Come on now. Are we? While I myself wouldn't look for bible-thumping republicans, I think we should at least have a few moderates or radicals like libertarians ETC...
Or is it the disproportionate european population here?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-24 21:47
It's the disproportionate amount of free thinkers. 4chan is an alternative pornography website, which includes pedophilia and other immoral fetishes. A community like this has learned to decide what is moral for themselves, without the guide of the masses.
Name:
John2005-11-24 21:52
On what grounds do you call libertarians "radical"? In what way is wanting only the essentials of government and more personal responsibility and liberties, and more individuality "radical"?
There IS a difference between us and anarchists. We see the necessity of 'some' government, while the people you refer in the title of this thread as 'left-tards' want the government to control every aspect of peoples' lives...
Name:
John2005-11-24 22:08
>>2
So you need the "guide of the masses" to be a free thinker? Or are you saying that immoral fetishes are grounds to consider somebody a free thinker? I'm not following your logic...
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-24 23:19
"Moderates" in über-right-wing USA are "moderately" right-wing (i.e. the Democrats). See their position on unilateral pre-emptive carpet bombing (on the slightest suspicion of having oil or having higher than acceptable levels of melanin).
"Libertarians" traditionally refers to Libertarian Socialists, otherwise known as Anarchists. In the US, it regrettably refers to the Ayn Rand lunatics known as the Libertarian Party. They claim to oppose domination, but what they advocate would replace government with undisguised corporate domination. They're basically pot-smoking über-conservatives who want to build shrines to Wal-Mart.
I think there's likely a disproportionate amount of people on 4chan who are not as immersed in mainstream American brainwashed culture, simply by virtue of watching anime. Being exposed to the social values of another culture tends to make you less narrowminded, and therefore less conservative.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-24 23:28
My magic crystal ball tells me that most 4chan members reside in the US.
I have no sympathy for your misguided non-objective attitude that considers watching anime a virtue. Stop making excuses for the fact that you'd actually 'like' the government to control your life. Good day.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-24 23:34
i am neither liberal or conservative, why is that so hard for you americans to acknowledge?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-24 23:38
>>5
socialism is still horrendously inefficient and causes more poverty than democratic-capitalism as has been proved by history aswell as common sense, though
Name:
John2005-11-24 23:55
>>9
I wouldn't give a damn if socialism and communism WERE efficient, I wouldn't live under a government that won't let me achieve my aims in life.
Free enterprise has been proven to pull more people out of poverty than any other economic system that's ever existed.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-24 23:57
>>9
Most of the scientific and technological research in the US is done through the public sector. State funding for research in universities and the military industries. "Socialism" rather than "capitalism." The internet is a good example. The financial risk is borne by the taxpayer. Then if it turns out well, the technology is transferred to the private sector.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-25 0:04
>>7
I never said that I consider watching anime a virtue. I'm saying that being exposed to other cultures (such as through anime) contributes to more open mindedness, and that openmindedness usually results in less conservative views.
Holy shit! This thread is a bullet train to successville!
Its doing exactly what I wanted it to!
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-25 1:07
>>5
BTW, I'm libertarian and I doubt that they'd want to build shrines to wal-mart. If a corporation got uber powerful, they'd probably do some trust busting themselves. Like you said, they oppose domination, no matter who is doing the dominating.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-25 1:12
>>12
I'm not a conservative by any means, but I'm not a left tard. People don't become liberal just because they're smart.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-25 1:18
Your superior morals state that you should take people's money and give it to other people(not neccesarily even those who "need" it)? Fuck that noise.
A better idea is forced personal savings accounts. That way, you get what you put in. Your life savings isn't going to some illusory overarching "Good of everyone" which politicians can dip into and spend for whatever they want. And most of our social problems get solved so the euro-tards can stop riding our asses over it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-25 1:19
Still doesn't help when you have NOTHING and can't get any health coverage at all.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-25 3:12
When the government spends massive amounts of money on the military, on corporate welfare or on tax cuts for millionaries, everything is just fine.
But spending on universal healthcare and education are denounced as evil socialism.
Why?
Name:
John2005-11-25 8:16
>>17
Um, isn't that what social security is? Only the government still goes and spends it anyway... *Fraud senses tingling*
>>19
The military is actually a legitimate function of government. Making sure poor worthless bums can mooch off of the ones that actually achieve is not. And as for education, just FYI, Karl Marx wrote as one of the requirements for communism that the government must educate the children.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-25 8:50
4chan is made up of a majority of leftists because the rightists are too busy having sex with their sisters to bother with the internet. Truth.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-25 8:55
>>21
And, uh... There you are, folks. Liberal talking points.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-25 13:23
>>19
Oh yes, I said I loved corporated welfare, didn't I? Yes, whenever they run a company into the ground in their incompetence, by all means they deserve a handout so they can DO IT AGAIN.
The government will commit fraud whenever given a chance. That's why we should strip it's power back to just military, police, and enforcing laws. (which will regrettably probably include personal savings accounts, because most people are too dumb to save on their own.)
>>20
No, social security is sort of a black box you put your money into, with blind faith that one day it will come back to benefit you. What happens to it after you put it in? Nobody (except the government) knows. Forced personal savings accounts actually tally up, and you can see the money accumulate year after year. Nobody can spend it (except you when you're old enough), because if they did, it'd show up on your account statement.
Name:
John2005-11-25 14:29
>>23
What right do you or the government have to 'force' people to do anything, though... If people wanna make bad economic decisions, let em figure it out for themselves.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-25 16:52 (sage)
What right do you or the government have to 'force' people to do anything, though...
I hear the mating call of a Libertarian.
Name:
John2005-11-25 18:48
>>25
Yes, I'm a strict libertarian. Am I wrong, or am I right?
... Or are you responding to my mating call? ¬_¬'
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-25 23:59
>>26
Fact is, you have to force people to do things, or else your government fails... at least fails in the eyes of most people. My idea is to make libertarianism publically palatable, by giving people solutions to their problems rather than just saying "you're on your own".
I'd like it if we could all do without some sort of enforced public safety net, but that breeds revolution of the commie type.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 1:05
I am a gun owning constitutionalist. I beleve in laziz faire, and i think the government should be restricted to military, and police. NOTHING ELSE. Also i think that lawsuits are stuipid, and i hate walmart for being greedy and corrupting capitolism. Although maby if we werent all socialist bastards we whouldnt blindly follow the walmart and let the market opinn kill it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 2:35 (sage)
Yes, >>25, there is something wrong. It's called your head.
Libertarians are a bunch of retards who try to rationalize their greed. Oh, no, the taxes! The TAXES!!!
That's all it is.
Name:
John2005-11-26 9:21
>>27 If I ever met you in public, I would sock you straight in the nose... You either have no soul, a communist agenda, or you really just do not grasp what you're saying.
>>29 And you... ... *Shakes head and sighs* You are the poster child for the result of what comes out of government schools these days. I certainly can't help you...
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 11:14
>>30
You're stupid. You think that personal savings accounts for things such as healthcare and retirement is worse than blind taxation?
