Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Public schools at it again

M

MattTheSkywalker

Elite Mentor
Platinum
GRRR man that makes me angry.. property taxes here in San Diego are OUTRAGEOUS but we spend so much of SCHOOLING FUCKING ILLEGALS WHO DONT PAY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK IUHDLUWHKBWLHBDWLHBDWLDB
 
Milo Hobgoblin said:
GRRR man that makes me angry.. property taxes here in San Diego are OUTRAGEOUS but we spend so much of SCHOOLING FUCKING ILLEGALS WHO DONT PAY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK IUHDLUWHKBWLHBDWLHBDWLDB
Click to expand...

property taxes across the country are ever-increasing, disincentivizing home ownership.

I don't even have kids, why do I pay school tax? Immigration is but a tiny part of the problem.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
property taxes across the country are ever-increasing, disincentivizing home ownership.

I don't even have kids, why do I pay school tax? Immigration is but a tiny part of the problem.
Click to expand...
My parents big complaint is property taxes. They are considering selling the house and getting a manufactured home located closer to the city but out of the district that taxes the hell out of them, then drive around the US in a mobile home.
 
LOL - hey here in AZ they just said today that they are going to discontiue the Nationalized standardized testing in favor of the AZ state test...

apparently it took too much time to prepare for both (of course if you actually knew the material would you have to test?) and they think they do well enough as compared to the national average anyways (funny AZ is ranked 49 out of 50 in education)

how much education do you need to clean up piss in a retirement community again?

LOL
 
Something seriously needs to be done. We can't just blindly throw money at schools, just because they are schools. They need to be accountable for the level of education they are supplying our children.
 
Coverguy said:
Something seriously needs to be done. We can't just blindly throw money at schools, just because they are schools. They need to be accountable for the level of education they are supplying our children.
Click to expand...

Yes! yes! I love you. Well, I love your stance on this.

How do we justify continual tax increases for questionable results?

Why do public schools use seniority NOT merit to advance teachers and pay them more?

If you can grade a student, you can grade a teacher, right?

WAKE UP.
 
Coverguy said:
Something seriously needs to be done. We can't just blindly throw money at schools, just because they are schools. They need to be accountable for the level of education they are supplying our children.
Click to expand...
agreed!
 
I'd agree with Matt's premise, but I'm afraid he will hit on me as well.
 
Because public schools are stuck in the Industrial Age. This is the Information Age where things like seniority, accountability, tenure, pension plans, unions, are no longer effective ways of fitting into the new economy.
 
Georgia is like 45th in average SAT scores.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
I don't even have kids, why do I pay school tax?
Click to expand...

For the betterment of society. You cannot just pick and chose based on status...for example, I cannot drive, why should I pay for road improvements?

This is what I don't like about your overall position...you feel you owe nothing and that you should be able to do as you please, with no consideration for society as a whole (example-claiming you should be able to own a fleet of hummers). You would have be better suited for life as a feudal lord lol
 
Dial_tone said:
Georgia is like 45th in average SAT scores.
Click to expand...


my bad, mang....DEAD FUCKING LAST.
 
Gambino said:
For the betterment of society. You cannot just pick and chose based on status...for example, I cannot drive, why should I pay for road improvements?
Click to expand...

That's a hell of a good question. Why do you pay for something you don't use? Why aren't roads paid for largely out of revenues collected from car registration fees, tolls, and the like.

Oh nevermind, they are! No tolls, no car, your money won't be spent on roads.

bad example.

I support education. I support good education, offered at a free market price, where the market is allowed to determine the costs, not the school board, and not with the power of law. Law = not free market.

This is what I don't like about your overall position...you feel you owe nothing and that you should be able to do as you please, with no consideration for society as a whole (example-claiming you should be able to own a fleet of hummers). You would have be better suited for life as a feudal lord lol
Click to expand...

Here is my position more carefully elucidated:

The role of government is to protect individual rights. Money is needed to do this. I will gladly contribute to efforts which further this preservation of individual rights.

