money because there aren't enough to go around?

As things stand, businesses have more freedom to pick their preferred customers, ignoring and even screwing over all the others, while consumers have diminishing freedom to pick who they will purchase or even if they will be able to purchase.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2010
without government intervention, the only reliable access to money comes from a job, and there's the rub.

Where did the govt get the money? From those who have jobs and create the wealth.
Protection of property rights, especially from property owning polluters, requires regulation.

Only when the govt fails. If a coal fire power plant is causing Hg to rain down on you. You demand it must stop, and under common law property rights, the state must force the plant to stop polluting your property.
So Ethel wants to protect the rights of power plants to pollute.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2010
As things stand, businesses have more freedom to pick their preferred customers,

How?
ignoring and even screwing over all the others,
examples?
while consumers have diminishing freedom to pick who they will purchase or even if they will be able to purchase.

Like what?
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2010
So Ethel wants to protect the rights of power plants to pollute.
Lying like that won't make it true. Lying about the Cuyahoga by selective quoting won't make the government responsible either. The industries were polluting the river. They should have been doing the clean up not the Feds or the City and saying the State was holding things up doesn't change the source of the problem or the fact that it was governments that ended the problem.

I know that truth disturbs you but lying about ME is not something I take kindly. Tell lies about yourself if you want but DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH YOU BLEEPING TROLL.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2010
The industries were polluting the river.

Why did the govt allow that to happen?
"the people of Cleveland had clean drinking water from Lake Erie. So municipal authorities left the Cuyahoga River alone-allowing firms along its banks to discharge into it at will."
"In 1936, a paper manufacturer on Kingsbury Run, a tributary of the Cuyahoga, sued the city of Cleveland to stop it from dumping raw sewage into the stream.

The city responded by saying that it had used the stream as a sewer since 1860 and that therefore it had a "prescriptive right" to use it that way. "
"The growing tendency of the courts to insist on protecting private rights against harm from pollution was replaced by a public decision-making body that allowed pollution where it thought it was appropriate."
http://www.perc.o...e364.php
trantor
4 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2010
obviously, this research IS ONLY VALID INSIDE THE USA. Physorg is quite the international place, and I would like to see the articles reflecting that... in other words, the title should point out this is an AMERICAN attitude...
stvnwlsn
5 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2010
Awwwww, poor Big Money, nobody wuvs em but Marjon.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2010
T: What's do you get out of your socialist POV?

"The same is true of today’s “reformers” who clamor for banning imports of goods made in factories that employ children. These reformers selfishly enjoy the rush of satisfaction that comes from moral posturing without once stopping to trace the consequences of the policies they advocate.

Pay attention to the protestations of those who demand greater government involvement in the economy—particularly those who bemoan the greed that allegedly characterizes capitalism. You’ll find that almost always the most outspoken opponents of greed are its greatest patrons."
http://www.thefre...selfish/
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2010
Awwwww, poor Big Money, nobody wuvs em but Marjon.

The socialists love Big Money. See how much the 'liberals' have funneled to bail out the big banks and auto companies.
And the regulation they impose benefit the Big Money at the expense of real entrepreneurs.
John_balls
not rated yet Nov 21, 2010
STOP FEEDING THE TROLL MARJON. This what he lives for. Ignore him at all costs.
I think it's quite futile to engage with him anymore. I use to think it was fun to see his arguments get destroyed up and down these boards now I see it as feeding his sickness.
gwargh
4.8 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2010
Awwwww, poor Big Money, nobody wuvs em but Marjon.

The socialists love Big Money. See how much the 'liberals' have funneled to bail out the big banks and auto companies.
And the regulation they impose benefit the Big Money at the expense of real entrepreneurs.

You have absolutely no understanding of socialism if you think it, in any possible case, loves big money. The love of big money, to a socialist, is a mark of late capitalists. If you meant to say that democrats love big money, that is an entirely different issue. But I guess to you the two are interchangeable, despite having no historic or logical precedent of being such.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2010
As things stand, businesses have more freedom to pick their preferred customers,

How?
Comcast will shut off your service if you make too many complaint or if you go to the Better Business Bureau. Net Neutrality would put a stop to that.
ignoring and even screwing over all the others,
examples?
Verizon owning all the telco closets and enforcing "private property" control over the telco closets enforcing a particular standard of cabinet for isolation of switches, manufactured by Verizon. Sorry Nortel/Avaya/Worldcom, closets are on backorder (because we never made any).
while consumers have diminishing freedom to pick who they will purchase or even if they will be able to purchase.
Like what?
How many phone companies are available to you... (you only have one, Verizon, in Chelmsford).

Your free market fantasy is akin to stating anarchy is the best form of government. Anarchy doesn't exist for long, and it is rapidly replaced with tyranny.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2010
Comcast will shut off your service if you make too many complaint or if you go to the Better Business Bureau.
They have a govt protected franchise.
There is Dish Network and Direct TV and Hughes satellite internet. If Comcast shuts off your service, you are not missing much. Before long, Comcast WILL be out of business.
In Chelmsford we had Comcast, Verizon for landline phone, many choices for cell, Verizon had best coverage and off course there is VOIP for phones as well.

So far, all these companies are restricted by govt rules form really competing.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2010
"With back-to-back quarterly drops, cable companies are realizing that "people are having a hard time affording the tiers that the companies are offering," Rondeli said.

To try to lure back some customers, Time Warner Cable has just announced a trial budget plan in the Cleveland area offering 41 channels for $29.95, Rondeli said."
http://www.techne...ng-1663/
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2010
Telecom is just one example, and not even the most important. The choices the poor have for affordable, quality, healthy, unprocessed food dwindles. Clean, safe housing in good school districts is out of the price range of the median income consumer. In both cases, the profits from those goods flow to fewer and fewer producers. Meanwhile, the wages of the worker matter less and less to the rest of the market. Maximal attention to the producers and negligence of the freedom of consumers is leading us directly back to a sort of feudalism.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2010
The choices the poor have for affordable, quality, healthy, unprocessed food dwindles

So you really have no good examples.
BTW, canned foods of all types have been proven to be as nutritious as well as frozen foods.
Clean, safe housing in good school districts i

Sounds like a govt problem.
Good schools, like KIPP, are being located in welfare neighborhoods. KIPP, among other charters, is not shy about making money. So govt creates bad neighborhoods and schools and capitalism steps in providing quality schools.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2010
I am still waiting for Geeks answer as to how he wants us to 'value education'?

We're still waiting on your answer to the ideal government question. Perhaps you get a little when you give a little.


I had no idea you were still posting on this article.
By "value education" I mean not label people with terms like "liberal" because they went to college and got book learned 'bout numbers. I often hear the term "liberal academia" like people are brainwashed by higher education. Instead of swooning over sports stars, be impressed by a physicist or astronomer. In plain simple English, CONSIDER A FORMAL EDUCATION AS VALUABLE AS YOU CONSIDER TECHNICAL TRADES.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2010
Why did the govt allow that to happen?
Most likely people were bribed. By property owners.
So municipal authorities left the Cuyahoga River alone-allowing firms along its banks to discharge into it at will
Did you notice that contradicts your previous post where you blamed the state and claimed the city was blocked. Now you blame the city. Obviously you right hand and your other right don't communicate with you.

I couldn't say your left hand as you clearly would have cut it off if you had ever had one.
In 1936, a paper manufacturer on Kingsbury Run, a tributary of the Cuyahoga, sued the city of Cleveland to stop it from dumping raw sewage into the stream.
Very nice. And that applies how? Not at all of course. Its just another evasion of yours. A little less lame than contradicting yourself like you did with the first one.

Please note that the FIRE was from INDUSTRIAL pollution. Please note that now you are complaining that government did not step in.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2010
CONSIDER A FORMAL EDUCATION AS VALUABLE AS YOU CONSIDER TECHNICAL TRADES.

Again, how do you value that? If I need a plumber, I won't value a MA English degree. That individual may be a good teacher, but not a good plumber.
Do you advocate govt mandated salaries by education level like most do in the K-12?
I value the ability if individuals to think, but that does not correlate with education degrees.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2010
Please note that the FIRE was from INDUSTRIAL pollution. Please note that now you are complaining that government did not step in.

What burned in the fire in the 60s was debris floating in the water.
And yes, the govt failed at all levels because the system was flawed. You support the concept govts own the river. I support the concept individual property owners on the river banks have the right to clean water and can sue property owners upstream to stop the pollution. You support allowing the polluters to pollute, if they get permission from the city or state (regulations), completely disregarding the interests of the riparian property owners.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2010
Govt fails, again:

"The shape of its crisis is now well known, including the insane property-building boom – greased by bribes from developers to government officials "
"the Irish government’s fateful scheme to pump billions of euros into the country’s failing banks. "
http://www.telegr...ver.html
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2010
What burned in the fire in the 60s was debris floating in the water.
Yes. Industrial debris.
And yes, the govt failed at all levels because the system was flawed.
Indeed. Industry spent a lot of money to be sure it was flawed.
You support the concept govts own the river.
Yes. No individual or company owns, or can own, the river. Especially that river.
I support the concept individual property owners on the river banks have the right to clean water
That would be OBLIGATION. I don't agree. They don't own the river. And they don't have an obligation to clean up someone else's pollution.
and can sue property owners upstream to stop the pollution.
There is no need for that. And why should they pay for the suit? Assuming they could afford to sue a large company.
You support allowing the polluters to pollute
I did ask that you stop making things up and claiming I said it. I support the GOVERNMENT taking a hand in this. It now does its job.

Ethelred
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2010

Again, how do you value that? If I need a plumber, I won't value a MA English degree. That individual may be a good teacher, but not a good plumber.
Do you advocate govt mandated salaries by education level like most do in the K-12?
I value the ability if individuals to think, but that does not correlate with education degrees.


Are you looking for a closed form solution? Do you want an equation? I advocate appreciating the higher knowledge of the college graduate. I've needed a car repaired before and required the use of a mechanic. However, my perceived value of a physicist did not diminish until I needed one. When you try to find the philosophical basis of "value" then you're trying your very hardest to avoid agreement. How about "desire"? Is that a good definition? You desire things you find valuable, so I think we should desire people to have higher education since it serves society well. Is that agreeable?
Fakeer
5 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2010
Just from the title I could predict that the comments here would spiral out of control into partisan BS. Anyways a quick way to get rid of marjon - set your comment rating slider to 3
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2010
So far, all these companies are restricted by govt rules form really competing.
Uh, no, they're not. They're protected from competition by lobbyist created industry rulings. Net neutrality stops that, but you're against net neutrality so you must be against the free market as well.

So you're against property rights and free markets.

Are there any "principles" you won't violate?
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2010
What are lobbyist created industry rulings?

"The Federal Communications Commission is the regulating body for the television, telephone, radio, and other related industries. They make and enforce the rules and are supposed to look after the public’s best interests. If you have any problems with your cable or satellite company and can’t get any satisfaction, then these are the guys you need to go to."
"http://cut-the-ca.../"

Where is the free market here?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2010
Brilliant, you link a source that suggests that Cable companies shouldn't be legally allowed to get into the internet or telephone businesses.

Your commentary opens a new treasure trove of hypocrisy each time you post.
Where is the free market here?
Same place as the anarchist government resides. Between non-existent, and silly pipe dream.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2010
Just pointing out the FCC controls the cable companies, but you blame the cable companies for not competing. Why should they? The govt protects their market base and prevents competition.
That is the inevitable result of govt regulations, which SH so eagerly supports.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2010
That is the inevitable result of govt regulations, which SH so eagerly supports.
No, that is the inevitable result of market influence on government, otherwise known as corporatism, which you wholeheartedly support.

If you're addressing me, then address me. You're not at the forum, nor are you in a Beckian debate.
ontheinternets
3.5 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2010
Another thread made unreadable by marjon and the people who reply to him. Please don't feed the trolls. I'm going to start giving bad ratings to people who fail to ignore him (even if they are correct -- and let's face it, if it's relative it's like shooting fish in a barrel) as well as just himself.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2010
No, that is the inevitable result of market influence on government, otherwise known as corporatism, which you wholeheartedly support.

When the govt begins to impose regulations on business, which SH supports, then businesses must bend over and take whatever the govt imposes upon them? They can have no input in a representative democracy?
The situation SH claims to oppose was created by an over zealous regulatory state, which SH seems to support.
Laws protecting private property rights, which I do support, need no preemptive regulatory state supported by SH. End the preemptive regulatory state and there will be little for lobbyists to do.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2010
Another thread made unreadable by marjon and the people who reply to him. Please don't feed the trolls. I'm going to start giving bad ratings to people who fail to ignore him (even if they are correct -- and let's face it, if it's relative it's like shooting fish in a barrel) as well as just himself.

He's just a retarded wanna be business man. Probably paid minimum wage to post this garbage for News Corp. He can't even address people like an adult.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2010
Another thread made unreadable by marjon and the people who reply to him. Please don't feed the trolls. I'm going to start giving bad ratings to people who fail to ignore him (even if they are correct -- and let's face it, if it's relative it's like shooting fish in a barrel) as well as just himself.

How scientific and 'tolerant'!
Isn't science and 'liberalism' all for diversity of opinions and ideas?
I note how so many 'tolerant liberals' resort to insults when they can't answer.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2010
I note how so many 'tolerant liberals' resort to insults when they can't answer


I note how you quotemine, non sequitor, ask rhetorical questions, straw man, and lie when you can't answer.

Should I label you as something and apply these traits to all those who I feel fits my label?

No, I'm not a 'tolerant marjon'.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2010
I note how so many 'tolerant liberals' resort to insults when they can't answer.
Calling a liar a liar is not insult, it is speaking truth to opinion.
Calling a hypocrite a hypocrite is not an insult, it is speaking truth to opinion.
Calling a delusional person delusional is not an insult, it is speaking truth to opinion.

Marjon likes to utilize poorly founded opinion and decry others who call him on it.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2010
Marjon likes to utilize poorly founded opinion and decry others who call him on it.

Poorly founded opinions are the norm from the statists here trying to justify their socialist solutions in spite of the continuing spectacular failures of those solutions.
StarDust21
5 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2010
well of course people dont act in their personal economic interest, why would so many middle class americans vote rebublican, the party that cuts taxes for rich, lobbies corporation friendly laws, cuts on education, healthcare, etc...If electors acted rationally only revenues over 200K would vote republican...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2010
Poorly founded opinions are the norm from the statists here trying to justify their socialist solutions in spite of the continuing spectacular failures of those solutions.
It has kept our military healthy since the inception of the US Army. It has kept our seniors above the poverty line since the inception of social security. It has extended the lifespan of post retirees by decades since the inception of medicare.

Of course you'd see all three as failures, they actually work, unlike yourself Mr. Swenson.
GSwift7
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2010
I hate to bring the discussion back to the topic of the original article, ...no I don't.

When a statistical analysis does not seem to make sense, is it more likely that the analysis is somehow faulty or is it more likely that all conventional wizdom on the subject is faulty? That conventional wizdom wasn't created out of thin air you know.

Since it's impossible to actually go back in time and do surveys of people in previous decades, I assume that the historical survey data was 'borrowed' from surveys intended for other purposes and administered by various groups under various conditions. Such a mix of surveys and survey takers could result in all sorts of unpredictable and meaningless 'patterns' in the noise. I wouldn't get too excited about this, and I certainly wouldn't base my political campaign strategy on it.
ontheinternets
5 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2010
How scientific and 'tolerant'!
Isn't science and 'liberalism' all for diversity of opinions and ideas?
I note how so many 'tolerant liberals' resort to insults when they can't answer.


Consider the concept of noise, and signal-to-noise ratio. The signal-to-noise ratio (or, value-to-noise ratio) in this thread is far too high.

I wouldn't even say science is about diversity of ideas. It is as much about excluding that which can be shown false. Strictly speaking, I would say that subjectivity is not even in the domain of science. (though that's not to say scientists shouldn't deal with it -- it's just not science)
ontheinternets
5 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2010
Perhaps I shouldn't pigeonhole all sciences. I do have a strong physics bent, and that may affect my perspective. This is ostensibly a physics-oriented site however, so this is something that you can expect to find here.
ontheinternets
5 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2010
err.. the signal-to-noise ratio is _low_.
/blushes and scurries away
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2010

I wouldn't even say science is about diversity of ideas. It is as much about excluding that which can be shown false. Strictly speaking, I would say that subjectivity is not even in the domain of science.

But scientists are far too human and fail at many levels to be objective.
If scientists don't have an imagination and think out of the box, how can they create wild and crazy theories to have falsified?
Also, how are scientists supposed to work with emergent systems like an economy or even something more technical like a air traffic control system?
DamienS
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
But scientists are far too human and fail at many levels to be objective.

Well, no, That's the whole point of science - to remove subjective biases and to stick to the objective.
If scientists don't have an imagination and think out of the box, how can they create wild and crazy theories to have falsified?

Straw man argument. It was never stated that imagination and unconventional thinking should be abolished.
Also, how are scientists supposed to work with emergent systems like an economy or even something more technical like a air traffic control system?

Through observation, theoretical formulation, testing/verification - pretty much like any scientific field of endeavour. That you have to ask such a question exposes your limited knowledge of how science works.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2010
Also, how are scientists supposed to work with emergent systems ... more technical like a air traffic control system?
Man you're just full of dumb things to say.

Science is the greatest collaborative endeavor ever ventured. The best part of emergent systems is that you don't need to understand them, you simply need to understand the basic rules of reality and expand scope.

You may want to pick up those books on your wishlist on amazon and actually read them.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2010
basic rules of reality and expand scope

How do you predict the character and response of the whole from the sum of its parts?
Top down govt controlled economics can't know the behavior of the independent individuals in that economy. That's why it fails, every time.
to remove subjective biases and to stick to the objective.

That's the theory, not the practice I have observed.
It was never stated that imagination and unconventional thinking should be abolished.

It is not encouraged and new ideas are slapped down rather quickly. Kuhn said something similar.
Through observation, theoretical formulation, testing/verification
So science KNOWS enough about earth's climate to predict 50 years into the future based upon this process?
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2010
That's the theory, not the practice I have observed.


Reading articles and watching the news is NOT observing science. There's more going on than just climate change, the LHC, and stem cell research.

It is not encouraged and new ideas are slapped down rather quickly.


Again, you've clearly never actually engaged in research of any kind. New ideas are accepted all the time. That's how new things get made. Research is done on new things and from the discoveries from this research, products are developed.

Some ideas get slapped down, sure. If those ideas were coupled with some kind of repeatable experimental evidence and had some kind of practical application they would not.

So science KNOWS enough about earth's climate to predict 50 years into the future based upon this process?


Science doesn't KNOW anything. It's a method, not a supreme being. Through science we MAY someday be able to predict Earth's climate in 50 years.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2010
It is not encouraged and new ideas are slapped down rather quickly. Kuhn said something similar.
No, he didn't. Kuhn wrote of the transitions of science. 1. Pre-paradigm, where multiple hypotheses are created to address observations. 2. Paradigm, where the concensus has found a common hypothesis that is escalated to functional theory, or as he called it, normal science. Normal science is where the problems are solved within the context of the paradigm, in some cases yielding anomaly. Finally, 3. Revolutionary science, where the number of anomalies leads science into a realm of renewed debate, unresolvable by normal science. This is when the theorists get involved and begin revolutionary science, leading right back to stage 1.

Don't cite Kuhn if you don't understand Kuhn.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2010
The transition from 2 to 3 is smooth, objective and involves no conflict or bruised egos?
Science doesn't KNOW anything.

Those who claim to practice science claim to know what will happen to the climate in the decades to come.
New ideas are accepted all the time.

Unless they threaten someone's fiefdom.
lengould100
5 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2010
Wow, u guys have too much stamina. Way too much reading.

