Governments will want their TAX ??? The solution is obvious but scary.

[ribuck]

Do you live a miserable life of semi-poverty?

No I don't.

I was discussing welfare recipients, the dependent classes whose housing, education and sometimes food are provided by the state. They are the ones who live a miserable life of semi-poverty.

I am less wealthy than some welfare beneficiaries, but infinitely better off.

[wb3]

Something tells me you don't have a piece of paper from a university.  While I agree that many universites are a sham, and many decent universities have courses that are a sham, I think there are still plenty of decent, real, qualifications to be obtained.

Actually you might be surprised. The point being made was there is to much emphasis on the paper and less on the actions. We have lost the focus on that, (Einstein, Dave Thomas, etc...) Why should it cost $500,000 to teach someone at MIT? When if they open up the classes via Internet and Moderate exams through Public Libraries, there would be a whole bunch of well educated people in the world. Labs would be a trick, but that can be solved. They are selling exclusivity, but for the betterment of society, education should be as close to free as possible. Don't hoard knowledge, spread it. Time to accomplish the degree should be irrelevant also, do a class here and there, then take an exam. If it takes you 10 years then so be it, if it take you 2 the great.

To be honest, a vast majority of skills learned in school are not used IRL. Companies are slowly realizing this, and a person with Certifications form Authorities are holding more weight.  MIT Graduate, or a guy down the street with all the Certifications.  Because, the history course in college is becoming less to an IT Manager than the guy that has a proven ability of knowledge through certifications. And, if I run into another Harvard grad the expects the world given to him because of the degree, well nuff said.

Did you ever notice that the really great accomplishments and deeds are usually done by people that didn't need a degree.  Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Dave Thomas, and on and on and on.  Degree's are for possible wanna be's and nepotistic societies. Knowledge is for Everybody.

[Anonymous]

Why should it cost $500,000 to teach someone at MIT?

Because the government monopolizes student loans and subsidizes our joke of a university system.

[wb3]

I think wb3 either came from r/politics on Reddit or is a master troll.

I have a weird philosophy seeded in realism and logic. I hold some liberal ideas and conservative ideas and try to find the solutions to hard problems.  For example: Capitalism is the most logical and natural system to have with limited resources, while also providing the best hinderance to progress because things that should be invented won't be invented.  Government's need to fill that gap. Individual's won't.  But they need to do it at an acceptable pace and be flexible to changes. Democracy holds that back but is the most fair system. The Irony is everywhere. Speaking of Irony, (and I am not being mean, just think about these positions:)


Pro Gay --> Believes in Evolution    ( Makes no sense )
Anti Gay --> Doesn't Believe in Evolution (Makes more sense)
Atheist --> Believes in Science --> But has no 'First Cause'   (A belief in 'first cause' without out proof of 'first cause')
Religious --> Believes in Science --> (makes more sense, first cause explained without proof)
Asocial --> But tells everyone about it, and doesn't like when people don't listen. (Get real)
Social --> And tells everyone about it (OK)
Anti-War --> Violently protests (yea right)
For War --> But not for Tax increases.

I might be a Troll, but I am not sheep. I think on my own, make mistakes and blame no one else for them. I am for privacy and less government, while being for conservative morals, and finances. I don't care what others do (Gay, Lesbian, Flower child, or what ever) as long as their behaviors' do no harm to society.  I believe in Evolution, hmm.  But I am a realist. I believe that laws that come closest to Natural Laws are the best and longest living. I try not to spout off a position without thinking what that really means and I try to avoid hypocrisy while realizing it is a natural occurrence. Quantum Physics.

I hope I didn't offend anyone because I also believe in Free Speech (or Press) in this case.

[Anonymous]

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.

[FreeMoney]

Governments goto war like no company ever did. Not saying war is good, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. 

This is an assertion, and a disgusting one, with no support at all. What awful thing would happen if governments stopped killing millions of people? Why do you think war is necessary?

And if it is necessary then stop calling it evil. Nothing that is necessary makes the world worse than it could otherwise be.

[wb3]

Governments goto war like no company ever did. Not saying war is good, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. 

This is an assertion, and a disgusting one, with no support at all. What awful thing would happen if governments stopped killing millions of people? Why do you think war is necessary?

And if it is necessary then stop calling it evil. Nothing that is necessary makes the world worse than it could otherwise be.

