Um, aside from the fact that most car companies are already either foreign or multi-national, I'm quite sure that here in the US we can already get some pretty decent hybrid vehicles, with more on the way. Yes, there will always be room for improvements, but with even "high-end" automakers getting into the act, I think you're a little off there. If for no other reason than automakers are slowly ensuring that their profit margins at least stay the same while satisfying people like you (and me).
Better connectivity? Have you tried the Novell/Ximian connector lately?
My company is on Exchange 2003, and I use the N/X Connector with Evolution on Gentoo. I no longer have to run VMWare! The only thing that the N/X connector can't do is archive... other than that, it does everything that Outlook does (that I need it to do)... give it a try, and you'll be pleasantly surprised.
I lived in California for a while, and while this story may be largely hearsay, I avoided Safeway nonetheless:
"A man was walking around Safeway when he slipped and fell (on a spill). He was injured, and carted away by an ambulance.
He had medical bills, and he asked that the Safeway reimburse him, since it was their spill. They refused. Eventually, the man took Safeway to court.
In court, Safeway used the record of his purchases, obtained from his loyalty card, to show that he purchased an amount of liquor greater than that of most people. The defense claimed that since he was more likely to be intoxicated than most people, he was also more prone to falls.
Safeway won the case."
That could very well just be rumour, but I'm sure it's based on something. Given that this story has appeared, I'm more likely to believe in it... so keep in mind such things if you shop at Safeway.
I consider myself a pessimist, but damn, that was one of the most depressing posts I have ever read. As someone in the thread has already pointed out - we have it better than most. Sure, the system needs fixing, we need more political parties, and yes, there are a few rich exploiting a lot of poor.
The difference, eloquently summed up by another as in "we have more freedom", is that you are free to become one of those few rich, and in your cynical view, exploit the many poor. While not everyone is poor out of choice, some of the poor are there due to laziness. When was the last time you did something to change your situation, or the situation of those around you for the better? Even if you believe your post, and are firmly convinced that the polo-pony riding elite power structure will never change, you can still make every effort to go out and get yourself a pony and fake your way into the country club.
In China, there's no such avenue. In China, you can't have more than one child, and the ratio of male to females in the country is regulated by the government, to the point where I've heard that girls are regularly aborted. (I can neither confirm nor deny that, as I've never been to China.) In the US, you can have as many kids as you (if you're female) want, or as many as your wife will bear you. Imagine not being able to have a second child - and because the government says so!
As I say to all apologists like yourself, not everything is perfect, and there's a lot that needs fixing. But when the prevailing attitude is sheer misery, and no one does anything about it, it actually gives the polo-pony jockeys that much more power, as apathy and despair are their greatest tools in exploitation.
No, actually. I found out about them when I was looking for a job. However, what I was pointing out was that they have the technology already - and in fact, I think they are even improving on it.
To be honest, I had forgotten that it was so expensive - but unlike Google, their market is for businesses, not end-users.
But the technology is there - and right now, it's better than Google's *and* Yahoo!'s.
They are way ahead of Google in this space - they actually allow you to view the clips you can search for! Furthermore, they have an alerting service which will allow you to get an email *seconds* after the keyword you want is mentioned on TV - and then you can watch the clip!
That was a well written post. I enjoyed reading it. Too bad it's... well, wrong.
I can, and do, do everything to support myself.
Social security is supposed to provide income for living when you retire.
It does not do this.
1) It is not enough to live on. 2) There are more people collecting now per payee, and that situation is getting worse. If I were to start a similar scheme, by having two people pay me, and having four people pay them, and then they pay me again, I would be arrested for holding a ponzi scheme. But when the government does it, it's supposedly okay? 3) No one "deserves" safety. It's something you have to achieve. 4) Their wages made it just fine for them to achieve retirement, and, in fact, more likely to have made it than anything I will ever do. Back in the day, like the days of my father, you worked and you got a pension. Things like that don't exist anymore! Have you noticed that corporations *make people invest for themselves*? I am told to get a 401K and if I don't like that option then do something else. There are no pensions anymore. No coporation will look after you - they (rightly) know that that's your responsibility. So why hasn't the government figured that out?
