Switch Theme:

I think that hell has officially froze over.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Agreed in the need for transparency. I think we're actually agreeing in toto, its just getting...wait for it...wait for it...

Lost in Translation.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Mango wrote:Frazzled,
Liked the first mad max movie, never bothered to se the next ones. It was entertaining.

However, from what I can remember of that movie (its been almost 20 years since I saw it) it was basically a post apocolyptic world where the main doctrine was might makes right.

That is not the position I am advocating, nor am I advocating anarchy.



Again, I provided a definition of law, and I have since shown that by definition a law restricts freedom. You have again provided a rationale that laws have a net benefit for society, yet you have still not refuted my original premise by proving how my (and merriam webster's) definition of law is wrong. You have given ample reasons of why you think and believe it is wrong, but have not proven that it is wrong. Until you can do that, you are arguing from a position of belief not fact.


However, the law also protects freedom. Without the law iand its enforcement there is no freedom to contract, freedom of markets, freedom of exchange, even freedom of transparency for Dogma's purposes.

Without the law there is only anarchy.

And a great quote with no relevance to anything except watching the stock market...
"What is the law?"
"No animal may walk on two legs."
"What happens if an animal breaks the law?"
"He who breaks the law, must go to the House of Pain."

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Frazzled wrote:Agreed in the need for transparency. I think we're actually agreeing in toto, its just getting...wait for it...wait for it...


Then hell really has frozen over.

Frazzled wrote:
Lost in Translation.


Are you Bill Murray, or Scarlet Johanson?

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Polonius,
You have the opinion that my belief is "extreme". An extremist would believe in anarchy on one end and a complete regimentation of life on the other, like in an orwellian police state.

Not once have I said all laws or all government is bad or undesirable. To the contrary, I have said that government and laws are more desirable than thier complete absence. That is not an extreme view. What I have said is that governments of all types have a tendency to get larger and more intrusive. This invariably leads to government abuse. Name one current goverment that has not abused it's power in some way shape or form.

What I have an issue with is people in the government passing laws continually without giving thought to the consequences. Or people and politicians who panic and decide that we MUST pass a law immediately to address a crisis, with no or little thought to what that will mean in the future. For example the patriot act. The most recent stimulus bill. The first stimulus bill. Creation of social security and medicaid. Intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign nation for little discernable need or benefit. Deciding how much of MY money I can keep. Deciding how much money I can make.

Did people vote for the people that passed all of these laws. yes. Did these laws make decisions for me? yes. Did these laws take away my freedom? Yes.

You claim my "extreme" doctrine would not work well in practice. But it has. Limited and minimally intrusive government is what was originally created in The United States, by the founding fathers. Enshrined in the US Constitution. It was not perfect, since nothing can be perfect. But it was arguably the best system man has ever created. (Now here is where I dive into the realm of pure opinion.) Over time, instead of perfecting it, ploiticians have been steadily eroding it. Freedom of speech is a prime example. The wording of it is pretty clear.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yet soon therafter, laws or regulations were passed that did indeed restrict or abridge free speech. Obsenity laws. The aforementioned "fire" in a theater. The Fairness doctrine (which fr decades WAS a regulation).

That is eroding freedom.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Agreed in the need for transparency. I think we're actually agreeing in toto, its just getting...wait for it...wait for it...


Then hell really has frozen over.

Frazzled wrote:
Lost in Translation.


Are you Bill Murray, or Scarlet Johanson?


That was Scarlet Johannson? Wow I never would have known.

What I have an issue with is people in the government passing laws continually without giving thought to the consequences. Or people and politicians who panic and decide that we MUST pass a law immediately to address a crisis, with no or little thought to what that will mean in the future. For example the patriot act. The most recent stimulus bill. The first stimulus bill. Creation of social security and medicaid. Intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign nation for little discernable need or benefit. Deciding how much of MY money I can keep. Deciding how much money I can make.


