What is the definition of a slave? Someone who works for someone else their entire life and does not get to keep any of their income would be pretty damn close to the definition, I'm thinking. If you sacrifice 100% of your income you'd essentially be a slave, right? Do you disagree?
I think to qualify as a slave, you'd need to be forced into it, wouldn't you? Otherwise it's being a 'servant', which does not carry the same negative, fight-starting connotation if you ask me.  Fair enough. Slavery can definitely be a loaded term, so I should probably not have chucked that out there. To my subjective perspective it's still slavery, but I won't quibble if it's voluntary.  Socially responsibility is great, I'm not against that. I fail to see how paying off the government debt is going to be good for the next generation though. The government will just spend itself into oblivion again. If somehow the people of the US rallied together and paid off the national debt we would simply be rewarding the government for their bad behavior. If they know we will bail them out, why would they change their spending habits? This is why I say it's not our fault or responsibility. If you disagree with that, fine, make a logical argument in your favor.
I obviously mispoke as both you and the other poster seem to think I am for rewarding mismanagement. If so, I apologize. To clarify: If the United States government issued an apology letter from previous officials admitting that they had mismanaged funds and driven the country into ridiculous debt, but the sake of the US and potentially the world depended on the repayment of the debt by US citizens for a term basis (possibly the lifetime of a whole generation) on the grounds that no further mismanagement would ever be allowed again, I would have a hard time with people carrying US passports, healthcare, social security cards or even living on US soil and NOT paying. Ah. Well, I can understand this position. You and I both know that it's never going to happen, but given this situation I can understand your point of view. If you want people to take your arguments seriously be careful with the exaggeration, just my friendly suggestion. Also, try not to stereotype people in the community. I, for one, do not appreciate it, as I don't live in my parents basement, I do have a job and pay bills, I have worked manual labor jobs, etc. etc. You don't live in your parent's basement, right? So why would you assume everyone else does? I'm a comedian in the same way you and I joke when I feel like it, but most of my comments are taken seriously by the wrong people, and some of my serious comments are taken as jokes. This is probably due to me not having paid attention to the sign on the door ("Politics & Society") and tracking in through a link. Apologies. No worries. Everyone in this forum, myself included, need to lighten up a little. There's no reason we can't be polite to one another. Or....is there? I like your manners and your ability to talk through a situation. I wish more people here were like you, as it helps bring out my more intelligent side. Dealing with animals all day makes me start to act like one. MYBITCOINSCAM SPREADSHEETZZZNOW 1bTCONLEY WHAER IS 5850sdfa7ghf87sfh9as sorry hand spasm.
You're a vet? |
|
|
|
So you think anyone in history who has dedicated their life to a country, regardless of the leaders and policies of that country, in an effort to make it better for the next generation was a slave? Wow. That's universally fubar.
I don't think I said that. Don't react against me because you're frustrated with other posters. What is the definition of a slave? Someone who works for someone else their entire life and does not get to keep any of their income would be pretty damn close to the definition, I'm thinking. If you sacrifice 100% of your income you'd essentially be a slave, right? Do you disagree? I have this complex you see, when I see a opportunity to do some good I just HAVE to take it...I don't know what's wrong with me. Must be because I'm a good person or something. Someone give me some medication please so I can be greedy, selfish, defeatist, unimaginative meatbags like the rest of you guys please!  haha. No but seriously, I don't think it's my responsibility. But it would be pretty cool to have a chance to be able to have an effect on something that big, wouldn't it? Socially responsibility is great, I'm not against that. I fail to see how paying off the government debt is going to be good for the next generation though. The government will just spend itself into oblivion again. If somehow the people of the US rallied together and paid off the national debt we would simply be rewarding the government for their bad behavior. If they know we will bail them out, why would they change their spending habits? This is why I say it's not our fault or responsibility. If you disagree with that, fine, make a logical argument in your favor. Also, saying you would give 100% of your income is just ridiculous. Are you not going to eat or drink? Where will you live?
Of course it was ridiculous, it was an exaggeration. It's not impossible though, so long as you live with my parents like everyone else in the Bitcoin community *rimshot*
If you want people to take your arguments seriously be careful with the exaggeration, just my friendly suggestion. Also, try not to stereotype people in the community. I, for one, do not appreciate it, as I don't live in my parents basement, I do have a job and pay bills, I have worked manual labor jobs, etc. etc. You don't live in your parent's basement, right? So why would you assume everyone else does? |
|
|
|
Are you willing to pay more taxes to pay down the national debt?
That's an obvious yes as I do not put up a fight when taxes are already taken from me on a regular basis. I think the real question is "Is the government finally ready to allow the people to have some say in what their tax money is spent on". If that was no longer an issue, many would GLADLY pay more in taxes to have the debt zeroed out. Hell, I'd give 100% of my income for the rest of my life if it guaranteed it, but the lack of guarantee is why people won't do it. We know that problems due to money mismanagement are not fixed by more money. They're fixed by more lies! Seriously? You would be a slave of the government because they can't control their spending? Why do you think it is your responsibility? Also, saying you would give 100% of your income is just ridiculous. Are you not going to eat or drink? Where will you live? |
|
|
|
You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on. They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance. They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them. The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.