Not that I like war, I do not.  Let's take an example: If Country A is anti-war, and Country B wants A's stuff and resources they will take it when the chips hit the road. (A) won't do anything to stop the take over of by (B).  But if (A) defends itself then it is not anti-war.  This goes back to a truism. "The only rights you have are the rights you can defend."

 It is a Natural Law, all species use it. Why should we be different?  Unless....... Hmm. (The only way this would stop will be the realization of a God that imposes his laws on us)  But as long as living things live and die, survival of the fittest will be in our nature and the most practical method is WAR for groups of people. We still form groups, I think. 

WAR seems very bad when a majority have money and food, but when that changes WAR starts looking better.

Evil might have been the wrong word, but it seems to fit our dark side.

[wb3]

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where. 

The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone). 

Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where. 

The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone). 

Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

You didn't do even a cursory google of Lysander Spooner, did you.

[Anonymous]

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where.

Sections may not have gotten phone lines nor paved roads without government force, but who says the demands for such desires would not be met by services that could be of similar, greater and voluntary means?

The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone).  Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

Define fairness again. Why is it fair for the government to take more of my property so John Doe can download his animu faster (aka FiOS)?

In the end, the government is supplementing mere whims and desires that are perversed into supposed rights and needs. Until you can define and reason the government's true purpose and where it's most effective, I don't see this argument being productive.

[wb3]

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where. 

The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone). 

Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

You didn't do even a cursory google of Lysander Spooner, did you.

Lysander Spooner (January 19, 1808 – May 14, 1887) was an American individualist anarchist, libertarian, political philosopher, Deist, abolitionist, supporter of the labor movement, legal theorist, and entrepreneur of the nineteenth century. He is also known for competing with the U.S. Post Office with his American Letter Mail Company, which was forced out of business by the United States government.

I did, and while I have some Libertarian leanings, the existence of UPS and FedEx seem to make it moot. At the same time the cheapest way to mail something is the USPS. The USPS (when utilized as invented) is a NonProfit organization. It makes exactly what it needs to make and not more and not less. I can send several heavy books using the "semi-secrete" Media Rate for next to nothing. The problem that happened to the USPS is the same across all US agencies. Public Sector Unions (oops ...) No one if they believe in a fair and "libertarian" market would believe in a public sector union because they would suck the life out of the private sector until collapse.

With that being said, I would drastically cut a lot of government services and regulations as Lysander would have.

As far as his thoughts on Government control of Money, there does need to be some oversight (maybe not over money but of actions that affect is distribution). 

Every been to India, while it denies it there is a Caste system. America even has to some degree a Nepotistic system for those with power and wealth. "Its not what you know but who you know" holds weight especially without some oversight.

And there is a point to which one can gain enough wealth that it would not be physically possible to spend it.

This might shock some but I do not believe there should be compounding interest. It will be the ruin to all economies even when it is at 0.1%  The math doesn't lie. Put $100 bucks into a bank and with time you will bring down the economy. Check out what Bejamin Franklin did with his $100 dollars. If Philadelphia didn't use the money he would have broke the bank.

All interest should be simple.  The Credit Card companies are destroying the monetary system because they are preying on our human nature and routines. It is legalized stealing but we are stupid for signing up for it.

[Anonymous]

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where. 

The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone). 

Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

You didn't do even a cursory google of Lysander Spooner, did you.

It makes exactly what it needs to make and not more and not less.

No, it doesn't.

[Steve]

Was ot just me or did other people tune out when the original post degenerated into terrible, nationalistic generalizations and stereotypes?

[Anonymous]

Was ot just me or did other people tune out when the original post degenerated into terrible, nationalistic generalizations and stereotypes?

I lost the energy for these statist arguments a long time ago.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where. 

The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone). 

Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

You didn't do even a cursory google of Lysander Spooner, did you.

Lysander Spooner (January 19, 1808 – May 14, 1887) was an American individualist anarchist, libertarian, political philosopher, Deist, abolitionist, supporter of the labor movement, legal theorist, and entrepreneur of the nineteenth century. He is also known for competing with the U.S. Post Office with his American Letter Mail Company, which was forced out of business by the United States government.

