<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/64754?page=1#posts-1469056'>woodythedon</a>:</cite> Yes, I’d much rather STV, although I’d settle for almost any form of PR over FPTP. I just wish there was a mainstream politician brave enough to suggest this, which obviously isn’t going to happen, since the two main parties benefit from the current arrangement.</blockquote> nick clegg and the lib dems aren't mainstream? <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/64754?page=1#posts-1469056">woodythedon</a>:</cite> Yes, I’d much rather STV, although I’d settle for almost any form of PR over FPTP. I just wish there was a mainstream politician brave enough to suggest this, which obviously isn’t going to happen, since the two main parties benefit from the current arrangement.</blockquote> nick clegg and the lib dems aren’t mainstream?

2009-11-17T08:49:11-08:00

true

1470796

64754

2009-11-17T08:49:11-08:00

269437

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/64754?page=1#posts-1468158'>woodythedon</a>:</cite> <blockquote> One day, there’ll be someone worth voting for who stands for prime minister. One day… </blockquote> It’s a sad state of affairs that no one ever votes for who they actually want the most, but for who they hate/dislike the least. </blockquote> this is almost inevitable with fptp <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/64754?page=1#posts-1468158">woodythedon</a>:</cite> <blockquote> One day, there’ll be someone worth voting for who stands for prime minister. One day… </blockquote> It’s a sad state of affairs that no one ever votes for who they actually want the most, but for who they hate/dislike the least. </blockquote> this is almost inevitable with fptp

2009-11-16T14:53:07-08:00

true

1468752

64754

2009-11-16T14:53:07-08:00

269437

communism over capitalism, socialism over both probably although i think there is a possibility that communism _could_ work, looking at some elements in the soviet union, only some though communism over capitalism, socialism over both probably although i think there is a possibility that communism could work, looking at some elements in the soviet union, only some though

2009-11-14T15:26:10-08:00

true

1460861

64729

2009-11-14T15:26:10-08:00

269437

^^ steve bell owns i just feel a bit sorry for brown he's actually done a good job with the financial crisis, heaven forbid what would have happened if the tories had been in for that ^^ steve bell owns i just feel a bit sorry for brown he’s actually done a good job with the financial crisis, heaven forbid what would have happened if the tories had been in for that

2009-11-14T15:23:30-08:00

true

1460844

64754

2009-11-14T15:23:30-08:00

269437

perhaps one might say the answer is...somewhere in the middle perhaps one might say the answer is…somewhere in the middle

2009-11-14T05:55:38-08:00

true

1458976

64729

2009-11-14T05:55:38-08:00

269437

Unless everything was legalised then I doubt it will ever happen. The best way to reduce crime is probably to create an equal, classless society. Unless everything was legalised then I doubt it will ever happen. The best way to reduce crime is probably to create an equal, classless society.

2009-11-08T03:40:37-08:00

true

1441442

63925

2009-11-08T03:40:37-08:00

269437

Yes, let's use rigid descriptions of political opinions to describe new rigid descriptions of political opinions~ Yes, let’s use rigid descriptions of political opinions to describe new rigid descriptions of political opinions~

2009-11-06T09:02:18-08:00

true

1434891

62582

2009-11-06T09:02:18-08:00

269437

There is nothing wrong with a unified europe, but I do not agree with how it is expanding the spectre of capitalism. But if you're a capitalist of any sort then unless you're a racist, to be against the EU would seem quite perplexing. See: The tory party, ukip. (they're xenophobes who have strange ideals about the british identity) There is nothing wrong with a unified europe, but I do not agree with how it is expanding the spectre of capitalism. But if you’re a capitalist of any sort then unless you’re a racist, to be against the EU would seem quite perplexing. See: The tory party, ukip. (they’re xenophobes who have strange ideals about the british identity)

2009-11-05T14:24:41-08:00

true

1432919

62492

2009-11-05T14:24:41-08:00

269437

HAHAHAHA YEAH RAPE OH MY GOD COMEDY GOLD A PERSON BEING SEXUALLY PENETRATED WITHOUT WANTING IT WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF LASTING PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE COMEDY FREEKING GOLD! HAHAHAHA YEAH RAPE OH MY GOD COMEDY GOLD A PERSON BEING SEXUALLY PENETRATED WITHOUT WANTING IT WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF LASTING PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE COMEDY FREEKING GOLD!