Additional use of tax revenue - for things other than rights preservation - is theft: taking my money against my will. Education is not a right, thus, I should not have to pay for it unless I choose to. Likewise health care, social security, etc.

I don't want to own the people like a feudal lord. Nor do I want my castle ransacked. :)


Where did you ever come upon the idea that someone can ethically TAKE my money to use it for services for themselves, and this was OK?
 
Last edited:
Someone want to explain once AGAIN to me ... WHY they took away the NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL EXAM program? Is it so dumb la kids can graduate and get diplomas w/o having to endure tough exam specifications designed for smarter massachusetts kids??

And you wonder why inner-city high school graduates never get accepted into highly esteemed college institutions. Raise that education so it's on par with the BEST and then we'll talk.

Oh and while you're at it. Teach these kids English. Not ebonics or spanglish...but PROPER ENGLISH.
 
hey, don't be dissin mah peeps, yo? Don't nobody flow gooder than me no kinda way. YA HEARD?
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Oh nevermind, they are! No tolls, no car, your money won't be spent on roads.
Click to expand...


just for the record no tolls in my state
 
jerkbox said:
lol......i think matt should start his own country
Click to expand...

I would move there.... They probably actually need educated people unlike here...
 
Testosterone boy said:
It would be interesting to say the least.

Survival of the fittest. The rest would be left to die. Quickly.
Click to expand...

Sweet - less whiners and handouts...
 
Testosterone boy said:
The Third Reich would wholeheartedlly concur. :)

Successful people whine the most by the way. Try listening to doctors moan and groan someday.
Click to expand...
so would the romans....


if it is family practice and general practice docs you are talking about - they should have worked harder in med school or considered their career more carefully...

if it is a specialty making over 200K a year - they got nothing to complain about....

if it is about things like insurance and malpractice - we have the lawyers to blame for that - but hey why not put one in the whitehouse?

any other reason docs would whine? :)
 
Testosterone boy said:
It would be interesting to say the least.
Survival of the fittest. The rest would be left to die. Quickly.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. I look at some third world countries where the social net isn't so prevalent. I'm thinking of the Phillipines for example where they will allow you to starve. So, what do the poor to catch up? Why they kidnap and ransom the rich of course!

Mind you, I do understand that government corruption is also quite substantial in the third world so it may not be a fair example of what would happen if we adopted the survivalist of the fittest rule. However, if one group overwhelms another (poor vs rich), I could see one take matters into their own hands. After all, the most dangerous person would be one with nothing to lose.
 
EnderJE said:
I don't know about that. I look at some third world countries where the social net isn't so prevalent. I'm thinking of the Phillipines for example where they will allow you to starve. So, what do the poor to catch up? Why they kidnap and ransom the rich of course!

Mind you, I do understand that government corruption is also quite substantial in the third world so it may not be a fair example of what would happen if we adopted the survivalist of the fittest rule. However, if one group overwhelms another (poor vs rich), I could see one take matters into their own hands. After all, the most dangerous person would be one with nothing to lose.
Click to expand...
Great.....so we devolve into a 3rd world country so that taxes are lowered for the wealthy. Now that is progess.


Imagine Star Trek where it is survival of the fittest.....just like the animal kingdom by the way.

Compassion for others is what makes some people different than animals. Lack of compassion is what makes others animals.
 
My property taxes tripled this year, and they also had went up 2 yrs ago for a new school. Yes I agree that the school system needs some serious rework, and yes if you can grade a student and flunk them b/c they do badly on a test, then you should also be able to test those teachers. Isnt it the teachers that are teaching the flunking students ? My state now withholds diplomas b/c of students flunking English and Math, I say good.. There is nothing more frightening than thinking of this world in 20 - 30 yrs and thinking about all those kids now in school that cant even give the correct change without a cash register telling them how much to give... I also have a problem paying someone else my money for services not rendered, I am not using those services why would I then have to pay for them ? For the children I say you cant do enough, but those adults that just wish to stay home and live off me well that totally sucks, come on get real, get your ass out and get a job like everyone else has too.



