I used to think so. After a little consideration, however, I notice that men have god knows how many social obligations to do everything for women. If taken out to eat, it is customary for the MAN to pick up the tab. When dating, the MAN is supposed to buy her expensive shit, like jewelry, to name one.
As long as society pressurizes and expects men to wait on them hand and foot, I think the fact that men tend to make higher incomes is justified.
You see, the reason men are expected to do this is because it is their natural biological role. Men have a 'duty' to look after the women, take care of them, etc. This is all there is to it. Don't like it? Tough shit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-01 18:36
Bah, it's up to employer to pay what he wants to pay. Minimum wages are good thing, but restricting it beyond that is just stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-01 18:38
>>3
Well, if you don't like it you can become woman for man. It's not that hard. Infact finding man might be easier than woman.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-01 18:38
Equal pay for equal work. Bitches just need to stop being so lazy.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-01 18:47
Whatever people are paid should be voluntary, private agreements between them and their employer(s).
Remember the new "Support the Criminals" Boycott on September 2nd.
The leaders are claiming that "they are going to get what they (the illegals) want and deserve, and whole lot more".
IS THAT A DECLARATION OF WAR AMERICA?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 0:37
Women only makes less money on average because they contribute less on average. Man or woman, a job pays the same. Conclusion: women hold shittier jobs.
Women tend to work shorter hours, and work for fewer years. The main field where they earn less is in management, however, the differences are so great (due to the fact that people in management make disproportionately larger amounts of money for their work), that the averages are drastically affected. (Women actually make more on average in some fields, such as Engineering, and are pretty much equal in low-level jobs).
A woman usually has plans, such as a family, or other things, that keep her from working the 80 hour weeks, and kissing the asses of their superiors, that get males promotions. To get to the top of the corporate ladder, one must kiss a lot of ass, spend a lot of time traveling on airplanes, and have no life at all. Men will dedicate their lives to making money, and will spend all of their time climbing this ladder, while many women want to have a life outside of their work, and therefore, aren't willing to do this crap.
This is why there is such a huge difference in wages in management-level jobs, and since the top 1% of money-earners in the United States earn 60% of the money, that drastically skews the average.
>>15 No. 14 here probably considers everyone that tries to explain the situation without pointing at patriarchal structures as "kinder, kirche, küche"-people. Which is dumb. A female baby could be raised into the next hyper-stressed, moneymaking ladderclimber, and any male baby could be trained into some kind of opposite. I have no problems with gender roles per se, I just think the roles are to distant, destructive and that society works against itself by enforcing them.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 4:11
>>16
So in your opposition to "gender roles", surely, you are going to be consistant, and also oppose the "gender role" that men seem to have, which socially at least, dictates that they financially take care of everything?
For some reason, if the man doesn't, he's an "ass" according to society. I find it strange that many of those who say as much also proudly proclaim they are in favor of equality between the genders.
Name:
Xel2006-08-02 4:27
>>17 I don't think that it is a good idea that one gender is molded to be more financially aligned than the other. I understand that gender roles are unavoidable, but that doesn't mean I don't hold contempt towards the contemporary ones and no hostility towards those that perpetuate them. I think it is preferable that all humans are fiscally responsible and that the same expectations are held towards all citizens.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 4:44
>>18
and the evidence from statistical studies that show gender often makes no difference.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 5:02
>>16
I think gender roles are good thing for society, but gender shouldn't really matter. I mean it's good when we have traditional gender roles, but we should allow women to become men and vice versa. Maybe we should stop calling them "gender" roles, but I don't really know what we should call them then.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 5:09
>>20
>>gender roles are good thing for society, but gender shouldn't really matter
can't have both. The key is balance ppls, balance.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 5:36
I think that people should be free do whatever they want, however, I also think that making a big fuss about it (Holding rallies, whatever) is destructive in itself and makes closet sexists, racists and bigots.
Furthermore, equal work, equal pay, simple as that. If a woman wants to get a job, she has to meet the qualifications of the employer.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 5:36
>>20
Women and men are biologically different though. This doesn't make sense, and for all we know, may not work as well or right.
