You do realize that during the period of our recent greatest economic growth, the 50s and 60s, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, right? 90%. And we had tremendous economic growth that was shared by the middle class and even the poor. Your argument doesn't hold water, the country demonstrably does best when we tax the hell out of the rich.
Who has property to protect? The rich. Who benefits from an educated work force? Rich employers. Who benefits most from transportation infrastructure, the guy who doesn't own a car, or the guy who owns a fleet of trucks? Come on, it's obvious the rich see more benefits from government programs. Your weak argument about insurance and private security is simply ridiculous. Just because the rich have insurance and private security doesn't mean they don't benefit from the public versions, too.
Say whatever you like, I know I'm not lying. The point is, how much do poor people have to protect, versus how much rich people have to protect. I'm sorry, but the facts are obvious. The rich benefit more from government services than the poor do. You haven't even tried to refute that, because you can't.
Bums call 911? Where, when, on what phone? Most bums I've known from when I worked in soup kitchens were terrified of the police. Maybe you have some statistics to back up your claims, because common sense says, bums don't own phones, and there aren't very many payphones these days, and aside from hassling them, cops want nothing to do with bums. -- But you are focusing on a specific without refuting the general point that the rich benefit more from government services. Care to take a whack at the real issue, or do you just want to sidetrack things and hope people forget about my point?
The top 5% of wage earners control vastly disproportionate amounts of wealth and property. Thus, the basic services of the US government benefit them more than they do a citizen sleeping under a bridge. Does the hobo benefit from fire or police protection? Is the army protecting his property? Does the hobo's business benefit from the public infrastructure? No. People who benefit more should pay more, it's only fair.
Can land be owned in a joint ownership? Say, like a corporation? If you agree that groups of people can jointly own land, then why is it wrong that we, the people of the United States, jointly own public lands under the name "The United States of America?" You aren't being consistent unless you make the claim that only singular individuals can own land.
Here is Bella Lugosi's son discussing his addiction. I've read in various places that he was addicted for years, morphine mostly, but he would shoot up when he had to.
Yep. There are old heroin addicts. There are no old speed freaks. In fact, long term, even alcohol is worse for you than heroin. I would hardly call heroin safe, though.
And the bit about the moneylenders in the temple frightens both the capitalists AND the televangelists. That's right, you rich greedy bastards, when Jesus comes back, he's totally going medieval on all your asses.
This batch of disagree mail proves that people are now writing ridiculous emails just to get into disagree mail. Kind of like people used to shoot for the red zone in the DFC. Anyone here remember the DFC?
Here's an interesting philosophical question. After the first autocatalytic sets and simple replicators, but before the first cell walls, was the entire Earth a single organism?
But people aren't shit. Don't let a few bad apples spoil the best thing about being human: other humans. Sure, maybe you're a true introvert and can do without us most of the time, but even introverts need companionship sometimes.
A constitutional republic like ours seems a good compromise. The masses can't go too far in screwing things up for minorities in a system like ours.
I'd say, the real problem isn't the masses acting like asses. That's relatively rare, and you can always find more masses. Masses are lazy, they won't chase you very far in most cases. The real problem is sociopaths.
Most people are born with empathy and a strong desire for fairness and reciprocity. Most people will voluntarily take one for the team if they can be garaunteed of punishing unfairness in the process. Google 'fairness reciprocity economic research' or look up the ultimatum game on wiki for a good overview of new research. Most people only act unfairly when they feel they have to, because everyone around them is acting that way.
But sociopaths have faulty mirror neurons and no empathy. They can't see others as anything but objects. And they gravitate towards power, so the upper ranks of politicians and fortune 500 CEOs are rife with them.
The real problem, in my opinion, is how to give people power of self determination without empowering the sociopaths even more.
Good point. I'm no alpha male, but no one ganged up on me. Probably because I went to gifted programs and everyone was a nerd.
It really is the stickiest point to all political systems. What do you do in the case where the majority is wrong or evil? The problem is not limited to democracy. Even in a strict libertarian free market system, people can gang up on others.
Consider this scenario under a pure free market system. What if I didn't like you, and I had a lot of money? What if I convinced everyone not to hire you, or to give you any food, or let you grow your own, or let you onto their land. "here's ten thousand dollars. Don't give MindlessAutomaton anything, let him die, starving, cold and alone."
An unowned piece of land can be used by all people. After someone takes it, it can not be used by all people. By what right do they deny me the use of something I once could use? I was not a party to that agreement. That, to me, is tantamount to stealing.