The boy has a point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/23 21:19:31


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Mango wrote:
What I have an issue with is people in the government passing laws continually without giving thought to the consequences. Or people and politicians who panic and decide that we MUST pass a law immediately to address a crisis, with no or little thought to what that will mean in the future. For example the patriot act. The most recent stimulus bill. The first stimulus bill. Creation of social security and medicaid. Intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign nation for little discernable need or benefit. Deciding how much of MY money I can keep. Deciding how much money I can make.


I'd argue that thought has been given to the future. It has simply been decided that the present is more important.

Mango wrote:
You claim my "extreme" doctrine would not work well in practice. But it has. Limited and minimally intrusive government is what was originally created in The United States, by the founding fathers. Enshrined in the US Constitution. It was not perfect, since nothing can be perfect. But it was arguably the best system man has ever created. (Now here is where I dive into the realm of pure opinion.)


Yes, limited and minimally intrusive government worked incredibly well in an environment defined by open expanses of free territory which permitted ready expansion for those who found themselves without opportunity in the established colonies. Unfortunately that is not something which currently characterizes the United States. This is not the world of the founding fathers. Limited government has a different meaning in today's world.


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Dogma,
your words
"Yes, limited and minimally intrusive government worked incredibly well in an environment defined by open expanses of free territory which permitted ready expansion for those who found themselves without opportunity in the established colonies. Unfortunately that is not something which currently characterizes the United States. This is not the world of the founding fathers. Limited government has a different meaning in today's world. "

The existence of opputunity still exists in current US society. It merely takes the will and ability to pursue it. While I doubt free land is still available, it is irrelevant to the fact that oppurtunity is still here. How much did Bill gates start with? How much did Mark Zuckerberg start with? So if opportunity is still there, why do we need a larger, more intrusive, more imperial government?
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Mango wrote:
The existence of opputunity still exists in current US society. It merely takes the will and ability to pursue it. While I doubt free land is still available, it is irrelevant to the fact that oppurtunity is still here. How much did Bill gates start with? How much did Mark Zuckerberg start with? So if opportunity is still there, why do we need a larger, more intrusive, more imperial government?


Bill Gates started with an elite college preparatory education, a wealthy family, and the contacts, and resources, provided by his matriculation to Harvard. Zuckerberg has a similar background. Those are incredibly significant assets that have everything to do with luck, and very little to do with personal merit. We need government to ensure that those assets, which are necessary for individual success, are accessible to the majority of people.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




dogma wrote:
Mango wrote:
The existence of opputunity still exists in current US society. It merely takes the will and ability to pursue it. While I doubt free land is still available, it is irrelevant to the fact that oppurtunity is still here. How much did Bill gates start with? How much did Mark Zuckerberg start with? So if opportunity is still there, why do we need a larger, more intrusive, more imperial government?


Bill Gates started with an elite college preparatory education, a wealthy family, and the contacts, and resources, provided by his matriculation to Harvard. Zuckerberg has a similar background. Those are incredibly significant assets that have everything to do with luck, and very little to do with personal merit. We need government to ensure that those assets, which are necessary for individual success, are accessible to the majority of people.


Luck is very much a part of success. Merit is even bigger. Yes both of them were at harvard. Does that make what they did any less impressive? Does a person require going to harvard to be successful? As a matter of fact, did Bill ad Mark graduate? i will give an example from the opposite end of the spectrum. A child that grew up without a father. Was raised by a single mother, Family was dirt poor. School systems in that area are mediocre at best, down right horrid at best. But the child does have some advantages. Those advantages are quick reflexes. Stong legs, a mind that can assess and react to a changing environment very quickly. He then applies himself dilligently to improving upon the natural gifts he was born with. He turns raw talent, through hard work and determination, into unparralled skill. He turns that skill into a full ride scholarship. He goes to a public state university. The world is awed by his pure athletic ability. He like Bill and mark, leaves school early, Bill and mark to found companies, Michael to play in the NFL. He makes millions of dollars. Was he born with certain advantages? yes. Did he overcome them? Yes. His name was Michael Vick. that he promptly threw away his success for an abhorent reason is beside the point. He reached an extremely high level of success from very humble beginnings. Is his success any less because he achieved it physically? No. HE achieved it. Through hard work and dedication.