Wealth equals power, the Social Security payments ensure that old people have the power to defend their rights instead of depending on the government to make sure they aren't violated.
Ok, since you obviously know no one who gets social security...
1) Social security does not provide enough for anyone to live on. It is supplemental income at best. Or perhaps you haven't noticed all those nice friendly old people working as checkers at Wal-Mart?
If my parents didn't have pensions as well as social security, I'd be paying for them too. Note that social security *is not enough* for them to live on, so there's one reason your argument is false.
1a) It used to be the responsibility of family to take care of family - your argument about tons of destitute old people is a specious at best. If what you say is so true, then it would already be happening - as I pointed out, SS is not enough income. (And don't forget how high medical prices are rising!)
1b) Veterans are a special case. I think if fighting a war when needed, their medical bills should be covered no questions asked for life. But then again, given the state of health care in this country, that's not likely to happen.
1c) As for people who don't plan ahead, yes, it sucks to be them. That's the way life is. It's not easy, nor is it guaranteed to be. If you don't take responsibility for yourself, then either accept charity, or do not.
1d) It is the responsibility of those who are indicted with criminal misconduct of pension funds to ensure that those funds are returned or reinstated. Perhaps, if the "fat-cats" of Enron and Adelphia were forced to actually sell their million dollar homes and their $16K umbrella stands like they should have been, instead of just getting a year in jail, then maybe there could have been some restitution. But saying we need government old-person hand-outs because of the few cases where pensions are stolen and the justice system is too soft on white-collar crime is ludicrous.
2) How do government hand-outs "ensure that people have the power to defend their rights"? It sounds to me like the rights exist solely in the hands of the government! If you are *dependent on another entity* for your income, you do not have the ability to protect your rights - you must rely on the benificence of that entity to ensure that your income continues, and your rights are looked after.
3) Do you really think that people get back as much as they pay in? Ha! Even ignoring inflation (ie, when my dad started contributing in 1965 his dollars were worth more), that you would think that people get back as much as they put it is just silly.
4) There are more old people now than there ever has been, and there are going to be more and more - social security is a ponzi scheme, and the only people who will be screwed are the Gen X'ers, or at the very latest, their kids.
No socialist society has been able to progress and remain competitive at all, and that's what America is becoming. The more people rely on the state, the more people lack justice. And while my study of this country's founding is not as lacking as you may say (I'd bet I've studied it way more than you), your lack of practicality is far short of what's necessary for engaging in arguments like these.
Exactly. You have the right to life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness. There's no right to happiness. If you can't plan for yourself, then you either suffer, or look to private charity. The government exists only to protect rights, not to guarantee a level playing field for everyone when they retire.
Show me where in the constitution it says that the government should be setting up retirement funds for people. You can't; it's not there. Government does not exist to do for the people what the people are unwilling to do for themselves, though many people would like to (and seem to) think.
Yes, but in 1960, landing on the moon was something *imaginary* - it took almost ten years to actually become a reality.
In 2005, asteroid mining is imaginary - but what I was saying is that it is likely imaginary now in the same way the moon landing was in 1960. As technology advances, the "imaginary" becomes reality. That will happen again - it's just a matter of time.
Someone did create Slashdot. Someone did create NASA. The difference is that Slashdot has a business model and a method for generating income, so it will likely stick around; NASA has a bureaucracy which you yourself have admitted "hasn't done much in manned flight lately". (Granted, it has in robotic flight.)
I'll take what free enterprise might provide someday over what the government provides now. To me, that's the possibility of something, versus my money being stolen!
As of yet, all you've done throughout this whole argument is say that my arguments are negative or bad. That may or may not be - I provide examples and logic though! You have not done that! You just say that my arguments are bad, but provide none of your own.
Since you are incapable of defending your position, and I have given you ample opportunity to do so, I must conclude that your position, by your own lack of logic and example, is untenable. Since you have provided no examples of your own (real or imaginary!), you can not defend your own position, and therefore, by default, I am forced to conclude that your position in the argument is invalid.