Nice try at the ad-hominem though. I obviously understand the issue better than you do, you can't even refute a single point I brought up! I suggest you read up a little more, or, you know, try to actually debate the points rather than act like a condescending little shit.
You might want to reread that article yourself, you will find that the schism between individualist and social anarchism that I mention is covered in depth there.
No group can hold authority unless the individual grants it to that group. Anarchism does not mean a total rejection of collective decision making and action. Under anarchism, 'the state' has a specific meaning, which is governance by force rather than governance by consent. Anarchism embraces governance by consent.
In fact, I am not aware of any branch of Anarchy outside of the street punk circle A variety that rejects all governance. Even the most hard core individualist anarchist acknowledges the need for some sort of collective decision making and governance, even if it is only a system of laws and mutual defense.
If ownership of natural resources is predicated on adding value through labor, by what right does one add labor in the first place? Without adding the labor, one does not own the resource, therefore, one is stealing by adding one's labor to a resource one doesn't own.
Fair exchange? Is it fair exchange to hire a hit man to kill you? Is it fair exchange to hire a thief to steal your things? If I buy a bicycle from someone who stole it from you, to whom does the bike rightfully belong? Why is it fair exchange to purchase stolen land?
So, what moral excuse did Jack use to appropriate the land in the first place?
What happens when one individual wields more power through financial gamesmanship than any group can defend against?
No individual has any inherent rights. In fact, the concept of rights only exists in a social context. Without that context, one should more properly speak of power.
Rights derive from agreements between individuals. Specifically, rights come from an agreement to uphold and defend the right, and an agreement to punish those who would infringe the right. You can bleat on and on about your property rights, or your right to be free from attack, but without a group willing to back you up, or the power to defend yourself, your rights are meaningless to those who would take them from you.
What I'm hearing from you in regard to Nozick is, "I don't understand these ideas well enough to put them in my own words. I believe them because I like the consequences of believing them, not because I understand them." If you can't make the case yourself, you don't understand the concept, and I'm not going to go read someone you claim understands it better.
It is also hilarious how conservatives claim to be the majority, and a persecuted minority at the same time. It is as if all concepts exist as discrete, disconnected entities in conservative minds. In this way of thinking, the fact that one is in the majority simply has no bearing on the fact that one is a minority. Both can be true. Beliefs are held because they are convenient, not because they are supported by and support other beliefs.
Outside the US, Libertarianism is a common term for Anarchism in general. When someone outside the US uses the term 'Libertarian' they mean something very different from what someone in the US means. Most anarchists outside the US are not of the capitalist/free market/individualist anarchist variety, they are left anarchists.
All anarchists, social and individualist, believe that government should be a simple system that only deals with harm. That is not the cause of the schism, that is the root of all anarchism. The schism is over two issues, first, what is property, and second, what is harm? Individualist anarchists advocate strong individual property rights and lax definitions of harm. By lax I mean, me using economic force to subjugate you is not harming you, it is helping you in individualist anarchist's eyes. If I weren't there to subjugate you financially, what would you eat? Social anarchists believe in democratic control of the means of production, and strict definitions of harm. We believe that people have a right to be free from financial subjugation, and that the only fair way to control the world's resources is through democratic control. One person or group asserting ownership of a natural resource amounts to stealing it from the rest of us.
Two points: first, your actions have consequences: you should be accountable for the problems you cause. You may think your actions don't harm others, but that is not up to you to decide. We, the other inhabitants of this planet, have the right to call you out when you impact us, and to preemptively prevent actions on your part that will impact us in negative ways. You can swing your fist all you like, until your fist comes near my face. Daddy may have prevented you and your siblings from taking harmful action against each other, but the fact that government also does this that does not make government Daddy.
Second point: Other people's actions have consequences for you. They may benefit you without you paying for them. For instance, helping the poor benefits you. Income inequality breed social unrest, so helping level the playing field creates a more stable society. Business development requires a stable society. This benefits you. Also, desperate people do desperate things. They may even, in their desperation, hurt you or your family. Helping the poor reduces desperation, making you safer. Why should you obtain these benefits that come from helping the poor if you don't pay for them? You shouldn't, so, we either kick you out of our society if you refuse, or we make you pay. That is completely fair.
Slashdot Mirror
Have any proof of that, or are you just parroting back unsourced right wing propaganda?
You do realize that during the period of our recent greatest economic growth, the 50s and 60s, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, right? 90%. And we had tremendous economic growth that was shared by the middle class and even the poor. Your argument doesn't hold water, the country demonstrably does best when we tax the hell out of the rich.
