Is that supposed to be an answer? You proposal to fix poverty is simply to reduce defense spending? Then what, do we give people in poverty cash? Is that what you think will make the system work for everyone?
It won't make the system work BUT the whole thing with being in poverty is that you don't got any money so actually just being given a big wad of cash every month would help a lot with that.
Alternate solution... force all defense spending to be spent locally to create jobs. Slash some of it to be spent on improving public infrastructure to create jobs...
I like the idea of creating jobs and improving things for everyone instead of handing out a wad of money to all of the poor and seeing what happens.
Is that supposed to be an answer? You proposal to fix poverty is simply to reduce defense spending? Then what, do we give people in poverty cash? Is that what you think will make the system work for everyone?
It won't make the system work BUT the whole thing with being in poverty is that you don't got any money so actually just being given a big wad of cash every month would help a lot with that.
Alternate solution... force all defense spending to be spent locally to create jobs. Slash some of it to be spent on improving public infrastructure to create jobs...
I like the idea of creating jobs and improving things for everyone instead of handing out a wad of money to all of the poor and seeing what happens.
That sounds an awful lot like socialism. New Deal kinda thing.
Actually, what should be done is providing a social safety net. Provide free access to health services, free housing, and even a basic guaranteed wage provided for everyone even if you're not working.
Incidentally, that last point was actually attempted in Canada. There was a project performed in the 70s in Manitoba, called Mincome. For some reason the results of the project never really came to light until recently. In 2009, a study was performed on the project's effects and was published in 2011. The Wikipedia article is pretty bare, but describes it adequately enough for my purposes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Is that supposed to be an answer? You proposal to fix poverty is simply to reduce defense spending? Then what, do we give people in poverty cash? Is that what you think will make the system work for everyone?
It won't make the system work BUT the whole thing with being in poverty is that you don't got any money so actually just being given a big wad of cash every month would help a lot with that.
Alternate solution... force all defense spending to be spent locally to create jobs. Slash some of it to be spent on improving public infrastructure to create jobs...
I like the idea of creating jobs and improving things for everyone instead of handing out a wad of money to all of the poor and seeing what happens.
Thank you, I didnt think it was really that hard to understand. Hell, cut defense spending in half and do what you say and it would be a dam good start to solving the issues we have been talking about.
Cut the billions we send to 'nations in need' and we would have more for Americans in need. I find it funny we can send billions to other countries to help them, but wont help our own here.
Unlike an anarchist who wants no government, a minarchist generally wants the minimum amount of government necessary to maintain the rule of law, and the settlement of conflicts between parties.
I'm not going to continue our over-long discussion except for one comment, here. I let myself ramble a bit too much anyway ;), and I think I've got where you are coming from now. Just one quick note: No system is perfect. It's a matter of the degree to which our individual interests are protect by the 'fence' that's important. Yes, there will always be criminal elements, but at least us Marylanders don't have to worry about those uppity Virginians streaming over the state line to steal our crabs and old bay.
So what does that Minarchist philosphoy translate to? In this view of things, what services are important? Thinking from a local perspective, you've got:
Law Enforcement
Judicial System
Emergency Services (Fire/EMS)
Public Works (Water/Power/Sanitation)
Social Services
Public Health
Environment
Transportation
I don't think I could cut any of these programs completely, but some (like Fire/EMS, Transportation, Public Health) aren't generally profitable enough to be purely private but are something that people inevitably rely on.
Just curious. Looping this back around to the main debate, technically Fire/EMS and Public Transportation are socialist, but they're widely accepted. It's possible to privatize things like EMS, but Firefighting (or, scaling up, Disaster Management) is never profitable (Way too much overhead). Trust me, my attempt to show what a private disaster management/response organization looked like ended up sounding like a supervillain organization. Remind me to post my business model for ARSON one day.
Thank you, I didnt think it was really that hard to understand. Hell, cut defense spending in half and do what you say and it would be a dam good start to solving the issues we have been talking about.
Cut the billions we send to 'nations in need' and we would have more for Americans in need. I find it funny we can send billions to other countries to help them, but wont help our own here.
