Indeed. I personally couldn't side with The Green Party though, too much "ecological extremism" to my taste, and, from what I've read, their social policies are a bit too extreme too. Although, it seems like a better choice than the two mainstream parties still.
I am neither I wish the bloody Americans could elect their president already, so we can discuss some new and refreshing topics, such as feminism, male circumscision and how to modernise the English language because some words are just stupid with "s" "c", and "k"
Originally Posted by Vaerys
A government does not make a market, it regulates markets. Individuals make the market. Did the US make Pokemon Go or video games in general popular. Did the governments make parts for the hardware a needed thing to the public?
It is the individuals who push the need that develop markets. It is the businesses that provide for that market. THen it is the government that regulates that market so that the product can be easierly accessible. When governments do not interfere you get something like the playstation war, but there is a free market when there is government interference as markets will still exist because it is developed by individuals and provided by businesses. The only time this is not the case is when the government owns all the businesses.
Describe how these are not true? He is describing his opinion, not facts. Show him the facts.
That is not arming yourself as defined by the 2nd Amendment. Your argument is a straw man.
They did not believe nationalism was a bad thing, they believed in being an empire, monarchy/oligarchy was a bad thing. While you are right that the 13th amendment is wrong, most of the original are relevant to today
You haven't stated things that are inherently true, just your opinion with little explanation why those are true.
You are begging the question. You keep pretending that the government didn't design and enforce all of the property rights that allowed that market to be in the first place. You can't have a market until a government does two things:
1. Design property rights.
2. Design currency.
Describe how these are not true? He is describing his opinion, not facts. Show him the facts.Stronger social safety nets correlate with better social mobility, not worse.I believe that working hard promotes upward mobility, not government programs
See what I said about about government's role in markets. Also, the idea that small business creates the jobs just ignores the MASSIVE role of large business in the modern economy.I believe that small businesses are the creator or jobs, not government programs
If you and I have the same tax rate, lowering it doesn't make either of us more competitive against each other. That doesn't make sense.I believe that in order for small businesses to compete, they need lower taxes
The second amendment says "arms", not "guns". Another word for nuclear weapons is nuclear ____. When nations build up weapons to fight each other they call it an ____ race.That is not arming yourself as defined by the 2nd Amendment. Your argument is a straw man.
As an historian, I disagree, and I'm not going to argue that point, because it's not germane to the more important preceding points. The founders loathed national identity. That's what being a nation of laws instead of a nation of men meant.They did not believe nationalism was a bad thing, they believed in being an empire, monarchy/oligarchy was a bad thing. While you are right that the 13th amendment is wrong, most of the original are relevant to today
Yes there are laws that cover anti-discrimination and they exist in all first world countries. That is the only similarity between racism and sexism, the fact that they are both discriminatory. That's it. You cannot interchange these words ...oh who am I kidding, the left have deluded once powerful words like racism into mere buzzwords with no meaning. I guess I am wrong in this age, everything's racist and everybody you don't agree with is literally Hitler in current year.
I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it.
All those things you listened are not here because government exits, but because of the industrial era and massive gains in technology. I understand that liberals think it is their right to claim ownership of these things, but it isn't. Technologies get better over time. They are first designed to fill a need and the refined to better provide that need. Your clean air would be here with or without a government law, and there is plenty of evidence to support this if you take the time to look. As for Norway and Switzerland, they are two of of the most unequal nations in Europe, so it's pretty funny you try to cherry pick them. Switzerland especially derives so much of it's GDP from international banking, money that doesn't come anywhere near the lower classes.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-so...4-10?r=US&IR=T
there's something to look at. And before you try and throw the end of back at me like it means something, government services are not your wealth because you do not possess them. These people can't sell their government homes, they just live in them until the time they do not anymore. There is nothing to pass on. Contrast that to nations with lower taxes where people can afford to accumulate and buy those things and actually own them, and if you can't see a difference well that's on you.
