Today Jesse Jackson Weeps
-
Red Stateler wrote:
That statement is fundamentally false and bordering on absurdity. That descibes a closed system, and the free market economy is anything but.
The world is a closed system. The absurdity is that some Capitalists continue to ignore this. As we've discussed before there is no 'free market' and never could be.
Red Stateler wrote:
What on earth is that even supposed to mean? That character is judged by net worth?
Yes and that is the fundamental error which is often the direct logical consequence of the thought you expressed earlier as I tried to explain. As soon as we don't value everyone equally we're in trouble. Remember that every one of those drugged up loosers who never learned anything and who it's very easy to call
Red Stateler wrote:
worthless bums
is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it.;)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The world is a closed system. The absurdity is that some Capitalists continue to ignore this. As we've discussed before there is no 'free market' and never could be.
The free market could exist, it would come in the form of anarcho-capitalism; basically a form of free-market anarchy where everything is provided by "the market". It requires nothing more than a couple of moral axioms to set it up and it completely eliminates the need for a state. It's a beautiful idea, yet not fully developed. I'm working on it in an academic sense.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I'm sure each parent was every bit as useless as their children. It certainly was a great community!
Yep, and therein lies the problem. The children sucked because the parents sucked, because their own parents sucked, and so on. Breaking out of that hopeless state, where you have the one or two lunatics you depend on (along with their offspring) constantly making you feel like crap, can't be easy. Then you go into the world where you're free to vent your built-up anger and frustration, and everyone thinks you're just another lazy, ignorant, criminal in the making. Great. I can't think of a better reason to sterilize every newborn baby, and not allow them to procreate until they can prove with a high degree of certainty that they understand the principals of good parenting. Just think of the benefits to children and society as a whole!
Whenever an appliance, gadget, or other kind of technology you own breaks or stops performing, pray to Science for it to be saved (fixed). If it doesn't change, don't worry... just keep praying. Science works in mysterious ways! - Someone on the Internet
Al Beback wrote:
Yep, and therein lies the problem. The children sucked because the parents sucked, because their own parents sucked, and so on. Breaking out of that hopeless state, where you have the one or two lunatics you depend on (along with their offspring) constantly making you feel like crap, can't be easy. Then you go into the world where you're free to vent your built-up anger and frustration, and everyone thinks you're just another lazy, ignorant, criminal in the making. Great.
There are quite a few bad parents in this country. There are also quite a few people who have made something of themselves and become good parents despite that fact, thus demonstrating that being cursed with poor parents is not unbreakable. I agree that good parenting develops good character.
Al Beback wrote:
I can't think of a better reason to sterilize every newborn baby, and not allow them to procreate until they can prove with a high degree of certainty that they understand the principals of good parenting. Just think of the benefits to children and society as a whole!
I suppose that would be the Nazi solution. However, these kids had poor parents for a very specific reason: Welfare (since repealed). The state subsidized out-of-wedlock-births for a couple of decades in an attempt to revitalize poor "disenfranchised" blacks. They were essentially removed from the capitalist system which would only reward their success and placed in a world that specifically rewarded complacency. It is, above all things, a demonstration of what the welfare state does to people, their character, self-worth and spirit. That said, I have absolutely no sympathy for them. They sold their soul for welfare.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The world is a closed system. The absurdity is that some Capitalists continue to ignore this. As we've discussed before there is no 'free market' and never could be.
The free market could exist, it would come in the form of anarcho-capitalism; basically a form of free-market anarchy where everything is provided by "the market". It requires nothing more than a couple of moral axioms to set it up and it completely eliminates the need for a state. It's a beautiful idea, yet not fully developed. I'm working on it in an academic sense.
73Zeppelin wrote:
moral axioms
Yeah...Good luck with that!
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The world is a closed system. The absurdity is that some Capitalists continue to ignore this. As we've discussed before there is no 'free market' and never could be.
The free market could exist, it would come in the form of anarcho-capitalism; basically a form of free-market anarchy where everything is provided by "the market". It requires nothing more than a couple of moral axioms to set it up and it completely eliminates the need for a state. It's a beautiful idea, yet not fully developed. I'm working on it in an academic sense.