1) Majorian = American Right Wing. From outside America, looks suspiciously mentally unbalanced, on following grounds.

a) Refusing to support Beck, Faux Propaganda and Palin does NOT equal a "socialist" attitude, simply an ability to think at least a little bit.

b) If you aren't living solely from the interest on your investments, then you're crazy to vote Republican.

i) Republicanism = Corporatism = conservative economic values (NB small "c") = Inherited wealth.

ii) Liberalism USUALLY ALSO = Corporatism = conservative economic values = Lives from excess product of their employees.

iii) Socialism = economic egalitarianism, nothing more. NOT communism or any other 'ism'.
lengould100
5 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
2)
a) If you make your living from earnings from your work, no matter how intellectual or specialised, your natural politics is Socialism.

b) If you make your living from the excess product of your employees, your natural politics is Liberalism. (US Democratic Party)

c) If you make your living from interest or dividends on investments, then your natural politics is Conservativism. (US Republican Party)

BOTTOM LINE: People with excess capital need an incentive to invest. Workers need an incentive to work. Governments role is to enforce regulations to keep those two opposing interests in balance, with regulations and laws (eg. anti-monopoly) which are evenly enforced for all.
lengould100
5 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
The thesis of the original article, that somehow persons whose natural politics is socialism are enticed to vote Conservative, can be explained by two factors.

1) There is NO alternative Socialist party for wage-earners to vote for, because the "Communist" scaremongering has been used by Conservatives and Liberals to completely discredit Socialism (a method of economic organization), which is NOT in fact Communism (a method of political organization originally intended as the only viable means to support Socialism). Modern Democratic Socialism, see Scandanavia, Canada etc., actually proves a viable alternative.

2) Conservatives have deftly exploited dominance of communications media to brainwash the large majority of wage-earners to fear Socialism (in the USA and Britain).
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2010
Governments role is to enforce regulations to keep those two opposing interests in balance, with regulations and laws (eg. anti-monopoly) which are evenly enforced for all.}

This is a site that is supposed to be based on data. Where are the data to support your assertions?
deftly exploited dominance of communications media to brainwash

Now conservatives are intelligent?
It has nothing to do with the message? Those poor 'brainwashed' people need to be saved by ....?
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2010
Those who claim to practice science claim to know what will happen to the climate in the decades to come.


The fact that you brought up climate change again emphasizes my point that the only science you've ever been exposed to is through the media. You're even citing one of my examples.

Generally the climate scientists attempt to predict the climate based on models. Anyone who claims to KNOW what will happen to the climate is a fool.

I'm going to go ahead and say the vast majority of those who "claim to practice science" DO NOT "claim to know what will happen to the climate in the decades to come" since climate change is just one drop of water in the ocean. Even within climate science the majority do not claim to KNOW what's going to happen. If they knew what was going to happen there would be no need for continued research.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 23, 2010
The failure of American political economics has to do with an obsessive focus on the production side of the economic equation and an almost complete negligence of the consumption side. This focus has been adopted by almost the entire political establishment, and has wormed its way into global economic policy as well. The result has been atrophy of the freedom and standards of living of individuals and dominance by private, virtually unaccountable economic institutions. This focus is perhaps the natural result of conservative prioritizing government granted rights, e.g. property rights, mining rights, rights to access natural resources, etc, over and above human civil rights, e.g. the right to live, the right to assemble, the right of expression, etc.

It's rather funny that you demand data, marjon, considering that when you bother to provide any support for your views at all, you do so with highly biased opinion pieces.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2010
an obsessive focus on the production side of the economic equation and an almost complete negligence of the consumption side.

What? That makes no sense. For the past few years the govt has obsessively focused on consumption enabling people to borrow on their houses to buy more stuff, mostly from outside the USA. When the economy tanked, the govt tried many methods to 'stimulate' consumption with grants and cash for clunkers. It failed. If the govt were more interested in production, why did they drive it out of the USA and why does the govt make production more difficult with more taxes and regulations?
Even within climate science the majority do not claim to KNOW what's going to happen.

Why do they want to impose more taxes if they don't know? Are they just plain old socialists who use the 'science' as an excuse?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2010
Playing games with definitions again Marjon?
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
Why do they want to impose more taxes if they don't know? Are they just plain old socialists who use the 'science' as an excuse?


Who are 'they'?

There are many who are scientists and many who aren't that support carbon tarrifs.

The world's not black and white marjon. Not everyone fits into a few simple categories and does what they're told.

Are there "plain old socialists who use the 'science' as an excuse?" Sure there are. Of course some people are like that. Is every one of those people a scientist? Doubtful. Is everyone who supports carbon tarrifs like this? Doubtful.

There are people (both scientists and not) who support carbon tarrifs are just people who believe in global warming that believe that carbon tarrifs will lower carbon emmissions.

There are conservatives and liberals who support them and conservatives and liberals who are against them.

Welcome to real life.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
There are people (both scientists and not) who support carbon tarrifs are just people who believe in global warming

Not very objective of the scientists to 'believe'.

obsessive focus on the production side of the economic equation

Hey T, before anything can be consumed, it must be produced.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2010
Look at the proportions, marjon. Count all the tax loopholes, interest-free deferments, trusts, exclusions and deductions enjoyed by businesses and the very wealthy as expenditures on stimulating and directing production. Count all the business grants and loans for entrepreneurs as a similar supply-side stimulus. You can count the regulations and paperwork they have to file with the government as a drag, if you want to, but since industry representatives usually had a hand in crafting those regulations and drafting the paperwork, it can't be much of one. (cont)
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2010
"But tax policy shouldn't be about how good anyone has it. Tax policy shouldn't be about class envy. It should be about funding the government, nothing else.

If the tax code is based on emotion and subjectivity, the law becomes a tool of government authority. Equal treatment under the law, a hallmark of our American tradition guaranteed by the Constitution, is invalidated by laws intended to redistribute wealth."
"Whether Buffett recognizes it or not, rich Americans' investments are needed to push the economy ahead. Taking more from them deprives the private sector of the fuel it needs to expand. Government cannot boost growth by increasing taxes."
"When income tax rates have been cut, the economy has responded with growth. "
http://www.realcl...766.html
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
but since industry representatives usually had a hand in crafting those regulations and drafting the paperwork, it can't be much of one

It must be quite a drag as small businesses can't afford to meet the govt regs. That is the intent of the collusion, use the power of the state to limit competition.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 23, 2010
Now look at where the money to pay for that comes from. Income taxes. Payroll taxes. That's money coming directly out of consumer's pockets, not producer's pockets. And it's paying for producers to ship jobs oversees, for making American labor less competitive, and for hamstringing future innovation unless it's approved by the oligarchs already in control of their markets. What stimulus does the consumption side have? Temporary tax credits that are regarded as having failed (despite hundreds of thousands of people that were able to buy their first house or first new car) because they didn't prop up the finance industry (which serves the supply side much more favorably than the demand side, and was undermined by supply side manipulations). Social Security and Medicare, which conservatives not only want to cut, but eliminate entirely, and student grant and guaranteed loan programs. States run Medicare equivalent programs which are entirely means tested and limited in scope.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 23, 2010
Conservatives only ever want to stimulate the supply side, even though the evidence is in. Almost half the American people could be working but are not because of recent unemployment or long term discouragement. Most Americans are out of savings and out of credit. But American businesses' bottom lines are on track to grow better than they have in the past 22 years. And if you're gonna come down on big business's collusion with writing laws that favor themselves over smaller startups, you're not gonna get me to disagree. Here I thought you were in favor of letting businesses lobby government and fund campaigns.
marjon
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2010
not producer's pockets

If you want producers to produce, they need an incentive. The best incentive found to date is to make a profit. Taxing the profit of producers will either force the producer out of business, or the producer must pass on his tax burden to the consumer.
Here I thought you were in favor of letting businesses lobby government and fund campaigns.

I am for peoples right to a redress of grievances. I support limiting the power of the state, which will minimize the need for lobbyists. But you don't support a limited govt so you will get the consequences.
Thrasymachus
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2010
And that incentive still exists if you tax them. It is as simple as a financial transaction tax on Wall Street and an increase in the capital gains tax. In a time when the finance industry received 700 billion dollars in bailouts, GM was purchased rather than let go bankrupt, all on the backs of middle-class taxpayers, the very wealthy and Wall Street Republicans would rather see that middle class devastated than risk an Obama second term or even hint that their Rand-worshipping market theories might be dead wrong.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
GM was purchased rather than let go bankrupt,

in order to save the unions.
Bankrupt is not liquidation. Companies enter bankruptcy to tell all those people thy owe money to to piss off. Had GM and Chrysler actually went bankrupt, all union contracts would have to be renegotiated.
If you hadn't noticed, the middle class IS devastated, and BHO has not even been in office 24 months.
Javinator
5 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2010
Not very objective of the scientists to 'believe'.


Scientists are just people, marjon. Some will be objective and some won't. Again, stop arranging people into groups and assigning them properties.

That being said, you can't expect all scientists to do all research on all subjects. Evidence is produced from both sides and people make a decision.

I believe that tree leaves are green because of their chlorophyll and that they live through the use of photosynthesis. Have I personally performed any experiments or done research on this subject to prove it? No. I just believe it based on the evidence that's been presented to me by others (ie. what I learned in school).

That's the whole reason global warming is such a hot button issue. There are points from both sides and believers on both sides.

Objectivity comes with the willingness to change ones belief upon the discovery of new evidence. Believing something based on evidence does not negate objectivity.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
If you want producers to produce, they need an incentive. The best incentive found to date is to make a profit. Taxing the profit of producers will either force the producer out of business, or the producer must pass on his tax burden to the consumer.
Or he could just produce more. Why do you always take the lazy way out. I thought you were all about hard work and money earned. Wouldn't passing your tax burden on to your consumer be redistribution of wealth?
Companies enter bankruptcy to tell all those people thy owe money to to piss off.
No, con artists do that. Companies liquidate and negotiate.
If you hadn't noticed, the middle class IS devastated, and BHO has not even been in office 24 months.
Which means you can thank the decades of corporatist republican rule for the devastation.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2010
There are points from both sides and believers on both sides.

Not according to the AGWites. There are believers and deniers.
Or he could just produce more.

If the production capacity is maxed out, an influx of capital is required to hire more people, build more facilities (all subject to more taxes and regulations of course). I recall Bill O'Rielly, a small businessman, state if tax rates were increased, he would shut down a few of his enterprises forcing people out of work. He is typical of all businesses who need to make a profit.
decades of corporatist republican rule for the devastation.

CRA was passed in the Carter era. Dems pushed it and Clinton revised it and dems Barney Frank and Dodd pushed hard to keep Freddie and Fannie shoveling mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. Sure, there are liberal republicans who support such statism enabling the socialists. That's why many rinos lost in primaries this year.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2010
I believe that tree leaves are green because of their chlorophyll

If someone is colorblind, what does 'green' mean? What color do they believe leaves are?
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2010
"The worst crime against working people," so said Samuel Gompers, "is a company which fails to operate at a profit."
"Gompers, of course, is known by the history books as the father of the labor union movement in America. He was founder of the American Federation of Labor. It may seem incongruous for such an important labor figure to say such a thing about profit, but Gompers appreciated something back then that perhaps a few of today's labor leaders don't. An economy without profit is an economy in deep, deep depression."
"Profit and the self-interest motive behind it are favorite targets of the brainless Left."
{And you know who you are!}
"to find a genuine believer in Marxism these days, one has to visit universities in the United States"
"In Marxist North Korea, they have a regime that works night and day to see that nobody makes a profit or owns a private business. There won't be anything like Thanksgiving dinner in North Korea today, and that's no coincidence."
fee.com
lengould100
5 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2010
How the heck does Marjon get to flood the thread with trolls and I'd limited to three rebuttals? Any political bias on the website perhaps?
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2010
I believe that tree leaves are green because of their chlorophyll

If someone is colorblind, what does 'green' mean? What color do they believe leaves are?


A specific shade of gray that's different from the shade it would be if there weren't chlorophyll?... But more importantly what the hell are you talking about? That was like the king of unrelated questions.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
How the heck does Marjon get to flood the thread with trolls and I'd limited to three rebuttals?
What? You can post more. Heck you just did. Did you get a post deleted by the Imoderator?

You DO have to keep the posts three minutes apart.I made a nine part post the other day. Wrote it up as a single item in Notepad++ checked the spelling and the quotation tags then posted on sub 1000 block at a time. By the time I finished setting up the second block for posting (deciding where to put the break and cutting out MORE stuff for space) it was usually three minutes from the previous post.

A minute passed
After a minute another minute passed
Then another minuted passed
Then I posted.

Get a good text editor that counts characters. At present I recommend Notepad++ but I am going to test some other free text editors.

http://notepad-plus-plus.org/

Which I typed and spell-checked this in. And it didn't like the way I spelled 'spellcheck' without the hyphen.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
If the production capacity is maxed out, an influx of capital is required to hire more people, build more facilities (all subject to more taxes and regulations of course).
That's what business loans are for Marjon.
I recall Bill O'Rielly, a small businessman
False, he was a teacher then he became a journalist. He has no business experience.
, state if tax rates were increased, he would shut down a few of his enterprises forcing people out of work.
Which is exactly not what is being discussed. Personal income tax is not corporate tax.
He is typical of all businesses who need to make a profit.
You've never run a business if you believe that.
CRA was passed in the Carter era.
CRA wasn't responsible for the collapse. The CRA required banks to make 10-20% of their loans locally. Banks in poor areas wanted to make more loans so they lobbied corporatist presidents, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush to relax the loan requirements.

Learn your history.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
False, he was a teacher then he became a journalist. He has no business experience.

He obviously does. He sells books, merchandise, etc.
Personal income tax is not corporate tax.

It is for small business owners.
You've never run a business if you believe that.

Running a business is a subset of owning a business.

The FDIC judged banks on their CRA performance. A bank in MA was punished for not having enough bad CRA loans. I have provided the link many times.
Also, a link has been provided many times to a Wachovia news release in 1997 that hyped securitized mortgages to meet its CRA obligations. And they noted those securitized mortgages were guaranteed by Freddie and Fannie.
These are the (unintended or intended) consequences of govt regulations.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
Not according to the AGWites. There are believers and deniers.


No, that's you who is making that assertion.

There are believers and those that don't believe (some non-believers are deniers and some are just fence sitters who don't know what to believe given the huge amount of noise coming from both sides).

A fence sitter is not a denier. If you quote mine one or even a few AGWites (as you like to call them) that state that "There are believers and deniers" it still will not prove your point that all believers in AGW feel this way.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
I believe that tree leaves are green because of their chlorophyll

If someone is colorblind, what does 'green' mean? What color do they believe leaves are?


A specific shade of gray that's different from the shade it would be if there weren't chlorophyll?... But more importantly what the hell are you talking about? That was like the king of unrelated questions.

How objective is your, or anyone's perception? You may believe your perceptions are based on objective reality, but everyone's objective reality is not the same. All is heuristic as Billy Koen states.
http://www.me.ute...ory.html
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
"What I've seen over the years is this seemingly bizarre anomaly of how Wall Street, which is allegedly the epicenter of capitalism, in reality thrived on something that is very anti-capitalist, which is Big Government. Crony capitalism. And these guys aren't doing it just to make money on fees selling government bonds to finance the deficit or government programs. The people at the top have political beliefs that are strongly aligned with progressivism."
"I'm not a member of the Tea Party by any stretch of the imagination, but I will say one of the good things about that movement is that they understand this inside game, they don't like it, and they want it to end. They understand how corrupting it is for the entire system when Big Business can exploit the growth of Big Government. They instinctively know there is huge hypocrisy in Obama calling these guys fat cats when Wall Street is just exploiting what he presented them to exploit. "
http://spectator..../who-own
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
"Unintended consequences. That's the problem when government gets involved in this stuff. When will banks start making loans again? Well, you need the mortgage market to deflate. It'll only deflate when we have more pain. Now, there was no easy answer. But if you let natural forces take control in the financial crisis…firms go under, they stop lending, prices of securities drop dramatically, lots of losses. A tremendous amount of pain. And then the ones that survive pick up the pieces. But look what happens when you bail them out. They limp along for two years. Instead of the immediate pain you have a dead man walking. That's what we have right now. The bailouts just postpone the inevitable."
http://spectator....wns-whom
Hey, all you 'progressives' Wall Street is on your side. Own up to it.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
You may believe your perceptions are based on objective reality, but everyone's objective reality is not the same.


I base my reality on logic. Logic is not subjective. Something is either logical or it isn't (one of the reasons I so enjoy breaking arguments down into syllogisms).

The subjectivity comes from the assumptions on which a technically logical argument is made. This is why it is important to not make points/arguments/observations that cannot be backed by substantial amounts of evidence.

If you want to introduce a little math into your philosophical argument...

True objectivity is unobservable since the observations of humans are subjective to each human. However, as the number of identical subjective observations (ie. evidence) approaches infinity, the more the objective an observation becomes.

In equation form:

lim (observations -> infinity) subjective = objective
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
This is why, in science, it is important to have repeatable experiments that others can perform. Otherwise, the results are simply subjective. The more different people who perform these experiments, the more objective the results become.

This is also why anecdotal evidence for things happening (ie. one time I thought that the next number on the dice was going to be a 5 and it was, therefore I am psychic) or "quote mined" responses are bad for arguing or proving anything.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
All is heuristic as Billy Koen states.


Some people con themselves.

Now Dr. Feynman said

http://www.youtub...p;fmt=34

And that should be short enough for you at 56 seconds. Any engineer that has given up on objective reality is NOT an engineer.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
But Marjon, you are a component of Big Government. Are you biting the hand that feeds you, or being contrarian and lying because you have nothing better to do? Perhaps it is simply your nature as a corporatist politician.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
All is heuristic as Billy Koen states.


Some people con themselves.

Now Dr. Feynman said

http://www.youtub...p;fmt=34

And that should be short enough for you at 56 seconds. Any engineer that has given up on objective reality is NOT an engineer.

Ethelred

That was Feynman's heuristic. Feynman was not an engineer.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
The more different people who perform these experiments, the more objective the results become.

Why? That would only demonstrate those people did the experiment the same way. That doesn't mean the results are any more valid.
More useful information can be obtained when different procedures, different equipment, etc. reach similar conclusions. Even then, the differences need to be characterized and explained.

If you want to introduce a little math into your philosophical argument...

" Imagine how unnerved an apprentice engineer becomes as he sees, both theoretically and computationally, the certainty of mathematics dissolve before his eyes. "
http://www.me.ute...ory.html

frajo
3 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
However, as the number of identical subjective observations (ie. evidence) approaches infinity, the more the objective an observation becomes.
A bit dangerous, this formulation.

I'm not talking about the notion of an infinity of observations which is not possible, not even asymptotically, considering the finiteness of all involved variables.

But there once was a country where an effective majority of people had the same subjective opinion. And this common opinion led to the killing of millions of people.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2010
But there once was a country where an effective majority of people had the same subjective opinion. And this common opinion led to the killing of millions of people.

This opinion was once an objective belief of scientists. It was called eugenics.

This opinion persists in an organization called Planned Parenthood.
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
Why? That would only demonstrate those people did the experiment the same way. That doesn't mean the results are any more valid.


If different people with different subjective observations perform the same experiments in different places at different times and get the same results it most definitely validates the results.

Aren't you the one who always uses the Reagan quote, "Trust, but verify"?

More useful information can be obtained when different procedures, different equipment, etc. reach similar conclusions. Even then, the differences need to be characterized and explained.


I would argue that it is equally useful in that they would both validate different hypotheses.
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
But there once was a country where an effective majority of people had the same subjective opinion. And this common opinion led to the killing of millions of people.


It's essentially the basis of 1984.

My comment was referring to this in terms of physical observations (ie. observation with our senses) in response to marjon's heuristic world point.

