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...
angelofdeath 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 yes, privately owned but given privileges they dont have in a free market by the state. how is this a free market? the government uses its power to give them privileges. this the very basis of moussilini style fascism/corporatism. they are only allowed to 'monopolized' the market because THE GOD DAMNED GOVERNMENT USED THEIR POWER TO DO IT. THEY GAVE THE COMPANIES THE LEGAL ABILITY TO HOLD A MONOPOLY. do you see a difference? government says there can only be 1 power company, any other people offering these services go to jail. you are saying this is a market situation. yet it is totally legal for walmart to seek a monopoly by opening up as many stores as they can and 'running the others out of business.' they havent been able to do this. all the targets and other stores are in competition with them. and you think your government schooling education is beneficial? you cant even understand the difference between a government sanctioned monopoly and a free market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I beg to differ based purely on personal experience, my biggest luxury is having the internet in my home, I have the skills and experience and should be earning much much more than I do but cannot because companies just dont pay enough because they look at what other people are paying for similar roles and match that, it doesn't matter if I do twice as much work I wont get paid for it. I dont have a flat screen TV, I dont have a big car (hell I dont even drive) I dont have fancy toys like jet skis etc I rarely ever buy clothes mainly when mine are worn out. So no I cannot afford to save, even if I did the amount I would be able to save would be so meagre that if I did lose my job I would be fucked. That is why I can't see it because I know most people are in the same situation that I am in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 yes, privately owned but given privileges they dont have in a free market by the state. how is this a free market? the government uses its power to give them privileges. this the very basis of moussilini style fascism/corporatism. they are only allowed to 'monopolized' the market because THE GOD DAMNED GOVERNMENT USED THEIR POWER TO DO IT. THEY GAVE THE COMPANIES THE LEGAL ABILITY TO HOLD A MONOPOLY. do you see a difference? government says there can only be 1 power company, any other people offering these services go to jail. you are saying this is a market situation. yet it is totally legal for walmart to seek a monopoly by opening up as many stores as they can and 'running the others out of business.' they havent been able to do this. all the targets and other stores are in competition with them. and you think your government schooling education is beneficial? you cant even understand the difference between a government sanctioned monopoly and a free market. a monopoly is a monopoly whether done privately or government sanctioned government doesnt say there can only be 1 power company, I can think of 5 or 6 off th etop of my head I can choose from. If one of them raises the prices then the others all follow suit. Even though those price increases are more than any increase they have in production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 a monopoly is a monopoly whether done privately or government sanctioned government doesnt say there can only be 1 power company, I can think of 5 or 6 off th etop of my head I can choose from. They create barriers to entry into the market. I'm sure we have discussed this stuff before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 the energy business hass been pretty open in the UK it is mainly the existing companies making it difficult for new companies to enter the market place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 a monopoly is a monopoly whether done privately or government sanctioned government doesnt say there can only be 1 power company, I can think of 5 or 6 off th etop of my head I can choose from. If one of them raises the prices then the others all follow suit. Even though those price increases are more than any increase they have in production. if these private monopolies are in existence, please point them out to me, i havent been able to find any. even the so called monopoly of standard oil was never above 25% of the market and the guy kept bringing prices DOWN. we must not confuse large market share with monopoly. if someone has a large market share in a totally free market it just means they are best at what they do and people are voluntarily trading with this company for their goods and services. you can logically deduce this. all govt granted monopolies exist in sectors like power, gas, cable, telephone, etc. these markets are locked up tight if they havent just given one company sole monopoly privileges. monopolies cannot exist in a free market where there is free competition and free entry. all areas are different with power, but suffice it to say its not a fairly free market like there is in electronics. if not given full out monopoly privileges, the barriers to entry and restrictions and regulations make competition non existent. and once they get in power they use their money they acquire from being able to charge higher than market level rates to further influence the government in their favor. and then you get to get on forum on a computer that you bought from a capitalist company that exploited a chinese guy out of his labor (something you are against) and say that 'see, look at that 'private' company, they are doing horrible bad things!' all the while ignoring the frame work of government around it that allowed, encouraged and forced the situations to happen. you see, regulations benefit the big companies, they dont benefit the small companies. food is the perfect example. nearly all food regulations are written hand and hand with the USDA/FDA and existing big businesses. they seek largely to limit competition. who benefits more from a regulation that says you need a 150$K USDA approved cheese making kitchen to sell a pound of cheese to your neighbor? a company that has 25% of the cheese market share or a company that has .000025% of the cheese market share? if you are just trying to sell some cheese to your local community and you have no start up capital, when are you going to start your cheese business? this is merely an example of how regulations hurt 'the little guy.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Ron Paul Exposed As White Supremacist By Anonymous "And it looks like the jig is officially up. Hackivist group Anonymous has announced that not only have they decimated the websites of avowed White Supremacist group American Third Position (A3P) during Operation Blitzkrieg but, in the process, they claim to have accidentally uncovered close ties between the racist group and Ron Paul. Not just the Ron Paul campaign, but Ron Paul himself." Here's the Communique from Anon: Jamie Kelso and American Third Position Hacked and Destroyed; Private Emails Expose Blatant Racism and Ties to Ron Paul/ Fellow anons: we are pleased to bring you the dismantling of a major US-based white supremacist network known as the "American Third Position"(A3P). These racist losers have chapters across the US, operate several white power websites, forums and online stores, and are even running a candidate in the 2012 elections. Although they try hard to maintain a professional public image to camouflage their vile racism, we're now airing all their dirty laundry all over the internet. Contained in this major dump are several thousand private forum messages, personal emails, internal organization notes, names, phone numbers, home addresses and other information on all of their members and supporters. It’s time for these cowardly suit and tie white supremacists to sleep with one eye open. Scared much? In addition to finding the usual racist rants and interactions with other white power groups, we also found a disturbingly high amount of members who are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul. According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors. Ron Paul's racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage -- not to mention having authored the racist "Ron Paul Papers" and receiving financial support from other white power groups (pictured with Don Black from stormfront.org). Hard to believe Ron Paul draws some support from the left and the occupation movements, especially now that it is confirmed Ron Paul hangs out with straight up racist hate groups. We put extra effort in ruining the life of A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso. On top of being on the board of directors of A3P, former $cientologist, and high ranking Ron Paul organizer, he also is the account owner of german nazi forums and store nsl-forum.org, rhs-versand.com. We went ahead and wiped those websites off the internet as well, dumping private messages and order information. Aside from us releasing his information such as his social security number, address, resume and private discussions, we also heard some folks went on a joyride with Kelso's credit card and made some lulzy purchases, including sex toy purchases and making donations to the Anti Defamation League and many others. Oops. We call upon not only other antifascists but all those opposed to white supremacy to utilize this information and make hell for these white nationalist scumbags. It is essential if we wish to live in a world free from oppression to expose and confront racists at their jobs, their schools, at their homes and in the streets. No Dialogue! No sympathy! Destroy White Supremacy! *** DEFACED WEBSITES: A3P sites: http://american3rdposition.com http://www.whitenewsnow.com http://merlinmiller2012.com http://virgilgoode2012.com German Nazi forums and store: http://www.nsl-forum.com http://www.rhs-verdand.com *** DOWNLOAD FROM: http://www.nazi-leaks.info http://www.p4rtyvan.net Other articles on A3P: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/ american-third-position http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/Backgrounder:+American+Third+Position.htm http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option= com_content&view=article&id=940 http://ladylibertyslamp. wordpress.com/2010/07/12/american-olympic-gold-medalist-joins-white-supremacist- political-group/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 that is something I dont get about liberty arguements, if people are completely free why have anything like immigration, surely that is infringing on someones freedom by not allowing them to move freely where they want. I didn't know RP was anti abortion etc that is just completely hypocritical (as is the racism etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 perfect timing cunt! as soon as a certain faction runs out of ammunition in a debate, its time to pull the race card and put forth some gigantic conspiracy theory about how your opponent is a closet klansmen, descended from aryan jew burning christian separatist holocaust denying nazi worshipers. sorry dude, you just lost all credibility. to think that the guy who gets in front of the nation and says that the drug war is evil perpetrated on minorities and has stated that 'racism is nothing but an ugly form of collectivism' is some how a neo nazi....cmon now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 wouldnt be the first hypocritical politician AOD!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 I wonder if he is going to have a money bomb to combat racism or to celebrate his last place in the primaries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 that is something I dont get about liberty arguements, if people are completely free why have anything like immigration, surely that is infringing on someones freedom by not allowing them to move freely where they want. I didn't know RP was anti abortion etc that is just completely hypocritical (as is the racism etc) to me, abortion is a non issue. but i'll make his pro life case. the government was supposed to exist to protect life and liberty in the first place. it has decided that certain humans arent humans are capable of being murdered without prosecution. in the same manner the govt decided blacks were sub human and could be enslaved. now, if you want to talk about what to do about someone who cant pay for their kids education when they lose a job, i want you to justify how a person can be murdered up until 1 second before they are born, as is legal in the sate of new jersey. i have an entirely different theory on abortion than RP. my position is that it is legal to evict the fetus, but you just cant kill it. the basis for abortion theory of hte pro choice variety is that the womb is private property and the fetus is a trespasser. i'll buy that even though the person necessarily invited the fetus in there, but forget that. i'm going to go out on a limb and say that in a couple hundred years if not sooner, it will be medically possible to evict the fetus, yet not kill it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 wouldnt be the first hypocritical politician AOD!! so you honestly believe RP is hitler? haha, really? jeez, its worse than i thought. i thought you had at least an ounce of gray matter up stairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 no I dont think he is Hitler AOD haha then again not every racist is hitler, that is just going to extremes. I am just saying hypocrasy and politicians isn't something new. I don't believe someone should be able to terminate a pregnancy at 9 months it is too far gone the baby has developed at that point, but through medicine we know how a fetus develops and have set standards for abortion, I completely believe it is the mothers choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 no I dont think he is Hitler AOD haha then again not every racist is hitler, that is just going to extremes. I am just saying hypocrasy and politicians isn't something new. I don't believe someone should be able to terminate a pregnancy at 9 months it is too far gone the baby has developed at that point, but through medicine we know how a fetus develops and have set standards for abortion, I completely believe it is the mothers choice. as i said, i consider abortion a non issue, especially in presidential politics. but i would like to point out, in some states, new jersey i know for a fact unless it was recently banned, its totally legal to abort the baby while the mother is in labor. no joke. abortion is an area of contention in the liberty movement, both sides make compelling cases and i dont think taking either side makes anyone a lesser advocate of liberty or a hypocrite. you are right hypocrisy and politicians go hand and hand, however, i think every now again there is an exception. RP is that exception...i dont think having some shady supporters means the candidate is a racist. im sure some black racists supported obama, does that mean obama is a black racist? i'd say no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 He might not be a racist, but he does have a habit of things coming out under his name, which he denies knowledge of after an issue is raised about it. At a minimum, no one knows if it is him talking or one of his supporters. Which means his word is very questionable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunt sauce Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 perfect timing cunt! as soon as a certain faction runs out of ammunition in a debate, its time to pull the race card and put forth some gigantic conspiracy theory about how your opponent is a closet klansmen, descended from aryan jew burning christian separatist holocaust denying nazi worshipers. sorry dude, you just lost all credibility. to think that the guy who gets in front of the nation and says that the drug war is evil perpetrated on minorities and has stated that 'racism is nothing but an ugly form of collectivism' is some how a neo nazi....cmon now. Why don't you address the content of the post, AD HOMINEN ONER. This shit just popped up on my Facebook News Feed an hour ago from a homie and it's relevant to this thread, I'm not posting it because I'm "running out of ammunition". If you can't critique the information presented by Anonymous, you obviously aren't comfortable in your position. SORRY BROH, BUT UR HERO'S A BIGOT RACIST FUCK. Not to mention, a militarized border is a barrier to the Free Market. Using the state to prevent owners from purchasing cheaper labor violates your economic theory. True Libertarians (like myself) are not against immigration.... This is nationalism, folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Why don't you address the content of the post, AD HOMINEN ONER. This shit just popped up on my Facebook News Feed an hour ago from a homie and it's relevant to this thread, I'm not posting it because I'm "running out of ammunition". If you can't critique the information presented by Anonymous, you obviously aren't comfortable in your position. SORRY BROH, BUT UR HERO'S A BIGOT RACIST FUCK. Not to mention, a militarized border is a barrier to the Free Market. Using the state to prevent owners from purchasing cheaper labor violates your economic theory. True Libertarians (like myself) are not against immigration.... This is nationalism, folks. well, first off, RP isnt my hero, nor is he a totally free market advocate. he is a constitutionalist, not an anarchist. there have been tons of people who have spent the time to critique the various conspiracy theories about why RP is a racist, but i have better things to do with my time. usually people of your thinking think any white person with more than 5$ in their pockets are racists, so its really a moot point. 'racist' carries little to no descriptive value these days. its sort of like 'constitutionalist' i mean obama claims to be a constitutionalist yet also claims the right to assassinate americans without a trial. i agree with you that a militarized border is not indicative of a free market. however, in a society with property rights, there is no such thing as a right to 'immigrate' only a right to 'emigrate.' the right to say immigrate to your neighbors property means you must have permission to enter said property. essentially saying that there is a right to immigrate is basically the same as forced integration. hoppe makes a very compelling case on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Not to mention, a militarized border is a barrier to the Free Market. Using the state to prevent owners from purchasing cheaper labor violates your economic theory. True Libertarians (like myself) are not against immigration.... This is nationalism, folks. I think you will find libertarians on both side of the divide are pro migration. I certainly am. Quite apart from a rights based argument, pretty much everyone would be better off in absolute terms in a context where they can migrate freely. I have posted this article talking about the economics of migration before, but its so good its worth a repost. http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.25.3.83 *Note; I don't disagree with AOD. I am speaking specifically about migrating through national borders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 *Note; I am speaking specifically about migrating through national borders. indeed... i think people not taking this into account skews the discussion on many levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 True, the issue of cross border migration gets conflated with a range of notions including that of welfare and access to public services. My thoughts on migration is that borders should be completely open yet migration becomes solely a process of the will of the immigrant. They will make decisions based on their knowledge of the land and society of the place they wish to migrate, as they are best placed to do so. Where government facilitates, through grants or subsidies, then seeds migrants into areas according to abstract social engineering principles is where migration is its most problematic. To anyone interested; I am presently reading Heyak's 'Law, Legislation and Liberty' and made a comment in passing differentiating society and the state as the former being an outcome of a social organic growth and the latter being a range of institutions born of deliberate design. I don't entirely agree with this as he continues to frame society as a property of state borders and thus does not account for social orders which exist within or across national borders, but I'm sure he will expand on this concept later. Just thought I would share as it is relevant to the previous conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 What class are you reading this in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 RON PAUL IS RACIST! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 before I start these are some great responses btw i realize your creating this story here to appeal to peoples liberal sensibilities and make some case against free trade, etc, but what in the hell are farmers who are trying to make money... 'plowing' with exactly? what are these 12 year olds using shovels? teaspoons? what farm in 21st century america 'plows' with 12 year olds pulling a plow board? maybe im just knitpicking at your semantics here, but you are making a totally silly case about 12 year olds plowing with any farm equipment. Im really just trying to state facts and let people decide for themselves if the scene of 12 year olds working the fields works within their own sense of moralism. Im on the fence about it. I would prefer if kids learned how to build rockets and build weather balloons and dream about space and sharks... but there are very poor developing parts of the world that need kids to have strong work ethics to survive. I also think the age of "if you work hard every day and keep your nose to the grindstone, you will be rewarded for your hard work." is over in America. You have to be smart about it and for the most part that means not getting locked into an unskilled labor job early on and sacrificing education. I'm a liberal on most things but I wouldnt say Im a hardcore democrat. There are many instances when I think taxes, tarriffs, and subsidies are just a bunch of broken hammers... and not every instance of poor economic growth and joblessness needs to be treated like a fucking nail. and what exactly is wrong with this? i started 'working' when i was 9 or 10. when i did this, i was able to save enough money to make all other lazy non working kids to shame. and i credit this with the reason why im able to live the lifestyle that i am, because i learned work ethic at an early age. i was able to purchase a few items that cost in excess of 1000 dollars by the time i was 13.... Look the statistics are in. Highschool dropouts have a 20% unemployment rate. College graduates have a 2% unemployment rate. The workforces and companies of our parents (Saturn, Kodak, and hundreds of others) are dead and gone. The business models that made them successful are failing. You can't just recommend your children the same career path you took because that career path rarely still exists. Statistically speaking, the best career advice you could give a kid is to stay in school and graduate college. I agree that kids need direction and chores and jobs but theres a difference between working for your family and working to support your family at age 12 or even 16. That responsibility shouldnt be handed to a kid and a kid should never be forced to take care of their deadbeat parents. That's one instance of wellfare that I think is crucial to give kids a chance at having a normal childhood and become positive and productive members of society. i dont see 60 year old well off adults going into crime full time. What 60 year old do you know is still in the blue collar workforce? Most 60 year olds who worked their whole lives have happily retired by now because they grew up in a good time for blue collar labor. The begining of a real decline in manual labor started in the early 70's and has continued to now. The barfights im referring to were always between factory workers fighting over girls, status, and whatever else. Old dudes are too old to keep that shit going. usually poor kids get into crime because they dont have any other viable options. and since the government has outlawed things like drugs, gambling, prostitution and other things that organized crime revolves around, therefore making them highly lucrative jobs, they attract kids with low producitivity. it makes economic sense to them. and since the state has outlawed legal work for children under the age of 18 effectively in most areas, where else do they turn when they have no options? Oakland in the 70's is a great example of this. From WWII onward california became an industrial powerhouse since we manufactured most of what was used to combat the japanese and nazis. California Alone quickly rose to having the 4th highest GDP compared to all the other countries in the world. We had a lot of manual labor and a lot of America flocked to areas like Oakland to get work. These workers were able to buy cars, houses, boats, all on a factory worker's salary. Then the 70's rolled around and the tipping point came and machines took over the factories. Unions and politicians fought back against machines by creating tax inscentives and other government inscentives for companies to use less machines and more labor, but the reality is it's just not profitable anymore. And like i mentioned earlier manual labor has always attracted anti-social people who can't work white collar jobs because they're just not that way. They dont value social skills and higher education because the money for manual labor was more than enough. Now in the 70's you have families falling apart because Dad's plan of working in a factory isnt something Junior can emulate because all the jobs are disappearing, including dad's. Junior's parents are also of the antisocial blue collar breed so Junior has two needs: One, he seeks a job. And two, he seeks a healthy family relationship elsewhere. Blue collar areas look down on education because historically people have been moderately successful without it. Plus college is expensive and seen as some poncy white collar b.s. The only other option for youth in Oakland is Gangs or pimps and prostitution because they provide both money and a very tight sense of family. And in the 70's that what you saw in Oakland, more pimps and prostitutes than anywhere else in the country. Also a whole lot of crime, civil rights groups fighting for social change and so on... all spurred on by unemployment and an economic downturn. do you really think in 21st century america where the poor have iphones, cars, and air conditioning that they are going to sell their kids into indentured servitude? why not just disallow 'selling kids into slavery' but legalize the right of a child to contract and rake leaves legally for a neighbor? so long as there is consent, the parents consent and the kids consent, what in the hell is the problem? in effect by advocating the illegality of a 15.9 year old or a 17.9 year old (where ever the legal age limit is where you live)from legally obtaining a paying job, you are making it illegal for a kid to earn money and learn responsibility. I would say there's a large poverty level in america where people don't have iphones or air conditioning, or even bedsheets on their mattress. This christmas I donated about a grand in crap to a single mother and her two kids who didn't even have a vacuum cleaner. I literally spent a thousand dollars on things I completely take for granted. If children in america didn't have access to public education and a modicum of wellfare you better believe that those parents would be forced to put their children into some sort of sweatshop work program like you saw in 1700's and 1800's America. i mentioned a well known virginia farmer in a previous post. this guy has local neighbor kids knocking down his door trying to work on this farm. he cant legally hire them until they are 18 because in virginia you have to be 18 to operate a cordless drill. in fact, the irony also is, a 16 year old can drive a F250 that weighs 10K lbs down the highway going 70mph, but he cannot employ anyone under 18 to operate one of his tractors. the ideology that backs your beliefs on economic intervention is the reason for this. you have a sitaution here where both sides mutually agree, the kids are going to the employer for work, and the employer cannot hire them. I know the farmer you're talking about (think I saw him on food inc) but not the details surrounding the incident you're reffering to. In either case. Those are state laws. http://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/hrswork.shtm That kid could get a farm work permit in New York and many other states. I think that kid that is banging on their neighbor's door is running away from some other issues at home as well. There's a lot of ways for kids to make money. A ten year old became half a millionaire for jailbreaking the first iphone. A kid in my hometown made a million dollars on some torpedo pool toy. Those free thinking and generally considered "white collar" jobs are perfect to inspire kids to do great things. Also considering farming is rarely profitable anymore, and most American farmers do farming on the side, how responsible is it to assimilate a child into farming? Unless that child becomes a chicken savant chances are he too will be hurting for money his whole life without a college degree. what you are essentially saying is that the state owns children and owns their parents and has a right to tell them what kind of education they need. you see in a free society people are able to make good and bad decisions. if they make a bad decision that is their choice. the obvious incentive is to try to get more education. however a college education is getting to be totally worthless. we have this new thing going on where kids to go college till they are in their late 20's and then they just move back into their parents house. its in peoples best interest to try to increase their productivity. its what people do. when you get a better paying job, its because you increased your productivity some how. getting more education is a way of increasing their productivity. if people dont want to do that, that is entirely up to them. maybe someone is happy cutting grass for a living instead of programming computers. this is just freedom of choice. Considering homeschooling is legal in most states (california requires a teaching credential) and public educations are optional I dont know how you could assume the state owns children or parents. And college education is the exact opposite of worthless. It's just becoming more popular so many industries are becoming more competitive. If you get an undergrad in biotech you're looking at a guaranteed 80k salary, and well into 6 figures by halfway through your career. If you get a degree in building sandcastles the job market is probably going to be a lot tougher. And I dont know if it's in people's interest to work hard. Tenured teachers rarely work hard, but that doesnt mean public schools suck. I've had overpaid private school teachers slack on their jobs just as much. And there are as many dumb harvard grads as there are dumb UC grads, so students dont necessarily like to work hard either. It's all about monetizing incentivizing an optimal workflow, which is a lot harder to do than just say "free market capitalism" or "state capitalism" works the best. There's social and cultural influences on how people work. The chinese will work in factories until the bones in their hands disintegrate, and THEN maybe complain. Americans no so much. There's a reason why state capitalism works so well in china and why there's no fucking way we could emulate a chinese economy here in america, even when we too are state capitalists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Look the statistics are in. Highschool dropouts have a 20% unemployment rate. College graduates have a 2% unemployment rate. The workforces and companies of our parents (Saturn, Kodak, and hundreds of others) are dead and gone. The business models that made them successful are failing. You can't just recommend your children the same career path you took because that career path rarely still exists. Statistically speaking, the best career advice you could give a kid is to stay in school and graduate college. i dont doubt your statistics are right. but what you are talking about is the productivity of workers. things constantly change. this is life. especially life in the world where we have such a high standard of living compared to life before the industrial revolution when we had hundreds of generations of farmers essentially doing the same thing. if you have a college education, you generally have a higher productivity than someone who dropped out in the 9th grade. this is a given. when the car came out, it put black smiths, farriers and buggy whip makers out of business. it pushed these people to pursue different career paths. the question then becomes are americans better off with the car that everyone can afford, or should we of retarded the advent of the car in favor saving the inefficient jobs of the blacksmith, farrier and buggy whip maker? I agree that kids need direction and chores and jobs but theres a difference between working for your family and working to support your family at age 12 or even 16. That responsibility shouldnt be handed to a kid and a kid should never be forced to take care of their deadbeat parents. That's one instance of wellfare that I think is crucial to give kids a chance at having a normal childhood and become positive and productive members of society. the double edged sword of that belief is that it is illegal for a neighbor kid, if you actually follow the law, to go next door and work at a neighbors back yard business. even if they want to. i dont think you'll find to many people who are in favor of forcing a 12 year old to bring home the families bacon. but as i pointed out a while back, child labor existed because we didnt have a high standard of living in the days when it took place. most of time children worked. children worked the farms until the family was well off enough to just have the father go to a job in town to pay the bills. before this, having children was viewed as a way of getting more workers. this was because the whole family had to work 12-16 hours a day, the whole family, just to put food on the table. whereas with a higher living standard, investment in capital goods and labor saving equipment, people are able to work much less and enjoy more leisure. before the government started heavily taxing and regulating the average blue collar worker in the last half to quarter of the 20th century the man was able to saddle the entire house hold's bills. What 60 year old do you know is still in the blue collar workforce? Most 60 year olds who worked their whole lives have happily retired by now because they grew up in a good time for blue collar labor. i dont know THAT many 60 year olds, but all that i do know, that arent govt workers who retired at age 50, are still working. Now in the 70's you have families falling apart because Dad's plan of working in a factory isnt something Junior can emulate because all the jobs are disappearing, including dad's. Junior's parents are also of the antisocial blue collar breed so Junior has two needs: One, he seeks a job. And two, he seeks a healthy family relationship elsewhere. Blue collar areas look down on education because historically people have been moderately successful without it. Plus college is expensive and seen as some poncy white collar b.s. The only other option for youth in Oakland is Gangs or pimps and prostitution because they provide both money and a very tight sense of family. And in the 70's that what you saw in Oakland, more pimps and prostitutes than anywhere else in the country. Also a whole lot of crime, civil rights groups fighting for social change and so on... all spurred on by unemployment and an economic downturn. i'd say there are plenty of jobs available to blue collar workers, but i dont view machinery and labor saving devices as a detriment. if we just want jobs, we could just shut down all the tractor trailers and put back packs on people and have them walk the goods to where they need to go. we dont want jobs just for jobs sake, we want productivity. i like to use the example of digging a house foundation with tea spoons as opposed to back hoes. or the buggy whip makers vs cars. i'd go out on a limb and say that the areas of 'crime' are largey centered around things prohibited by government. prostitution, drugs, etc. all these areas would not be the lucrative areas of employment that they currently are if they were legalized. I know the farmer you're talking about (think I saw him on food inc) but not the details surrounding the incident you're reffering to. In either case. Those are state laws. http://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/hrswork.shtm hey, i dont care if its a state, city, town, county commission or federal government making up these stupid laws, they are horrible. That kid could get a farm work permit in New York and many other states. I think that kid that is banging on their neighbor's door is running away from some other issues at home as well. There's a lot of ways for kids to make money. A ten year old became half a millionaire for jailbreaking the first iphone. A kid in my hometown made a million dollars on some torpedo pool toy. Those free thinking and generally considered "white collar" jobs are perfect to inspire kids to do great things. i still dont see why you feel the need to decide for kids, and their families what is gainful employment or what should be done to pass leisure. look, i used to go next door and work on my neighbors little farmette. he would pay me. he also ran an electrician business off the property. a business owned the land, what i was doing was illegal. it seems very high and mighty to sit back and feel that you have a right to decide what is best for others, their families and tell someone what they can and cant do. most kids dont have the brains to be child prodigy's. but most kids who want some extra cash to supplement their allowance, can rake leaves or cut grass. in my circle of friends work was anathema. i was the only kid that i knew of that actually did work for their allowance. be it cutting grass, helping with various house projects, etc. all the other kids got their allowances handed to them. they thought i was the 'weird' one when i spent my saturdays at my grandfathers or my neighbors doing various projects to get a little extra money. to take it even further, the same farmer im talking about (yes the guy from food inc) refused to just give his kids allowances. his farm is a huge business. they do well into the millions of dollars in revenue every year. he made his kids start their own side business. at an early age, they tended their own rabbits which then later turned into a fairly decent business for the entire company. they tended their own chickens and sold the eggs to people at church. since after all, this is on property owned and operated by polyface inc, and since the animals are all owned technically by polyface inc, they are probably breaking the law and breaking child labor laws. you would have me believe that the stories of this guys son at age 8 running a 60 hp tractor while his dad picked up hay on the back of the wagon as the kid drove by is detrimental because he is working for a 'corporation' and getting paid very little if anything. i dont think anyone is running away from anything. why do i feel this way? because at one time i was one of those kids and i wasnt running away from anything. i wanted to do actual work and i wanted actual money. there is a guy who lives a few houses down that has a produce stand. i watched his son who was 10 bug the living hell out of him for months trying to get him to run the register. one day i stopped by and his son was operating the register and he was boxing up peoples food. i found out later on that a state food 'police man' gave him a visit, told him he cant have his son doing any work on that stand or at his farm and the neighbor kid that used to come over and sort fruit and beans from their farm couldnt do that either. yet it was what these kids wanted. they wanted to be like the dad. yet you are trying to tell me this is justified state intervention. from what i gather, the guy told the regulator to fuck off, and went on about his business. soon enough, he got in trouble for some 'code' violation and was fined. all because of the ideology that says people have a right to rule others and tell them what is best. Also considering farming is rarely profitable anymore, and most American farmers do farming on the side, how responsible is it to assimilate a child into farming? Unless that child becomes a chicken savant chances are he too will be hurting for money his whole life without a college degree. personally, i dont know and i dont care. im not in the business of giving advice or telling people what is best for them, im merely pointing out that govt has no right to tell people what to do. if they want to be farmers, that is their choice. Considering homeschooling is legal in most states (california requires a teaching credential) and public educations are optional I dont know how you could assume the state owns children or parents.? really, you cant see this? if a child is part of a family, and a family has a natural and universal right to educate their child, why do you have to ask the permission from the government to do so? why do they need a school exemption? if the state didnt own the kids, you would not have to ask permission to educate them how you see fit. you know it wasnt to long ago home schooling was frowned upon if not full out illegal in many states. there was even some cases, like the wacky fundamentalist guy in utah who took his kids out of public school to home school them. he ended up shot and killed at his mail box...for home schooling his kids. who owns who? if you dont pay a property tax, they take your house. who really owns it? if you own your house, it cannot be legally stolen by someone else. they claim ultimate domain over your property. just like they claim ultimate domain over your children. if you fail to report that you have school age children that are being home schooled, you dont follow the states arbitrary guidelines and requirements, dont get a permit to do so, the state has the legal right to take your kids and send them to school and/or throw your ass in jail. who has ultimate authority over who? from my limited knowledge on the subject the state with the best home schooling legal framework is idaho. you dont have a state bureaucrat over your shoulder and you can basically do what you want. And college education is the exact opposite of worthless. It's just becoming more popular so many industries are becoming more competitive. If you get an undergrad in biotech you're looking at a guaranteed 80k salary, and well into 6 figures by halfway through your career. If you get a degree in building sandcastles the job market is probably going to be a lot tougher. hey, some degrees are good no doubt. some others arent worth the paper they are written on. which is why you have these holier than thou kids coming out of college with no experience, having to move back in their parents basement because they cant get those 80K a year jobs they were promised. i heard a lawyer on a radio show say that she graduated college with 200K in student debt, and cant find a job. for 2 years the mythical high paid job she was promised is non existent. she waits tables. is she better off for going to college or could she of not incurred the 200K in debt and just went right to waiting tables? And I dont know if it's in people's interest to work hard. Tenured teachers rarely work hard, but that doesnt mean public schools suck. I've had overpaid private school teachers slack on their jobs just as much. And there are as many dumb harvard grads as there are dumb UC grads, so students dont necessarily like to work hard either. It's all about monetizing incentivizing an optimal workflow, which is a lot harder to do than just say "free market capitalism" or "state capitalism" works the best. There's social and cultural influences on how people work. The chinese will work in factories until the bones in their hands disintegrate, and THEN maybe complain. Americans no so much. There's a reason why state capitalism works so well in china and why there's no fucking way we could emulate a chinese economy here in america, even when we too are state capitalists. some tenured college professors at state funded schools make roughly 1100$ per hour. i cant really say if this is a market wage because it is a wage determined by government. sure, there are good teachers, bad teachers at both institutions. the problem with governemtn teachers if you cant get rid of them no matter how bad they are. in most places the union rules, labor laws and bureaucratic malaise make it impossible to get rid of a bad teacher. i think the facts bear it out though, public schools trail well behind private methods of education. people have become lazy because they have the bureaucratic mindset. people such as yourself and government tell people they should work less. look at the govt's retirement program. they retire people at age 50 making 50-80% of their highest salary for the next 40 years of their life till they croak. they then start their new business at age 50 and are making serious money. this is very common in the fire fighter and police world. look at the govt's retirement program with social security. they incentivize people to retire at age 62.5 or 65, stop being productive, sit at home and watch tv and rot away. then they spend the rest of their lives rusting and rotting out because they dont get any physical or mental activity. there full time job is going to the doctors. what a way to go out. society has been some so wealthy that they can afford to do this BS. they can literally get something for nothing, so they just do nothing. nothing really wrong with this, but when it transfers to people with low skills or productivity...you get people who dont want to even do the hard work necessary to make ends meet. 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.