So the only choices that you considered are unemployment or wage slavery? Interesting.
- unemployment or wage slavery? Now that is interesting. Free people are free to start their own businesses, to sell their labour to the highest bidders, and does not make them slaves any more than being hunters/gatherers.
They show a very binary view of the world, and a very narrow view of what "freedom" means
- freedom is only one thing: being free from any type of tyranny, and government is tyranny of the collective above the individual.
your one-sided understanding of Standard Oil.
- you have no knowledge on this topic, beginning to end on this you've been fed nonsense. Given facts on the falling prices due to rising efficiencies of the business across decades, you can't form a logical argument against it.
more information will change their minds.
- no.
I am not looking to change anybody's minds, who were made dependent on the government hand outs.
Can't make a man realise the truth if his bread and butter depends on not realising it.
The reality is that we do understand what you represent, and we have rejected a world that looks like that.
- the truth? You cannot handle the truth. The truth is that your wave of life is coming to an end because it was destined to come to an end, because it is self defeating as all totalitarian regimes are.
Why on earth do they need that many people. Aren't these electronics lines automated? (On another note: When was the last time a U.S. or EU company announced hiring 36,000 people.)
- yeah, because Chinese government hasn't yet mandated an entire slew of things that would prevent a company just from trying to build a business and instead would force a company to look for ways to get away from hiring people and find ways to do the same work without any hiring at all.
This is the direct proof that all this government intervention in the USA and Europe etc. is what PREVENTS JOBS FROM HAPPENING and KILLS EXISTING JOBS.
Aah, the mandatory and false Standard Oil example.
The company that always reduced prices of its product over DECADES and was very successful because it could deliver an ever cheapening, good quality product to the market. The company that had 150 competitors by 1911.
By 1870 Standard Oil had 4% of the market share. The tools and technologies it invested in allowed it to create efficiencies and cut costs and pass cost savings to the consumers.
1869, price of refined oil was 30 cents per gallon. 1874, price of refined oil was 10 cents per gallon. 1885, price of refined oil was 8 cents per gallon. 1897, price of refined oil was 5.9 cents per gallon.
So by 1897 the prices were 5.9 cents, you can calculate how many times the prices fell from 1869 levels as an exercise.
By 1910 Standard Oil had 150 competitors, including Texaco and Gulf.
Saying that any type of 'predatory price strategy' was used is retarded, because prices were dropping over decades.
So yes, Standard Oil is an excellent example of free market at work and then of government meddling with the market to destroy a very healthy competitor, which was bringing a quality product to the market.
"Robber barons" indeed, people who created the industry, provided the necessary and very valuable resource at ever falling prices and developed industries, tools, mechanisms, need for higher education levels, the wealth and infrastructure to the public.
This is exactly what goes against your failed notion that 'trickle down economics' doesn't work. It works very very well, but you have to be part of the production cycle, you have to work, to produce, not to be an illegitimate consumer subsidised by the very money of the very people who then are selling you the product for their own money.
because it's a corporation, don't you understand? It has the word 'corp' in it, it's deadly. A corporation opening a business wherever you are immediately means that the people living in your vicinity require 10 times the amount of government services than they required prior to the corporation opening the business there. So obviously the people who used to be on welfare, EI, disability, etc., all of a sudden could get jobs doing something, but that means the government is controlling them less and this is also completely wrong, because we can't have people that are so independent they don't require government to give them handouts all of a sudden.
Don't you understand? Business is what destroys the wealth and government is what creates the wealth? Did you miss the part where Cheney and Bush ordered iPads to be created by a government decree in 2002?
Income taxes are slavery, if you are going to quote me, quote me, don't make shit up. I know it sounds better for your ideology, when you make shit up, but you see, it doesn't help your argument. Do you even have an argument that is not made of straw?
Money is not paper, that's your mistake. Money is wealth - things we want. The money that we spend to consume is wealth we destroy. The money that we spend to invest is wealth we try to grow.
When I say that businesses create money, I obviously do not mean that businesses print cash. Businesses create money by creating products and services. The money that businesses create is real money, real stuff. The money that government and quasi government agencies create is counterfeit cash.
As to the paper money itself - any company can print its own stock actually and dilute the total value of its shares (somehow people understand this simple concept, that printing new shares dilutes their individual value, but for some reason this escapes them when they are presented with the same fact from POV of currencies - Fed prints money, it creates inflation - it dilutes individual value of every existing Federal note).