To your MJ spiel. I pointed out it was an easy example, not that it was the only one. I could have used doctors or lawyers, computer scientists, engineers, authors, artists, anything. There is a component of natural gifts to be sure. There is also a component of society placing value on what it is you are exceptional at, but these things don't just fall into your lap, you need to work hard for them. You may be brilliant, or you may have an extremely specific talent that is nonetheless incredibly sought after, but if you don't actively try to benefit from it it won't happen on its own.
For your third paragraph I bolded the important part. Everything after it is a diatribe whose foolishness speaks for itself. As to the bold though, this is not how life actually works. I've very familiar with this flawed premise, but there is no leveling the playing field. As it stands, work IS the most important factor. Sure, there are some assholes who inherit a lot of money, but that doesn't actually hurt you. They will, by in large, spend that money, and end up broke. There is once again a lot of evidence for this. Thomas Sowell has documented how through each generation, the 400 wealthiest families drastically shifts. I'm sorry it doesn't happen overnight like liberals would like, I guess, but it does happen. Hard work is valued the most in our society (Maybe not with these young millennials, but they will pay in the long run for that).
As far as the family thing, my argument was that studies have shown the most important factor on raising well adjusted children is there are married parents. Not two cars, not lots of money, not tuitors or nannies or buses or any other bullshit. Married parents. in fact married parents is more important than having those other things with only one parent.
http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-p...tates/0086.pdf
http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/P...e-Married.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-parents.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-poverty.html
I could go on but if you want more find it yourself.
"This is meandering off into Republican propoganda speak now. Whenever I read taxes labelled as "theft of production" I sort of die a little inside as it reaks of absurd Randian Objectivism." What is the propaganda? If you don't like Rand (who I'm not quoting in anyway no matter how much you'd like to think I am) then attack her ideas, or attack mine for that matter, but claiming it is propaganda and absurd "Objectivism" doesn't really prove anything other than you don't like my words but can't challenge them beyond your emotions.
It is a widely held believe by classical liberals, as well as some anarchists, that a level of government is needed even if it is undesirable. Things like roads are the quintessential reason for government, so good job picking exactly the wrong example to prove your point. As far as telecom, it was done that way because it was deemed more desirable than having 10x as many wires through the sky and in the ground. I'm not sure if I agree with that, but it was the rationale, but you again confuse correlation and causation ( a common theme for you). You go on to claim that the system has worked well so far. Well compared to what? Communist Russia? Nazi Germany? The ancient Romans, or Serfdom in the middle ages? Talk about setting your sights low. What classical liberals desire has never actually been tried because of constant interference by those who "know better" and "are needed to help you." Take your propaganda somewhere else.
"Capitalism is a good system, but the realities of the world and of human nature mean that it does need to be tempered with pragmatic control." Prove this. What reality? What "pragmatic controls?" Who are these people that we NEED to control things for us? Worked wonders in the USSR, North Korea, China even. I mean, Europe is SOOO far more advanced than the US right? Or how about the fact that Argentina was in a better economic position at the turn of the 20th Century than the US was, and I'm not sure if you've been there (I have) but Buenos Aires doesn't really look anything like New York. You have very strong opinions, but unfortunately you haven't tried to (because I know you can't) defend them with any evidence.
Have a good day.
Last edited by BannedForViews; 2016-07-25 at 06:49 PM.
Not 'Murican but I am a Republican
[/URL]
Environmental problems? You need to be specific. I assume you mean mother nature though.
"Is fundamentally deluded and anti-reality" is not evidence, it is a baseless opinion. You can't even be bothered to specify what in my long post you were referring to though so I shouldn't be surprised that your "evidence" is as equally vague and meaningless.
I know you didn't bring this up both the last guy did and they are similar in the point.
"In 1908, the first five-day workweek in the United States was instituted by a New England cotton mill so that Jewish workers would not have to work on the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.[1]
In 1926, Henry Ford began shutting down his automotive factories for all of Saturday and Sunday.
