pleased to meet you

[khasquakhas]

Hello, you can call me Khas. I recently discovered this forum and I thought you guys were all pretty interesting and well informed so I thought it would be fun.

I was captain of my debate team way back in high school and now I'm around a bunch of other liberals so, no one to argue with. A lot of people in this country have a problem with internet tribalism, the phenomenon of only associating themselves online with people who have the same perspective so that they can have their beliefs confirmed rather than challenged, but I want my beliefs challenged and I want to engage in meaningful discource. To sum up, I'm here to troll you in the most respectful and engaging way possible.

Thank you for letting me join.

[erowe1]

Welcome here.

What do you mean when you say "liberal"?

[fisharmor]

Welcome! I look forward to destroying your position.


Welcome here.

What do you mean when you say "liberal"?

Seconded. There are a lot of classical liberals here.

[khasquakhas]

Like, I voted for Obama twice and I would do it again, but I don't agree with him about everything.

[khasquakhas]

Welcome! I look forward to destroying your position.



Seconded. There are a lot of classical liberals here.

right, that's cool, just as long as there are conservatives too

[erowe1]

Like, I voted for Obama twice and I would do it again, but I don't agree with him about everything.

Is this the kind of answer you gave when you were the captain of the debate team in high school?

If you want to argue with us, you'll have to get more specific.

[helmuth_hubener]

khasquakhas

Oh, man! With a name like this and a generic non-capitalized thread title, I thought for sure there were going to be some links to buy Uggs in your signature!

Big let-down. :confused: :( :confused:

[khasquakhas]

Is this the kind of answer you gave when you were the captain of the debate team in high school?

If you want to argue with us, you'll have to get more specific.


Alright, here you go:

I think that the only kind of government that makes sense is a democracy which promotes capitalism,

that said, I think the government needs to be actively involved in promoting fairness and competition in most markets,

as well as promoting economic mobility through education and other programs,

in fact, I think that the government should make its primary objective education, R&D and infrastructure.

I think some form of limited world governance is necessary to ensure sustainability of our planet,

as such, whenever we have a unique ability to intervene in humanitarian situations deemed unacceptable in other countries, whether the result of natural or political disasters, we should act in the most appropriate manner

I also think Obamacare needs a lot of improvement, but not until some people learn to talk about it like adults

[erowe1]

Alright, here you go:

I think that the only kind of government that makes sense is a democracy which promotes capitalism,

that said, I think the government needs to be actively involved in promoting fairness and competition in most markets,

as well as promoting economic mobility through education and other programs,

in fact, I think that the government should make its primary objective education, R&D and infrastructure.

I think some form of limited world governance is necessary to ensure sustainability of our planet,

as such, whenever we have a unique ability to intervene in humanitarian situations deemed unacceptable in other countries, whether the result of natural or political disasters, we should act in the most appropriate manner

I also think Obamacare needs a lot of improvement, but not until some people learn to talk about it like adults

I doubt that any of the things you mention here really get down to the level of something very many people here would be interested in arguing about.

The point of contention is going to be how you go about running all of those things. If you rely on violence, then it's on that point where we'll want to argue with you.

Do you advocate violence?

[helmuth_hubener]

Alright, here you go:

I think that the only kind of government that makes sense is a democracy which promotes capitalism,

that said, I think the government needs to be actively involved in promoting fairness and competition in most markets,

as well as promoting economic mobility through education and other programs,

in fact, I think that the government should make its primary objective education, R&D and infrastructure.

I think some form of limited world governance is necessary to ensure sustainability of our planet,

as such, whenever we have a unique ability to intervene in humanitarian situations deemed unacceptable in other countries, whether the result of natural or political disasters, we should act in the most appropriate manner

I also think Obamacare needs a lot of improvement, but not until some people learn to talk about it like adults

I take it the underlying motive for your wanting all these things is that you want improved conditions and a better world. For instance, you want the government promoting education because you want children to be able to have good (and ever-improving) education. You want the government promoting medical care because you want to live in a world where your future family, and all families, live healthy, happy lives with vigorous and well-functioning bodies. Is this correct?

[khasquakhas]

In truth, isn't everything the government does kind of violent. Even spending money on roads has an element of coercion. If you don't give them your money, they will take it by force.

If you're asking about the international stuff, no, I don't think we use force against them except, maybe, if we feel like we can prevent a genocide or something with some military force.

sorry, this was in response to erowe1's last question

[khasquakhas]

I take it the underlying motive for your wanting all these things is that you want improved conditions and a better world. For instance, you want the government promoting education because you want children to be able to have good (and ever-improving) education. You want the government promoting medical care because you want to live in a world where your future family, and all families, live healthy, happy lives with vigorous and well-functioning bodies. Is this correct?


yes

[erowe1]

In truth, isn't everything the government does kind of violent.

Yes.

Do you consider that a good thing?

[helmuth_hubener]

yes I share the same desires. I think we all want the same kind of things: a good, happy life for our children, improving technology, clean air, endless opportunities, vital health, plentiful food, etc.

These goals are the important thing, not any misguided rigid fanaticism to a particular ideology, right?

If so, would you be open to changing your policy prescriptions if it could be shown that a different approach would actually lead to far superior results as far as actually achieving the goals?

If your answer is again yes, I ask that some others of my RPF brethren come make some results-based cases for some different policy choices. I've got to get some work done today and have spent too long typing here, as is.

Welcome, Khas, by the way. I think we share your cause, Khas, we just may have a better vehicle to reach the destination.

[khasquakhas]

Yes.

Do you consider that a good thing?

No. I wish it wasn't necessary, but people are self interested. Given a choice, people will tend to their families and will not be able to collaborate to achieve great things like landing on the moon or develop modern medicine.

However, sometimes government enhances liberty by using force. We couldn't have property rights if government wasn't around to enforce contracts and prevent theft. We couldn't have a right to life without a system of healthcare. etc.

[khasquakhas]

I share the same desires. I think we all want the same kind of things: a good, happy life for our children, improving technology, clean air, endless opportunities, vital health, plentiful food, etc.

These goals are the important thing, not any misguided rigid fanaticism to a particular ideology, right?

If so, would you be open to changing your policy prescriptions if it could be shown that a different approach would actually lead to far superior results as far as actually achieving the goals?



absolutely, that's why I'm here

[erowe1]

No. I wish it wasn't necessary, but people are self interested. Given a choice, people will tend to their families and will not be able to collaborate to achieve great things like landing on the moon or develop modern medicine.

However, sometimes government enhances liberty by using force. We couldn't have property rights if government wasn't around to enforce contracts and prevent theft. We couldn't have a right to life without a system of healthcare. etc.

So, the system you advocate is one where, instead of letting people tend to their families, you think they should let you tend to them instead, and if they don't agree to participate in your method, then you get to force them to with violence?

[khasquakhas]

So, the system you advocate is one where, instead of letting people tend to their families, you think they should let you tend to them instead, and if they don't agree to participate in your method, then you get to force them to with violence?


What I'm saying is that we need a social contract in which members of our society give away part of their rights in order to preserve others and to improve their overall quality of life. Democracy is the method of creating and updating that social contract. If all of that is in place and legitimate, then force is an appropriate method of preserving and enforcing it.

[erowe1]

What I'm saying is that we need a social contract in which members of our society give away part of their rights in order to preserve others and to improve their overall quality of life. Democracy is the method of creating and updating that social contract. If all of that is in place and legitimate, then force is an appropriate method of preserving and enforcing it.

What should happen to those who don't agree to enter the contract?

[Cleaner44]

Alright, here you go:

I think that the only kind of government that makes sense is a democracy which promotes capitalism,

that said, I think the government needs to be actively involved in promoting fairness and competition in most markets,

as well as promoting economic mobility through education and other programs,

in fact, I think that the government should make its primary objective education, R&D and infrastructure.

I think some form of limited world governance is necessary to ensure sustainability of our planet,

as such, whenever we have a unique ability to intervene in humanitarian situations deemed unacceptable in other countries, whether the result of natural or political disasters, we should act in the most appropriate manner

I also think Obamacare needs a lot of improvement, but not until some people learn to talk about it like adults

Nice to meet you and exchange ideas.

Do you recognize that the United States is a Republic and not a Democracy?

Why doesn't a Republic as a form of government make sense to you?

Do you recognize that the United States government promotes monopolies, rather than fairness and competition?

Do you believe that wealth redistribution promotes fairness?

I thank you for your thoughtful answers.

[fisharmor]

No. I wish it wasn't necessary, but people are self interested. Given a choice, people will tend to their families and will not be able to collaborate to achieve great things like landing on the moon or develop modern medicine.
What societal benefit was achieved by landing on the moon?

Name one aspect of modern medicine which was developed by the state.


However, sometimes government enhances liberty by using force. We couldn't have property rights if government wasn't around to enforce contracts and prevent theft. We couldn't have a right to life without a system of healthcare. etc.

Name two societies which did not use the state to enforce contracts, and explain why their system was invalid.

[dannno]

Alright, here you go:

I think that the only kind of government that makes sense is a democracy which promotes capitalism,


The problem with Democracy is that the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. A Constitutional Republic is generally preferred as a form of government, where the government is elected democratically but limited to protecting the rights, life and property of the citizens. The citizens must be educated and vigilant in protecting the spirit of this process or else it fails.

'Promoting capitalism' pretty much always means crony capitalism - the people who are friends of the politicians get the money from the taxpayers. True competition is not being promoted when the government gives money to specific organizations when there may be a better organization that would out-compete them in the free market.. but now the government has subsidized the weaker company and they put the stronger company out of business. So the government can't really promote capitalism except for moving out of the way and letting it happen and helping ensure an equal playing field by treating individuals equally under the law.