Unfortunately the same principles apply with peoples' opinions too. This is what leads to racism (the holocaust could be considered an extreme form of racism), sexism, and most of the other bad -isms.

In science terms, these -isms are essentially hypotheses that are treated as conclusions by the -ists which leads to bad assumptions about groups of people (since it is essentially an untested hypothesis). Marjon, for example, does this frequently with his grouping of people as 'socialists', 'liberals', etc. Conculsions are made about these people based on his untested hypotheses.

-isms are just bad science.
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
" Imagine how unnerved an apprentice engineer becomes as he sees, both theoretically and computationally, the certainty of mathematics dissolve before his eyes. "
http://www.me.ute...ory.html


From the same thing writing:

Arithmetic might only be an heuristic, but clearly it was a good and very necessary one.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2010
Marjon, for example, does this frequently with his grouping of people as 'socialists', 'liberals', etc. Conculsions are made about these people based on his untested hypotheses.

Conclusions are based upon people's expressed desire to use the power of the state to control the property of individuals.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2010
Conclusions are based upon people's expressed desire to use the power of the state to control the property of individuals.


In the above statement, you're admitting your conslusions are based on assumptions.

Your assumption is that people have an "expressed desire to use the power of the state to control the property of individuals"

Which people? The people you have CHOSEN to group into categories and assign properties to? (for example, the assumption that all atheists are liberal which you've frequently make here).

Or do you mean all people? You can falsify that assumption by looking inwards. If YOU don't have an "expressed desire to use the power of the state to control the property of individuals" then you've just proven that not all people do.

Generalizing and grouping and assuming are used to form hypotheses, not conclusions.
marjon
1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2010
In the above statement, you're admitting your conslusions are based on assumptions.

People on this bbs who I call socialist have documented their desire to have the state control people's property.
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 24, 2010
However, as the number of identical subjective observations (ie. evidence) approaches infinity, the more the objective an observation becomes.
A bit dangerous, this formulation.

I'm not talking about the notion of an infinity of observations which is not possible, not even asymptotically, considering the finiteness of all involved variables.

But there once was a country where an effective majority of people had the same subjective opinion. And this common opinion led to the killing of millions of people.
Uh, america? No wait I know, russia, right? China?? How about Japan?

Somalia maybe?
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 24, 2010
How about the britisch empire? Those people are beasts. 'Perfidious Albion'
Mongols suck too. Heres one:
http://www.google...,r:0,s:0
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
The choices the poor have for affordable, quality, healthy, unprocessed food dwindles.

""between 1980 and 2006, the price trends for healthy food (apples, bananas, dry beans, carrots, celery, cucumbers, etc.) and junk food (cookies, ice cream, potato chips, etc.) were practically identical--they both dropped at the same rate." Or, as McWilliams translates, "at the time when Americans were getting fat on increasingly cheap junk food, healthy food was becoming increasingly cheap as well." That means they were actively choosing the junk food."
http://www.theatl...ood-1998
This site has a long list of cheap, fresh food:
http://www.thedai...d-460610
I just saw an ad for sweet potatoes, .33/lb. Turkeys are less than $1/lb, ....
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
True but if you are poor enough it is difficult to fix food from the basics. Sure you can eat apples but cooking is difficult on a hot plate and storage in mini-fridges is a bit difficult. Turkeys are right out for instance.

You really don't understand poverty.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2010
People on this bbs who I call socialist have documented their desire to have the state control people's property.

Show me where I've said that. Direct quote Marjon. Again, you're a liar and a moron. How about you resign your position on the Agricultural board and own up to your principles. Maybe you should go start a business... but the only business where your skills would be relevant is politics. What a catch 22.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2010
People on this bbs who I call socialist have documented their desire to have the state control people's property.

Show me where I've said that. Direct quote Marjon. Again, you're a liar and a moron.

That's is what govt regulation DO, control others property and you actively support wide ranging govt regulations.
SH: "If someone has a need, that they can't take care of, which will endanger their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, then there is a constitutional demand to make redress in the most efficient manner."
Sounds like 'from each according to his ability to each according to their need'.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2010
Just think SH, if the government decides that you can't do ANY particular thing at all, to Marjon that makes you (and me)a wild eyed socialist, which means commie pinko.

So telling someone that they can't fire off their six shooter in downtown Dallas makes you a COMMIE that wants to control other people's property.

Please note that this in NOT over the top as Marjon has never admitted to accepting ANY kind of control of property at all. Taxes are unacceptable. Zoneing is the work of Atheist radicals. And lawyers really shouldn't exist since laws shouldn't exist because ALL laws limit the use of property in some way. That last is inherent in any law. Kind of like claiming all wars are based on economics. RAH had his head up his ass on that. I hear Marx said it first.

Then again he thinks everything should be by contract. Which sure sounds like a lawyer. How there would be courts and enforcement of contracts is something he has carefully left out.

Bet he evades all that.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2010
So telling someone that they can't fire off their six shooter in downtown Dallas makes you a COMMIE that wants to control other people's property.

Yep.
But if someone does fire his weapon, he is responsible for any damage to property.
That's where the govt fails, holding people accountable for their actions.
Anyone who drives drunk and kills or injures someone should be tried for first degree murder.
As noted many times earlier, common law protection of property is quite effective. Too effective for govts that want to control property.
How are contracts enforce now? If you fail to make a payment, the property is repossessed, your private credit score will be affected. Liens can be placed on property.
How about those GM bondholders who lost all their money when the govt nationalized the company. Contracts mean nothing to this govt.
"Bloomberg ran a story mentioning Vivian Floyd, an 80-year-old woman in Celebration, Fla. who could lose up to $100,000 on GM bonds she owns."
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2010
Anyone who drives drunk and kills or injures someone should be tried for first degree murder.


Probably vehicular homicide or second degree murder or manslaughter (as some states don't have a vehicular homicide designation). It would not be first degree murder as nothing is premeditated (unless you planned on getting drunk and driving your car to kill someone).

That being said I agree the penalties for this should be severe.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
Enforcing laws that violate the rights of others is more effective, and enables liberty, compared with enumerable regulations to prevent the behavior.
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
Enforcing laws that violate the rights of others is more effective, and enables liberty, compared with enumerable regulations to prevent the behavior.


You're suggesting that drinking and driving should be legal so long as you haven't killed anyone/damaged their property yet.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2010
Enforcing laws that violate the rights of others is more effective, and enables liberty, compared with enumerable regulations to prevent the behavior.


You're suggesting that drinking and driving should be legal so long as you haven't killed anyone/damaged their property yet.

Why not? If you are not going to enforce distracted driving laws, (eating, drinking coffee, radio, cell, kids,,,) why pick on driving drunk?
Had Ted Kennedy been convicted of murder and put in prison for life, I wonder how the behavior of MA drivers would have changed.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
The problem with volumes of regulations is that it will be quite certain everyone has violated at least one.
The leaves the govt in a position to blackmail at its leisure.
It's done all the time, get those accused of a crime to plead to a 'lesser' offense they did not commit.
http://www.innoce...ect.org/
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
But if someone does fire his weapon, he is responsible
Which does no good for the dead and anyone he can't afford to pay that he didn't kill.
That's where the govt fails, holding people accountable for their actions.
Is that why we have so many people in jail. Again not.
Anyone who drives drunk and kills or injures someone should be tried for first degree murder
Wrong. Third degree murder and sometimes second degree. Intent to kill is required for first degree.
As noted many times earlier, common law protection of property is quite effective
Common law IS LAW from a time when people where illiterate. No one wrote down the laws in England because no one could read them.
Too effective for govts that want to control property
Governments now have a literate electorate, common law was from time with NO electorate.

So now going back to the 1800's isn't good enough for you. You want Norman Britain. How enlightened.

More
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2010
"In England, William Pitt summarized the concept of private property under Common Law, as follows:

'The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. "

What's wrong with this?

Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2010
What's wrong with this?
Whats right with Norman Britain? And of course that statement was false. The King could and did do those things. Barons could do it. Even in the Victorian era a Noble could do rather a lot to any commoner he wished and there was no recourse.

I posted more but somehow it got lost and frankly you just aren't worth rewriting the stuff.

However I do need to point out that COMMON LAW has little to do with contracts. Contracts came for ROMAN LAW. Law for literate people as opposed to Common Law for the illiterate.

The main thing wrong with Common Law is that it was for a different era and thus simply can't handle much of the present.

And I am might add that Common Law is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision on abortion. And you don't like that decision.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
"It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect."
"Abortion mortality was high. Even after 1900, and perhaps until as late as the development of antibiotics in the 1940's, standard modern techniques such as dilation and curettage were not nearly so safe as they are today."
http://www.law.um...roe.html
Common Law is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision on abortion

That's a stretch.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2010
"Sources of Contract Law: The Statute of Frauds
The Statute of Frauds was enacted in England in 1677, and it has been adoptedin one form or another by all 50 states.

Read more: Contract Law - Contracts, Party, Parties, Legal, Agreement, and Terms http://law.jrank....m"

"The Common Law. The majority of contracts (i.e. employment agreements, leases, general business agreements) are controlled by the state's common law -- a tradition-based but constantly evolving set of laws that is mostly judge-made, from court decisions over the years. "

An answer to an earlier question:
"Courts and formal lawsuits are not the only option for people and businesses involved in contract disputes. The parties can agree to have a mediator review a contract dispute, or may agree to binding arbitration of a contract dispute. "
http://smallbusin...law.html
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
That's a stretch.
.

I read the decision. It isn't a stretch.

http://www.law.co..._ZO.html

Partial quote of relevant section
3. The common law. It is undisputed that, at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" -- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy [n20] -- was not an indictable offense. [n21] The absence [p133] of a common law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins.


Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2010
SH: "If someone has a need, that they can't take care of, which will endanger their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, then there is a constitutional demand to make redress in the most efficient manner."
Sounds like 'from each according to his ability to each according to their need'.
So you're trying to say that the government can't buy and sell in the market? You would restrict the government's right to buy and sell from producers in order to support the lowest among us?

That's is what govt regulation DO, control others property and you actively support wide ranging govt regulations.
First, that's not regulation, that would be assumption of right, which I've never advocated for. Must be awfully nice sitting in your hack job, on your illegally zoned land pretending you're a farmer in that $450,000 house in Chelmsford.

Yet these are the things you accuse me of doing and saying. Don't worry, buddy, you've been found out and it is well known that you're a liar.
Ayn_Rand_is_dead
5 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2010
marjon is an idiot. Why bother engaging this obvious paid troll?
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2010
Why not?


Why not? Because it's pretty damn dangerous and a lot of innocent people have died as a result of it.

If you are not going to enforce distracted driving laws, (eating, drinking coffee, radio, cell, kids,,,) why pick on driving drunk?


Who is 'you'? I'm not a cop. I don't generally enforce these laws.

Where I live, the distracted driving laws are enforced so I can't relate to your point. Remember that people have to get caught breaking the law before that law can be enforced.
Javinator
5 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2010
marjon is an idiot. Why bother engaging this obvious paid troll?


Sometimes I learn from the posts of the responses of others so I personally like it.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2010
Remember that people have to get caught breaking the law before that law can be enforced.

(Unless you are Ted Kennedy.)
Is this why so many want to create thousands of minor regulations to control citizens like children?

So you're trying to say that the government can't buy and sell in the market?

What does the govt own that it hasn't first taken?
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2010
Thank you for bringing up a specific case to defend your point that no laws are ever enforced.
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 26, 2010
marjon is an idiot. Why bother engaging this obvious paid troll?
So is Kant. Trolls make up multiple nicks just to harass and inflame, no?

Ted Kennedy pbuh is also dead by the way.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2010
Thank you for bringing up a specific case to defend your point that no laws are ever enforced.

The point is the laws are selectively enforced weakening all laws.
The question is still out their, had the MA police enforced laws on the Kennedy's, do you think more people would have respect for the laws?
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2010
Enforcing laws that violate the rights of others

There are no rights except those we give ourselves through our government. With those rights come responsibilities. Laws define and enforce those responsibilities.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2010
no rights except those we give ourselves through our government.

That's the fundamental issue is it not. If govt gives rights, it can take them away.
If rights are inherent, no govt can take them away.
So far most here want the govt to give and take rights.
I prefer the heuristic of inherent rights. It results in better outcomes for individuals, like liberty and prosperity instead of tyranny and poverty under the fickle govt.
So far historical data supports this heuristic.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2010
The question is still out their, had the MA police enforced laws on the Kennedy's, do you think more people would have respect for the laws?
No. If you think so yourself you are an idiot.

Drunks KNOW they shouldn't drive. They do it anyway and that is why we need laws and not be so bloody stupid as to only prosecute those that have already killed. To insist on doing it your way is to KILL innocents in much larger numbers.

So I take it then you WANT 50,000 dead a year again.

With the right to drive comes the responsibility to drive sober. Since so many refuse to honor their responsibility the rest of have decided to pass laws.

Do you understand the concept of self-defense. How about acting BEFORE its too late. How about the concept of pragmatism instead of living in Rand's Fantasy Land?

You sure don't seem to understand ANY of those concepts.

Ethelred
ekim
5 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2010
marjon is an idiot. Why bother engaging this obvious paid troll?

Marjon provides a learning experience because the flaws in Marjon's logic are pointed out to those reading these posts. The debate will arm those who read these posts with rebuttals to most of the arguments made by Marjon and his kind. Thank you Marjon.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2010
Drunks KNOW they shouldn't drive.

If DUI laws were well enforced, they could not drive, they would be in prison, dead or executed.
ekim
5 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2010
What does the govt own that it hasn't first taken?

I seems to me the entire western hemisphere belonged to somebody else before the Europeans arrived. Would you like the government to give it back? Perhaps a refund is in order. Natives get their land back in exchange for some glass beads and some smallpox infected blankets.
ekim
5 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2010
Drunks KNOW they shouldn't drive.

If DUI laws were well enforced, they could not drive, they would be in prison, dead or executed.

That seems rather extreme. I don't see how the death penalty would solve things. It doesn't seem to work as a deterrent for other crimes. Why should it work for drunks who believe they are invincible and won't get caught. Besides it is costly to execute a person. Fines are more profitable in the long run.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2010
What does the govt own that it hasn't first taken?

I seems to me the entire western hemisphere belonged to somebody else before the Europeans arrived. Would you like the government to give it back? Perhaps a refund is in order. Natives get their land back in exchange for some glass beads and some smallpox infected blankets.

How far back do you want to go?
American Indians were not saints and did their fair share of taking land, too.
How many natives were conquered by Mayans and Aztecs before Columbus?
I can't remember the tribe, but there was a particularly viscous tribe in the Great Lakes region and the Apaches were not well loved by their neighbors.
The 'conquered' are now running casinos and cigarettes. How many other conquered people have done so well, besides the Jews?
ekim
5 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2010
How far back do you want to go?

I don't believe in going back. Progress is going forwards and learning from our mistakes. Learning from the successes of others is also desirable.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2010
How far back do you want to go?

I don't believe in going back. Progress is going forwards and learning from our mistakes. Learning from the successes of others is also desirable.

You raised the issue of going back.
Why pick on the America? How about all the invasions in Europe, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Normans, Saxons, .... Where is the condemnation?
. I don't see how the death penalty would solve things.

No more drunk driving.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2010
If DUI laws were well enforced, they could not drive, they would be in prison, dead or executed.


If DUI laws were different then they are they would KILL PEOPLE first THEN they MIGHT be ececuted.

Only lunatics are going to make a DUI a captitol offense UNLESS someone dies. Which does the dead so much good.

Even by your standards this a foolish idea.

No more drunk driving.


And the death penalty stopped children from stealing in Victorian England. Of course the fact is that it didn't.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2010
That's the fundamental issue is it not. If govt gives rights, it can take them away.
That is the ONLY WAY there can be rights besides the old way. Might makes right.
If rights are inherent, no govt can take them away
If wishes were gold you would be rich. Rights are INHERENTLY cultural and MUST be given or taken EXCEPT when the government is by the people. In the US we first TOOK them by force and then created them in a new nation.
So far most here want the govt to give and take rights
Bull. Not want. IT IS THE ONLY WAY. Where do you think rights come from? Hairy Thunderer's that kill children? They come from MEN. In the United States that is We The People. This is the REAL reason that democracy is the best form of government.
I prefer the heuristic of inherent rights
Well there are no such things. Declaring it to be true does not make it true. At no time has anyone had inherent rights. We must take them or make them.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2010
They come from MEN

That's what happens when people don't believe in God.
Declaring it to be true does not make it true.

Sure it does.
democracy is the best form of government.

Mob rule is the best?51% controlling the 49% is the best?

If govts didn't make money off of alcohol, I wonder how DUI enforcement would change.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2010
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; ..."
This is the axiom upon which the US govt was created.
It has resulted in the most free and prosperous society the world has ever seen.
Why do 'progressives' want a majority to take rights from the minority?
Another:
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance."
ekim
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2010
...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; ..."
Why do 'progressives' want a majority to take rights from the minority?

Doesn't the majority give it's consent to be governed? The minority may want the rights that conflict with the rights of the majority. Slavery of others is a right the minority might agree to ,however the majority would disagree.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2010
There are two kinds of rights, inherent, and government-granted. Inherent rights are the rights you have insofar as it is consistent with everyone else's having that same right. The right to perambulate, the right to live, the right to not be harmed, etc. are example of inherent rights. Government granted rights are privileges, access, or abilities that would not exist absent the specific governmental institution that creates and maintains those rights. These rights usually violate the principle of inherent rights above. Property rights, mining rights, water rights, grazing rights, inheritance rights, the right to incorporate, the right to operate machinery are all examples of government-granted rights. These rights are meaningless in the absence of government.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2010
Government is typically thought to be created in order to protect and preserve inherent rights. In this sense, these rights pre-exist any government, governments can meaningfully be charged with violating them, though their inherency has nothing to do with divinity. Government granted rights exist solely as a mechanism in support of those inherent rights. It makes no sense to say that government violates the right to own real estate, for example, except insofar as one means that the government has contradicted its previously written laws. Absent those laws, there is no right to own real estate, or indeed any particular material thing.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2010
Slavery of others is a right the minority might agree to ,however the majority would disagree.

Why should the majority disagree?
In a democracy, the majority can agree to enslave a minority. What is stopping them?

How do property rights violate inherent rights? If you have an inherent right to yourself, you have an inherent right to the wealth you create.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2010
You have an inherent right to whatever it is consistent for everyone else to have that same right. You have an inherent right to the use of your own body insofar as everyone else has the right to the use of their own bodies in the same way. But there can be no inherent right to a particular material thing because your right to own just that thing by definition excludes others from the right to own that thing. Property rights cannot be inherent because there is a significant social problem as to the origin, rightful possession, use, transfer and disposal of property. Contrasted with an inherent right, such as the right to not be harmed, there is no question as to where that right comes from, who possesses it, and under what terms it may be waived.
ekim
5 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2010
Slavery of others is a right the minority might agree to ,however the majority would disagree.

Why should the majority disagree?
In a democracy, the majority can agree to enslave a minority. What is stopping them?

How do property rights violate inherent rights? If you have an inherent right to yourself, you have an inherent right to the wealth you create.

