aaronburro is an obvious racist/anti-semite neonazi who is also the head of the Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, GM, and other worker subjugating big businesses around the world.

8/23/2011 12:33:50 AM

Quote :

"Actually, it would be because they can spend a vast majority of their tax dollars on things other than military protection."

Are you ready to back this up? Many of these countries doing far better than us in a variety of metrics have higher government spending as a percentage of GDP than us, even with our military, which hardly implies that their savings from having a small military is making it possible.

Quote :

" They've also got a completely different culture than we do, which affects the situation as well. "

Haha this isn't at all the most vague and border-line mystical cop out possible.

Quote :

"But, yes, please keep thinking that vast entitlement systems which are bound to break most normal countries actually are a good thing"

"Normal" countries? What exactly is so abnormal about Denmark, Norway, Finland, Canada, Australia, France, Japan, and Sweden?


[Edited on August 24, 2011 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2011 3:27:08 PM

Quote :

"What exactly is so abnormal about Denmark, Norway, Finland, Canada, Australia, France, Japan, and Sweden?"

Their unblinking allegiance to the capitalist institutions of private property rights, free enterprise, equality before the law, and open trade?

8/24/2011 4:21:35 PM

Except when they're confiscating the wealth of their citizens at gunpoint to fund universal education and healthcare and generous unemployment benefits.

8/25/2011 9:50:07 AM

Seriously you're saying that the reason policies that confiscate and redistribute wealth don't cripple these countries is because they're just so purely and unabashedly Capitalist.

8/25/2011 9:51:42 AM

And maternity leave!!! Single working moms in France get 6 months maternity leave and a free house sitter. Seriously, the USA's standing as a first world country is a goddamn joke at this point.

8/25/2011 12:36:27 PM

Quote :

"Except when they're confiscating the wealth of their citizens at gunpoint to fund universal education and healthcare and generous unemployment benefits."

You mean the same "confiscating the wealth of their citizens" thing the United States does? Sure, we spend the money invading Iraq instead of some other stuff, but who seriously believes invading Iraq was the capitalist thing to do.

8/26/2011 10:59:06 AM

Quote :

"Sure, we spend the money invading Iraq instead of some other stuff, but who seriously believes invading Iraq was the capitalist thing to do."

Probably the capitalists who made a fuck load of money

8/26/2011 11:10:25 AM

According to some on this board, being a state sustained industry (such as Scandinavian education and healthcare) makes you a socialist institution. As such, only socialists can profit from war.

8/26/2011 12:56:49 PM

That makes zero sense.

8/26/2011 1:30:36 PM

^ Agreed. Makes zero sense. And anyway, what does it matter if we've labeled it as a socialist country? That's exactly what it is. Step away from the use of socialist as some sort of curse word for a second.

8/27/2011 11:10:06 AM

Words have meaning. The word "socialism" has a technical definition. By my definition, an arms manufacturer is a capitalist institution, even though it has only one customer, the government army. Some on this board, including yourself, believe the exact same organization found in Scandinavian healthcare and education is socialism. Per that definition, American arms manufactures getting rich from war are socialist. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Edited on August 27, 2011 at 3:20 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/27/2011 3:18:45 PM

That makes zero sense.

8/28/2011 2:54:45 PM

It makes plenty of sense. Apparently, if we're to use the definitions being thrown around on this page, anything good that the government does is socialism, whereas anything bad is capitalism.

In reality, this shit going on is neither socialism or capitalism. There's nothing about free market capitalism that involves invading another country and using their resources. You can't have a free market if people and governments are initiating force.

By the same token, none of these supposed European socialist countries are socialist in any meaningful sense. Do they have social safety nets/welfare? Yes. Is it much more efficiently administered (and thus more cost effective) than in the United States? Yes. Do any of these things involve worker-owned capital? Absolutely not.

No need to bring socialism or capitalism into it. We're talking about welfare. Incidentally, welfare is much more effective in mostly homogeneous populations that span over smaller geographical territories. Why not let the states take care of welfare if it needs to exist? The federal government is completely inept.

8/28/2011 5:30:08 PM

Quote :

"Incidentally, welfare is much more effective in mostly homogeneous populations that span over smaller geographical territories. "

Lol did you pick this up at the stormfront.org forums or what? Just come out and say what you're hinting at: Welfare is bad in the US because sometimes non-white people use it.