[khasquakhas]

What should happen to those who don't agree to enter the contract?

at some point, we have to be able to say "We're picking up trash on Tuesday. I know some of you want it picked up on Monday. Too bad"

[khasquakhas]

The problem with Democracy is that the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. A Constitutional Republic is generally preferred as a form of government, where the government is elected democratically but limited to protecting the rights, life and property of the citizens. The citizens must be educated and vigilant in protecting the spirit of this process or else it fails.

'Promoting capitalism' pretty much always means crony capitalism - the people who are friends of the politicians get the money from the taxpayers. True competition is not being promoted when the government gives money to specific organizations when there may be a better organization that would out-compete them in the free market.. but now the government has subsidized the weaker company and they put the stronger company out of business. So the government can't really promote capitalism except for moving out of the way and letting it happen and helping ensure an equal playing field by treating individuals equally under the law.

To me, promoting capitalism means enforcing contracts, creating standards, and building infrastructure (free trade is much easier with roads).

I agree that a constitutional republic is the way to go. Minority rights needs to be in the social contract

[khasquakhas]

Nice to meet you and exchange ideas.

Do you recognize that the United States is a Republic and not a Democracy?

Why doesn't a Republic as a form of government make sense to you?

Do you recognize that the United States government promotes monopolies, rather than fairness and competition?

Do you believe that wealth redistribution promotes fairness?

I thank you for your thoughtful answers.

I meant republican democracy, as a subtype of democracy.

Yes, I know the government promotes monopolies and it upsets me.

and "redistribution" is a strong word. I think of it as collaboration, we all chip in to build things we can all use, which seems pretty fair to me.

[khasquakhas]

What societal benefit was achieved by landing on the moon?

Name one aspect of modern medicine which was developed by the state.



Name two societies which did not use the state to enforce contracts, and explain why their system was invalid.


The number of inventions that came from the process of landing on the moon are immeasurable, in medicine, materials, aerospace, computing, even mathematics.

Most medical breakthroughs come from state funded universities, not to mention the FDA, which makes it possible for people who don't read medical journals to know which treatments are safe and effective.

As for that state enforcement of contracts, I'll give you two example:

First, look at Ethiopia, a nation that is practically without any real government, and forget property rights there. Their main industry is piracy. Besides recent efforts by other countries to police the surrounding waters, it had been almost unthinkable to carry freight through there.

Also, look at Russia for a moment. Remember that Pussy Riot issue a while ago. It just so happened that on the day that ruling was handed down, several international contracts were canceled. A couple of girls being given 2 years for criticizing the executive made it seem like the judiciary didn't have very much autonomy relative to the Kremlin, so what if you're a foreign company in Russia and you have a dispute with Putin, do you have much confidence that the courts are going to back you up?

[fisharmor]

The number of inventions that came from the process of landing on the moon are immeasurable, in medicine, materials, aerospace, computing, even mathematics.
I didn't ask what inventions came from it. I want to know what tangible societal benefit we gained from putting men on the moon.
You admitted earlier that you want to see an overall increase in the welfare of humanity. I'm calling you to the carpet.
Connect the dots. Explain to us how wrapping up billions of dollars in a rocket and shooting it into space increased the welfare of our society.


Most medical breakthroughs come from state funded universities, not to mention the FDA, which makes it possible for people who don't read medical journals to know which treatments are safe and effective.

Like Johns Hopkins?
Or Harvard?
Which publicly funded universities are these that are doing most of the research?

I don't read medical journals. How does the FDA make it so I know which treatments are effective?
Do I not go to a physician when I need treatment? Am I not compelled by law to seek the opinion of no one other than a physician?
Does that physician not read medical journals?


As for that state enforcement of contracts, I'll give you two example:

First, look at Ethiopia, a nation that is practically without any real government, and forget property rights there. Their main industry is piracy. Besides recent efforts by other countries to police the surrounding waters, it had been almost unthinkable to carry freight through there.

Ethiopia? Um.... I'm pretty sure (based on the fact that it gets thrown in our faces ad nauseum) that you're talking about Somalia. Is that the case? Because we all have ready rebuttals to that one. But Ethiopia hasn't been on anyone's political radar since the 1980s.


Also, look at Russia for a moment. Remember that Pussy Riot issue a while ago. It just so happened that on the day that ruling was handed down, several international contracts were canceled. A couple of girls being given 2 years for criticizing the executive made it seem like the judiciary didn't have very much autonomy relative to the Kremlin, so what if you're a foreign company in Russia and you have a dispute with Putin, do you have much confidence that the courts are going to back you up?

So.... slight misunderstanding here. I was asking you to remark on two systems of governance whereby the state didn't enforce contracts because it did not claim that role. You gave me examples of the state refusing to enforce contracts even though it claimed monopoly on contract enforcement.
There is a stark difference - and I would hope you can realize that you're making my argument for me by showing the state's failures.

[erowe1]

at some point, we have to be able to say "We're picking up trash on Tuesday. I know some of you want it picked up on Monday. Too bad"

That doesn't sound too bad.

So you don't advocate using violence against them?

[Root]

What I'm saying is that we need a social contract in which members of our society give away part of their rights in order to preserve others and to improve their overall quality of life. Democracy is the method of creating and updating that social contract. If all of that is in place and legitimate, then force is an appropriate method of preserving and enforcing it.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

[Cleaner44]

I meant republican democracy, as a subtype of democracy.

Yes, I know the government promotes monopolies and it upsets me.

and "redistribution" is a strong word. I think of it as collaboration, we all chip in to build things we can all use, which seems pretty fair to me.

Redistribution may be a strong word, but regardless of the word we use to describe the action, the reality is still the same.

You can choose to think in terms of collaboration, but is that an accurate word when people are forced to participate under the threat of violence?

I don't want to be forced to to chip in with you to purchase more missiles and drones to kill brown people and I don't think it is fair at all that I could go to jail if I refuse to. It saddens me that you do think this is fair. I would never ask a man with a gun force you to chip in with me to bail out a bank... doesn't that seem much more fair?

You recognize that the government promotes monopolies and it upsets you, yet you still want to force people to collaborate in a system that gives money to politicians so they can turn our money over to Wall Street or Monsanto. Why?

[Root]

at some point, we have to be able to say "We're picking up trash on Tuesday. I know some of you want it picked up on Monday. Too bad"


That doesn't sound too bad.

So you don't advocate using violence against them?
Can we please define "too bad"?

[erowe1]

My interpretation of "too bad" in the first quote is, "Go ahead and take your business elsewhere."

And "not too bad" in the second quote means, "OK, I will."

As long as participation is voluntary, I'm fine with it. I'm trying to figure out if khasquakhas feels the same.

[khasquakhas]

I didn't ask what inventions came from it. I want to know what tangible societal benefit we gained from putting men on the moon.
You admitted earlier that you want to see an overall increase in the welfare of humanity. I'm calling you to the carpet.
Connect the dots. Explain to us how wrapping up billions of dollars in a rocket and shooting it into space increased the welfare of our society.


Splitting hairs. I'm arguing that the research that we invested in in order to land people on the Moon had many many new inventions, and that many of those inventions had a lot of beneift to people beyond putting people on the moon.




Like Johns Hopkins?
Or Harvard?
Which publicly funded universities are these that are doing most of the research?

I don't read medical journals. How does the FDA make it so I know which treatments are effective?
Do I not go to a physician when I need treatment? Am I not compelled by law to seek the opinion of no one other than a physician?
Does that physician not read medical journals?


Yes, I know that privately funded Universities like Harvard do a lot of research, and no I don't have any statistics regarding which does more, public or private, nor which has done more beneficial research, but there are many public universities that do incredible work, this is undeniable.

That physician you go to for advice may be well trained and highly qualified, but he can't do drug trials on his own, and even if he or his company could, who's to prevent him from prescribing the drug anyway? What if he has a vested interest in the drug?




Ethiopia? Um.... I'm pretty sure (based on the fact that it gets thrown in our faces ad nauseum) that you're talking about Somalia. Is that the case? Because we all have ready rebuttals to that one. But Ethiopia hasn't been on anyone's political radar since the 1980s.

yes, I meant Somalia. My bad.




So.... slight misunderstanding here. I was asking you to remark on two systems of governance whereby the state didn't enforce contracts because it did not claim that role. You gave me examples of the state refusing to enforce contracts even though it claimed monopoly on contract enforcement.
There is a stark difference - and I would hope you can realize that you're making my argument for me by showing the state's failures.

Ok, a bit of wiggle room here, I guess, but there are very few examples of what you're talking about, where the government does not take that role as its prerogative. I assume you're imagining a world where businesses enforce their own contracts through private security companies or a similar situation

[khasquakhas]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."


That seems a little extreme don't you think? I mean, just because Ben Franklin said it, and it applied to a specific situation in the 1700's, doesn't mean it's dogmatically true. Would you really would give up ALL security if it meant giving up ANY liberty. What if I want to give up the right to murder people in order to enable a police force to prevent other people from murdering me? Do I deserve neither the freedom to murder NOR the protection from murderers?

If you don't feel the line is drawn in the right place, that's one thing, but you know that it has to be drawn

[khasquakhas]

Redistribution may be a strong word, but regardless of the word we use to describe the action, the reality is still the same.

You can choose to think in terms of collaboration, but is that an accurate word when people are forced to participate under the threat of violence?

I don't want to be forced to to chip in with you to purchase more missiles and drones to kill brown people and I don't think it is fair at all that I could go to jail if I refuse to. It saddens me that you do think this is fair. I would never ask a man with a gun force you to chip in with me to bail out a bank... doesn't that seem much more fair?

You recognize that the government promotes monopolies and it upsets you, yet you still want to force people to collaborate in a system that gives money to politicians so they can turn our money over to Wall Street or Monsanto. Why?

Everything you're saying is absolutely right. I don't want more missiles either. We make bad choices with the money we Steal (If you must think of it like that) from our citizens, but, when it comes down to it. They are OUR choices, maybe not yours specifically, but you can't deny we have an incredibly ignorant and complacent electorate.