btw: BECOMING that is one sweeeeeeet ride you have in your advatar...
 
wutangsfiancee said:
My property taxes tripled this year, and they also had went up 2 yrs ago for a new school. Yes I agree that the school system needs some serious rework, and yes if you can grade a student and flunk them b/c they do badly on a test, then you should also be able to test those teachers. Isnt it the teachers that are teaching the flunking students ? My state now withholds diplomas b/c of students flunking English and Math, I say good.. There is nothing more frightening than thinking of this world in 20 - 30 yrs and thinking about all those kids now in school that cant even give the correct change without a cash register telling them how much to give... I also have a problem paying someone else my money for services not rendered, I am not using those services why would I then have to pay for them ? For the children I say you cant do enough, but those adults that just wish to stay home and live off me well that totally sucks, come on get real, get your ass out and get a job like everyone else has too.



btw: BECOMING that is one sweeeeeeet ride you have in your advatar...
Click to expand...
The previous generations property taxes likely made your education possible.

Why does this generation have such a problem with paying back what it received?
 
I have no problem paying taxes, as long as when my kids get out of school they have learned enough to be able to enter college, and only half of the county I live in had their taxes raised to pay for the school, but the schools are there for all to use. My taxes went up from around a couple grand in the beginning to now close to 10 grand a yr. Yet Joe Blow that is still in school and works at the store in town can not give me correct change when the register is down. If they are going to raise my taxes cool, just make sure they are doing it for a good reason and the kids are getting something out of it. That is all I ask.......
 
I just wonder what public school haters suggest?

To not have schooling be mandatory and allow kids to just not get schooled altogether?

Does the USA really want a large portion of the next generation to be completely unschooled? What are you going to do with these people?

Basically the eternal complaint is that public school get a lot of funding and crappy results. Assuming that both are true, that still does not direct me to the conclusion that there should be no public schools.

Maybe it is possible to make the public school system better, more efficient.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Where did you ever come upon the idea that someone can ethically TAKE my money to use it for services for themselves, and this was OK?
Click to expand...
I've said it a couple of times before in terms people on this board could perhaps identify with. How would you like it if you went to the gym and did 20 ass-busting sets,only to have half of them benefit you,while the other half went to others?
 
jerkbox said:
lol......i think matt should start his own country
Click to expand...

There was once a country that was founded on the principles Matt espouses. It was called the United States of America. The problem is that the country has been hopelessly altered and these principles ignored. Now the people not only accept the big, overbearing federal government, but many wish it were even bigger. The tyranny of the majority took over long ago.
 
Robert Jan said:
I just wonder what public school haters suggest?

To not have schooling be mandatory and allow kids to just not get schooled altogether?

Does the USA really want a large portion of the next generation to be completely unschooled? What are you going to do with these people?

Basically the eternal complaint is that public school get a lot of funding and crappy results. Assuming that both are true, that still does not direct me to the conclusion that there should be no public schools.

Maybe it is possible to make the public school system better, more efficient.
Click to expand...

How about institute some form of competition into the mix? The public school system in America is so fucked up it's not funny. In many schools the teachers are not held accountable for the progress of the students, and they only advance in their job based on how long they've been teaching, not how well they've been teaching.

Another problem arises in urban public schools where there is an unwieldy bureaucracy sucking up half of the tax dollars before they're spent on the actual education. This is what happens when "nobody's" money is being spent. Nobody is worried about minimizing costs because the money's always rolling in from the taxes. Nobody in the school board administration personally feels the drain of inefficiency in their system.
 
Testosterone boy said:
The previous generations property taxes likely made your education possible.

Why does this generation have such a problem with paying back what it received?
Click to expand...
The problem isn't so much taking the money or paying it back. The problem is the lack of perceived work for money or lack of accountability.

For example, when I pay taxes, I would really like to know how its being spent. I would like to know how much is going to the police, roads, healthcare, etc. Given this information, I can lobby or sent note to my local rep to suggest alterations. If nothing else, I get try and get a dialogue to see how people in my area feel as well.
 