Listen, extremes tend to fail. I don't want to see america become socialist any more than you. But I'm being realistic here; people love their government right now because it gives them free money. That's completely wrong, but there's nothing we can do. I think that a politically viable alternative, at least for the working age people (who sadly never vote) is to personalize the savings so the government can't touch it, and at least reduce corruption.
This is honestly, what I think the libertarian party will do if it ever gains a lot of power. (which I think it is... ever watch any of the kid-oriented media that isn't the daily show? South Park is libertarian, Adult Swim besides Futurama and Family guy are almost certainly libertarian) They can't just send the niggers out on their own, because niggers (and trailer trash and the spics, being equal opportunity here) don't save. Then these people get mad and vote for whoever gives them the most free money for making horrible decisions in life.
My brother in law's brother is 500,000 dollars in debt because he has a psychological disorder that makes him think he needs huge ass trucks. He has two of them, and he only makes like 15,000 dollars a yet. He struggles to make the car payments, and he's lost money many many times by trading in when the car's trade-in value didn't pay off the loan he took out to get it. Last year he managed to secure a credit card with a 3,000 dollar credit limit. What did he do? Bought plane tickets to new york and maxed it out. Apparently a credit card is free money. What's he going to do when his kid needs braces? That's right. "I need this to live, so logically someone else should pay for it." I wonder if the cc-companies will ever see a dime of that trip to new york...
Libertarianism can't win against scroungy poor-ass stupid slobs who spend their medical and dental budget on beer and twinkies and then expect someone else to pay for it. My idea is to keep them satisfied so they don't have to face the consequences of their actions, and therefore, don't vote against us.
This is government acting as a protector, not a provider, which is the basic tenat of libertarianism. I know you feel like people should feel the consequences of their actions, but often, those consequences ruin things for everyone else; it's what stupid people do best.
Name:
John2005-11-26 12:19
>>31 "You think that personal savings accounts for things such as healthcare and retirement is worse than blind taxation?"
That's precisely the opposite of what I think.
I agree with just about every point you make, and I appreciate the intelligent response. Have you considered the FairTax?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 14:30
>>32
After Halloween I give my brother half of my candy and tell him to store it some place hidden. A few months pass and I forget about it, but then it's returned bit by bit, and I'm satisfied with that. A probe by my sister later reveals that my brother has been eating portions of my candy behind my back, but then again I would not have known about that unless it was told to me. I'm still partially failthful, since I would have sneaked in and eaten most of it within days if I knew where I hid my own candy. Some people have more self control and do the managing themselves, but I forget what they're called. I usually try to steal or demand candy from them since they appear to have more than me.
Name:
John2005-11-26 15:44
>>33
If they have more candy, then they knocked on more doors, to follow your analogy. I'm not sure whether you're trying to justify thievery or are just being sarcastic...
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 21:00
excessive laws which protect stupid people only serve to hurt people who are actually smart enough to know better. the smart people should be driving society, not run over by it. or at least be given equal footing.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 21:25
It's actually good to know this place isn't as liberal as I had thought.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 21:38
most "Libertarians" I've met were a dangerous bunch: they're intelligent, greedy, naive, and highly conceited. It doesn't help that libertarianism is a vague concept compared to other ideologies, thus attracting every bright rebellious shithead with an opinion. This may not be you, so I'll explain briefly why I have such problems with libertarianism:
Libertarianism is broad (it's somewhat like anarchism in that sense). In fact, it's a lot like anarchism: it sounds great on paper. Less government? Great! More power to the people? Fantastic! Individual responsibility? Right on!
The problem is that many people don't want to take responsibility. No, they want to take advantage of people. Oh, you might hear the anarchists crow that it's just the way we're socialized, but I prefer empirical evidence over some pie-in-the-sky fantasy. And the government? Why, we don't need taxes! It'll run mysteriously on the generosity of others! And some want no government at all (hello anarchism).
Except that power fills a vacuum.
The main gripe I have though is thoroughly economic: libertarianists appear to believe in a complete laissez-faire economy. This delves into the whole public/private issue, but I'd like to point something out: the United States. Yeah, a lot of the ideals that the founding fathers espoused were fairly libertarian. Look at the US today. Notice something?
As I said, I prefer to give precedence to systems that have been demonstrated. I've never seen a pleasant minarchist or anarchist system of any size. Yet, in my travels, I've found that the opposite is usually the case: take a look at Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and other social or semi-social democracies. Pseudo-political scientists can keep their unproven systems, and I'll stick with what works. They may not be perfect, not by a long shot, but there does appear to be a general trend.
And all the ideals the libertarians like to dole out? Who says other systems can't have them too? Those ideals are used since it appeals to everyone - and therefore obviously not the sole domain of libertarianism.
The only time I'll reconsider the libertarian ideology is if I see it successfully used, preferably through a gradual evolution of the system. Until then, it's just a fantastic toy of mental masturbation.
And don't get me started about anarcho-capitalist libertarians.
It's simple; more government = better than. You can't escape that simple fact.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 23:34
>>37
Sounds like you have a problem with the libertarian party more than it's policies. And besides, exactly what do you see wrong with the US anyway? (Besides the whole blood for oil fiasco)
Really though, you're basing your criteria of what a "good" country should be on fairly subjective stuff. You also have to consider that we have a much higher immigrant population than any of the other countries you mentioned; that has a big effect on our standard of living statistic.
Really, I'll take a low tax rate and be responsable for my own health insurance ETC... any day.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-26 23:45
>>38
The fair tax is a stupid and unworkable plan. Nobody will want to buy ANYTHING, thus sending the economy into a hell-bound death spin. The government, underfunded, will be unable to pay for the military to supress the riots that will ensue.
This plan is asenine and stupid. I hope nobody ever reads this tripe.
I guess all of europe and asia doesn't have problems with their own unemployment rates or their econimies, amirite?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 0:36
>>43
Nobody will buy anything when it suddenly costs twice as much.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 1:42
Who gives a shit what we think anyway? The government serves the rich and powerful, period.
And now, back to more regurgitated memes:
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 5:40 (sage)
>>46
* Violent government (Yeeeeee-haw! Bring it on!)
* Fat-fuck population (Wanna supersize that?)
* Retarded patriotism (The land of the Free!)
* Backward culture (MTV & Friends!)
* Cut-throat corporate environment (You've been made r-r-r-redundant!)
* Poorer education (i cant speel lol. wut? i cant afford coolege!)
* Shitty media (zOMG CNN & FOX!)
* High crime rate (bix nood got me a gun)
* Broken health-care (lol insurance)
* Rampant consumerism (I want that SUV! Put it on mah CC!)
* National debt (Ah, fuck, who cares!)
* Litigatious assholes (You'll sue me for this comment, right?)
* Shitty power (hello East grid & California!)
* Environment (What's that? Externality! Externality! *bbzbzbz*)
* Crazies like freemen and born-again (Jesus saves! lawl Rapture!)
* ...?
Some of that has nothing to do with the government, but that nation of yours is really fucked up anyway. Not like that matters, right, you patriotic tightwad? GO AMERICA!