The theory is still valid, but the social contract is gradually getting taken over by other interests while we say nothing, and let the media pit us against each other instead of working together.

[erowe1]

That seems a little extreme don't you think? I mean, just because Ben Franklin said it, and it applied to a specific situation in the 1700's, doesn't mean it's dogmatically true. Would you really would give up ALL security if it meant giving up ANY liberty. What if I want to give up the right to murder people in order to enable a police force to prevent other people from murdering me? Do I deserve neither the freedom to murder NOR the protection from murderers?

If you don't feel the line is drawn in the right place, that's one thing, but you know that it has to be drawn

If you don't consider murdering people an infringement on their liberty, then we're probably just talking past each other here.

The irony is, unless I'm totally mistaken about your view, that you actually do support murder, as long as the government does it.

[dannno]

What societal benefit was achieved by landing on the moon?


Velcro and ziplock bags. How much did that cost, again??

[Root]

That seems a little extreme don't you think? I mean, just because Ben Franklin said it, and it applied to a specific situation in the 1700's, doesn't mean it's dogmatically true. Would you really would give up ALL security if it meant giving up ANY liberty. What if I want to give up the right to murder people in order to enable a police force to prevent other people from murdering me? Do I deserve neither the freedom to murder NOR the protection from murderers?

If you don't feel the line is drawn in the right place, that's one thing, but you know that it has to be drawn
No, I don't. I don't want to give up any of my rights in order for you or anyone else to feel safer.

[dannno]

To me, promoting capitalism means enforcing contracts, creating standards, and building infrastructure (free trade is much easier with roads).


The problem with 'creating standards' is that the politicians create them and they have no idea how to run the industry that they are creating standards for - so a company like Monsanto says, "hey, you should make a 'regulation' that all grain factories are designed like ours, with the safety standards that we implemented required by every factory!" The problem is, those standards may be too much for a smaller grain factory that may not be able to compete after adding all of these unnecessary features to their factory and another factory may not be able to implement a more efficient process because it is not up to regulation, even though it may be safer and cost less.

The problem with building infrastructure is that they are going to pay their friend's construction company or union to do it, so it is going to cost too much and it may primarily benefit some subsection of large businesses that should be paying for it themselves.

If we are going to have roads built, it should be done at the local level, or as locally as possible. But what's wrong with private roads? I mean, look at where all these government roads have gotten us - You have all these liberals whining about how we all drive cars everywhere and then in the next breath when you say you don't like government, they ask who will build the roads? The fact is, if the free market needs a transportation route, the free market can and will build it, as long as the government is NOT in their way.

[dannno]

That seems a little extreme don't you think? I mean, just because Ben Franklin said it, and it applied to a specific situation in the 1700's, doesn't mean it's dogmatically true. Would you really would give up ALL security if it meant giving up ANY liberty. What if I want to give up the right to murder people in order to enable a police force to prevent other people from murdering me? Do I deserve neither the freedom to murder NOR the protection from murderers?

If you don't feel the line is drawn in the right place, that's one thing, but you know that it has to be drawn

If you want security, pay for it.

If your salary more than doubled overnight, since you wouldn't have to pay taxes anymore (including the inflation tax - have you learned about that yet?), would it be that big of a deal if you had to shell out $20/mo. for the police department to protect you and your property, $10 for fire department, and maybe $15 toward a national or state military/militia type organization? That way, if the police or military organization got too big and was intimidating to citizenry, people could choose to stop funding it.... which would result in a organizations that would help provide military or personal security that we all trusted and whose objective would be to continue to garner that trust. Then if there was a genocide overseas and we wanted them to go help, they could, because everybody was voluntarily donating and maybe the people who are donating WANT them to go help. Maybe they could setup a separate $5/mo fund or donation fund on the side to go help prevent genocide.

But right now what we have is a disaster - I don't want our military to do anything because I don't trust the people running it have our best interest or the people in the country they are helping's best interest in mind - they have big business interest in mind because they are the ones who helped the politicians in office to control the military. So if they are going to stop a genocide, they are doing it protect business interests of some business and it may result in even more people dying.

[specsaregood]

Velcro and ziplock bags. How much did that cost, again??

Velcro was not a product of nasa and predated the moon landing. It was invented by a swiss guy. That's just a popular untruth passed around the internet. The only claim nasa has to Velcro is in using it extensively and making it popular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro

I don't know about ziplocks.

[fisharmor]

Splitting hairs. I'm arguing that the research that we invested in in order to land people on the Moon had many many new inventions, and that many of those inventions had a lot of beneift to people beyond putting people on the moon.
How is it splitting hairs? You made a gratuitous assertion - that the Apollo program had benefits to society.
I am asking for qualification of that. You (and practically everyone else outside libertarian spheres of thought) simply assume that this assertion is true.
I do not. Nor do most others here.
But we didn't bring it up: you did. Therefore, demonstrate how the Apollo program benefited society in general.


Yes, I know that privately funded Universities like Harvard do a lot of research, and no I don't have any statistics regarding which does more, public or private, nor which has done more beneficial research, but there are many public universities that do incredible work, this is undeniable.

How is it undeniable? Until you show that this is the case, it is just another gratuitous assertion. I gave you two examples from the best-of-the-best list of medical research groups. Here's a third: the Mayo Clinic.
All of them are private. All of them are household words.
Surely you can counter with at least five examples of household names in quality medical research that the state funds? I think that would qualify as "most".


That physician you go to for advice may be well trained and highly qualified, but he can't do drug trials on his own, and even if he or his company could, who's to prevent him from prescribing the drug anyway? What if he has a vested interest in the drug?

Stick to the topic. I'm not discussing theoreticals or what-ifs. I'm asking you to defend your gratuitous assertions. This gratuitous assertion of yours is that "the FDA ... makes it possible for people who don't read medical journals to know which treatments are safe and effective."

This statement of yours is based on a few underlying assumptions:
1) That information about safe and effective treatments is only to be found in medical journals
2) That the FDA somehow disseminates this information to people who do not read said journals

Based on further statements of yours I also surmise that you assume:
3) That new drug trials are paramount in delivering quality medical care
4) That individual physicians cannot be trusted to make judgments on new drugs outside of FDA pronouncements

and probably also:
5) No other system can exist outside of the FDA to address these assumptions.

But #5 isn't even important to me, because I flatly reject #'s 1 through 4. You need to demonstrate that these are the case.

My counter-positions are:

1) Medical journals are published by a cartel which is blessed by the state. If there was no state-blessed medical cartel, then medical information would self-organize freely and openly in the same manner that open-source projects do. The cost of medical care would therefore plummet.

2) The FDA does not disseminate information to anyone. All it does is keep products from the market, both by banning them outright, and by making the certification procedure so expensive that yes, individual doctors cannot do their own research.

3) New drug trials are only necessary because of intellectual property laws, another state-enforced idea which I oppose. It is the only reason there are four or five different varieties of cholesterol reducer, erectile dysfunction pill, and SSRI inhibitor. The market only needs one or perhaps two of each of these, but IP laws force companies who wish to enter the market to craft their own solution. This is a colossal waste of productive energy - this is all research that could be done on other areas, which isn't, and therefore reflects a level of societal welfare well under what our potential is.

4) If individual physicians can't read medical literature and trial studies of various sources, why do I need to see one? Am I not better suited, then, to make my own determinations on whether or not to take a particular medicine? What purpose does the physician serve, if not to recommend courses of action? If the FDA is doing such a brilliant job, why not simply eliminate physicians?


yes, I meant Somalia. My bad.
http://mises.org/
Type "somalia" in the search box, and educate yourself.


Ok, a bit of wiggle room here, I guess, but there are very few examples of what you're talking about, where the government does not take that role as its prerogative. I assume you're imagining a world where businesses enforce their own contracts through private security companies or a similar situation

No, I'm not imagining it. I'm asking you to investigate, find out that there have been societies where there either was no state or the state did not actively enforce contracts, analyze its system, and explain to me how that reconciles with your statement:
"We couldn't have property rights if government wasn't around to enforce contracts and prevent theft."

It has happened, and it's documented. So I want to know how you think it actually didn't happen.

[RJB]

pleased to meet you

...hope you guessed his name :)

[Cleaner44]

Everything you're saying is absolutely right. I don't want more missiles either. We make bad choices with the money we Steal (If you must think of it like that) from our citizens, but, when it comes down to it. They are OUR choices, maybe not yours specifically, but you can't deny we have an incredibly ignorant and complacent electorate.

The theory is still valid, but the social contract is gradually getting taken over by other interests while we say nothing, and let the media pit us against each other instead of working together.

So we agree that our government is corrupt. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I never entered into any social contract with you or even the other fine people here at the Ron Paul Forums. I was simply born, supposedly a free human, in the beacon of freedom in the world and I am told that I must comply with men with badges and fancy hats or else I may be beaten, imprisoned, fined, have my property taken and/or killed. I am given no choice in the matter other than to leave if I don't like the deal and even then, I would be required to continue paying taxes to the United States government.

I think one of the problems is that some good people, maybe someone such as yourself, prefer to think that our tax revenues are used mostly for good things like roads. This unfortunately isn't the case. Even if it were true, it would still be immoral to threaten people for money.

Why would I want to enter into a contract of giving my money to the military industrial complex or giving foreign aid to military dictators or bailing out Wall St banks?

Since I am forced to be a part of this social contract, I would at least like to know what is in it and would like to know if I can negotiate the terms. We can't pretend that the people in D.C. represent my interests in the contract because they are largely corrupt, as I think we agree. A contract that is signed with a gun to my head is not valid and I never signed any contract with socialists.

I would like to see us work together and that means that we do so in a voluntary fashion.

Threats and violence are not the answer to creating a better society or a more fair society if that is what you want.

The politicians have created a scam that preys on people's desires for good things and it pits them against each other. They are so good at this that they even have convince some people that violence is acceptable for the greater good. It is a scam. It is immoral and it doesn't work.