2009-10-09T15:23:18-07:00

true

1355990

59668

2009-10-09T15:23:18-07:00

269437

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/58836?page=3#posts-1352019'>moses78</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/58836?page=3#posts-1352010">SaintAjora</a>:</cite> <blockquote> I think feminism has driven a wider divide between the sexes than would otherwise exist. </blockquote> What? Before feminism women were treated like property, I don’t think you know what you are talking about.</blockquote> he is likely referring to the bra-burners that went crazy. the extremists like that.</blockquote> they only create divides for idiots who can't see how sexist our society is the mainstream press also magnified this problem by selecting the few extreme bra burners and ignoring the more moderate appearing feminists, but they do this with everything, anti-war 'hippies', civil rights movement 'militant blacks' etc etc <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/58836?page=3#posts-1352019">moses78</a>:</cite> <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/58836?page=3#posts-1352010">SaintAjora</a>:</cite> <blockquote> I think feminism has driven a wider divide between the sexes than would otherwise exist. </blockquote> What? Before feminism women were treated like property, I don’t think you know what you are talking about.</blockquote> he is likely referring to the bra-burners that went crazy. the extremists like that.</blockquote> they only create divides for idiots who can’t see how sexist our society is the mainstream press also magnified this problem by selecting the few extreme bra burners and ignoring the more moderate appearing feminists, but they do this with everything, anti-war ‘hippies’, civil rights movement ‘militant blacks’ etc etc

2009-10-07T15:42:32-07:00

true

1352166

58836

2009-10-07T15:42:32-07:00

269437

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/58836?page=3#posts-1351871'>najzere</a>:</cite> I’m sexist insomuch as I don’t believe the sexes are equal or should be. The only equality that I am comfortable with is under law and opportunity. Women should have as much chance to live their lives how they want with all the rights and obligations that others do. (Goes for everyone, not just women.) But to say we’re equal in most other senses simply isn’t true. Women dress differently, use different facilities, have different anatomy, etc. I think feminism has driven a wider divide between the sexes than would otherwise exist. Forcing different people to consider themselves the same, or worse yet, any form of reverse discrimination, only goes against common sense and creates animosity on both sides. Instead, women should be appreciated for what they are, differences included, just like we (should) appreciate other cultures and what makes them special. </blockquote> Do you honestly think that women just naturally dress differently? Or have you not considered at all that the societal pressures largely influence everyone on how to dress. Do you think simply being born a girl automatically makes them when to wear dresses, put on makeup and whatever else. Have you not considered that our current patriarchal society is a relatively recent construct in western society and divides us based on gender, whilst giving a huge advantage to the male. The same is for using different facilities, it's our society that makes that happen. Reverse discrimination only goes against common sense if there is no discrimination in the first place(helpful hint: our society is entrenched with discrimination against women). Your sentiment is generally in the right place, but you need to consider why women do certain things, behave in certain ways and the way they're depicted, and how our social structures are entirely set up to create this and further divides as well as male dominance. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/58836?page=3#posts-1351871">najzere</a>:</cite> I’m sexist insomuch as I don’t believe the sexes are equal or should be. The only equality that I am comfortable with is under law and opportunity. Women should have as much chance to live their lives how they want with all the rights and obligations that others do. (Goes for everyone, not just women.) But to say we’re equal in most other senses simply isn’t true. Women dress differently, use different facilities, have different anatomy, etc. I think feminism has driven a wider divide between the sexes than would otherwise exist. Forcing different people to consider themselves the same, or worse yet, any form of reverse discrimination, only goes against common sense and creates animosity on both sides. Instead, women should be appreciated for what they are, differences included, just like we (should) appreciate other cultures and what makes them special. </blockquote> Do you honestly think that women just naturally dress differently? Or have you not considered at all that the societal pressures largely influence everyone on how to dress. Do you think simply being born a girl automatically makes them when to wear dresses, put on makeup and whatever else. Have you not considered that our current patriarchal society is a relatively recent construct in western society and divides us based on gender, whilst giving a huge advantage to the male. The same is for using different facilities, it’s our society that makes that happen. Reverse discrimination only goes against common sense if there is no discrimination in the first place(helpful hint: our society is entrenched with discrimination against women). Your sentiment is generally in the right place, but you need to consider why women do certain things, behave in certain ways and the way they’re depicted, and how our social structures are entirely set up to create this and further divides as well as male dominance.