Problems with public schools:

1. They don't actually prove or make the kids learn anything.
2. They spend a lot of money teaching people who can't perform much of a role in society (disabled, retards, etc) These people should get a cursory education that fits their capabilities, not strung a long like they were normal
3. They have been 'uplifting' students who are poor all around to keep them happy, ruining the education of the rest by lowering the standards. (they are too easy)
4. They are underfunded because they have too many kids to teach. Stop making so many damn kids people!!
5. They spend too much money dealing with kids impacted by poor lives at home!! (stop taking so many damn drugs and get off your asses you welfare sucking parasites!)
 
Matt
You can have an individually isolated, self centered sense of morality, but you have to wake up to the cold fact that you actually DO live on this little planet with more than 6 billion other people and you live in your country with ~300 million other people.

Most members know I think about it this way and that you think about it your way but since you did too I will repeat myself...

I DO think people have the moral obligation to help others if it can be done in a constructive, humble way and I even think the right of people to basic help, outweighs the property rights of those who are not in need of money.

Some will argue "need" is hard to define but I find it rather simple, personal need to me is what one needs to be healthy and safe and have the ability to develop skills or knowledge fitting to their capacities and motivation. When you think about it this is a humble, basic definition. These are not comfortable leeches sitting back mocking the working man... These goals are realistic with a small budget...

That said it should be taken into account that not all that much of the budget actually goes to programs to help poor people get into a better situation. People equate helping poorer people in the first world to 50% taxes... that's rediculously skewed. In reality it does/would only take very little money from the average working man.

So the pessimists will say what about those who lack all motivation or capacity and would simply stick in this system forever. Well freaking let them. If this system would be run well it would provide only the NEEDS for these people... cheap simple food, cheap (secondhand) clothing and small, basic housing. This costs so little it's almost more desirable to just pay this than to have these people walk the streets homeless.
People for whom living this way is not enough incentive to get a job if they can, I don't think will get a job if they otherwise starve. I'd sooner see them start stealing.
 
Robert Jan said:
Matt
You can have an individually isolated, self centered sense of morality, but you have to wake up to the cold fact that you actually DO live on this little planet with more than 6 billion other people and you live in your country with ~300 million other people.

Most members know I think about it this way and that you think about it your way but since you did too I will repeat myself...

I DO think people have the moral obligation to help others if it can be done in a constructive, humble way and I even think the right of people to basic help, outweighs the property rights of those who are not in need of money.

Some will argue "need" is hard to define but I find it rather simple, personal need to me is what one needs to be healthy and safe and have the ability to develop skills or knowledge fitting to their capacities and motivation. When you think about it this is a humble, basic definition. These are not comfortable leeches sitting back mocking the working man... These goals are realistic with a small budget...

That said it should be taken into account that not all that much of the budget actually goes to programs to help poor people get into a better situation. People equate helping poorer people in the first world to 50% taxes... that's rediculously skewed. In reality it does/would only take very little money from the average working man.

So the pessimists will say what about those who lack all motivation or capacity and would simply stick in this system forever. Well freaking let them. If this system would be run well it would provide only the NEEDS for these people... cheap simple food, cheap (secondhand) clothing and small, basic housing. This costs so little it's almost more desirable to just pay this than to have these people walk the streets homeless.
People for whom living this way is not enough incentive to get a job if they can, I don't think will get a job if they otherwise starve. I'd sooner see them start stealing.
Click to expand...
This will elicit a small novel from a guy who became wealthy seeing that people do not necessarily receive insurance from their insurer. (ok...that is over simplified a tad)

Imagine the logic.
 
Gambino said:
just for the record no tolls in my state
Click to expand...

any car registration fees? Any other associated taxes and expenses associated with buying a car?

Any taxes on license plate renewal?
 
Robert Jan said:
I am the insured that did not receive his rightful insurance from his insurer.
what a coincidence
Click to expand...
Oh fuck...my neck feels like it has a knife in it. My right arm has numbness.

All from an 18 wheeler in '95.


A Jewish doctor did EVERYTHING he could to see that I got ZILCH.