Do you think this system of force is producing more prosperity or less for the majority of Americans?

[dannno]

...hope you guessed his name :)

But what's puzzling me, is the nature of his game.

[jllundqu]

khas means well, but is largely struggling to tread water this cesspool of political ideology. khas seems to be stuck in the "Liberal vs Conservative" and "Democrat vs Repub". Simple fact is parties are useless. It's about individual liberty and natural rights versus people like you who would advocate taking away my rights (by force) in order to create "a more perfect world"... something that has never existed and never will.

Where do we get our rights? Answer that question and you've answered all the rest.

[eduardo89]

Minority rights needs to be in the social contract

Why do you believe rights derive from being a part of a group and not from being an individual? Do some individuals have more rights than other? If so, why and how do they get those rights? Isn't the individual the smallest (and most persecuted) minority? Who determines what groups get special rights?

[TER]

Hi Khas and welcome! You came for debate and you got it! Don't get overwhelmed! Just as you are passionate about restoring this nation and improving the lives of the citizens, so is everyone else here. In the little you have revealed about yourself so far, I'm sure you will find a lot of common ground with the other members here. Some are conservative, others libertarian, and even others anarchists. Our common vision here is in reducing the size and intrusiveness of the federal government and restoring our civil and financial liberties.

BTW, you mentioned Pussy Riot earlier. They were imprisoned not merely for their vocal dissent of the leaders there, but because they entered the most revered and holy Cathedral in all of Russia and defiled it. To you that may not mean much, but to the Russian people whose general consciousness still remembers the sacrilegious acts and persecution under atheist rule, they imprisoned them. Sort of like when you said "the garbage is picked up on Tuesdays, not Monday, too bad.' In this case, if you enter a place of worship in attempt to maliciously defile it, too bad, you go directly to jail.

[specsaregood]

Velcro and ziplock bags. How much did that cost, again??

Velcro was not a product of nasa and predated the moon landing. It was invented by a swiss guy. That's just a popular untruth passed around the internet. The only claim nasa has to Velcro is in using it extensively and making it popular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro

I don't know about ziplocks.

I just checked, nasa didn't invent or have anything to do with inventing Ziplock either.

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't want to overwhelm anyone but there is a thing or two about Ethiopia, with regards to Somalia, that I was going to say.

It was mainly about Ethiopian collusion with the United States to target Somalia; the rising of Al Shabab from a largely unknown organization into what it is today as the result; and the blowback caused by a foolish foreign policy.

I'll drive this point home: You can't spread democracy with a bomb. The people must strive for it themselves. Those bad guys who you think we are going after for "humanitarian reasons" were CIA contacts and received hundreds of thousands of dollars previously.

Obama is a war criminal. Look up Angoor Adda, Pakistan; Granai, Afghanistan; Al Majalah, Yemen; Khataba, Afghanistan; the assassination of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki; the hundreds of children, thousands of civilians killed.

He expanded Bush's policies and made them acceptable. (as evidenced by your statement of you'd vote for him again)

Sigh.

[eduardo89]

BTW, you mentioned Pussy Riot earlier. They were imprisoned not merely for their vocal dissent of the leaders there, but because they entered the most revered and holy Cathedral in all of Russia and defiled it. To you that may not mean much, but to the Russian people whose general consciousness still remembers the sacrilegious acts and persecution under atheist rule, they imprisoned them. Sort of like when you said "the garbage is picked up on Tuesdays, not Monday, too bad.' In this case, if you enter a place of worship in attempt to maliciously defile it, too bad, you go directly to jail.

Especially considering Stalin blew the Cathedral up and it was painstakingly rebuilt after the fall of the atheistic communist regime.

[heavenlyboy34]

To me, promoting capitalism means enforcing contracts, creating standards, and building infrastructure (free trade is much easier with roads).

I agree that a constitutional republic is the way to go. Minority rights needs to be in the social contract
Ah, that mythical "social contract". That's one of the most amusingly absurd theories of civics EVER. The pseudo-intellectual SC theorists have yet to prove their thesis, yet continue claiming it to be true. :D If it weren't so tragic in practice it would be even more funny. :(

[pcosmar]

Like, I voted for Obama twice and I would do it again, but I don't agree with him about everything.

I don't like him at all,,,
But in retrospect, I'm sure we are better off than we would be if Romney had won.

A sad state of affairs indeed.

[khasquakhas]

Thank you for the warm welcome everyone, but this conversation is getting a litte bit broad. I'm going to migrate over to other discussions

[Cleaner44]

Thank you for the warm welcome everyone, but this conversation is getting a litte bit broad. I'm going to migrate over to other discussions

I am glad to see you came back.

I am disappointed that you are bailing out on the debate that you asked to have.

I look forward to you learning more from an extended stay.

Don't worry about that strange feeling you had yesterday, that is just your mind grappling with the fact that you advocate violence while thinking you are a peaceful person. It can be a bit uncomfortable and you will feel a slight pressure, but you will be better for it if you just open your mind wide. We won't even bill you, the service is free of charge. Do you know your blood type?

[georgiaboy]

Thank you for the warm welcome everyone, but this conversation is getting a litte bit broad. I'm going to migrate over to other discussions

pleased to meet you, too, khas. wise decision.

Don't let that buzzsaw you ran into yesterday run you off from the rest of the forums.

We have some expert debaters around here that'll test your mettle real quicklike if you ask them, and even if you don't sometimes, especially if you advertise as being a good one yourself. If you're interested, this is a great place to hone those skills and learn the tactics, as well as actually learn about the philosophies that shape your positions on issues.

Of course, advertising yourself as a two-time Obama voter here was like pouring honey over yourself in a clover field, so maybe that's what you intended.

Regardless, welcome again - looks like you survived your baptism by fire. ;)

[libertywanter]

Hello Khas, I am a new member to this site myself. I am most definitely on the opposite side of your way of thinking, but do admire that you are willing to have conversation with those opposing your views. If you keep an open mind I think you should really gain something from this site. I have learned much here in a very short amount of time, I think there are some very intelligent members on this site. Like I said keep an open mind, I tell myself that all the time, even though sometimes it is hard to do, if more people especially the people in government roles would learn to keep an open mind and not be so radical on either side, things probably would be much better than they are now. The problem is though extreme views usually bring extreme emotion from the other side. I get very extreme emotions at what the left is always pulling.

I am sure many will disagree with me on here, but I can meet you part of the way and say I do believe we need some government and some taxes, but just for the basic functions a government should provide. Which in my opinion would be national defense, law enforcement (not a fan of laws, but some are definitely necessary) and if I thought about it for a while maybe a few other things. I will put some real thought into what I think government should do and get back with you.

I really like what danno said above, about getting rid of the tax system and paying directly for what we need or want. That really makes sense to me, but think that is only wishful thinking as most people would probably never agree to it, simply because they couldnt understand it.

As far as you khas saying government is responsible for many inventions and that is a reason to continue on like we are I believe is totally ill perceived. Yes the government may have had its hand in some good inventions, anything the government does is totally inefficient. If the government invented a new pair of shoes for example it would cost taxpayers 100 million and the shoes would not be quality. If private industry invented the same type of shoe it would cost 20 million and be top of the line, and wouldnt cost taxpayers a dime. Why would private industry do this? Money of course, that is what everything boils down to, Money. And private industry will make better products and invent products all on its own because of this thing called Money, and all at no cost to taxpayers. Government has no business in technology, it needs to stay out of the way and let the private industry prosper. I cant tell you what the government has actually invented or made besides debt, but anything that did come from government was only stumbled upon by a fortune of taxpayers dollars.

And also to the point danno made above, if the government didnt take our dollars there would be so much more to go directly to what we need and not be wasted or misdirected by the government middle man. If there is a need for something, it will be created, government is not necessary to tell us what we need to invent.

And I would never suggest giving up rights to feel safer, when rights are gone they are usually gone forever.

Anyways welcome and I hope you find what you are looking for here.

[khasquakhas]

Sorry All. Been really busy with this project at work, I'm not running away, but I just wanted to be a little more clear, now that I've been able to compose my thoughts a little.

I've been able to surmise that most of you are really, really into a small central government. I really respect that position, and it seems reasonable considering its many, many evils. I'm getting the impression from a lot of you, especially Cleaner44, of a government that is this giant, sinister behemoth, and if your only experience with it is the news, that's reasonable. We have been, and are still, a part of some horrifying atrocities. If that were my impression of government in general, I too would be extremely hesitant to trust it, maybe even willing to cast it off and try something different.

However, I am a person who avoids moral absolutes. I care not at all about ideology, and I have to confess a personal bias. Let me tell you a story.

When my first child was born I worked at a barely above minimum wage job. We didn't have the extensive support system that allows some parents to both work. So I had to make enough to support me, my wife and son. This is when I began to feel trapped, like I'd be a mere frycook for decades. I didn't want that to happen, but I could barely afford rent, let alone college. Enter the Hope Scholarship and Pell Grant.

I know that the Hope Scholarship is state funded and paid for 100% of my tuition, but without Pell it still wouldn't have been possible, because I would have had to work two jobs without the $5000 a year that Pell dolled out. That was 4 years ago. 5 Months ago I graduated with a Bachelor's in Mathematics and 2 months ago I was hired by a multi-billion dollar software company. I couldn't have done it without my amazing wife, who sacrificed her education for the sake of her family, but it wouldn't even have been conceivable without gov't help, so when the question arises whether government CAN be a force for good, I cannot be swayed.

So anyway, that's my perspective. I think it's good we have conversations about the role of government, or even about the existence of government, but like you said, what's really important is trying to use policy to improve people's lives.

Yes, those Pell dollars that were given to me were taken from somebody else, by force when necessary, but I'll be paying income taxes for the first time in my life this year. Some of that money will go to things I don't agree with, but some of it will go to helping another little guy get his own really big leg up.