Who has property to protect? The rich. Who benefits from an educated work force? Rich employers. Who benefits most from transportation infrastructure, the guy who doesn't own a car, or the guy who owns a fleet of trucks? Come on, it's obvious the rich see more benefits from government programs. Your weak argument about insurance and private security is simply ridiculous. Just because the rich have insurance and private security doesn't mean they don't benefit from the public versions, too.
Say whatever you like, I know I'm not lying. The point is, how much do poor people have to protect, versus how much rich people have to protect. I'm sorry, but the facts are obvious. The rich benefit more from government services than the poor do. You haven't even tried to refute that, because you can't.
Bums call 911? Where, when, on what phone? Most bums I've known from when I worked in soup kitchens were terrified of the police. Maybe you have some statistics to back up your claims, because common sense says, bums don't own phones, and there aren't very many payphones these days, and aside from hassling them, cops want nothing to do with bums.
--
But you are focusing on a specific without refuting the general point that the rich benefit more from government services. Care to take a whack at the real issue, or do you just want to sidetrack things and hope people forget about my point?
The top 5% of wage earners control vastly disproportionate amounts of wealth and property. Thus, the basic services of the US government benefit them more than they do a citizen sleeping under a bridge. Does the hobo benefit from fire or police protection? Is the army protecting his property? Does the hobo's business benefit from the public infrastructure? No. People who benefit more should pay more, it's only fair.
Can land be owned in a joint ownership? Say, like a corporation? If you agree that groups of people can jointly own land, then why is it wrong that we, the people of the United States, jointly own public lands under the name "The United States of America?" You aren't being consistent unless you make the claim that only singular individuals can own land.
I taught your girl that thing she does with her tongue.
You're the one who taught her how to nag? You utter bastard.
Here is Bella Lugosi's son discussing his addiction. I've read in various places that he was addicted for years, morphine mostly, but he would shoot up when he had to.
Bela Lugosi supposedly shot heroin up until he died at age 73.
Yep. There are old heroin addicts. There are no old speed freaks. In fact, long term, even alcohol is worse for you than heroin. I would hardly call heroin safe, though.
I thought he said, "blessed are the cheesemakers."
And the bit about the moneylenders in the temple frightens both the capitalists AND the televangelists. That's right, you rich greedy bastards, when Jesus comes back, he's totally going medieval on all your asses.
This batch of disagree mail proves that people are now writing ridiculous emails just to get into disagree mail. Kind of like people used to shoot for the red zone in the DFC. Anyone here remember the DFC?
Here's an interesting philosophical question. After the first autocatalytic sets and simple replicators, but before the first cell walls, was the entire Earth a single organism?
But people aren't shit. Don't let a few bad apples spoil the best thing about being human: other humans. Sure, maybe you're a true introvert and can do without us most of the time, but even introverts need companionship sometimes.
A constitutional republic like ours seems a good compromise. The masses can't go too far in screwing things up for minorities in a system like ours.
I'd say, the real problem isn't the masses acting like asses. That's relatively rare, and you can always find more masses. Masses are lazy, they won't chase you very far in most cases. The real problem is sociopaths.
Most people are born with empathy and a strong desire for fairness and reciprocity. Most people will voluntarily take one for the team if they can be garaunteed of punishing unfairness in the process. Google 'fairness reciprocity economic research' or look up the ultimatum game on wiki for a good overview of new research. Most people only act unfairly when they feel they have to, because everyone around them is acting that way.
But sociopaths have faulty mirror neurons and no empathy. They can't see others as anything but objects. And they gravitate towards power, so the upper ranks of politicians and fortune 500 CEOs are rife with them.
The real problem, in my opinion, is how to give people power of self determination without empowering the sociopaths even more.
Good point. I'm no alpha male, but no one ganged up on me. Probably because I went to gifted programs and everyone was a nerd.
It really is the stickiest point to all political systems. What do you do in the case where the majority is wrong or evil? The problem is not limited to democracy. Even in a strict libertarian free market system, people can gang up on others.
Consider this scenario under a pure free market system. What if I didn't like you, and I had a lot of money? What if I convinced everyone not to hire you, or to give you any food, or let you grow your own, or let you onto their land. "here's ten thousand dollars. Don't give MindlessAutomaton anything, let him die, starving, cold and alone."
An unowned piece of land can be used by all people. After someone takes it, it can not be used by all people. By what right do they deny me the use of something I once could use? I was not a party to that agreement. That, to me, is tantamount to stealing.
