I hope your comment isn't serious and I wasted my time writing this comment, because if it is, nearly everything in it is entirely wrong and bass ackwards.
First, your comment about âoewe'll do laissez-faireâ but penalize you and tax you, blah blah blah, is ridiculous. Clearly taxes, quotas, and tariffs are not laissez faire.
The arguments against outsourcing and for protective tariffs are a total joke. They necessarily rest on the faulty mercantilist assumption that there is a fixed amount of labor in the world and when a company outsources labor to another country, US consumers are just that much worse off. I'll address that imaginary problem of eliminating âoeinternal jobsâ later. Regardless, when one argues that outsourcing is bad and tariffs are good, one is unquestionably arguing that it is 1) better for US consumers to pay higher prices for their goods than they otherwise would, and 2) that US workers should work in less-productive jobs than they otherwise would. Both of these will be explained and argued against in the quote from a book I have copied below.
The two largest reasons why people like yourself favor ridiculous economic legislation like high tariffs are that 1) you only look at the immediate consequences of the legislation, and 2) you clearly do not have a background in economics. Sure, tariffs help prevent foreign competition in US markets. This is good for the US producers of the product. However, it also keeps prices higher for US consumers, and keeps people employed in underproductive, less-than-competitive firms.
Every dollar over the world price that US consumers have to pay for a product is another dollar that they don't have to buy other items. For example, say China was producing sweaters for $25 and the US sweater industry produced them for $30. There is a protective tariff on foreign sweaters to allow US producers to compete. Now suppose the tariff is repealed. I'll quote directly from Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson:
"The tariff is repealed; the manufacturer goes out of business; a thousand workers are laid off; the particular tradesmen whom they patronized are hurt. This is the immediate result that is seen. But there are also results which, while much more difficult to trace, are no less immediate and no less real. For now sweaters that formerly cost retail $30 apiece can be bought for $25. Consumers can now buy the same quality of sweater for less money, or a much better one for the same money. If they buy the same quality of sweater, they not only get the sweater, but they have $5 left over, which they would not have had under the previous conditions, to buy something else. With the $25 that they pay for the imported sweater they help employment-as the American manufacturer no doubt predicted-in the sweater industry in England. With the $5 left over they help employment in any number of other industries in the UNited States. But the results do not end there. By buying English sweaters they furnish the English with dollars to buy American goods here. This, in fact (if I may here disregard such complications as fluctuating exchange rates, loans, credits, etc.) is teh only way in which the British can eventually make use of these dollars. Because we have permitted the British to sell more to us, they are now able to buy more from us if their dollar balances are not to remain perpetually unused. So as a result of letting in more British goods, we must export more American goods. And although fewer people are now employed in the American sweater industry, more people are employed-and much more efficiently empoloyed-in, say, the American washing-machine or aircraft-building business. American employment on net balance has not gone down, but American and British production on net balance has gone up. Labor in each country is more fully employed in doing just those things that it does best, instead of being force to do things that it does inefficiently or badly. Consumers in both countries are better off. They are able to
but some people enjoy using a laptop for everything
Most college students who travel great distances to their schools, like myself, have laptops. I'm not a gamer (though I do enjoy the occasional game of Halo), but bringing a desktop & monitor cross country seems kind of inconvenient, regardless of how much of a gamer one is.
First, I completely agree with you that many modern Christians prefer to brow beat people with the Bible and use the Government to force the "Christian" view of things onto people. I feel that both of these things are very bad and are a large reason why there is such open hostility to Christianity today. I would also like to apologize to you for anyone who has ever brow beat you with the Bible, preached fire and brimstone to you, or tried to use force (Government) to not let you do something or other (like get married to whomever you wish). I guess I also want to preemptively apologize to you if anything in this post is for some reason really offensive. Please know that my goal is not to offend or argue but to enlighten, critique, and correct some misinformation.
The Old Testament is easily half the book if not more
Actually, the Old Testament makes up about 85% of the Bible we have today.
and contains such crowd-pleasers as Leviticus, with the famous dietary laws along with times when it's appropriate to sell your sister to a giraffe
Really only the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch) are the Law books, and much of those books are just telling about the early history of the Israelites. (Genesis & Exodus). Also, there is nothing about selling your sister to a giraffe in the Old Testament (nor the New). Giraffes would, however, fall into the edible foods category based on their hoofs. Regardless, there are plenty of bizarre or seemingly pointless laws in there.