All I'm saying is, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Natural Citizen]

Perhaps the most unfortunate shortcoming is the fact that too many who profess for less government don't fully understand what government in it's current state actually is as opposed to what it should actually be in it's historic state. Specifically this demograph would do well to better understand the concept of citizenship itself. You know? All things of, by and for and applicable in a manner in which the people are representative of themselves. As it is and in the direction we're headed we'll surely trade in our Constitution and Bill of Rights for a terms of service agreement conforming to this newly accepted repatriation of representation which comes as a result of the hijacking of those documents by common entities whose model is purely one of growth and often contradicts that of survival. Survival is a natural phenomenon and one reserved for natural citizens. If these citizens are no longer relevant in the political processes that are placed into infrastructure for their very survival as a nation of people then surely they'll not have a government representative of their interests. This is what "less government" genuinly means when you ask a person who is supportive of this corporate hijacking of our citizenship, representation, political processes and yes...government itself.

And the fools will love themselves for it. :rolleyes:

[Dary]

All I'm saying is, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Here's the thing though Khas:

The very policies that big government (our big government) supports, creates, and defends, contributes to our poverty. Big government makes us poor. I mean really, look where we are now. $17 trillion in debt?

A system which requires an intrusive and expensive collection agency to insure a steady source of income, starts off with a huge disadvantage. It cannot be anything but inefficient. It has already taken 2 steps back in its attempt to take 1 step forward. But the IRS is simply one example. Big government is wrought with inefficiencies and expensive corruption notwithstanding the IRS.

I believe that a smaller, less expensive government would contribute greatly to our prosperity. One in which an individual's choice of last resort (Hope, Pell) wouldn't even be needed since many other options in a much richer, wealthier society would exist.

We are not debating an open ended theory or argument. It's a closed loop system where actions have consequences. In other words, what goes around comes around. You allude to this same sort of idea in your post above. I'm saying that the same goal with even better results can be achieved without all the coercion, inefficiency and resultant loss of life and liberty.

Libertarian Harry Browne used to say that the one thing government was really good at was breaking your legs, handing you a pair of crutches and then saying “see it it weren't for us, you wouldn't be able to walk”.

Welcome to the forums.

[erowe1]

However, I am a person who avoids moral absolutes.

The following is a moral absolute.



All I'm saying is, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I think what you're really trying to say is not that you don't believe in morality, but that you don't want to let morality stop you from getting what you want. Is that right?

[kcchiefs6465]

College tuition costs, much like medical care costs, are outrageously inflated and by and large unaffordable because of the government's involvement in regulatory schemes and the Fed's "printing" of dollars.

Dary's quotation of Harry Browne is accurate.

[khasquakhas]

I believe that a smaller, less expensive government would contribute greatly to our prosperity. One in which an individual's choice of last resort (Hope, Pell) wouldn't even be needed since many other options in a much richer, wealthier society would exist.

I'm open to your argument, truly I am, but I'm not convinced. My dad might have been able to help me pay for college before he lost his well paying construction job shortly after the housing bust. Was the housing bust caused by the intrusive government intervention or the IRS? I know a lot of people here are going to say yes, but almost every competent economist will tell you that unchecked speculation and lack of regulation caused that crises, so I fail to see how an even smaller government would have prevented this specific need.

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm open to your argument, truly I am, but I'm not convinced. My dad might have been able to help me pay for college before he lost his well paying construction job shortly after the housing bust. Was the housing bust caused by the intrusive government intervention or the IRS? I know a lot of people here are going to say yes, but almost every competent economist will tell you that unchecked speculation and lack of regulation caused that crises, so I fail to see how an even smaller government would have prevented this specific need.
The housing bust was caused by the Fed keeping the interest rates too low for too long. It encouraged malinvestment and created a moral hazard. Same way the college bubble will burst.

And to let you in on a secret, a lot of economists are truly fucking incredibly dumb. They literally believe that paying someone to dig a hole and fill it back up with dirt is productive. Likewise they believe recessions or depressions can be ended by going to war. You have to see/hear it to believe it. I mean, even a child would scratch their head about their claims. Somehow it becomes legitimate through government decree and no one bats an eye.

[khasquakhas]

I think what you're really trying to say is not that you don't believe in morality, but that you don't want to let morality stop you from getting what you want. Is that right?

Listen, I love moral philosophy just as much as the next guy. I struggled for a long time with the notion that it was immoral to reap benefits from living in a society that could do such horrible things in Iraq, Afghanistan, even here at home, but, in reality, how can I avoid reaping the benefits? Just by walking the streets and being able to live my life without unreasonable fear that I'll encounter a ruthless gang of thugs at every street corner I'm reaping the benefits. I'm not just talking about a police force either. Talk to anyone who's traveled the world and you'll find that in America and other first world nations, it is ridiculously easy to be rich; not GETTING rich, mind you, but in most places anyone with the money to have a nice smartphone or a clean business suit will go out of the way to hide this fact. You could say that our extensive social net (minimum wage, food stamps, unemployment insurance, medicaid) makes it tolerable to be poor. It still sucks, but you put people in a situation where there is literally NOTHING they can do to feed their families, and they will sure enough find a way.

Sorry, a bit of a tangent. The point is that this conversation is far from settled, and while it's not, I'm not going to decline an opportunity to move from the lower class to the middle class just out of a principle that I'm not quite sure about, when I'll probably be just as guilty of taking blood money whether I do or not, especially since I'm leaning toward the idea that even if the government is evil beyond purification, it's better to try and improve it by civic participation then, I don't know, armed rebellion or something.

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know we all wanna change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know we all wanna change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out


Read more: John Lennon - Revolution Lyrics | MetroLyrics (http://www.metrolyrics.com/revolution-lyrics-john-lennon.html#ixzz2ikb9iIhB)

[erowe1]

Listen, I love moral philosophy just as much as the next guy. I struggled for a long time with the notion that it was immoral to reap benefits from living in a society that could do such horrible things in Iraq, Afghanistan, even here at home, but, in reality, how can I avoid reaping the benefits? Just by walking the streets and being able to live my life without unreasonable fear that I'll encounter a ruthless gang of thugs at every street corner I'm reaping the benefits. I'm not just talking about a police force either. Talk to anyone who's traveled the world and you'll find that in America and other first world nations, it is ridiculously easy to be rich; not GETTING rich, mind you, but in most places anyone with the money to have a nice smartphone or a clean business suit will go out of the way to hide this fact. You could say that our extensive social net (minimum wage, food stamps, unemployment insurance, medicaid) makes it tolerable to be poor. It still sucks, but you put people in a situation where there is literally NOTHING they can do to feed their families, and they will sure enough find a way.

Sorry, a bit of a tangent. The point is that this conversation is far from settled, and while it's not, I'm not going to decline an opportunity to move from the lower class to the middle class just out of a principle that I'm not quite sure about, when I'll probably be just as guilty of taking blood money whether I do or not, especially since I'm leaning toward the idea that even if the government is evil beyond purification, it's better to try and improve it by civic participation then, I don't know, armed rebellion or something.

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know we all wanna change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know we all wanna change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out


It's not really about feeling immoral about where you live.

It's more about recognizing morality itself, and conforming our convictions about public policies to it.

Taxation is theft. It may well be ridiculous to hold out any hope of ever eliminating it. But that moral fact still has to inform our political views. No matter what taxes exist, less would be better and more would be worse. I may benefit from things that taxes pay for now, but even if I do, I shouldn't let that affect my convictions. I drive on taxpayer funded roads, but I still recognize that it's immoral to fund roads with taxes. I don't think that makes me immoral for driving on them. But even if it did, I couldn't change an absolute moral law just by wishing it were different.

[khasquakhas]

It's not really about feeling immoral about where you live.

It's more about recognizing morality itself, and conforming our convictions about public policies to it.

Taxation is theft. It may well be ridiculous to hold out any hope of ever eliminating it. But that moral fact still has to inform our political views. No matter what taxes exist, less would be better and more would be worse. I may benefit from things that taxes pay for now, but even if I do, I shouldn't let that affect my convictions. I drive on taxpayer funded roads, but I still recognize that it's immoral to fund roads with taxes. I don't think that makes me immoral for driving on them. But even if it did, I couldn't change an absolute moral law just by wishing it were different.

Let me ask you, just to clarify, is there a minimum level of services that the government could provide which would be prefereable to doing nothing at all?

In other words, is there anything that you feel the government NEEDS to do because it could not or definately would not be performed by any other entity and it would be necessary for humanity to do?

If there were a chemical company on a lake that made a policy of dumping its waste into the lake, eventually making the lake absolutely useless or even dangerous for the people who lived around it, who had previously depended on the lake for their livelihood, like fishermen or the lake, you would not support using taxes to create laws to prevent such a catastrophe? Remember, hypothetical question, I'm not asking whether or not you feel, somehow, that in the absence of government intervention corporations would or would not take such actions.

Also, does everyone else agree with him.

[khasquakhas]

Hello Khas, I am a new member to this site myself. I am most definitely on the opposite side of your way of thinking, but do admire that you are willing to have conversation with those opposing your views. If you keep an open mind I think you should really gain something from this site. I have learned much here in a very short amount of time, I think there are some very intelligent members on this site. Like I said keep an open mind, I tell myself that all the time, even though sometimes it is hard to do, if more people especially the people in government roles would learn to keep an open mind and not be so radical on either side, things probably would be much better than they are now. The problem is though extreme views usually bring extreme emotion from the other side. I get very extreme emotions at what the left is always pulling.


Very wise

[erowe1]

Let me ask you, just to clarify, is there a minimum level of services that the government could provide which would be prefereable to doing nothing at all?

If any of these services involve anything immoral, like theft, murder, kidnapping, and so on, then no. No matter what level of any of those things we have, I can't support them.

[erowe1]

..