So the opportunity is still there. People just have to have the determination to take it.

***edited post. As originally written, It would give the impression that Bill and mark left harvard to go into the nfl.
Here is the sentence that was edited:

"He like Bill and mark, leaves school early to play in the NFL"

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/02/23 22:38:50


 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




My previous post was edited a second time to add asterics in front of the word edited.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Images of Bill Gates getting obliterated by the NY Giants front line.

Yea Baby YEA!
sorry, never mind the nutjob from Texas.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Schadenfreude is always a guilty little pleasure isn't it.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




The editor of my previous post has been sacked....
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Mango wrote:Polonius,
You have the opinion that my belief is "extreme". An extremist would believe in anarchy on one end and a complete regimentation of life on the other, like in an orwellian police state.


I think that your beliefs are far enough libretarian to qualify as beyond the mainstream. maybe not exteme, but fringe. My point is that the lack of practicality makes it at least unworkable in any form of reality. The belief that it's impossible for laws to protect freedom seems a bit extreme to me.

Not once have I said all laws or all government is bad or undesirable. To the contrary, I have said that government and laws are more desirable than thier complete absence. That is not an extreme view. What I have said is that governments of all types have a tendency to get larger and more intrusive. This invariably leads to government abuse. Name one current goverment that has not abused it's power in some way shape or form.


Well, power corrupts, so of course that happens. The retort to that is that all power corrupts, not just governmental.

What I have an issue with is people in the government passing laws continually without giving thought to the consequences. Or people and politicians who panic and decide that we MUST pass a law immediately to address a crisis, with no or little thought to what that will mean in the future. For example the patriot act. The most recent stimulus bill. The first stimulus bill. Creation of social security and medicaid. Intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign nation for little discernable need or benefit. Deciding how much of MY money I can keep. Deciding how much money I can make.


I agree with you there, to a point. I think Medicaid has done more good than ill, and while social security has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese, it's helped keep the elderly and disable from destitution. This is one of those times when I find your views a bit extreme. I think that in a modern society, there comes a point where the government should prevent the impovershied from starving or dying needlessly.

Did people vote for the people that passed all of these laws. yes. Did these laws make decisions for me? yes. Did these laws take away my freedom? Yes.


Ok. No real argument here.

You claim my "extreme" doctrine would not work well in practice. But it has. Limited and minimally intrusive government is what was originally created in The United States, by the founding fathers. Enshrined in the US Constitution. It was not perfect, since nothing can be perfect. But it was arguably the best system man has ever created. (Now here is where I dive into the realm of pure opinion.) Over time, instead of perfecting it, ploiticians have been steadily eroding it. Freedom of speech is a prime example. The wording of it is pretty clear.



This is where you run afoul of history. You, as a propertied white man, had more freedom back then. You keep forgetting the huge swatchs of the population that had less freedom, social or economic. The limited government enshrined there allowed slavery, prohibited women from voting or owning property in many cases, and also allowed the states to abridge whatever rights they felt like.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yet soon therafter, laws or regulations were passed that did indeed restrict or abridge free speech. Obsenity laws. The aforementioned "fire" in a theater. The Fairness doctrine (which fr decades WAS a regulation).

That is eroding freedom.

It is. Good job. Yes, many of our laws strip your freedoms. Many of them increase the freedoms of others. Child labor laws, coupled with free education, take away the rights of work from children and businesses, but it increases the actual freedom enjoyed by those children in their ability to become educated and hold other jobs.

You seem to be stressing the impact these laws have on you and your rights, and ignoring the rights and freedoms that others have gained because of governmental action. Most Americans now consider education, health care, and at least food and shelter as essential rights. Freedom from fear of starvation, freedom from fear of a preventable death, and freedom to have at least a chance to gain an education are all freedoms that have been added! Add to that the fact that African Americans can now vote and own property, Women can live independently of men, and Native Americans can, you know, not be killed for sport.