And by the way, Federal Governments do not represent explicit worker control, but they are Democratic institutions on which workers voter. That makes Federally administered programs significantly more Socialistic than private sector ones. This isn't something you can split hairs on, both Socialistic and Capitalistic aspects occur on a spectrum, they aren't binary classifications.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 1:27:29 PM

You've got to be one of the most irredeemable posters on this forum. It's not because your arguments are extraordinarily bad, lazy, or reeking of real world naivete, although they certainly are. It's your assumption that any ideological opponent is racist, bigoted, or worse that makes you come across as such a prick.

Quote :

"And by the way, Federal Governments do not represent explicit worker control, but they are Democratic institutions on which workers voter. That makes Federally administered programs significantly more Socialistic than private sector ones. This isn't something you can split hairs on, both Socialistic and Capitalistic aspects occur on a spectrum, they aren't binary classifications."

Voting only has some effect on the current government structure and windfalls that result from it. Most of the bureaucracies and institutions in place were created through legislation that was made long ago, and because politicians are unlikely to run on a platform of repeal, those institutions rarely are eliminated in changed in a meaningful way. Accordingly, you've got things like the military industrial complex, entitlements, and bureaucracies that are practically immune to democratic input.

I don't think it's useful or even correct to refer to democracies as "socialist," especially in instances where the means of production is not owned by the government. We have just as much (if not more) welfare in the United States as there is in Norway, it's just horribly inefficient here. There's a lot we could do to simplify things and lower costs, but that would probably mean that some politically-connected individuals would lose access to the windfall that had previously seemed permanent.

8/29/2011 1:53:25 PM

^^ I suspect it is because our system was not designed to administer welfare well, as the founders and everyone that has modified it since had other goals in mind.

As such, when I say government is bad I usually mean that of the U.S., where it was designed to be bad. If you honestly want America's federal government to run such systems then by God we need to scrap this 200 year old structure for something more functional.

8/29/2011 3:38:07 PM

Quote :

""Normal" countries? What exactly is so abnormal about Denmark, Norway, Finland, Canada, Australia, France, Japan, and Sweden?"

Is it not hilarious that you proved my point? All but three of the nations you listed are explicitly protected by the US military, and one could make the argument that Canada has similar protections from us. It's like you are completely trying to ignore the point I was making

Quote :

"Many of these countries doing far better than us in a variety of metrics have higher government spending as a percentage of GDP than us, even with our military, which hardly implies that their savings from having a small military is making it possible."

And how many of them could then afford to spend 500b/year on defense? exactly. They let us do it, instead, and we get absolutely nothing out of the deal. They make off life bandits

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 3:46 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 3:43:02 PM

Quote :

"You've got to be one of the most irredeemable posters on this forum. It's not because your arguments are extraordinarily bad, lazy, or reeking of real world naivete, although they certainly are. It's your assumption that any ideological opponent is racist, bigoted, or worse that makes you come across as such a prick."

Pipe down. str8foolish is one of the few people who comes in here with historical records, cites studies, and argues with science in his corner. you, on the other hand, only have some all-encompassing ideology you once read in a book about libertarian principles. watching you accuse someone of having "real world naivete" is hilarious.

8/29/2011 4:19:36 PM

Quote :

"You've got to be one of the most irredeemable posters on this forum. It's not because your arguments are extraordinarily bad, lazy, or reeking of real world naivete, although they certainly are."

Lol, this is coming from a guy who believes that the human organism is coincidentally perfectly formed and adapted to function in a large scale global economy of 6 billion just going on its own desires and self regulation. Yep. I'm the lazy, naive one here.

Quote :

" It's your assumption that any ideological opponent is racist, bigoted, or worse that makes you come across as such a prick."

That's not an assumption really. I'm not even sure when I've made a post to make you think that, especially in this thread. It sounds like you're just parroting the typical stereotype of liberals that right wingers pass around as part of their "Let's help each other pretend we're not racist, bigoted pieces of shit" support group therapies.