[erowe1]

If there were a chemical company on a lake that made a policy of dumping its waste into the lake, eventually making the lake absolutely useless or even dangerous for the people who lived around it, who had previously depended on the lake for their livelihood, like fishermen or the lake, you would not support using taxes to ....

No matter how you finish the above sentence, the answer is no.

Something like that might call for action. You might even come up with a scenario where I would agree that it called for violent action. However, if such a situation arose, and I believed that I had an obligation to intervene, even with violence, against that corporation that had already initiated violence against me and others, then that moral obligation would not bring with it the right for me to engage in violence against innocent neighbors of mine, taking money from them, or conscripting them to help me do something they don't support against that corporation. If I want their help, then I need to persuade them to join my cause against that corporation voluntarily.

If I chose the route of using violence to force all my neighbors to help me fight against that corporation, then I don't see how that would make me any different than them. It would just be one criminal gang against another. And whichever wins gets to be the government. Like what we have now.

[jllundqu]

I'll pipe in here. I am a minarchist and as such feel that there is a necessary amount of force needed to provide the most basic functions as prescribed in our founding documents. That being said, minarchists cannot agree on how big or small the government should be. I just stick with "the smallest government possible"

However, this position leads many ideological purists to eventually go full anarchist when they grapple with the dillema that in order for the minarchist system to work you have to swallow the following:

1. No Force Allowed (NAP)
2. Government = Force
3. Saying that you advocate for any amount of government = admission that force is sometimes OK.

Tough pill to swallow.

[erowe1]

I'll pipe in here. I am a minarchist and as such feel that there is a necessary amount of force needed to provide the most basic functions as prescribed in our founding documents. That being said, minarchists cannot agree on how big or small the government should be. I just stick with "the smallest government possible"

However, this position leads many ideological purists to eventually go full anarchist when they grapple with the dillema that in order for the minarchist system to work you have to swallow the following:

1. No Force Allowed (NAP)
2. Government = Force
3. Saying that you advocate for any amount of government = admission that force is sometimes OK.

Tough pill to swallow.

The smallest government possible would be a tax collection agency and nothing else.

[khasquakhas]

No matter how you finish the above sentence, the answer is no.

Something like that might call for action. You might even come up with a scenario where I would agree that it called for violent action. However, if such a situation arose, and I believed that I had an obligation to intervene, even with violence, against that corporation that had already initiated violence against me and others, then that moral obligation would not bring with it the right for me to engage in violence against innocent neighbors of mine, taking money from them, or conscripting them to help me do something they don't support against that corporation. If I want their help, then I need to persuade them to join my cause against that corporation voluntarily.

If I chose the route of using violence to force all my neighbors to help me fight against that corporation, then I don't see how that would make me any different than them. It would just be one criminal gang against another. And whichever wins gets to be the government. Like what we have now.

Ok. Good to hear. Instead of requiring a small portion of everyone's income to create an institution of constitutionally limited authority in order to resolve disputes and work together in order to work on projects to benefit everyone, you would prefer unorganized mob violence.

But of course, the situation above might not have been so cut and dry. What if instead of dumping in the lake they were just...Muslim.

See, you're method of restitution has no restraint, and if the other had a claim against you, it wouldn't matter. You're the one with the mob. Your philosophy doens't allow for a system of adjudicating disputes because such system necessarily rely on coercion.

Humans have always, since the beginning of our species, even when we lived as nomadic hunter gatherers, lived together in a society, which included authority, and thus coercion. It might suck to have to listen to what other people say, but it's the bare minimum cost of living in a society, and we all choose to live this way. There is no instance of a people who left to their own devices have not chosen to live in this way. Which is why I don't have a problem with it.

If we're going to have authority, therefore, I say let it serve everyone, rather than just the fortunate.

[erowe1]

Ok. Good to hear. Instead of requiring a small portion of everyone's income to create an institution of constitutionally limited authority in order to resolve disputes and work together in order to work on projects to benefit everyone, you would prefer unorganized mob violence.

If your constitutionally limited authority subjugates people against their wills with deadly force, then it is mob violence.

I don't see where you get "unorganized." All violent gangs have some organization. All of them are also somehow limited. All of them also have to consider how much their victims will put up with. All of them are also still criminal.



But of course, the situation above might not have been so cut and dry. What if instead of dumping in the lake they were just...Muslim.
Are you suggesting now that you think a violent force is needed to intervene with people being Muslims?


See, you're method of restitution has no restraint, and if the other had a claim against you, it wouldn't matter. You're the one with the mob.
You must have misunderstood me. I'm the one without the mob. If I used guns to make my neighbors help me fight the evil corporation, then I'd be the one with the mob.


Humans have always, since the beginning of our species, even when we lived as nomadic hunter gatherers, lived together in a society, which included authority, and thus coercion.
Source?



If we're going to have authority, therefore, I say let it serve everyone, rather than just the fortunate.
That's impossible. Who are these angels you have in mind who, given power over others, won't use it for their own interests?

Your view takes us back full circle. The government you advocate, and that corporation polluting the lake in your question in post 67, are the same thing.

[erowe1]

constitutionally limited authority

By the way. I don't take back anything in my last response, but since this is unrelated, it deserves a separate post.

What do you mean by "constitutionally limited"?

[jllundqu]

The smallest government possible would be a tax collection agency and nothing else.

I also believe the government has a role in protecting the nation with limited defense (Army/Navy, etc). I believe the government has a role in the judiciary (only on federal matters, states handle state matters). The government has a role in law enforcement.

When it comes to the absolute largess and inumerable government agencies and programs... I say they should all go. I feel I am very in-line with Ron Paul in my beliefs. Ron Paul advocates for small government, not NO government.

[erowe1]

I also believe the government has a role in protecting the nation with limited defense (Army/Navy, etc). I believe the government has a role in the judiciary (only on federal matters, states handle state matters). The government has a role in law enforcement.

When it comes to the absolute largess and inumerable government agencies and programs... I say they should all go. I feel I am very in-line with Ron Paul in my beliefs. Ron Paul advocates for small government, not NO government.

OK. I'm just saying that a government could be smaller than the kind you believe in.

[jllundqu]

OK. I'm just saying that a government could be smaller than the kind you believe in.

Agreed. In that regard we are allies. I just can't stand it when anarchists say that anyone who is not an anarchist is a statist, just varying in degree and that they are enemies. I don't have all the answers and I'm still crystalizing my own beliefs, but If I can say I am in line with Ron Paul and those like him, I am on the right track. ANyone who advocates for (much) smaller and limited government is my natural ally.

[fisharmor]

Of course, advertising yourself as a two-time Obama voter here was like pouring honey over yourself in a clover field

I like honey.

[fisharmor]

Yes the government may have had its hand in some good inventions

I'm not going to allow this idea to go unquestioned here.
This isn't ground that need be conceded here. It's simply not true.
If it was, then examples would spring to the lips.

They've come up with some pretty ingenious ways to tax people and steal their other property, some clever reasons to lock them up in rape dungeons, and some utterly brilliant justifications for ending human life.
I'm still waiting to hear what they've done that has increased our well being.

[fisharmor]

Yes, those Pell dollars that were given to me were taken from somebody else, by force when necessary, but I'll be paying income taxes for the first time in my life this year. Some of that money will go to things I don't agree with, but some of it will go to helping another little guy get his own really big leg up.

Federal and state grants are only one type of financial aid for students. There are also many private organizations that offer grants and scholarships, and the colleges do themselves in many cases.
By bringing up roads you show that you're falling for the "government does this, therefore only government can do this" fallacy. This is a kind of denying the antecedent: the state offers financial aid, therefore if the state didn't offer financial aid there would be no financial aid.

I have a good friend who got his girlfriend pregnant when he was 18. He joined the air force and married her. The USAF took care of him and got him to grow up really fast.

I'm happy both of you benefited, in the same manner I would be happy if a thief broke into my house and stole all my food to give to his children... which is to say, not really happy at all, but understanding. What stymies me is that you admit that this was funded with money forcibly taken from other people - and then you mention how your forcibly extracted taxes will continue the cycle, as if this excuses the original theft.


However, I am a person who avoids moral absolutes.
There is no such person.
If you truly don't believe in moral absolutes, give me your address, and I'll be by tonight when you're asleep to take all your stuff.
You know, because there are no moral absolutes.... ;)

[angelatc]

at some point, we have to be able to say "We're picking up trash on Tuesday. I know some of you want it picked up on Monday. Too bad"

Pretty funny. My old neighborhood had 3 trash companies to pick from, and they all came on different days.

[Kotin]

Alright, here you go:

I think that the only kind of government that makes sense is a democracy which promotes capitalism,

that said, I think the government needs to be actively involved in promoting fairness and competition in most markets,

as well as promoting economic mobility through education and other programs,

in fact, I think that the government should make its primary objective education, R&D and infrastructure.

I think some form of limited world governance is necessary to ensure sustainability of our planet,

as such, whenever we have a unique ability to intervene in humanitarian situations deemed unacceptable in other countries, whether the result of natural or political disasters, we should act in the most appropriate manner

I also think Obamacare needs a lot of improvement, but not until some people learn to talk about it like adults

but how can you ignore the fact that democracy amounts to mob rule and this government was never intended to be a democracy to begin with.. if I get 51% to agree that coffee is illegal and violations are punishable by death, I can do that.. but its still bullshit and it still fails to protect individual liberty.

also.. how can you reconcile the fact that obama has done everything pretty much exactly like Bush would have? his foreign policy is merely a continuation of the Bush Policy..

he has expanded our foreign empire and it seems like there never really was an "Anti War Left" but only an antibush left because I dont hear enough obama supporters calling him out on his imperialism and his expanded drone campaign.

and as to obamacare.. you cannot force me to buy anything and penalize me for not buying it.. individuals cannot do it and therefore government cannot derive the power to do it.