I got $125,000 because I had some connections. Otherwise, I might have received nothing.

Doctors and insurance companies.....I have seen a dark side quite closely.
 
EnderJE said:
However, if one group overwhelms another (poor vs rich), I could see one take matters into their own hands. After all, the most dangerous person would be one with nothing to lose.
Click to expand...

That's why we have laws, and a judicial system: to protect the rights of others, which is the thing I said I would gladly contribute my taxes to.
 
Robert Jan said:
Matt
You can have an individually isolated, self centered sense of morality, but you have to wake up to the cold fact that you actually DO live on this little planet with more than 6 billion other people and you live in your country with ~300 million other people.
Click to expand...

I fully support the protection of their rights to the same extent that mine would be protected. Their rights are fully supported too.

Most members know I think about it this way and that you think about it your way but since you did too I will repeat myself...

I DO think people have the moral obligation to help others if it can be done in a constructive, humble way and I even think the right of people to basic help, outweighs the property rights of those who are not in need of money.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "right to basic help". A right is derived from man's capacity for rationality. This capacity means that man is free to choose what he does and does not do. When you speak about a right to basic help (or healthcare, or education) you speak of taking away the choice from the provider.

No rights are conferred by forcing another to act. That's theft.


Some will argue "need" is hard to define but I find it rather simple, personal need to me is what one needs to be healthy and safe and have the ability to develop skills or knowledge fitting to their capacities and motivation. When you think about it this is a humble, basic definition. These are not comfortable leeches sitting back mocking the working man... These goals are realistic with a small budget...
Click to expand...

This is irrelevant to the concept of individual rights.

That said it should be taken into account that not all that much of the budget actually goes to programs to help poor people get into a better situation. People equate helping poorer people in the first world to 50% taxes... that's rediculously skewed. In reality it does/would only take very little money from the average working man.
Click to expand...

there are charities to do this; most of America's richest people are its largest givers, and this was true even before it was tax-advantageous; ie Rockefeller, Carnegie, Duke, etc.

The difference is, it was voluntary.

So the pessimists will say what about those who lack all motivation or capacity and would simply stick in this system forever. Well freaking let them. If this system would be run well it would provide only the NEEDS for these people... cheap simple food, cheap (secondhand) clothing and small, basic housing. This costs so little it's almost more desirable to just pay this than to have these people walk the streets homeless.

People for whom living this way is not enough incentive to get a job if they can, I don't think will get a job if they otherwise starve. I'd sooner see them start stealing.
Click to expand...

This has little to do with the concept of a system of laws that protect individual rights.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
There is no such thing as a "right to basic help". A right is derived from man's capacity for rationality. This capacity means that man is free to choose what he does and does not do. When you speak about a right to basic help (or healthcare, or education) you speak of taking away the choice from the provider.

No rights are conferred by forcing another to act. That's theft.

That's a subjective judgement. The right to property is not as simple as the right to free speech. Because my right to free speech does not stop you from having yours. But the fact you own a piece of land, prevents me from owning the same piece. Property rights can't be all black and white.

there are charities to do this; most of America's richest people are its largest givers, and this was true even before it was tax-advantageous; ie Rockefeller, Carnegie, Duke, etc.

The difference is, it was voluntary.

If charity was enough there would be no needy



This has little to do with the concept of a system of laws that protect individual rights.
True, this is utilitarianism, thinking about what will happen, to people, instead of some kind of kantian rationalisation of what you have or have not to do.
Click to expand...
 
20 years ago, we had a ratio of 20 kids going at a puvlic school for every kid at a private school. Now the ratio is 8 for 1 here. Go figure why...
 
Robert Jan said:
That's a subjective judgement. The right to property is not as simple as the right to free speech. Because my right to free speech does not stop you from having yours. But the fact you own a piece of land, prevents me from owning the same piece. Property rights can't be all black and white.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but my ownership of property does not stop you from owning a piece of property. It merely means that two people cannot own the same piece of property at the same time. This is the very definition of property rights - I am allowed to own something without others having claim to it.