The best way to run a successful country? That obviously depends on how you define "successful".
- long terms economic and social prosperity based on individual freedom, not on any dictatorial / totalitarian principles. A system with a very narrowly defined powers of the government over the individuals, so the collective cannot run a roughshot over the individual every time it feels like. Ability of people to live life without being harassed by majority. Not being born as a slave into a system that automatically dedicates you as one. Ability to do business as one wants, without gov't intervention as long as other individuals don't get hurt.
A nation of laws, not a nation of men. That's what USA has become now - a nation of men, not a nation of laws.
Can we agree that a successful country is one where each person has the best possibilities to break their social heritage?
- no, I don't agree with this definition.
The only definition of a successful society shouldn't be that a person has best possibilities to 'break social heritage' - this means nothing at all. Social heritage is not something that requires to be broken for a country to be successful, this just shows more lack of understanding on your part.
One where each person has the best possibilities to rise up and create their own wealth?
- this is a CONSEQUENCE of a successful society, this is not a recipe. Constitution gave USA an artificial limit to what the government could do, only then, by removing the powers previously delegated to the kings and nobility, that the country became free and freedom begat prosperity.
Prosperity then begat push by the politicians to get more power and this push destroyed the Constitution, gave the politicians power they craved and ability to regulate business, which destroys prosperity.
You can be born into a society that allows you to break the social heritage and gives you most ability to create wealth, yet this may be a society that is already in the late stages of heavy government development, the time when cancer is spreading but the symptoms are still hidden.
One where education is equally accessible by all and not a road to financial ruin for the unlucky?
- this is absolutely a consequence of a more prosperous society, but this cannot be definition of it, nor can it be a requirement.
Free market capitalism required more specialisation because more specialised tools became available as form of capital and people needed more training and education, which is why it became more accessible - there was more profit to be made in education, and this created more supply and prices went down. It's all about profit, if there is a reason that profit can be made in education, then education will become more accessible and better.
You can't mandate that education is accessible and good and that everybody must pay into it and expect any good results as is shown by the replies to my comments in this thread.
One where equality between all people, no matter sex, religion or sexual orientation etc. is a priority?
- UNDER THE LAW. If the point is that equality is under the law, so that the government treats you equally, then yes, this is the only point you make that is valid.
But I don't believe you are making that point, you mean something else altogether probably. You mean - government must dictate to the free individuals that they must treat others equally.
Well then it's not a free society and then your prescription is the exact opposite of what is the correct prescription.
One where even the poorest people can live a decent, well-fed existence?
- that is a consequence of a free and wealthy society, which produces maximum competition, lowest prices and best and cheapest distribution channels.
1. That's a few years too old, I moved and running a business building my own ERP, SCM, CRM platform.
2. As a contractor I got paid my market rate, whoever I worked for.
3. When you try to fight logic with personal stuff or sentiment it only proves my point - how ridiculous and worthless the public education system is, doesn't matter where. You weren't born this stupid, but you have been trained to be.
4. I paid for my education, worked all the way through the college as I wasn't born a 'middle class' or whatever, we didn't have middle class in USSR, only the equally poor and the more equal party members.
Oh, you can trace my comments here over at least 12 years, so none of the stuff you mention is a revelation of any kind.
centralization of wealth within a very small population
- only in your mis-educated mind was the time in history that produced the most competition among all sorts of businesses, created all sorts of new products that never existed before and created entire new concepts of distribution of these products and services, was the time that somehow worsened the actual conditions of the general population.
The time that provided maximum freedom to people to run their businesses and to make money not by buying political system or just running the political system directly (dictatorships, monarchies), but instead the time that allowed people to do business unhindered by the dictatorships, monarchies and other forms of totalitarian regimes.
Obviously there were people who became much wealthier than other individuals, but the society increased its wealth production and distribution by a factor that was never observed at any previous time in history. Just the growth of population itself is the testament of the total success of the free market that people in USA enjoyed.
Every monarchy, dictatorship, socialist regime can just look in awe and wonder: how come it was not them that created the most prosperous and industrious nation in a very short time period, but it was a scarcely populated afterthought of a country. Well, today USA is not that USA.
