What the hell happened to Texas?Follow

Gbaji's argument at it's core is "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you". He is purely motivated by the idea of profit, if something doesn't make copious amounts of money he sees it as a failure which should be discarded.

He is the embodiment of capitalism. Makes me sick personally, but what can you do?

Yep!

Really? You want to toss this out when the beacon of Capitalism has just recently fucked itself?

I'm sure you can come up with some really bizarre definition of the word to fit.



In an academic sense? Sure. But in practice, the "communism in one country" used by the Soviet Union was really just a more complete version of economic control than the socialism practiced in most European countries. The difference is one of scale. The core principle (take from the fruits of the people's labors to provide services to the people directly) is absolutely the same.



You're using the wrong measuring stick though. My position is to assess the usefulness of something based on the cost versus gain. I see environmentalists who want to impose absurd costs on us all in order to prevent an incredibly minor or even completely unknown environmental impact. There are a host of environmental regulations which I agree with and support. But it's a matter of degrees, and some of that stuff is just ridiculous.

My position on health care is the same. I believe that the costs outweigh the benefits. And remember that "costs" include costs of liberty as well as dollars. We can easily make the argument that a rich person who has double the wealth needed for his own health care needs could give up half that wealth to provide for the same health care for a poor person who can't afford any and both are collectively better off. But the counter is that this isn't fair to the rich person who presumably spent quite a bit of his own time, effort, and skill accumulating that wealth and ought not to have it taken from him just because it would benefit someone else to do so.


And no, it's not because I like being cruel, and it's not about hating one group of people. It's about the rationale itself. It's easy to make that argument when it's health care. But we can make the same argument for anything. Liberals often get so caught up in the specifics of the cause they're fighting for that they lose sight of the bigger picture, the "why" of what they are doing. And what you're doing is saying that it's ok to take from one person and give to another purely because it would benefit that second person to do so. But that argument allows you to take any amount of money from those who can afford it and give it to those who need it. There's no end point to it. You can always come up with something a poor person doesn't have and charge a rich person to give it to him.


It's not about the specific case. It's about the principle.




I'm speaking about the economic model you are praising in general. It has nothing to do with being in the Eurozone itself. It has to do with the model of consuming the productive parts of your economy to provide benefits to the less productive parts. That is a failed model. It can't work in the long run. And the saddest part is that most of the liberal leaders know this. But the political benefits of selling the public things they can't afford is just too powerful. The fact that you do seem to think of government benefits as "free" shows just how well they've sold this lie to you.

It's not free. You are paying for it. You just don't realize it.



Define "better educated" and then argue what makes it a worthwhile thing for the government to spend money on. I honestly suspect that in all your years being educated, you never learned this (or even thought to ask).



Why does "labor" equate to blue collar drones? Interesting Pavlovian response you have there.


The point I'm trying to make is that the value of an education to the individual is whatever he's willing to pay for it. If you are paying for your own education, you're free to choose what criteria to use to decide what is worth spending money on. But when the government does this, it's reason for doing so is the assumption that the increase in labor value which results is worth the cost spent. So... if someone without a college degree generates X dollars worth of productivity to the economy per year on average, and someone with a college degree generates Y dollars worth, the difference between X and Y needs to be equal to or greater than the yearly cost the government spends (over time of course) to pay for those college degrees (or honestly any level of education).

If that is not the case, then the government is wasting money on education. And let me be clear on this, I think the US government wastes a huge amount of money on education as well. That's not to say it shouldn't spend any money on it, but that what it spends it on, and how it spends it, does not produce the results which are required to justify the cost.


But it's interesting that it's the areas of the US economy where we do things the most like you guys do in Europe where we fail the most. When we allow the free market to control things, the results are outstanding.






So you advocate a system which takes from others to benefit you? And you claim that capitalists are greedy? Would you feel the same way if you were the one paying more for coke than you get?




Because you are progressively increasing the ratio of people who are taking more than they put in to those putting in more than they take out. You just got done gloating that you're personally saving money by being one of those "takers". You honestly can't see how this is a problem? When each generation has fewer people producing more than the consume, it can't be sustainable. This isn't really about ideology, it's about basic math.