Quote :

" Voting only has some effect on the current government structure and windfalls that result from it. Most of the bureaucracies and institutions in place were created through legislation that was made long ago, and because politicians are unlikely to run on a platform of repeal, those institutions rarely are eliminated in changed in a meaningful way. Accordingly, you've got things like the military industrial complex, entitlements, and bureaucracies that are practically immune to democratic input. "

You're whining here that Democracy isn't quick enough for you. That's not a rebuttal of what I was saying, just some off-the-cuff mewling. Socialism is a Democratic movement, whether you think Democracy is effective or not is beside the point.

Quote :

" I don't think it's useful or even correct to refer to democracies as "socialist," especially in instances where the means of production is not owned by the government."

Splitting such hairs here. Capital is a means of production. As is labor. Taking capital from the rich and using it to make labor more stable is a pretty clear re-allocation of the fruits of production. Anyway, you're splitting hairs here. Socialism is fundamentally a Democratic process of allocating production, and there's a variety of ways to do it. If distributing money from the top to the bottom for health and education isn't Socialist, can we just fucking do it in the US already?

Quote :

" We have just as much (if not more) welfare in the United States as there is in Norway, it's just horribly inefficient here."

http://www.treasurer.gov.au/ministers/phc/content/speeches/2006/images/005-7.gif

No, not really. You'll find that Norway's government spending as a percent of GDP is higher than the US's, subtract our military out of that and you'll find they spend far, far more on welfare. Do you even try googling the dumb shit you type before you hit post? If you did, I think you'd be making about 5% of the posts you do now.

Your assumptions that you probably made on a guess from your gut are wrong. This isn't the first time, in fact it's incredibly common. Maybe you should stop trusting your intuition on things and actually do research before you type a post. You don't even have to become an expert on whatever subject, just at least verify the claims you're making in that particular post.

Quote :

" There's a lot we could do to simplify things and lower costs, but that would probably mean that some politically-connected individuals would lose access to the windfall that had previously seemed permanent."

This is all based on your incorrect assumptions about our spending as compared to Norway. But, as usual, you will likely maintain exactly the same conclusions even after your presuppositions are shown to be false. That pattern is why you're a fucking moron and always will be, because you never reevaluate your conclusions once your premises are shown to be incorrect, you just rationalize another way to reach the conclusion post-hoc.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:22 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 4:20:49 PM

Aaronburro have you ever noticed that Norway, Sweden, Canada, Denmark, etc don't get into wars anyway, and don't really have enemies to speak of? You seem to think that just because we have a huge military and a persecution complex that we can pretend every other country is being protect by us. Truth is that they protect themselves by not having a foreign policy that meddles, injects CIA agents into every regime, and starts fights for no fucking reason at all.

Even with our military counted in the figures, these countries spend a higher percentage of their GDP anyway. It's not like our military is using up cash that would otherwise go to social programs, because we aren't willing to spend that much total in the first place. Also, it seems like you're tacitly admitting that our social programs would work brilliantly like they do in the other OECD countries if we just funded them properly.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 4:24:25 PM

i certainly agree with not provoking other people and I think it would be a much smarter method of foreign policy. But to suggest that those countries aren't protected by our military might is pure madness.

Quote :

"Also, it seems like you're tacitly admitting that our social programs would work brilliantly like they do in the other OECD countries if we just funded them properly."

brilliantly, except for the fact that they wouldn't. Again, different culture, different people. and, as snark has mentioned, our gov't isn't really set up well to do entitlements

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:27 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 4:26:04 PM

I'm sorry, what invasion did we recently repel from Norway, Sweden, or Denmark?

8/29/2011 4:26:39 PM

yep, military serves as zero deterrence

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 4:27:54 PM

Quote :

"certainly agree with not provoking other people and I think it would be a much smarter method of foreign policy. But to suggest that those countries aren't protected by our military might is pure madness."

If not provoking people is a good foreign policy, which is exactly what these countries do, why would they need our protection? You're directly contradicting yourself here.

8/29/2011 4:28:51 PM

Zero deterrance from what? Who are these mystical hidden threats to the Nordic nations?

8/29/2011 4:29:21 PM

^ how did Poland provoke Germany in 1939?

8/29/2011 4:29:26 PM

Quote :

" brilliantly, except for the fact that they wouldn't. Again, different culture, different people. and, as snark has mentioned, our gov't isn't really set up well to do entitlements "

Totally unfalsifiable, mystical, magical claims. Basically this kind of defense sets you up against any comparative criticism between the US and any other nation. Vague, unsubstantiated horseshit. The fact that you continue to believe what you believe when this is the best you can come up with is scary.