Nice try at the ad-hominem though. I obviously understand the issue better than you do, you can't even refute a single point I brought up! I suggest you read up a little more, or, you know, try to actually debate the points rather than act like a condescending little shit.
You might want to reread that article yourself, you will find that the schism between individualist and social anarchism that I mention is covered in depth there.
No group can hold authority unless the individual grants it to that group. Anarchism does not mean a total rejection of collective decision making and action. Under anarchism, 'the state' has a specific meaning, which is governance by force rather than governance by consent. Anarchism embraces governance by consent.
In fact, I am not aware of any branch of Anarchy outside of the street punk circle A variety that rejects all governance. Even the most hard core individualist anarchist acknowledges the need for some sort of collective decision making and governance, even if it is only a system of laws and mutual defense.
Conservatives love to claim America is a conservative country, but then whine about how the liberals control everything. Which is it?
If ownership of natural resources is predicated on adding value through labor, by what right does one add labor in the first place? Without adding the labor, one does not own the resource, therefore, one is stealing by adding one's labor to a resource one doesn't own.
Fair exchange? Is it fair exchange to hire a hit man to kill you? Is it fair exchange to hire a thief to steal your things? If I buy a bicycle from someone who stole it from you, to whom does the bike rightfully belong? Why is it fair exchange to purchase stolen land?
So, what moral excuse did Jack use to appropriate the land in the first place?
What happens when one individual wields more power through financial gamesmanship than any group can defend against?
No individual has any inherent rights. In fact, the concept of rights only exists in a social context. Without that context, one should more properly speak of power.
Rights derive from agreements between individuals. Specifically, rights come from an agreement to uphold and defend the right, and an agreement to punish those who would infringe the right. You can bleat on and on about your property rights, or your right to be free from attack, but without a group willing to back you up, or the power to defend yourself, your rights are meaningless to those who would take them from you.
What I'm hearing from you in regard to Nozick is, "I don't understand these ideas well enough to put them in my own words. I believe them because I like the consequences of believing them, not because I understand them." If you can't make the case yourself, you don't understand the concept, and I'm not going to go read someone you claim understands it better.
Although, I wouldn't use the term "subjugate" like he did (and he reveals his own bias doing so).
Trolling. That part was pure troll, sometimes I just can't help myself. But I usually admit it when called on it :)
It is also hilarious how conservatives claim to be the majority, and a persecuted minority at the same time. It is as if all concepts exist as discrete, disconnected entities in conservative minds. In this way of thinking, the fact that one is in the majority simply has no bearing on the fact that one is a minority. Both can be true. Beliefs are held because they are convenient, not because they are supported by and support other beliefs.
Outside the US, Libertarianism is a common term for Anarchism in general. When someone outside the US uses the term 'Libertarian' they mean something very different from what someone in the US means. Most anarchists outside the US are not of the capitalist/free market/individualist anarchist variety, they are left anarchists.
All anarchists, social and individualist, believe that government should be a simple system that only deals with harm. That is not the cause of the schism, that is the root of all anarchism. The schism is over two issues, first, what is property, and second, what is harm? Individualist anarchists advocate strong individual property rights and lax definitions of harm. By lax I mean, me using economic force to subjugate you is not harming you, it is helping you in individualist anarchist's eyes. If I weren't there to subjugate you financially, what would you eat? Social anarchists believe in democratic control of the means of production, and strict definitions of harm. We believe that people have a right to be free from financial subjugation, and that the only fair way to control the world's resources is through democratic control. One person or group asserting ownership of a natural resource amounts to stealing it from the rest of us.
Two points: first, your actions have consequences: you should be accountable for the problems you cause. You may think your actions don't harm others, but that is not up to you to decide. We, the other inhabitants of this planet, have the right to call you out when you impact us, and to preemptively prevent actions on your part that will impact us in negative ways. You can swing your fist all you like, until your fist comes near my face. Daddy may have prevented you and your siblings from taking harmful action against each other, but the fact that government also does this that does not make government Daddy.
Second point: Other people's actions have consequences for you. They may benefit you without you paying for them. For instance, helping the poor benefits you. Income inequality breed social unrest, so helping level the playing field creates a more stable society. Business development requires a stable society. This benefits you. Also, desperate people do desperate things. They may even, in their desperation, hurt you or your family. Helping the poor reduces desperation, making you safer. Why should you obtain these benefits that come from helping the poor if you don't pay for them? You shouldn't, so, we either kick you out of our society if you refuse, or we make you pay. That is completely fair.