The mis-education that you are getting in your publicly financed propaganda centres gives you a version of history in which actual captains of industry, people who STARTED entire industries are now known as the 'robber barons'.
As to working conditions - without the captains of industry the working conditions would have stayed exactly the way they were before, precisely as they always were. Kids always worked, people always lost limbs and lives at work, it was industrialisation, free market capitalism that forced search for efficiencies due to competition that created new tools and had to create more and more safe environments, because special skills are not acquired overnight and workers with special skills are much more valuable than workers without any special skills, generic workers are only worth as much as their health and individual physical abilities.
Specialised workers take years to train and are not as easily replaced, so their tools are more complex and their conditions must be made safer, because there is always competition who also COMPETES FOR LABOUR.
That's right - workers sell labour, they are not forced into it. And they can sell to highest bidders, whether this concerns monetary compensation or working conditions, and governments can do nothing to improve any of it, they can only watch as the private sector create new tools and systems and require more education and training.
But once the gov't destroys the private sector, none of the tools can or will be manned, education is no longer important.
Tools won't even be present, they are capital, and capital leaves when forced to by the ever hungry, ever growing monster of a government.
The fact that you call it "the correct solution" is very telling.
- says the guy, whose main objection to all of my actual prescriptions was: you are a 'libertarian sob' or some such.
As if it is the only single way to run a country,
- it's the best way to run a successful country, like the USA was 1870-1913. But surely, countries can be run for some time without being economically viable at all, USSR, Greece, USA post 1971 especially, Japan for the last 20 years, etc.etc.
You can run a country and then you can run a country into the ground.
but I'm afraid the tendency to grossly over-simplify things is a common trait in all libertarians I have encountered.
- seriously? The simplest things like: not running over your budget, spending within your limits, not growing the government above its basic and authorised functions and not growing government spending and in fact cutting government spending when there is no money for government, because the government has already done enough to hurt the economy, so the economy is shrinking. Those are not just simple ideas. Those are ideas that nobody wants to follow because they don't want to face the music, yet they love talking about the proverbial kids.
Simple ideas that nobody follows because sticking your head into the sand is even simpler.
And please do not hold me up as an example of the failures of your US publicly financed education system.
- first, it's not my publicly financed education system.
Neither is USA my system, nor does it have to be US system to be a publicly financed failure. Wherever you were 'educated' today, it's most likely you were 'educated' by a publicly financed, publicly ran system, and your failure to understand that point, that it doesn't matter whether it is a USA system or any other nation's, is just another testament to how pathetic this idea is in the first place.
Your inability to stop talking about any specific circumstance, my or your own ('your father', etc., who asked you? Who gives a shit and what does it have to do with the point that is being made? nothing), proves how completely irrelevant the education systems have become. Worse than irrelevant.
I am sure you weren't actually BORN this stupid - they had to beat this into your head over time.
So somehow you have taken my comment on what is the correct solution to the problem and turned it into a treatise about myself specifically without having a single fact in you hands?
Why, that's perfect. It's an excellent display of what a disaster the publicly financed education system has become.
It seems like this story is trying to make Amazon look bad or trying to make cities that are hunting for Amazon's money look bad, because they are providing the most competitive environment to the other cities and government officials don't like it. It's a story that needs to be cut just like Gordian Knot.
So governments competing for money of private enterprise makes sense. Some argue that this is wrong, they want 'one government' even 'world government' and 'world taxes', etc., all just to KILL competition (and majority of the mis-educated public believes that government increases competition, not that it destroys it in every way possible).
But of-course the real issue needs to be distilled here just like the Gordian Knot needed to be cut to be solved:
1. Sales taxes and income taxes should not coexist. Income taxes are illegal and collected illegally and sales taxes, excise, import taxes are legal and they are the preferred way to run governments, because they can be moderated by the people's purchasing and saving behaviour, and we shouldn't believe in propaganda that we exist to support the government structure and that individual rights are secondary to collective.
2. Governments SHOULD HAVE TO COMPETE for money. Governments that compete for money are governments that are much less spending happy and are aware that their financial situation wholly depends on the financial situation of the actual market and not on their ability to ENSLAVE people through taxing their labour, DESTROY competition by creating, supporting and bailing out monopolies/oligopolies and STEAL liberties and freedoms from people through growth of government offices due to all of the laws and regulations governments come up with.
People must be free to choose between different governments and governments must be local, not global.