8/29/2011 4:30:40 PM

Quote :

"^ how did Poland provoke Germany in 1939?"

So now you're saying that a non-provocative foreign policy means nothing because Hitler Part II is always around the corner. Do you see how your own arguments are complete chameleons that change for argumentative convenience on the fly?

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 4:31:21 PM

I love how a completely different culture is "mystical" and "magical". clearly Norway has the exact same culture we have.

Quote :

"Zero deterrance from what? Who are these mystical hidden threats to the Nordic nations?"

I guess you completely missed when Russia invaded Georgia a couple years ago. yes, there is ZERO threat in that region. If denmark, sweden, and noway and the like didn't have US and UK support, Russia would have rolled over them years ago

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 4:31:45 PM

"Completely different"? Tell me what the meaningful cultural differences are. Until you do, you're just being vague and mystical.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 4:32:32 PM

Those gentle fur traders of the Icy North, their ways our not like ours...do trade with them, but trust them not...

8/29/2011 4:34:02 PM

yep. Norway is basically SoCal. yep

8/29/2011 4:34:55 PM

Quote :

"Pipe down. str8foolish is one of the few people who comes in here with historical records, cites studies, and argues with science in his corner. you, on the other hand, only have some all-encompassing ideology you once read in a book about libertarian principles. watching you accuse someone of having "real world naivete" is hilarious."

Don't tell me pipe down. I don't have to call people racist to get my point across.

Quote :

"Lol, this is coming from a guy who believes that the human organism is coincidentally perfectly formed and adapted to function in a large scale global economy of 6 billion just going on its own desires and self regulation. Yep. I'm the lazy, naive one here."

And you're the one that thinks you can micromanage society from an ivory tower. Human arrogance at its finest.

Quote :

"That's not an assumption really. I'm not even sure when I've made a post to make you think that, especially in this thread. It sounds like you're just parroting the typical stereotype of liberals that right wingers pass around as part of their "Let's help each other pretend we're not racist, bigoted pieces of shit" support group therapies."

It actually is an assumption, and a pretty fatal one at that. I'm not stereotyping liberals - I'm responding to what you said:

"Lol did you pick this up at the stormfront.org forums or what? Just come out and say what you're hinting at: Welfare is bad in the US because sometimes non-white people use it."

Don't accuse me of being racist or bigoted. Yes, your argument is weak and deeply flawed, but many here have managed to communicate in a less hateful way. I encourage you to do the same.

Quote :

"Splitting such hairs here. Capital is a means of production. As is labor. Taking capital from the rich and using it to make labor more stable is a pretty clear re-allocation of the fruits of production. Anyway, you're splitting hairs here. Socialism is fundamentally a Democratic process of allocating production, and there's a variety of ways to do it. If distributing money from the top to the bottom for health and education isn't Socialist, can we just fucking do it in the US already?"

But, somehow, when government takes money from the rich and uses it for war, it's capitalism.

Quote :

"Your assumptions that you probably made on a guess from your gut are wrong. This isn't the first time, in fact it's incredibly common. Maybe you should stop trusting your intuition on things and actually do research before you type a post. You don't even have to become an expert on whatever subject, just at least verify the claims you're making in that particular post."

I consider entitlements that confer benefits (that were not actually paid for by the recipients) to be welfare. In that way, much of Medicare and Social Security are welfare - benefits paid for by someone else.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 4:39:00 PM

out of curiosity, how would paying into a system from which you then receive benefits be an example of not paying for something?

8/29/2011 4:40:29 PM

When the amount of the benefits you receive exceed the amount you paid in.

8/29/2011 4:43:14 PM

So you're saying all forms of insurance are welfare.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 5:02 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 5:02:06 PM

Quote :

" And you're the one that thinks you can micromanage society from an ivory tower. Human arrogance at its finest."

No, I don't think I can micromanage society from an ivory tower. I believe that we can collectively, through science, statistics, computers, and the range of other intellectual and technological achievements we've made, provide workers with metrics of the economy's performance in different areas, give them a condensed picture of its inner workings, and let them (us) Democratically manage it.

Are you done with this strawman? No socialists in this forum want to control planet Earth from their PC chair and tell you which side of your mouth to start flossing from every morning. It's not making you seem more like an adult when you characterize your opposition as cartoon villains.