This right also protects your things.


Utilitarianism - have you read anything by John Rawls about it? His best known work is "A Theory of Justice" - you are probably familiar with it.

For a critique of it, read Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" - the latter is a very academic read, whereas Rawls is not as dense.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
How much were your property taxes this year?
Click to expand...

Way too much and I am about to get crushed next year. 10,000 square foot home in Bar Harbor on the water. First year of ownership and a town in need of money.

Here in Maine they are trying to pass a tax cap where towns can only charge 1% of actual home values. This is going to crush every town if it passes.
 
gotmilk said:
Way too much and I am about to get crushed next year. 10,000 square foot home in Bar Harbor on the water. First year of ownership and a town in need of money.

Here in Maine they are trying to pass a tax cap where towns can only charge 1% of actual home values. This is going to crush every town if it passes.
Click to expand...

In FL it is 2%.

It might actually make towns more efficient; either way, you've gotta have a way to shut off the confiscation.

Hope it passes.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
In FL it is 2%.

It might actually make towns more efficient; either way, you've gotta have a way to shut off the confiscation.

Hope it passes.
Click to expand...

While I agree, that would be against the free market ideal wouldn't it Matt? ;)
 
bluepeter said:
While I agree, that would be against the free market ideal wouldn't it Matt? ;)
Click to expand...

property tax is by definiton against the ideal; thus a supporter of a free market would support a lowering of this tax.
 
bluepeter said:
While I agree, that would be against the free market ideal wouldn't it Matt? ;)
Click to expand...

Taxes by themselves are anti free market. It's just the good Ol' government trying to regulate one aspect of our life.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
In FL it is 2%.

It might actually make towns more efficient; either way, you've gotta have a way to shut off the confiscation.

Hope it passes.
Click to expand...

You have cities whose population is larger than the entire state of Maine. Some towns would be in deep crap especially with the State budget being $1 Billion in the hole.

We can't make it....some towns could do ok.....but the little ones would be wiped out..
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
I see what you are saying, but my ownership of property does not stop you from owning a piece of property. It merely means that two people cannot own the same piece of property at the same time. This is the very definition of property rights - I am allowed to own something without others having claim to it.

This right also protects your things.


Utilitarianism - have you read anything by John Rawls about it? His best known work is "A Theory of Justice" - you are probably familiar with it.

For a critique of it, read Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" - the latter is a very academic read, whereas Rawls is not as dense.
Click to expand...

You merely restate the laws of property rights, rather than really defend them. You say I can hog my piece of land because you can get another. What if there is no other piece of land?

The Utilitarian - Kantian debate is never won and few are fully at one side of the spectrum but I'm a lot towards utilitarian, because it's a lot easier to measure success in, therefor easier to work on :)

I also think Kantianism is unrealistic and goes more against human nature.
Could be though that it's just MY nature, but I doubt it.
 
Testosterone boy said:
Oh fuck...my neck feels like it has a knife in it. My right arm has numbness.

All from an 18 wheeler in '95.


A Jewish doctor did EVERYTHING he could to see that I got ZILCH.

I got $125,000 because I had some connections. Otherwise, I might have received nothing.

Doctors and insurance companies.....I have seen a dark side quite closely.
Click to expand...

I meant to say..................some doctors. Many will not touch these insurance type cases which are essentially political battles of connections.
 
Robert Jan said:
You merely restate the laws of property rights, rather than really defend them. You say I can hog my piece of land because you can get another. What if there is no other piece of land?
Click to expand...

While you are right, I did merely restate the laws, you are attacking property rights as if they exist in a vacuum. For example, if I own a piece of property, you may use it, if we can agree on terms and conditions of your use. Furthermore, you may own it, if we agree on terms and conditions of the transfer of ownership.

As a property owner, I need the presence of users to make my property worth something. This is why a mountainside in Alaska is virtually worthless, whereas a building in downtown New York may cost a billion dollars. It is the presence and density of users that renders property valuable. Thus ownership of property does not exclude you from its use. Furthermore, it does not even preclude you from determining the terms of its use - as you as a user and I as an owner must agree on terms.

So while my ownership prevents you from owning property, it does not preclude you from using it to your benefit. In fact, the mutually agreed upon terms prevent the property owner from controlling the users as a feudal lord may have done.
 
the question is whether you hold human need higher than property rights or not... are these laws unalienable under all circumstances? Either choice is a slippery slope and we are right back to the beginning of this old ass debate
 
Robert Jan said:
the question is whether you hold human need higher than property rights or not... are these laws unalienable under all circumstances? Either choice is a slippery slope and we are right back to the beginning of this old ass debate
Click to expand...

A worthwhile answer might be "Must they be mutually exclusive?"

The value of property is, as we saw, determined by presence (and density) of users. If there is a massive human need, property only increases in value when that need is met.

The enforcement of property rights is the only way to truly meet "human needs." I disagree that we are back to the beginning.
 
could you explain that some further? When the need is met, the need decreases, so value decreases

how does enforcing property rights meet human needs.
that *might* work if it would indeed boost production as much as right wingers like to think it would. but even then it would not last...

I wonder if the growth we have now is even sustainable
 
Last edited:
“If almost everyone is in favor of feeding the hungry, the politician may find it in his interest to do so. But, under those circumstances, the politician is unnecessary: some kind soul will give the hungry man a meal anyway. If the great majority is against the hungry man, some kind soul among the minority still may feed him-the politician will not.” –Dr. David D Friedman

In other words, there is no such thing as a system of government where the “needy” are not dependent on the altruism of the successful.

Many socialists want to talk about capitalism as if it will some how make the people greedier than they otherwise will be.

Yes, the current distribution of wealth is unnatural and a problem, but expanding government power will in reality take the wealth out of the hands of the few and put it in the hands of the fewer, in the hands of the government officials and those fortunate enough to be connected to them.

This happens because it is inevitable that government power will always attract power freaks, just like it always has in the past.

The idea held by many statists, that our economic condition is bad despite the government “help” would only make sense if this “help” predated the problem, but a careful study of the way our industry was changing between the mid 1800s and the great depression shows the opposite.

It was actually the middle class that was the fastest growing, and even though “the rich” where always worth more individually, the middle class as a whole still could claim most of the prosperity, it was also during this time that child labor, the long work days, and other such examples of capitalist “oppression” described by socialist where actually decreasing naturally.

It was not until the Great depression that people began to really doubt capitalism.

But the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve (created, and operated by government). That means that by the wonders of statist logic, government actions where seen as justification for more government!
 
Before Test boy has a chance to say something like “anyone who thinks they know anything knows nothing” I would like to say that I know economic theory, is theory.

And I know that that makes it seem as if people like me and Matt might be building our ideal societies on shaky foundations, but by comparison socialists seem to expect their societies to float through the air with no foundation at all!

So even if we can’t know everything, we can at least try to use what science we know rather than sticking our heads up our butts.
 
Tiervexx said:
Before Test boy has a chance to say something like “anyone who thinks they know anything knows nothing” I would like to say that I know economic theory, is theory.

And I know that that makes it seem as if people like me and Matt might be building our ideal societies on shaky foundations, but by comparison socialists seem to expect their societies to float through the air with no foundation at all!

So even if we can’t know everything, we can at least try to use what science we know rather than sticking our heads up our butts.
Click to expand...
Good for you but I would prefer that Matt stick his head up his butt at times. :)
 
Tiervexx said:
“If almost everyone is in favor of feeding the hungry, the politician may find it in his interest to do so. But, under those circumstances, the politician is unnecessary: some kind soul will give the hungry man a meal anyway. If the great majority is against the hungry man, some kind soul among the minority still may feed him-the politician will not.” –Dr. David D Friedman

In other words, there is no such thing as a system of government where the “needy” are not dependent on the altruism of the successful.

Many socialists want to talk about capitalism as if it will some how make the people greedier than they otherwise will be.