Freedom isn't a zero sum game, but yes, some people might have to lose a few freedoms to add huge freedoms anymore. 150 years ago, I had the freedom to hire children, buy a slave, and pay very low taxes. I'm a little bit worse off, if you focus on that. Of course, I now can listen, read, and watch whatever I want; I don't have to worry about starving to death if I become disabled, and I enjoy far greater rights in terms of criminal justice. And that's me as a white guy. If I were a minority or female, my lot would have improved even more so.

   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Umm Polonius........
Can I ask you a question? When did I ever say that I was a propertied white man?
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Polonius, your racist assumption about my ethnicity aside,

"You seem to be stressing the impact these laws have on you and your rights, and ignoring the rights and freedoms that others have gained because of governmental action. Most Americans now consider education, health care, and at least food and shelter as essential rights. Freedom from fear of starvation, freedom from fear of a preventable death, and freedom to have at least a chance to gain an education are all freedoms that have been added! Add to that the fact that African Americans can now vote and own property, Women can live independently of men, and Native Americans can, you know, not be killed for sport. "

Health care, education, food and shelter are not "rights". They are something you work for. If the government provides them to you, it does nothing more than create dependency. If you want to eat, grow it, catch it, work make money and pay for it. If you want healthcare, make money and pay for it. If you want shelter...you get the idea.

Is helping others less fortunate than yourself moral? That depends on your personal code of morality. I believe that it is. Do I believe that I should be the one to decide who I help, how I help them, and how much i should help them? Yes. Is forcing someone to be charitable being charitable? No. That can also called theft. Passing a law to make it legal does not make it right, it makes it legal.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Mango wrote:Polonius, your racist assumption about my ethnicity aside
Health care, education, food and shelter are not "rights". They are something you work for. If the government provides them to you, it does nothing more than create dependency. If you want to eat, grow it, catch it, work make money and pay for it. If you want healthcare, make money and pay for it. If you want shelter...you get the idea.

Is helping others less fortunate than yourself moral? That depends on your personal code of morality. I believe that it is. Do I believe that I should be the one to decide who I help, how I help them, and how much i should help them? Yes. Is forcing someone to be charitable being charitable? No. That can also called theft. Passing a law to make it legal does not make it right, it makes it legal.


I thought I read that you were a white guy. Sorry for being racist. I so assume when a person gets on the soapbox about hard right wing economic issues it's a well of white dude. If you're not, than my apologies. If you are, then stuff your indignation. You still have not addressed the fact that more people enjoy rights than they did before. Was that the result of good old fashioned bootstrap pulling? No, it was done by government.

Says you. Why is the right to speech a right, while the right to survival not? You seem to be happy with the rights that were considered important 200 years ago, and simply stating that no new rights or freedoms have merit. I disagree.

there are two realities to keep in mind when assuming that every person can always pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The first are those cases of genuine disability, handicap, or simple age. If a person has cancer, and loses their job, should they simply die if they can't afford health care? That's ignoring the cases of children who lack food/shelter/health care, through no fault of their own, and those who simply can't find work to support themselves.

The second reality is simply public unrest. We're far larger than we were 225 years ago, and we now have a semi-permanent underclass. As long as they're not starving and are sated with cable TV and drugs (bread and circuses) they keep their anger to a low roar. I'm not sure I want to live in a society with 25 million dirt poor people that are now in a life or death struggle to survive. It's got to be cheaper to just throw them their bone.

   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Mango wrote:
Luck is very much a part of success. Merit is even bigger.


I completely disagree.

Mango wrote:
Yes both of them were at harvard. Does that make what they did any less impressive?


Yes. It isn't terribly difficult to attract investment when you come from a family, and environment, in which the money for investment is freely available.

Mango wrote:
Does a person require going to harvard to be successful?


No, but it makes it considerably easier.

Mango wrote:
As a matter of fact, did Bill ad Mark graduate?


No, but you're looking at in a way which consider graduation as the only pertinent matter of a collegiate education. I could have taught myself everything I learned in the course of my own $100,000 college experience for a lot less money by simply spending some time at a university library. The trouble is that all that education would be completely meaningless if I was never given a forum in which to express it. That forum is made manifest by the connections one acquires in the collegiate environment.

Mango wrote:
i will give an example from the opposite end of the spectrum. A child that grew up without a father. Was raised by a single mother, Family was dirt poor. School systems in that area are mediocre at best, down right horrid at best. But the child does have some advantages. Those advantages are quick reflexes. Stong legs, a mind that can assess and react to a changing environment very quickly.
He then applies himself dilligently to improving upon the natural gifts he was born with. He turns raw talent, through hard work and determination, into unparralled skill. He turns that skill into a full ride scholarship. He goes to a public state university. The world is awed by his pure athletic ability. He like Bill and mark, leaves school early, Bill and mark to found companies, Michael to play in the NFL. He makes millions of dollars. Was he born with certain advantages? yes. Did he overcome them? Yes. His name was Michael Vick. that he promptly threw away his success for an abhorent reason is beside the point. He reached an extremely high level of success from very humble beginnings. Is his success any less because he achieved it physically? No. HE achieved it. Through hard work and dedication.


Actually Vick was notorious for having virtually no personal work ethic. He was injury prone because he didn't take the time to actually care for his body. He was a poor decision-maker because he never took the time to learn his offensive scheme. And he had no understanding of how to utilize his gifts productively, a character flaw which inevitable lead him to personal ruin. He overcame nothing. Others recognized his raw physical abilities and handed him the world. He is a text-book counter-example to your argument for achievement as the sole result of personal merit.

Mango wrote:
So the opportunity is still there. People just have to have the determination to take it.


The opportunity to what? Make it to the NFL? There is always opportunity available. The issue is that those opportunities are becoming more, and more exclusive with each successive generation.


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Polonius wrote:
Mango wrote:Polonius, your racist assumption about my ethnicity aside
Health care, education, food and shelter are not "rights". They are something you work for. If the government provides them to you, it does nothing more than create dependency. If you want to eat, grow it, catch it, work make money and pay for it. If you want healthcare, make money and pay for it. If you want shelter...you get the idea.

Is helping others less fortunate than yourself moral? That depends on your personal code of morality. I believe that it is. Do I believe that I should be the one to decide who I help, how I help them, and how much i should help them? Yes. Is forcing someone to be charitable being charitable? No. That can also called theft. Passing a law to make it legal does not make it right, it makes it legal.


I thought I read that you were a white guy. Sorry for being racist. I so assume when a person gets on the soapbox about hard right wing economic issues it's a well of white dude. If you're not, than my apologies. If you are, then stuff your indignation. You still have not addressed the fact that more people enjoy rights than they did before. Was that the result of good old fashioned bootstrap pulling? No, it was done by government.



Says you. Why is the right to speech a right, while the right to survival not? You seem to be happy with the rights that were considered important 200 years ago, and simply stating that no new rights or freedoms have merit. I disagree.

there are two realities to keep in mind when assuming that every person can always pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The first are those cases of genuine disability, handicap, or simple age. If a person has cancer, and loses their job, should they simply die if they can't afford health care? That's ignoring the cases of children who lack food/shelter/health care, through no fault of their own, and those who simply can't find work to support themselves.

The second reality is simply public unrest. We're far larger than we were 225 years ago, and we now have a semi-permanent underclass. As long as they're not starving and are sated with cable TV and drugs (bread and circuses) they keep their anger to a low roar. I'm not sure I want to live in a society with 25 million dirt poor people that are now in a life or death struggle to survive. It's got to be cheaper to just throw them their bone.