Democracies have enslaved people in the past. This seems to be a question of ethics rather than a question of governance. Inherent rights are decided by the majority in a democracy compared to other forms of governance where the minority with the better weapons seems to rule.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2010
Inherent rights are to be protected, not decided, or else they would not be inherent.
This presents a moral challenge to statists. If all humans have the same inherent rights, how can states like DPRK not be challenged?
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2010
The right to property is not an inherent right. It exists to enforce and make meaningful inherent rights to fair treatment, the right to develop one's capacities, the right to live, etc. Government exists to protect and promote inherent rights. It creates legal rights, such as the right to property, the right to bear arms, the right to incorporate, and so forth, in order to do so. These legal rights are not inherent, and cannot be considered inherent in any descriptive sense absent the government institutions which create and maintain them. Legal rights, like the right to property, are not to be protected, but to be carefully critiqued and modified at every stage of economic development when they do not optimally serve the inherent rights they were created to serve.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2010
What does the govt own that it hasn't first taken?
That depends on the government. The US government owns most of the land in the nation. Rather a lot actually. AND you consistently fail to note that it is the PEOPLE of the US that own that land.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2010
Natives get their land back in exchange for some glass beads and some smallpox infected blankets.
Most, obviously not all, Amerinds that died of European diseases did so without any intent from the Europeans. Indeed the death rate was so bad there really weren't many people left in much of the US. Nearly the entire population of the Mississippi Missouri drainage was wiped out in as little as two years by ONE smallpox carrier that was with the De Soto expedition.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2010
That's what happens when people don't believe in God.
Correct. We can then understand the real source of human behavior and rights. And we don't have to ignore that its OK to own slaves according to the Bible, and thus for fundamentalists according to Jehovah.
Sure it does.
We have noticed that you think that way. However YOU declaring something does not make it true. A NATION declaring it through its government does make it true FOR THAT NATION. In no way does it make inherent.
Mob rule is the best?51% controlling the 49% is the best?
Better than the alternatives. You could of course get the government you want by moving to Somalia.
If govts didn't make money off of alcohol, I wonder how DUI enforcement would change.
It is pretty much the same in the Dry States. So you don't need to wonder or continue to pretend that Things Would Be Different when we can see that they would not.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2010
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
Thank you for taking the bait. Jefferson was a Deist. He clearly didn't think a god gave men rights. He was engaging in a political polemic. Declaring it that way doesn't make it true. If it worked that way they wouldn't have had to start shooting Brits.
This is the axiom upon which the US govt was created.
No. Jefferson wasn't even there. He was in France at the time. Benjamin Franklyn had more to do with it than any other single person. Another non-religious person. In fact to get the Constitution passed they had to write the Bill of Rights. Something that would not have been needed if they thought the rights were somehow inherent. Reality and polemics do not always agree.

It has resulted in the most free and prosperous society the world has ever seen.


An Inconvenient Break
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2010
Part two

By ignoring your idea of a good government.

After they tried a government that was much more like the one you claim to like. It FAILED. And had no Bill Of Rights. They learned the hard way that governments have to tax and have to pass laws to create rights. And then the second President tried to abrogate them. Again showing that rights come from the actions of men. No god stepped in and stopped Adams. Jefferson and many HUMANS did.
Why do 'progressives' want a majority to take rights from the minority?
Why do you keep lying like that?
This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance
As said by a slave owner. He clearly didn't believe what he said. So WE the PEOPLE had to pass laws to CREATE OUR rights. Had to kill a lot people to enforce those HUMAN given rights. It was HUMANS like JEFFERSON that enslaved people. Jefferson went both ways.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2010
Thrasymachus
There are two kinds of rights, inherent, and government-granted
Would you care to show how ANY rights are inherent. That is, that did not need humans to create. For millennia people thought they had an inherent right to own people. They had a MIGHT given right.

. The right to perambulate, the right to live, the right to not be harmed, etc. are example of inherent rights.
None of which are magically there. We had to create them. Without people willing to engage in severe strife none of those things exist. In the Mongol Empire you had the right to be struck down so a Mongol could test his sword. In England you had the right to STAY WHERE YOU LIVED or be hunted down by your Lord. None of those things were considered rights in most of human history. WE the PEOPLE created them. Or rather the Founding Fathers did with much blood and pain and hard experience.

I think that covers your next post as well.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2010
Why should the majority disagree?
EVERYONE is a member of some minority. Perhaps that is why the creators of the US Constitution eventually agreed to pass a Bill of Rights. Not everyone is as selfish as you Marjon. Some people, such as the Founding Fathers could think of others AND could notice that without rights for a minority they too would eventually be ground under the majority.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2010
Jefferson was a Deist. He clearly didn't think a god gave men rights.

So?
""A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134 "
""Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.""
{Who is the Author of nature?}
""The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.""
"[It is a] great truth that industry, commerce and security are the surest roads to the happiness and prosperity of [a] people."
http://etext.virg...0100.htm
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2010
Natives get their land back in exchange for some glass beads and some smallpox infected blankets.
Most, obviously not all, Amerinds that died of European diseases did so without any intent from the Europeans.

When a car driver causes unintentionally an accident whereby people get killed he will be punished.
When a soldier unintentionally kills a civilian while in "engagement" he will not be punished.

The conclusion is that the Europeans were waging an aggressive, unprovoked war.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2010
Why should the majority disagree?
EVERYONE is a member of some minority. Perhaps that is why the creators of the US Constitution eventually agreed to pass a Bill of Rights. Not everyone is as selfish as you Marjon. Some people, such as the Founding Fathers could think of others AND could notice that without rights for a minority they too would eventually be ground under the majority.

Ethelred

The question remains, why should the majority disagree. You assert pure democracy is the best form of govt. In a pure democracy, the majority rules, period. There is no Constitution to protect the minority.
Jefferson, regardless of his religious beliefs, wrote 'these TRUTHS to be SELF EVIDENT, ...endowed by our Creator with inherent rights..."
Jefferson did not pull this out of his arse on a whim.
Why is Jefferson, et al, wrong? Make your case.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2010
Jefferson again:
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management."
"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings."
"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government...."
"Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."
http://etext.virg...1550.htm
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2010
There are two kinds of rights, inherent, and government-granted
Would you care to show how ANY rights are inherent. That is, that did not need humans to create. For millennia people thought they had an inherent right to own people.
For millennia people thought and spoke about inherent rights. Unfortunately, nobody came forth with a crisp & clear definition suitable for all human beings. Therefore the notion of "inherent rights" was of minor value.

Now Thrasymachus gave us just that: A crisp & clear definition of the term "inherent rights" which is suitable for all human beings. That's beautiful.
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (23) Nov 28, 2010
Amerinds that died of European diseases did so without any intent from the Europeans.
That is disputable.
Indeed the death rate was so bad there really weren't many people left in much of the US. Nearly the entire population of the Mississippi Missouri drainage was wiped out in as little as two years by ONE smallpox carrier that was with the De Soto expedition
-Which may indeed have been the reason why a diseased person was brought along on such an extended expedition into the wilderness where his infection would have imperiled the whole party. At what point was his contagion realized? Why wasn't he sent back when it was?
Cont.
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (23) Nov 28, 2010
Biowarfare is an ancient art. There's no reason to believe it wasn't intended to be used against indigenes by desoto as it had been both before and after. It DID eliminate a problematic culture and it DID create a lot of free land along a vital waterway through the middle of the continent, both Reasons to suspect that the disease was spread intentionally.

Euros were fighting indigenes around the world as they had been in north America by that time. We should expect them to have been clever enough to do it by any means.

Frajo enjoys using the term 'unprovoked war'. But when Leaders can observe a culture whose behavior in the present will make war in the future inevitable; and when They can realize that by the time this culture initiates this war, it will have been too late to prevent them from winning it; then preemptive aggression is entirely warranted, and critically, unavoidable.
otto1932
1.5 / 5 (24) Nov 28, 2010
Now Thrasymachus gave us just that: A crisp & clear definition of the term "inherent rights" which is suitable for all human beings. That's beautiful.
Many would assert that the ability to bear children is an inherent right. What do we do when individuals are told they have the inherent right to bear children beyond their means to support them by the culture which they belong to?

And what do we do when their culture tells them that their children are starving because the culture next door has all the food?

And what do we do when their culture insists they make war on their neighbors because they have the inherent right to secure food for their starving children?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2010
Ethel, FYI:
"The unofficial tenets of Deism are:
1. Belief in God based on Reason, Experience and Nature
2. Belief that the nature of God is generally incomprehensible
3. Belief that man’s relationship with God is impersonal and abstract.
Deists view humans as equal to each other with inherent rights which is a philosophy called Natural Law.
http://panendeism...ism.aspx
If Jefferson was deist, and the above is accurate, Jefferson believed in God.
frajo
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2010
when Leaders can observe a culture whose behavior in the present will make war in the future inevitable
otto1932's basso continuo with non-falsifiable insights of not identifiable "leaders" that something be "inevitable" identifies him as being unescapably and therefore religiously entangled in his own CT.
otto1932
1.4 / 5 (22) Nov 28, 2010
otto1932's basso continuo with non-falsifiable insights of not identifiable "leaders" that something be "inevitable" identifies him as being unescapably and therefore religiously entangled in his own CT.
My comments above are about real-world issues which are directly related to your discussion here.

There is plenty of evidence to support the conclusion that overpop is a cause of war and that there are cultures which maximize their reproductive rates as an act of imperialistic aggression. Might I point out that it is more substantiated and far easier to authenticate than:
The conclusion is that the Europeans were waging an aggressive, unprovoked war.
-which is a conclusion drawn from ideology and has little relation to actual sociopolitical phenomena. It is essentially equivalent to praying for peace.
Cont.
otto1932
1.4 / 5 (22) Nov 28, 2010
Do you acknowledge that there is aggressive evil in this world and it is sometimes necessary to fight it? An evil which threatens inherent rights to a considerable degree? How can we secure those rights against those who would take them away?

"Theories of history or politics that allegedly predict future events have a logical form that renders them neither falsifiable nor verifiable. They claim that for every historically significant event, there exists an historical or economic law that determines the way in which events proceeded. Failure to identify the law does not mean that it does not exist, yet an event that satisfies the law does not prove the general case."

-I've posted this before so you should know not to use falsification when evaluating historicism.
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2010
A right is inherent when its justification stems from the nature of humanness. Without getting into the arcane logical arguments, this is just another way of saying that an individual has an inherent right insofar as it is consistent with every other individual having that same right. "Rights" talk is not the only way one can get at the concepts at stake here, one can also speak of universal, reciprocal obligation, or of morality in general. The violations of these sorts of rights committed by historical governments does not speak to the fact of whether these rights exist, neither does the fact that the concept of "right" is much later than the institution of government. Insofar as it was morally wrong for the Mongol to test their swords on the peasantry, they violated their rights when they did so. "Rights" talk is just a heuristic to help make the actions of a government more approachable within a system of morality for autonomous beings.
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (23) Nov 28, 2010
"Rights" talk is just a heuristic to help make the actions of a government more approachable within a system of morality for autonomous beings.
Ok but...
These rights do not guarantee themselves. Govts can grant them and they can take them away, either by force or by convincing the people that a higher power wants them restricted, which is apparently fairly easy to do.

The degree and extent of inherent rights are not so apparent as we might assume, and people seem to do very well with restrictions to them when they believe they are either natural or rightfully imposed. As well as imposing them on others for the same reasons.

In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population then restrictions are inevitable, and the argument begins as to whose rights are more deserving than others.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2010
In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

When has this happened under capitalist system?
otto1932
1.8 / 5 (25) Nov 28, 2010
In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

When has this happened under capitalist system?
Great Depression, Weimar Germany, US soldiers pension strike after ww1, that's 3 in 10 seconds. Donner party thats 4.
otto1932
1.4 / 5 (22) Nov 28, 2010
Investment always results in cycles of growth, decay, collapse and rebirth. Some say capitalism thrives on this, as growth produces support for more consumers, who find themselves in greater competition with one another as resources become scarcer and inflation sets in.

Downturns enable employers to refine their workforces by weeding out underperformers. Competition generally produces better products made for less money, and eliminates weak competitors. It also compels businessmen to collude to fix prices and bribe legislators, which is why it needs to be heavily regulated.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2010
In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population
When has this happened under capitalist system?
In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population
When has this happened under capitalist system?
Afraid of data mining for this subject? Have a look here if you dare:
http://english.al...466.html
ekim
5 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2010
In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

When has this happened under capitalist system?

Poverty seems to restrict the acquisition of basic needs.
http://www.statem...ty-level
Mississippi has over one in five people living in poverty.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2010
Great Depression, Weimar Germany, US soldiers pension strike after ww1, that's 3 in 10 seconds.

These did not occur under capitalism.
The War on Poverty has been waged by the govt for decades, but not using capitalist methods, only using socialist methods.
As for hunger, Zimbabwe used to feed itself and export food when it practiced more capitalist methods.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2010
In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population
When has this happened under capitalist system?
In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population
When has this happened under capitalist system?
Afraid of data mining for this subject? Have a look here if you dare:
http://english.al...466.html

If you look at the map the countries with the freest economies are white. The least free are not.
Oh, my bad, it is a map of undernourishment. Coincidence?
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2010
"Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world"
http://www.telegr...rld.html

It's too bad scientists don't understand capitalism.
That's what you get when they don't live in the real world.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2010
scientists call for rationing in developed world


Wow, those scientists are indeed crazy. The path to fight climate change is through more efficient technologies and clean energy, not rationing. If thats not enough, then I guess the planet is going to warm up, and we will have to learn to live in a warmer world.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2010
In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population
When has this happened under capitalist system?
Afraid of data mining for this subject? Have a look here if you dare:
http://english.al...466.html
If you look at the map the countries with the freest economies are white. The least free are not.
Oh, my bad, it is a map of undernourishment. Coincidence?
As nearly always, you are evading your own question when you can't integrate an answer into your inflexible ideology.
This kind of indecency is the main reason you are downrated so many times.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2010
In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population
When has this happened under capitalist system?
Afraid of data mining for this subject? Have a look here if you dare:
http://english.al...466.html
If you look at the map the countries with the freest economies are white. The least free are not.
Oh, my bad, it is a map of undernourishment. Coincidence?
As nearly always, you are evading your own question when you can't integrate an answer into your inflexible ideology.
This kind of indecency is the main reason you are downrated so many times.

It is the anti-capitalists that are evading. The solution to undernourishment is to increase the liberty, and thereby the property, in those countries.
The thugs at the UN love to have the US give them more money to steal or send them grain they can sell.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for life.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2010
""A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134 "
And how does this have meaning considering the source was a slave owner. Indeed he owned HIS OWN CHILDREN.

If he didn't believe it was inherent why should you?
The question remains, why should the majority disagree.
I answered that. I know you have a reality problem and a reading problem but this is ridiculous.
Jefferson again:


A man that owned his own children. I already pointed out that he owned slaves and you ignored it. From that I have to assume the you are OK with owning slaves. The Bible is so I guess that shouldn't surprise me.

Watch Marjon ignore this again.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2010
The source of your source is MODERN Deism not that of Jefferson. Still I will deal with it.
1. Belief in God based on Reason, Experience and Nature
Somewhat but not YOUR god.
2. Belief that the nature of God is generally incomprehensible
I don't think an Age Of Enlightment Deist came up with that.
3. Belief that man’s relationship with God is impersonal and abstract.
That one is real.
Deists view humans as equal to each other with inherent rights which is a philosophy called Natural Law.
Which definitely doesn't fit Jefferson as he owned his mistress and their children. Not on Wikipedia either.

Of course Deism is pre-Darwin and many people have claimed that Natural Selection made Atheism a rational alternative. Then again Darwin's Grandfather was an Atheist. So was Franklyn, at least some of the time.

None of changes the fact that if you have to discuss it or enforce it IS NOT inherent. Breathing is inherent. Rights are opinions.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2010
Otto said regarding Amerinds and smallpox
That is disputable.
Only by those that don't much about it. There is no evidence that either Cortez or De Soto even knew they had a smallpox carrier.
At what point was his contagion realized?
Decades at least perhaps centuries later when Smallpox was understood. There simply was no way for either of those men to comprehend the effects of smallpox on people with no resistance. Desoto didn't even know what happened because he just kept moving. Cortez must have seen the epidemic but few if any would have recognized as smallpox. The effects were extreme by the standards of the resistant Europeans.

I suppose that if De Soto knew what was going on it wouldn't have stopped him. He seems to have been one of the very worst. He was motivated purely by greed for gold.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2010
A right is inherent when its justification stems from the nature of humanness
Which is an opinion.
individual has an inherent right insofar as it is consistent with every other individual having that same right.
Reasonable BUT it still requires discussion and therefor is not inherent.
The violations of these sorts of rights committed by historical governments does not speak to the fact of whether these rights exist
Yes it does.
Insofar as it was morally wrong for the Mongol to test their swords on the peasantry, they violated their rights when they did so
The victims had no rights.
"Rights" talk is just a heuristic to help make the actions of a government
Which does not make things that are opinions inherent.

What you propose as Rights are quite reasonable and clearly follow from the Golden Rule. But they are not inherent. If they followed from the fact that people live and die then they would be inherent.

Ethelred
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2010
They follow from the fact that people have needs and make choices. The dispute here is largely based on a conflation of the use of the word "inherent" either normatively or descriptively. Your use of the word implies a descriptive meaning, using the word "inherent" in much the same way one would use the word "natural." A solid object inherently has mass because it is in the nature of solid objects to have mass, and therefore they are never observed without mass. This is a descriptive use. My use of the word is entirely normative. The normative question of whether a right is inherent is not whether that right (conceived of as an ability or lack of restriction) actually pertains everywhere and to everyone, but whether that right ought to pertain everywhere and to everyone. Rights are either inherent or not, not because of whether they are actually observed, but because of how they ought to be regarded.
otto1932
1 / 5 (18) Nov 30, 2010
There is no evidence that either Cortez or De Soto even knew they had a smallpox carrier.
"In the 9th century the Persian physician, Rhazes, provided one of the most definitive observations of smallpox and was the first to differentiate smallpox from measles and chickenpox"

"Smallpox devastated the native Amerindian population and was an important factor in the conquest of the Aztecs and the Incas by the Spaniards"

"During the Middle Ages, smallpox made periodic incursions into Europe but did not become established there until the population increased and population movement became more active during the time of the Crusades."

"on June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, wrote, "Out of our regard for them [sc. representatives of the besieging Delawares], we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.""

-People were aware enough of it to use it against their enemies.
otto1932
1 / 5 (18) Nov 30, 2010
I suppose that if De Soto knew what was going on it wouldn't have stopped him. He seems to have been one of the very worst. He was motivated purely by greed for gold.
A more compelling Reason in part for the invasion was to secure the precious metals. Advances in maritime tech were making independent trans-atlantic trade an immediate threat to euro economies. Gold and drugs would have collapsed euro societies if they had gotten there uncontrolled, devaluing royal treasuries and causing runaway inflation.

Metals were brought in through spain and carefully dispensed into restricted markets. They were 'shared' with neighbors by using privateers such as sir walter raleigh to raid convoys and thereby improve defensive tactics. These actions quickly enabled euro powers to develop militaries strong enough to control the worlds oceans.

Much of the gold and silver was scuttled and not recovered until centuries later, as there was just too much to absorb.
otto1932
1 / 5 (21) Nov 30, 2010
I lost a post before this one. Lets see...
Only by those that don't much about it.
It appears I may know more about smallpox than you??
There is no evidence that either Cortez or De Soto even knew they had a smallpox carrier.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as you do know. We can expect that brave xian conquistadors would refrain from disclosing it, and royal historians would refrain from recording it.

The evidence we DO have: 1. Smallpox and other diseases were well established over most of eurasia by the 1500s; 2. Disease had routinely been used as a weapon throughout history, by hittites, mongols, brits, et al; 3. Smallpox was an important factor in the spanish conquest of incas and aztecs.

Given these facts, it would be surprising if the invaders had refrained from using the one WMD which would have ensured, and in fact did ensure, victory. We can thus assume that there was a possibility that disease was spread by intent throughout the Campaign.
otto1932
1 / 5 (21) Nov 30, 2010
One can also routinely assume that Actors rarely ever disclose the full extent of why they are doing things or what it is they have actually done. The wikileaks threads make this obvious.