$70/hour isn't very much is it? It's less than 15 minutes of my time. And I have a very safe job compared to that. The drive to the airport or the flight would be the most dangerous part of any work week. Or perhaps coffee poisoning. Two questions: 1) What do you do? 2) How can I do it too? No, I don't have that black and white view of the world. That viewpoint belongs to someone else. What I'm saying is that I do agree with you that a cost/benefit analysis is done and what the government has done is to say that certain things aren't allowed to be part of that calculation. Yes, certain jobs are dangerous, yes companies will have to compensate people for high risk jobs, but they also can't take unnecessary risks with their employees life and health.
So what you are saying is that the government gets to decide what "unnecessary" risks are, regardless of what people are or are not willing to do themselves? Why? What I want to know is why government gets to trump people's personal liberty. |
|
|
|
Jesus, this is so ridiculous.  I bet you think immigrants 'steal' jobs as well? Not necessary immigrants, just some very low paid chinese workers will put all the US manufactoring job in danger But my question is regarding the human being, not particular one race/nation, since this happens anywhere in the world How do you say "They took our jobs!!!" in Chinese? http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-07/30/c_131018764.htm他们拿走我们的工作! (Ta men na zou wo men de gong zuo.) Not sure how to make it past tense, though. |
|
|
|
Fail. Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war. The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.
Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?
Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position? The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest. You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on. They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance. They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them. The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher. They are the ones with those wire cage suits, right? They have to slowly equalize their electric potential to match the transmission line before they can get on it. Crazy stuff. They often wear faraday suits, but yes, they have to mount the wires from a helicopter because it can be equalized without harm. A crane cannot. Right. Helicopters are a floating ground, so no path for the current to go through. |
|
|
|
Fail. Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war. The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.
Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?
Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position? The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest. You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on. They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance. They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them. The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher. They are the ones with those wire cage suits, right? They have to slowly equalize their electric potential to match the transmission line before they can get on it. Crazy stuff. |
|
|
|
Before too long though, and it is quicker than many of you think, they will start to replace skilled labor.. you can cry "change with the times" all you want, it just shows your ignorance on what is coming. We are no longer looking for a better machine than man, but a better mind. Have fun competing with that. You can call me ignorant all you want, but you're not learning from history. How many jobs today didn't exist AT ALL before the industrial revolution? What is ignorant is not thinking the same thing will happen from the information revolution, the robotic revolution, the nanotech revolution, etc etc. Maybe it's just because I'm a programmer, but I don't fear automation. I create automation every day. Automation is not a bad thing, it's a very very good thing. The only way automation would be bad is if there was a limited amount of "work" that needed to be done. But that is like thinking there is a limited amount of knowledge to discover, or a limited amount of wealth to earn. But that is false, it is not a zero-sum game. Learn to reach for the stars, for pete's sake. Or go back to churning your own butter so you at least have a job. Your choice! Exactly. Human desires are limitless. Labor is the scarcest of resources. There will be need of robot designers, maintainers, programmers, etc. The only exception might be if we manage to create artificial intelligence; this would be the same affect as another intelligent species competing with us here on earth. But if we do create the Singularity we will probably have bigger concerns than losing our jobs. Now where is my butter churn? |
|
|
|
We're still going to default but it's going to be through inflation... the worst kind of default.
The inevitable has been delayed. Besides, if the debt ceiling isn't raised we would still pay enough for interest and such. It's overblown. It's just party wars and bullshit. All they want to do is manipulate our emotions.
I agree. It was a colossal game of Politik Chicken with each side trying to manipulate the situation to give them a boost up during the election next year. Not defaulting is bad for the nation, but good for me. Now I have a few more years to prepare for the heavy devaluation of the dollar through inflation that is likely to occur. |
|
|
|
|
So the Heritage Foundation ranks Norway as the 30th most economically free nation in the world, which is pretty good. It has very high business and trade freedoms which means I am wrong about it being heavily regulated. In that case it would definitely be better for starting a business than Somalia. But I'm not sure it's appropriate to compare the two, one as an example of a successful government and one as a "failed" anarchy. A lot of the strife in Somalia has been caused by foreign countries interfering and trying to force the people to accept a government they did not want.
|
|
|
|
Wait, What?!?
I know. I've failed the Fuehrer. I'm 2 grid points too low and to the left. That test is so full of fail. Ha ha, which is why I don't take them seriously. |
|
|
|
I know. I've failed the Fuehrer. I'm 2 grid points too low and to the left. |
|
|
|
IMHO there are certain trends growing now that will change the world in the not too far future: Bitcoin (obviously  ) Ron Paul Cold Fusion/Free Energy UFO Disclosure If one of those is new to you I suggest you research it. Free energy? Uh....not unless the laws of the Universe change, or at least our understanding of it. |
|
|
|
Two-dimensional compasses are so 19th Century, and very undependable. I choose the bright light of science to go where I will.