Polonius,
My ethnicity is irrelevant. What you basically said was that it is ok to be racist towards a white person. Racism is wrong regardless of a persons race. Shame on you.

As to the rest of your post, it is a personal opinion. Just as mine was a personal opinion. I believe the declaration says it best, Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. While the declaration does not have the force of law, it somes up american values. The constitution which does have legal force, also does not mention a right to health care. Or a right to food. Or a host of other so called rights. The liberal left keeps inventing "rights" for people, that they promptly use to take other peoples money. It goes back to one of my earlier posts. Of course people are going to vote themselves more and more perks. You are proving my case of the slippery slope of socialism. In an effort to make everyone "equal" they keep taking and taking and taking. That creates a moral hazard.

For example: A person works and makes $8 an hour, 40 hours a week. Gross, they make around $1280 a month. They see a neighbor that is collecting unemployment. In the state of VA, that tops out at around $1300 a month. So do you think that the person that is working will start asking himself "why am I woking, when I can sit around and do what I want, and not work, and collect the same amount of money? Then that person quits. They make the same amount of money, only now they have a lot more leisure time to do what they want.

My boss is an african immigrant. He arrived in the US virtually penniless. He eventually made or borrowed enough money to buy the company I currently work for. (it was spun off from a larger corporation). He took an unprofitable company and turned it around. For eight years the division of the corporation that I currently work for, broke even. It did not make money, but nor did it lose money. So, through skill and shrewd business acumen, he took an unprofitable company, and slowly started turning a profit. He drove a old crappy car and lived in an studio apartment. He made personal sacrifices to make the business succeed. The first year he ran the company, we made $100,000 in profit. Rather than keep $100,000 for himself, he used part of that money to buy a packaging machine. And still drove a crappy car and lived in a crappy apartment. The following year, he made a bigger profit. $500,000. He finally bought himself a new car. He bought a honda accord. he still lived in the crappy apartment. He invested the bulk of that profit back into the company. He hired more people. that's right, he created jobs), and bought more equipment. last year, the company made $1,000,000 in profit. He bought a $500,000 mixer, and a $75,000 Near infrared analyzer, and hired additional staff. More he gave us raises for the first time in 4 years. And the raises were across the board to everyone who had been there a year or longer. He also put a down payment on a house.

So far, this year, we seem to be an aberration. Our sales have went up. We have had a 1% increase in sales from this time last year. But he is not planning on investing as much into the company this year. Why? Because liberal politicians are going to raise his taxes. Money that could have been used to reinvest into the company, to CREATE jobs and wealth, will instead be going to pay people who are not working. To provide food to people who are not working. to provide for other "rights" that the liberals have decided are now rights. What benefits society more, people who work and create or earn money and wealth, and create jobs, or a people who are paid to do nothing. that is not some abstract right wing talking point. That is my job. That is my bosses company.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




Dogma,
Did Vick through talent, luck, skill, and work make it to the top of his profession. Are you aying it took no work or effort on his part to become a stellar athlete?

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Polonius wrote:I think Mr. Mango is a pretty dedicated libertarian, and so for them it's a bit of a truism that all laws restrict freedom. Even absent that, the vast majority of laws do curtail one or more freedoms, and the regulations created by executive bodies founded by laws can often be highly intrusive onto personal freedoms.

So while he's wrong in saying that all laws = less freedom, if you change that to "nearly all laws = less freedom," you're getting there.

Having watched this debate before, Sebster seems to hold that government can in fact protect freedoms, and that people can be freer with a government thatn without, while Mango holds that all people are less free under a government.

The answer, as always, lies in the middle.


I'm not, and haven't ever, claimed that all laws improve freedom. I am arguing against the extremity and simplistic nature of Mango's argument, I haven't accepted an equally extreme and simplistic notion in the exact opposite direction.