In order to understand we need to first assume the proper perspective and ask the question 'What was the most substantial benefit, irrespective of what we think we know, of historical events?' These benefits often far outweigh any merits presented in the official story line.

We can also routinely assume that history is most often fabricated for political reasons. This is certainly not my conclusion; any competent historian will tell you this. For instance, victors write the history of wars, and inevitably color them to favor their side.

For decades US people thought that they won ww2 in europe. Only after the fall of the USSR did they find out how little they actually had to do with it.

http://en.wikiped...Smallpox
http://en.wikiped..._warfare
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2010
A man that owned his own children. I already pointed out that he owned slaves and you ignored it. From that I have to assume the you are OK with owning slaves. The Bible is so I guess that shouldn't surprise me.
Many owned slaves at that time. Had slavery not been acknowledged in the Constitution, the southern states would not have joined. But the Constitution had an amendment process.
BTW, slavery in New England and the north was abolished BECAUSE of their Christian beliefs and it was a crusading Christian who led the fight to end slavery in Great Britain.
Ethel, I can't imagine that morality would bother you much. You support a govt led by all sorts of moral deviants.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2010
Ethel,
Given your support of a powerful state,
I suspect you would have supported the 3/5 compromise so the USA could have been created.
The alternative could have been a united states without the slave states. Both would have been weaker and may not have survived UK attempts to reacquire.
Looking back, I suspect the free north would have prospered quite well without the southern slave states and all new states would have been free.
Another comment I heard from a historian is the had Jefferson lost to Adams, he may not have been as interested in purchasing the Louisiana territory. The USA may never have grown as large and so prosperous. Many here would not mind that.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2010
Rights are either inherent or not, not because of whether they are actually observed, but because of how they ought to be regarded.


That one word is my point. The OUGHT word. It is an opinion as to what OUGHT to be a right. That humans have opinions IS inherent in humans ever since we became human as opposed to hominid. That humans have opinions about rights is inherent in the concept of rights BUT since people DO have DIFFERENT opinions as to what is a right then the rights are not inherent to humans.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2010
In the 9th century the Persian physician, Rhazes
What is the reason that you think Cortes or De Soto were aware of this? I don't know about Cortes but I do know that Pizarro was illiterate and learned about Cortez's success by word of mouth. He did NOT bring small pox to the Incas, as they had their first epidemic 2 years before he arrived.
on June 24, 1763, William Trent,
Cores was 1512, De Soto started in 1539 died in 1542, his expedition was pretty dismal. There is no indication that they spread disease intentionally. Cortes had allies.
-People were aware enough of it to use it against their enemies.
In 1763 yes. Not with the Conquistadors. Heck it was a local disease that killed De Soto.
smallpox than you??
No. The diseases mostly hit after and for Pizarro before and he was unaware of it till later.

in fact did ensure, victory.
No Otto. 200,000 allies assured Cortes of victory. Just because something could happen doesn't it did.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2010
Many owned slaves at that time.
Yes and clearly THEY didn't believe in inherent rights. Neither does the Bible.
abolished BECAUSE of their Christian beliefs
Actually it was DESPITE what the Bible says. You can con yourself on this but you can't con me.
was a crusading Christian
Yes, in violation of what the Bible clearly gave license to.
Ethel, I can't imagine that morality would bother you much. You support a govt led by all sorts of moral deviants
I can't imagine you NOT making stuff up about people. Do you eat with those same lying fingers?

By the way are you calling Pr. Bush and VP Mad Dog moral deviants?
Given your support of a powerful state,
I never said powerful.
I suspect you would have supported the 3/5 compromise so the USA could have been created
I don't know but Jefferson did. So did Franklyn though he hated it.
Many here would not mind that.
I take it that you are one of the alleged many.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2010
Ethel's opposition to inherent rights in favor of govt granted rights puts him on the side of the statists.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2010
I do have to take some issue with you on the inherency of certain rights being an opinion. The difference between inherent and non-inherent rights is that inherent rights are grounded in objective ethics, while government granted rights are grounded in functional practicality. One may hold the opinion that ethics cannot be objective, but deeper problems of relativism will emerge.

Marjon's an idiot because he doesn't recognize that every right, whether inherent or not, relies on the recognition and protection of that right by a governmental institution if it is to be respected. He thinks that if we just imagine whatever rights we wish to be akin to laws of nature then they really will be. All rights need active protection to be practically meaningful, whether they are inherent or not, and we don't get to just pick and choose which rights are inherent and which ones aren't.
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2010
I would also like to point out that inherency is not a concept that has any real meaning when applied descriptively. Inherency implies that a certain connection between an object and its properties is necessary. Observation can never justify any claim of necessary connection, as Hume argued. Rather, the claim that something is inherent to something else must always be a normative or moral claim. To claim that mass is an inherent property of solid objects is just to claim that every time you conceive of a solid object, you also ought to conceive of that object having mass. That we also always observe the correlation does not justify the claim of inherency, rather, the truth of the claim of inherency explains the constancy of our observations. Likewise, when it comes to moral categories, the observation of the correlation of the moral categories to the moral objects does not justify or refute the claim that those moral categories are inherent to those moral objects.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2010
I hate to get involved in rights talks because they're generally so semantically delicate and politically grounded that they rarely lead to any terribly useful outcomes, but here's a thought...

Nature grants any and all of us only a single right: The right to try to survive. This is truly inherent and only yourself can give it up. It's also ultimately why any of us are around here to argue at all.

On top of that, Nature *saddles* us with any number of universal NEEDS (as they apply to us all equally by the simple virtue of our being human) that require fulfillment in at least some measure if we are to achieve our potential to any extent. To allow for this fulfillment, groups of people of various sizes and common interests *agree to guarantee each other* various freedoms and/or entitlements. The only real "inherent natural right" is the survival instinct. What are usually referred to as inherent rights are in fact "needs" and the rights required to fulfill them are socially granted.
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2010
The natural urge to survive is not a right either, as it's all too often unsuccessful. We simply cannot think of rights as things that any object observably possesses or lacks. That would be to equate a right with an ability, and not all of us have the same abilities, even when it comes to the desire to live.
Rights are the conceptual mirror of the obligations one owes to others. They are what others owe to the individual. Obligations cannot be observed or perceived the way one can perceive the shape, color, position or behavior of an object.

Inherent rights are those obligations that are deemed to be necessary in order for us to maintain a certain basic level of freedom compatible with a like freedom for everybody else. Institutionally granted rights are those obligations that are not necessary, but granted on an argument of their contribution towards that freedom. They aren't thought to be necessary, but they are thought to be helpful.
otto1932
1 / 5 (21) Dec 02, 2010
What is the reason that you think Cortes or De Soto were aware of this? I don't know about Cortes but I do know that Pizarro was illiterate and learned about Cortez's success by word of mouth.
"[Razi's 9 vol. med encyclopedia] is significant since it contains a celebrated monograph on smallpox, the earliest one known. It was translated into Latin in 1279 by Faraj ben Salim, a physician of Sicilian-Jewish origin employed by Charles of Anjou, and after which it had a considerable influence in Europe."

"[cortez] led an expedition that caused the fall of the Aztec Empire and brought large portions of mainland Mexico under the rule of the King of Castile in the early 16th century."

"Because of the controversial undertakings of Cortes and the scarcity of reliable sources of information about him, it has become difficult to assert anything definitive about his personality and motivations."
cont-
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2010
All rights need active protection to be practically meaningful,

I agree. Rights need to be protected at all times from all threats, including the state.
otto1932
1 / 5 (21) Dec 02, 2010
"Early lionizing of the conquistadors did not encourage deep examination of Cortes."

"The history of the conquistadores is rife with accounts of rivalry, jockeying for positions, mutiny and betrayal."

"In 1518 Velazquez put him in command of an expedition to explore and secure the interior of Mexico for colonization."

Ethelreds original statement was:
Amerinds that died of European diseases did so without any intent from the Europeans.
Which otto indicated was disputable. Evidence Ive provided so far: persian medical knowledge was widely distributed in europe by the time of the american conquests; biowarfare had routinely been used throughout history (link); cortez' expedition was an official planned and sanctioned one (even tho mutinous); and there was a strong intent to conquer the entire region quickly and decisively.
cont-
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (10) Dec 02, 2010
The state is the only viable social institution capable of protecting rights.
otto1932
1 / 5 (21) Dec 02, 2010
Additionally, cortez and most conquistador actions and motivations are shrouded in mystery. Few records were kept and a great deal of both spanish activity as well as information and artifacts from native cultures was purposefully obscured and destroyed. What little we have left to examine has been fatally tainted as propaganda:

"As a result of these historical trends, descriptions of Cortes tend to be simplistic, and either damning or idealizing."

But we can look at the results of actions and try to infer what actually happened behind this shroud of mystery. And as Ive said, it would be very unlikely that conquistadors did not intentionally use the bioweaponry which was the primary reason for their swift and decisive victories.

"Forensic science [is] the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest... in relation to a crime or a civil action."

-And forensics always carries the assumption that evidence may have been altered or obscured.
otto1932
1 / 5 (21) Dec 02, 2010
No Otto. 200,000 allies assured Cortes of victory. Just because something could happen doesn't it did.
I wish you would provide quotes or links... 200k who? Natives? Euros?

Victory came from the elimination of significant numbers of indigenes who would have fought the imposition of euro control. They did not have to be subjugated; they died instead. Their cultures did not have to be destroyed; they evaporated.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2010
1/5
The natural urge to survive is not a right either, as it's all too often unsuccessful.
While not usually thought of as a right, IMO, it's really the one inherent universal freedom/entitlement-given to you by nature & can't be cut out. Success or failure as far as acting on it is irrelevant to its inherentness or universality.
We simply cannot think of rights as things that any object observably possesses or lacks. That would be to equate a right with an ability, and not all of us have the same abilities, even when it comes to the desire to live.
I disagree. Instincts and abilities are distinct. Abilities are one of the potentials for acting on instinct. Abilities can vary, or be entirely absent, but the survival instinct? No. You may be able to live even if you cannot walk, or if you cannot see-though certainly your chances of success are vastly diminished-but not if you are not even interested in latching onto your mother's tit after birth. These are simple facts.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2010
2/5
Rights are the conceptual mirror of the obligations one owes to others. They are what others owe to the individual.
This is of the order of opinions. Which is fine, I also happen to share that opinion, but it only supports the notion that rights are not "inherent"--that is "built directly into" an organism--but granted socially to allow for the fulfilment of needs which, like instincts, ARE inherent. I understand (I think) that you mean rights are owed to you by others, but it still seems to me that you are conflating rights and obligations here. I can agree that "Rights are the conceptual mirror of...obligations" but rights are not merely obligations owed others, but also imply complimentary obligations. The two are not the same. E.g., my right to freedom implies your obligation not to confine me arbitrarily.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2010
3/5
We simply cannot think of rights as things that any object observably possesses or lacks.
I'm in nearly 100% agreement
That would be to equate a right with an ability, and not all of us have the same abilities, even when it comes to the desire to live.
I disagree. The desire to live is not an ability, that's why it is referred to as an instinct, something considered inherent, rather than an ability, which may be typical, but variable to the point of being absent. I believe that the confounding between instinct and ability is also an error.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2010
Ooops 3/5
We simply cannot think of rights as things that any object observably possesses or lacks.
I'm in nearly 100% agreement
That would be to equate a right with an ability, and not all of us have the same abilities, even when it comes to the desire to live.
I disagree. The desire to live is not an ability, that's why it is referred to as an instinct, something considered inherent, rather than an ability, which may be typical, but variable to the point of being absent. I believe that the confounding between instinct and ability is also an error.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2010
4/5
Inherent rights are those obligations that are deemed to be necessary in order for us to maintain a certain basic level of freedom compatible with a like freedom for everybody else.
I agree with you for the most part. I have no problem with the notion of "inherent rights" insofar as these are understood as rights granted to allow for the fulfilment of the irreducible needs required to achieve one's human potential (think Maslow). It's the only way I know how to reconcile the built-in (needs) with the freedoms/entitlements which can and unfortunately are often arbitrarily taken away (rights). Of course, you could always argue that inherent rights can never really be taken and only violated, but that would pretty irrelevant to the victim of the offense.
[/blockquote]
Gawad
not rated yet Dec 02, 2010
Blockquote??? Damn! Obviously Eth has a lot more practice at this than I do :^)

4/5
Inherent rights are those obligations that are deemed to be necessary in order for us to maintain a certain basic level of freedom compatible with a like freedom for everybody else.
I agree with you for the most part. I have no problem with the notion of "inherent rights" insofar as these are understood as rights granted to allow for the fulfilment of the irreducible needs required to achieve one's human potential (think Maslow). It's the only way I know how to reconcile the built-in (needs) with the freedoms/entitlements which can and unfortunately are often arbitrarily taken away (rights). Of course, you could always argue that inherent rights can never really be taken and only violated, but that would pretty irrelevant to the victim of the offense.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2010
5/5
Institutionally granted rights are those obligations that are not necessary, but granted on an argument of their contribution towards that freedom. They aren't thought to be necessary, but they are thought to be helpful.
Which, IMO, represent rights based on the non-fundamental, on desires, nice-to-haves. As you say, helpful, but not necessary. Again, among all this, the survival instinct, IMO, is the only "right" that truly comes "built-in" AND can't be taken away. I think we mostly disagree on the *ultimate sources*. In my case this is Nature for ONE truly inherent right (built-in survival instinct), and Nature+society for what are normally termed "inherent rights" (socially protected freedoms/entitlements for the fulfillment of needs) and human desires+society for all the rest. Perhaps this comes off as a bit too algorithmic?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2010
The state is the only viable social institution capable of protecting rights.

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2010
The state is the only viable social institution capable of protecting rights.
It is a shared responsibility.

While "the state", whether local, regional, or national may represent a viable social institution for protecting rights, various levels of goverenment are just as capable of developing policies that violate rights. In such cases, it becomes incumbent on either other levels of government to intervene, on other branches of government (such as courts, for example) to intervene, on other social sectors (the media, for example) to intervene, and most of all, on individuals who must not remain passive in the face of violation of their rights.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 02, 2010
I think the error is in thinking that Nature is the source of any of our rights, inherent or not. Thinking of rights and obligations as mirrors of one another conceptually is exactly the right way to think of them. If you have a right to something, then all others have an obligation to you regarding that thing. Likewise, if someone else has a right to something, then you, and everybody else, has an obligation to them regarding that thing. Obligations are not granted nor justified by nature, only inclinations and instinctual urges are. The source of obligation is mankind itself, through its particular form of sociality. Inherent rights are those mutual obligations which make human society possible at all. I rarely like rights talk when it comes to morality and the role of government anyway, as it borrows too heavily from analogy to a mistaken concept of natural laws, and an illegitimate expansion of the concept of contracts.

Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2010
Thank you for proving my point, marjon. Governments are not the enemy of inherent rights. Their proper role is to protect and enhance those rights. Property rights, however, are not inherent.

Government, like most other social institutions, is a paradox regarding its origin and its proper function. Historically, governments were created for the express purpose of violating other's rights, whether it be the rights of the peasant, or the rights of neighbors. Its proper purpose, however, is diametrically opposed to this function. The social progress of human society is a story of moving away from its original, subjective purpose, and towards its proper, objective purpose.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2010
Their proper role is to protect and enhance those rights. ...
The social progress of human society is a story of moving away from its original, subjective purpose, and towards its proper, objective purpose.

Not lately.
So T, you assert that people don't have the right to the wealth they create? The govt can take whatever the majority wants?
Gawad
not rated yet Dec 02, 2010
I think the error is in thinking that Nature is the source of any of our rights
Oh not Nature ALONE, never (except perhaps in a single case, and admittedly perhaps only in my rather unusual understanding of it). And not just any "nature" but our human nature. Take away the needs that stem from our human nature and what's left to protect with socially enshrined rights anyway?
The source of obligation is mankind itself
Oh, now this is a very interesting point. It may well be truistically correct, of course, yet I can't help but think that its source *within* humanity ("mankind") also stems, collectively, from our nature: as empathic beings. And interestingly, empathy appears to be more a mental/emotional ability than an instinct, which may explain why this sense of obligation (or reciprocity, if you will) is very much more or less present depending on whom you are dealing with. I can think of a couple of examples on this very site, in fact.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 02, 2010
That's exactly what I assert marjon. The traditional natural rights conception of just acquisition is seriously flawed. You have no inherent right to the product of your labor.

@Gawad The feelings of empathy and compassion we feel are certainly helpful in motivating us to meet our obligations, but I would argue that those obligations exist whether we have any particular feeling towards them or not. I agree that the ultimate source of obligation is in the nature of humanity, but I believe, not without reason, that it is particularly the social aspect of human nature that is the source of obligation, not our animalistic/instinctive/feeling nature. It is in the rational recognition and analysis of our society that we justify our obligations, feelings just make it harder or easier to meet them.
otto1932
1 / 5 (21) Dec 02, 2010
So T, you assert that people don't have the right to the wealth they create?
But marjon I thought you believed in this crap??

28 "The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

31 "'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'" luke15
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (22) Dec 02, 2010
Or this?

"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, "Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first." The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. "These men who were hired last worked only one hour," they said, "and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day." But he answered one of them, "Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?" So the last will be first, and the first will be last." (Matt. 20:1-16)
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2010
You have no inherent right to the product of your labor.

This opens the door for the govt to take it, which is why many don't support inherent rights to property.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2010
When the govt protects itself:
"But when government issues fines for mistakes, especially when they are made by people who criticize government, it chills speech."
http://stossel.bl...america/
And this is in 'progressive' Canada.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 02, 2010
I do not believe that property rights are inherent because they are not. There is no coherent conception of the "product of one's labor" to begin with. Every product has multiple inputs, none of which can be separated from the others as the value of what is produced is disconnected from the costs to produce it. When you start picking and choosing what your rights are based on the fear that someone else will take them away, you will never be able to understand what your rights really are, and will be inclined to violate the rights of others. A tendency you display all too frequently, marjon.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2010
There is no coherent conception of the "product of one's labor" to begin with.

Let's keep it simple. If I chop down a few acres of trees, plow the ground, plant seed, harvest the grain, the grain is not my property?
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2010
There is no coherent conception of the "product of one's labor" to begin with.

Let's keep it simple. If I chop down a few acres of trees, plow the ground, plant seed, harvest the grain, the grain is not my property?
Lots of slaves did exactly this kind of work. Did their human environment acknowledge their "property"?
Property is - as Thrasymachus very well said - not an inherent right. Property is an agreement in peaceful settings and theft otherwise.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2010
I think the error is in thinking that Nature is the source of any of our rights

not just any "nature" but our human nature.

While "nature" is understandable as biosphere plus assets, the term "human nature" irritates me.
The source of obligation is mankind itself

I can't help but think that its source *within* humanity ("mankind") also stems, collectively, from our nature: as empathic beings.

Is there any difference between "human nature" and mankind's behaviour?
empathy appears to be more a mental/emotional ability than an instinct, which may explain why this sense of obligation (or reciprocity, if you will) is very much more or less present depending on whom you are dealing with. I can think of a couple of examples on this very site, in fact.

Empathy is a neurological/hormonal phenomenon found not only in (some) humans. There is no sharp boundary between humans and other animals.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2010
Property is an agreement in peaceful settings and theft otherwise.

It is peaceful as long as the liberals don't gang up on me and take it. That's why the right to keep and bear arms is so important, to protect life and property from criminals in and out of the govt.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2010
Ethel's opposition to inherent rights in favor of govt granted rights puts him on the side of the statists.
Idiotic statement that is. Its like saying I hate Jehovah. There is no Jehovah to hate and there are no inherent rights to oppose.

And every quote from Jefferson proves my position.

As for being a statist. It is the stupidest attempt at a pejorative that I have come across in a long time.

Move to Somalia. They have EXACTLY the government you want.