I say give people freedom. I wouldn't look down upon them for having basic gender role related ideas, such as family structure and such, much as we have now. It's probly a good thing.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 5:48
>>23
Both women and men are very similar in the end. Physically men are stronger and bigger, but that's about only real diffrence(aside genitals ofcourse). There are women who are like men as well as men who are like women. I don't mean transsexual, gays or anything like that. I mean tomboys and girly boys. They're minorities, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to be what they are.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-02 5:52
>>24
That's not at all the big difference. Why are men and women different? Their genetics are different, and they produce different hormones. The man has testosterone, is aggressive, large, powerful, and strong. He makes a good hunter & protector. He's the breadwinner (biologically speaking). This is his natural gender role. The mother is the opposite - is naturally inclined to nurture the children. The father then protects, and possibly plays some role in raising the children as well, though mostly this is overseen by the mother.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-03 11:43
I can point out some fun facts from Sweden:
1. Girls have on average better grades in every single subjec except sports.
2. Out of all people that graduated from a university last year, only 35% were men.
3. More women than men have graduated from a university since 1977.
4.Yet the swedish average woman get 20-25% less income than the average man.
Best person for the job, yeah right.
First of all, if you don't like these "obligations" that a man "has to do" when they have a female mate, then don't do them. Sorry, but I refuse to constantly pay my woman's way when it comes to food, movies, or whatever. I might pay as a gift or because I *want* to, but society will *not* force me to do so. If the woman in question doesn't like that, then get the hell out of my house, bitch.
Secondly, gender roles are not a good thing for modern society. Let everyone find their own place and be happy with it, and don't laugh or criticize them for doing so. There is nothing wrong with the father wanting to stay home and take care of the kids while the mother works and supports them.
Gender roles harm men as well as women -- just because you're happy with your male breadwinner role doesn't mean that all men are. Many of the examples cited in this thread aren't relavant to today's society, since physical strength is mostly irrelevant for many professions. While I don't think that women should get special treatment, such as being allowed into certain physical professions (firefighter, cop) with lower physical standards, I think that as long as they can do the job they should get equal pay.
Name:
Xel2006-08-03 13:22
>>27 True True and true, actually. Swedish men suck, and I know this from first-, second- and third-hand experience. They're either immature fagbashers who shuv small bags of tobacco between their gums and upper lips or postmodern pipsqueaks who write in Swedish equivalents of Vice magazine and write columns upon columns about Pet Shop Boys and what is the new black. I love Sweden, but it is an abusive relationship. The reason Swedish women don't get the same pay is that they are taught to be less competitive, less selfish, less outspoken and to aim for low-paying jobs in the public sector (women who take care of people get less pay than men that take care of monkeys is a trite but true proverb here). Then there's the whole "home or career" debate. Considering that Scandia is supposed to be the most gender-equal part of the world is enough to make one curl up in a foetal position and ask Jesus to speed up that coming of his. >>28 *Applause*
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-03 16:11
>>28
Yeah and then never get laid or have a successful personal life due to not wanting to 'fullfill' those obligations.... yeah..
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-03 16:12
As long as men are expected to act this way, I'm not going to complain about them making more money, since they have to spend more money to get by as well.
Name:
Xel2006-08-03 16:57
>>30 A women who relies on me in any way that I don't rely on her is not someone worth having. I am a male (ruled by biology), not a man (trying to fit in an arcahic role enforced by society). Independence, confidence, self-reliance and personal strength or GTFO. >>31 Um? Males need some more money for food, anti-perspirants but that's it. Everything else is what MEN are supposed to buy, mostly stupid shit we are expected to purchase in order to appear real masculine like (expensive shit = moolah = success = "your cubs are safe with me"). Women are taught to complete cosmetical, emotional, esthetical and social goals and that entails a shitload of wasted money (much shoes and giggles = win at life, just like Carrie Bradshaw!!!!!). The only wastes of money men get for themselves (cars, hobby-related stuff) are less expendable and multi-purpose. This doesn't make the purchase of them less pathetic however.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-03 17:07
>>32
I was referring to shit like picking up the tab for dinner and stuff, which men are still expected to do, particularly in the USA. As long as men are expected to pay for everything done between a couple, I think it is justified that men make more money on average, and while I wouldn't pass any laws regarding the situation, I certainly am not going to complain that women make less, or jump on the feminist bandwagon either.
Name:
Xel2006-08-03 17:58
>>33 "Feminist bandwagon"... There is something horrible about that kind of sentiment. Maybe if men and women made equal money or were taught to be somewhat equally constructive and affluent... No wait then we would be populists.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-03 18:15
I can't believe some people are complaining about paying for dinner! What about all the times spent by women in cooking, cleaning, and child rearing? Surely, the guys don't always pick up the tab for the groceries...
>>35
And what about all the time spent by men going to work and earning money so that it is all possible in the first place?
And, moreover, what makes you think the WOMAN does all that, Mr. Feminist?
Name:
Xel2006-08-04 4:30
>>36 "Populism=communism" The largest possible populist ever is currently the most powerful man in the world, thanks to the sensibilities and rationality of the US.
Name:
Xel2006-08-04 4:32
"And what about all the time spent by men going to work and earning money so that it is all possible in the first place? And, moreover, what makes you think the WOMAN does all that, Mr. Feminist?" Ugh. Women and men should pull the same weight, be ready to do the same things at any given time and not get stuck in mores.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-04 7:21
This has little to do with feminism, more like whether women get liberty or not.
As a libertarian anti-feminist anti-masculinist, I believe women should get paid the same.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-04 8:07
>>1
Only suckers have to resort to buying things and dinners to impress women.
>>30
Fail because experience tells me otherwise. >>32
Yep, both sexes play retarded games, that are likely perpetualted in part so companies can continue to sell useless shit. Just glad my wife keeps that stuff to a minimum. >>35
LOL, unless they DON'T cook every meal. Way to miss the point.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-04 13:17
Women seem to prefer men who beat them and are as intelligent as a crushed walnut to men who only hit people who are asking for it and have a steady job and interests.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-05 14:49
Let's not forget the 'glass-ceiling' effect placed upon women. No matter how much ass that woman kisses on the ladder she will still never be able to make it to the top because she is a female. Wages/pay should only contribute to the work being done by the employee, not by gender. If a woman works better than the man, then she should be paid more for doing a better job, but alas, that is not the case in most situations. Even if doing a better job than a man she will still get paid less. On average, woman get paid 75% of what men make simply because of biases.
>>46 No, correct. The western world has a long way to go but that is just exaggeration that anti-feminists love to use right back at the more sensible of us. >>45 ... was satan without the smarts. Where is the point?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-05 16:11
>>47
Margaret Thatcher was the best damn prime minister Britain ever had. I shudder to think what the world would be like without her.
Maybe they get paid less in senior positions in institutions where meritocracy is rife, but at the ground level where people are paid more than they are worth anyway women police officers get paid the same as male police officers etc etc..
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-05 16:47
Feminism and all the laws and rules it spawned is why I'll never get married and have kids. The white race has failed for allowing this. We'll enjoy getting raped by the majority of Muslims and sandniggers in a few decades because they don't give a fuck about this shit and actually get stuff done instead of debating "gender roles" and other gay things.
Name:
Xel2006-08-05 16:59
>>49 So you won't procreate? Willingly? Good, because I'd normally pay to keep people of these sentiments (assuming you just weren't being a sub-par troll) out of the gene pool.
Name:
Kumori2006-08-05 19:26
>>49
Good. One less moron having to spread his seed.
Feminism wouldn't have to exist if the society wasn't so damn patriarchial, sexist, and unequal against women.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-05 20:15
Margaret Thatcher was the best damn prime minister Britain ever had.
And until that fake war with Argentina, was extremely unpopular. It's pretty sad when a PM has to resort to an external conflict to prop up their support. You know, the kind of thing fascists and dictators usually do?
Go propaganda, go!
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-05 20:53
>>44
Actually, most of the reason that women make less money is because such a large amount of money made is by the super rich. Since the super rich are all men, this makes things look like the average woman make a lot less money than they really do.
"Feminism wouldn't have to exist if the society wasn't so damn patriarchial, sexist, and unequal against women."
I don't see feminists bitching about men having to pay the tab at meals, dates, or other activities, or in general about the fact that men have to regularly take care of them. Until I do, fuck feminism. You seem to want men and women equal - as long as it isn't inconvenient.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-06 23:57
>>38
>>Women and men should pull the same weight, be ready to do the same things at any given time and not get stuck in mores.
