 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
As promised, here we go...
quote:
I don't believe in free trade with under developed nations, because I think that the situation exploits both the American and the foreign workers. Under developed countries have lax environmental and labor laws, which our businessmen exploit. |
So this makes it OK to restrict the freedom of Americans? Further, this presupposes that labor laws are moral, and by and large, I don't agree with that supposition.
quote:
Meanwhile, the social structure of America is decaying because the majority of people who would have been industrial workers 40 years ago are forced to work in minimum-wage, no insurance jobs. This lack of adequate employment breeds a hoplessness, while our MTV culture screams that we need to buy the latest designer label. |
So your point is that stupid people are easily swayed by TV? I'll agree with that - but that's natural selection. In other words, too bad.
quote:
Nike makes $150 off of a $3 dollar shoe, and its young urban market sells drugs to afford those shoes. |
I see no problem with either. Nike knows that it can maximize profits by charging $150, and young people are providing a good to people in a non-coercive manner in order to pay for these goods. What's the problem here?
quote:
Do this through tariffs. Put in price ceilings o avoid price-gouging; put in wage ceilings to ensure that companies can still make profits. |
Or we can go ahead and keep everything free and non-coercive. This way, individuals can agree to whatever contracts and social sanctions that they think are right.
quote:
I propose neutrality as the official American foreign position. We spend billions each year trying to police the world, money that could be given back to the taxpayers or used to create a better education system. Our thanks: a world that hates us. Now we are becoming embroiled in wars that have little point and don't benefit Americans. We may be taking out a threat and doing the world a favor, but Europeans don't seem to think so. I think that we should step back and let them take care of the world for a while. If anyone actually tries to invade our country (which will never happen) then we should use whatever force is necessary to repel them. Other than that, U.S. troops should only be stationed in U.S. territory. |
I fully agree with this, but I'll go further - the US military should be about 1% its current size, and funded to the same proportion of its current budget.
quote:
I think that the answer to terrorism is to take back control of our borders. |
Terrorism is really caused by our aggressive and offensive foreign policy, which you've already said we should end. Therefore, terrorism will not be nearly that big of a problem - and I remind you, terrorism is not that big of a problem in the US to begin with, 9/11 notwithstanding.
quote:
Internally, we need to step up CIA investigation of suspected terrorist groupd, be they Muslims, Freemen Militia, KKK, etc. |
I really hope you mean the FBI. I'm gonna go ahead and work on that assumption. I have no problem investigating terror groups, but I would not call your average militiaman or KKK member a terrorist, and I certainly would NOT call all Muslims terrorists.
quote:
All American citizens should be issued ID cards with their social security cards. |
Why? In fact, why should we even have Social Security cards? That presupposes that Social Security is moral, which it certainly is not. Further, ID cards are a massive invasion of privacy - they also involve a database with every single American and their location in it, to say nothing of the inherent coerciveness of national ID cards.
quote:
Free exchange of ideas should be allowed and encouraged, and there should be no censorship of the press. |
Agreed.
quote:
We should drill into whatever oil reserves that we have, as well as try to create alternative forms of energy to
break away from our dependence on Mid-East oil. |
Agreed.
quote:
I suggest that this industrial isolation continue until we have created an effective system of education that includes free vocational school to train students in usefull trades, such as plumbing or construction. Only after we have created an effective education system would I relax my autarkic system, but I would still require that the U.S. produce at least 1/3 of its basic goods (steel, textiles, etc.) on its own. |
First of all, I strongly oppose public education. It is coercive, and having the government educate children is dangerous from a propaganda standpoint. Further, it is arbitrary and economically unrealistic to say that the US should produce 1/3 - or any other number - of its own goods. The world is too interdependent right now, and this is a good thing.
quote:
I place the blame on there not being a way out for many people who are not wealthy or scholarly enough to get a university education. |
Wait a second. All goods and services cost money. Therefore, only those with money - or some form of payment - deserve to receive goods and services. We can't ask the providers of goods and services to screw themselves in favor of a poor person. Nor should we force wealthy people to shell out their hard earned money to pay for poor people. This simply breeds laziness. Which brings me to my point - government handouts, or, rather, government generosity with other people's money, are the real problem. The welfare system encourages people to stay unemployed, and sit on their ass. Social Security doesn't encourage young people to save. Universal health care initiatives also encourage irresponsibility.
quote:
Unionized industiral jobs could solve this problem, providing otherwise hopless people with insurance and vacation time. |
Unions are by nature coercive. I see no reason to provide legal protection to unions, nor do I see any reason to legally prohibit unions. Like anything else, membership/dues should be completely voluntary, and it should be completely voluntary for a corporation to listen to unions. Companies should be able to hire and fire at will, for any reason.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nationalist
|
 |
None of your Goddamned business
Nov 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
Alright DF, this is the last post that I'm going to answer before I go to bed. I know that you are a libertarian, meaning my polar opposite.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
So this makes it OK to restrict the freedom of Americans? Further, this presupposes that labor laws are moral, and by and large, I don't agree with that supposition. |
I think that some people deserve to have their freedom restricted. Murderers deserve to be put in jail and have their freedom restricted. In this case, you are refering to the right of factory owners to be able to have any kind of conditions that he would like in his factory. I completely disagree. People are forced to work. Their only choices are to work, steal, or starve. In your Libertarian world, these owners have no restrictions on their actions. Their only goal is to maximize profits. But people have to work, so they are forced to work in these conditions. The workers have no choice in their situation. They can't work elsewhere, because everything is based on profit maximization, so the conditions are just as bad. The workers' freedoms are restricted in this system, because they have to work to survive. The conditions will be brought back to a 19th century level, complete with child labor, because families can't live off their pittance.
quote:
So your point is that stupid people are easily swayed by TV? I'll agree with that - but that's natural selection. In other words, too bad.I see no problem with either. Nike knows that it can maximize profits by charging $150, and young people are providing a good to people in a non-coercive manner in order to pay for these goods. What's the problem here? |
I agree with the natural selection part, to an extent. The problem is that in today's world there is no alternative. I tried to go and buy American made shoes and the clerks laughed at me. These foreign made shoes have a monopoly on the market. As for the no problem with kids selling drugs, I think that that is absurd. Whatever your belief is on drugs, the fact is the danger related to selling drugs. These goods are marketed to younger kids, kids who aren't mature enough to make informed decisions, kids who in your system are thrown to the wolves. My solution at least provides the possibility of the child's parent having a good enough job that she could buy him a decent pair of shoes so he could focus on other things, such as school work, so he could better himself in the world.
quote:
Or we can go ahead and keep everything free and non-coercive. This way, individuals can agree to whatever contracts and social sanctions that they think are right. |
Since when can people make valid contracts with children? Or do you support that right too?
quote:
I fully agree with this, but I'll go further - the US military should be about 1% its current size, and funded to the same proportion of its current budget. |
I disagree about the huge cut in size. First of all, the military and its spending produces many jobs. Cut those, and even more people will be left to the wolves, scrambling in vain for some way to make a living.
quote:
I really hope you mean the FBI. I'm gonna go ahead and work on that assumption. I have no problem investigating terror groups, but I would not call your average militiaman or KKK member a terrorist, and I certainly would NOT call all Muslims terrorists. |
Yes, I meant FBI. Sorry about that. I was also unclear about the Muslim part. What I mean is that we should keep an eye on known Muslim extremist groups, not on all Muslims. I don't think that the average KKK or Militiaman is a terrorist, but I know that some would be or have the will to. It doesn't hurt to keep an eye on a potential dangerous group, even though I think that they have the right to exist in our society
quote:
Why? In fact, why should we even have Social Security cards? That presupposes that Social Security is moral, which it certainly is not. Further, ID cards are a massive invasion of privacy - they also involve a database with every single American and their location in it, to say nothing of the inherent coerciveness of national ID cards. |
Why are Social Security cards immoral? The ID card would simply be a new version of your Social Security card, except that it would have a photo ID. The American database already exists in the IRS, among other places. Americans already need passports to travel, what would this change? The ID card would simply make it easier to identify illegal aliens as it would consolidate information.
quote:
I strongly oppose public education. It is coercive, and having the government educate children is dangerous from a propaganda standpoint. |
Couldn't diagree with you more. First without public education, only the rich could afford school. We'd have a nation full of illiterates, and illetrates can't do very many things in this day, especially since the unskilled industrial jobs are over seas. As for government propaganda... I think that it is a good thing for children to be socialized. A group of people that share basic values is the basis of a nation, and I think that it is a very good thing to have. Besides, children still have parents. If they feel strongly about an issue then they can educate their children about it. Overall, public education does an infinate amount of good.