[libertywanter]

I'm not going to allow this idea to go unquestioned here.
This isn't ground that need be conceded here. It's simply not true.
If it was, then examples would spring to the lips.

They've come up with some pretty ingenious ways to tax people and steal their other property, some clever reasons to lock them up in rape dungeons, and some utterly brilliant justifications for ending human life.
I'm still waiting to hear what they've done that has increased our well being.

Maybe instead of taking one line out of my comment, read the whole thing, I CLEARLY stated later in that comment I could not name any, I was simply trying to make one point at a time, you may learn some day it is easier to win the war one battle at a time, I did not want to debate on what the government had its hand in creating. Dont make me look like an A** thank you

[libertywanter]

khas, I can definitely see your point of view, the government did help you, and it helps many like you, that is clearly part of the governments agenda. The need to create a huge base that rely on them, that in return gives them the power. Kind of why we currently have a democrat as a president. The democrats voting base is largely the people that rely on government. I will not beat you up at all for taking the grants, they were available and they did good for you. You have made good use of your opportunity, HOWEVER, (you knew it was coming) If there was no government involved, private sector still would need a person of your skills, they want skilled workers, and if they werent robbed by the government would probably have plenty of money to give out their own grants, why would they do this, 1st not all wealthy people are greedy, that is a big misconception. 2nd even if they were greedy they know in the long run it would create them more wealth by having another skilled worker on their team. Also, many people take advantage of grants and dont amount to anything, just more waste, not all but many, you are clearly not one of them as you have applied yourself and took advantage of what you learned by becoming an employed tax payer.

It has worked well for you in your life, but in the big picture long term isnt feasible to continue forever, Just like I am anti-union, but have many friends that have got a great life from being in the unions, however that is another thing that can not continue especially when we are in a global economy as we are now.

As for the argument between some of us on little government or no government, like I said before I am for small government, as I am convinced that there are way too many stupid people in this country that couldnt understand the concept of just giving to support whatever function we need. Our country does need leadership and that is very clear to me, definitely not what we have now though.

[khasquakhas]

Your view takes us back full circle. The government you advocate, and that corporation polluting the lake in your question in post 67, are the same thing.

But you do understand that it's going to be one or the other, right? So, which would you choose?

My point is that the government is not the only entity capable of depriving you of liberty, and if it didn't exist, the alternative would result in a lot less liberty than we have now. That's an opinion, I know, but it's informed by logic and history.

If you want a source for what I said about early humans, check out Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee or his Guns, Germs and Steel, great reads.

And by constitutionally limited I don't mean limited by a constitution, I mean somehow constituted (formed) in a limited way.

And you know what I'm talking about with Muslims. I'm saying there are completely ignorant people who would drive Muslims away because they're convinced that they will do them harm. If you were sure that your Pakistani neighbor was a terrorist (because you're a bigoted bastard) then you'd have every reason to sick the mob against him.

[khasquakhas]

libertywanter, thank you for your comment.

As a matter of fact, I did apply for private grants as well, even got one, a $1000 grant divied up between two semesters.
So here's the ledger:

Private Individuals or corporations $1000
The federal government: $20,000

I know you're saying that corporations would be more apt to do this, and I think that's plausible. Indeed, there was a time when all universities were private and, if you weren't the child of an aristocrat, then this was the way to get there, by finding a rich old man to take an interest in you. During the time in which this was the case most of the population was illiterate, though. I know that this would happen if the government got out of the education game, it already happens on a much smaller scale today, but would it be accessible to all, or just the best and the brightest?

I do know a lot of people who go to college just for the Pell, and try to game the system, but you can't spend too much time in a university without thinking about the future, and you can't keep getting financial aid for very long at all if you're not serious about it. You can view this program, rather cynically, as a way to secure a political base, but even if you do, it still just makes good business sense. $20,000 for me now, an entire lifetime of income taxes later.

We do not know what corporations would do in the absence of government, and I wish that some would pause to consider the depth of our ignorance before we go around blithely cutting programs that dramatically alter regular people's lives. Maybe there's some way to gather data on this subject, or maybe, if we're getting trigger happy with a chainsaw at the stray limbs of government, that we maybe cut some of the more grotesque branches first, one of which I'd be most eager to admit would be foreign policy and our WAY oversized military.

[kcchiefs6465]

What's your understanding of our monetary policy, Khas? Not asking with any sort of motive just curious as to what you know about how money comes into being. It is an immoral process, the cost of which is felt worldwide in the form of poverty through monetary enslavement (World Bank loans, etc.), death (war being promoted and engineered to keep the petrodollar alive... and then war being promoted and engineered to fight those who fight us because they are opposed to our system [or those whose family was disposed because of our system]), and misery. (through the inherently immoral process which in and of itself transfers true wealth from the middle and lower classes to those controlling the money spigots)

Philosophically, could you ever find yourself supportive of a system that derives its wealth through such evil means perpetrated on the rest of mankind? Do you subscribe to the theory of American exceptionalism?

There is a great video on the process I will post that illustrates fractional reserve banking as well as other aspects of our monetary system. Relating our [immoral] system of money to many of the problems of the world doesn't take many hoops to see a correlation. I see it plain as day. KBR robbing the life from troops delivering Ho-hos down the "Highway of Death", for example, as they live in plush palaces and villas. (the war which was related to Saddam Hussein's attempt to price oil in euros)

Depleted uranium radiated one eyed babies being the result. Google anencephaly, which is a baby being born without part of their brain, and recognize that the half-life is 4.38 billion years. Is our short term [illusory] "wealth" really worth it? Could you really vote for Obama who is further irradiating obscure sections of the world?

[khasquakhas]

Monetary policy is fascinating, I love it. I'm definitely not an expert, but I know enough to totally blow my mind.

You sound like you'd be a fan of Ward Churchill, one of the harshest critics of American foreign policy that I've ever encountered. Check out "On the justice of roosting chickens"

Like I said, I don't agree with a lot of things Obama has done, specifically, I think his foreign policy sucks in so many ways. Could be worse (**COUGH** BUSH **COUGH**) but I failed to see any better options at the ballot.

Also, you live in KC too?

[khasquakhas]

but how can you ignore the fact that democracy amounts to mob rule and this government was never intended to be a democracy to begin with.. if I get 51% to agree that coffee is illegal and violations are punishable by death, I can do that.. but its still bullshit and it still fails to protect individual liberty.

also.. how can you reconcile the fact that obama has done everything pretty much exactly like Bush would have? his foreign policy is merely a continuation of the Bush Policy..

he has expanded our foreign empire and it seems like there never really was an "Anti War Left" but only an antibush left because I dont hear enough obama supporters calling him out on his imperialism and his expanded drone campaign.


See above.

As for obamacare, let's not open that particular can of worms just yet

[Cleaner44]

Sorry All. Been really busy with this project at work, I'm not running away, but I just wanted to be a little more clear, now that I've been able to compose my thoughts a little.

I've been able to surmise that most of you are really, really into a small central government. I really respect that position, and it seems reasonable considering its many, many evils. I'm getting the impression from a lot of you, especially Cleaner44, of a government that is this giant, sinister behemoth, and if your only experience with it is the news, that's reasonable. We have been, and are still, a part of some horrifying atrocities. If that were my impression of government in general, I too would be extremely hesitant to trust it, maybe even willing to cast it off and try something different.

However, I am a person who avoids moral absolutes. I care not at all about ideology, and I have to confess a personal bias. Let me tell you a story.

When my first child was born I worked at a barely above minimum wage job. We didn't have the extensive support system that allows some parents to both work. So I had to make enough to support me, my wife and son. This is when I began to feel trapped, like I'd be a mere frycook for decades. I didn't want that to happen, but I could barely afford rent, let alone college. Enter the Hope Scholarship and Pell Grant.

I know that the Hope Scholarship is state funded and paid for 100% of my tuition, but without Pell it still wouldn't have been possible, because I would have had to work two jobs without the $5000 a year that Pell dolled out. That was 4 years ago. 5 Months ago I graduated with a Bachelor's in Mathematics and 2 months ago I was hired by a multi-billion dollar software company. I couldn't have done it without my amazing wife, who sacrificed her education for the sake of her family, but it wouldn't even have been conceivable without gov't help, so when the question arises whether government CAN be a force for good, I cannot be swayed.

So anyway, that's my perspective. I think it's good we have conversations about the role of government, or even about the existence of government, but like you said, what's really important is trying to use policy to improve people's lives.

Yes, those Pell dollars that were given to me were taken from somebody else, by force when necessary, but I'll be paying income taxes for the first time in my life this year. Some of that money will go to things I don't agree with, but some of it will go to helping another little guy get his own really big leg up.

All I'm saying is, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I appreciate you sharing your experiences with us and I understand your views. In fact in my younger years I held many of the same views.

My experience with the government comes from many factors, including my time as a federal employee in the U.S. Air Force. Let me share some of my story.

When I in my early 20s I had a slightly better than minimum wage job, a high school diploma and my first child on the way. I was very concerned because I really didn't have much in the way of sellable skills and soon I would have a child to support. I decided to join the military as it seemed like my only option to better my life. I spent 4 years excelling, getting promoted early and learning valuable skills. During the time I served I saw massive corruption and a massive waste of public funds.

My time in the military did allow me to improve my skills and life for my family. I even utilized my VA loan guarentee to purchase a home. When I was in the military I was a Democrat, mainly because I could easily see that Republicans were corrupt turds and giant hypocrites. About 4 years after leaving the military I finally started seeing how Democrat politicians were lying to me and were actually being giant hypocrites themselves. This left me in an odd spot, I was done being a Democrat, I briefly attempted to be a Republican but that didn't work because they were still the same turds as always. I didn't fit into either group because they each said some things I agreed with, but at the same time they were lying hypocrites.