I agree with the first point, but the second is a common misunderstanding of foreign aid. We only spend about 1% of our budget on foreign aid, while between Social Security and Medicaid and 'Welfare Spending', over half of the rest of the budget is spent on American 'aid'. I doubt cutting foreign aid would cover our payroll costs at the SSA and CMMS. In fact, if we cut military, foreign aid is just a good investment for us, as it ensures we have allies who are equipped to assist us with a mission and/or that those problems to our interests don't occur in the first place. It doesn't always work, but it helps.
I agree with the first point, but the second is a common misunderstanding of foreign aid. We only spend about 1% of our budget on foreign aid, while between Social Security and Medicaid and 'Welfare Spending', over half of the rest of the budget is spent on American 'aid'. I doubt cutting foreign aid would cover our payroll costs at the SSA and CMMS. In fact, if we cut military, foreign aid is just a good investment for us, as it ensures we have allies who are equipped to assist us with a mission and/or that those problems to our interests don't occur in the first place. It doesn't always work, but it helps.
Sorry I wasnt more clear. It was an either or thing. I can see keeping the foreign aid if defense gets cut, for the reasons you mention.
But as it is now we keep hearing of aid going to this country or that country in the form of billions, then you look around and think...that money cant be used here?
bocephus-Like has been explained, there is a difference between poor and poverty. What percentage of the population in in poverty? What percentage of people are homeless? If you can honestly look at those numbers and say it isnt that bad, then you are right, you and I have a very different definition of 'working'.
The problem I see with this argument is it lacks context. I know at least one of the posters on this thread has identified as anti-capitalist. The only existing anti-capitalist country I can think of now is North Korea and well it's a joke where the (very small number of) connected eat well and the rest eat bark (no joke).
bocephus-Like has been explained, there is a difference between poor and poverty. What percentage of the population in in poverty? What percentage of people are homeless? If you can honestly look at those numbers and say it isnt that bad, then you are right, you and I have a very different definition of 'working'.
The problem I see with this argument is it lacks context. I know at least one of the posters on this thread has identified as anti-capitalist. The only existing anti-capitalist country I can think of now is North Korea and well it's a joke where the (very small number of) connected eat well and the rest eat bark (no joke).
I am not anti capitalist, I just dont feel the capitalism we have now is working. So many people out of work, homeless, losing what they have worked so hard for because the economy is in the crapper and has been for quite some time now. I keep hearing recovery this, recover that, but I am still seeing more and more people just not able to make it any more the way the system is set up.
Its time for another new deal, an investment in the country and the people of the country.
Unlike an anarchist who wants no government, a minarchist generally wants the minimum amount of government necessary to maintain the rule of law, and the settlement of conflicts between parties.
On minarchism vs anarchism I prefer to refer people to this long debate, by long i mean 4 hours:
Badnarik is the libertarian/min anarchist and Melaneux is the anarchist, it is entertaining and informative. Badnarik was once the Libertarian presidential candidate. Badnarik I found did a better job, since he got to the point about how people actually behave as well as their preferences.
bocephus-Like has been explained, there is a difference between poor and poverty. What percentage of the population in in poverty? What percentage of people are homeless? If you can honestly look at those numbers and say it isnt that bad, then you are right, you and I have a very different definition of 'working'.
The problem I see with this argument is it lacks context. I know at least one of the posters on this thread has identified as anti-capitalist. The only existing anti-capitalist country I can think of now is North Korea and well it's a joke where the (very small number of) connected eat well and the rest eat bark (no joke).
Tuss is the only anti-capitalist, who uses Marxist theories such as Surplus Value, a feminist, and overall a leftist. Ideally, considering he's Swedish my hypothesis is that he'd want a Scandinavian social democracy with capitalist elements caged for the "proper good." He's not indicated any hatred towards industry in general, only the exploitative side of the equation and a purely for-profit motive.
However, my own feeling is that social entrepreneurialism with leftists is a popular form of capitalism with a conscience that has a prime directive towards helping people rather than just inventing useless stuff like another Hello Kitty waffle iron without making a better waffle iron to feed hungry children that runs off of solar energy. The question is whether you're taking Marxist economic theory or using a neo-classical base with newer forms of looking at externalities and analyzing tragedy of the commons effects.
Most American leftists are capitalists, even Bernie Sanders is a capitalist called a social democrat. That they like business, but want to use the welfare state to make other people's lives better. There are some such as a social economy from Germany concept that actually runs well and better in some respects than the American economy in some areas like maintaining their manufacturing base.