Then you hit the Gospels and Jesus says something along the lines of, "Okay, forget the earlier stuff about not eating monkeys or goats, just be nice to each other and we'll call that good enough." Which of course makes everything prior to that in the Bible totally irrelevant as moral handbooks go.
Not to be judgmental or argumentative, but honestly, this is a really inaccurate portrayal of the Bible's message. Even a secular humanist professor of religion who has some understanding of its message wouldn't summarize the Bible in that way, because it's just not what it's saying.
Jesus himself says in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-18 (the fifth chapter in the first book in the New Testament, essentially the first thing you read in the New Testament if you read for more than about 5 minutes): "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (NIV)
I tend to agree with this, and interpret the entire Old Testament as pointing towards Jesus. The purpose of the Law was to demonstrate the sinfulness of man and how we can never be "good enough." This may sound clichÃ, but the New Testament's whole message is that it's not about us and what we do and how good we are, but about God and what He did for us by his Grace.
It seems like a lot of the loudest Christians prefer the earlier parts about setting witches on fire and such to the just trying to get along with everybody revision.
Again, there is nothing about "setting witches on fire" anywhere in the Old/New Testaments, and the "getting along with everybody part" was not a "revision." I suppose the Old and New Testaments do condemn witchcraft, though. Also, please read the first paragraph in this post again. Thanks a lot.
My first thought exactly. Somehow I feel like it will still be a battle to get the music off the card, even though they say there's no "copy protection." There's always a catch with the music industry.
I most certainly read your entire post and also did not mod you troll. This is my first time returning to this thread since I posted my original comment.
While I agree with you, the 9th Amendment states that just because some rights are enumerated therein doesn't mean people don't have other rights that aren't enumerated. I'm definitely not saying that people have the "right" to use a cell phone in any manner they wish, just that the enumeration of certain rights wasn't meant to "deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It's Apple's product and if they are able to, there is nothing wrong with controlling what apps there are in the app store.
Interestingly and perhaps contradictorily, I have the opposite opinion regarding DRM and music/movies.
The Austrian system is, in essence, a voucher-based system. From what you said, it is not a true voucher system in that 1) the money is not tied to the students and 2) the voucher can't be used at any school of the parents' choosing. Although I would prefer a true voucher system (one in which vouchers could be used at any school, as the Supreme Court has already ruled is Constitutional), any degree of school choice would be an improvement over the current US system.
Although I agree that taxpayer money should not be used to directly fund religion, the Supreme Court has correctly ruled that school vouchers can be used at religious schools. This is not directly funding a religion, and it is better than having the government centrally direct everything (which is currently and obviously failing).
Although your comment is technically true, its implied meaning is not. Most people in the world were illiterate in the 1700s. The United States had the best education system, by far, until government took control. This is undeniable.
The reasons for the high scores of Western Europe and Japan are not the centralized curricula and government control, but the fact that parents can choose which school their children attend.
Gee, the lack of federal planning in the United States must explain why our university system is so bad, full of religious fanatics, and produces a bunch of dummies, compared with the rest of the world.
The lack of central planning must also explain why schools that parents choose are so bad. Clearly the monopoly government "schools" are far superior...
According to the Constitution (10th Amendment) the Federal Government doesn't have any role in public education. I guess you could just be upset about her history and vote against her out of spite...
I'd like to see the Theory of Evolution addressed in religious settings.
It is in at my university. I attend Wheaton College (IL) and most, if not all of the science faculty (not sure about the rest) "believe in" macroevolution and are also hold to old earth theories (as do I).
The problem here is that we're dealing with government primary and secondary schools, so no one can agree on what to teach with taxpayer money. Some affluent parents have chosen to send their children to religious schools where they may or may not teach 6-day creationism, and that is fine and dandy for them. Unfortunately, this option is not available to the vast majority of parents who are not as affluent, so their children are stuck in whatever government school they are zoned for. Thus, "teach both" really isn't a lasting solution because someone is always going to complain about one side or the other, let alone the church/state issues about which people will complain. The real solution to this problem is school choice, letting the parents decide where to send their children. People will still complain but they may choose to send there children to a different school.
Also, it would be quite improper for state governments to mandate curriculum for private schools, religious or not. A large reason private schools exist is to escape and rise above the government monopoly and bureaucracy.
Hope this helps. I'm certainly not trying to start an argument or even be unfriendly.
There's a lot of content on that website. Can you point me to an article that sums up that website's doctrine? Maybe a statement of faith or something? Thanks a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Like anyone uses any other search engine anyway... :)
Not sure why this was modded funny, since it is entirely true.