-
Al Beback wrote:
Yep, and therein lies the problem. The children sucked because the parents sucked, because their own parents sucked, and so on. Breaking out of that hopeless state, where you have the one or two lunatics you depend on (along with their offspring) constantly making you feel like crap, can't be easy. Then you go into the world where you're free to vent your built-up anger and frustration, and everyone thinks you're just another lazy, ignorant, criminal in the making. Great.
There are quite a few bad parents in this country. There are also quite a few people who have made something of themselves and become good parents despite that fact, thus demonstrating that being cursed with poor parents is not unbreakable. I agree that good parenting develops good character.
Al Beback wrote:
I can't think of a better reason to sterilize every newborn baby, and not allow them to procreate until they can prove with a high degree of certainty that they understand the principals of good parenting. Just think of the benefits to children and society as a whole!
I suppose that would be the Nazi solution. However, these kids had poor parents for a very specific reason: Welfare (since repealed). The state subsidized out-of-wedlock-births for a couple of decades in an attempt to revitalize poor "disenfranchised" blacks. They were essentially removed from the capitalist system which would only reward their success and placed in a world that specifically rewarded complacency. It is, above all things, a demonstration of what the welfare state does to people, their character, self-worth and spirit. That said, I have absolutely no sympathy for them. They sold their soul for welfare.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
In a free nation, every man is ultimately responsible for his success.
It's a nice ideal, unfortunately a pipe dream, even if either of us did live in a 'free' nation.
Red Stateler wrote:
You mentioned the state taking everything away from them...
No, not the state (which I did not mention), the greedy. For example those who get rich making the poor poorer by getting them hooked on crack, or on MSG, or anti depresents, or tobacco. Just pick your desired profit to risk ratio. Or those who raid pensions funds, outsource employment, gamble money that is not theirs etc etc. Capitalism unfortunately has to have loosers in order for it to work for the winners and no amount of blaming those on the loosing end will change that. If we recognise this fact and do what we can to mitigate it at both ends our societies and economies might survive long enough for someone to come up with a better idea. If we continue to treat wealth as the main indicator of personal value then I'm afraid our children will spend their lives be slaves.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
No, basically non-aggression. That's about all, really. Well, it's the fundamental one. The rest are rather secondary.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
That statement is fundamentally false and bordering on absurdity. That descibes a closed system, and the free market economy is anything but.
The world is a closed system. The absurdity is that some Capitalists continue to ignore this. As we've discussed before there is no 'free market' and never could be.
Red Stateler wrote:
What on earth is that even supposed to mean? That character is judged by net worth?
Yes and that is the fundamental error which is often the direct logical consequence of the thought you expressed earlier as I tried to explain. As soon as we don't value everyone equally we're in trouble. Remember that every one of those drugged up loosers who never learned anything and who it's very easy to call
Red Stateler wrote:
worthless bums
is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it.;)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Goodness, I never thought I would agree with Red on much but on this I do. We spend millions of dollars on programs to raise up the poor. However, many do the bare minimum to get the benefits. If they don't really want to change they won't. Every poor school has a story of someone who 'rised above,' got a scholarship and went to college. If they can do it, why can't the rest of the school? If people want to better themselves they can. Just about every community has a library with internet access which is a great, free place to start on researching how to make your life better, learn about local programs, etc. While we are all equal and as valuable to G-d, technically from an economic standpoint we are not equal. In fact, for each dollar a North Dakotan pays in income taxes, they get back $1.07. So ND'ians are draining our resources. But I'd rather give them my tax dollars than to a school that does not enforce attendance and standards. Free or not, every culture has its poor, except maybe the old traditional Indian (feather, not dot) societies where everything belonged to everyone. But America is the best place to make something of yourself. If it isn't then why are we being overrun with illegal immigrants? I don't think they're coming for the Olive Garden.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
moral axioms
Yeah...Good luck with that!
Well, not moral in a truly religious sense. More like non-aggression in the sense that some state doesn't oppress or aggress towards you through something like taxation or expropriation of property.
-
George L wrote:
It sucked but I wouldn't trade the experience for the world.