Name:
John2005-11-27 9:12
I give up on this place, there's no talking to people who have already decided in the back of their mind that they're going to focus on the negative aspects of every single thing that comes up rather than coming up with intelligent suggestions for fixing them.
Leftists of all kinds don't REALLY give an honest bonafide shit about anything important at all, period. I am now totally convinced of this. Everything is subjective for them, their world is just a wishy-washy chaos of emotionally based opinions. I don't care to debate with that any longer.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 9:15
eat me
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 9:36
I give up on this place, there's no talking to people who have already decided in the back of their mind Everything is subjective for them, their world is just a wishy-washy chaos of emotionally based opinions.
LAWL! Look in the mirror you Libertarian nutcase! This is the funniest shit I've seen all day!
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 10:01
The problem with the US is that there isn't a socially liberal, economically conservative party. If you want your vote to count, you either have to vote for an entitlement-crazed, union-controlled shit party or a party full of bible-thumping rednecks (with some corporations looking for handouts along for the ride). It's unfortunate that libertarianism tends to attract tax scammers and conspiracy nuts. The LP won't separate itself from them for the same reason old-style Republicans won't dump the Christo-fascists.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 11:22
my roids are bleeding. Discuss:
Name:
Silph2005-11-27 11:48
>>53
I've heard that a lot, the US does need some sort of center ground party like the UK's Labour party (not that the UK's system is any better). There's enough people in America who're liberal who don't want to be considered in the same group as conspiracy nuts and enough conversatives that don't want to be in the same group as those bible-bashing lunatics. I'm pretty sure if a center ground party existed in America it would have a much higher membership count than the current parties.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 12:37
* Violent government (Yeeeeee-haw! Bring it on!)
* Fat-fuck population (Wanna supersize that?)
* Retarded patriotism (The land of the Free!)
* Backward culture (MTV & Friends!)
* Cut-throat corporate environment (You've been made r-r-r-redundant!)
* Poorer education (i cant speel lol. wut? i cant afford coolege!)
* Shitty media (zOMG CNN & FOX!)
* High crime rate (bix nood got me a gun)
* Broken health-care (lol insurance)
* Rampant consumerism (I want that SUV! Put it on mah CC!)
* National debt (Ah, fuck, who cares!)
* Litigatious assholes (You'll sue me for this comment, right?)
* Shitty power (hello East grid & California!)
* Environment (What's that? Externality! Externality! *bbzbzbz*)
* Crazies like freemen and born-again (Jesus saves! lawl Rapture!)
???
profit
This is the most word-fucking-up post I've ever read. Finally, statements that I can agree 100% on.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 14:27
>>49
Uh, really, besides the national debt (and maybe healthcare) you don't have any real points... European culture is just as insipid and useless.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 14:28
>>59
BTW, most of those problems are honestly caused by either immigrants or blacks... A factor Europe by and large doesn't have to deal with. (and where they do they're having their own fucked up problems, like france with the riots)
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 14:29
>>60
I mean, statistically. The ones who can't spell, the ones who don't have insurance, the ones who commit the crime; immigrants and blacks.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 14:30
Honestly, I've got to take this moment to say how awesome /newpol/ has become recently. Keep it up dudes.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 15:03
Could you imagine an entire country that behaves like New England? An ENTIRE country?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 17:04
>>59
Good job at making a strawman! I am in awe to your amazing cognitive capabilities!
(I'm also in awe of your blinders.)
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 17:15
>>41
You should do more research. Canada has a much higher immigrant percentage than the US, but faces less problems with them since the system in place allows them to integrate into society much easier. Canada also has the fairtax system in place, under a more familiar name, the Goods & Services Tax (GST) for over a decade. The country is actually facing a labor shortage and has to rely on skilled trade workers from around the globe to fill the gaps.
In this sense, all the leftist policies in place (free medicare, English lessons, interpreters, Government housing, and social orientation councillors) actually work to raise the standard of living, since the people who immigrate to Canada can find jobs and want to stay in the country, opposing to being criminals and living off food stamps in shanty towns. The 'You reap what you sow' policy works in this case, but then again, Canada never had to deal with bix nood slavers, hippies, large population (it has less people than the state of California), or a Wild West, major events which led to the segregated societies which cause many of America's problems today. As a result, a unified policy for all of the country will probably never work.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 17:29
>>50
Given the extreme trollishness of the OP, your complaint about a lack of constructive discussion on this thread seems, at best, disingenous.
"Leftists" have mostly learned to avoid real discussion with "Righists," who seem pathologically incapable of tolerating uncertainty or ambiguity.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-27 17:39
Leftists = "The world isn't black and white, but let's find a way to make things better anyway."
Rightists = "The world is black and white, we know what's right, so let's make everyone fit into our model of right and wrong."
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 0:20
>>68
Maybe christian right wingers would actually fit into most of that, but you also have to admit that's a pretty condescending and biased study... You could also say their stubbornness causes them to work hard, and apply their choices with utmost regard to how the outcome would benefit them and theirs... That makes them look more like gryffindors than nazis.
So, in all this, you make some good points; you point to statistics that suggest that liberal countries are perfect little utopias where there's little crime and everyone is happy and has employment and a place in the world and is cared for no matter what happens to them... But I just don't know about that.
Maybe the world becoming socialist is the inevitable wave of the future; but I just don't want to see a world where everyone is on the same footing, always, no matter what they've done or been through... I want to be able to set myself apart, and I want to be able to see others set themselves apart. It's just maddening for me to think of a world where everyone's the same...
In other words, security, as in, security about knowing that I'll always be protected from everything that could possibly happen to me is low on my list of priorities.... I don't believe that that would neccesarily be good for the human race as a whole either.
That's my reason for being right-wing.
Do you think I'm a monster?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 2:14
>>Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form.
(taken from http://tinyurl.com/hu7w )
Is it not inconceivable that some forms of inequality are justifiable? In the US, everyone has equal right to try to make their lot better, and that's why conservatives see their "inequality" as justified.
I would venture that no present system which results in factual inequalities is justifiable-this precisely because there are heirs, investment opportunities, and crime. Although America FACILITATES opportunity in many ways, The presupposed equality of opportunity does not even exist in the first place, here or abroad.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 2:29
>>71
anyone can be at least moderately successful if they play their cards right; you shouldn't expect everyone to be able to be bill gates, that's just unrealistic. Doesn't mean it's not justified that you should be able to give your money to whoever you want when you die.
You have slipped a moral urgency into my reply which was not really present; moreover, the real burden rests on you to present your concept of an unequal system which is just. Bear in mind that there are at least two 'types' of equality- factual equality (not possible, and, by common sense, not even desirable), and equality of opportunity, which is a false assumption of American life. I am not making a general indictment of a system. I am pointing to the fact that specific inequities do exist at the present time which make current systems indefensible, taken in their totality. Do not assume that because I reject the 'equality' of current systems that I that I think a just, unequal system is impossible-indeed, it would appear to be the most probable and desirable social arrangement.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 2:53
>>69 but you also have to admit that's a pretty condescending and biased study...
No, I don't admit it. You talk condescending, then with a magic wave of you hand dismiss an entire study with a few words.