2009-10-07T15:40:22-07:00

true

1352161

58836

2009-10-07T15:40:22-07:00

269437

you thinking women on average are less capable is sexist it's just what it is it's also a completely false statement, but sadly all too common with patriarchy ingrained into our society you thinking women on average are less capable is sexist it’s just what it is it’s also a completely false statement, but sadly all too common with patriarchy ingrained into our society

2009-10-06T15:44:01-07:00

true

1349990

58836

2009-10-06T15:44:01-07:00

269437

rosa luxemburg was better rosa luxemburg was better

2009-10-04T07:28:48-07:00

true

1344763

58970

2009-10-04T07:28:48-07:00

269437

Rosa Luxemburg Rosa Luxemburg

2009-10-02T15:17:42-07:00

true

1341374

58970

2009-10-02T15:17:42-07:00

269437

capitalism simply works on exploitation, i've never known anyway to refute this anyway here's some reading on socialist economics http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm not saying i agree with it all, just the debate will go around in circles and it's worth reading that capitalism simply works on exploitation, i’ve never known anyway to refute this anyway here’s some reading on socialist economics <a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm">http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm</a> not saying i agree with it all, just the debate will go around in circles and it’s worth reading that

2009-09-30T14:02:13-07:00

true

1337458

251

55025

2009-09-30T14:02:33-07:00

269437

<blockquote> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/1918">http://www.slate.com/id/1918</a> Here’s an article which I think hits the nail on the head with regards to globalisation. The reason sweatshops cause so much fuss are because of the Western attitude towards labour. We are very happy to let people in Africa/Asia etc. to continue to starve and scrape a measly existence off the land, rather than let them have a chance of getting a job in a Western factory, because it links their hardship directly to us, not because the alternative is much better. Yes, this job will work them extremely hard and they will get paid very little for it. However when you look at the economies and living standards of countries where this has taken place, they are much better off than countries untouched by globalisation. </blockquote> Yes having rich corporations come in and provide some infrastructure/jobs will be better than the previously, and can rise to a certain extent. Globalisation is fine, but the capitalist system is still exploitative and still creates further inequality, a system with globalisation and socialism would elevate the standards of the worker much better. The globalisation also negatively impacts the earnings of the proles in the countries where the big businesses are from but are now taking cheap labour in other countries. But really all this proves is that globalisation can help and that capitalism is more effective than feudalism, it doesn't prove that 'trickle down theory' is a load of bollocks because as we can see in the developed countries(without archaic feudalism) it exploits the poor. <blockquote> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/1918">http://www.slate.com/id/1918</a> Here’s an article which I think hits the nail on the head with regards to globalisation. The reason sweatshops cause so much fuss are because of the Western attitude towards labour. We are very happy to let people in Africa/Asia etc. to continue to starve and scrape a measly existence off the land, rather than let them have a chance of getting a job in a Western factory, because it links their hardship directly to us, not because the alternative is much better. Yes, this job will work them extremely hard and they will get paid very little for it. However when you look at the economies and living standards of countries where this has taken place, they are much better off than countries untouched by globalisation. </blockquote> Yes having rich corporations come in and provide some infrastructure/jobs will be better than the previously, and can rise to a certain extent. Globalisation is fine, but the capitalist system is still exploitative and still creates further inequality, a system with globalisation and socialism would elevate the standards of the worker much better. The globalisation also negatively impacts the earnings of the proles in the countries where the big businesses are from but are now taking cheap labour in other countries. But really all this proves is that globalisation can help and that capitalism is more effective than feudalism, it doesn’t prove that ‘trickle down theory’ is a load of bollocks because as we can see in the developed countries(without archaic feudalism) it exploits the poor.

2009-09-30T04:20:44-07:00

true

1336614

246

55025

2009-09-30T04:20:44-07:00

269437

we're only really rich on the back of the third world in all honesty 'trickle down effect' is a load of bollocks btw income equality is just becoming greater and the average person has less spending power than they used to we’re only really rich on the back of the third world in all honesty ‘trickle down effect’ is a load of bollocks btw income equality is just becoming greater and the average person has less spending power than they used to

2009-09-29T08:48:10-07:00

true

1334432

233

55025

2009-09-29T08:48:51-07:00

269437

sin city owned that is all sin city owned that is all

2009-09-22T04:35:10-07:00

true

1317627

57861

2009-09-22T04:35:10-07:00

269437

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/34778?page=6#posts-1316341'>1132</a>:</cite> Politics: America </blockquote> hahahaha what <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/34778?page=6#posts-1316341">1132</a>:</cite> Politics: America </blockquote> hahahaha what

2009-09-22T04:33:38-07:00

true

1317626

130

34778

2009-09-22T04:33:54-07:00

269437

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/56393?page=3#posts-1313027'>AaronB</a>:</cite> Force or fraud are the problems. Those are a violations of voluntary trade. The plunder I’m talking about is the use of government to take from someone and give to someone else. This may be initially done in order to help the poor, but I believe that once government gets into the wealth redistribution business it only hurts the poor. The only ones who benefit are the big corporations and super rich, who are able to exert the most influence on what the government does. I view the solution as getting rid of the government’s ability to plunder; not vainly attempting to “reform” it.</blockquote> You keep saying this, please explain how wealth redistribution hurts the poor, doubtless you will cite welfare and how the poor don't want to work anymore though. The corporations and super rich do benefit in america's system and most ever right-leaning social democracies, because they have the chance to exert power over government, you simply have to remove that power, certainly getting rid of government would make the corporation's power over government quite meaningless. But then who has the most power in the country, it's the corporations, and they aren't regulated or hindered in the slightest by the government. What is needed is active laws against corporate donations, lobbyists and the like stopping the relationship of government with big business and them both being in bed together. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/56393?page=3#posts-1313027">AaronB</a>:</cite> Force or fraud are the problems. Those are a violations of voluntary trade. The plunder I’m talking about is the use of government to take from someone and give to someone else. This may be initially done in order to help the poor, but I believe that once government gets into the wealth redistribution business it only hurts the poor. The only ones who benefit are the big corporations and super rich, who are able to exert the most influence on what the government does. I view the solution as getting rid of the government’s ability to plunder; not vainly attempting to “reform” it.</blockquote> You keep saying this, please explain how wealth redistribution hurts the poor, doubtless you will cite welfare and how the poor don’t want to work anymore though. The corporations and super rich do benefit in america’s system and most ever right-leaning social democracies, because they have the chance to exert power over government, you simply have to remove that power, certainly getting rid of government would make the corporation’s power over government quite meaningless. But then who has the most power in the country, it’s the corporations, and they aren’t regulated or hindered in the slightest by the government. What is needed is active laws against corporate donations, lobbyists and the like stopping the relationship of government with big business and them both being in bed together.

2009-09-20T09:40:05-07:00

true

1313142

56393

2009-09-20T09:40:05-07:00

269437

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/56393?page=3#posts-1312592'>AaronB</a>:</cite> Conco – you assume I “got mine.” I don’t, but I intend to earn it, not steal it. I don’t allow feelings of jealousy against the rich to justify either my stealing, or wanting a system that will do the dirty work for me. I want to end the system of plunder, which in theory is supposed to help the poor but in reality helps the big corporations and super rich.</blockquote> Yes, yes 'earn' it. Nice strawman about feelings of jealousy against the rich, similar to your strawman about inheritance tax. I, and most socialists are not jealous of the rich, we are simply outraged at how society treats the poor and the lack of inequality at equal chances. I am not bothered about having ludicrous wealth, I value health and happiness above my material possessions, I value my countries' equality, health and happiness above its GDP as well. I have no idea what 'system of plunder' you are on about, america is hugely biased to the corporations and the rich, it's not because of taxes and regulation in the market, it's clear to see that when you decrease taxes, de-regulate markets, the disparities between the rich and poor become larger. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/56393?page=3#posts-1312592">AaronB</a>:</cite> Conco – you assume I “got mine.” I don’t, but I intend to earn it, not steal it. I don’t allow feelings of jealousy against the rich to justify either my stealing, or wanting a system that will do the dirty work for me. I want to end the system of plunder, which in theory is supposed to help the poor but in reality helps the big corporations and super rich.</blockquote> Yes, yes ‘earn’ it. Nice strawman about feelings of jealousy against the rich, similar to your strawman about inheritance tax. I, and most socialists are not jealous of the rich, we are simply outraged at how society treats the poor and the lack of inequality at equal chances. I am not bothered about having ludicrous wealth, I value health and happiness above my material possessions, I value my countries’ equality, health and happiness above its GDP as well. I have no idea what ‘system of plunder’ you are on about, america is hugely biased to the corporations and the rich, it’s not because of taxes and regulation in the market, it’s clear to see that when you decrease taxes, de-regulate markets, the disparities between the rich and poor become larger.

2009-09-20T09:33:49-07:00

true

1313136

56393

2009-09-20T09:33:49-07:00

269437

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/56393?page=2#posts-1312320'>AaronB</a>:</cite> Positive rights sound great in theory, eg “I am entitled to health care.” The difficulty is in the second part of the equation “Therefore someone must provide it for me.” Other common things considered to be positive rights include water, food, shelter, education, jobs, tools of work, and so on. These things don’t simply come to the person, they must be acquired through effort. Generally, proponents of positive rights expect to force “the rich” or some other group to provide those things. Basically, positive rights necessitate legalized theft. Things (or the money to provide them) are taken by force from one person and given to someone else. I don’t just not want to give things to those who haven’t earned them, the bigger problem is that those things must be taken from someone else first. </blockquote> Not having positive right such as healthcare, education etc etc would simply create even more disparity between the rich and poor, you would have the educated rich who knew what to do, how to get it simply stamping on the poor. It's simply creating a better society, having a healthy, educated workforce is also quite beneficial to the capitalists. You also fall into the trap of people 'earning' things, do the bankers taking huge bonuses 'earn' them? Does the teacher really deserve to earn less, etc etc. Your argument falls dangerously close to victorian england where we'd have the rich land owners and the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor. The deserving poor being the ones who might get a little bit of charity from the landowners. <blockquote> Not only do positive rights institutionalize legal theft, this in turn requires an expanding bureaucracy (typically government) to administer. This inflates the importance of government, since everyone wants to be able to get things for themselves and their group, while plundering someone else. If we had a miniarchist government, you wouldn’t have all those lobbyists in Washington. They are there because they want to use the influence of government to get things at your expense. </blockquote> You don't have to have a lot of lobbyists just because of a big government, for example the uk has a larger government than the us, but the us has a lot more problems with lobbyists. <blockquote> Meritocracy, likewise, has some a number of good ideas but implementing some of them is the problem. We already discussed that parent’s savings would have to be confiscated to prevent them from passing them down to their children as an advantage. Also, someone has to decide who has merit. And when someone is found to have merit, are they forced into the position or school that the “merit council” envisions for them? If yes, that’s a harsh limit on individual freedom. If not, we should just have a free society where people think in terms of rewarding merit (something the market incentivizes people to do), not make it the basis of organizing society. </blockquote> To have a true meritocracy you would need a lot of intervention by the government, you would have to make everywhere equal and the chances for children no matter background equal, and then high taxes so rich children wouldn't benefit from rich parents. I don't really think the free market is designed to be able to be a true meritocracy. <blockquote> In Pre-revolution France, weren’t the aristocracy confiscating huge amounts of money from the common folks so that they could live off them? This most definitely violates self ownership and non-aggression. The current governments of the US and France do, too. They, along with positive rights, all involve violation of someone’s self ownership by forcibly taking from them the fruits of their labor. </blockquote> again this falls into the trap of 'earning' and whatever else <blockquote> Regarding the Great Depression, a much bigger factor was the Federal Reserve (a government-created monopoly with the power to create money out of thin air). The fed’s low interest rates and easy credit were what allowed the bubble to inflate. When it burst, Hoover greatly exacerbated the problem by intervening in the economy, doing things like pressuring industry not to lower wages. He ran big deficits hoping to get the economy moving through government spending. FDR campaigned against this, but after getting elected he simply continued and expanded Hoover’s interventionism massively and with utter disregard for the constitution. (Indeed this does sound like the current situation). Congress also passed the very high Smoot-Hawley tarrif, so we had a trade war on top of everything else. Government was the culprit.</blockquote> You seem to be completely ignoring the massive income disparity between the rich and the middle class(very similar to now) creating an unbalanced market. Demand/supply was out of synch, with the bottom 3/4 having to spend all of their money on clothes and food and the top 1/4 not able to make up for it unless they were buying a disproportionate amount of cars and luxury items. So the economy relied on credit sales, and luxury spending/investment from the rich. The luxury spending largely relied on the wealthy's confidence in the market. Then as you point out the federal reserve propped it all up with cheap credit etc, but the real problem came from the huge income disparities because of allowing more inheritance and lower income taxes. World war 1 also had an impact, europe's economy was weak because of and american exports suffered. The maldistribution of wealth wasn't just down to individuals, it was the corporations too, 200 corporations had about half of the wealth. Argriculture was declining vastly too. Agriculture had been helped by the government to modernise after world war 1, to take up the slack from europe especially, the funding then dropped off and agriculture was taking huge hits. So then america's main industry was the automotive and radio industry, which was a problem, heavily relying on only two industries. It relied on them expanding at similar rates, which was simply unsustainable, people wouldn't endlessly buy cars and radios when they had them already. Then we have the mass speculation on wall street. From early 1928 to late 29 the dow jones stocks pretty much doubled. This created confidence and a massive bubble. Investors loans were at about 7billion mid 1929, it reached 8.5billion in the next 3 months. Interest rates were sky high, often at around 20%. Stock prices started to gradually fall, then they capitulated, and the cycle of fear happened, everyone started to sell and the spiral brought about a huge crash. I know you're a libertarian so you're going to believe what rothbrad, hayek etc have said about it, but while the federal reserve was a problem because it gave credit too easily to banks that were too willing to lend, I find it wrong to cite the federal reserve as the main reason. To also seemingly paint hoover as some sort of interventionist is terribly misleading as well, while he certainly did intervene(and some of his protectionist policies didn't help) he was hardly doing much more than any other president. But I don't want to make this into a debate about the great depression, and I know that many economists still disagree on what caused