A few years later I came across Michael Badnarik and realized there was a name for what I believed for a long time... libertarian. I had developed my beliefs from a point of integrity, not politicians. The more time went by, the more I could see through the web of deceit spun by both political parties. The more I learned, the more I realized that the best government is that which governs least. Local politicians are more responsive than those we send to D.C. where the voices of the people they are supposed to represent are distant and easily ignored.

I would not disagree with you that Pell grants have the ability to help Americans improve their lives, in fact I think that is indisputable. That doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming amount of money taken from taxpayers is wasted on things that don't improve the lives of the great majority of the American people. It is no different than if I robbed a local liquor store and then gave you $100 from the $1500 I just stole. Sure you would be grateful for the gift, but it would still be wrong for me to rob the liquor store that Joe opened with money that he saved for the last 5 years.

Don't let the results fool you. Wealth redistribution is wrong and really only a small portion gets redistributed to people like you, while most goes to the well connected special interests. Even it you are adamant about socialist programs, they work much better when run at a state level than a federal level and they don't have a large portion funnelled off to military dictators in foreign nations.

There is nothing wrong with people getting help, but the only moral answer is help on a voluntary basis. I would bet that you are willing to help others and I know that I am. Since this is already very long, let me leave you with one of my favorite videos in the world. This is the code that I live by.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

[libertywanter]

@khas, I definitely understand your point of equal opportunity, if it was all private it would be a little more of "its who you know" but really if you think about it, it is basically that way today, even with all the government intervention, just not as extreme as it would be in an all private scenario. I also agree I would not want to cut the whole tree of government down, but I would probably want to cut quite a few branches off that tree, right off the bat, but agree to use caution in order to see the effects. I think maybe a good place to start cutting would be all the non-essential jobs that were shut down during our recent fiasco. Non-essential is just what it means. A great idea I heard was privatize all of these parks and memorials. They would be run so much more efficient and instead of costing tax payers they could generate revenue. But there is so much more that could be cut or privatized, the parks and memorials are just a drop in the bucket of waste.

[kcchiefs6465]

Monetary policy is fascinating, I love it. I'm definitely not an expert, but I know enough to totally blow my mind.

You sound like you'd be a fan of Ward Churchill, one of the harshest critics of American foreign policy that I've ever encountered. Check out "On the justice of roosting chickens"

Like I said, I don't agree with a lot of things Obama has done, specifically, I think his foreign policy sucks in so many ways. Could be worse (**COUGH** BUSH **COUGH**) but I failed to see any better options at the ballot.

Also, you live in KC too?
No I don't live in KC. (I've actually never even been to KC. I liked Tony Gonzalez and Priest Holmes and became a fan)

I've never heard of the author. I'm just about finished with the book I'm reading now so I may have to order that.

You know, it's kind of odd people think Obama is better than George W. Bush with regards to foreign policy. In a lot of ways Obama further normalized the policies of Bush. At the most all he did was re-brand a couple of them. For instance with Bush we invaded Afghanistan, then Iraq. (neither government sanctioned 9/11) With Obama we have bombed Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Mali, etc. as well as the US conducting operations in some 75 countries. (now granted most of these weren't started under Obama, it has long been American foreign policy) What Obama normalized was assassination.. especially with regards to a citizen being arbitrarily killed without any due process. Frankly while it is hard to compare war criminals and their merits, Obama and Bush should both be forced to face trial. Bush irradiated Iraq for eternity. Obama is directly responsible for the raid in Gardez, Agoor Adda, Al Majalah, et al. The torture programs Obama allegedly ended only were transferred to subsidiaries. (third world governments contracted to do "our" dirty work) I recommend Jeremy Scahill's Dirty Wars. So much information most pages need read twice.

Obama normalized a lot of the policies we have. From JSOC conducting targeted kills and drone strikes, to signature strikes (they literally bomb people for being in groups, they don't even know their names) to double taps. (two drone strikes consecutively.. kills the first responders or instills fear in those who would try to help the wounded)

I'm not some partisan hack simply saying things because I despise democrats. I despise them both. They do the same thing but the rhetoric is a little bit different. Reagan was a war criminal and should have been impeached for violating the Boland Amendment and selling arms to Iran (and more). Clinton was a war criminal and should have been impeached for bombing a medicine factory in Sudan (and more). It wasn't an IED factory.

[erowe1]

But you do understand that it's going to be one or the other, right? So, which would you choose?


What choice? If you think the only choice is between ruling over others with a criminal gang, and ruling over others with a criminal gang, then you haven't given a choice.

I have. Do you support theft, murder, and kidnapping, or not? My answer is no. Yours is yes. We've made two different choices.

[erowe1]

Like I said, I don't agree with a lot of things Obama has done, specifically, I think his foreign policy sucks in so many ways. Could be worse (**COUGH** BUSH **COUGH**) but I failed to see any better options at the ballot.




As for obamacare, let's not open that particular can of worms just yet

If you don't support Obama's foreign policy, and you don't want to talk about Obamacare, then what's left to discuss about Obama that you do support?

The only legacy of his that I can think of outside of those two is his big penchant for corporate welfare (of which Obamacare and his warring would be subsets, but which includes other things as well, such as his so-called economic stimulus). Is that the thing about him that you support?

[angelatc]

I know you're saying that corporations would be more apt to do this, and I think that's plausible. Indeed, there was a time when all universities were private and, if you weren't the child of an aristocrat, then this was the way to get there, by finding a rich old man to take an interest in you. During the time in which this was the case most of the population was illiterate, though. I know that this would happen if the government got out of the education game, it already happens on a much smaller scale today, but would it be accessible to all, or just the best and the brightest? .

Corporate America thanks you for your support.

Education is a resource, and like all resources has to be allocated. Sending the people most likely to graduate (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303830204577446532159829896)seems to be the best way to allocate that resource. It makes no fiscal sense to me to send "anybody who wants to go, studying any ol' thing they want!" to college on the public dime.

Using tax money to fund advanced education *might* make sense if government could predict what fields were most likely to produce a net gain on the investment. But it is absolutely absurd to fund educations in fields where there is no significant demand.

Business has always been much better at government than allocating resources. If a shortage of educated workers was eminent, then business would start offering advanced education opportunities to their employees. In fact, a lot of them already do.

But thanks to the government, they don't have to. They can socialize the cost of education by lobbying for government insured loans and subsidies, while privatizing the profits and gains the graduate produces.

[angelatc]

When my first child was born I worked at a barely above minimum wage job. We didn't have the extensive support system that allows some parents to both work. So I had to make enough to support me, my wife and son. This is when I began to feel trapped, like I'd be a mere frycook for decades. I didn't want that to happen, but I could barely afford rent, let alone college. Enter the Hope Scholarship and Pell Grant.

I know that the Hope Scholarship is state funded and paid for 100% of my tuition, but without Pell it still wouldn't have been possible, because I would have had to work two jobs without the $5000 a year that Pell dolled out. That was 4 years ago. 5 Months ago I graduated with a Bachelor's in Mathematics and 2 months ago I was hired by a multi-billion dollar software company. I couldn't have done it without my amazing wife, who sacrificed her education for the sake of her family, but it wouldn't even have been conceivable without gov't help, so when the question arises whether government CAN be a force for good, I cannot be swayed.

So you don't mind keeping your fellow fry cooks in poverty - you got yours? And just because you can't imagine having done it without the government's help says a lot about you.

Let me tell you a story: I left home 2 weeks after I turned 18, and worked 2minimum wage jobs. One was at a part-time job at a hardware store, and one was a full-time job on an electronics assembly line at a small company - less than 100 people. I managed to work my way up to a clerical position, and then the company moved to another state, taking me with them. I wanted to make more money, so I started looking for another job. I landed a slightly higher paying job at an international financial firm, and managed to get a couple of promotions there. The firm offered tuition reimbursement, so I started going to college at night. They only paid for 2 classes per semester, so I paid for 2 more out of my pocket. When my bosses boss found that out, he approved an exemption for our department - we could all take as many classes as we wanted.

I can also tell you the tale of a guy who was in a position much like yours - he worked in the mailroom of that same firm. He also took advantage of the tuition reimbursement program, and ended up a senior vice president before he was 30. Not a dime of tax money, and his kids have a life that liberals would consider "unfair."

So I made it through college without taking a single freaking dime of your money, he made it through college without a dime of your tax money, and we didn't have a penny of debt when I graduated. The government still gets my tax income. So which is the better deal for the government, exactly?

[Seraphim]

+ rep.

My current company offers tuition matching as well.

It's nonsense to think folks can't ever get $$ to educate/advanced train themselves **without government assistance**.


So you don't mind keeping your fellow fry cooks in poverty - you got yours? And just because you can't imagine having done it without the government's help says a lot about you.

Let me tell you a story: I left home 2 weeks after I turned 18, and worked 2minimum wage jobs. One was at a part-time job at a hardware store, and one was a full-time job on an electronics assembly line at a small company - less than 100 people. I managed to work my way up to a clerical position, and then the company moved to another state, taking me with them. I wanted to make more money, so I started looking for another job. I landed a slightly higher paying job at an international financial firm, and managed to get a couple of promotions there. The firm offered tuition reimbursement, so I started going to college at night. They only paid for 2 classes per semester, so I paid for 2 more out of my pocket. When my bosses boss found that out, he approved an exemption for our department - we could all take as many classes as we wanted.

I can also tell you the tale of a guy who was in a position much like yours - he worked in the mailroom of that same firm. He also took advantage of the tuition reimbursement program, and ended up a senior vice president before he was 30. Not a dime of tax money, and his kids have a life that liberals would consider "unfair."

So I made it through college without taking a single freaking dime of your money, he made it through college without a dime of your tax money, and we didn't have a penny of debt when I graduated. The government still gets my tax income. So which is the better deal for the government, exactly?

[Henry Rogue]

You guys wore him out fast. He never made it outside this thread. I guess he shouldn't have led with "I'm here to debate you". That's like blood in the water, around here.