"Their manned space flight program has produced little of value in recent years anyway."
I think that just about says it all. A government program has produced little of value in recent years anyway. If that's the case then NASA's budget should be reduced in the are of manned space flight. But the government hasn't done that. Furthermore, it should be increased in robotic exploration, since we agree that that has become more valuable, but it has only occurred very minimally.
Well, I'm sorry you don't wish to live in a world of imagination. It's imagination that allows people to think of ways to make things better. Only looking at the static NOW provides no incentives for future examinations, and there's no fun in anything! It is human imagination which propels us, and makes us better, and I'm sorry you choose not to engage yours. After all, someone once imagined Slashdot, and that's provided us this forum to engage each other.
You're right about it standing for debt - that's the case today. However, money is supposed to be redeemable for something. If you have it, you should be able to get something for it, even in the abstract - you can't get a "debt".
But that's the way it is today - it represents debt. Aside from the fallaciousness of basing our money on an abstraction instead of something real, let's look at your arguments.
1) If you have 100 dollar bills, and they are each worth 1 dollar of debt, and then the government prints ten more dollar bills, you say that the amount of debt increases to match the government's printing. If that were true, that means that ten dollars of debt was just created by the government. You've just argued that the government creates debt by printing money, which I would completely agree with. However, if you look at the corollary to your own argument, it means that the government would stop creating debt if it stopped printing money!
2) You assume that population will always grow. While that may be the case (especially in the US), it ignores the fact that it may not always be the case, and such situations as China where population is strictly controlled and where an increase in population (according to the Chinese) is highly undesirable.
3) Natural resources are finite. No matter how much you'd like to think otherwise, there's only so much gold, oil, etc. in the earth. That defines scarcity.
To use your gem example - if you do find a gem, that is one less that someone else can find. (Granted, the earth makes new ones, but that can take hundreds, thousands, or millions of years.) The reason the person who buys your gem (after it is made nice by the jeweller) is because that gem is rare - they are willing to part with their money in exchange for the gem. They consider owning something rare a greater advantage than holding on to the money they would have otherwise had.
You then talk about hyperinflation - which is what happens when the government prints more money. Since your own argument shows that the government creates more debt by printing more money, it would seem to me that you've just contradicted yourself.
Oh, and using the USSR is a bad example. The USSR's money system collapsed in the 1990s because communism failed, and the state (on which that monetary system was based) could no longer support the people as it said it would. It was the rought transition from communism to quasi-capitalism that plagued the USSR then, but things are improving for them (slowly).
You argument about possessing wealth and it growing and growing if he does nothing with it falls by your own argument that the government printing money causes more debt.
The next argument is very true, for the same reason.
Your next argument about the middle class is partly true - it does erode, but for the same reason as above.
This last part ignores the very basics of what a market economy is all about (even a government regulated one as we currently have), so I suggest you read up on economics.
Wow. Perhaps if you READ The arguments, instead of attacking them, you might learn something. Those "pretty speeches" get moderated up because they contain ideas and some examples - your responses tell me that I am "waving things like talismen", but don't provide counter arguments and/or ideas of your own.
I never said efficiency was the only way to create wealth. I said it is A method to create wealth that the government does not have (and glaringly so). You have yet to point out how government creates wealth. If I remember correctly, your argument was that government takes money from person A, then "does something with it" (your words), and redistributes it to person B. Of course, you never tell us what "does something with it" actually is - you assume by default that there is some process out there that the government automatically uses to create wealth.
It's not an opinion - it's a fact. I defined wealth as the ability to survive for a specific period given a certain amount of money. (You have provided no alternate definition, and have not argued against mine.) If that's the case, then I need X money to survive Y time. If they government takes A from me, then I now have X-A. The only way for me to get back to my original wealth, I need A returned to me. (That's just to break even!) If I want greater wealth, then I need X+B. B has to be greater than A. The government, therefore, has to give me back A for me to break even, and would have to give me at least part of B. I know of no government spending program or service where I get back a greater sum (in goods and/or services) than I pay in.
That's not to say that there aren't people that have that happen to them - welfare recipients have it happen all the time! What I am saying is that it is inherently unfair - if I want to help someone who is out of work, I should be able to do that of myself. Now your argument is that if the government were to stop providing welfare, then no one would help those out of work. That is not true! Ironically (or not), when social programs are instituted by government, charitable contributions by private individuals go down, since they think the government will be picking up the slack.
Even if we accept your argument that the government creates wealth, it can be shown that it can't redistribute it equitably. Let's say the government can invest in something and generate a profit. This profit assumes that the government has already paid its own operating costs for the transaction. It now has surplus money. Putting aside for a second the fact that the government is trillions of dollars in debt and is running a budget deficit, if it generates a profit it then, by definition, has to distribute that wealth to the people.
Even ignoring the cost of actually distributing the wealth to every person in the country, unless the profit is exactly equal to at least a penny per person in the country, it can't equally distribute the wealth it creates. Since the government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people", it must treat everyone fairly.
If it can't provide that profit to everyone, then it is not fairly redistributing the wealth it creates. So by definition, it must favour some over others, and fails at its primary mission of redistribution of wealth.
I pay taxes in our current system every two weeks.
I make a little over $50,000 per year, or $2145.83 per check. Of that, I get to keep $1,492.97. So that means, that of my pay check, I keep 69% of it, as I pay $31.11 in medicare taxes per check, $133.04 in Social Security taxes, $376.87 in federal taxes, $110.54 in New York state taxes, and $1.10 in NY Emp. SDI (whatever the hell that is).
If you think about that, that means that I lose 30% of my income right off the bat. That means that of the 12 months in a year, I have to work 30% of that just to pay my taxes! That's 3.6 months, just to pay taxes!
So right out of my paycheck, I lose 31% of my money. When I buy groceries, however, I pay 8.25% sales tax. (It's high here in New York, I'll admit.) When I buy gas for my car, I pay another 5-7% in taxes on that.
Your argument further ignores that my employer has to match my social security payment (which is required by law), which means that they pay another 6% to the government that they then can't use to augment my salary, or provide for further growth of the company.
You can just add up the taxes - that's exactly what happens. That you don't see that leads me to believe that you are ignoring the realities of things, or that it is you who truly doesn't pay taxes in the system.
Demonizing the government may be justified as you say. Is it the "only appropriate response to any and all situations"? No.
However, it is a place to start. The government was created to protect rights (read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution if you don't believe me), and not to be a "nanny" for society and cure society's ills. The government is supposed to provide a framework of protection whereby society is free to cure its own ills!
Libertarians say this: we have this government, and it is huge. Let's scale it back where we can (gradually, even, not all at once - we are a practical group if nothing else!), and let's let people have some of their money back. That will create new business opportunities (granted, again, not in all areas - the government will still have responsibilities!), where people can enrich themselves by solving problems. Government is arguably a poor problem solver. The free market is usually a better problem solver. (Though nothing is ever perfect!) So let's let the free market do what it does best (enrich people through interaction), and let the government do what it does best (provide a framework of protection of rights). It's really that simple.
It's not a distraction as you put it. Furthermore, you never address the issue with a counter-argument - you merely call it a distraction. We would be happy to hear your arguments as to why government would be a better problem solver than a free market.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA, it's all in there.
Um, aside from the fact that most car companies are already either foreign or multi-national, I'm quite sure that here in the US we can already get some pretty decent hybrid vehicles, with more on the way. Yes, there will always be room for improvements, but with even "high-end" automakers getting into the act, I think you're a little off there. If for no other reason than automakers are slowly ensuring that their profit margins at least stay the same while satisfying people like you (and me).
...andmythumbsarefine.Justlook,Ihavenoproblemswith typing.
Better connectivity? Have you tried the Novell/Ximian connector lately?
My company is on Exchange 2003, and I use the N/X Connector with Evolution on Gentoo. I no longer have to run VMWare! The only thing that the N/X connector can't do is archive... other than that, it does everything that Outlook does (that I need it to do)... give it a try, and you'll be pleasantly surprised.
I lived in California for a while, and while this story may be largely hearsay, I avoided Safeway nonetheless:
"A man was walking around Safeway when he slipped and fell (on a spill). He was injured, and carted away by an ambulance.
He had medical bills, and he asked that the Safeway reimburse him, since it was their spill. They refused. Eventually, the man took Safeway to court.
In court, Safeway used the record of his purchases, obtained from his loyalty card, to show that he purchased an amount of liquor greater than that of most people. The defense claimed that since he was more likely to be intoxicated than most people, he was also more prone to falls.
Safeway won the case."
That could very well just be rumour, but I'm sure it's based on something. Given that this story has appeared, I'm more likely to believe in it... so keep in mind such things if you shop at Safeway.
Since it has no MMU. Without the overhead of actually having to manage the memory, it's got to be faster.
Amen. Thank you for articulating so well what is on the minds of most of us!
500GB = 4,000,000,000,000 bit
8Mbit = 8,000,000 bit
4,000,000,000,000/8,000,000 = 500,000
8Mbit/s gives you 500,000 seconds
There are 2,592,000 seconds in a month (30 days).
That means that if you let it download constantly at maximum speed, you only get to use it for a week.
Of course, if you can find 500GB to download (constantly), then you've probably already figured that out.
Ironically, here in the US, with cable, I routinely get 1.5Mb/s down, with no cap.
I consider myself a pessimist, but damn, that was one of the most depressing posts I have ever read. As someone in the thread has already pointed out - we have it better than most. Sure, the system needs fixing, we need more political parties, and yes, there are a few rich exploiting a lot of poor.
The difference, eloquently summed up by another as in "we have more freedom", is that you are free to become one of those few rich, and in your cynical view, exploit the many poor. While not everyone is poor out of choice, some of the poor are there due to laziness. When was the last time you did something to change your situation, or the situation of those around you for the better? Even if you believe your post, and are firmly convinced that the polo-pony riding elite power structure will never change, you can still make every effort to go out and get yourself a pony and fake your way into the country club.
In China, there's no such avenue. In China, you can't have more than one child, and the ratio of male to females in the country is regulated by the government, to the point where I've heard that girls are regularly aborted. (I can neither confirm nor deny that, as I've never been to China.) In the US, you can have as many kids as you (if you're female) want, or as many as your wife will bear you. Imagine not being able to have a second child - and because the government says so!
As I say to all apologists like yourself, not everything is perfect, and there's a lot that needs fixing. But when the prevailing attitude is sheer misery, and no one does anything about it, it actually gives the polo-pony jockeys that much more power, as apathy and despair are their greatest tools in exploitation.
Please, no. Just let it get cancelled and go the way of the dodo like it should!
No, actually. I found out about them when I was looking for a job. However, what I was pointing out was that they have the technology already - and in fact, I think they are even improving on it.
To be honest, I had forgotten that it was so expensive - but unlike Google, their market is for businesses, not end-users.
But the technology is there - and right now, it's better than Google's *and* Yahoo!'s.
They are way ahead of Google in this space - they actually allow you to view the clips you can search for! Furthermore, they have an alerting service which will allow you to get an email *seconds* after the keyword you want is mentioned on TV - and then you can watch the clip!
Critical Mention
That was a well written post. I enjoyed reading it. Too bad it's... well, wrong.
:-P
I can, and do, do everything to support myself.
Social security is supposed to provide income for living when you retire.
It does not do this.
1) It is not enough to live on.
2) There are more people collecting now per payee, and that situation is getting worse. If I were to start a similar scheme, by having two people pay me, and having four people pay them, and then they pay me again, I would be arrested for holding a ponzi scheme. But when the government does it, it's supposedly okay?
3) No one "deserves" safety. It's something you have to achieve.
4) Their wages made it just fine for them to achieve retirement, and, in fact, more likely to have made it than anything I will ever do. Back in the day, like the days of my father, you worked and you got a pension. Things like that don't exist anymore! Have you noticed that corporations *make people invest for themselves*? I am told to get a 401K and if I don't like that option then do something else. There are no pensions anymore. No coporation will look after you - they (rightly) know that that's your responsibility. So why hasn't the government figured that out?
Asshat.
Wow.
Wealth equals power, the Social Security payments ensure that old people have the power to defend their rights instead of depending on the government to make sure they aren't violated.
Ok, since you obviously know no one who gets social security...
1) Social security does not provide enough for anyone to live on. It is supplemental income at best. Or perhaps you haven't noticed all those nice friendly old people working as checkers at Wal-Mart?
If my parents didn't have pensions as well as social security, I'd be paying for them too. Note that social security *is not enough* for them to live on, so there's one reason your argument is false.
1a) It used to be the responsibility of family to take care of family - your argument about tons of destitute old people is a specious at best. If what you say is so true, then it would already be happening - as I pointed out, SS is not enough income. (And don't forget how high medical prices are rising!)
1b) Veterans are a special case. I think if fighting a war when needed, their medical bills should be covered no questions asked for life. But then again, given the state of health care in this country, that's not likely to happen.
1c) As for people who don't plan ahead, yes, it sucks to be them. That's the way life is. It's not easy, nor is it guaranteed to be. If you don't take responsibility for yourself, then either accept charity, or do not.
1d) It is the responsibility of those who are indicted with criminal misconduct of pension funds to ensure that those funds are returned or reinstated. Perhaps, if the "fat-cats" of Enron and Adelphia were forced to actually sell their million dollar homes and their $16K umbrella stands like they should have been, instead of just getting a year in jail, then maybe there could have been some restitution. But saying we need government old-person hand-outs because of the few cases where pensions are stolen and the justice system is too soft on white-collar crime is ludicrous.
2) How do government hand-outs "ensure that people have the power to defend their rights"? It sounds to me like the rights exist solely in the hands of the government! If you are *dependent on another entity* for your income, you do not have the ability to protect your rights - you must rely on the benificence of that entity to ensure that your income continues, and your rights are looked after.
3) Do you really think that people get back as much as they pay in? Ha! Even ignoring inflation (ie, when my dad started contributing in 1965 his dollars were worth more), that you would think that people get back as much as they put it is just silly.
4) There are more old people now than there ever has been, and there are going to be more and more - social security is a ponzi scheme, and the only people who will be screwed are the Gen X'ers, or at the very latest, their kids.
No socialist society has been able to progress and remain competitive at all, and that's what America is becoming. The more people rely on the state, the more people lack justice. And while my study of this country's founding is not as lacking as you may say (I'd bet I've studied it way more than you), your lack of practicality is far short of what's necessary for engaging in arguments like these.
Exactly. You have the right to life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness. There's no right to happiness. If you can't plan for yourself, then you either suffer, or look to private charity. The government exists only to protect rights, not to guarantee a level playing field for everyone when they retire.
Show me where in the constitution it says that the government should be setting up retirement funds for people. You can't; it's not there. Government does not exist to do for the people what the people are unwilling to do for themselves, though many people would like to (and seem to) think.
I bet you get paid to say that. ;)
...would be a far off thing!
9 94 &cid=11184156
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133
Yes, but in 1960, landing on the moon was something *imaginary* - it took almost ten years to actually become a reality.
In 2005, asteroid mining is imaginary - but what I was saying is that it is likely imaginary now in the same way the moon landing was in 1960. As technology advances, the "imaginary" becomes reality. That will happen again - it's just a matter of time.
Someone did create Slashdot. Someone did create NASA. The difference is that Slashdot has a business model and a method for generating income, so it will likely stick around; NASA has a bureaucracy which you yourself have admitted "hasn't done much in manned flight lately". (Granted, it has in robotic flight.)
I'll take what free enterprise might provide someday over what the government provides now. To me, that's the possibility of something, versus my money being stolen!
As of yet, all you've done throughout this whole argument is say that my arguments are negative or bad. That may or may not be - I provide examples and logic though! You have not done that! You just say that my arguments are bad, but provide none of your own.
Since you are incapable of defending your position, and I have given you ample opportunity to do so, I must conclude that your position, by your own lack of logic and example, is untenable. Since you have provided no examples of your own (real or imaginary!), you can not defend your own position, and therefore, by default, I am forced to conclude that your position in the argument is invalid.
"Their manned space flight program has produced little of value in recent years anyway."
I think that just about says it all. A government program has produced little of value in recent years anyway. If that's the case then NASA's budget should be reduced in the are of manned space flight. But the government hasn't done that. Furthermore, it should be increased in robotic exploration, since we agree that that has become more valuable, but it has only occurred very minimally.
Well, I'm sorry you don't wish to live in a world of imagination. It's imagination that allows people to think of ways to make things better. Only looking at the static NOW provides no incentives for future examinations, and there's no fun in anything! It is human imagination which propels us, and makes us better, and I'm sorry you choose not to engage yours. After all, someone once imagined Slashdot, and that's provided us this forum to engage each other.
You are saying the blanket statements are not valid, but not providing a REASON for that.
Your saying that our statements are invalid is an active claim, one which you continually fail to buttress with logic or examples.
Money is only as real as we make it.
You're right about it standing for debt - that's the case today. However, money is supposed to be redeemable for something. If you have it, you should be able to get something for it, even in the abstract - you can't get a "debt".
But that's the way it is today - it represents debt. Aside from the fallaciousness of basing our money on an abstraction instead of something real, let's look at your arguments.
1) If you have 100 dollar bills, and they are each worth 1 dollar of debt, and then the government prints ten more dollar bills, you say that the amount of debt increases to match the government's printing. If that were true, that means that ten dollars of debt was just created by the government. You've just argued that the government creates debt by printing money, which I would completely agree with. However, if you look at the corollary to your own argument, it means that the government would stop creating debt if it stopped printing money!
2) You assume that population will always grow. While that may be the case (especially in the US), it ignores the fact that it may not always be the case, and such situations as China where population is strictly controlled and where an increase in population (according to the Chinese) is highly undesirable.
3) Natural resources are finite. No matter how much you'd like to think otherwise, there's only so much gold, oil, etc. in the earth. That defines scarcity.
To use your gem example - if you do find a gem, that is one less that someone else can find. (Granted, the earth makes new ones, but that can take hundreds, thousands, or millions of years.) The reason the person who buys your gem (after it is made nice by the jeweller) is because that gem is rare - they are willing to part with their money in exchange for the gem. They consider owning something rare a greater advantage than holding on to the money they would have otherwise had.
You then talk about hyperinflation - which is what happens when the government prints more money. Since your own argument shows that the government creates more debt by printing more money, it would seem to me that you've just contradicted yourself.
Oh, and using the USSR is a bad example. The USSR's money system collapsed in the 1990s because communism failed, and the state (on which that monetary system was based) could no longer support the people as it said it would. It was the rought transition from communism to quasi-capitalism that plagued the USSR then, but things are improving for them (slowly).
You argument about possessing wealth and it growing and growing if he does nothing with it falls by your own argument that the government printing money causes more debt.
The next argument is very true, for the same reason.
Your next argument about the middle class is partly true - it does erode, but for the same reason as above.
This last part ignores the very basics of what a market economy is all about (even a government regulated one as we currently have), so I suggest you read up on economics.
Wow. Perhaps if you READ The arguments, instead of attacking them, you might learn something. Those "pretty speeches" get moderated up because they contain ideas and some examples - your responses tell me that I am "waving things like talismen", but don't provide counter arguments and/or ideas of your own.
I never said efficiency was the only way to create wealth. I said it is A method to create wealth that the government does not have (and glaringly so). You have yet to point out how government creates wealth. If I remember correctly, your argument was that government takes money from person A, then "does something with it" (your words), and redistributes it to person B. Of course, you never tell us what "does something with it" actually is - you assume by default that there is some process out there that the government automatically uses to create wealth.
It's not an opinion - it's a fact. I defined wealth as the ability to survive for a specific period given a certain amount of money. (You have provided no alternate definition, and have not argued against mine.) If that's the case, then I need X money to survive Y time. If they government takes A from me, then I now have X-A. The only way for me to get back to my original wealth, I need A returned to me. (That's just to break even!) If I want greater wealth, then I need X+B. B has to be greater than A. The government, therefore, has to give me back A for me to break even, and would have to give me at least part of B. I know of no government spending program or service where I get back a greater sum (in goods and/or services) than I pay in.
That's not to say that there aren't people that have that happen to them - welfare recipients have it happen all the time! What I am saying is that it is inherently unfair - if I want to help someone who is out of work, I should be able to do that of myself. Now your argument is that if the government were to stop providing welfare, then no one would help those out of work. That is not true! Ironically (or not), when social programs are instituted by government, charitable contributions by private individuals go down, since they think the government will be picking up the slack.
Even if we accept your argument that the government creates wealth, it can be shown that it can't redistribute it equitably. Let's say the government can invest in something and generate a profit. This profit assumes that the government has already paid its own operating costs for the transaction. It now has surplus money. Putting aside for a second the fact that the government is trillions of dollars in debt and is running a budget deficit, if it generates a profit it then, by definition, has to distribute that wealth to the people.
Even ignoring the cost of actually distributing the wealth to every person in the country, unless the profit is exactly equal to at least a penny per person in the country, it can't equally distribute the wealth it creates. Since the government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people", it must treat everyone fairly.
If it can't provide that profit to everyone, then it is not fairly redistributing the wealth it creates. So by definition, it must favour some over others, and fails at its primary mission of redistribution of wealth.
Ah, now you are learning! See how futile it is to argue like this? (I have nothing better to do. ;) )
;)
However, if it weren't for examples, what fun could we have?
I pay taxes in our current system every two weeks.
I make a little over $50,000 per year, or $2145.83 per check. Of that, I get to keep $1,492.97. So that means, that of my pay check, I keep 69% of it, as I pay $31.11 in medicare taxes per check, $133.04 in Social Security taxes, $376.87 in federal taxes, $110.54 in New York state taxes, and $1.10 in NY Emp. SDI (whatever the hell that is).
If you think about that, that means that I lose 30% of my income right off the bat. That means that of the 12 months in a year, I have to work 30% of that just to pay my taxes! That's 3.6 months, just to pay taxes!
So right out of my paycheck, I lose 31% of my money. When I buy groceries, however, I pay 8.25% sales tax. (It's high here in New York, I'll admit.) When I buy gas for my car, I pay another 5-7% in taxes on that.
Your argument further ignores that my employer has to match my social security payment (which is required by law), which means that they pay another 6% to the government that they then can't use to augment my salary, or provide for further growth of the company.
You can just add up the taxes - that's exactly what happens. That you don't see that leads me to believe that you are ignoring the realities of things, or that it is you who truly doesn't pay taxes in the system.
Demonizing the government may be justified as you say. Is it the "only appropriate response to any and all situations"? No.
However, it is a place to start. The government was created to protect rights (read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution if you don't believe me), and not to be a "nanny" for society and cure society's ills. The government is supposed to provide a framework of protection whereby society is free to cure its own ills!
Libertarians say this: we have this government, and it is huge. Let's scale it back where we can (gradually, even, not all at once - we are a practical group if nothing else!), and let's let people have some of their money back. That will create new business opportunities (granted, again, not in all areas - the government will still have responsibilities!), where people can enrich themselves by solving problems. Government is arguably a poor problem solver. The free market is usually a better problem solver. (Though nothing is ever perfect!) So let's let the free market do what it does best (enrich people through interaction), and let the government do what it does best (provide a framework of protection of rights). It's really that simple.
It's not a distraction as you put it. Furthermore, you never address the issue with a counter-argument - you merely call it a distraction. We would be happy to hear your arguments as to why government would be a better problem solver than a free market.