And that's all this is. Mango made a big claim. I posted some rebuttals. He is yet to address a single from my first round of rebuttals. He's posted a lot of dictionary definitions. He's repeated his initial claim a load of times. But he's never even attempted to address my points.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Mango wrote:Reds8n and Sebster,

For your enjoyment, here is another definition. Please bear with me, but this is pertinent to our discussion. This is also a very long post. People are forewarned. Sebster, this will also answer some of your other criticisms.


No, it doesn’t answer any of my criticisms. It doesn’t address them in the slightest. It’s a complete and utter failure.

So I’ll repeat them again;

In one you claim 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'.
I have pointed out that there are areas where laws are removed, Bruce' obscenity charge and sodomy. I have pointed out that some laws protect freedoms, such as the right to vote without interference.
In reponse you've just repeated 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'. This is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the Bruce, sodomy and voting rights points, or form a better argument that can still be true while recognising Bruce etc, or some other approach. But you can't just repeat your original claim. That's just being obnoxious.

In the other you claim that progressive taxation is like making two people pay different amounts for the same product.
I have pointed out that the income people earn is based on society. That it is because of the presence of property laws, contract laws and corporation laws that we have a modern economy where a person can earn $200,000 as a doctor. It is therefore a bad concept to pretend earnings are purely the product of the individual, and then pretend tax is the only external factor.
In response, you've made a string of random analogies that repeat the original concept 'it is crazy that people pay different amounts for the same thing'. Again, this is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the idea that social laws massively influence earning potential, or form a better argument that accounts for the role of society in earning potential. But again, you can't just repeat your original claim.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Mango wrote:Frazzled,
Yes, I am posing that no law means freedom. A law can provide protection. A law can provide benefits. A law can guarantee rights. But a law does not mean freedom, it means the opposite. By definition a law is the antithetical to freedom.


Yeah, I addressed this on page two or thereabouts. You're only looking at one very limited set of freedoms, freedom from government law. By , you come up with a ludicrous and entirely pointless conclusion (that less government always means more freedom, ignoring the very obvious point that government often protects our freedoms from our fellow citizens).

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Professional




Empire Of Denver, Urth

This kind smarmy crap just demands a quip. I'll return the favor.

I thought I read that you were a white guy. Sorry for being racist. I so assume when a person gets on the soapbox about hard right wing economic issues it's a well of white dude.


What, like Thomas Sowell?

“It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood” -- Karl Popper 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Mango wrote:
Polonius,
My ethnicity is irrelevant. What you basically said was that it is ok to be racist towards a white person. Racism is wrong regardless of a persons race. Shame on you.


I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this is a bit ridiculous. If you think that is racism, you're a lucky, lucky man. I made a mistake, man. I made an assumption, which is stereotyping, but not racism.

Oh, and I see that yet again you dodge the actual points I made, in favor of simply screaming that I"m racist. Oh well. I guess it's useful to know who's not worth debating with.

As for the rest of your post, I appreciate the cliffs notes version of a horatio alger story. As sebster realized, I too see that you seem to enjoy ignoring the hard points and instead keep thrashing at strawmen.

More people have more rights now. Suck it.
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Mango wrote:Dogma,
Did Vick through talent, luck, skill, and work make it to the top of his profession.


Talent and luck? Sure. Skill and work? No. Vick never worked a day in his life. He showed up, wowed some people with his natural gifts, and then never put in the effort necessary to sustain them. In fact, just before he lost everything, most reputable football commentators noted that he had gotten considerably slower, and lost a great deal of power in his throwing arm, after only 4 years in the league. Something which is a clear hallmark of poor training habits.

Mango wrote:
Are you aying it took no work or effort on his part to become a stellar athlete?


Yes. I know a bit about training athletes. Its what I do for a living at the moment. In fact, I've worked with people who have worked with Vick. He had limitless potential given his size, proportions, and nominal body chemistry. He was literally a freak of nature. Everything he had was a gift of birth, not of effort. That's how the athletic world is. Some people are just built in such a way that they don't need to work in order to obtain what our society deigns as physical perfection.