Fail. Both genders can pull the same weight by performing their natural tasks. It's more productive that way.
Any man I've ever met that calls themselves a male feminist is merely a manbitch. They should grow the balls to start dominating women again.
And no, I'm not male.
Name:
Xel2006-08-07 1:44
>>62 "And no, I'm not male." Listen, I could, if I sat down and got creative for a while, express my real sentiments about you and your ilk and everything I would do if I adminestered a Gitmo full of you. But, really, I might just say I disagree. I disagree. >>61 "as long as it isn't inconvenient." Both sexes get a bum deal with the system we have now.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 8:19
>>63
"Both sexes get a bum deal with the system we have now."
That's debatable, but nonetheless, if you really cared about gender inequality, you would discourage the same gender inequalities against men as you do against women. This is one great reason why you feminists are so full of shit, and this is why I reject it.
You are opposed to any gender inequalities that affect WOMEN. You don't care about the ones that affect men. If you want equality, real equality, you must address them all, not just your favorites, or what is convenient.
Name:
Xel2006-08-07 8:43
"That's debatable, but nonetheless, if you really cared about gender inequality, you would discourage the same gender inequalities against men as you do against women. This is one great reason why you feminists are so full of shit, and this is why I reject it." Of course I/we don't want men to have different roles than men. All this jive about feminists wanting equal pay yet secretly wanting some muscled fuck to pay the tab and protect them is something I understood as shittalk years ago. Also, no American can reject feminism, considering its core is about reaching a society without useless and destructive gender roles, and that would benefit the entire nation. I am perfectly ready to address and dismantle all gender roles, but you inferred what you wanted me to have said. How you could read "Both sexes get a bum deal with the system we have now." as "I am an evil matriarchality-desiring socialist feminist that think women are better than men and that men have all the benefits" is quite sad.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 10:57
>>48
Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who made Britain into police state it is today?
>>67
Isn't Tony Blair a liberal? He wasn't the conservative candidate, I think...
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 16:56
>>65
"All this jive about feminists wanting equal pay yet secretly wanting some muscled fuck to pay the tab and protect them is something I understood as shittalk years ago."
It is true though. They want equal pay but still want the men to handle all the social responsibilities for them.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 18:56
>>68
He used to be a liberal, now he seems to have liberal domestic agenda and conservative foreign agenda. If anything it should be the other way around.
>>70
You should note that liberals are not peaceful. In the United States, the majority of wars we have had over the last century were initiated by democrats, not republicans, and in Vietnam, for example, it took us a republican administration to pull us out.
>>70
Lol, if you think cameras on the street and goverment surveillance is liberal domestic agenda you're bit messed up. Now word liberal is raped these days, but I couldn't see even American "liberals" supporting Britain like 1984ish zero tolerance police state.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-08 8:22
>>74
If you are referring to the sect of liberals I am thinking you are, you may want to call them 'classical liberals' for clarity.
>>74
Wrong, you are just looking at the first step of liberalism before they rise you to the boil. Of course liberals aren't going to compare themselves to Fidel Castro and say totalitarianism is a good idea yet, first they will try to ban guns, as they have already done in England, then they will put security cameras everywhere, then they will say that denying police intrusion into your home is acceptable evidence in court and then they will create another police force which is un-criticisable, has power over the police and is out of reach of the local government that is affected by it, as they have already done in England.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-08 9:46
>>75
Well, that's only true liberalism in my opnion. I consider most other incarnations as perversions. Social liberalism in my opnion is not liberalism at all. Liberalism is about equal freedom and liberty for everyone, but NOT about making everyone equal otherwise.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-08 13:32
>>77
Well, that's only true classical liberalism in my opnion. I consider most other incarnations as perversions. Anti-social liberalism in my opinion is not classical liberalism at all. nti-social liberalism is about sacrificing liberty under the guise of equality.*
(in the states)
Grades dont reflect actual ability these days. Most public school systems have been restructured to accomodate girls because of BS interveiws with kintergarteners in the 80's. The little girls bitched about school and the little boys didnt. Then we had OPERATION: GIRL for about 10 years. Giving special treatment to the girls and hold back the guys because they can "handle" it only disenfranchises young men (potential scholars).