What exactly did you get out of that experience to value it so highly? Beyond "it sucks to be poor" I can't see anything, and just driving through that sort of area or an equivalent urban slum seems to be an adequate introduction to that lesson.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Well, being a white male in America who, for a few moments at least, is a minority. I hated it at the time but looking back I firmly believe that the experience gave me at least a tiny glimpse of the 'other side'. I don't know how else to really put it into words. Let me give you a little bit more of a story here... My grandfather was a great man that shaped my life in many, many ways. He and my grandmother took a large hand in raising us as my parents both worked since we were part of the 'working poor' back then. He was the son of Polish immigrants and served in WWII, landing at Normandy on D-day. He was one of the few to make it out alive, actually made it all the way to Paris before getting shot in the ankle. He was a devout roman Catholic and hard core 'blue collar', Kennedy loving Democrat. Anyway, for as much as I love and respect this simple man, he had one serious flaw in that he was extremely bigoted and racist. He knew it, the whole family know it. One day when I was like 10 or so he told me that he knew in his heart that it was 'wrong' but it's just the way he was. So before I started getting shipped to this school, I had very little exposure to blacks, Mexicans or anything else other than our white Polish, German, Czech, Irish and Italian family and hence, my grandfathers racist influence was on me. Going to this school and befriending these kids I think really prevented me from becoming like my grandfather in that way (well, that and the Democrat thing ;P).
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
A lack of self-worth? Mixing with the wrong people? Lack of parental guidance? Poor housing? Poor employment prospects?
None of which are obsticales if you reject them.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
No doubt some do. But most don't have the money to spend on luxuries such as Crack. Some do the proper thing and go to Further Education Colleges and learn something new. However, most people who are in this deprived groupings are those where heavy industry once was, shut down for one reason or another, thus mass unemployment in the locality with minimal or no investment by other companies (or Government). And doing a "Norman Tebbit" is not always an option.
That may be the case in Britain, but in the US there were public housing projects (low-rent buildings subsidized by the federal government) that were filled with welfare recipients. I do commend those few that actually went onto college and I'm certain they'll get all that they deserve.
Red Stateler wrote:
None of which are obsticales if you reject them.
Which presumes infinite free will - that 'if' is a very, very big 'if'. Much as we like to believe otherwise, we're a product of our environment and our perception of available choices is framed by what we learn. Nearly all behaviors are learned, and many of them are extremely difficult to unlearn, and that capacity to unlearn depends on personality traits which are not at all common - introspection, desire to learn more than is necessary for day to day life, etc. In other words - complacency is very common and is a very normal human behavior. If you grow up learning that all opportunities go to OTHER people who already have a leg up, eventually it's going to be nigh impossible to convince you otherwise. And it doesn't take long to learn that; for those who experience it, it's already deeply ingrained by the time these people are still young children. I'm not saying this justifies the lack of change, but it is impossible to give it due effort if one refuses to recognize the cause and how difficult it really is to change. To bring this back to the issue at hand, I don't agree with forced integration of schools, either, nor have I ever approved of affirmative action. I was quite pleased when it was repealed in California, least until people got it all caught up in the courts, where I believe it still sits now..
-
Well, not moral in a truly religious sense. More like non-aggression in the sense that some state doesn't oppress or aggress towards you through something like taxation or expropriation of property.
You mean ... (from Rothbard) The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The world is a closed system.
No it isn't. Our energy comes from the sun. But besides that, the capitalist system does not encompass "the world". Supply has steadily increased for hundreds of years, demonstrating that you belief is false. If the world's economy were closed, then there would be exactly the same number of cars today as last year as 10 years ago as 100 years ago. The number of people would not increase. The amount of money would not increase. The amount of gold would not increase. Your crazy conspiracy theories just don't hold water once you spend 3 seconds looking at reality.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Yes and that is the fundamental error which is often the direct logical consequence of the thought you expressed earlier as I tried to explain. As soon as we don't value everyone equally we're in trouble. Remember that every one of those drugged up loosers who never learned anything and who it's very easy to call
I don't value them because of of their lack of character. Plain and simple. Their quality of life is a product of their lack of character. Again, it is a cause and effect relationship. Poor character begets a substandard lifestyle...Not the other way around. Your conspiracy theories require you to accept the reverse...That humanity's character is raped away by a capitalist system designed to do so while benefitting the rich. Do some research into the turnover over the wealthy (which is very high). Your conspiratorial rantings require a caste system, but the access to wealth is universal.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it.
No. It isn't because it's wrong.
Red Stateler wrote:
Matthew Faithfull wrote: The world is a closed system. No it isn't.
:laugh::((:laugh::((?
Red Stateler wrote:
Matthew Faithfull wrote: is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it. No. It isn't because it's wrong.