Ethelred
otto1932
1 / 5 (20) Dec 03, 2010
There is no coherent conception of the "product of one's labor" to begin with.

Let's keep it simple. If I chop down a few acres of trees, plow the ground, plant seed, harvest the grain, the grain is not my property?
Lots of slaves did exactly this kind of work. Did their human environment acknowledge their "property"?
Property is - as Thrasymachus very well said - not an inherent right. Property is an agreement in peaceful settings and theft otherwise.
Humans are territorial animals and property ownership is the civil expression of this. We do work to maintain our homes and property and should not have to forfeit this. Horsethieves were hung. Tools, clothes, etc that we own are necessary to survival and require work to replace.

Inherent implies lawful. Arbitrary theft invites conflict and the breakdown of civil order, which threatens society and thereby the lives of it's members. Inherent means 'critical for survival.' IMO
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2010
While "nature" is understandable as biosphere plus assets, the term "human nature" irritates me.
O.k., um, what is it about the terms that does so? Perhaps because it is too vague? If so, consider that it was used as short hand for the hierarchy of needs elaborated by Maslow. And please keep in mind that I do not see nature as the source of our rights, only as the source of our needs and instincts. WE collectively create rights to try to help meet these needs. This is why, in my case the term "inherent right" REALLY irritates me. Especially because it's left completely undefined or worse, partly undefined with the undefined part assumed, and assumed differently by different parties. Ask what makes it inherent and you get God, or Nature. Well, what if someone doesn't believe in God? What if someone points out that Nature is an abstract entity that is not in any position to grant anything? Then I get told, well it's because their universal. Well who decided that? Where's that from?
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2010
Is there any difference between "human nature" and mankind's behaviour?
Of course there is. It is human nature to get hungry every few hours. Human behavior in response is to grab something edible put it your mouth chew and swallow. It is human nature want to have some measure of control over territory, in response you can have a host of behaviours from agreements with neighbors to fencing to war. Our nature is the sum of our instincts, needs and abilities, our behaviour is about how we choose to meet the former. You have no choice over your nature, but you do over your behaviour.
Empathy is a neurological/hormonal phenomenon found not only in (some) humans. There is no sharp boundary between humans and other animals.
True, but I'm not sure I see your point Frajo.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 03, 2010
Part of human nature, and the part that makes the most difference when it comes to moral obligations, is the ability to self-consciously choose. Morality is meaningful and rationally compelling for all creatures, and only those creatures, who can so choose.

And no, marjon, you don't. Who did that real estate belong to in the first place? Who else had or could have had claim to those trees? Where did you get the seed? How did you learn to clear the ground and till the soil? How much damage did you do to natural or common resources by fertilizing and herbiciding your crop? Even the efficacy of your own efforts has so many social inputs and consequences that there is no way to determine what part of your product is the result of your own efforts and what is the result of efforts of uncounted multitudes of others that make it possible for you to apply your efforts in such a way. What you do or produce cannot be separated from what others do and produce.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2010
Property is an agreement in peaceful settings and theft otherwise.

It is peaceful as long as the liberals don't gang up on me and take it. That's why the right to keep and bear arms is so important, to protect life and property from criminals in and out of the govt.

So you're saying you need guns to protect yourself from "whiny, little liberals" who "can't do anything for themselves".

Where does that leave you?

Your consistent demonization of each person you choose to disagree with, and it is a choice as you've equivocated for democrats in the past, must be entirely because of your fascist tendencies. How sad it must be to believe in a form of government declared dead in the 1960's.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2010
To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of the death of fascism have been greatly exaggerated. Fascist dictatorships may well be dead. But, thanks to the help of conservative fear-mongering and blatant corporatism, their favoring of capital over people, and we are well on track to an oligarchic fascism. If not already there.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2010
To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of the death of fascism have been greatly exaggerated. Fascist dictatorships may well be dead. But, thanks to the help of conservative fear-mongering and blatant corporatism, their favoring of capital over people, and we are well on track to an oligarchic fascism. If not already there.

The source of fascism is socialism. The current president of the US, the leaders of Congress have demonstrated their socialist desires.
That is why the socialist candidates were shellacked in Nov.
What you do or produce cannot be separated from what others do and produce.

Sounds like a great communist line.
The Pilgrims tried that and nearly starved. When individuals could own their plots, productivity increased. Even Cuba acknowledges this.
BTW India is creating special economic zones that cut's red tape and provided tax breaks. 100 zones are operating and 478 more are planned.
Want economic growth? Cut govt regs and taxes. It has been proven.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2010
So you're saying you need guns to protect yourself from "whiny, little liberals" who "can't do anything for themselves".

The whiny little liberals are like street gangs who need to gang up on people. That's why they join unions and associate with organized crime to intimidate those who disagree with them.
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2010
The source of fascism is corporate political power. That's the very definition of fascism: government of by and for the corporation.

Really want economic growth? Hamstring corporate economic and political power. That's what's been proven. Government is the only effective tool at doing that. At this very moment, corporations have managed to steal trillions of dollars from American's pensions and retirement accounts. They've bought out both political parties at national and state levels. They roll county and city governments like thugs roll a drunk in a dark alley. The very wealthy of this country and others have stolen America's wealth and hold its future for ransom. And you shill for them. You're a despicable human being.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2010
The source of fascism is corporate political power. That's the very definition of fascism: government of by and for the corporation.

Not according to its creator, Mussolini. Fascism is national socialism. Corporations under socialism were under control of the state.
Notice what happened Fiji water?
"The U.S.-owned company said after meeting with Fiji's leaders it has agreed to "comply" with the hefty tax hike imposed on it by the military-led regime."
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2010
corporations have managed to steal trillions of dollars from American's pensions and retirement accounts.

How? They are all regulated by multiple govt agencies?
The govt sets a fine example by stealing the social security payments.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2010
Hey, T, cities and sates around the country can't meet their the pension obligations they promised their govt employees. Whose fault is that?
"The average public pension plan is 35% under-funded, and things are getting worse."
http://www.forbes...ces.html
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2010
Because the corporations are the ones that write the regulations. That's how the whole corporate/political parody of democracy works. Corporations fund politician's campaigns so they'll get elected (and they play both sides so they'll always win), then they get industry insiders and "leaders" to head the regulatory agencies and write the regulations for the industries they just came from and will go back to when their term is up.

from http://en.wikiped.../Fascism
Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2010
Because the corporations are the ones that write the regulations.

How do they do that? Is there no integrity in govt?
"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."
"The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... "
http://www.fordha...ism.html
This is from the creator of Fascism. He should know.
Too bad this makes socialist/'progressives' unhappy, but, tough.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 03, 2010
Government is a tool, like a hammer or a sickle. It can be used to destroy or to build. When it's in the hands of modern corporatist conservatives, it's used to destroy every social institution that helps individuals and build institutions that only help the private associations that currently hold political and economic power. When it's in the hands of real progressives, like LBJ and FDR's Democrats, it builds institutions that help the individual. The evidence of this is clearly written in the economic history of our nation and the developed world. Blaming the government is like blaming the handgun instead of the criminal who wields it.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2010
"Here is a study of the actual workings of business under national socialism. Written in 1939, Reimann discusses the effects of heavy regulation, inflation, price controls, trade interference, national economic planning, and attacks on private property, and what consequences they had for human rights and economic development. This is a subject rarely discussed and for reasons that are discomforting,: as much as the left hated the social and cultural agenda of the Nazis, the economic agenda fit straight into a pattern of statism that had emerged in Europe and the United States, and in this area, the world has not be de-Nazified. "
http://www.amazon...00XG6RRQ
Who is in power under fascism?
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2010
Blaming the government is like blaming the handgun instead of the criminal who wields it.

At least you acknowledge that govt is pure force.
it builds institutions that help the individual.

Social Security is bankrupt and so is Medicare. Both will bankrupt the country. How dos that help the individual?
"The Roosevelt administration, she added, “envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy. (fascism)"
"In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.” He wasn’t hallucinating. FDR’s adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary."
http://reason.com...oosevelt
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 03, 2010
You don't ever bother to understand the meanings of the terms you throw around, do you marjon? I'm not debating that world governments, particularly the US government and those original opponents of Nazi Germany, have continued down the path toward fascism. That path is set by corporatists and conservatives, and they march proudly towards fascism all the while defaming their opponents as fascists and socialists. I want truly free markets. You want markets bought and controlled by the highest bidder.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 03, 2010
Social Security is an easy fix and its costs are stable in the long term. Medicare costs are out of control because of our wacked out private insurance system of medical care financing and out of control health care costs. Social Security is responsible for three generations of elderly people being able to retire with dignity instead of working themselves into the grave. I guess you don't think that helped those individuals.
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2010
I want truly free markets. You want markets bought and controlled by the highest bidder.

The ONLY way this can be accomplished is IF the govt has limited power and its primary function is to protect everyone's property rights.
Private insurance is 'wacked out' because of 51 different governments regulating the industry and forcing the companies to mandate all sorts of procedures.
You want markets bought and controlled by the highest bidder.

This is apparently what you want as this is exactly what has happened under the democrats the past four years.
lengould100
5 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
Marjon: Man, are you at that again? Fascism is by definition the polar opposite of socialism. Tell me, what two sides were fighting during the Spanish civil war of the 1930's? It was Franco (supported by Mussolini and Hitler, all three the archetypes of Fascist belief systems (right-wing, corporatist), versus a coalition of socialists and communists (left-wing).

Or read a bit about Chile's recent history.

http://en.wikiped...Pinochet

Pinochet = Fascist Dictator

Allende = Leftist / Social Democrat, won the presidency in a general election against several opponents, including Pablo Neruda, the presidential candidate for the chilean communist party.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (12) Dec 04, 2010
No, the only way for truly free markets to occur is for the government to protect and promote real inherent rights, wherever this is a danger of people violating them. The right of expression. The right of equal opportunity. The right to be free from fraud and deception. The right to live, including the right to an income sufficient to maintain a subsistence level of lifestyle in the economic conditions in which that individual lives. Property rights are secondary to all those other rights, and are to be defined in terms of them.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
The whiny little liberals are like street gangs who need to gang up on people.


Thundering Fascist RightWingNuts hire lawyers to beat employees into submission.

That's why they join unions and associate with organized crime to intimidate those who disagree with them.
They associate with people that didn't kill them like the police did in the 1930's and earlier. However as a person from the the state you hate most, California I have to point out that the Longshoreman's Union in the EAST was owned by the Mafia BUT the here on the Pacific they kicked the Mafia out.

And thank you for confirming what I figured you non-thinking was on unions. You are just fine with employers ganging up on employees but can't stand to see employees get together to negotiate with equal strength.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
Not according to its creator, Mussolini. Fascism is national socialism.
This is like quoting Jefferson on liberty. Neither practiced what they preached.
They are all regulated by multiple govt agencies?
By bribing and owning the regulators.
Whose fault is that?
The RightWingers that damaged the economy by ignoring their responsibility to regulate.
Is there no integrity in govt?
It's hard to find when the politicians have contempt for government. Which is why so many of the Reagan-Bush admin were convicted for corruption. And only one in the Clinton admin where people expected government to actually work.
Here is a study of the actual workings of business
As usual Marjon posts opinion and pretends it is fact.
This is apparently what you want as this is exactly what has happened under the democrats the past four years.
Why do lie like that? The REPUBLICANS ran the country until two years ago and have filibustered the last two.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
Social Security is bankrupt and so is Medicare. Both will bankrupt the country. How dos that help the individual?
Neither one is bankrupt, regardless of how many times your Mormon hero Glen Beck says they are.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2010
Why do lie like that? The REPUBLICANS ran the country until two years ago and have filibustered the last two.

The DEMOCRATS controlled congress since 2006.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
"Forty-five years later, the costs of the Medicare program have become all too obvious. Medicare is a significant part of the reason the national debt is soaring out of control. It is an indispensable safety net for millions of senior citizens and people with disabilities, who depend on it to protect them from bankrupting medical bills. But since it’s an open-ended program — with no upper limit — the nation has no similar protection to keep Medicare from bankrupting the country."
"Medicare is already growing faster than Social Security, and it could become bigger and more expensive than Social Security in the next 25 years. It is also growing faster than the economy, and if that keeps up, Medicare could cause the national debt to swell up to more than two-thirds of the gross domestic product in just the next decade. "
http://www.public...ry/2563/
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
Obviously Eth has a lot more practice at this than I do :^)
Maybe but now I cheat. I have been using Notepad++ for years to write posts. Yet it was only a few days ago that I finally created a macro to create quotes correctly.

Start recording
[ q ]control V [ / q ]
Stop Recording
Save macro as
Quotes Control Alt Q

Extra spaces put in an attempt to confound the parser. Now as long as type it up in Notepad++ I automatically get the pseudo code correct. I had been thinking about doing something more difficult when I remember that Notepad++ supported macros.

http://notepad-plus-plus.org/

I have character count turned on. I strongly recommend using it to write for forums.

I also made a macro for the signature. Today. Sometimes I am so bloody slow to think of things. Like I tried Control Alt S for the signature and that turns on my screen saver. So it is now Control Alt Shift S.

Ethelred
Physorg should do themselves and us a favor
Stop the Ranking Insanity
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (20) Dec 04, 2010
Physorg should do themselves and us a favor
Stop the Ranking Insanity
I'm sure that ranking is the single most lucrative generator of traffic. And it is informative- it shows how a community can be Played for more constructive Purposes, just as in the real world. For without traffic the site would perish and keyboard philos would not be able to postulate about their inherent right to do so.

The majority would do without ranking, but the majority always votes against inconvenience, even if it means their eventual end. And so the Physorg world requires Moderators, just like the real one. And They are NEVER beholden to public scrutiny.

They give posters a ranking system to make them feel as if they have some control over the course of things, like democracy. But in either case they do not. To give participants real control would only mean eventual and certain Dissolution.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
The DEMOCRATS controlled congress since 2006.
No. They controlled the HOUSE. The Republicans still controlled the Senate. And President Dumbass still refused to spend money that he was required to spend and he was in CONTROL OF THE REGULATORS that refused to do their job. Much like the Great Depression where the Federal Reserve refused to do it's job out ideology.

The biggest problem with the Republicans in the past was a foolish insistence on ideology over practicality. And now its worse. They have declared, in a fit of insanity, that they will hold their collective breath till the Country turns blue. Or the Rapture occurs I suppose as the Religious Right still refuses to admit that 2000AD came and went. As did 1000AD and the entire generation that listened to a prophesy that their generation would not pass till the Second Coming.

Ethelred
Physorg should do themselves and us a favor
Stop the Ranking Insanity
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2010
Marjon,

http://www.cms.go...ter=3823

Solvent until 2029 at a minimum. That would be the opposite of bankrupt.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
The democrats held a majority in the US Senate after the 2006 election.

"NPR's Host Renee Montagne talks to Marilyn Moon, vice president and program director of health at the American Research Institute. They discuss a recent report detailing Medicare going bankrupt in 2019 — 11 years sooner than previous projections."
http://www.npr.or...=1791298
SH, what is agreed is Medicare WILL become insolvent, soon.
How will the govt fix it?
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
"The Medicare Trustees are Treasury Secretary and Managing Trustee Timothy F. Geithner, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis, and Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue. Two other members are public representatives who are appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. "
Of course SH believes these distinguished political appointees who have no reason to lie about the job they are doing.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2010
The democrats held a majority in the US Senate after the 2006 election.
Thank you. So I got the House wrong. You got the total number of Houses wrong, again. And ignored the President.

Ethelred
Physorg should do themselves and us a favor
Stop the Ranking Insanity
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
Ethel, where did you learn civics?
The democrats controlled the Senate and House, aka Congress, from 2007 through 2010. Since Congress can override the president's veto, the power is in Congress.
The 'liberals' own this economy.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
Ethel, where did you learn civics?
The democrats controlled the Senate and House, aka Congress, from 2007 through 2010
One would ask you the same thing. How exactly did they get 3 year terms?
Since Congress can override the president's veto, the power is in Congress.

Then why do you blame our president for everything?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
The democrats controlled the Senate and House, aka Congress, from 2007 through 2010.
Interesting the way you changed the dates there. Thats cheating. Lying really.

After checking I see I had it right the first time. The Democrats did NOT control the Senate. And of course tie votes were broken by VP Mad Dog. True there was one independent.

Since Congress can override the president's veto, the power is in Congress.
With a two-thirds majority which the Democrats did not have even after 2008. Where did YOU learn Civics?

The 'liberals' own this economy.
Lie again. The Republicans had COMPLETE control for 6 years. They controlled the regulator for all 8 years. They controlled the idiots that failed to regulate when things went bust. Obama came in AFTER things went bust under the Republicans.

I understand that you have trouble with reality but this is ridiculous.

Ethelred
Physorg should do themselves and us a favor
Stop the Ranking Insanity
geokstr
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2010
Ethel, where did you learn civics?
The democrats controlled the Senate and House, aka Congress, from 2007 through 2010
One would ask you the same thing. How exactly did they get 3 year terms?


And where did you learn math, public school?

2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 = 4 years

They don't get seated until the January after the election, remember? Where did you learn your civics, Howard Zinn?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2010
And where did you learn math, public school?

2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 = 4 years

They don't get seated until the January after the election, remember? Where did you learn your civics, Howard Zinn?
Indeed you are correct, I made a miscalculation.

As for when they're seated, well and good, however, one might ask you why you're unable to properly quote when the forum tools do it for you.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
"Reid has been the Senate Majority Leader since January 2007,"
http://en.wikiped...rry_Reid
Which means the Democrats controlled the Senate from Jan 2007 until the present day and the House from Jan 2007 until Jan 2011.
But in the Senate, there are many RINOs from the NE who vote with the Ds most of the time.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
But in the Senate, there are many RINOs from the NE who vote with the Ds most of the time.
If you're going to call them RINOs that means you'd have to refer to almost every republican up until 98 as a RINO. The right has moved further right over the years, probably because more and more of them are dying of old age and not being replaced by the next generation, or they're changing views as the political spectrum changes further and further right.

Look at "Obama" Care. It used to be "Dole" care. Cap and trade was originally a Bush Sr. industrial revitalization and regulation plan. Taft and Roosevelt passed the "Right-To-Work" legislation that the republicans despise, even though Taft was one of their more conservative anti-union brethren. They're pushing for tax cut extensions, but trying to ride a wave of "fiscal responsibility".

Seriously man, you're laughable. And as your numbers shrink, and they are shrinking, you'll simply become more and more extremist. Then irrelevan
geokstr
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
As for when they're seated, well and good, however, one might ask you why you're unable to properly quote when the forum tools do it for you.

Because it's not always a simple matter of hitting the "Quote" button. Please note that your comment had multiple sections with quotes within quotes, of which I only wanted to comment on some portions, so I had to selectively delete sections. If those that remain are not all properly parsed with "q" and "/q", then it won't turn out right. If you're in a hurry, and there's no "preview" capability, then that's what happens. My bad.

But, hey, that's a great counter to my argument, that I didn't get all the html right.

How about I say that every leftling argument is flawed and illogical and stupid whenever there's a spelling or grammar error? Nah, that would be a full-time job, with overtime, just on this one site.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2010
But, hey, that's a great counter to my argument,
I didn't have a counter, you were correct in stating my error. So I made fun of your inability to quote, do you take issue with this?
geokstr
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
But, hey, that's a great counter to my argument,
I didn't have a counter, you were correct in stating my error. So I made fun of your inability to quote, do you take issue with this?

I can use the quotes and basic html as well as you, I dare say, I just didn't check all my "q's" and "/q's" before I posted it. Additionally, this site is posting very slowly, so that by the time my comment hit, I couldn't even go and edit it.