I could put to you that eventually your labour force will all die because they can't afford medical care, or a place to live. You don't realise it yet because it takes several generations for all the poor people to die out.

Huh? Even if that were the case (and it's not), that wouldn't cause economic collapse because the folks producing more than they consume for themselves would be increasing. The result would be increased prosperity for the population, not the other way around. But in the real world, the poor don't die out, they become productive because they aren't given a free route to easy living. And everyone benefits.

I already answered your question. Refer to post 206 that one post where I already answered your question.

You said that *you* don't believe abortions should be performed after a nervous system and whatnot has formed. But you also steadfastly oppose any laws that actually prevent abortions after that point and attack anyone (like myself) who would like to see the loopholes which allow such abortions to be eliminated.

The laws are sufficient, though. Target the specific loophole. Just be more specific, instead of being massively sloppy. You're suggesting using a broadsword rather than a scalpel.

Huh? In the example I gave that's exactly what they did. All the proposed change to the law said was that mental health could not be considered when determining if a woman could receive a late term abortion. It was opposed by people like yourself making the same "but the law is already sufficient" arguments. And those people also made the same arguments that women shouldn't use mental health reasons for abortions, but then still opposed the legal change which would prevent them.

In some cases, the laws aren't sufficient. But most people are so wrapped up in supporting your "side" of the issue that they refuse to look at the issue objectively.

Edited, Nov 8th 2011 2:48pm by gbaji

Sigh... Must be that excellent British education system at work. When I'm talking about how a free market encourages invention and development of new products while a socialist one discourages those things, doesn't what you just said perfectly support my position? Um... And in case you're confused, the answer is: Yes.



That's it? Lol? Really? Did you learn that in your excellent British education system? When faced with an argument you can't or don't want to deal with, just laugh and change the subject? Ok!



Another brilliant analysis.



Those are not the same thing. I will again blame your education for not teaching you better.



It's ridiculous that you can't see the inherent fallacies in what you're saying. Guess what? As long as you define poverty in relative terms, you will also always have it unless you adopt an absolute redistribution system like the Soviets had. Since you insist that your system isn't the same as that one, and wont ever be the same, we must conclude that there will always be poverty in your country too.

The difference is that a free market increases the total size of the economic pie, and increases the rate at which life improving technology and products become available to all (even the poor). So while the gap between rich and poor is higher, the poor are still better off than they would be in an alternative system. Again, the extreme example of this is to compare the poorest people living in the US in the 80s, to the average person living in the Soviet Union at the same time.


Clearly a wealth gap between rich and poor has nothing at all to do with the standard of living of either group.




Only because when you say "personal level" you're talking about how much you pay out of pocket. But you don't take into account the amount the government chips in, which "you" (the people collectively) pay for. That's the part you are thinking is "free". But it's not. You pay the out of pocket amount *and* the amount the government pays for. Or, at least, the people pay for it collectively.

You aren't changing the whole cost, you're just shuffling around how it gets paid so that it appears to be less expensive. You are being lied to. I can't say this any more clearly than that.



Ok. ... and then argue what makes it a worthwhile thing for the government to spend money on.

I am not arguing that it isn't beneficial to the person who receives the education. I'm asking how it benefits the rest of society for that person to have that education. If he's using his advanced degree to do the equivalent of asking "do you want fries with that?", then we can question the value of the education itself, right?



You're the one who heard the word "labor" and automatically assumed blue collar work. I was speaking of the output of labor in general. This includes everyone. Your response was just bizarre and made no sense.



No, you shouldn't get a tax break. For two reasons:

1. Because the existence of a military is one of the few necessary things a government must do.

2. Because the actions of the military benefit or harm us all equally. What you were talking about was being fine with the government subsidizing coke because you gain financially on the deal. But this only works for some of the people (those poor enough not to pay more in their share of taxes for the subsidy than they gain from the subsidy). The rest of the people pay more for their coke than they would otherwise. So the effect on the population is unequal and unfair.

It's not just about whether you personally like something.




The very fact that you think taxes should be "for" a group of people within society speaks volumes to the point I'm making. You actively believe that the government should treat people within said society unequally. I don't believe it should. There are a host of reasons why doing what you want is a bad idea in the long run.

[quote]No, the law already makes it illegal before that point. Iirc abortion is legal until about 24 weeks, except in extreme extenuating circumstances. This is what I support, right there. I support that legal cut off. You can call it arbitrary but there are very important differences between the second and third trimester.[/quote]

The problem is that those extreme extenuating circumstances can be met easily, effectively making elective abortions legal at any point in a pregnancy. Those were the exact loopholes that I was speaking of.

[quote]Well if you're sure that's what the proposition would state, then I would probably agree with it. So long as it wasn't causing permanent damage. Like I said before, the devil's in the details.[/quote]

Yes, it is. The problem is that most people don't bother to look at the details. I've had this debate before. I've heard dozens of people expressing the exact same position you're expressing, and even when presented with the details will continue to refuse to believe that the law actually does allow for such elective abortions. They do the same thing you're doing. And the result is that they end out supporting exactly that which they claim to oppose.


There's a strong tendency to argue from a position of ignorance. As though somehow because you don't see or know of evidence to the contrary, it must mean that contrary position isn't true. This is doubly true in this case (at least in the US). Out of a decade of data for abortion center Dr. Tillman was running, only the last two years included one important question about late term abortions: In cases where an abortion was not performed because of a problem with the pregnancy itself (viability), and was not performed because the womans life was in danger, but was performed because the pregnancy represented a "significant impairment to a major bodily function", they finally after years of court battles required in the documentation that they ask whether the impairment was physical or mental in nature.

For that decade, nearly half of all late term abortions (that's post 22 weeks btw) at that clinic were performed for that "impairment of a major bodily function" reason. And for most of that decade conservatives had insisted that since this could legally include mental health that it represented a loophole for elective abortions. And they were shouted down by liberals insisting that no one would actually use that reason, it was ridiculous, and they were really just trying to prevent legitimate harm to the health of the woman.


IIRC, during the last two years the clinic was in operation, when they finally fought through the legal morass to get that question added, 100% of all abortions performed under the "impairment of a major bodily function" justification (health of the mother), were performed for mental reasons. Every... Single... One. I looked up the data myself during an argument about this a couple years ago. I don't really feel like doing it again, but I will if I have to. The point is that exactly what the conservatives feared was happening was happening at that clinic.


This was not a case of pro-life folks going overboard and making up crazy stories. This was a case of the pro-choice position becoming so warped that it was ultimately resulting in exactly the sorts of things that most people who are pro-choice (me and you included) are absolutely opposed to. And yet, when I pointed out these data to posters on this forum, the same ones who insisted that Obama was absolutely correct to oppose the proposed changes in the Illinois law which would expressly prevent mental health reasons for being used for late term abortions, they still found ways to insist that the law was sufficient and no changes were needed.


Taking a "side" trumped even what those arguing the issue claimed to believe in. So yeah, forgive me if I doubt the sincerity of someone holding your position. While I shouldn't assume you'd look the other way in order to not weaken your own political positions, I've seen exactly that behavior by an awful lot of people in the past. And ultimately, unless people like you actually do take the time and effort to investigate whether the laws actually prevent the things you believe they do, it doesn't matter much. You wont know, and wont know to check.

Edited, Nov 8th 2011 5:32pm by gbaji

That's your example of me changing the subject? You're not even trying, are you?

Lol! Yeah... I'm deflecting your deflection based on false comparisons, and that's about when I went out for a beer, Your Honor!

Why does the right wing think that a well regulated capitalist economy with some socialist elements that either stop people from becoming completely screwed (health care) or give everyone a fair chance (education funding [including post secondary]) is the worst thing that happened to mankind since Eve at an apple?

Spoiler
The Nelson Riddle arrangement is really the best.

The right wing doesn't, elements of it do. So kindly fuck off


Edited, Nov 9th 2011 10:12am by Uglysasquatch

There's a few conservatives on this board that see it the same way as me. It's not a all or nothing thing with the right wing. There's a lot more posters here that are conservative leaning than you realize. They just don't stand out because they're usually arguing with the trifecta as much as anyone else. Poldaran, I believe, leans right for example.

Tailmon!