Global government above you is a single point slave owner that you cannot escape.
Air Force is part of military, though I wouldn't have ratified the Constitution that allowed for a STANDING army, at least an argument can be made that gov't has the authority to provide military protection of the borders. The rest absolutely isn't allowed, isn't authorised and people shouldn't be robbed to spend on it, you are right.
I am against all unauthorised programs that are ran by the government, obviously it includes everything, form FDIC to whatever, like planned parenthood, but it also includes socialised medicine.
Oh, by the way, you are also a LOON for implying that Somalia, a country that was a UK colony until about 50 years ago and a communist 'paradise' until about 20 years ago is a 'Libertarian Paradise' because the people decided they do not want to have totalitarian dictatorship ruling them, you fucking idiot.
You are a loon for equating the concept of DENYING something to somebody with a concept of SUBSIDISING - stealing from some, to give to others for political reasons (buying VOTES with other people's money).
There shouldn't be any money stolen from some people and then given to others, be it for either birth control OR dealing with pregnancies, planned or otherwise.
Re:The 21st century formula for a successful compa
on
HP To Cut 30,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 0
So the 21st century CEO takes the exact path and prescription forced upon him by the 21st century type of government. What else is new?
1. The money is stolen by the government. 2. He didn't personally use more of anything than anybody else. 2.a. The company he partially founded created more infrastructure in order to serve the product that it created. Gov't infrastructure doesn't even make sense, all infrastructure is private, either completely, or is built with stolen private money. 2.b. The number of products, satellite businesses, investment opportunities, and even such silly thing as jobs (companies don't exist to provide jobs, that's a side consequence of making money) in itself is already more than you have ever provided.
YOU should pay MORE than him. That's right, he is doing his part, you are slacking off.
Pick up a shovel, go dig a hole. Hopefully that will do something useful
Slashdot Mirror
So the only choices that you considered are unemployment or wage slavery? Interesting.
- unemployment or wage slavery? Now that is interesting. Free people are free to start their own businesses, to sell their labour to the highest bidders, and does not make them slaves any more than being hunters/gatherers.
They show a very binary view of the world, and a very narrow view of what "freedom" means
- freedom is only one thing: being free from any type of tyranny, and government is tyranny of the collective above the individual.
your one-sided understanding of Standard Oil.
- you have no knowledge on this topic, beginning to end on this you've been fed nonsense. Given facts on the falling prices due to rising efficiencies of the business across decades, you can't form a logical argument against it.
more information will change their minds.
- no.
I am not looking to change anybody's minds, who were made dependent on the government hand outs.
Can't make a man realise the truth if his bread and butter depends on not realising it.
The reality is that we do understand what you represent, and we have rejected a world that looks like that.
- the truth? You cannot handle the truth. The truth is that your wave of life is coming to an end because it was destined to come to an end, because it is self defeating as all totalitarian regimes are.
Why on earth do they need that many people. Aren't these electronics lines automated? (On another note: When was the last time a U.S. or EU company announced hiring 36,000 people.)
- yeah, because Chinese government hasn't yet mandated an entire slew of things that would prevent a company just from trying to build a business and instead would force a company to look for ways to get away from hiring people and find ways to do the same work without any hiring at all.
This is the direct proof that all this government intervention in the USA and Europe etc. is what PREVENTS JOBS FROM HAPPENING and KILLS EXISTING JOBS.
Better conditions than if they didn't have those jobs.
Aah, the mandatory and false Standard Oil example.
The company that always reduced prices of its product over DECADES and was very successful because it could deliver an ever cheapening, good quality product to the market. The company that had 150 competitors by 1911.
By 1870 Standard Oil had 4% of the market share. The tools and technologies it invested in allowed it to create efficiencies and cut costs and pass cost savings to the consumers.
1869, price of refined oil was 30 cents per gallon.
1874, price of refined oil was 10 cents per gallon.
1885, price of refined oil was 8 cents per gallon.
1897, price of refined oil was 5.9 cents per gallon.
So by 1897 the prices were 5.9 cents, you can calculate how many times the prices fell from 1869 levels as an exercise.
By 1910 Standard Oil had 150 competitors, including Texaco and Gulf.
Saying that any type of 'predatory price strategy' was used is retarded, because prices were dropping over decades.