I hope your comment isn't serious and I wasted my time writing this comment, because if it is, nearly everything in it is entirely wrong and bass ackwards.
First, your comment about âoewe'll do laissez-faireâ but penalize you and tax you, blah blah blah, is ridiculous. Clearly taxes, quotas, and tariffs are not laissez faire.
The arguments against outsourcing and for protective tariffs are a total joke. They necessarily rest on the faulty mercantilist assumption that there is a fixed amount of labor in the world and when a company outsources labor to another country, US consumers are just that much worse off. I'll address that imaginary problem of eliminating âoeinternal jobsâ later. Regardless, when one argues that outsourcing is bad and tariffs are good, one is unquestionably arguing that it is 1) better for US consumers to pay higher prices for their goods than they otherwise would, and 2) that US workers should work in less-productive jobs than they otherwise would. Both of these will be explained and argued against in the quote from a book I have copied below.
The two largest reasons why people like yourself favor ridiculous economic legislation like high tariffs are that 1) you only look at the immediate consequences of the legislation, and 2) you clearly do not have a background in economics. Sure, tariffs help prevent foreign competition in US markets. This is good for the US producers of the product. However, it also keeps prices higher for US consumers, and keeps people employed in underproductive, less-than-competitive firms.
Every dollar over the world price that US consumers have to pay for a product is another dollar that they don't have to buy other items. For example, say China was producing sweaters for $25 and the US sweater industry produced them for $30. There is a protective tariff on foreign sweaters to allow US producers to compete. Now suppose the tariff is repealed. I'll quote directly from Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson:
"The tariff is repealed; the manufacturer goes out of business; a thousand workers are laid off; the particular tradesmen whom they patronized are hurt. This is the immediate result that is seen. But there are also results which, while much more difficult to trace, are no less immediate and no less real. For now sweaters that formerly cost retail $30 apiece can be bought for $25. Consumers can now buy the same quality of sweater for less money, or a much better one for the same money. If they buy the same quality of sweater, they not only get the sweater, but they have $5 left over, which they would not have had under the previous conditions, to buy something else. With the $25 that they pay for the imported sweater they help employment-as the American manufacturer no doubt predicted-in the sweater industry in England. With the $5 left over they help employment in any number of other industries in the UNited States. But the results do not end there. By buying English sweaters they furnish the English with dollars to buy American goods here. This, in fact (if I may here disregard such complications as fluctuating exchange rates, loans, credits, etc.) is teh only way in which the British can eventually make use of these dollars. Because we have permitted the British to sell more to us, they are now able to buy more from us if their dollar balances are not to remain perpetually unused. So as a result of letting in more British goods, we must export more American goods. And although fewer people are now employed in the American sweater industry, more people are employed-and much more efficiently empoloyed-in, say, the American washing-machine or aircraft-building business. American employment on net balance has not gone down, but American and British production on net balance has gone up. Labor in each country is more fully employed in doing just those things that it does best, instead of being force to do things that it does inefficiently or badly. Consumers in both countries are better off. They are able to
Actually, there are more private security guards in the US than public police officers. Clearly people don't think the police do that great of a job.
but some people enjoy using a laptop for everything
Most college students who travel great distances to their schools, like myself, have laptops. I'm not a gamer (though I do enjoy the occasional game of Halo), but bringing a desktop & monitor cross country seems kind of inconvenient, regardless of how much of a gamer one is.
The Old Testament is easily half the book if not more
Actually, the Old Testament makes up about 85% of the Bible we have today.
and contains such crowd-pleasers as Leviticus, with the famous dietary laws along with times when it's appropriate to sell your sister to a giraffe
Really only the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch) are the Law books, and much of those books are just telling about the early history of the Israelites. (Genesis & Exodus). Also, there is nothing about selling your sister to a giraffe in the Old Testament (nor the New). Giraffes would, however, fall into the edible foods category based on their hoofs. Regardless, there are plenty of bizarre or seemingly pointless laws in there.
Then you hit the Gospels and Jesus says something along the lines of, "Okay, forget the earlier stuff about not eating monkeys or goats, just be nice to each other and we'll call that good enough." Which of course makes everything prior to that in the Bible totally irrelevant as moral handbooks go.
Not to be judgmental or argumentative, but honestly, this is a really inaccurate portrayal of the Bible's message. Even a secular humanist professor of religion who has some understanding of its message wouldn't summarize the Bible in that way, because it's just not what it's saying.