In 1929, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America Union was the first union to demand a five-day workweek and receive it."
Government did not give us the weekend, but it appears that greedy capitalist ford helped usher it into reality.
As to your loaded question about air quality. No government intervention is not required.
It is suprisingly difficult to find anything about air quality that approaches facts. Most graphs have nothing to do with it at all, are about climate change not the clean air act, or are very narrow in their scale, for example only showing from 1970 on, not before the CAA was passed.
http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...0-2050/282928/
That is not a conservative outlet by any means but it does show that air quality that humans breath has been decreasing continuously over time. Air quality was increasing before the government got in the way of it. Unfortunately it is impossible to prove what did not happen, that is that the government had no effect on it, because they did pass laws. But here is the real issue. It is not nearly as difficult or impressive to tell someone to do something as it is for them to actually do it. It's very simple for people to say "clean air" but very difficult to get this to the market at a cost that is paletable. The government didn't provide solutions, only demands.
http://www.perc.org/blog/environment...ality-pre-1970
"Most reports on air quality trends typically begin with 1970, with the passage of the first Clean Air Act and the beginning of systematic monitoring of emissions and ambient levels of air pollution. Data from early monitors and evidence from air quality models, however, show that many forms of air pollution started to decline—in some cases rapidly—before the Clean Air Act of 1970.
For sulfur dioxide, data from 21 urban monitors show that the average ambient level fell approximately 40 percent between 1962 and 1964 (as shown above). This set the stage for progress after the Clean Air Act; the national average dropped 66 percent since then. Local data for New York City show that ambient sulfur dioxide fell by almost 50 percent between 1964 and 1970, as shown in Figure 2. Fragmentary data also show that carbon dioxide levels were falling in the mid-1960s."
Last edited by BannedForViews; 2016-07-25 at 10:47 PM.
I am pretty sure I would be branded as a heretic and put on a raft to Cuba.
Because both parties are just awful. They are making no attempts to fix it either.
But on the US spectrum I would be an independant. Your country needs people with the political capital to start a third national party.
Who said I attacked you? If memory serves it was you that unabashedly challenged my post over climate change - something I didn't even mention in my post, but something that is one of many points of contention with regards to science which Republicans refuse to allow.
Let me reinterate. I'm responding to the OP. I don't owe you anything. Take your impenitent questions and responses elsewhere. Sorry I don't have time to hold your little hand.
It's not your fault, no (unless you scammed someone). It's just a fact that the with the current job market, income replicates a pyramid. On the bottom of the pyramid is where majority hold the lower incomes. There's nothing that can really be done by this proportion, more labor is needed than management. You won't find a retail store where there are more managers than part-time workers.
So with that established, there is plenty the country as a whole can gain if the weakest link (which makes up more Americans than the res) is in the position to still live happily and not having to constantly worry about making rent on time. We shouldn't implement "survival of the fittest" in our economy, but rather "luxury for the ambitious/smart".
The wise wolf who's pride is her wisdom isn't so sharp as drunk.
I'm neither frankly. There are enough differences between my ideals and the both sides I tend not to associate myself with one party or another. However, the realistic portion of me tends to lead toward Democrat because in my experience they have been far less publicly idiotic. Not to mention the rampant fear of globalization and the asinine idea that more strict gun laws means the government is taking your guns tends to force me to lean toward a party that can come up with facts to support its arguments, rather than feelings.
That's the problem with the current Republican party and the Trump campaign. They make their reality with beliefs and feelings, instead of evidence and facts. It's hard to beat belief with fact to a believer.
There are no worse scum in this world than fascists, rebels and political hypocrites.
Donald Trump is only like Hitler because of the fact he's losing this war on all fronts.
Apparently condemning a fascist ideology is the same as being fascist. And who the fuck are you to say I can't be fascist against fascist ideologies?
If merit was the only dividing factor in the human race, then everyone on Earth would be pretty damn equal.