My own journey towards questioning certain things began with FDR's efforts to save capitalism from itself thesis. I then looked at various juntas and rebel group histories and began to see some differences with them and American rebellions like Coxley's Army. So I'm not altogether sure on a good thesis, why we had FDR while others had more imperialism and fascism and communism, yet the key would be to look at the history of groups like Coxley's Army or the Molly Maguires who, while not anti-business, were anti-exploitation and just wanted a good job to raise their families. Coxley's Army was an attempt to march on Washington, while the Maguires were a loose terrorist sect.
I don't find capitalism and socialism to be completely at odds with each other at all. They kinda mix nicely like chocolate and milk. Capitalism spurs innovation and economic growth. Socialism takes care of things that might not be profitable enough to grow at an acceptable rate like roads street lights and yes even what is essentially charity. Personally I wouldn't want to live in a place where firefighting and police protection needed to be paid for on an individual basis. I don't think a society will do well without one or the other but that's just me. The debate should be how much of each we should have.
Personally I wouldn't want to live in a place where firefighting and police protection needed to be paid for on an individual basis.
You already pay for them on an individual basis.
I guess he meant he wouldn't like to have the only option for police and firefighters is the for profit option. You can get something similar using security services and fire protection from private companies. Still you pay the police and fire stations with tax money, but it's not the same as paying a private company.
I would say it's a good idea having a public option together with private options.
Unlike an anarchist who wants no government, a minarchist generally wants the minimum amount of government necessary to maintain the rule of law, and the settlement of conflicts between parties.
On minarchism vs anarchism I prefer to refer people to this long debate, by long i mean 4 hours:
Badnarik is the libertarian/min anarchist and Melaneux is the anarchist, it is entertaining and informative. Badnarik was once the Libertarian presidential candidate. Badnarik I found did a better job, since he got to the point about how people actually behave as well as their preferences.
Yeah, I listen to Freedomainradio and Stefan quite often.
On the surface, I should say "OMG Stefan is right, I should be an Anarchist!"
There's just problems he fails to recognize.
Who settles a disagreement in Stefan's world?
How do I argue that someone violated my property rights, or levied aggression against me? Who do I argue these violations to? To whom do I prove that the property was mine, or that I was only defending myself? To whom do I prove that the contract was violated, and by the other? Is there a court? Is there a sheriff?
Do I settle it myself? With what authority?
Who is going to "ostracize the guilty"?
Who is going to enforce their removal from the society, or it's market?
Do we stand before the town council? With what authority do they rule the action violated my property rights, or the NAP.
Where are the "rules" written?
Stefan should know, the rules are NOT written on the hearts of men.
Somewhere you need a paper, or something, or someone saying
1. Thou shalt respect property rights.
2. Thou shalt not violate the NAP.
3. Break either of these rules, and we'll ostracize you.
Then at some point, you need The Law to have teeth.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Personally I wouldn't want to live in a place where firefighting and police protection needed to be paid for on an individual basis.
You already pay for them on an individual basis.
Only if you live outside a town[ship?]
Unless you are living in the woods and off the land, you are paying either/both of sales tax or property taxes. I'm not sure how this does not count as individually paying for things like roads, police, etc. The only difference is, you are forced to pay it and forced to abide by the rules whether you agree or disagree.
Unless you are living in the woods and off the land, you are paying either/both of sales tax or property taxes. I'm not sure how this does not count as individually paying for things like roads, police, etc. The only difference is, you are forced to pay it and forced to abide by the rules whether you agree or disagree.
Right, but I believe what he's saying is that this option (the socialist one where your taxes pay for it) is preferable to paying for private fire protection on a "per use" basis, or the possibility of having neighbors who opt to not have any fire protection at all.
Right, but I believe what he's saying is that this option (the socialist one where your taxes pay for it) is preferable to paying for private fire protection on a "per use" basis, or the possibility of having neighbors who opt to not have any fire protection at all.
If I remember right something like this happened within the last few years.
I believe, there was a community that was pretty far away from their tax paid for fire department so a private business offered fire protection for a fee. A house in that neighborhood caught on fire. The home owners for that house did not buy the private protection, but their neighbors did. Since the neighbor had the protection and their home was in danger the private fire department came out just in case the fire jumped houses and watched the one house burn down.