For why this attitude is wrong, has been proved to be a bigger problem than what you're talking about and will trip you up at every turn see the history of racism, colourism, exclusive nationalism, sectarianism or any other form of artificial and morally unsustainable discrimination. Wealthism is no different. Sorry, usually you have a point but on this one you're just plain wrong.
Red Stateler wrote:
That humanity's character is raped away by a capitalist system
No it is rotten right through before any of that kicks in. Remember it's not Capitalism that is sinful it's Capitalists (and non Capitalists);)
Red Stateler wrote:
access to wealth is universal.
Tell that to the people of Darfur, or Manilla, or the favellas of Rio but with all due respect please don't expect me to accept such nonesense.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Hooked on anti-depressants? While people do not need crack or tobacco, some DO NEED anti-depressants.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
leckey wrote:
While people do not need crack or tobacco
I suspect that there are more than a few people who would disagree... :rolleyes:
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
-
Goodness, I never thought I would agree with Red on much but on this I do. We spend millions of dollars on programs to raise up the poor. However, many do the bare minimum to get the benefits. If they don't really want to change they won't. Every poor school has a story of someone who 'rised above,' got a scholarship and went to college. If they can do it, why can't the rest of the school? If people want to better themselves they can. Just about every community has a library with internet access which is a great, free place to start on researching how to make your life better, learn about local programs, etc. While we are all equal and as valuable to G-d, technically from an economic standpoint we are not equal. In fact, for each dollar a North Dakotan pays in income taxes, they get back $1.07. So ND'ians are draining our resources. But I'd rather give them my tax dollars than to a school that does not enforce attendance and standards. Free or not, every culture has its poor, except maybe the old traditional Indian (feather, not dot) societies where everything belonged to everyone. But America is the best place to make something of yourself. If it isn't then why are we being overrun with illegal immigrants? I don't think they're coming for the Olive Garden.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
leckey wrote:
While we are all equal and as valuable to G-d, technically from an economic standpoint we are not equal.
Exactly and if we go on prioritising the $ value of people over their God given value :(
leckey wrote:
America is the best place to make something of yourself.
No argument there.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
leckey wrote:
While people do not need crack or tobacco
I suspect that there are more than a few people who would disagree... :rolleyes:
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
Well, that's addiction. And most people could 'survive' with out anti-depressants, but what would their quality of life be? I take an anti-depressant for OCD. Do you know how much of a day I spent doing OCD routines? It took away from my quality of life. Tobacco and crack do not overall enhance quality of life no matter what the addict says.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
-
Well, that's addiction. And most people could 'survive' with out anti-depressants, but what would their quality of life be? I take an anti-depressant for OCD. Do you know how much of a day I spent doing OCD routines? It took away from my quality of life. Tobacco and crack do not overall enhance quality of life no matter what the addict says.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
:shrug: Everyone has their own motivations... I'm not trying to judge hypotheticals. Which isn't to say i've ever met a tobacco or crack smoker who wouldn't be better off without it... but that is, ultimately, my opinion.
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
-
Hooked on anti-depressants? While people do not need crack or tobacco, some DO NEED anti-depressants.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
Yes, some do, if and when they work but that does not stop these and many other kinds of useful drugs being addictive money spinners ridden for all they're worth in many cases by greedy big pharma and its highly motivated sales executives. Anti depresent addiction and similar is also a good example of people trying to help themselves and being trapped and damaged by the greed of others. It shows how unrealistic Red's simplistic view of the world is. The Market is not a panacea for the same reason that Socialism doesn't work, original sin.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
You mean ... (from Rothbard) The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.
Yes, although I do disagree with Rothbard in some ways. I prefer to define non-aggression as a means to eliminate "the state". Rothbard takes it further - a bit too far, in my opinion. Basically Rothbard starts to define individual liberties in his definition. I'm not convinced that's necessary, although in some sense I can see how he's using the individual liberties part of the definition to establish the fact that the state need not exist. He starts into property rights and all that, but for me, that's basically another axiom in some sense. But in general, that's what I meant, yes.
-
Well, that's addiction. And most people could 'survive' with out anti-depressants, but what would their quality of life be? I take an anti-depressant for OCD. Do you know how much of a day I spent doing OCD routines? It took away from my quality of life. Tobacco and crack do not overall enhance quality of life no matter what the addict says.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome