Forums » Off-Topic
Another good point in favor of citizens owning weaponry. So that revolution is close enough to keep the government on its toes.
By far the best argument for this I've ever seen is from the movie "Waking Life". I'll paraphrase in script format:
Steven Prince: ...And ever since then, I always carry this.
(Steven Prince pulls out a revolver.)
Bartender: I hear that. A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny.
Steven Prince: I’ll drink to that. And you know, I haven’t fired this for such a long time, I don’t even know if it’ll work.
Bartender: Why don’t you pull the trigger and find out?
(Steven Prince shoots the bartender in the chest. The bartender gets up, grabs the gun hidden behind the counter, and shoots the other guy in the head. Both fall dead. Puddles of blood form and red flows down the screen.)
Oh, and by Scam.... I didn't actually mean scam in the traditionally accepted manner, as in deceptive trickery meant to divest persons of personal property. More as a commonly accepted misnomer, concerning certain business practices designed with the knowledge that most consumers do very little research into the products they buy and will almost always jump up and down excitably when confronted with the word "Sale".
/edit And my school charges 10¢ a page. More for colour. Scam!!! Scaaaaam!
By far the best argument for this I've ever seen is from the movie "Waking Life". I'll paraphrase in script format:
Steven Prince: ...And ever since then, I always carry this.
(Steven Prince pulls out a revolver.)
Bartender: I hear that. A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny.
Steven Prince: I’ll drink to that. And you know, I haven’t fired this for such a long time, I don’t even know if it’ll work.
Bartender: Why don’t you pull the trigger and find out?
(Steven Prince shoots the bartender in the chest. The bartender gets up, grabs the gun hidden behind the counter, and shoots the other guy in the head. Both fall dead. Puddles of blood form and red flows down the screen.)
Oh, and by Scam.... I didn't actually mean scam in the traditionally accepted manner, as in deceptive trickery meant to divest persons of personal property. More as a commonly accepted misnomer, concerning certain business practices designed with the knowledge that most consumers do very little research into the products they buy and will almost always jump up and down excitably when confronted with the word "Sale".
/edit And my school charges 10¢ a page. More for colour. Scam!!! Scaaaaam!
STFU Gav!
Alright, I suppose its time that I elaborate upon my feelings about the issue.
In a truly capitalist state, the opportunity to acquire wealth is evenly distributed, but the differing skills of individuals lead to an uneven distribution of wealth. So long as people are economically savvy, they can all continue to thrive in a free market environment. This is how it should work. You will always have rich, and you will always have poor, but there would be an equilibrium between the two.
As it stands, however, large corporations and conglomerates of the richest among our number seek not only to extend their own wealth, but to do so at the expense of those less fortunate. They use their resources to garner not only profit, but power and influence beyond that of the norm. In doing so, they can bend the rules; to force the government to turn a blind eye to any breach in regulation. Corporations go oversees, where our laws can not follow them, and the rich dodge their taxes--expecting those who cannot spare the extra legal tender to pick up the tab. Our society has become little more than a Kleptocracy, where thieves steal to add to their fortunes at the expense of those less fortunate.
Our government has forgotten the impartial nature it is supposed to assume, and fallen to the hands of faction. Power is set against power, yes, but none of those with any real influence represent anyone but the minority. A good government should have a proper balance between the majority and the minority, and as a nation we lack that important quality.
I'm not suggesting communism, indeed I know that such a system does not work, but instead I ask for reform. We need to make the rich and corporations pay their fair share and play by the rules. We need the only input into the political system to be the polls and the courts. None of this inane 'special-interest' crap; or large, extravagant campaigns that tally in the millions of dollars spent.
To paraphrase Madison's Federalist 51 "If men were angels, no government would be nescessary.". But indeed it is necessary, and we must put the control of the federal government's power outside the control of those with power. The majority must lead, and yet the minority's rights must be observed. One faction must not dominate at the expense of another. But indeed, we let them anyway. Why is then, that we ignore our own obligations, but instead sit back and watch our rights stripped from us, one by one? Have we really gotten so used to our freedom that we are oblivious to tyranny?
In a truly capitalist state, the opportunity to acquire wealth is evenly distributed, but the differing skills of individuals lead to an uneven distribution of wealth. So long as people are economically savvy, they can all continue to thrive in a free market environment. This is how it should work. You will always have rich, and you will always have poor, but there would be an equilibrium between the two.
As it stands, however, large corporations and conglomerates of the richest among our number seek not only to extend their own wealth, but to do so at the expense of those less fortunate. They use their resources to garner not only profit, but power and influence beyond that of the norm. In doing so, they can bend the rules; to force the government to turn a blind eye to any breach in regulation. Corporations go oversees, where our laws can not follow them, and the rich dodge their taxes--expecting those who cannot spare the extra legal tender to pick up the tab. Our society has become little more than a Kleptocracy, where thieves steal to add to their fortunes at the expense of those less fortunate.
Our government has forgotten the impartial nature it is supposed to assume, and fallen to the hands of faction. Power is set against power, yes, but none of those with any real influence represent anyone but the minority. A good government should have a proper balance between the majority and the minority, and as a nation we lack that important quality.
I'm not suggesting communism, indeed I know that such a system does not work, but instead I ask for reform. We need to make the rich and corporations pay their fair share and play by the rules. We need the only input into the political system to be the polls and the courts. None of this inane 'special-interest' crap; or large, extravagant campaigns that tally in the millions of dollars spent.
To paraphrase Madison's Federalist 51 "If men were angels, no government would be nescessary.". But indeed it is necessary, and we must put the control of the federal government's power outside the control of those with power. The majority must lead, and yet the minority's rights must be observed. One faction must not dominate at the expense of another. But indeed, we let them anyway. Why is then, that we ignore our own obligations, but instead sit back and watch our rights stripped from us, one by one? Have we really gotten so used to our freedom that we are oblivious to tyranny?
Snax said: Personally I think this whole new age ideology that a government is supposed to be run like a business, and turn a profit, is one of the most damaging side effects of capitalism.
Yeah, that would be bad, if it were true. This is not an idea of capitalism! I should know, I'm a capitalist, and I think this is a bad idea. The goal is for the government to exist in as small a state as possible, and the size of government is measured in how intrusive it is, i.e., how much money it steals from you (taxes) and how much it interferes unnecessarily in your life (laws). If the government is making money, that means it stole too much of your money. The govenment should not make a profit, ever. There should be reserves for emergency, but they should be there with the hope that they are never touched. The idea of entitlements, that the government, in its omniscient benevolence, can better spend our money than we can, is stupid. The government is here to protect us, that is all. To quote William Ellery Channing, "The office of government is not to confer happiness, but to give men opportunity to work out happiness for themselves."
Thank you break19 for sharing that quote by Thomas Paine, that's one of my favorites. I'll expand it a little: "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
And, since I'm in a quoting mood today, here are a couple more:
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."-Milton Friedman
"Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon."-Winston Churchill
And one more, since the words of others are more effective than my own at explaining these things:
"Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear."-Ayn Rand
This is exactly why the government needs to step out. And vIsitor, if you want the rich to pay their fair share, they already do. Tax cuts for the rich are bad, people say. Who else can you cut taxes on? Only the rich pay taxes! According to IRS numbers for 2003, the top 5% of wage earners paid just over half of all the taxes paid, but they only earned about 30% of all wages earned.
Here's something you should look at, too, the Laffer Curve. Taxes are more about power these days than money, and we're way past the optimum tax rate for the government to steal the most money. That's why when Reagan cut taxes, IRS revenues doubled by the time he left office.
Also, I support the FairTax.
Love your corporations, and they will love you back! They actually want your business, which means they want you to have lots of money! If you're broke, you can't spend! This stuff is obvious, you guys!
Yeah, that would be bad, if it were true. This is not an idea of capitalism! I should know, I'm a capitalist, and I think this is a bad idea. The goal is for the government to exist in as small a state as possible, and the size of government is measured in how intrusive it is, i.e., how much money it steals from you (taxes) and how much it interferes unnecessarily in your life (laws). If the government is making money, that means it stole too much of your money. The govenment should not make a profit, ever. There should be reserves for emergency, but they should be there with the hope that they are never touched. The idea of entitlements, that the government, in its omniscient benevolence, can better spend our money than we can, is stupid. The government is here to protect us, that is all. To quote William Ellery Channing, "The office of government is not to confer happiness, but to give men opportunity to work out happiness for themselves."
Thank you break19 for sharing that quote by Thomas Paine, that's one of my favorites. I'll expand it a little: "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
And, since I'm in a quoting mood today, here are a couple more:
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."-Milton Friedman
"Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon."-Winston Churchill
And one more, since the words of others are more effective than my own at explaining these things:
"Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear."-Ayn Rand
This is exactly why the government needs to step out. And vIsitor, if you want the rich to pay their fair share, they already do. Tax cuts for the rich are bad, people say. Who else can you cut taxes on? Only the rich pay taxes! According to IRS numbers for 2003, the top 5% of wage earners paid just over half of all the taxes paid, but they only earned about 30% of all wages earned.
Here's something you should look at, too, the Laffer Curve. Taxes are more about power these days than money, and we're way past the optimum tax rate for the government to steal the most money. That's why when Reagan cut taxes, IRS revenues doubled by the time he left office.
Also, I support the FairTax.
Love your corporations, and they will love you back! They actually want your business, which means they want you to have lots of money! If you're broke, you can't spend! This stuff is obvious, you guys!
Why do I feel we're arguing Hobbes vs Locke all over again?
While I have massive issues with everything both of you are saying, I've decided, for my own well being (for some reason my health deteriorates rapidly when arguing with conservatives... reminds me of my immune system fighting off the flu)... that I will simply take up arms against one quote, instead of many (although I could get my heart rate up so high I could probably get out of a couple workouts....)
["Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear."-Ayn Rand
I too could rant on and on about how fire is good for heat, while water is good for nothing other than extinguishing said heat, and therefore setting water in a negative context to heat. But only a naive would actually take that for a real argument, let alone quote it as evidence of his own intelligence.
["Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear."-Ayn Rand
I too could rant on and on about how fire is good for heat, while water is good for nothing other than extinguishing said heat, and therefore setting water in a negative context to heat. But only a naive would actually take that for a real argument, let alone quote it as evidence of his own intelligence.
My! what an astute analogy, Gav. No, wait, it's inapposite and unexplained (the latter probably because solidly linking up your analogy with you conclusion is logically impossible).
You may argue, if you will, that offering a value is not always an unqualified good. Afterall, what if the denizens that make up the consuming public are not sufficiently able to think ahead and understand the actual value of what they are offered? Certainly, that could pose problems for their wellbeing, regardless of the fact that all that's involved is a voluntary exchange. Or you may claim that, despite having nothing to do, at bedrock, with volition, that political power is a necessarily beneficial force. That men, not being angels by any standard, must be governed. And that therefore, despite tracing it's ultimate force to the end of a gun, political power is a good thing for men and for Man.
But what you cannot do is attack as relative the truth of a quote that states an absolute truth, though it does so in a slanted way.
Economic power, at least as we understand the term, is premised on offering X to Y for a mutually agreeable Z. Regardless of each party's circumstances--unless (1) X has directly and proximately created the circumstances that forced Y to accept Z and (2) X's actions involve the use or threat of use of violence--this is a purely voluntary, value-creating transaction. Neither X nor Y is any worse off overall (or one or both of them is wrong about the gain from the transaction, though their ignorance has no relevance to their consent), and at least one of them is better off; more likely, both are better off afterwards (why else incurr the transaction costs of the exchange).
Political power, regardless of the democracy or transparency or rule of law that attends its discretion, its means or its ends, is always backed by two words: ...or else. Court judgments, legislative statutes, and executive orders are all weighty pieces of paper because of a system that ensures that somewhere there's a (wo)man with a gun ready to kill you, if necessary, to ensure that the document's words are given force.
Would you contend that the gun persuades by something other than fear?
P.S. Only a naive fool would use an adjective as a noun.
You may argue, if you will, that offering a value is not always an unqualified good. Afterall, what if the denizens that make up the consuming public are not sufficiently able to think ahead and understand the actual value of what they are offered? Certainly, that could pose problems for their wellbeing, regardless of the fact that all that's involved is a voluntary exchange. Or you may claim that, despite having nothing to do, at bedrock, with volition, that political power is a necessarily beneficial force. That men, not being angels by any standard, must be governed. And that therefore, despite tracing it's ultimate force to the end of a gun, political power is a good thing for men and for Man.
But what you cannot do is attack as relative the truth of a quote that states an absolute truth, though it does so in a slanted way.
Economic power, at least as we understand the term, is premised on offering X to Y for a mutually agreeable Z. Regardless of each party's circumstances--unless (1) X has directly and proximately created the circumstances that forced Y to accept Z and (2) X's actions involve the use or threat of use of violence--this is a purely voluntary, value-creating transaction. Neither X nor Y is any worse off overall (or one or both of them is wrong about the gain from the transaction, though their ignorance has no relevance to their consent), and at least one of them is better off; more likely, both are better off afterwards (why else incurr the transaction costs of the exchange).
Political power, regardless of the democracy or transparency or rule of law that attends its discretion, its means or its ends, is always backed by two words: ...or else. Court judgments, legislative statutes, and executive orders are all weighty pieces of paper because of a system that ensures that somewhere there's a (wo)man with a gun ready to kill you, if necessary, to ensure that the document's words are given force.
Would you contend that the gun persuades by something other than fear?
P.S. Only a naive fool would use an adjective as a noun.
There you go, bashing people's form of writing again, Dr. Lecter. Haven't you learned in life that this is bad style? If you mention it at all, do it in a constructive manner, so that the person who committed the error is inclined to change her or his ways and not commit the error again. This will earn you both respect and success.
Yet it would fail to amuse me.
Nor is it a mere issue of style or form; naive is always an adjective, never a noun. Perhaps in some language other than English, the concept may be personified such that you can speak of 'a naive'. If such is the case, Gavan should consider writing in said language, rather than English.
Nor is it a mere issue of style or form; naive is always an adjective, never a noun. Perhaps in some language other than English, the concept may be personified such that you can speak of 'a naive'. If such is the case, Gavan should consider writing in said language, rather than English.
In my own defense, I plead drunken posting. Not bad for a 3am foray into the land of redundant political posts. You should have seen it before the final round of edits! Full of references to Trotsky and some bizzare sort of horticultural connection. Which also explains my use of the adjective "naive". I had originally written a post very similair in its acid tongued belligerence as Lecter's, but I decided to remove the nasty bits, resulting in that there floating adjective. But hey, what's a drunken post if it's not full of solecisms! (Thank you Dashboard thesaurus)
Regardless Lecter, your entire argument does nothing more than attempt to further illustrate what PC had put forth, albiet in a much more pedantic and self-congratulatory nature. If nothing else, PC is much more succinct and to the point than you. Your argument does nothing but further the one sided "slant" of said quote.
And with that, I will go back to what I was doing so very well when sober....
....ignoring this thread!
Regardless Lecter, your entire argument does nothing more than attempt to further illustrate what PC had put forth, albiet in a much more pedantic and self-congratulatory nature. If nothing else, PC is much more succinct and to the point than you. Your argument does nothing but further the one sided "slant" of said quote.
And with that, I will go back to what I was doing so very well when sober....
....ignoring this thread!
Hey, Gavan, I guess it does me no good to defend yet disagree with you, since you are now ignoring this thread in your futile sobriety. Hehe, I used big words for no good reason.
For a drunken post at 3am, that was very good, and while I agree with the substance of Dr. Lecter's post, it was definately an unnecissarily rude jab at your grammar. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if at some future time, naive is accepted as a noun; many words evolve in their usage, and your post was easy to understand anyway.
Your comparison of incentive/punishment to fire/water is not irrelevant. Whether it's good or evil depends on your point of view and your goals. For the common good, we want the fire to grow, so we don't want it hindered in any way and we want to feed it as much as possible. From the governmen's (The Man's) point of view, the objective is control, and you can only control a fire (or the economy) by limiting it, whether by throwing water on it or by taxing it to death. Now, it can be argued that you can encourage an economy with such things as tax incentives, but that's really only reducing the control (by punishment) that already exists. Lowering taxes is just weakening an existing artificial barrier.
One area that really needs those artificial barriers removed is public education (I only know by experience the American system, so I don't know the situation in other countries). (Sorry, new tangent) I've gone through the system in several different places, some fairly good and some atrocious (Missouri and Boulder, Colorado, respectively). Two things need to be gotten rid of (but never will): tenure, and government monopoly. Give us our vouchers! If we could choose what school to send our children to, it would spur competition, which is always a good thing when quality is concerned.
"But, that would destroy the public school system!" Well good! If it destroys that system, it is because that system cannot compete, because it does not do it's job. There is only one force that can destroy the public school system, and that is the choice of parents. If no parent chooses to send their child to public school, opting instead for a private school, it is because they understand that the public school is ill prepared to teach. Public school would need to reevaluate itself and find something to offer to be competitive. Costs would go down, quality would go up.
Here's how this relates to the fire/water example. Competition at this level of schooling is killed by punishing the economy, the only way government can intervene at all. To send you child to private school means paying twice for school: once through taxes (money stolen from you by the government) and again through tuition at the private school. To offer vouchers would be to remove part of the artificial barrier, and allow natural competition (capitalism is a natural law, after all) to take place.
We still need schools for those who can't afford them, which is why the voucher system is a good one. The tax dollars that send your child to a school not of your choice can send him to a school you do choose. Or, if the school system is completely private sector, there will be a place in the market to cater to those with low budgets, through not only competition but also charity. That's another thing taxes do, they kill charity. When a quarter of your income is taken from you or never gets to you, most people figure that's their charitable contribution, since that's going to the government, which is totally efficient at meeting the needs of the poor, right? Lower taxes=more money for us=more charitable contributions and also a better economy which means less need for charity because there are fewer poor.
Ok, I'd better quit before I become incoherent.
For a drunken post at 3am, that was very good, and while I agree with the substance of Dr. Lecter's post, it was definately an unnecissarily rude jab at your grammar. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if at some future time, naive is accepted as a noun; many words evolve in their usage, and your post was easy to understand anyway.
Your comparison of incentive/punishment to fire/water is not irrelevant. Whether it's good or evil depends on your point of view and your goals. For the common good, we want the fire to grow, so we don't want it hindered in any way and we want to feed it as much as possible. From the governmen's (The Man's) point of view, the objective is control, and you can only control a fire (or the economy) by limiting it, whether by throwing water on it or by taxing it to death. Now, it can be argued that you can encourage an economy with such things as tax incentives, but that's really only reducing the control (by punishment) that already exists. Lowering taxes is just weakening an existing artificial barrier.
One area that really needs those artificial barriers removed is public education (I only know by experience the American system, so I don't know the situation in other countries). (Sorry, new tangent) I've gone through the system in several different places, some fairly good and some atrocious (Missouri and Boulder, Colorado, respectively). Two things need to be gotten rid of (but never will): tenure, and government monopoly. Give us our vouchers! If we could choose what school to send our children to, it would spur competition, which is always a good thing when quality is concerned.
"But, that would destroy the public school system!" Well good! If it destroys that system, it is because that system cannot compete, because it does not do it's job. There is only one force that can destroy the public school system, and that is the choice of parents. If no parent chooses to send their child to public school, opting instead for a private school, it is because they understand that the public school is ill prepared to teach. Public school would need to reevaluate itself and find something to offer to be competitive. Costs would go down, quality would go up.
Here's how this relates to the fire/water example. Competition at this level of schooling is killed by punishing the economy, the only way government can intervene at all. To send you child to private school means paying twice for school: once through taxes (money stolen from you by the government) and again through tuition at the private school. To offer vouchers would be to remove part of the artificial barrier, and allow natural competition (capitalism is a natural law, after all) to take place.
We still need schools for those who can't afford them, which is why the voucher system is a good one. The tax dollars that send your child to a school not of your choice can send him to a school you do choose. Or, if the school system is completely private sector, there will be a place in the market to cater to those with low budgets, through not only competition but also charity. That's another thing taxes do, they kill charity. When a quarter of your income is taken from you or never gets to you, most people figure that's their charitable contribution, since that's going to the government, which is totally efficient at meeting the needs of the poor, right? Lower taxes=more money for us=more charitable contributions and also a better economy which means less need for charity because there are fewer poor.
Ok, I'd better quit before I become incoherent.
Become? Wrong verb tense, PC.