There was a lot of moral debate about whether or not it was right for them to sit there and watch the home burn to the ground.
Personally I say it was. Those people did not pay for protection, if the department would have helped anyway they would be telling their customers and prospective customers "hey you don't actually have to buy our service and we will still help you" which is not a good way to do business.
so the question is... do we want these services to make decisions based on what is good for business or based on some other measure?
Alternate solution... force all defense spending to be spent locally to create jobs. Slash some of it to be spent on improving public infrastructure to create jobs...
I like the idea of creating jobs and improving things for everyone instead of handing out a wad of money to all of the poor and seeing what happens.
That sounds an awful lot like socialism. New Deal kinda thing.
Actually, what should be done is providing a social safety net. Provide free access to health services, free housing, and even a basic guaranteed wage provided for everyone even if you're not working.
Incidentally, that last point was actually attempted in Canada. There was a project performed in the 70s in Manitoba, called Mincome. For some reason the results of the project never really came to light until recently. In 2009, a study was performed on the project's effects and was published in 2011. The Wikipedia article is pretty bare, but describes it adequately enough for my purposes.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Thank you, I didnt think it was really that hard to understand. Hell, cut defense spending in half and do what you say and it would be a dam good start to solving the issues we have been talking about.
Cut the billions we send to 'nations in need' and we would have more for Americans in need. I find it funny we can send billions to other countries to help them, but wont help our own here.
I'm not going to continue our over-long discussion except for one comment, here. I let myself ramble a bit too much anyway ;), and I think I've got where you are coming from now. Just one quick note: No system is perfect. It's a matter of the degree to which our individual interests are protect by the 'fence' that's important. Yes, there will always be criminal elements, but at least us Marylanders don't have to worry about those uppity Virginians streaming over the state line to steal our crabs and old bay.
So what does that Minarchist philosphoy translate to? In this view of things, what services are important? Thinking from a local perspective, you've got:
Law Enforcement
Judicial System
Emergency Services (Fire/EMS)
Public Works (Water/Power/Sanitation)
Social Services
Public Health
Environment
Transportation
I don't think I could cut any of these programs completely, but some (like Fire/EMS, Transportation, Public Health) aren't generally profitable enough to be purely private but are something that people inevitably rely on.
Just curious. Looping this back around to the main debate, technically Fire/EMS and Public Transportation are socialist, but they're widely accepted. It's possible to privatize things like EMS, but Firefighting (or, scaling up, Disaster Management) is never profitable (Way too much overhead). Trust me, my attempt to show what a private disaster management/response organization looked like ended up sounding like a supervillain organization. Remind me to post my business model for ARSON one day.
I agree with the first point, but the second is a common misunderstanding of foreign aid. We only spend about 1% of our budget on foreign aid, while between Social Security and Medicaid and 'Welfare Spending', over half of the rest of the budget is spent on American 'aid'. I doubt cutting foreign aid would cover our payroll costs at the SSA and CMMS. In fact, if we cut military, foreign aid is just a good investment for us, as it ensures we have allies who are equipped to assist us with a mission and/or that those problems to our interests don't occur in the first place. It doesn't always work, but it helps.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Sorry I wasnt more clear. It was an either or thing. I can see keeping the foreign aid if defense gets cut, for the reasons you mention.
But as it is now we keep hearing of aid going to this country or that country in the form of billions, then you look around and think...that money cant be used here?
The problem I see with this argument is it lacks context. I know at least one of the posters on this thread has identified as anti-capitalist. The only existing anti-capitalist country I can think of now is North Korea and well it's a joke where the (very small number of) connected eat well and the rest eat bark (no joke).
I am not anti capitalist, I just dont feel the capitalism we have now is working. So many people out of work, homeless, losing what they have worked so hard for because the economy is in the crapper and has been for quite some time now. I keep hearing recovery this, recover that, but I am still seeing more and more people just not able to make it any more the way the system is set up.
Its time for another new deal, an investment in the country and the people of the country.
Surely you don't actually believe that North Korea bears so much a slight resemblance to a true non-capitalist "state."
On minarchism vs anarchism I prefer to refer people to this long debate, by long i mean 4 hours:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_k93op7_Pc
Michael Badnarik vs. Stephan Melaneux
Badnarik is the libertarian/min anarchist and Melaneux is the anarchist, it is entertaining and informative. Badnarik was once the Libertarian presidential candidate. Badnarik I found did a better job, since he got to the point about how people actually behave as well as their preferences.