So yes, Standard Oil is an excellent example of free market at work and then of government meddling with the market to destroy a very healthy competitor, which was bringing a quality product to the market.
"Robber barons" indeed, people who created the industry, provided the necessary and very valuable resource at ever falling prices and developed industries, tools, mechanisms, need for higher education levels, the wealth and infrastructure to the public.
This is exactly what goes against your failed notion that 'trickle down economics' doesn't work. It works very very well, but you have to be part of the production cycle, you have to work, to produce, not to be an illegitimate consumer subsidised by the very money of the very people who then are selling you the product for their own money.
because it's a corporation, don't you understand? It has the word 'corp' in it, it's deadly. A corporation opening a business wherever you are immediately means that the people living in your vicinity require 10 times the amount of government services than they required prior to the corporation opening the business there. So obviously the people who used to be on welfare, EI, disability, etc., all of a sudden could get jobs doing something, but that means the government is controlling them less and this is also completely wrong, because we can't have people that are so independent they don't require government to give them handouts all of a sudden.
Don't you understand? Business is what destroys the wealth and government is what creates the wealth? Did you miss the part where Cheney and Bush ordered iPads to be created by a government decree in 2002?
paying taxes = being a slave
- only if you misquote me.
Income taxes are slavery, if you are going to quote me, quote me, don't make shit up. I know it sounds better for your ideology, when you make shit up, but you see, it doesn't help your argument. Do you even have an argument that is not made of straw?
Money is not paper, that's your mistake. Money is wealth - things we want. The money that we spend to consume is wealth we destroy. The money that we spend to invest is wealth we try to grow.
When I say that businesses create money, I obviously do not mean that businesses print cash. Businesses create money by creating products and services. The money that businesses create is real money, real stuff. The money that government and quasi government agencies create is counterfeit cash.
As to the paper money itself - any company can print its own stock actually and dilute the total value of its shares (somehow people understand this simple concept, that printing new shares dilutes their individual value, but for some reason this escapes them when they are presented with the same fact from POV of currencies - Fed prints money, it creates inflation - it dilutes individual value of every existing Federal note).
The best way to run a successful country? That obviously depends on how you define "successful".
- long terms economic and social prosperity based on individual freedom, not on any dictatorial / totalitarian principles. A system with a very narrowly defined powers of the government over the individuals, so the collective cannot run a roughshot over the individual every time it feels like. Ability of people to live life without being harassed by majority. Not being born as a slave into a system that automatically dedicates you as one. Ability to do business as one wants, without gov't intervention as long as other individuals don't get hurt.
A nation of laws, not a nation of men. That's what USA has become now - a nation of men, not a nation of laws.
Can we agree that a successful country is one where each person has the best possibilities to break their social heritage?
- no, I don't agree with this definition.
The only definition of a successful society shouldn't be that a person has best possibilities to 'break social heritage' - this means nothing at all. Social heritage is not something that requires to be broken for a country to be successful, this just shows more lack of understanding on your part.
One where each person has the best possibilities to rise up and create their own wealth?
- this is a CONSEQUENCE of a successful society, this is not a recipe. Constitution gave USA an artificial limit to what the government could do, only then, by removing the powers previously delegated to the kings and nobility, that the country became free and freedom begat prosperity.
Prosperity then begat push by the politicians to get more power and this push destroyed the Constitution, gave the politicians power they craved and ability to regulate business, which destroys prosperity.
You can be born into a society that allows you to break the social heritage and gives you most ability to create wealth, yet this may be a society that is already in the late stages of heavy government development, the time when cancer is spreading but the symptoms are still hidden.
One where education is equally accessible by all and not a road to financial ruin for the unlucky?
- this is absolutely a consequence of a more prosperous society, but this cannot be definition of it, nor can it be a requirement.
Free market capitalism required more specialisation because more specialised tools became available as form of capital and people needed more training and education, which is why it became more accessible - there was more profit to be made in education, and this created more supply and prices went down. It's all about profit, if there is a reason that profit can be made in education, then education will become more accessible and better.
You can't mandate that education is accessible and good and that everybody must pay into it and expect any good results as is shown by the replies to my comments in this thread.
One where equality between all people, no matter sex, religion or sexual orientation etc. is a priority?
- UNDER THE LAW. If the point is that equality is under the law, so that the government treats you equally, then yes, this is the only point you make that is valid.
