|
Post by millring on Apr 24, 2015 12:57:07 GMT -5
Jeff said it with more pith. Like I thed in the mouth thread, "Pith on it."
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Apr 24, 2015 13:54:57 GMT -5
Yep some are nicer than others. But the bottom line is to nationalize you have to steal it from the people that own it at the point of a gun. The guy that robs a 7-11 to feed his kids is nicer than the guy that robs a 7-11 to feed his drug habit. Governments assign/sell mineral rights. Mineral rights under the North Sea are like mineral rights under the Arctic Ocean. The state owns them. They decide how they are developed. They then collect taxes generally from the output to provide income to the government. Norway made the smart choice, and had the ability, to develop the resources themselves. Why not, if you can do it? But they certainly didn't steal it from anyone.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 24, 2015 14:22:29 GMT -5
Yep some are nicer than others. But the bottom line is to nationalize you have to steal it from the people that own it at the point of a gun. The guy that robs a 7-11 to feed his kids is nicer than the guy that robs a 7-11 to feed his drug habit. Who did Norway steal it from? Itself? Norway stole from itself to give to itself? That's a good trick. Now it has free school, healthcare, pensions, and lutefisk for all. Before, it just had the lutefisk. A good trick indeed. Or no trick. And no theft. Just sharing the fish with the tribe.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 24, 2015 14:26:27 GMT -5
It's my day for responding after someone has already done it for me.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 24, 2015 15:21:17 GMT -5
It's my day for responding after someone has already done it for me. You have to be quick on the Soundhole. We aren't much on content, but that only serves to make us faster.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Apr 24, 2015 15:29:01 GMT -5
It's my day for responding after someone has already done it for me. You have to be quick on the Soundhole. We aren't much on content, but that only serves to make us faster. Ya think?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 24, 2015 15:34:54 GMT -5
You know, I think a person has to be quick on the Soundhole. I wonder if that makes us faster?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 24, 2015 15:35:45 GMT -5
SHEESH!
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Apr 24, 2015 16:32:18 GMT -5
I'll tell you one thing, you gotta be quick around here.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Apr 24, 2015 16:45:02 GMT -5
"From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead."
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 24, 2015 16:48:00 GMT -5
gratefully, we're not dead.
yet.
but we're quick.
mostly because we lack content.
Ironically, we seem content with that.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Apr 24, 2015 16:59:05 GMT -5
At what point would you consider arguing against political progress? Is there a point -- for you -- when centralization and/or government ownership, or even government intervention would lead you toward maybe even voting in a different direction from what you've voted all your life? This is an interesting thread and there have been a lot of good answers here, but nobody objected to the original question. Nobody seemed to notice how John framed the discussion, something that he's always claiming progressives (and only progressives?) do. First, I don't think progressives want bigger government. What progressives want is more and/or better services and they want more protections for the poor and against the abuses of big corporations. The list of specifics could go on and on, but the point is they want services, they want benefits. Those benefits may come at the expense of tolerating a bigger government, but a bigger government is not the goal, nor has it ever been the goal. Conservatives want the same thing. While they bitch about bigger government and try to blame it all on progressives, conservatives have never failed to match or exceed liberal spending levels. They just like to spend it on different stuff like making war, corporate welfare, interfering in people's personal lives, and their new favorite, shutting down the government. But, as misguided as their values may be, they are just like liberals in that they don't want bigger government either, they just want the stuff they want. We could carve out a third category for libertarians. They would at least have a valid claim to wanting smaller government and they seem to expect less all the way around in terms of services provided by government. I don't think most people agree with them though. Anyway, the point at which we reject government centralization or ownership should or could be asked of most of us. To have a conservative ask progressives a question like that is ignorant and insulting.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 24, 2015 18:20:01 GMT -5
Yep some are nicer than others. But the bottom line is to nationalize you have to steal it from the people that own it at the point of a gun. The guy that robs a 7-11 to feed his kids is nicer than the guy that robs a 7-11 to feed his drug habit. Governments assign/sell mineral rights. Mineral rights under the North Sea are like mineral rights under the Arctic Ocean. The state owns them. They decide how they are developed. They then collect taxes generally from the output to provide income to the government. Norway made the smart choice, and had the ability, to develop the resources themselves. Why not, if you can do it? But they certainly didn't steal it from anyone. Who says the government owns it to sell it? The government, circular argument. Who gets to it first owns it.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Apr 24, 2015 19:39:29 GMT -5
Anyway, the point at which we reject government centralization or ownership should or could be asked of most of us. To have a conservative ask progressives a question like that is ignorant and insulting. It is being asked of all of us. As individuals, not political party affiliations. Nothing ignorant or insulting about it.
|
|
|
Post by godotwaits on Apr 24, 2015 20:24:09 GMT -5
progress is how many bill collectors you got hammering on your door, the better the quietude, the better to take a slower and relax.