Tuss is the only anti-capitalist, who uses Marxist theories such as Surplus Value, a feminist, and overall a leftist. Ideally, considering he's Swedish my hypothesis is that he'd want a Scandinavian social democracy with capitalist elements caged for the "proper good." He's not indicated any hatred towards industry in general, only the exploitative side of the equation and a purely for-profit motive.
However, my own feeling is that social entrepreneurialism with leftists is a popular form of capitalism with a conscience that has a prime directive towards helping people rather than just inventing useless stuff like another Hello Kitty waffle iron without making a better waffle iron to feed hungry children that runs off of solar energy. The question is whether you're taking Marxist economic theory or using a neo-classical base with newer forms of looking at externalities and analyzing tragedy of the commons effects.
Most American leftists are capitalists, even Bernie Sanders is a capitalist called a social democrat. That they like business, but want to use the welfare state to make other people's lives better. There are some such as a social economy from Germany concept that actually runs well and better in some respects than the American economy in some areas like maintaining their manufacturing base.
My own journey towards questioning certain things began with FDR's efforts to save capitalism from itself thesis. I then looked at various juntas and rebel group histories and began to see some differences with them and American rebellions like Coxley's Army. So I'm not altogether sure on a good thesis, why we had FDR while others had more imperialism and fascism and communism, yet the key would be to look at the history of groups like Coxley's Army or the Molly Maguires who, while not anti-business, were anti-exploitation and just wanted a good job to raise their families. Coxley's Army was an attempt to march on Washington, while the Maguires were a loose terrorist sect.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
You already pay for them on an individual basis.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I guess he meant he wouldn't like to have the only option for police and firefighters is the for profit option. You can get something similar using security services and fire protection from private companies. Still you pay the police and fire stations with tax money, but it's not the same as paying a private company.
I would say it's a good idea having a public option together with private options.
Now you guys are typing intelligent, well constructed ideas and sharing very interesting opinions.
Can we please go back to calling all liberals Totalitarians?
Warning for spam
Yeah, I listen to Freedomainradio and Stefan quite often.
On the surface, I should say "OMG Stefan is right, I should be an Anarchist!"
There's just problems he fails to recognize.
Who settles a disagreement in Stefan's world?
How do I argue that someone violated my property rights, or levied aggression against me? Who do I argue these violations to? To whom do I prove that the property was mine, or that I was only defending myself? To whom do I prove that the contract was violated, and by the other? Is there a court? Is there a sheriff?
Do I settle it myself? With what authority?
Who is going to "ostracize the guilty"?
Who is going to enforce their removal from the society, or it's market?
Do we stand before the town council? With what authority do they rule the action violated my property rights, or the NAP.
Where are the "rules" written?
Stefan should know, the rules are NOT written on the hearts of men.
Somewhere you need a paper, or something, or someone saying
1. Thou shalt respect property rights.
2. Thou shalt not violate the NAP.
3. Break either of these rules, and we'll ostracize you.
Then at some point, you need The Law to have teeth.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Only if you live outside a town[ship?]
Unless you are living in the woods and off the land, you are paying either/both of sales tax or property taxes. I'm not sure how this does not count as individually paying for things like roads, police, etc. The only difference is, you are forced to pay it and forced to abide by the rules whether you agree or disagree.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Right, but I believe what he's saying is that this option (the socialist one where your taxes pay for it) is preferable to paying for private fire protection on a "per use" basis, or the possibility of having neighbors who opt to not have any fire protection at all.
If I remember right something like this happened within the last few years.
I believe, there was a community that was pretty far away from their tax paid for fire department so a private business offered fire protection for a fee. A house in that neighborhood caught on fire. The home owners for that house did not buy the private protection, but their neighbors did. Since the neighbor had the protection and their home was in danger the private fire department came out just in case the fire jumped houses and watched the one house burn down.
There was a lot of moral debate about whether or not it was right for them to sit there and watch the home burn to the ground.
Personally I say it was. Those people did not pay for protection, if the department would have helped anyway they would be telling their customers and prospective customers "hey you don't actually have to buy our service and we will still help you" which is not a good way to do business.
so the question is... do we want these services to make decisions based on what is good for business or based on some other measure?