But I don't believe you are making that point, you mean something else altogether probably. You mean - government must dictate to the free individuals that they must treat others equally.
Well then it's not a free society and then your prescription is the exact opposite of what is the correct prescription.
One where even the poorest people can live a decent, well-fed existence?
- that is a consequence of a free and wealthy society, which produces maximum competition, lowest prices and best and cheapest distribution channels.
Free society doesn't have to make a choice: to be
1. That's a few years too old, I moved and running a business building my own ERP, SCM, CRM platform.
2. As a contractor I got paid my market rate, whoever I worked for.
3. When you try to fight logic with personal stuff or sentiment it only proves my point - how ridiculous and worthless the public education system is, doesn't matter where. You weren't born this stupid, but you have been trained to be.
4. I paid for my education, worked all the way through the college as I wasn't born a 'middle class' or whatever, we didn't have middle class in USSR, only the equally poor and the more equal party members.
Oh, you can trace my comments here over at least 12 years, so none of the stuff you mention is a revelation of any kind.
centralization of wealth within a very small population
- only in your mis-educated mind was the time in history that produced the most competition among all sorts of businesses, created all sorts of new products that never existed before and created entire new concepts of distribution of these products and services, was the time that somehow worsened the actual conditions of the general population.
The time that provided maximum freedom to people to run their businesses and to make money not by buying political system or just running the political system directly (dictatorships, monarchies), but instead the time that allowed people to do business unhindered by the dictatorships, monarchies and other forms of totalitarian regimes.
Obviously there were people who became much wealthier than other individuals, but the society increased its wealth production and distribution by a factor that was never observed at any previous time in history. Just the growth of population itself is the testament of the total success of the free market that people in USA enjoyed.
Every monarchy, dictatorship, socialist regime can just look in awe and wonder: how come it was not them that created the most prosperous and industrious nation in a very short time period, but it was a scarcely populated afterthought of a country. Well, today USA is not that USA.
The mis-education that you are getting in your publicly financed propaganda centres gives you a version of history in which actual captains of industry, people who STARTED entire industries are now known as the 'robber barons'.
As to working conditions - without the captains of industry the working conditions would have stayed exactly the way they were before, precisely as they always were. Kids always worked, people always lost limbs and lives at work, it was industrialisation, free market capitalism that forced search for efficiencies due to competition that created new tools and had to create more and more safe environments, because special skills are not acquired overnight and workers with special skills are much more valuable than workers without any special skills, generic workers are only worth as much as their health and individual physical abilities.
Specialised workers take years to train and are not as easily replaced, so their tools are more complex and their conditions must be made safer, because there is always competition who also COMPETES FOR LABOUR.
That's right - workers sell labour, they are not forced into it. And they can sell to highest bidders, whether this concerns monetary compensation or working conditions, and governments can do nothing to improve any of it, they can only watch as the private sector create new tools and systems and require more education and training.
But once the gov't destroys the private sector, none of the tools can or will be manned, education is no longer important.
Tools won't even be present, they are capital, and capital leaves when forced to by the ever hungry, ever growing monster of a government.
Another display of the pathetic state of the public education system - sentiments are above logic, yes?
The fact that you call it "the correct solution" is very telling.
- says the guy, whose main objection to all of my actual prescriptions was: you are a 'libertarian sob' or some such.
As if it is the only single way to run a country,
- it's the best way to run a successful country, like the USA was 1870-1913. But surely, countries can be run for some time without being economically viable at all, USSR, Greece, USA post 1971 especially, Japan for the last 20 years, etc.etc.
You can run a country and then you can run a country into the ground.
but I'm afraid the tendency to grossly over-simplify things is a common trait in all libertarians I have encountered.
- seriously? The simplest things like: not running over your budget, spending within your limits, not growing the government above its basic and authorised functions and not growing government spending and in fact cutting government spending when there is no money for government, because the government has already done enough to hurt the economy, so the economy is shrinking. Those are not just simple ideas. Those are ideas that nobody wants to follow because they don't want to face the music, yet they love talking about the proverbial kids.
Simple ideas that nobody follows because sticking your head into the sand is even simpler.
And please do not hold me up as an example of the failures of your US publicly financed education system.
- first, it's not my publicly financed education system.