couldn't be bothered to read this entire thread. So I'm and predisposed as required.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,864
|
Post by Dub on Apr 24, 2015 23:31:52 GMT -5
At what point would you consider arguing against political progress? Is there a point -- for you -- when centralization and/or government ownership, or even government intervention would lead you toward maybe even voting in a different direction from what you've voted all your life? …Today, if you similarly tried to ensnare a Democratic candidate by suggesting that their goal is that the US end up as a European socialist country -- minus only the "European" part -- I think there just might be a deer in the headlight response. There is no longer a distinction. (One of the names I hear most often as a Democratic dream candidate is Bernie Sanders.) Or is there? That's what I want to know. Would you under any circumstances argue for freer markets? Less regulation? Private ownership? The question, and much of this thread, seems more about labels than governance. Whether to choose Socialism or Capitalism doesn't seem to me to be a question worth asking in the U.S. today. We need a way to analyze actual problems and design workable solutions. To imagine that an academic economist long ago has written a thesis capable of guiding all our choices is just a fairy tale. We read those people to see what insight they may offer but they don't offer ready to use solutions. It doesn't matter whether it's Milton Friedman or Karl Marx, it isn't going to be directly applicable. We need a system in which business is encouraged. Perhaps we agree not to tax business because we don't want impeded growth and competitiveness. We may also decide that business needs a flexible workforce to effectively manage its cycles. We could design a system that has those elements built in. We know people grow old beyond their productive years and we want those people to be comfortable in retirement. Why not design a system that provides for that? Retirement income must come from somewhere. We've said we don't want to burden business through taxation so the money must either be saved by each working person during their productive years or provided by government or some combination. We've said we don't want to burden business with a fixed work force so it's reasonable to assume that most people will have periods of unemployment. One option is to raise retirement revenue through taxation of individual income, sales, or property. Another option is just to let old people starve or send them to the death panels. You say "Wait! Helping people is Socialism! We can't have any of that." Really? Why do we need to give it a name? Same with healthcare. Socialized medicine would be intolerable (oh the horror) but providing a system in which people just see a doctor when they're ill and get any treatment needed would help support business by removing employee health as a burden. So providing for retirement and healthcare seem to be problems best solved centrally rather than by each individual. Transportation infrastructure is another need best supplied centrally. When the first autos were being produced, there were virtually no roads. Many people thought it was up to the automakers to provide roads for their products. Few people would make that argument today. I strongly believe that education (unfettered by belief systems) is another endeavor properly provided centrally. I also think it should be entirely free to anyone demonstrating academic achievement. It is in the interests of business, our culture, and our economic well being to ensure we are the most educated people on the planet. And that education should not be primarily focused on work skills, it needs to include the arts, history, philosophy, mathematics, and science so as to have a thinking, literate population. And, of course, we should have special programs to ensure the profitable manufacture and sale of binders. But why in the Sam Hill does it matter what labels we give those programs? Do we really have to pick and choose based on who thought up an idea? I want our businesses to be successful but I don't want them to cause damage. I don't want them selling essential products that are harmful. Dangerous? Fine, just not harmful when safely used in a normal manner. If the manufacture of a product produces toxins, I want those entirely removed in a safe manner. If product revenue can't support clean manufacture then either the company fails or government supplies the systems that ensure environmental safety. Cleanup after the fact becomes government's problem anyway and is far more expensive. So the way John asks the question has little relation to the way I vote. I don't ask whether we have too much free market capitalism or too much government control. I ask which candidate seems to be proposing workable solutions to actual problems that we all must deal with on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 25, 2015 0:44:08 GMT -5
Nice argument. But avoids the real problem. Say you have 100 people in the country and 80 of them agree with one of your programs (doesn't matter which one). Is it moral to use force to make the other 20 go along against their will.
It's a moral question. Anything else avoids the basic problem.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 25, 2015 1:09:39 GMT -5
Moral? Who gives a shit about moral? What is a moral? If 80% agree, it's a go. If the remaining 20% try stop it, shoot them.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 25, 2015 1:13:21 GMT -5
Moral? Who gives a shit about moral? What is a moral? If 80% agree, it's a go. If the remaining 20% try stop it, shoot them. How about a real answer? What if it's 49% or 1% why is there any difference.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Apr 25, 2015 1:15:14 GMT -5
Nice argument. But avoids the real problem. Say you have 100 people in the country and 80 of them agree with one of your programs (doesn't matter which one). Is it moral to use force to make the other 20 go along against their will. It's a moral question. Anything else avoids the basic problem. Yes, it's moral. We are herd/group creatures. That's how we survive, and have for millennia. That you can sit in your home provided with power by the state, drive on roads provided by the state, be protected by laws enforced by the state, get your benefits from the state, not have to worry about some pillaging horde of barbarians coming by to steal your children and cut your throat, to be free of disease and live to a ripe old age with your health care provided for, and still believe that government provides no benefits, boggles the mind.
|
|