And yes, I take issue with making fun of that, for the same reason that I don't criticize people who may disagree with me but make spelling and grammar errors. Even people who can't spell, and yes, even those who don't know html, can still make good arguments. If their logic and/or facts are flawed, that's what I'll go after, not their style.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
And yes, I take issue with making fun of that, for the same reason that I don't criticize people who may disagree with me but make spelling and grammar errors. Even people who can't spell, and yes, even those who don't know html, can still make good arguments. If their logic and/or facts are flawed, that's what I'll go after, not their style.
Would that be why you one ranked the fact sheet on Medicare solvency I posted?
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 04, 2010
The final fall-back of defeated conservative ideology is to claim that Democrats were responsible. This is not about the current dysfunctional party duopoloy. Both parties are corporatist, they simply tend to be beholden to different corporations and different classes of the very wealthy. Sure, some few Democrats are anti-corporatist, while no Republicans are, and that's why I tend to prefer Democrats to Republicans, but both parties are fundamentally broken. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no party that represents an anti-corporatist agenda because there's no (corporate) money in it.
geokstr
1 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
Would that be why you one ranked the fact sheet on Medicare solvency I posted?

Please remind me - which comment would that that be? I don't recall it.

But let's be clear. "Facts" can be cherrypicked to support literally anything. Often it's the interpretation of those facts that is questionable.
I'm certain that since you are on the left and I on the right that we will not agree on much. I debate leftists on other blogs in much more detail than I can get into in 1,000 characters here, like who exactly is responsible for the housing bubble, which began long before Bush (hint: it ain't conservatives), so I'm tired of typing all that stuff again here.

And let's also be honest - on how many of my comments on any thread here have you ever given anything I've said more than a "1"?

Never, you say? Gosh, I'm shocked.
geokstr
1 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
The final fall-back of defeated conservative ideology is to claim that Democrats were responsible.

Was that what happened on Nov 2? That's the first time I've heard it called a defeat for conservatives. If that is what you call a defeat, I surrender.

You do know, don't you (but you probably don't), that this is a center-right, i.e., conservative nation? Every year since they began the survey, approx 40% self-identify as conservative (including 20% of democrats), and only 20% as liberal:
http://www.gallup...als.aspx

The numbers have hardly moved at all, except for those "soundly defeated" conservatives to edge upward recently after people see what how a far leftist governs.

otto1932
1.2 / 5 (20) Dec 04, 2010
Religious Right still refuses to admit that 2000AD came and went. As did 1000AD and the entire generation that listened to a prophesy that their generation would not pass till the Second Coming.
The 7th day Adventists made a whole religion out of getting it wrong. Makes no difference to superstitionists. As long as they get their guarantee that they will see their dead relatives after death.
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2010
Yep, they call themselves conservative, but when you ask them specifically about policies, they always want to raise taxes on the rich and decrease spending on the military and increase spending on infrastructure and social programs. That's probably why most voters are so frustrated right now. Conservative politicians have made such a mishmash of the terminology, they don't know what to call what they want.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
Would that be why you one ranked the fact sheet on Medicare solvency I posted?
Please remind me - which comment would that that be? I don't recall it.
It was this one:
Marjon,

http://www.cms.go...ter=3823

Solvent until 2029 at a minimum. That would be the opposite of bankrupt.


marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
The only solutions that 'progressives' like T, or 'populists' like SH have to stem the 'evil' alliance of corporation and state is to increase the power of the state, which will only result in more power to the 'evil' corporations.
Am I wrong?
I, and many others, want to limit the power of the state. If the state has less authority to loot and meddle, those 'evil' coporations will have fewer pathways to political power. They will have to rely on economic power. They will have to compete with each other for customers. Wow, imagine, limit state power results in more 'power to the people'.
That's what 'progressives' and 'populists' claim they want. But that is not what they really want. They really want more power for themselves to force the rest of us to be more 'progressive'.
lengould100
4 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
That whole "solvent or not" stupidity regarding US Med care, retirement funds is just a dirty underhanded attempt by Wall St. banksters to get the govt. to "fully fund" those systems, thus creating an incredibly HUGE pile of dormant cash which they then can make HUGE profits from the fees to invest (but where could such an amount ever be usefully invested?).

Just another right-wing fraud on the average taxpayer.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
HUGE pile of dormant cash

Where would that pile be?
When people invest cash, do they bury it in a hole or put it under a mattress? Or do they put it to work in the market to provide capital for businesses to operate and expand to create wealth and jobs for people?
Now businesses ARE sitting on their cash because they don't know what the govt will do to them.
If, as SH and T claim that the 'corporatist' run the govt, why are so many waiting to see what the govt will do to them?
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing behind the scenes for lame-duck legislation that would allow poker games over the Internet but restrict initial licenses to casinos and racetrack operators that have been in businesses at least five years.

Some of the biggest casino operators in Reid's home state of Nevada are eager to get a piece of the online gambling industry, which generates an estimated $5 billion a year for offshore operators."
"Four years ago, Congress effectively banned online gambling, passing legislation that prohibits banks and credit card companies from making payments to gambling websites. "
http://finance.ya...amp;.v=6
See how this works? Govt passes a law regulating some activity and then they get those affected to fund their campaigns for special privilege.
If Congress could not control how people spent their money, casinos would have no need to bribe senators.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2010
The only solutions that 'progressives' like T, or 'populists' like SH have to stem the 'evil' alliance of corporation and state is to increase the power of the state,
No, no we don't.
which will only result in more power to the 'evil' corporations.
No, no it won't.
Am I wrong?
Almost always.
I, and many others, want to limit the power of the state. If the state has less authority to loot and meddle, those 'evil' coporations will have fewer pathways to political power. They will have to rely on economic power.
You're so dense. Keep beating this drum. You're a simpleton.

And lest we forget, a corrupt politician yourself.
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 05, 2010
When the people running the government believe that government cannot be anything but corrupt, it becomes corrupt as those politicians rush to sell each other and their constituents out for the biggest payoff.

Marjon's probably just miffed that he's not a bright enough politician to really cash in on the graft, what with being on the agricultural commission of some backwater township in a state with effective anti-corruption laws against low-level flunkies like himself. Maybe he figures if he sucks up to his party bosses and parrots their propaganda, they'll let him have a real taste of the action.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2010
When the people running the government believe that government cannot be anything but corrupt,

That's the socialist fantasy, uncorruptable govt servants that will keep govt pure.
This fantasy evaporates as the socialists increase the scope of the govt's power. Peter doesn't want to be robbed by the state to pay Paul leading to the state's use of force.
Socialism fails because it depends upon self-less moral volunteers to succeed.

marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2010
The effects of incompetent govt meddling:
"“This really brings into focus one of the unintended consequences of institutionalizing the federal government picking winners and losers while those entities are partaking directly and indirectly in what should be exclusive government functions.” "
"At 5:45 p.m. on Monday, Sept. 15, GE Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey R. Immelt met for half an hour with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. in the secretary’s office, according to Paulson’s schedule.

An hour and 15 minutes later, Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Timothy F. Geithner convened a staff meeting to focus on “GE issues,” according to his schedule. He and Paulson conferred by phone afterward.

On Oct. 1, Geithner’s schedule noted a tentative conference call with Immelt, who was a board member of the New York Fed, a position he still has today. "
http://www.bloomb...cue.html
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2010
"Sen. Christopher Dodd leaves office disappointed and bewildered. The people don't trust their government."
"...watch the short clips from March 2009 of Dodd caught in stark prevarications over his role in protecting $165 million in bonuses for his generous friends at financial giant and albatross AIG. Over the course of two interviews in 24 hours on CNN, Dodd first denied with his trademark vehemence that he had anything to do with inserting a section into the February 2009 stimulus bill that allowed AIG executives to keep their staggering bonuses from a company that required nearly $100 billion in taxpayer assistance."
http://www.couran...7.column
Power corrupts.
geokstr
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2010
Would that be why you one ranked the fact sheet on Medicare solvency I posted?
Please remind me - which comment would that that be? I don't recall it.
It was this one:
Marjon,

http://www.cms.go...ter=3823

Solvent until 2029 at a minimum. That would be the opposite of bankrupt.



I guess that would mean you are wrong, incorrect, and in error. I am NOT marjon.

Not only that, it was Skeptic that complained about the rating I didn't give him, not you. That makes both of you wrong. So what else is new?
geokstr
2 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
That whole "solvent or not" stupidity regarding US Med care, retirement funds is just a dirty underhanded attempt by Wall St. banksters to get the govt. to "fully fund" those systems

Speaking of stupidity, you have no clue.

I am a CPA with 30 years of financial reporting and analysis in major corporations. If any of them accounted for pensions and other liabilities like government, the officers would be doing long prison sentences.

There is nothing real in the so-called Trust Fund - period. It is full of IOUs to ourselves, nothing more. Politicians of both parties have taken every cent of surplus and spent it to buy votes with for forty years.

6 years ahead of forecast, SS is already in a negative cash flow position. It has to either borrow more or raise taxes or print money to fund current payments. Socialist countries all over the world are facing a financial precipice, and it's too late to do anything about it, brought on by their Free Lunch Theory of economics.
geokstr
1 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2010
Yep, they call themselves conservative, but when you ask them specifically about policies, they always want to raise taxes on the rich and decrease spending on the military and increase spending on infrastructure and social programs. That's probably why most voters are so frustrated right now. Conservative politicians have made such a mishmash of the terminology, they don't know what to call what they want.

What in the Sam Hill are you talking about? Exactly which "conservatives" are recommending these bizarre ideas, which are all precisely what leftists want? Maybe you should stop smoking that oregano or something.

What, you think Obama, and Reid, and Pelosi, and Bernie Sanders, and the CPUSA are "conservatives"?
As a certain long-eared rabbit used to say - "What a maroon!"

It's leftlings that believe in NewSpeak, not conservatives.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2010
Imagine of young people could put money tax free in a medical savings account that rolled over every year and spent a bit on catastrophic health insurance. After a few years those cash accounts could be used to pay for higher medical costs as they age. Also, as consumers have more control over their health care dollar, providers would have to compete lowering cots. Win-win, except for the socialists who loose power over the medical and insurance industries.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2010
It's leftlings that believe in NewSpeak, not conservatives.

Agree.
100 years ago they called themselves 'progressives' as liberals were the classical type. Then, they liked the term 'liberal'. When that earned a bad reputation, they have now reverted to 'progressive' again, but they have always been socialists. A term they don't like either.
Words have meaning.
geokstr
1 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2010
Imagine of young people could put money tax free in a medical savings account that rolled over every year and spent a bit on catastrophic health insurance. After a few years those cash accounts could be used to pay for higher medical costs as they age. Also, as consumers have more control over their health care dollar, providers would have to compete lowering cots. Win-win, except for the socialists who loose power over the medical and insurance industries.

Well, marjon, it didn't take very long to get a low rating from a leftling, did it, and from one too cowardly to say exactly why they think such a common-sense idea is untenable (that means "icky", for those who live in Rio Linda)?

Probably because if you are allowed to control your own money and make your own health care decisions, then they won't have the power to tell you what to do. Control over everyone, after all, is probably the main central dogma of the Religion of Leftism, as handed down from St Karl of Marx.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2010
Control over everyone, after all, is probably the main central dogma of the Religion of Leftism,

That is the conclusion I have reached.
Didn't someone write it is better rule in hell than serve in heaven?
'Liberals' would rather have power over a economic basket case than have economic prosperity for all.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2010
Socialist countries all over the world are facing a financial precipice,
What a fine-tuned definition of "socialism" you have - every country is socialist except China?
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2010
geokstr:
And yes, I take issue

SH:
Would that be why you one ranked the fact sheet on Medicare solvency I posted?

geokstr:
Please remind me - which comment would that that be? I don't recall it.

frajo:
It was this one:
Marjon,
http://www.cms.go...ter=3823
Solvent until 2029 at a minimum. That would be the opposite of bankrupt.


geokstr:
I guess that would mean you are wrong, incorrect, and in error.
Which statement do you think is wrong?

geokstr:
I am NOT marjon.
Did someone say so?

geokstr:
Not only that, it was Skeptic that complained about the rating I didn't give him, not you.
No, SH did not complain; he just made a remark. Yes, it was not me. So what?
And it was you who gave him a "1" for his aforementioned comment.

geokstr:
That makes both of you wrong. So what else is new?
Maybe you are having difficulties with the voting system?
geokstr
1 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2010
Frajo:
And it was you who gave him a "1" for his aforementioned comment.

Please tell me how you know that I am the one who left a "1" on any given comment.
geokstr
1 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2010
Socialist countries all over the world are facing a financial precipice,
What a fine-tuned definition of "socialism" you have - every country is socialist except China?

Any Euro country (including Germany), for example. Or haven't you been following the financial travails of Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, who are all teetering on bankruptcy? France and England are making attempts to cut back on spending and insane retirement policies. Or did you miss the riots in France over raising the retirement age from 60 to 62?

I don't include economic basketcases like Cuba, Zimbabwe, and North Korea, even though they are just socialism taken to it's logical end - totalitarian communism. Nor countries like Venezuela, which are almost communist but kept from going broke because they still have some economic sectors they haven't fully nationalized yet.

But keep your head in the sand. Deny that we are spending and promising ourselves into oblivion.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2010
Frajo:
And it was you who gave him a "1" for his aforementioned comment.

Please tell me how you know that I am the one who left a "1" on any given comment.
Knowing how the site works would greatly assist you in forming your arguments, especially when they're primarily baseless accusation you heard on Beck.

Check the activity page for any given user by clicking their name. Rankings are present by username.
lengould100
5 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2010
In that conservative Tea Bagger fantasy world, "young people would open savings / investment accounts to cover their medical costs". What moron dreamed that up (Marjon)?

Insurance is by definition pooling everyone's contributions on a bet that you won't need it, but a promise that if you do, the pool will cover.

I suppose you fools don't buy car insurance or home fire insurance either? Well I suppose perhaps not. Anyone with that level of intellect is not likely to be able to pay for a car or house.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2010
Insurance is by definition pooling everyone's contributions on a bet that you won't need it, but a promise that if you do, the pool will cover.

What is called 'insurance' in the USA is not insurance. It is a prepaid medical plan with 50 different mandated coverage for many conditions.
People have insurance for their cars, but don't have insurance for maintenance.
When routine medical care should not be funded from insurance.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2010
Socialist countries all over the world are facing a financial precipice
What a fine-tuned definition of "socialism" you have - every country is socialist except China?
Any Euro country (including Germany)
You carry on to mention Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, England, Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Venezuela.
You don't mention China, though.

But keep your head in the sand. Deny that we are spending and promising ourselves into oblivion.

Seems your image of the world is largely socialist red with a black spot that others call China.

I won't try to teach you the meaning of "socialism". Keep to your Disney World belief that "socialism" is a synonym for "misery".
But don't be surprised when most people don't agree with you and even might laugh at you.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2010
Frajo:
And it was you who gave him a "1" for his aforementioned comment.

Please tell me how you know that I am the one who left a "1" on any given comment.
By looking at the Activity Page of the commentator everytime an additional vote has been given plus sound assumptions of the positions of frequent and well-known posters.
In theory your vote could have been any value between 1 and 5. But in case it was more than 1 then one or more of Ethelred, Gawad, and Thrasymachus would have rated the comment with less than 5. The corresponding likelihood is not impressive.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2010
But don't be surprised when most people don't agree with you and even might laugh at you.

These are the ones who don't understand the real meaning of socialism, state control of property, and them.
I observed Scandinavia had high alcohol consumption. Why shouldn't they? They have govts that take of them from cradle to grave. Why shouldn't they party hearty?
lengould100
5 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2010
"High" alcohol consumption might be a relative term, especially in the Mormon worldview eh Marjon? It might also mean that Scandanavians actually have time and spare cash to actually attend a party occasionally, unlike their US working people counterparts. BTW, Scandanavians are known for taking the most world-travelling vacations as well, but of course you likely think that's a bad thing too.

It looks actually like you could use some education in the realities of social democracy, versus that corporatist yoke you live under.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2010
Scandanavians actually have time and spare cash to actually attend a party occasionally

Alcohol is heavily taxed so many distill their own.
If the govt is going to confiscate progressively more income, why bother to try and earn more?
I also know that if provided the opportunity, Scandinavians work abroad to save money on taxes, and buy a house and a car. Things that are difficult to do at home.
lengould100
5 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2010
If the govt is going to confiscate progressively more income, why bother to try and earn more?
See, thats where I don't get you guys attitude. By the math they teach here, a 25% total tax on $50,000 would leave one with $37,500 whereas a 40% tax on $100,000 would leave one with $60,000. And you're saying you'd rather live on the net $37,500. Perhaps a remedial math course would help you.

marjon
1 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2010
If the govt is going to confiscate progressively more income, why bother to try and earn more?
See, thats where I don't get you guys attitude. By the math they teach here, a 25% total tax on $50,000 would leave one with $37,500 whereas a 40% tax on $100,000 would leave one with $60,000. And you're saying you'd rather live on the net $37,500. Perhaps a remedial math course would help you.

I guess you don't understand 'progressive' tax rates.
So you would be happy working twice as hard for 60% more income?
Or say 3 times as hard for 30% more income? Where is the incentive to excel?
lengould100
5 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2010
It's in the difference between $60,000 and $37,500 for crying out loud. $22,500 extra. Of course that presumes that the higher-income person even actually works harder or produces more than the lower. THAT has become VERY HIGHLY suspect lately, esp. in the US, and that's the real disincentive for anyone to work harder. As near as I can tell from the contracts I've worked in the US, workers now progress into management based almost entirely on their ass-kissing abilities. At least unions get rid of that crap in the echelons where they have any control, arguably a very good thing both for the companies and the country economically.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2010
As near as I can tell

Walk a mile in their shoes.
So obviously you believe you can provide only so much value to a company, and you believe the same about everyone else and any extra income is not deserved (according to you) giving you a right to take it.
that presumes that the higher-income person even actually works harder or produces more than the lower.
That is for the manager or owner to decide. That is one reason why they make more money than you. They make decisions you don't know how to make.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2010
As near as I can tell

Walk a mile in their shoes.
So obviously you believe you can provide only so much value to a company, and you believe the same about everyone else and any extra income is not deserved (according to you) giving you a right to take it.
that presumes that the higher-income person even actually works harder or produces more than the lower.
That is for the manager or owner to decide. That is one reason why they make more money than you. They make decisions you don't know how to make.

People also get paid for being accountable. Do well, paid well. Do poorly, fired.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2010
I guess you don't understand 'progressive' tax rates.
So you would be happy working twice as hard for 60% more income?
Or say 3 times as hard for 30% more income? Where is the incentive to excel?
Yet again, you show us that you don't know the value of a dollar.
People also get paid for being accountable. Do well, paid well. Do poorly, fired.
Would that be why the banks handed out record bonuses after tanking the economy?

Marjon, you argue for tax cuts for the rich because of investment and jobs.

They've had the tax cuts for 10 years now, where are the jobs?
lengould100
5 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
Marjon: If that has been your experience in the workplace then you're one of a very rare few. Then again, we have no proof that you actually have ANY experience in the workplace do we? You clearly agrue from the position of an investor living from proceeds of inherited wealth.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2010
Then again, we have no proof that you actually have ANY experience in the workplace do we? You clearly agrue from the position of an investor living from proceeds of inherited wealth.
Len,
Best part is he's actually a government hack in Chelmsford. Look up his name, from his profile (Jon Swenson), and the words "Chelmsford" and "agriculture" on google. Comes up with the seat he holds in the local body politic.

Also comes up with his endorsement photos for Democrat Pat Wotjas. Thought he was against liberals, but I guess the evidence lies.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 09, 2010
It wouldn't be surprising if he were living off the investment of inherited wealth. Swenson Granite Works made the Swenson family millionaires in the early 1900's, largely by providing stone for public buildings. I'm not saying this joker is an heir to the profits made off government contracts before his father's father was born, but the hypocrisy, self-centeredness and mean spirit certainly fit the profile of a trust fund baby.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2010
It wouldn't be surprising if he were living off the investment of inherited wealth. Swenson Granite Works made the Swenson family millionaires in the early 1900's, largely by providing stone for public buildings. I'm not saying this joker is an heir to the profits made off government contracts before his father's father was born, but the hypocrisy, self-centeredness and mean spirit certainly fit the profile of a trust fund baby.

Here a few more to choose from:
http://www.spokeo...Swenson#

Would that be why the banks handed out record bonuses after tanking the economy?

All with the explicit permission of their govt keepers.
Thrasymachus
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 09, 2010
Must have hit the mark if he's gonna try and obfuscate like that. Hey marjon, if you think government is the sole source of society's ills, why do you work for it? You know there wouldn't be a government if people like you just quit. Oh that's right. You have a vested interest in making sure government's the problem. You hold that spot to make sure someone who wants to see government work well doesn't get in and actually accomplish something worthwhile. For conservatives, winning an ideological argument is more important than anything, or anyone, else.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
Thought he was against liberals, but I guess the evidence lies.

When observations do not fit the hypothesis, maybe the hypothesis is incorrect. I think this is part of the scientific method.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2010
"progressive taxes
are an obstacle to progress and a way of punishing efficiency, innovation, and creativity."
"What should be borne in mind, however, is that this income is the private
property of those that have earned it. To assume otherwise is to criminalize success—and, of course, if we treat people as
criminals, they will either behave as such (through tax avoidance) or go elsewhere (leading to a brain drain)."
"progressive taxation is an evil that must be eradicated if countries are to grow and prosper. Eliminating
progressive taxation is also a way to protect individual liberties. Fortunately, the developed world is now moving in that
direction." {Except now in the USA.}
http://www.mba.uf...nabe.pdf
The data is so clear that progressive taxation and socialism stifles economic prosperity. Therefore those who support such policies don't want prosperity.
Thrasymachus
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 09, 2010
Even in your little fantasy social contract libertarian world, marjon, no property is private until after an agreement is made. Your theory of property rights is only viable if you have an adequate theory of just acquisition. How is brand new property made, where does its value come from, who does that value belong to and why? You can't answer those questions, and no randian libertarian can because you refuse to accept any further consequences to your actions than what happens to you.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2010
Thought he was against liberals, but I guess the evidence lies.

When observations do not fit the hypothesis, maybe the hypothesis is incorrect. I think this is part of the scientific method.
So then that would mean you're a liar twice over and perhaps even a closet liberal.

Ah I get it. You're a simple contrarian. That's another checkmark in the trust-fund baby checklist. No wonder you're such an anti-tax looney, don't understand the value of a dollar, and have all day long to screw around on physorg. It's completely clear to me now. I pity you.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
SH, maybe you should look up the meaning of the word skeptic.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2010
SH, maybe you should look up the meaning of the word skeptic.

Yeah, someone who habitually questions commonly held beliefs. I question your beliefs constantly, almost as much as I question my own, however, we know which side always wins that argument, don't we little Jon.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2010
For all you who think we need more regulations:
"Our political class assumes that, after a law is forged in the crucible of democracy, it should be honored as if it's one of the Ten Commandments - except it's more like one of 10 million. "
"A healthy democracy must make fresh choices. This requires not mindless deregulation but continual adjustment of laws. Congress could take on this responsibility if it followed a simple proposal: Every law should automatically expire after 10 or 15 years. "
"Daily regulatory choices are also immobilized by the buildup of too many laws. The important safeguard of environmental review, for example, has evolved into a kind of perpetual process machine. A wind farm was recently approved off the Massachusetts coast after 10 years of study by 16 different agencies. "
http://www.washin...2_2.html
And 'progressives' like Friedman admire China's ability to get things done. Look in the mirror Tom.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2010
Hello Marjon

Do you really think no one is going to notice that you are Marjon in this site of Sockpuppets?

And nobody here has said that all laws are needed or perfect. Well you think it would be just peachy if there were no laws. Which means you really should move to Somalia.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010
And nobody here has said that all laws are needed or perfect.

Sure you have.
Look at your responses to my govt critique to limit state power. The 'populist/progressive/socialist' response is to rally the wagons and defend state power (laws).
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2010
Look at your responses to my govt critique to limit state power. The 'populist/progressive/socialist' response is to rally the wagons and defend state power (laws).
You wouldn't last long if there was no law Marjon.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2010
Look at your responses to my govt critique to limit state power. The 'populist/progressive/socialist' response is to rally the wagons and defend state power (laws).
You wouldn't last long if there was no law Marjon.


Is that a threat?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010
You wouldn't last long if there was no law Marjon.

Threat or not, SH is wrong again:
"That "vast 'barbarian' periphery" that encircled each of these early states was also a place to which victims of the state could flee in search of greater freedom. As Scott notes, the "nonstate space" beyond the frontier "operated as a rough and ready homeostatic device; the more a state pressed its subjects, the fewer subjects it had."
"the state is the price of civilization...it is civilization the state fastens upon like a leech or a tapeworm, because the most civilized societies are the wealthiest and thus the most profitable to loot. "
http://mises.org/daily/4881
One example is NV statehood. The Federal govt needed to take the silver in NV to fund the war.
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2010
Poor marjon, pining for the Old West where the mean old government in DC had virtually no power to rule over men's lives. Too bad you didn't really live back then marjon, you'd have seen that while there was no government ruling men, there was plenty of men ruling men, and in ways that spat on the very idea of justice. Cattle barons, gunmen, outlaws, corrupt marshals, natives, bandits, even the local general store owner had the power to order the lives of others with impunity. Yes, they sometimes failed to illegitimately rule over others, but more often, they succeeded. That's why law ultimately came to the West.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010
T, I think you should read up a bit of real history of the Old West. Not what you see in movies.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010
Is that a threat?
If it were it'd be a pretty paltry threat. "Just wait til society collapses and the government is gone, I'll get you" *Angrily shakes fist*
T, I think you should read up a bit of real history of the Old West. Not what you see in movies.
There's a reason why people romanticize the old west. It's the same reason they romanticize the age of piracy. It was a dangerous time ruled by whoever was the most powerful. Effectively it is exactly what you wouldn't want.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2010
Sure you have.
Look at your responses to my govt critique to limit state power.
Even under anothrer name still the purest bullshit.

My responses were to your Randian fantasies. That you have not moved to Somalia AND are a member of government is ample evidence that even you know Rand is fantasy.

geokstr I am not telling Marjon to go bleep himself. I am pointing out that Somalia has EXACTLY the legal system he advocates. Thus he should move there as it should be a Randian Paradise with no evil taxes from any evil members of governement. You know members of Government like Marjon.

That it is clearly NOT what he claims it should be is the reason he has never even acknowledged my mentioning it. He does that whenever he is caught up in his own anti-logic.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010
ruled by whoever was the most powerful.

No, it was not.
Most people ruled themselves quite well. When someone tried to 'rule' he was dealt with. When everyone is armed, it is quite easy to have respect for individual rights without the almighty state.
Thrasymachus
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2010
Well, there we go, don't we marjon? Why deny it any longer? You think the Old West was the epitome of American society, and want to do whatever it takes to take everybody back there, whether they want to go or not. It's not enough for just you, or you would have left us for Somalia, which is ruled exactly like the Old West was, but you have to drag everybody else with you as well. And you think I should stop watching movies? You apparently think the Old West was a John Wayne movie, and haven't even caught up to Young Guns. Your Minnesota town that shot up the Cole/Younger gang you like to idolize? That was the exception, not the rule
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2010
ruled by whoever was the most powerful.

No, it was not.
Most people ruled themselves quite well. When someone tried to 'rule' he was dealt with. When everyone is armed, it is quite easy to have respect for individual rights without the almighty state.

If this isn't the most delusional thing you've ever said.

You think everyone left each other alone in the Age of Piracy....

I'm at a loss for words.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2010
You think everyone left each other alone in the Age of Piracy....

What age of piracy?
(BTW, piracy was sanctioned by the UK against Spanish ships. Pivateers they were called.)
We were talking about the US West.
That was the exception, not the rule

No, it was not. We see it today in cities and states that allow citizens to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Organized crime, like the govt or the mafia or local gangs want to steal money so they can buy stuff and have more power. Armed citizens make that a bit more of a challenge. Restricting firearms to police makes it easier to bribe the opposition. Violence is bad for business, even for criminals.
We hear about Tombstone and Northfield, MN because they were exceptions. Most people, most of the time got along just fine respecting each others business.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2010
Most people, most of the time got along just fine respecting each others business.
I see. That explains why thy hired quiet shepherds to police the town. Like then future sports writer Bat Masterson or Ben Thompson with his spiffy bowler and especially William Hickok. All men that were so quiet that they inspired it in others.

Hickok was so quiet and an unassuming that he didn't even arrest one of his acquaintances even though he was known to be a bit hard on the people around him. Of course when John killed a man through a wall for snoring too loudly that kind of made it difficult to pretend he wasn't wanted somewhere, so John scarpered. Because he knew that was something even people that were bit too respectful of him couldn't ignore.

Yeah the West was a quiet place with all those guns around. The corpses never made single sound. Much quieter than the live ones.

SH is right that was stupid even by your standards.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2010
No, it was not. We see it today in cities and states that allow citizens to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Yeah, that's fine, and I agree. When everyone has a gun, some criminals think twice.
Organized crime, like the govt or the mafia or local gangs want to steal money so they can buy stuff and have more power.
You're part of the government so apparently you're a career criminal by your own definition.
Armed citizens make that a bit more of a challenge.
No, they don't.
We hear about Tombstone and Northfield, MN because they were exceptions.
No, we hear about those because there were journalists there for the incidents.
Most people, most of the time got along just fine respecting each others business.
Truth is, no one rspected each other's business back then. People had to work together in order to survive. There was a forced dependence and less privacy than there is today.

I'd also prefer to not die of cholera, or scurvy, or starvation
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2010
People had to work together in order to survive.

And they did this without be forced by the govt?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2010
For SH, the 'populist' who loves regulations (and he claims to want a smaller state?)
"...Washington regulators are stifling fresh investment and discouraging innovation through new rules and requirements."
" .... our current regulatory framework actually favors those federal agencies that consistently churn out new red tape. In this town, expanded regulatory authority typically is rewarded with additional resources and a higher bureaucratic profile, and there is no process or incentive for an agency to eliminate or clean up old regulations. "
http://www.washin...639.html

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2010
The not so wild west:
"The explicit thesis of the book, then, is to show how the wild, wild west was not so wild, but instead how freely bargaining individuals could forge order and rights out of violence, if only given the opportunity. The nineteenth century American frontier thus shows how a Hobbesian world can be made Lockean, and, according to the authors, the violence that did exist was as a result of either individuals defending their rights or the government seeking to deprive others of their assets. "
"The morale of the Anderson and Hill’s story is first that the Hollywood images of the old west are not accurate. Second, well-defined property rights are the key to wealth and prosperity, and third, that institutional entrepreneurs are heroes, civilizing the world and, yes, perhaps even providing proper management to natural resources so that they are not squandered."
http://www.bsos.u...l804.htm
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2010
Oh yes, I'm sure the violence of the Old West was overblown. Just look at the causes of death for the guys buried in Boot Hill outside Tombstone AZ. See how many of those guys were killed in fights, murdered, or hanged by law enforcement after being convicted of committing crimes. Or look at how often the Pony Express or Wells Fargo was robbed when they were transporting mail and/or money. You look at the figures for a town like Aurora, Abilene, or Dodge City, and those numbers are distorted. They don't count people killed outside of town as homicides in the town, and they didn't let people carry firearms inside city limits. Hardly the paragon of libertarian virtue.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2010
Hardly the paragon of libertarian virtue.

Actually it was quite libertarian: a perpetual poker game, prostitution, all legal.
What was DC's murder rate last year? They used to ban handguns in DC too.
But DC is not violent?
If you have been to Tombstone you understand how difficult it was to shoot someone with a pistol of the day. They used black powder handloads with horrible ballistics. After one shot, an instant smokescreen was created. I'm sure that's one reason Doc Holiday used a shotgun.
Again, it was not a wild as you presume. Maybe if you had sources other than a tourist trap cemetery?
People flocked to Tombstone in its day. If it were so dangerous, why would they do such a thing?
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2010
Maybe because it was at a crossroads between mining and ranching and there was the potential to make a lot of money by going through there? People do all sorts of dangerous, violent, unethical things when there's a lot of money to be made. Your persistent refusal to recognize this is further evidence of your desire to be able to do dangerous, violent and unethical things in pursuit of money without legal repercussions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2010
our persistent refusal to recognize this is further evidence of your desire to be able to do dangerous, violent and unethical things in pursuit of money without legal repercussions.

Your persistent refusal to recognize history, especially the history of socialism and the millions murdered, is further evidence of your desire to do dangerous, violent and unethical things in your pursuit of state power.
BTW, how many times have you been to Tombstone, AZ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2010
"Fly moved to Tombstone, Arizona, in 1879. The next year, he and his wife Mollie opened a boarding house and studio called the Fly Gallery. Doc Holliday lived there for awhile. The gunfight occurred in the empty lot next to the gallery.

He left in 1887 to tour Arizona with his photographs; then he opened a studio in Phoenix. A year later, he returned to Cochise County where he would be elected sheriff in 1895. He left office two years later and ranched in the Chiricahua Mountains until his death in Bisbee on October 12, 1901. "
http://www.truewe...fly/971/
Sounds rather mundane.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2010
I hope you're ready when you next run for office, Marjon. You may not like what happens in relation to this website.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2010
Govt supported violence:
"ickers and basically anyone—including the sheriff—whose views differed from their own. They assembled an army of roughly 50 men, including less than two dozen hired killers from Texas, and invaded Johnson County. They had the support of the governor, the former governor, two senators and, ultimately, President Benjamin Harrison—and they were completely in the wrong. "
"The Invaders were allowed to surrender to the military under a flag of truce—a serious breach of civil law. Quartered at the fort, the cattlemen and their gunmen were treated more as guests than prisoners. Gradually, every member of the invading army quietly drifted back home.

Not a single man was ever punished for the armed invasion of an American territory. Thanks to the timely arrival of the U.S. Cavalry, the wrong guys were saved."
http://www.truewe...575/all/
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2010
Actually it was quite libertarian: a perpetual poker game, prostitution, all legal.
No, they simply were not illegal.
If you have been to Tombstone you understand how difficult it was to shoot someone with a pistol of the day. They used black powder handloads with horrible ballistics.
Which meant dead bystanders.
Again, it was not a wild as you presume. Maybe if you had sources other than a tourist trap cemetery?
How about we talk about the actual violence, primarily perpetrated on Natives.
People flocked to Tombstone in its day. If it were so dangerous, why would they do such a thing?
Greed, escaping the law in the east, want for land and material possessions, homesteading, etc.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
For all you socialist supporters of Sweden:
"Sweden, long regarded as a socialist paradise. Sweden ceased to be that a long time ago, as many scholars have explained. This is a country where education and health care underwent the type of reform -- the adoption of choice and competition, a decentralization that returned power to parents, students and patients -- that causes howls of protest in the United States and other European nations. In 2009, the government expanded the reforms: Patients are now free to choose their care centers, and private companies are free to enter the system as primary health providers.

Over the years, Sweden did a much better job publicizing its multinationals -- Ericsson's technology, Ikea's furniture, Volvo's luxury cars, SCA's paper products, etc. -- than its gradual break from the socialist myth that fed the imagination of intellectuals and politicians."
http://www.realcl...247.html
Uff Da!
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
So Mr. Swenson, if you have nothing to hide, why did you change your screen name when you were tracked down and explosed as a political hack and shill for corporatism?

Did you become embarassed when it was shown that you're a liar, or was it the fact that your credibility was entirely impunged by your own actions? Do you loathe yourself so much that you can't come to terms with your own actions? Is this why you need to "hide" yourself again on the internet? It's difficult to act as ignorant as you do when people know who you are, isn't it?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
SH, you should try living up to your your nom de guerre and comment on how Sweden's conservative, limited govt polices have led to economic growth.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2010
Sweden's corporate tax rate is 56.3%. It's top personal tax rate is 59.09%. It has a VAT rate of 25%. It has a payroll tax rate of 31.42%. The US has a corporate tax rate of 15-39%. Its top personal tax rate is 35%. There is a 15.3% payroll tax. There is no federal VAT in the US.

In 1999, Sweden's GDP was $333.2 billion. Its government spent $211.4 billion. That's 63.4% of GDP The US's GDP was $14.27 trillion. Its government spent $3.5 trillion. That's 25% of GDP.

How is Sweden a paragon of free market conservatism while the US is not?

sources:
http://en.wikiped...he_world
http://en.wikiped...d_States
http://en.wikiped...f_Sweden
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
SH, you should try living up to your your nom de guerre and comment on how Sweden's conservative, limited govt polices have led to economic growth.
Please see Thras' post and prepare to vanish in a puff of internet troll smoke once again.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
"One of Sweden’s tools in maintaining solid public figure finances is a budget process that calls for Parliamentary-designated spending ceilings."
"Sweden entered the financial crisis with a budget surplus due to prior economic growth and conservative fiscal policy. "
"One of the ways Sweden stimulates growth and raises revenue is through the sale of public assets. The government set a goal of selling some $31 billion in state assets between 2007 and 2010."
http://www.state....2880.htm
Sweden is not perfect, high taxes and extensive welfare, but they understand they can't spend more then they earn.
Tax cuts on wealth have been implemented and they have a school voucher program.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
"If the president wants to get the economy firing on all cylinders–and generate a new pragmatic and centrist image for himself–he should lead the charge to drop the corporate rate to at least 20 percent."
Top corporate income tax rates:
USA: 40%
Canada: 31%
Norway: 28%
Sweden: 26.3%
Chile: 17%
Ireland: 12.5%

http://www.cato-a...highest/
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
You anti establishment guys, ever notice how what you want, and what people like Steve Forbes want, are the same things?

When you want the same things as the ultra rich, you're doing the establishment's work.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
Steve Forbes is one of the few 'establishment' guys who recognizes the power of economic entrepreneurship instead of political entrepreneurship practiced by most of his peers in the 'establishment'.

This is a bogus headline "The socialist president plays host to capitalism"
http://www.washin...21503366
Just because someone is a CEO does not mean his is a capitalist. All the CEO's mentioned are highly dependent upon govt regulations and subsidies, political entrepreneurs.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
Steve Forbes is one of the few 'establishment' guys who recognizes the power of economic entrepreneurship instead of political entrepreneurship practiced by most of his peers in the 'establishment'.
You know he ran for President a few times now, right?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
Steve Forbes is one of the few 'establishment' guys who recognizes the power of economic entrepreneurship instead of political entrepreneurship practiced by most of his peers in the 'establishment'.
You know he ran for President a few times now, right?

So has Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, George McGovern... What's your point?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
So has Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, George McGovern... What's your point?

It would be that you're rather obviously painting yourself as a moron when you assert:
Steve Forbes is one of the few 'establishment' guys who recognizes the power of economic entrepreneurship instead of political entrepreneurship
seeing as he rather plainly practices power above all us especially through political entrepreneurship.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
he rather plainly practices power above all us especially through political entrepreneurship.

How does he do that?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
he rather plainly practices power above all us especially through political entrepreneurship.
How does he do that?

Did smoke come out of your ears when you tried to follow the conversation or were you just too lazy to even try?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
he rather plainly practices power above all us especially through political entrepreneurship.
How does he do that?

Did smoke come out of your ears when you tried to follow the conversation or were you just too lazy to even try?

Why can't you answer the question?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
"growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washington...s"
People are voting with their feet.
Too bad MA will loose more power in Congress.