I did, and while I have some Libertarian leanings, the existence of UPS and FedEx seem to make it moot. At the same time the cheapest way to mail something is the USPS. The USPS (when utilized as invented) is a NonProfit organization. It makes exactly what it needs to make and not more and not less. I can send several heavy books using the "semi-secrete" Media Rate for next to nothing. The problem that happened to the USPS is the same across all US agencies. Public Sector Unions (oops ...) No one if they believe in a fair and "libertarian" market would believe in a public sector union because they would suck the life out of the private sector until collapse.

With that being said, I would drastically cut a lot of government services and regulations as Lysander would have.

As far as his thoughts on Government control of Money, there does need to be some oversight (maybe not over money but of actions that affect is distribution). 

Every been to India, while it denies it there is a Caste system. America even has to some degree a Nepotistic system for those with power and wealth. "Its not what you know but who you know" holds weight especially without some oversight.

And there is a point to which one can gain enough wealth that it would not be physically possible to spend it.

This might shock some but I do not believe there should be compounding interest. It will be the ruin to all economies even when it is at 0.1%  The math doesn't lie. Put $100 bucks into a bank and with time you will bring down the economy. Check out what Bejamin Franklin did with his $100 dollars. If Philadelphia didn't use the money he would have broke the bank.

All interest should be simple.  The Credit Card companies are destroying the monetary system because they are preying on our human nature and routines. It is legalized stealing but we are stupid for signing up for it.

The point was that the government kept blathering on about how no company would service the rural areas of the United States (and they meant really rural - across the continent with no railroads or roads, barely even paths to communities). He proved them wrong, by proving better service at cheaper prices than the government.

And UPS and Fedex and such are all paying the USPS to be in business, and the purpose of that is to make it so that third party carriers cannot truly compete with the USPS, since they must pay a fee to the USPS that makes their prices at least as high as the USPS'.

[kiba]

To the government, there's no such thing as profit and loss so they don't know zip about economical resource allocation. There's only tax dollars spending it. The return is calculated as how many political suppoters you have now versus how many angry citizens you have now.

[Nefario]

I will admit, without doing any significant research that governments do conduct war better than any private company ever could. When every citizen of your country is your slave how could you not?

What with being able to take private persons property by force to pay for wars, to be able to force private persons to fight (conscription) I find it difficult for a company to be able to compete with such a thing. And I think in this case competition usually means fighting against.

[FreeMoney]

So it is necessary to have war because if there isn't war then there will be war anyway? Is that a fair summation?

[wb3]

So it is necessary to have war because if there isn't war then there will be war anyway? Is that a fair summation?

Sadly, Yes.   I would note: Necessary to be prepared for WAR. Just don't go to war for the sake of war. That would be regression.

When people are willing to let themselves and their families starve to death while others eat, then there might be hope for the elimination of War. 

An Evolutionist might call WAR - a Reallocation of Adaptive Space and Resources. It is a natural event when pressured.

The number 1 motivator in this behavior is food and water.

Want to see something freaky.  Overlay the cost of food increases in the world with violence rates based on income per capita. (ability to buy food)

A more recent example: See who imports the most wheat in the world and then the cost increases in wheat for that region. All you have to do is turn on the news.  The number 1 importer of wheat is Egypt. And at an average of $2/day income, the ability to eat was compromised. When you compare price of food to ability to buy food with violence rates, it looks like a different world.

Guess what country we just "give" food to with very little cost?   North Korea, don't want them getting any ideas when hungry.

[ribuck]

Not that I like war, I do not.  Let's take an example: If Country A is anti-war, and Country B wants A's stuff and resources they will take it when the chips hit the road. (A) won't do anything to stop the take over of by (B).  But if (A) defends itself then it is not anti-war.

If Country A doesn't have a government, it's damned near impossible for Country B to take it over by force. Wars generally work by one government taking over the institutions of another government (military, police, administration etc).

If country A doesn't have a government, what is country B going to do? Separately take over every individual home, farm and business? Country B will go for easier targets instead.

Now let's suppose that I'm wrong, and Country B does try to take over Country A. Naturally the citizens of Country A are going to forcefully resist. If Country A defends itself, this does not conflict with it being anti-war. Self-defence is totally different from the initiation of war, because self-defence aims to neutralise the war, not start it.

Whenever a country is genuinely threatened, there has never been a shortage of highly-motivated volunteers to defend it, and they are likely to overcome the less-motivated force of the attacker.

In addition to all of the death due to war, governments have killed more people outside of war than in the battlefields of war, at least during the 20th century.