Neither is USA my system, nor does it have to be US system to be a publicly financed failure. Wherever you were 'educated' today, it's most likely you were 'educated' by a publicly financed, publicly ran system, and your failure to understand that point, that it doesn't matter whether it is a USA system or any other nation's, is just another testament to how pathetic this idea is in the first place.
Your inability to stop talking about any specific circumstance, my or your own ('your father', etc., who asked you? Who gives a shit and what does it have to do with the point that is being made? nothing), proves how completely irrelevant the education systems have become. Worse than irrelevant.
I am sure you weren't actually BORN this stupid - they had to beat this into your head over time.
So somehow you have taken my comment on what is the correct solution to the problem and turned it into a treatise about myself specifically without having a single fact in you hands?
Why, that's perfect. It's an excellent display of what a disaster the publicly financed education system has become.
I am all for abortion until the 60th trimester by the way.
It seems like this story is trying to make Amazon look bad or trying to make cities that are hunting for Amazon's money look bad, because they are providing the most competitive environment to the other cities and government officials don't like it. It's a story that needs to be cut just like Gordian Knot.
Yes, governments require money.
Yes, private enterprise creates money, so governments require private enterprise.
So governments competing for money of private enterprise makes sense. Some argue that this is wrong, they want 'one government' even 'world government' and 'world taxes', etc., all just to KILL competition (and majority of the mis-educated public believes that government increases competition, not that it destroys it in every way possible).
But of-course the real issue needs to be distilled here just like the Gordian Knot needed to be cut to be solved:
1. Sales taxes and income taxes should not coexist. Income taxes are illegal and collected illegally and sales taxes, excise, import taxes are legal and they are the preferred way to run governments, because they can be moderated by the people's purchasing and saving behaviour, and we shouldn't believe in propaganda that we exist to support the government structure and that individual rights are secondary to collective.
2. Governments SHOULD HAVE TO COMPETE for money. Governments that compete for money are governments that are much less spending happy and are aware that their financial situation wholly depends on the financial situation of the actual market and not on their ability to ENSLAVE people through taxing their labour, DESTROY competition by creating, supporting and bailing out monopolies/oligopolies and STEAL liberties and freedoms from people through growth of government offices due to all of the laws and regulations governments come up with.
People must be free to choose between different governments and governments must be local, not global.
Global government above you is a single point slave owner that you cannot escape.
Often it just happens... At least half of all kids are not planned, you know.
Air Force is part of military, though I wouldn't have ratified the Constitution that allowed for a STANDING army, at least an argument can be made that gov't has the authority to provide military protection of the borders. The rest absolutely isn't allowed, isn't authorised and people shouldn't be robbed to spend on it, you are right.
Exactly, Nixon overstepped his authority and whatever money that was provided by the federal gov't was illegal.
I am against all unauthorised programs that are ran by the government, obviously it includes everything, form FDIC to whatever, like planned parenthood, but it also includes socialised medicine.
So your desires must be fulfilled by the other people, well, that's socialism in a nutshell - works until you run out of other people's money.
Oh, by the way, you are also a LOON for implying that Somalia, a country that was a UK colony until about 50 years ago and a communist 'paradise' until about 20 years ago is a 'Libertarian Paradise' because the people decided they do not want to have totalitarian dictatorship ruling them, you fucking idiot.
You are a loon for equating the concept of DENYING something to somebody with a concept of SUBSIDISING - stealing from some, to give to others for political reasons (buying VOTES with other people's money).
There shouldn't be any money stolen from some people and then given to others, be it for either birth control OR dealing with pregnancies, planned or otherwise.
So the 21st century CEO takes the exact path and prescription forced upon him by the 21st century type of government. What else is new?
1. The money is stolen by the government.
2. He didn't personally use more of anything than anybody else.
2.a. The company he partially founded created more infrastructure in order to serve the product that it created. Gov't infrastructure doesn't even make sense, all infrastructure is private, either completely, or is built with stolen private money.
2.b. The number of products, satellite businesses, investment opportunities, and even such silly thing as jobs (companies don't exist to provide jobs, that's a side consequence of making money) in itself is already more than you have ever provided.
YOU should pay MORE than him. That's right, he is doing his part, you are slacking off.
Pick up a shovel, go dig a hole. Hopefully that will do something useful
I left USA, what more do you want?
Somalia is not my preferred region personally, I like Cyprus and Switzerland more, but feel free to tell me what's what.