As a former Math Prof. of mine would say: "Well aren't you something!" |
|
|
|
What I stated about charity is highly provable, go look at the numbers it takes to overcome a major disaster such as Haiti, and go look at the amounts donated by charity.
Show me the numbers if you have them readily available, if not I'll get around to looking them up at some point. There are too many variables to consider, though. Who came up with the amount necessary to overcome the Haiti disaster? Governments? They have an incentive to overstate the amount to feed their corrupt bureaucracies. How do you know charities wouldn't give more in a different situation, one where they was no government? Perhaps they are only giving x amount now because they know government will take care of the rest. We can't know how an alternate time line would play out; we can only speculate. As for stealing from the rich man to stay alive, how does this work when the rich man has his wealth tied up in banks, or goods which even if the starving person could steal them, aren't of any use in helping the starving person stay alive. Now assume there are millions of starving people. Which is more beneficial to the rich man: a small tax shared by everyone in his position, or a million people trying to rob him every day so they can afford basic food and water?
So first its impossible for the poor people to steal from the rich man because he has his wealth in secure locations or useless items, but then we have to tax him to prevent poor people from robbing him? Which is it? It's like Rassah pointed out, you don't see wandering warlords going around New Orleans stealing all the food that aid groups send. That warlord is a rich man. Not in wealth, but in goods. He has found a way to vastly improve his personal circumstances at the expense of a few.
Yes, you need rule of law in society. That law does not necessarily have to come from the State, though. More importantly, you cannot run an industry when millions around you are starving. Compare Norway to Somalia. In Norway, taxes are incredibly high with vast social safety nets for anyone who needs them. At the same time, purchasing power per capita is one of the highest in the world. In Soalia, those with great wealth need to spend large chunks of it to defend themselves from starving masses. Which environment is better for a captain of industry?
Probably Somalia, actually. Business men have started electric companies, internet providers, banks, etc. from scratch and done really well considering the impoverished state of the country, the current famine and the civil war in the South. From what I've heard about Norway it has very high taxes and lots of regulations which make it hard for new companies to start up. |
|
|
|
Athens was merely an early version of a modern society and certainly no place you would want to live today. Iceland would have been no better. Romanticizing about early civilizations and how they would work even better today is magical thinking. Ignoring facts about ancient times like slavery and the continuous threat of war only proves that there still is no case to show any country that followed the Austrian School to Prosperity (unless you want to be a slave or foot soldier).
This is true. The Austrian school has only been around for just over a hundred years, so it is not really logical to claim that Medieval Iceland followed the "Austrian school". What you can say is that despite the instability of the times, and the harsh standard of living, is that they developed and successfully used private law. This is something many proponents of the Austrian school have written and theorized about. Well, there actually is a historical example of it working. Of course I wouldn't want to live in Medieval Iceland or Somalia, even. I want my current society to adapt to the ideas of liberty, not to be transported back in time to days when men still believed it was lawful to own other men. |
|
|
|
Wow, I better not say anything then. I'm doing far, far better than that. Are you the guy slapping himself on the head? I wouldn't have guessed  Walter Block? No, but when I'm that age I hope to be as cool as he is. |
|
|
|
Screw you. I should get to decide the terms and conditions under which I will work, not you. Take your fairy tale bullshit somewhere else.
Sorry for taking away your freedom to work for next nothing in a sweatshop factory, just like those workers in China and India "decided" on the terms of their wages. Forgive me <3 They actually like their sweatshop jobs because it gives them a first step on a ladder of future careers. In this country, you can't even build experience because of the lack of entry-level jobs. There are a lack of auto mechanics because there are no longer service station attendants that used to work below minimum wage. The majority of technicians started at that job -- now it's gone. You want to hurt these people more than anything. You will hurt them more if you mandate a minimum wage. They work them because they have to to feed their families, not because they like them. Dunno why I'd bother posting this on a forum of people who have never had real jobs, let alone factory or labor ones before though. It is so easy to judge and insult people on the internet who you know nothing about, isn't it? I've done plenty of manual labor jobs (sheet rocking, demolition, framing, windshield repair and replacement, lumber yard boy, etc.) but went to school because I didn't want to do that stuff for the rest of my life. Stop attempting ad hominem attacks when you run out of logic, it only makes you appear intellectually bankrupt and fucking pathetic to boot. |
|
|
|
Uh....I'm supposed to buy things for my wife?
yes, aprons, ironing board covers, that sort of thing. Huh. How odd. I didn't see that in the contract I signed. read the fine print it's just under where it says she has to give you sex twice a year. Wow, I better not say anything then. I'm doing far, far better than that.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