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine





The Realms of the Unreal, of the Glandeco-Angelinnian War Storm, Caused by the Child Slave Rebellion

Polonius wrote:
More people have more rights now. Suck it.

Sigged.

2 - The hobbiest - The guy who likes the minis for what they are, loves playing with painted armies, using offical mini's in a friendly setting. Wants to play on boards with good terrain.
Devlin Mud is cheating.
More people have more rights now. Suck it.- Polonius
5500
1200 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Polonius wrote:
Mango wrote:
Polonius,
My ethnicity is irrelevant. What you basically said was that it is ok to be racist towards a white person. Racism is wrong regardless of a persons race. Shame on you.


I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this is a bit ridiculous. If you think that is racism, you're a lucky, lucky man. I made a mistake, man. I made an assumption, which is stereotyping, but not racism.


Nope, you're not the only one.

I think it also bears mentioning that, had the comment actually been racist, it would still have been justified. I see no problem at all with racist behavior in the name of pointing out the effect race has on individual opportunity.

Zip Napalm wrote:
What, like Thomas Sowell?


That man might well be the worst economist I've ever encountered.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




sebster wrote:
Polonius wrote:I think Mr. Mango is a pretty dedicated libertarian, and so for them it's a bit of a truism that all laws restrict freedom. Even absent that, the vast majority of laws do curtail one or more freedoms, and the regulations created by executive bodies founded by laws can often be highly intrusive onto personal freedoms.

So while he's wrong in saying that all laws = less freedom, if you change that to "nearly all laws = less freedom," you're getting there.

Having watched this debate before, Sebster seems to hold that government can in fact protect freedoms, and that people can be freer with a government thatn without, while Mango holds that all people are less free under a government.

The answer, as always, lies in the middle.


I'm not, and haven't ever, claimed that all laws improve freedom. I am arguing against the extremity and simplistic nature of Mango's argument, I haven't accepted an equally extreme and simplistic notion in the exact opposite direction.

And that's all this is. Mango made a big claim. I posted some rebuttals. He is yet to address a single from my first round of rebuttals. He's posted a lot of dictionary definitions. He's repeated his initial claim a load of times. But he's never even attempted to address my points.


Sebster, I have rebutted your arguments. At length. If there is a specific one you would like me to address, please feel free to repost it. You keep saying that I am merely repeated definitions and the same argument over and over. Yet, when I offer a detailed and logical response, you claim it is just repeating the same argument. I will address another of your arguments. Sodomy. It was not legalised. It was decriminalized. Your rebuttals have for the most part been opinions, not logical arguments. Try using logic, not opinion.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator




sebster wrote:
Mango wrote:Reds8n and Sebster,

For your enjoyment, here is another definition. Please bear with me, but this is pertinent to our discussion. This is also a very long post. People are forewarned. Sebster, this will also answer some of your other criticisms.


No, it doesn’t answer any of my criticisms. It doesn’t address them in the slightest. It’s a complete and utter failure.

So I’ll repeat them again;

In one you claim 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'.
I have pointed out that there are areas where laws are removed, Bruce' obscenity charge and sodomy. I have pointed out that some laws protect freedoms, such as the right to vote without interference.
In reponse you've just repeated 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'. This is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the Bruce, sodomy and voting rights points, or form a better argument that can still be true while recognising Bruce etc, or some other approach. But you can't just repeat your original claim. That's just being obnoxious.

In the other you claim that progressive taxation is like making two people pay different amounts for the same product.
I have pointed out that the income people earn is based on society. That it is because of the presence of property laws, contract laws and corporation laws that we have a modern economy where a person can earn $200,000 as a doctor. It is therefore a bad concept to pretend earnings are purely the product of the individual, and then pretend tax is the only external factor.
In response, you've made a string of random analogies that repeat the original concept 'it is crazy that people pay different amounts for the same thing'. Again, this is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the idea that social laws massively influence earning potential, or form a better argument that accounts for the role of society in earning potential. But again, you can't just repeat your original claim.


Again sebster, use logic not opinion.
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: