CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ^coming from someone who does not even vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 so now democracy isnt good enough, jesus christ, I said move if you don't like the rules that much. But democracy and government are better than complete anarchy, which is what you want, even though you think there would be some kind of order there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Can you cite something that backs this up? I agree that most public school systems leave something to be desired but I'm not sure that warrants home schooling being undeniably the best route for everyone. i thought it was pretty common knowledge home school students typically score 15-30%+ above public schools. that being said, in no way am i attempting to say homeschooling is 'for everyone.' i apologize if i said or implied that. im merely pointing out a cheap alternative to produce a top quality student that solves a few of the problems others have thrown at me. that is the beauty of a free society, there is no central plan. each individual plans for themselves and decides what is best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 so now democracy isnt good enough, jesus christ, I said move if you don't like the rules that much. But democracy and government are better than complete anarchy, which is what you want, even though you think there would be some kind of order there. i'll take it you concede the point to me, because my argument obviously smashes yours. even if was talking anarchy.... what keeps you from entering your neighbors house when ever you want? is it really the police force or is it the non permission of the owner and their property rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 no I do not concede the point at all, I just cant be bothered to argue with you. you believe whatever you want and have as much fait in it as you like, I just know it will not work in a real world and that most people would be worse off because of it, but that doesnt matter to you because it is their choice to be worse off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 i'll take it you concede the point to me, because my argument obviously smashes yours. even if was talking anarchy.... what keeps you from entering your neighbors house when ever you want? is it really the police force or is it the non permission of the owner and their property rights? i would be more concerned about being arrested and thrown in prison thhan having a fight with a neighbour. It is the same reason I dont walk into a supermarket fill mytrolley with my shopping and just walk out because I dont want to be arrested and put in prison. but mainly because it is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 so you believe its wrong... and your morals tell you this and property rights back it up....yet you are trying to say that in an anarchist society there is no order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 because that is me, not everybody. If I thought I would get away with it I would have no problem robbing a supermarket blind, ok I wouldnt break into peoples homes but big businesses then yea I will take everything I can because I know they do the same to me with every chance they get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 But, Decy, don't you know that in a true free market, there is no crime, because everyone respects everyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 also in your family idea where mum is homeschooling the kids and dad is out working 70 hours a wekk to provide, what happens to them once his company decides they can get cheaper labour in china? They say to him you can keep your job but take a 50% pay cut or you will be fired. What happens then? Where does he get help from when he is unable to find another job? This is where your idea always falls down for me because they have to rely on the charity of others (which will not happen) you need a welfare state to help in these circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 a free market only runs on the premise that everyone is only interested in self interest, this means that chairty and help to people in need would not be there because it isnt in their self interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 a free market only runs on the premise that everyone is only interested in self interest, this means that chairty and help to people in need would not be there because it isnt in their self interest. this is just ridiculous. people give to charity because its makes them feel good. because they feel good, it is their own self interest that makes them give. why do private soup kitchens, the red cross and other voluntary charities exist today? is government forcing people to fund them? im a radical liberty advocate yet i believe 100% in voluntary charity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 also in your family idea where mum is homeschooling the kids and dad is out working 70 hours a wekk to provide, what happens to them once his company decides they can get cheaper labour in china? They say to him you can keep your job but take a 50% pay cut or you will be fired. What happens then? Where does he get help from when he is unable to find another job? This is where your idea always falls down for me because they have to rely on the charity of others (which will not happen) you need a welfare state to help in these circumstances. what happens if the family on government welfare gets hit by a car on a government road by a state worker? huh huh huh huh huh ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 and that is great that you are AOD, however as previously mentioned when I worked for a bank, the vast majority of people dont care about charity and do not give to charity, therefore there would be a need for welfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 what happens if the family on government welfare gets hit by a car on a government road by a state worker? huh huh huh huh huh ? has nothing to do with the scenario I proposed so I will just assume you have no answer to that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 because that is me, not everybody. If I thought I would get away with it I would have no problem robbing a supermarket blind, ok I wouldnt break into peoples homes but big businesses then yea I will take everything I can because I know they do the same to me with every chance they get. but the question is how is order kept without the government, correct? if you break into my house or you try to push carts out of super markets without paying, there is generally some sort of private security mechanism, be it an armed home owner or an armed security guard. ps. i love how you equate your yearning for actual theft from someone to the exact same as you voluntarily giving your money to apple for your iphone. in your view, apple stole your money. so did you rape your first girlfriend on the first date or did you persuade her get in the sack with you? after all, no difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I dont own any apple products, yes I paid for my phone, however I pay for my electric and gas through a company that decides to hike its prices higher than the increases it costs them to buy the electric/gas. This gas company is part of a larger corporation that also owns supermarkets so yea I would have no problem in stealing from them because they steal from me, I dont have a choice in the matter because all the energy companies increase their prices at the same time, they manipulate the market as PRIVATE companies and they remove the choice to go to someone cheaper service because they ALL increase their prices. nothing to do with government, infact the UK government hass stepped in before to stop them increasing prices like this before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 has nothing to do with the scenario I proposed so I will just assume you have no answer to that i think it has everything to do with the discussion at hand....its just a crazy off the wall made up scenario to try to veer the discussion off course. my question is just as relevant as you. i mean, what happens if anyone loses a job? what happens if someone cuts off their fingers eating a steak? if you lose a job, you should have savings to fall back on. just like any other normal person who relies on themselves and not anyone else. whats your next question? 