Yes, the current distribution of wealth is unnatural and a problem, but expanding government power will in reality take the wealth out of the hands of the few and put it in the hands of the fewer, in the hands of the government officials and those fortunate enough to be connected to them.

This happens because it is inevitable that government power will always attract power freaks, just like it always has in the past.

The idea held by many statists, that our economic condition is bad despite the government “help” would only make sense if this “help” predated the problem, but a careful study of the way our industry was changing between the mid 1800s and the great depression shows the opposite.

It was actually the middle class that was the fastest growing, and even though “the rich” where always worth more individually, the middle class as a whole still could claim most of the prosperity, it was also during this time that child labor, the long work days, and other such examples of capitalist “oppression” described by socialist where actually decreasing naturally.

It was not until the Great depression that people began to really doubt capitalism.

But the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve (created, and operated by government). That means that by the wonders of statist logic, government actions where seen as justification for more government!
Click to expand...

You do not account for the possibility of an enlightened authoritarian totalitarian system. :)

on a serious note you can say if people want to help a poor man they'll do it without the government. but there isn't one needy person to one succesful person it needs some kind of system
 
Robert Jan said:
You do not account for the possibility of an enlightened authoritarian totalitarian system. :)
Click to expand...

Such a system would require mythical gods as leaders, not men. It really is an absurd pipe-dream.

Robert Jan said:
on a serious note you can say if people want to help a poor man they'll do it without the government. but there isn't one needy person to one successful person it needs some kind of system
Click to expand...

There are many self-sufficient people for every one dependent (or at least there would be if it was not for a ridiculous tax system) so it really is a much smaller problem than what you think it is.

Many socialists like to behave as if the "common man" who so badly needs help is the great majority, and therefore seems exploited by the top minority, but the truth is that in capitalist systems (not plutocracy) it is your definition of the "common man" that is the minority.

But your comment about needing a system suggests that you believe that a system must mean a government. The purpose of my earlier post was to point out that liberty is the mother of order, not its daughter.
 
Tiervexx said:
Such a system would require mythical gods as leaders, not men. It really is an absurd pipe-dream.

I was obviously being sarcastic

There are many self-sufficient people for every one dependent (or at least there would be if it was not for a ridiculous tax system) so it really is a much smaller problem than what you think it is.

you make a false assumption: I do know this

Many socialists like to behave as if the "common man" who so badly needs help is the great majority, and therefore seems exploited by the top minority, but the truth is that in capitalist systems (not plutocracy) it is your definition of the "common man" that is the minority.

same

But your comment about needing a system suggests that you believe that a system must mean a government. The purpose of my earlier post was to point out that liberty is the mother of order, not its daughter.
This I would like to see further explained
Click to expand...
 
Robert Jan, it is a little hard to detect sarcasem over the internet, but I guess I missed the smily. :)

But government exists because there is a demand for order. Almost nobody would ever follow the rule of any government if it was not for the fear of chaos. Everything from welfare, police to militaries only exist because people want something that will perform those functions.

What I mean to say is this:

1) The fact that people vote for these things proves that there is more than enough of a demand for them. Enough of a demand to get the market to move to provide for them.
2) That the market is a much better source for these things because it is both more efficient, and gives people choice. A government provided service is one that all must accept, when dealing with private firms you reserve the all important right to say no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Minibot
Approved Log Winning Competitive Powerlifting in 2026 My Journey - with UGLOZ - Support by Helios Labs
Replies
42
Views
5K
Allupfromhere
Allupfromhere
H
Need advice. Heart transplant, now struggling with TRT?No energy
Replies
25
Views
5K
25homes
25homes
SouthernCalifornianBody
Career Crossroads-California Social Studies High School Teacher or California Lawyer?
Replies
0
Views
2K
SouthernCalifornianBody
SouthernCalifornianBody
Richardbrown
Napsgear: Are Plastics Causing Testosterone Levels to Decline?
Replies
13
Views
3K
Tazz
Tazz
Richardbrown
Napsgear: Steroids: Why They Should Be Legal
Replies
14
Views
5K
RoySimpson
RoySimpson
Top Bottom