These words mean nothing in the context of a study. The study is there, which means the method, the aggregate data, the resulting statistical analysis, and the conclusion. It's all there.
This is science. Think it's wrong? Indicate how methodology is flawed, or make an experiment or study that presents strong evidence for an alternate hypothesis. If not, your claims are no different from the ID whackos: pure unsupported fantasy.
That's my reason for being right-wing.
Anecdotal evidence is unconvincing. It also may help if you look up the definition of "pearson's correlation" and ponder how this relates to your whole post for a while.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 3:23
"I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I've earned."
— Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, 2nd wealthiest person in the world
"My wealth is not only a product of my own hard work. It also resulted from a strong economy and lots of public investment, both in others and in me. I received a good public school education and used free libraries and museums paid for by others. I went to college under the GI Bill. I went to graduate school to study computers and language on a complete government scholarship... While teaching at Syracuse University for 25 years, my research was supported by numerous government grants... My university research provided the basis for Syracuse Language Systems..."
— Martin Rothenberg, founder of Syracuse Language Systems and Glottal Enterprises
"Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don't have a fraction of what I have. I realize I don't have my wealth because I'm so brilliant. Luck has a lot to do with it."
>>75
Why do you want to make excuses for the so-called "less fortunate"? Poverty may not ALLLLWAYYYS be a choice, but the FACT is that SUCCESS *IS* A CHOICE. Deal with it.
One type of person on welfare will sleep all day and waste his food stamps on Cheetos and Ho-Hos, the other kind will be out there working his ass off to get OFF of welfare. I'm so tired of these excuses for the poor.
I don't think that even equality of opportunity can be achieved in a democratic society. In creating a mandate of equality of opportunity, you strip the voters' power to control the direction society takes, either directly or through elected officials. Even in Democratic Socialist countries, there are regional differences in the quality of things like education and social services resulting from differing funding priorities. That's not something that can be reasonably controlled.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 8:54
>>50
That's cause you never met no dadaists before. =B
>>75
That report is just about complete socialist bullshit. Unless you are physically handicapped or mentally retarded, or your parents keep you in a box, there is no such thing in the United States of America as inequal opportunity, and there is no excuse other than plain laziness. I don't care if you live in the slummiest hole in the worst neighborhood of New York or as far back in the sticks of Montana as it goes, there is ALWAYS a way to get out of poverty in this country, as long as you have the motivation. The fact that a person has had it harder to reach more opportunities shouldn't mean a damn thing to them as long as they love existence enough to reach their goals. In fact, that should make it all the more satisfying in the end. The class warfare nonsense and envy in this country is ridiculous.
Well, then again, it'd probably make for some of the interesting conversations that come up in this place! :D
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 13:37
>>47
You clearly do not understand the FairTax plan...
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 13:58
>>74
The data only shows that conservatives tend to have certain psychological makeup. I find the interpretation of that data the part that's condescending. I thought that someone who can bring such big words to the table as "pearson's correlation" would be able to see through that...
Basically, what you said in your post is "<I>SCIENCE</I> SAYS THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE EVIL (even though your basis for juding that is very subjective) SO THEREFORE THEY ARE EVIL!!!! CHECK THE FIGURES! SEE? EVIL RAISES DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO HOW CONSERVATIVE THEY ARE!!!"
What I'm saying is that such sentences as "Justification of inequality in some form" are leading the reader to believe that these are pretty bad people who'd kill black babies for a buck, when really this fits into a coherent logical worldview (I'll elaborate in the next paragraph). Basically, the study says that conservatives are creatures who act on instinct, therefore we can disregard anything they have to say.
Conservative worldview:
That some people deserve to be inequal to others because they spend their welfare checks on cheetos ETC and continually make stupid decisions. I'm not saying that everyone deserves to be a millionare, and I'm not saying that everyone who is a millionare deserves it... But there's more to life than just money and "class". Anyone can find happiness for themselves if they'd just so much as seek it out, or try to be the best person they can be at whatever they do... possibly even transcending their "class" (the people who can manage that definately deserve it, and have my respect and I'm sure the respect of most conservatives).
God damn you people are annoying. You bring this stuff to the table and then show a complete inability to think critically of it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 14:20
>>50
You fit the conservative psych profile to a T, John.
Honestly, I think that my psychological profile is more that of a liberal, just that I don't believe that inequality is neccesarily something we should try ot stamp out (think of the consequences to any solution you'd devise, people... communism failed, and I'm afraid that other systems with similar aims would lead to the same result). Some people will have more than others, that's the way it is. Stop juding your life based on what you have.
I probably would have grown up a liberal if it wasn't for the fact that I suddenly turned poor around 16. Everyone else had their parents buying them cars, and I got nothing. I was jealous, I was really jealous, but I finally had to accept that I wasn't the most unfortunate being in existence. Instead of blaming the plant that laid my dad off, I started blaming the fact that I didn't do anything to mean that I had a car... I hadn't put enough in to get out what I wanted. And the people who got cars for free really didn't seem to appreciate them a whole lot. It's a hard state to explain to someone who never went though it.
Hmmm... as an aside, or maybe a non sequitur, Full Metal Alchemist was a lot like that, thematically... equivalent exchange... think the author was conservative?
Name:
John2005-11-28 14:43
>>87 "You fit the conservative psych profile to a T, John."
How do you figure? I'm not gonna argue anymore about points I know to be invalid, but I can't ignore a personal accusition, can I... :3
I've never based my life or another's on what I or they have. My parents divorced when I was five years old. My mom went to live on welfare, while my dad went to create his own company, and I lived with either one of them for periods of years at a time. It wasn't hard for me to tell, even at that age, exactly WHY people had what they had. How exactly do I fit the conservative psych? Hell, I've advocated radical change in this thread, the FairTax!
>>>"authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity)"
I've explicitly identified my views as libertarian and expressed them as such in this thread. And yes, I'm rather intolerant of ambiguity. Nothing gets done if you allow uncertainty and ambiguity into your decisions.
>>> "epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management)"
Exactly what the hell is wrong with any of that?
And blah blah. Personally, I thought Full Metal Alchemist sucked.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 14:47
Eh, I agree John dude. Personally I think between the two of us we've ripped that study to shreds.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 15:38
You are all wrong, except where you agree with me. I am right.
Name:
John2005-11-28 16:18
>>90
I assume that you're accusing me of closed-mindedness, yes?
Well, you're completely wrong. :3
Are you so uncomfortable with your non-absolutist positions on the issues that you have to put up this inferiority-complex front to make the other guy seem like an idiot instead of you?
Moreover, why do you take such offense at my last post as to make that comment? What is it about individual confidence that you leftists find simply as ignorance, or stupidity, or arrogance? In this way, you're exhibiting the same attitude that you're condemning, only you scream about it louder...
If you think I'm wrong, then call me on it and I'll consider it openly. Spare me the rhetoric, and the scornful sarcasm such as >>89 exhibits...