quote:
Further, it is arbitrary and economically unrealistic to say that the US should produce 1/3 - or any other number - of its own goods. The world is too interdependent right now, and this is a good thing. |
Why is this necessarily a good thing? Who is it good for? I've explained the reasons why I believe that there should be significant amounts of industry in the U.S. already.
quote:
Wait a second. All goods and services cost money. Therefore, only those with money - or some form of payment - deserve to receive goods and services. We can't ask the providers of goods and services to screw themselves in favor of a poor person. Nor should we force wealthy people to shell out their hard earned money to pay for poor people. |
I'm not asking that wealth be strictly distributed. I'm saying that education should be a public service, paid for by taxes paid by everyone, to create a populous that is better educated and capable to do more valuable services and to make enough money to be able to afford more expensive goods. I've explained why I think that public education is a good thing, but another point is that education strengthens the nation. That money that you have is a national currency, and it is not based on gold. It is based solely on the strength
and reputation of the nation. If you cut education and produce generation after generation of illiterates, the country won't be able to function weel and the value of its currency will plummet. What will the rich do with their worthless currency? They'll starve like everyone else. It is in the rich's best interest to support education.
quote:
Which brings me to my point - government handouts, or, rather, government generosity with other people's money, are the real problem. The welfare system encourages people to stay unemployed, and sit on their ass. Social Security doesn't encourage young people to save. Universal health care initiatives also encourage irresponsibility. |
My ideas don't emphasize these entities. If there are more industrial jobs around, more people will have better jobs, reducing the need for welfare. These jobs will include insurance benefits, reducing the need for public health care. These jobs will have retirement plans, reducing the needs for Social Security payments. All of these benefits would be provided by business utilizing powers that the giovernment already has (the power to regulate trade/ raise tariffs)
quote:
Companies should be able to hire and fire at will, for any reason. |
I think companies should be allowed to fire union people for incompetence. Union laws should be relaxed some to prevent laziness amounts union members. Unionmembers are members of the nation as well, and they should also have to make sacrifices. However, unions protect workers from arbitrary abuse, and serve a positve role.
DF, I can guarantee that we see eye to eye on very few things. I see Libertarianism as the most chilidsh, irresponsible philosophy there is. Someday I'll tell you the story abou my encounters at the Libertarian Party booth at my local Fair. They arns't so pro-free speech when you are making them look like idiots in ront of crowds of people 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Send 'em to Canada. We need all the immigration we can get. |
Yes! I agree with Obi and Frogger. Immigration is fine and dandy. If America doesn't want them, send them here.
It works from a humanitarian standpoint, AND it helps the economy... What's not to like?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nationalist
|
|
None of your Goddamned business
Nov 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frogger
We're already taking in twice as many per capita as they are.
|
I doubt that that is true. What evidence do you have for that? Does you figure include illegal immigration? Illegal iommigration makes up a large chunk of U.S. immigration, and is probably not figured in to that number.
As for the Statue of Liberty thing, I think that that is a nice slogan to say , but is impractical. The U.S., or any other country for tht matter, does not have an unlimited capacity to admit people. Every poor person in the world can't come to America. We already have bed enough social problems. Compund that with the influx of tens of millions of new immigrants and you have a very volitile situation.
Besides, I am not adovcating a complete end to legal immigration. I just think that there should be a moratorium on it until the INS is competent enough to protect the country. My issue is with illegal immigration. By circumventing the laws of society in the first place to be here they are showing a fundamental disrespect for that system. Many of these immigrants are crossing the border to sell drugs, or to work at a job undercutting the American worker and take the money back to Mexico. This situation isn't of people yearning for political freedom, this is sheer oppurtunism for Mexicans who don't want to be American taking advantage of our system to make a profit. If 500,000 Mexicans illegaly crossed the border at once, it would be an invasion and our military would attack them. However, if 500,000 Mexicans illegaly crossed one by one in the space of a year, they would simply be illegal immigrants, and we would have the responsibility to deal with them. Does this seem sensable to anyone else?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-03-2003 10:43
|