It is true, however, that you believe that humans innately make individual decisions that, extrapolated out to a 6 billion person, industrialize, computerized economy happens to work out on the aggregate and be fair and meritocratic. Is this a religious belief of yours? Serious question, because there's no way evolution could give rise to such an organism considering all of these challenges only appeared within the last few generations.

Quote :

""Lol did you pick this up at the stormfront.org forums or what? Just come out and say what you're hinting at: Welfare is bad in the US because sometimes non-white people use it." "

You literally said "non homogeneous" population to describe why it works in Norway. It's not an assumption to say that you're hinging your assertion on racial characteristics. What kind of other homogeneity were you referring to? Pardon me if I've seen that exact same phrase used 99% of the time by racists in the past. Please, enlighten me as to what you "really mean" when you started talking about a homogeneous population.

edit: And please, for Christs sake, do some googling before you make claims. Here's an easy link or two you can click to check your assumptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Norway#Demographics

Quote :

"But, somehow, when government takes money from the rich and uses it for war, it's capitalism."

Well, it takes lives from the poor, so I'd say it works out.

Moreover, the point I was making is that social services like healthcare and education are primarily handled by private, Capitalist corporations in the US.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 5:10:12 PM

Quote :

"No, I don't think I can micromanage society from an ivory tower. I believe that we can collectively, through science, statistics, computers, and the range of other intellectual and technological achievements we've made, provide workers with metrics of the economy's performance in different areas, give them a condensed picture of its inner workings, and let them (us) Democratically manage it."

So, yes, you do think you can micromanage society from an ivory tower. Your ideology is wrong and it has failed us. Now our generation is faced with the monumental task of taking power away from the supposed "experts" and putting it back in the hands of the people.

Quote :

"So you're saying all forms of insurance are welfare."

As long as no one is forced to buy insurance, it's not comparable.

Quote :

"It is true, however, that you believe that humans innately make individual decisions that, extrapolated out to a 6 billion person, industrialize, computerized economy happens to work out on the aggregate and be fair and meritocratic. Is this a religious belief of yours? Serious question, because there's no way evolution could give rise to such an organism considering all of these challenges only appeared within the last few generations."

Why would you think I believe that? Humans in the past have made decisions, some good, some bad. The product of those actions are what you see today - a multitude of nation-states, some of which have committed a broad range of unspeakable atrocities, others which at least seem to do good for their people, though it's impossible to say whether government is necessary to achieve those ends.

Quote :

"You literally said "non homogeneous" population to describe why it works in Norway. It's not an assumption to say that you're hinging your assertion on racial characteristics. What kind of other homogeneity were you referring to? Pardon me if I've seen that exact same phrase used 99% of the time by racists in the past. Please, enlighten me as to what you "really mean" when you started talking about a homogeneous population."

A population that has roughly the same heritage and background. Welfare does tend to work better in those circumstances since people actually are racist and bitterness tends to form between in-groups. People also tend to be more supportive of welfare when they feel that it is going to someone that is "like" them and is also closer in terms of physical proximity.

What's interesting is that you attempt to apply the "racist" label to me when I point out the obvious. You're trying to suss out some sinister intent on my part, but it simply isn't there, no matter how badly you want to believe that it is.

Quote :

"Moreover, the point I was making is that social services like healthcare and education are primarily handled by private, Capitalist corporations in the US."

It might be privately handled in some areas, but those areas are partially or completely funded by the public. The result is that you have both governments and corporations trying to extract as much as they can from the people. In the United States, we're getting fucked two ways.

8/29/2011 5:30:23 PM

Quote :

"So, yes, you do think you can micromanage society from an ivory tower. Your ideology is wrong and it has failed us. Now our generation is faced with the monumental task of taking power away from the supposed "experts" and putting it back in the hands of the people."

Haha what? I just said I want to present information to everybody and let them dmocratically administer our product. What the fuck? Did you even try to read it? And you want to put it "back in the hands of the people" by removing their Democratic influence over it? Lol.

Quote :

"As long as no one is forced to buy insurance, it's not comparable."

It's entirely comparable, you're just deliberately avoiding the point of comparison (Getting more out than you put in) because you'd rather feel correct than actually fucking examine your beliefs with detail or nuance.

Quote :

"Why would you think I believe that? Humans in the past have made decisions, some good, some bad. The product of those actions are what you see today - a multitude of nation-states, some of which have committed a broad range of unspeakable atrocities, others which at least seem to do good for their people, though it's impossible to say whether government is necessary to achieve those ends."

Do you understand the timescales evolution functions under? Humans only moved from proto-communist tribes of fewer than 100 members less than 20,000 years ago. The selection pressures of a modern world economy in the billions have existed for four or five generations tops. Again, is your belief in people's individual decisions ability to balance and aggregate on the whole, without collective self-reflection, a religious belief?

Quote :

"A population that has roughly the same heritage and background."

Strange, these are both pretty close proxies with ethnicity.

Quote :

"Welfare does tend to work better in those circumstances since people actually are racist and bitterness tends to form between in-groups. People also tend to be more supportive of welfare when they feel that it is going to someone that is "like" them and is also closer in terms of physical proximity."

So you're now saying that Nords are more racist than Americans, and that's why they support welfare? This doesn't even say anything about the effectiveness of welfare in lifting people out of povety, just about public opinion of it.

Quote :

"What's interesting is that you attempt to apply the "racist" label to me when I point out the obvious. You're trying to suss out some sinister intent on my part, but it simply isn't there, no matter how badly you want to believe that it is."

Well, now that you've clarified, it seems that you're not a racist, just a racial separatist. You don't seem to believe certain races are inferior or superior, just that they cannot get along because they don't share the same "heritage and background".

Quote :

"It might be privately handled in some areas, but those areas are partially or completely funded by the public. The result is that you have both governments and corporations trying to extract as much as they can from the people. In the United States, we're getting fucked two ways."

If you know this little on the subject don't bother to type up this vague populist rhetoric.



[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 5:36:11 PM

Quote :

"It's entirely comparable"

only in the sense that in one case, one enters into the contract voluntarily, and in the other case, one doesn't, then sure.

Quote :

"Well, now that you've clarified, it seems that you're not a racist, just a racial separatist. You don't seem to believe certain races are inferior or superior, just that they cannot get along because they don't share the same "heritage and background"."

i don't think he has said different races can't get along. Just that it is less likely for different races to get along than for people within the same race to get along. And that's entirely a crazy or surprising statement to make. it's quite a normal thing to say, and it's probably supported by vast amounts of research.

Quote :

"So you're now saying that Nords are more racist than Americans, and that's why they support welfare? "

are you incapable of comprehending what you are reading, or do you just enjoy making ridiculous men of straw?

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 5:49:59 PM

Quote :

"Haha what? I just said I want to present information to everybody and let them democratically administer our product. What the fuck? Did you even try to read it? "

You can present information to whomever you want, and they can administer that information however they like. I don't want some centralized authority deciding what statistics are good, what statistics are bad, and how to allocate resources. Central planning doesn't work, mainly because the central planners will always consider what is best for them.

Quote :

"It's entirely comparable, you're just deliberately avoiding the point of comparison (Getting more out than you put in) because you'd rather feel correct than actually fucking examine your beliefs with detail or nuance."

Nah, it's not. Insurance is, in a lot of cases, a poor decision on the part of the buyer. However, it is a service - coverage of risk. While there is a chance that you pay in less than you get out, there's a better chance that you pay in more than you get out. That's part of the reason why insurance is a viable business model.

The real difference is that someone chooses to pay for insurance. I don't choose whether or not to pay FICA - that decision has been made for me.

Quote :

"Do you understand the timescales evolution functions under? Humans only moved from proto-communist tribes of fewer than 100 members less than 20,000 years ago. The selection pressures of a modern world economy in the billions have existed for four or five generations tops. Again, is your belief in people's individual decisions ability to balance and aggregate on the whole, without collective self-reflection, a religious belief?"

It's not a religious belief any more than your faith in government is. We may both be atheists, but you worship the state. I believe in bottom up transformation of society. Strong, supportive communities cannot be "created" by national governments - they must result from strong individuals.

I guess you could say that I have hope in the potential of mankind. I have met people that show incredible leadership and an ability to build up those around them. I have also met people that only seem able to tear down those around them. Anyone reading this should consider what side of the spectrum they fall on or wish to fall on.

Quote :

"So you're now saying that Nords are more racist than Americans, and that's why they support welfare? This doesn't even say anything about the effectiveness of welfare in lifting people out of povety, just about public opinion of it."

The effectiveness of welfare is closely related to public support it receives, though this could be said for most laws.

I think it's safe to say that if people in the United States that supported welfare simultaneously got off their ass once a week and actually did something for their surrounding community, the need for welfare would be substantially decreased. It's a lot easier to shift responsibility to others than to take ownership yourself. Modern liberalism is tyranny under the guise of charity; there's nothing "nice" or "compassionate" about forcing other people to do good things. If charity is not enough to take care of every person on the planet, then that is a failure of people.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 6:20 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 6:17:36 PM

Quote :

"because there's no way evolution could give rise to such an organism considering all of these challenges only appeared within the last few generations."

You don't need to re-design a computer to change its software. Ideas for organizing society rise, fall, and evolve without the need to change DNA. It is why Russia was able to abandon corrupt communism and adopt gangster fascism within a decade, yet the DNA of the population remained largely the same.

Quote :

"Haha what? I just said I want to present information to everybody and let them dmocratically administer our product. What the fuck? Did you even try to read it? And you want to put it "back in the hands of the people" by removing their Democratic influence over it? Lol."

Sacrificing majoritarian control in favor of individualistic control. What the majority would choose to do with my labor or my share of production is unlikely to be what I would choose myself. I would prefer to risk losing the production game (get trapped as unskilled labor) than risk the life chosen for me by the majority. This is before we address the efficiency debate of sacrificing incentives on the altar of equality.

8/29/2011 6:58:06 PM

Quote :

"If charity is not enough to take care of every person on the planet, then that is a failure of people. "

It would be but our aggressive capitalist society puts those who give more at a disadvantage unless you tax the shit out of the rich.

8/29/2011 7:08:18 PM

Quote :

" And how many of them could then afford to spend 500b/year on defense? exactly. They let us do it, instead, and we get absolutely nothing out of the deal. They make off life bandits"

Nothing? Ever been to any of the countries? I've seen hundreds of people in line to buy Apple products and vending machines filled with region specific coke products in most of the ones mentioned...

8/30/2011 7:16:13 AM

Quote :

"You can present information to whomever you want, and they can administer that information however they like. I don't want some centralized authority deciding what statistics are good, what statistics are bad, and how to allocate resources. Central planning doesn't work, mainly because the central planners will always consider what is best for them."

You're not even listening to him

8/30/2011 8:44:56 AM

he never does. I think it's pretty telling that he applies his ideology to EVERY single topic without pause. Most people at least have the humility to shut up and listen from time to time and absorb information before developing an opinion. He credits his lack of nuance to a "principled" belief system, but really, it's just indicative of someone who is unwilling to listen. I honestly have no idea how anyone can really have a one-size fits all belief system in anything.

8/30/2011 12:14:33 PM

Let's go back, read what he said, and maybe you guys can help my simple brain understand.

Quote :

"No, I don't think I can micromanage society from an ivory tower. I believe that we can collectively, through science, statistics, computers, and the range of other intellectual and technological achievements we've made, provide workers with metrics of the economy's performance in different areas, give them a condensed picture of its inner workings, and let them (us) Democratically manage it."

Who is us?

Who is the "collective"?

How do we get the information from "us" to "them"?

Who gets to decide what information is good and what information is bad?

8/30/2011 12:20:03 PM

sounds like you're asking for the definition of "democracy"

if you were arguing for the improved effectiveness or efficiency of democracy, that would be one thing. but you constantly desire to tear it down completely, which is just exhausting to read over and over again.

8/30/2011 12:31:32 PM

I know what democracy is. I don't like it. On its surface, it seems like, "Oh, everyone gets a say." In reality, everyone doesn't get a say - the majority gets a say, and the minority is told to fuck off.

There are probably millions of examples in human history of when the majority wanted something that was, in the long run, very destructive. Humans aren't very good at taking into consideration long-term consequences, mainly because they don't know exactly how things will play out. People also get dumbed down by the state, which is the entity you want to run society.

You guys are holding out for "good government," but you'll be waiting for a long time.

Some more questions: Who can we trust to run/design the electoral process? Who can we trust to not take kickbacks? Who can we trust to properly translate the will of the workers into government action?

8/30/2011 12:47:31 PM