You sound really bitter. Same poster as in the abortion thread? The anonymous thing doesn't work as long as you hold on to characteristic (see: cliched) behaviors.
If you look at the avarage score, XY does NOT beat XX, I think even a late report said that XX had a slight slight advantage (like 1 point). however, the quirk is that XY has a much much wider spread/distrubution. so if you look at, like, 150 points, you'll find many many more XY. however, you'll also find many more XY at like 75 points, while XX cluster more around 100.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-10 9:03
So women are most always average stupid bitches, while men CAN become greater.
I mean, my last REAL IQ test (nm shitty intorwebs ones) was 154.
So, while there are a lot of retarded men (durr durr red states)
There are a lot more generally stupid women, and a lot less smart women.
Males sperm cells have a thinner membranes which increases the likely hood of mutation. This is because evolutionarily, females reproduce and males exist to test and try out new genes. As mutations are generally not beneficial, men tend to be slightly inferior, but with a larger range of abilities. In terms of intelligence, you will get a large variety of different states of mind in men that rarely exist in women. Due to the recent improvements in the standard of living, people who would have otherwise died in a life as a peasant or medieval warrior from disease, low intelligence and physical inferiority still live and pass on their genes. Eugenics must be applied in a humane manner to stop this process before it harms people who will exist in the future by forcing them to have inferior genes that could have been easily avoided.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-10 14:28
>>89
Last time I checked, sex is a way of conveying one's love to his/her spouse in a physical manner. Sex is making the intangible definition of love physical.
Then again, there are a lot of sluts and manwhores out there whom abuse sex and give it a bad name. Damn slutty whores and mansluts. Lol.
First of all, dumbfuck. You can't "fail" an IQ test. Second of all, the fact that you think my admonishment of your bitter behavior toward women logical means that I'm a woman is a pretty strong indicator that you're a soon-to-be-faggot due to your crippling inability to relate to the female species. Thank god your genes won't get passed on.
Picking up the check and being obligated to by jewelry is pretty old fashioned by now, no?
I've never payed for the whole check. A friend of mine laughs when someone talks about "Paying for your woman's food". She pays her share, and he pays his.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 4:02
>>93
No, it isn't. Those women who don't accept it are ungreatful bitches, and those men who don't do it are good-for-nothing bums.
I NEVER respect anyone who don't agree, and I never will. There are simply some things that shouldn't be considered outdated.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 6:00
>>94
However, if you think women should earn as much money as you do, yet get all kinds of stuff for free that you don't, you're a woman's bitch. A male feminist failure. A 'nongenital man' (*). Somebody who should just kill himself to end his misery.
Women never wanted to be anything mut a man without a penis...
Name:
Xel2006-08-15 13:21
>>95 "However, if you think women should earn as much money as you do, yet get all kinds of stuff for free that you don't, you're a woman's bitch. A male feminist failure. A 'nongenital man' (*). Somebody who should just kill himself to end his misery."
Laghaubly preachy and overblown. Real feminists dislike all determinism and side-treatment by gender. Lolololololo maybe You should kill yourself hahahahhahahahaha you don't have a penis you are whipped by women hahahhahaahah.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 15:35
>>98
There are no real feminists anymore since women have exactly the same rights as men these days.
What does exist are retarded entitlement bitches nobody gives a shit about and who need to be killed with fire ASAP.
Name:
Xel2006-08-16 3:04
>>99
Well, I'm not to sure about the same rights thing, but furthermore it is apparent that gender roles serve no actual purpose but to create a destructive gulf between genders. That should be fought against. Show me some proof that a large number of feminists are off the map when it comes to logic. The word "militant" and "bitches" are so overused by anti-feminists it makes me want to buy throwing stars.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 4:53
>>100
>Well, I'm not to sure about the same rights thing
You're not so sure? Please elaborate!
>it is apparent that gender roles serve no actual purpose
Because there are no significant differences between genders, like one having an uterus and stuff? Also, different hormones that affect their development (including brain chemistry, probably)?
>Show me some proof that a large number of feminists are off the map when it comes to logic.
Show me what purpose feminists still have today. And please do so without drawing up some theory of a "patriarchal conspiracy" which tries to keep women out of certain jobs, makes sure they earn less etc.
Name:
Xel2006-08-16 7:01
>>101
I'm afraid I don't have the time to find sources or elaborate to a sufficient degree. I'm not going to claim upper hand, but neither can you until you get some facts. My point, unsubstantiated as it is, is that the minuscule biological discrepancies are overprojected on society, causing waste of resources and inflexibility in people's minds. Rape and homophobia are partially caused by gender roles, if you ask me, but I don't have the oomph in me today to solidify my position with facts or elaboration. Feminism is justified even in our time, and I don't think I am alone in stating that.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 15:58
>>102
>I'm not going to claim upper hand, but neither can you until you get some facts.
What kind of facts? Like how the law enforces equal rights for men and women?
>minuscule biological discrepancies are overprojected on society
Sounds like a theory, but probably hard to prove.
>I don't have the oomph in me today to solidify my position with facts or elaboration.
:-(
>Feminism is justified even in our time, and I don't think I am alone in stating that.
I think for every possible opinion you'll find people who support it. Especially for things which are universally considered PC, like feminism. I still say feminism has no place anymore in today's society. It did when women were discriminated against by the state, but since that has become obsolete, feminism has taken an entirely new form.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 22:41
>>103 Women are still discriminated against by the state. Doesn't take a bucket of bolts to figure it out.
"Conservatives contend that the dropouts prove that feminism “failed” because it was too radical, because women didn’t want what feminism had to offer. In fact, if half or more of feminism’s heirs (85 percent of the women in my Times sample), are not working seriously, it’s because feminism wasn’t radical enough: It changed the workplace but it didn’t change men, and, more importantly, it didn’t fundamentally change how women related to men."
I have the impression that feminism is trying to legistlate change, by forcing people to act differently, rather than actually try to change how people think. That is why it causes so much animosity and resentment.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-18 5:11
I don't know why many women want to succeed in the corporate world. I am a man and I want nothing to do with it, they represent everything that is wrong with civilisation at the moment. I'd rather start my own eco-village or start living in one.
>>112 The corporate world IS human civilization, a prerequisite for almost everything you see, including the monitor these here pixels appear on. The problem is that capitalism is an expression of humans valuing immediate satisfaction over more nebulous yet greater rewards in the future. I think we as an organism lack the correct mindset to survive into the next millenium, or at least be able leave this planet in some kind of stable, biospehere-imitating vessel. We are fucked, if one asks me.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-18 10:47
>>113
I'm far more worried about humanity destroying most of itself in nuclear war than I'm worried about enviromental disasters. Regardless of what enviromentalist doomsayers say we humans aren't very capable of doing anything that would destroy our planet or it's ecosystem. Making such claim is egoistical and absurd, this planet has survived far worse things than humanity is capable. Humans are just one cog in nature's machine. Anti-enviromentalists are wrong too though. Pollution is a big problem, but it's not problem that could destroy human civilization. It could affect in ecosystem causing mutations(evulution to adapt new polluted enviroment, not really so much chemicals) and causing some species to be extinct, but in the long run it's not that big deal. There might be catastrophes and we might make enviroment unsuitable for human life, but we humans posses an unique trait when compared to other animals. That is our mind. I'm fairly sure we develop means to survive, unless we nuke ourselves or get wiped out by comet. As for economics, corporate monopoles suck, but they're inevitable outcome of free society. There's no good way to prevent it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-18 12:34
>>114
>corporate monopoles suck, but they're inevitable outcome of free society
o_O
Every free society will ultimately turn into a non-free one?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 18:56
>>115
Nope, if it has it's safeguards and not all mega corporations have fascist mindset. Besides economics aren't so simple. It's possible for even mega corporation to fall down. However corporate monopoles are something that will start to fuck up every free society at some time.
>>116
Truth, at the end of the day coorporations are below the law and the law is controlled by the people. Even though socialists like to claim evil cooporations are in control to whip people into a paranoid frenzy, conversely the popularity and effect of socialism in increasing statism is evidence of the fact that the people are in control, even if they make the wrong decisions.
People should vote for the libertarian party because, then it would be practically impossible for anyone in positions of power (whether they own a private business or are in the government) to act like tyrants.
IMPORTANT: Note how I said *practically* impossible, since the threat of tyranny always looms and even with a libertarian government we must stay vigilant.