'what does the one legged, wheel chair bound, homosexual, buggy whip maker do that works 70 hours a week when the automobile comes along if we dont have a central government with the power to assassinate citizens without a trial?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 No my next question would be, with the cost of living so high nowadays with fuel, energy costs etc always rising above inflation, and with wages being stagnant with no real increases in wages in years and years how is someone supposed to save when their whole income is being accounted for in basic living needs like heat food and shelter? I ask you legitimate real world questions and you come back with nonsensical crap 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 oh and dont say they should increase their productivity because their employer isn't going to put up their wages because it doesn't work like that in the real world. Also in the real world there isnt a huge selection of jobs so they can't just leave their job and move elsewhere. Should they just say ah fuck having a life I will now work 120 hours a week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 and that is great that you are AOD, however as previously mentioned when I worked for a bank, the vast majority of people dont care about charity and do not give to charity, therefore there would be a need for welfare. as i stated previously, the first lesson of economics is to look at the unseen not just the seen. you only see a state handing out money. but what if people suddenly were able to keep 30-50% of their incomes? perhaps maybe people such as yourself, do gooder types who say we need government welfare would just kick out 10-15% of their new raise from not paying taxes to a much more efficient private charity. it is estimated taht 70% of govt welfare programs revenue is consumed in just administration and bureaucracy. imagine if we had a private industry funded by all the former government welfare lovers, im sure even a bunch of socialists, even while paying their administrators exuberant un market based salaries could do a much better job than that and get more money to the people who need it, not just the govt workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 no they wouldnt they would use that extra money to benefit themselves, ok some might give it to charity however most would not they would buy more TVs get that new car etc how many people when they get an unexpected windfall give it to charity, barely any, they go on holiday or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I dont own any apple products, yes I paid for my phone, however I pay for my electric and gas through a company that decides to hike its prices higher than the increases it costs them to buy the electric/gas. This gas company is part of a larger corporation that also owns supermarkets so yea I would have no problem in stealing from them because they steal from me, I dont have a choice in the matter because all the energy companies increase their prices at the same time, they manipulate the market as PRIVATE companies and they remove the choice to go to someone cheaper service because they ALL increase their prices. nothing to do with government, infact the UK government hass stepped in before to stop them increasing prices like this before. i think you'll find that these 'private' companies are in fact government granted monopolies. nearly all governments have decided its in our best interest to limit who can provide power and water to us mundanes to 1 or 2 companies, therefore creating a classic monopoly situation in which the government has manipulated the market to allow them to over charge/go above market rates. its not really a free market if the government restricts competition and tells them everything they can and cant do. this the very thing the US left england for....mercantilism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 they are private companies, it was better when they were nationalised. And you think that if these companies were allowed to do whatever they wanted they wouldnt monoplise the market further? that is just naive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 No my next question would be, with the cost of living so high nowadays with fuel, energy costs etc always rising above inflation, and with wages being stagnant with no real increases in wages in years and years how is someone supposed to save when their whole income is being accounted for in basic living needs like heat food and shelter? I ask you legitimate real world questions and you come back with nonsensical crap i would say, lets get the government out of those sectors, because if you take off your class warfare goggles, you'll see that it is the sectors with the most government, energy, housing, etc that have the highest rising prices. so if you separate them, you'll once again see falling prices. if you look at sectors where there is relatively little intervention, you see falling prices. electronics, clothing, etc. its no coincidence. if you got rid of the central bank, you would eliminate inflation. in fact, gas in the US has almost remained constant since the great depression, if not cheaper. ..if you price gas in constitutional money, silver. if you average it out, a gallon of gas in 1930 was about 10 cents a gallon, back when we had silver dimes. how its 3.50 a gallon which is about what a silver dime is worth. i find it odd that you raise these sorts of questions. because you act as though people are not in debt up to their eye balls, going on vacations, buying new cars, etc. these same people who 'cant make ends meet' are usually much better off than you pretend. if someone is truly that bad off, i want to go in their house and i want to NOT see a couple of things. i dont want to see a flat screen tv, i dont want to a computer, receipts for dinners out, a cable bill, netflix, iphones, vacation plans, new cars in the drive way, fancy new clothes with the holes already cut in them, expensive junk food or 15$ a pound microwaveable bacon or any toys out back like motorcycles, jet skis or quads. if people want to save, they can do it. if members of my family can earn meager salaries for their entire lives and accumulate a decent amount of capital, anyone can. fact is people want to spend, they want ht ebiggest house they can get by with, the baddest car and the most stuff they can get their hands on. it just baffles my mind to think that you cant see this. you mentioned schooling earlier...i think if the average family cut out all their vacations, iphones, cable bills, new cars every 3 years and stuck to the basics, and also were allowed to keep all of their earnings, giving them a 15-30-50-60% raise automatically, they would be in money up to their arm pits and could give all the money they wanted to voluntary charities and pay for schooling that would be fractions of the cost of public schooling and twice as good. and since the incentives and moral hazard of the welfare state was gone, the people seeking welfare type services would shrink exponentially as most people on the system are capable of providing for themselves, they just choose to take the easy route because its easily available. why work for 8$ an hour when you have no skills, when you could work the system a bit and make more than that just staying home sulking and feeling sorry for yourself and having to listen to everyone tell you how bad you have it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.