Jesus himself says in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-18 (the fifth chapter in the first book in the New Testament, essentially the first thing you read in the New Testament if you read for more than about 5 minutes): "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (NIV)
I tend to agree with this, and interpret the entire Old Testament as pointing towards Jesus. The purpose of the Law was to demonstrate the sinfulness of man and how we can never be "good enough." This may sound clichÃ, but the New Testament's whole message is that it's not about us and what we do and how good we are, but about God and what He did for us by his Grace.
It seems like a lot of the loudest Christians prefer the earlier parts about setting witches on fire and such to the just trying to get along with everybody revision.
Again, there is nothing about "setting witches on fire" anywhere in the Old/New Testaments, and the "getting along with everybody part" was not a "revision." I suppose the Old and New Testaments do condemn witchcraft, though. Also, please read the first paragraph in this post again. Thanks a lot.
If they start calling them rentals I won't be paying $50 for each game I "rent."
I have to admit, the Opportunity was fairly large.
I think this humor Endeavour has been unsuccessful.
My first thought exactly. Somehow I feel like it will still be a battle to get the music off the card, even though they say there's no "copy protection." There's always a catch with the music industry.
Not do things that you wouldn't tell your mother / colleges / employers you do?
I most certainly read your entire post and also did not mod you troll. This is my first time returning to this thread since I posted my original comment.
While I agree with you, the 9th Amendment states that just because some rights are enumerated therein doesn't mean people don't have other rights that aren't enumerated. I'm definitely not saying that people have the "right" to use a cell phone in any manner they wish, just that the enumeration of certain rights wasn't meant to "deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It's Apple's product and if they are able to, there is nothing wrong with controlling what apps there are in the app store.
Interestingly and perhaps contradictorily, I have the opposite opinion regarding DRM and music/movies.
Posted from a macbook pro.
Maybe if some of the citizens in the UK had guns the knives wouldn't be such a problem.
How do libertarians and populists fit into this?
Jokes aside, I seriously doubt there is any kind of causal relationship here but merely a statistically significant correlation.
Expensive shareware like VLC or Perian?
The Austrian system is, in essence, a voucher-based system. From what you said, it is not a true voucher system in that 1) the money is not tied to the students and 2) the voucher can't be used at any school of the parents' choosing. Although I would prefer a true voucher system (one in which vouchers could be used at any school, as the Supreme Court has already ruled is Constitutional), any degree of school choice would be an improvement over the current US system.
Although I agree that taxpayer money should not be used to directly fund religion, the Supreme Court has correctly ruled that school vouchers can be used at religious schools. This is not directly funding a religion, and it is better than having the government centrally direct everything (which is currently and obviously failing).
Although your comment is technically true, its implied meaning is not. Most people in the world were illiterate in the 1700s. The United States had the best education system, by far, until government took control. This is undeniable.
The reasons for the high scores of Western Europe and Japan are not the centralized curricula and government control, but the fact that parents can choose which school their children attend.
Gee, the lack of federal planning in the United States must explain why our university system is so bad, full of religious fanatics, and produces a bunch of dummies, compared with the rest of the world.
The lack of central planning must also explain why schools that parents choose are so bad. Clearly the monopoly government "schools" are far superior...
According to the Constitution (10th Amendment) the Federal Government doesn't have any role in public education. I guess you could just be upset about her history and vote against her out of spite...
I'd like to see the Theory of Evolution addressed in religious settings.
It is in at my university. I attend Wheaton College (IL) and most, if not all of the science faculty (not sure about the rest) "believe in" macroevolution and are also hold to old earth theories (as do I).
The problem here is that we're dealing with government primary and secondary schools, so no one can agree on what to teach with taxpayer money. Some affluent parents have chosen to send their children to religious schools where they may or may not teach 6-day creationism, and that is fine and dandy for them. Unfortunately, this option is not available to the vast majority of parents who are not as affluent, so their children are stuck in whatever government school they are zoned for. Thus, "teach both" really isn't a lasting solution because someone is always going to complain about one side or the other, let alone the church/state issues about which people will complain. The real solution to this problem is school choice, letting the parents decide where to send their children. People will still complain but they may choose to send there children to a different school.
Also, it would be quite improper for state governments to mandate curriculum for private schools, religious or not. A large reason private schools exist is to escape and rise above the government monopoly and bureaucracy.
Hope this helps. I'm certainly not trying to start an argument or even be unfriendly.
Tonight's top story: Government agencies headed by unelected bureaucrats violate citizens' constitutional rights. More at 11.
There's a lot of content on that website. Can you point me to an article that sums up that website's doctrine? Maybe a statement of faith or something? Thanks a lot.