Studies by such radical publications as the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Economist have shown that the wealth gap is increasing and social mobility is declining. They've revealed that it's tied to factors like class, education and skin privilege. The billionaires agree. >>75
Even so, people see themselves as middle class (even the poor working class self-report being middle class), socially mobile, and most think they will be rich one day, despite the data. The ultra-wealthy -- with the help of politicians hand picked from their ranks -- inculcate this myth on the masses. It's important that the masses maintain faith in meritocracy. If the playing field were revealed to be a sheer cliff, there would be revolt.
Name:
John2005-11-28 18:47
>>93
Of course they say so, they're left-wing rags. Ok, wealth gap. Let's talk about the wealth gap. It's very simple.
The rich keep getting richer, because... They keep doing the things that made them rich!
And the poor keep getting poorer... because... THEY KEEP DOING THE THINGS THAT MADE OR KEPT THEM *POOR*, DAMMIT!
WHY is that so hard to understand for you people that believe that the conditions of one's life are merely thrown up to chance and luck? What in the bloody hell is the MATTER with you people? -_-
And why is social mobility declining? Also quite simple. It's because the GOVERNMENT keeps making it to where you BENEFIT from being poor! You're REWARDING them for BAD BEHAVIOR! What are they gonna do? Keep mooching! Why should they have to work for a living?
And my gosh, do you think that our "public" (government run/funded/employed) schools might have something to do with that? Without teaching kids the basics of how our fucking economy works, sure, we can expect social mobility to rise without anyone having a god damn clue how things work! Sure, that works just fine!
... My god. -_- I'm so sick of these damn excuses.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 19:31 (sage)
What in the bloody hell is the MATTER with you people?
Hey, man, same goes for you. I swear you're a troll, because you'd be batshit insane if you were for real. Your version of reality really is alternate.
PS. I thought you left this board.
HAND
Name:
John2005-11-28 20:04
>>95
Well, I saw some ridiculous comments that I just couldn't not respond to. And so in response to your response...
Tell me how I'm batshit insane. Explain it to me.
I explained my points quite clearly, and they make perfect sense, though I apologize if you in particular are not quite able to follow them.
Now it's your turn. How do my views conflict with your 'views' of reality? I'm dying to understand people of your mindset... If you don't mind indulging someone that's batshit insane, to borrow your intelligent little phrase, that is.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 20:49 (sage)
Why bother further explaining to a person who insists the world is black and white? What do you think we've been doing the past month? Repeatedly? Did it get us anywhere?
Subtle nuance is beyond your grasp, as you've proven repeatedly, because it's all either/or. We discuss nuance, but you just keep coming back with strawmen developed through your own inability to handle a world that isn't a dichotomy. If I say 0.7, you'll claim it's bad because 1.0 is horrible. Well, no shit, too much vitamin A can kill you too.
That, and a complete lack of knowledge of history. Look at the history of Russia or France (or even England) before proclaiming the tripe your wrote in the fifth paragraph of >>94. It's all been done before, and it didn't work. Don't know what I'm talking about? Time to break out some books.
Oh, wait, intellectuals are baddy bad, right? As the great and glorious "common man" such trivialities are beneath you. You probably take pride in your ignorance, unlike those crazy overeducated and indoctrinated left-tards, right?
Poor people aren't lazy, and rich people aren't motivated. Life is nothing but chance and luck and chaos. Intellectuality is only a realm of subjectivism. The past contains all wisdom. Individuality is evil...
I do believe I understand your mindset now. Thank you.
Please correct me if I happen to be, *Clears throat*, mistaken.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 21:44
>>93
Er, how would the politicians and the business elite benefit if everyone stayed poor?
>>97
I haven't seen you use any subtle nuance, so I don't know where you're getting that from... just saying.
And we aren't exactly old england or russia or anything; you just make yourself believe that and that that's what we're doing to justify your own beliefs. Never in history has our "underclass" been more educated or in actuality, socially mobile. Who cares if that statistic (which I don't neccesarily condone or understand, I'd like to know how they calculated it) shows that people are becoming less able to get out of poverty?
For some reason, you seem to believe there's some huge conspiracy to keep the poor poor, when really things DO move in cycles. Economies rise and fall, poverty stricken populations do likewise.Really, I think the business elite would stand to benefit if everyone started becoming more affluent; they'd have more money to spend on their useless wares. You're looking at one point in recent history and deciding to go batshit over it. Or maybe it was just a nuance you just didn't pick up.
>>98 Please correct me if I happen to be, *Clears throat*, mistaken.
Consider yourself corrected. Good job with the strawmen there.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 23:14
>>99
Please reread this: And why is social mobility declining? Also quite simple. It's because the GOVERNMENT keeps making it to where you BENEFIT from being poor! You're REWARDING them for BAD BEHAVIOR! What are they gonna do? Keep mooching! Why should they have to work for a living?
The point is there used to be no government support. No money? You starved. Guess what happened?
Oh, right, people started climbing up the social heirarchy, right? Not.
JOHN IS A GENIUS!
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-28 23:43
>>104
Problem is that both situations lead to poorness.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-29 0:17
But one leads to a less pleasant (and potentially far more violent) form of poorness.
In Germany they give ridiculous sums of money to the unemployed, which really might make citizens care less, but complete removal (hello dichotomy) is equally stupid. There's this thing called the middle ground.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-29 2:11
>>106
Give them enough not to starve, but not so much as to be a burden on everyone else. Problem solved.
Actually, Australia has a pretty good system. They're semi-generous with their unemployment payments, but they watch you like a hawk. If they think you're being a bum and not looking for work like you're supposed to, you get cut off. If you're not employable, you're required to get further training or education, and on the side you must do free work for the government.
Needless to say, people don't stay out of work very long in this system. It's effective yet humane.
Name:
John2005-11-29 8:42
>>103
I've heard the word "strawman" pop up in this thread about 5 times... Lemme guess, you took critical thinking in college? Although you don't seem to be able to actually correct me. Excuses...
>>104,>>106,>>107
Why does the question of personal responsibility never come up for you people?
>>108
Watch em like a hawk, and if they don't get a job, kick em out... Well, it's better than a simple free ride like they get here in the U.S. at least.
Name:
JOHN2005-11-29 9:30 (sage)
HELLO. MY NAME IS JOHN. THE GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS BAD. THAT IS ALL.
Name:
John2005-11-29 10:51
>>110
Of course it isn't always bad, JOHN, that's ridiculous and I've never said it. The sole purpose of government is to protect people's rights, so I dare say that it's good by nature! HOWEVER, when you get these hack politicians that want to extend that power to every freakin' aspect of people's lives that they have no business in, then yeah, it pisses me off! As it should you and every other citizen... Let me know if you want examples, I could write a damn book on it buddy.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-29 13:15
Personal responsibility in the US LOL! In america, cc companies pay when you lose your credit card and someone else uses it; in EU, you're responsable for your own credit card and you have to pay. That's why they have no more than a 20th of the bankruptcy rate of the us!
Name:
John2005-11-29 14:22
>>112
I agree. My point is, you gotta wonder the reasons why so many people are bankrupt or what-have-you in this country, and why people are just more and more in the lines of thinking that many things are just not their responsibility, but the government's. Take your credit card company example for example. Someplace else than here, they have to actually watch their ass or they're in the shitter. Here? "Oh, it's no problem, we'll take care of it. You don't have to be responsible." I'm just illustrating the attitude that people and our government are developing over here that's going to lead us into another, much scarier, Hillary Clinton occupation in the White House if we don't get our act together... Income tax rebates for the people in Puerto Rico that don't even pay income taxes? Universal health care? This country'll go straight down the socialist toilet if she gets elected... But I digress... e_e
Name:
JOHN2005-11-29 17:55
HELLO. OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENT IS BAD. MY OWN GOVERNMENT SUCKS MONKEY BALLS, SO CLEARLY ALL BIG GOVERNMENTS ARE ALSO INFERIOR. WITH A SAMPLE OF ONE, AREN'T MY DEDUCTIVE SKILLS GREAT?!
THE FACT THAT IT'S JUST MY GOVERNMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Name:
John2005-11-29 20:36
>>114
The U.S.'s government sucks monkey-balls, huh? Look, I've been vehemently bitching about it's flaws all through this thread, but in retrospect, ours is comparatively the best damn government on the planet. Show me another that allows more personal and financial freedom than ours. Freedoms are why this country was actually FOUNDED. Show me another country that was founded on those principles and has achieved the same success as ours.
No, I don't like the size and span of our government, or the people that run it the way they're running it these days. But I love this country's Constitution and what it stands for, and the fact that I can and will achieve my aims in life because that constitution is there.
In short, you little bad all-caps impersonator...
Fuck you.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-29 23:47
>>115
>Show me another that allows more personal and financial freedom than ours.
Personal freedoms: Most social democracies are ahead of the US in social freedoms. Patriot Act, anyone? The US has the highest non-violent drug incarceration rates in the developed world, more than all of Western Europe combined. The Netherlands is an obvious example of a country with significantly more personal freedoms.
Financial freedoms: (right-wing newspeak for low tax rates and other laws enabling corporate dominance). There are a number of countries more "financially free" that the US; countries like Bulgaria, Latvia, Romania, Ireland, Lithuania and Zambia. The newest member of this contingent is Halliburtonia aka Iraq.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-30 0:04
DON'T YOU DARE CRITICISE MY GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT'S THE BEST DAMN GOVERNMENT EVAR. I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE AMERICA IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, SO I DON'T NEED TO TRAVEL, YOU SOCIALIST COMMUNIST JEW. ALSO, THE FACT THAT I HATE THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
GO AMERICA. UNLESS IT'S ME BITCHING ABOUT IT.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-30 0:32
People always scream about how libertarians would give business free reign to destroy the entire world and enslave humanity because they're in the stock market and would benefit, when that's really not the case. They're really very philosophically oriented people. They don't want their lives to be defined by anyone else, be it corporate, government, or whatever. They don't want an anarcho capitalist state of the Nike corp going to war with Reebok in full military fashion for control of certain shoe-buying populations (ala Jennifer Government). They just don't believe that forced equality through taxation should be the way the world works; they don't want to work all their lives and have it amount to nothing because someone gets jealous. They just think socialism isn't a good solution.
The government shouldn't try to reduce corporate dominance by taxing them, they should instead institute something else... For example, forced total transparency.
Libertarians would be anti-corporation as hell if they got into power. While they hate big government, they'd definately do something to counteract big business power (because it'd be a problem). Because they aren't technically people, and have limited liability for their actions, yet they have all the rights of a person, they'd feel morally justified doing something against corporations.
Libertarians would probably institute policies to protect and encourage small businesses, just from reading their philosophy... Yet I belive they would reign in big business where neccesary. That's the whole anti-dominance thing, government as protector not provider.
Socialism is an answer, but I believe it's not the best answer, and I think that america will probably go down another path, one that would be more encouraging to scientific ETC... progress. Social "progress" would most likely have secondary importance. Libertarians (or more specifically the future america) would need to even the playing field a bit, but not through absolute egalatarianism.
The libertarians have no interest in government politics; they're just trying to develop a working system that focuses more on individuality than treating people as groups.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-30 5:03
While they hate big government, they'd definately do something to counteract big business power
I'm interested to know how you'd do this without a large government. For example, a lack of a social safety net gives corporations far more power when bargaining. If you don't have some form of universal medicare, insurance companies will wield greater power over people. No education? The uneducated are easier to manipulate. And so forth.
Power fills a vacuum.
Name:
John2005-11-30 7:05
Anyone ever read the Redwall books? (ZOMG FURFAG BURN!?1/) That's my ideal society. Or something like Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged. That's all I wanna say...
But of course, you people would never encourage such a society, because hey, most people are too stupid to actually live in harmony according to your views, right? And if one did exist, you would only say that it can't work indefinitely because some other greedy bastard of a government would come and take it over... And in the second case, you'd probably be right, these days.
To hell with you all.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-30 8:38
Atlas Shrugged
Hahahah, Ayn Rand? Get the fuck out.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-30 10:06
>>119
Err... The government would retain control over the police and the military, so there'd be no vacuum to fill... And how would corporations have more power over individuals without some sort of "social safety net"?
And stop talking in this stupid "corporations want to keep the people stupid so they can exploit them! OMG HAX!" You're still stuck in the master/slave mindset when modern society is capitalist; people give them money, so it's not in the corporate's interest to bring society down in burning flames.
It's not very widely known with today's dichotomous social climate (corporate=right populist=left) but most libertarians I know believe in rules which would be tougher on corporations than any other political movement. Forced total transparency for large corporations etc... so that things like the wal-mart memo that said to hire younger workers wouldn't be hidden anymore; corporations would have to keep on the up and up. Their power would be counteracted with as little interference to the individual as possible. That's what libertarianism is all about. It's not about leaving a vacuum of power, it's about how that power SHOULD be applied.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-30 10:11
And with regard to social safety nets; forced personal savings accounts for certain things are a better idea than pure socialism.
I just think it's broken how in canada people who make in the yearly 50,000 dollar range are taxed to a standard of living on par with those who are making 25,000. They say the tax is progressive, that only the rich will pay out the ass, but 50,000 doesn't seem that rich.
Name:
John2005-11-30 13:09
>>121
I highly doubt you've ever actually read one of her books... I doubt even more, sir, that you can come up with an intelligent rebuke to any of her philosophical ideas.
>>123
What's with this "forced" savings account crap you keep talking about? Sure it's better than socialism, but not much isn't better than socialism.
Look, let economic 'evolution' take it's course. When enough people have learned their lesson, it'll straighten itself out as opposed to everyone being coerced into it and never gaining a clue about money matters. Simple.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-30 15:10 (sage)
For once I have to agree with John. Replacing socialist policies with forced saving accounts is retarded.
PS. Yes, I've read Ayn Rand's novels (and shove that "sir" up your ass). I entered some international essay competition for the Ayn Rand Institute when I was 15. Even as a kid, I found her books totally juvenile. She's fantastic at setting up caricatures, and is a heavy idealist. Well, we've seen what happens when ideals meet reality.
Ayn Rand is no Ursula LeGuin, that's for sure, even though I don't agree with that writer either. Pointing to Rand is the no.1 way to get yourself laughed at.
Name:
John2005-11-30 17:17
>>125
I see where you're coming from in that her stories are really exaggerated in order to get her points across. Maybe she 'was' a heavy idealist, and maybe people just aren't willing to go along with the effort involved in living up to those ideals, but personally, I'd like to live in a world where those ideals worked... And I don't see you making an argument against any of her philosophies. I'm curious.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-30 18:51
I made my argument. Her ideals won't work, just like Marxism didn't, and Anarchism probably won't. Exaggeration may help to drive the point home, but it's a literary device, and ultimately we don't live in such a world. What works in fiction may not work in fact.
Her books are entertaining, but Objectivism seems to make no allowances for human foibles. I'd be delighted if such a thing were possible, but I find it unlikely. Ergo, I favour what has been empirically tested and show to be both pleasant and stable.
Having lived in numerous countries, I find that the more socialist democracies are nicer to live in. The populations are healthier, better educated, lead more stable lives (read: less office politics, less "redundancies"), and have more control over the powers that be. You can go too far (I've also lived in a communist country), but that applies for both extremes. Again, this isn't either/or.
Once you find an effective Objectivist society that isn't inhumane, let me know; I'll reassess my beliefs.
Name:
John2005-11-30 19:31
>>127
Isn't that a rather pessimistic position to take? -_-
I don't buy that it's not possible, though given that the general attitude of people these days seems to be simply not giving a damn, at least here it is, then maybe I am being unrealistic...
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-30 20:51
Maybe I am a pessimist, but we live in an inherently dirty world. Objectivism is intellectually quite clean; it's probably internally coherent. However, there is a mismatch between theoretical cleanliness and reality; this is the same problem that ravaged Marxism, or true laissez-faire economics. Just because it looks nice doesn't mean it'll work.
The governments we have today evolved this way. I like to think of states as living organisms, responding to external and internal pressures. Those that don't eventually fail. Those that succeed are often copied by other states. The result may not be clean, with numerous warts and hairs, but it works.
If you'd like to attempt to evolve a current system towards Objectivist ideals, by all means, do so. However, the resistance you're meeting indicates that it probably isn't an ideal solution for the problem space. You can blame it on poor bums, or corrupt official, but in reality the factors leading to the resistance are far more numerous, interrelated, and complex.
I won't pretend to know how the current system works, even though I have a better idea than most people (uni education and all that). What I can say from personal experience is that based on the trends I've seen, I doubt a society following the ideals of Objectivism will be successful.
Name:
John2005-11-30 21:16
>>129
Well, to each his own...
It may have an inherently dirty side, but it also has an inherently beautiful side. It's just sad to see which side a lot of people seem to give in to out of, I think it all boils down to, simple laziness. You get whichever you work toward, is my take.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-30 23:40
I think it all boils down to, simple laziness.
But is that really the case? Are you certain that isn't just a convenient brush to paint over defects in the theory?
Name:
John2005-12-01 9:37
>>131
Well, what are the defects? I could say simply that not everybody has the same will to live, which is true. I mean sure, some people need help with that, nobody's able to make themselves perfectly happy with existence and all that it entails. That's where the theory comes in, to help them realize that the life of a human being is not doomed to misery and strife as long as you're willing to put up the effort, and that's what I meant by laziness. Perhaps I didn't phrase that last post well enough.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-01 11:04
I think most people have concluded that life is not doomed to misery and strife, at least in a stable society (are you familiar with Maslow's hierarchy?). If Objectivism is a cure for that, it's in search of a sickness.
Ayn Rand used flat characters for her literature. Either a person was one of the hard-working heros, or the lazy antagonists leeching off of them. There was no middle ground. In reality, the middle ground makes up the vast majority of people. In reality, no man is an island, despite Rand's convenient oversight. The gross oversimplifications that Rand used to demonstrate her philosophy border on the silly. I lay claim that is because they won't work in reality.
Now, how do you define laziness? Unemployment? But most OECD countries have unemployment below 10%, and a sizable percentage of that are actively seeking new work. Or is it hard work? Are you a hard worker? 48 hours per week? More? If it's hours worked, or joules consumed, or whatever metric you choose, you'll always be "lazier" than someone else.
There are no simple answers.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-01 13:05
The whole laziness thing is bunk. Many people live hand to mouth despite working hard. If we were to reward income according to effort, we would have millionaire factory workers, miners and garbage men.
Name:
John2005-12-01 14:40
>>133
Sure there were middle-groundish characters, but what good would they do with big parts in the story? Take Eddie Willers in Atlas Shrugged, for example. Most people don't aspire to anything above the middle ground. That's why they stay there. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. "In reality, no man is an island"
That has to be one of the most pathetic anti-individual sayings I've ever heard. Why do you want to surrender to the feeling that you're just another brick in the wall simply because you live in society? You're an individual. Act like one...
I never defined laziness as unemployment. Unemployment could mean a hurricane knocked everything down, or it could come from the fact that someone's just a bum. Laziness is simply an unwillingness to better a situation.
>>134
Factory workers, miners, and garbage men don't create opportunities and employment for people. There will always be people that care for no higher position. And hey, they serve those purposes... Income typically isn't, and shouldn't be, rewarded accoring to physical effort. Doesn't matter how many scyscrapers and factories you build if you can't make them productive.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-01 21:52
Why do you want to surrender to the feeling that you're just another brick in the wall simply because you live in society?
With all due respect, just because you realize that you're a part of society has nothing to do with losing individuality.
No man is an island. That car you drive, did you design it? Did you pop into existance ex nihilo, or were you raised by parents? Did you write the books you read? Or develop the science that allows you to type on a computer?
For fuck's sake, I though we were getting somewhere, then you resort to the same caricature as Rand. I am an individual. I am also a member of society, a family, and a network of friends. So are you. There is no contradiction.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-01 21:56
There will always be people that care for no higher position.
That's pretty disgusting. I'm certain all the poor would also like to be millionaires.
You become a millionaire by hard work, right? No, that's only part of it. You also need to be ruthless and lucky. Some people aren't that fortunate, and the rest don't want to give up their humanity for a few dollars.
If you stab your friend in the back for $10,000, was it worth it?
HELLO. I AM AN OBJECTIVIST FURFAG. ALL THE WORLD IS FILLED WITH LAZY BUMS EXCEPT ME. EVEN THOUGH I JUST CAMP AT WORLD4CH ALL DAY LONG. CLEARLY I AM JOHN GALT.
PS. LAZY MEANS WHAT I WANT IT TO, NOT WHAT'S IN THE DICTIONARY.
the point is that we can and should encourage such arrangements alongside raw entrepeneurship, via lowered population, smarter education, and abundantly available gainful employment (which becomes ever easier to acquire if population declines. This in turn lowers crime). It is precisely these other pursuits which feed the entrepeneurship you fetishize, and enhance culture at large.
the point is that there is no real need for you to have any right to your psychological satisfaction at the idea that this broad group of people is successful, while that broad group of people lives below the poverty line. But 'real poverty' can be made statistically insignificant.
Name:
John2005-12-02 9:18
>>140
My real name is John, durhurhur. :B
The world is filled with lazy bums, and I am an exception. So kiss my objectivist furfag ass. D:
Main Entry: 1la·zy
Pronunciation: 'lA-zE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): la·zi·er; -est
Etymology: perhaps from Middle Low German lasich feeble; akin to Middle High German erleswen to become weak
1 a : disinclined to activity or exertion : not energetic or vigorous
Hmm, was I really that far off?
HELLO, MY NAME IS JOHN, AS OPPOSED TO ACTUALLY MAKING INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION WHILE CAMPING ON WORLD4CH ALL DAY LONG, I LIKE TO INSTEAD MAKE FUN OF THE PEOPLE I DON'T LIKE IN ALL-CAPS.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-02 11:51
>> However, the resistance you're meeting indicates that it probably isn't an ideal solution for the problem space
Doesn't mean that at all. Just because someone opposes it it's wrong, WTF?
BTW, what's so stupid about forced personal savings accounts university guy who isn't john?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-02 11:53
>>143
Because like, that's a better solution in my eyes than socialism... Gives people the opportunity to have these stable lives you talk about (don't think it's actually significant) and there's not as much of a window for government corruption (EG, taking the tax money that was laid for use on these brilliant social programs and spending it on stupid things).
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-02 11:55
>>144
BTW, does that ever happen in your shining european utopias?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-02 12:31 (sage)
Stop pointing to your own posts. It's annoying.
Name:
John2005-12-02 12:31
>>144 "spending it on stupid things"
Like the National Paper Industry Hall of Fame...
>>143 Oh, you know you're still gonna get another reply out of me anyway... :3
What more of an answer do you need as to why they're stupid than the one I gave you before? "Social safety nets", as some of you people love to call them on here, as much as you hate to see it this way, they HURT THE ECONOMY. When you give people an excuse to just not have to know a thing about how a real economy works, and when the government just takes care of it all, then you get ... a society full of bums and people that don't know how an economy works! Yeah, that's really productive! And I've already ranted enough about personal responsibility, so I'll spare you that. But, then again, no matter how much leftists love to blab about their open-mindedness, they're just as stubborn about their ideas as the people they bitch about being closed-minded. Of course, this is world4ch, so I guess I'm just pissing into the wind here...
If you disagree with socialist policies, that's fine. But if you're forcing people to have accounts anyway doesn't that defeat the purpose? You're interfering in their lives, forcing them to do something. In short, you're still a nanny state.
"But wait," you cry, "it's the same, just more transparent!" Sure, but it's clear you know shit about economics. All those funds tied up in bank accounts will strangle the economy. If the government has the funds, at least they're doing something with it. Likewise, if someone is free to do what they want, they'll probably do something with it, like, say, either spend it or invest it.
You could argue the bank does something with your money, but because they have to be fiscally conservative with the dough, they won't leverage it all that well. Certainly not as much as a free person probably would.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-02 12:58
>>148
Well, the point is that you're allowed to invest it as you see fit, or to let certain agencies that would specialize in that do it for you on commission if you're not some stock market genious. Guess I didn't specify that.
And your economic arguments stem from the theory that debt is a good thing for some people to have... Well, look at our own national deficit.
I don't care about being a "nanny state." What I care about is the baldface theft that exists in our current system... The way politicians dip into social security funds for their own purposes, and the way you don't <i>actually</i> (how the hell do I do itallics on world4ch already?) get out what you put in.
Social security was a government scam that way from the beginning...
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-02 17:42
>>1
Hey, I'm European and I'm a right-wing liberal.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-02 18:07
>>151
Wow, that's completely not ambiguous at all.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-02 20:39
this is the internet, where only young men go, why even ask
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-02 21:01
>>149 And your economic arguments stem from the theory that debt is a good thing for some people to have...
What?
No, really, how do you go from money flowing in the economy to debt being good?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-02 21:17
>>150
It wasn't a scam. It worked quite well, providing funds for the government (it still does), and later providing money to people when they retire. It didn't matter what the government did with the money so long as what went in later came back out.
There's just one big problem: the current system assumes that there are more younger people. Either the population keeps on expanding, or there is a high mortality rate. Since nowadays neither of these is the case in most Western societies, this assumption is false. Zero or lower population growth will put a nail in the coffin of social security.
I usually favour social policies, but you can't argue with math. The money will either need to come from elsewhere (cuts to other services, higher taxes, etc), or SS will need to go.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-02 21:19
(or they really bump the retirement age)
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 2:31
>>147 wrote: "Social safety nets" ... HURT THE ECONOMY. ...a society full of bums and people that don't know how an economy works! Yeah, that's really productive!"
You are proceeding from ideology, rather than from reality. Social spending does not "hurt" the economy. Studies have shown that when people's health are cared for, when they have decent homes to live in and good education, productivity increases. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this.
Take a look at Finland. They are number one in global competitiveness and have one of the most extensive (and expensive) social spending programs. They have free healthcare, free education (from K through graduate school), state mandated 5-week paid holidays (though the custom is for the employer to throw in another week), social housing, etc. Your beliefs do not accord with the facts.
>>158
Such amazing utopian shit would never work in the US. We'd end up spending a ton of money and it getting us nowhere. The reason is that we have more immigrants, more problems in all.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 5:08
>>157
Wait a minute... why is the US number 2 then?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 5:12
>>155
Wait a minute... they instituted the program from the start with the intent of making revenue off of it?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 9:23
>>161
I don't know what their original intentions were, but they're generating revenue off it right now. As I said, the assumption is that there are more young people (workforce) than retirees. And that assumption is still true, but not for much longer.
>>160
Because Finland has 1/50 the population? Also, it didn't profit massively from WWII, nor does it have as many natural resources.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 12:04
>>152
You're right, and I hoped someone would notice. "Right-Wing" and "liberal" might mean something different in every country.
In my country (Spain), it means I like my country and don't want to fuck it up or break it, I don't like or ally with terrorists (yeah, left-wingers do), I'm conservative in things like fag marriage, I'm a capitalist who believes everybody should earn money according to their work (hard, useful, unique) and have equal opportunities, I support constitutional freedom, and it doesn't say anything about religion (I'm personally an atheist).
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 13:26
Spanish right-wing ftw! Us real germans like you guys. Ignore the loony feminist, women voted just because she was a woman.
Our women are turning into American women, somebody help!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 18:12
>>158 Finland doesn't consider what you call "dead weight" to be worthless. They do not exclude the poor and the unemployed from social benefits. I know for a fact that their neighbour Sweden (#3) pays people to go to school.
>>160 The US, unlike Finland, or Number 3 Sweden, does so at the expense of massive poverty (with all the related problems). Why would you want to have poor people if you could be competitive without poverty? The answer is that US capitalism demands a highly exploitable workforce, and the business elite who run the country are all too glad to provide it for them.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 19:31
>>165 their neighbour Sweden (#3) pays people to go to school.
Honorable. I take you mean university or college though. For primary and secondary school, it's easier and cheaper to just force them.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 19:59
>>165
Fails for stupid. The real reason is the vast natural resources. I knew I'd get something along the lines of "vast exploitable workforce"