it and what hoover did right/wrong etc. <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/56393?page=2#posts-1312320">AaronB</a>:</cite> Positive rights sound great in theory, eg “I am entitled to health care.” The difficulty is in the second part of the equation “Therefore someone must provide it for me.” Other common things considered to be positive rights include water, food, shelter, education, jobs, tools of work, and so on. These things don’t simply come to the person, they must be acquired through effort. Generally, proponents of positive rights expect to force “the rich” or some other group to provide those things. Basically, positive rights necessitate legalized theft. Things (or the money to provide them) are taken by force from one person and given to someone else. I don’t just not want to give things to those who haven’t earned them, the bigger problem is that those things must be taken from someone else first. </blockquote> Not having positive right such as healthcare, education etc etc would simply create even more disparity between the rich and poor, you would have the educated rich who knew what to do, how to get it simply stamping on the poor. It’s simply creating a better society, having a healthy, educated workforce is also quite beneficial to the capitalists. You also fall into the trap of people ‘earning’ things, do the bankers taking huge bonuses ‘earn’ them? Does the teacher really deserve to earn less, etc etc. Your argument falls dangerously close to victorian england where we’d have the rich land owners and the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor. The deserving poor being the ones who might get a little bit of charity from the landowners. <blockquote> Not only do positive rights institutionalize legal theft, this in turn requires an expanding bureaucracy (typically government) to administer. This inflates the importance of government, since everyone wants to be able to get things for themselves and their group, while plundering someone else. If we had a miniarchist government, you wouldn’t have all those lobbyists in Washington. They are there because they want to use the influence of government to get things at your expense. </blockquote> You don’t have to have a lot of lobbyists just because of a big government, for example the uk has a larger government than the us, but the us has a lot more problems with lobbyists. <blockquote> Meritocracy, likewise, has some a number of good ideas but implementing some of them is the problem. We already discussed that parent’s savings would have to be confiscated to prevent them from passing them down to their children as an advantage. Also, someone has to decide who has merit. And when someone is found to have merit, are they forced into the position or school that the “merit council” envisions for them? If yes, that’s a harsh limit on individual freedom. If not, we should just have a free society where people think in terms of rewarding merit (something the market incentivizes people to do), not make it the basis of organizing society. </blockquote> To have a true meritocracy you would need a lot of intervention by the government, you would have to make everywhere equal and the chances for children no matter background equal, and then high taxes so rich children wouldn’t benefit from rich parents. I don’t really think the free market is designed to be able to be a true meritocracy. <blockquote> In Pre-revolution France, weren’t the aristocracy confiscating huge amounts of money from the common folks so that they could live off them? This most definitely violates self ownership and non-aggression. The current governments of the US and France do, too. They, along with positive rights, all involve violation of someone’s self ownership by forcibly taking from them the fruits of their labor. </blockquote> again this falls into the trap of ‘earning’ and whatever else <blockquote> Regarding the Great Depression, a much bigger factor was the Federal Reserve (a government-created monopoly with the power to create money out of thin air). The fed’s low interest rates and easy credit were what allowed the bubble to inflate. When it burst, Hoover greatly exacerbated the problem by intervening in the economy, doing things like pressuring industry not to lower wages. He ran big deficits hoping to get the economy moving through government spending. FDR campaigned against this, but after getting elected he simply continued and expanded Hoover’s interventionism massively and with utter disregard for the constitution. (Indeed this does sound like the current situation). Congress also passed the very high Smoot-Hawley tarrif, so we had a trade war on top of everything else. Government was the culprit.</blockquote> You seem to be completely ignoring the massive income disparity between the rich and the middle class(very similar to now) creating an unbalanced market. Demand/supply was out of synch, with the bottom 3/4 having to spend all of their money on clothes and food and the top 1/4 not able to make up for it unless they were buying a disproportionate amount of cars and luxury items. So the economy relied on credit sales, and luxury spending/investment from the rich. The luxury spending largely relied on the wealthy’s confidence in the market. Then as you point out the federal reserve propped it all up with cheap credit etc, but the real problem came from the huge income disparities because of allowing more inheritance and lower income taxes. World war 1 also had an impact, europe’s economy was weak because of and american exports suffered. The maldistribution of wealth wasn’t just down to individuals, it was the corporations too, 200 corporations had about half of the wealth. Argriculture was declining vastly too. Agriculture had been helped by the government to modernise after world war 1, to take up the slack from europe especially, the funding then dropped off and agriculture was taking huge hits. So then america’s main industry was the automotive and radio industry, which was a problem, heavily relying on only two industries. It relied on them expanding at similar rates, which was simply unsustainable, people wouldn’t endlessly buy cars and radios when they had them already. Then we have the mass speculation on wall street. From early 1928 to late 29 the dow jones stocks pretty much doubled. This created confidence and a massive bubble. Investors loans were at about 7billion mid 1929, it reached 8.5billion in the next 3 months. Interest rates were sky high, often at around 20%. Stock prices started to gradually fall, then they capitulated, and the cycle of fear happened, everyone started to sell and the spiral brought about a huge crash. I know you’re a libertarian so you’re going to believe what rothbrad, hayek etc have said about it, but while the federal reserve was a problem because it gave credit too easily to banks that were too willing to lend, I find it wrong to cite the federal reserve as the main reason. To also seemingly paint hoover as some sort of interventionist is terribly misleading as well, while he certainly did intervene(and some of his protectionist policies didn’t help) he was hardly doing much more than any other president. But I don’t want to make this into a debate about the great depression, and I know that many economists still disagree on what caused it and what hoover did right/wrong etc.

2009-09-20T09:25:07-07:00

true

1313121

56393

2009-09-20T09:25:07-07:00

269437

aaron i'm just going to politely sum up all of your posts 'government is bad' 'fuck you got mine' aaron i’m just going to politely sum up all of your posts ‘government is bad’ ‘fuck you got mine’

2009-09-20T04:53:42-07:00

true

1312558

56393

2009-09-20T04:53:42-07:00

269437

the only way america is going to have any sort of shake up away from its corporatist style and electoral system is through some sort of revolution and considering hardly anything has changed even when you have a mass economic meltdown, the worst in nearly 100 years, then i don't see it happening the only way america is going to have any sort of shake up away from its corporatist style and electoral system is through some sort of revolution and considering hardly anything has changed even when you have a mass economic meltdown, the worst in nearly 100 years, then i don’t see it happening

2009-09-20T04:49:02-07:00

true

1312552

213

55025

2009-09-20T04:49:02-07:00

269437

<blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href='/forums/9/topics/56393?page=2#posts-1310472'>AaronB</a>:</cite> Inheritances aren’t “fair,” in most people’s understandings of the word. However, do you want to be able to pass on what you’ve saved to your children? That’s what inheritance is. They themselves didn’t earn it, but someone did and chose to give it to them. Simply taking away inheritances would be unjust and a great restriction on freedom. Even our current system – where already taxed money is taxed again when it is inherited – is pretty unjust and often forces small companies to be sold by those inheriting them. They are then bought up by the big companies. </blockquote> feudalism owns doesn't it a rich child already has the odds stacked vastly in their favour without having millions of inheritance given to them <blockquote><cite>Originally posted by <a href="/forums/9/topics/56393?page=2#posts-1310472">AaronB</a>:</cite> Inheritances aren’t “fair,” in most people’s understandings of the word. However, do you want to be able to pass on what you’ve saved to your children? That’s what inheritance is. They themselves didn’t earn it, but someone did and chose to give it to them. Simply taking away inheritances would be unjust and a great restriction on freedom. Even our current system – where already taxed money is taxed again when it is inherited – is pretty unjust and often forces small companies to be sold by those inheriting them. They are then bought up by the big companies. </blockquote> feudalism owns doesn’t it a rich child already has the odds stacked vastly in their favour without having millions of inheritance given to them

2009-09-19T12:54:07-07:00

true

1310585

56393

2009-09-19T12:54:07-07:00

269437