Page 7 of 8 [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

13 Mar 2014, 5:26 am

LKL wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-les ... 30159.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-pove ... ng-success

I deliberately try to find non-liberal sources so that people like you can't say that they're "all left-wing."

Since the other two links you provided are from HuffPo and MSNBC, two sources of entertainment, rather than information, I'm inclined to believe that this was inadvertent rather than intentional.

LKL wrote:
But to the degree that the War on Poverty should have led U.S. companies to pay their workers adequate wages...

Common sense would dictate that government assistance would actually encourage this to happen. How can liberals not see this?

LKL wrote:
If you return to the interactive chart above, and click on "poverty rate without the safety net," you'll see that 28.7 percent of the country would be in poverty today without government policies to help them -- actually higher than it was 50 years ago.
And so, in that sense, it's hard to say we've won the War on Poverty when nearly 1 in 3 Americans lacks, without the government's help, the sustenance necessary to meet the basic needs of life.

The war on poverty will be won when government assistance is no longer needed, to think otherwise is irrational. The way to reduce poverty is to increase a person's motivation and education, not spend 50 years and billions of dollars creating a government dependent underclass.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

13 Mar 2014, 7:00 am

Shrapnel wrote:
The war on poverty will be won when government assistance is no longer needed, to think otherwise is irrational.


I agree with this statement.

Shrapnel wrote:
The way to reduce poverty is to increase a person's motivation and education, not spend 50 years and billions of dollars creating a government dependent underclass.


So you want to eliminate government assistance, but expect the tens of millions of people who would fall under the poverty line to suddenly feel more motivated? Methinks you should revisit some basic psychology.

And without government assistance, our public schools would collapse even more as well as making higher education nearly impossible for anyone who does not have parents to pay their way.

To be honest, business regulation would accomplish much more in a much shorter period of time than social programs; but since most businesses would much rather let their employees barely survive than to give up a few pennies in profits, it will not happen in significant way. If the minimum wage was increased, you would suddenly see millions of people who would stop collecting checks from the government.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

13 Mar 2014, 8:06 am

sonofghandi wrote:
To be honest, business regulation would accomplish much more in a much shorter period of time than social programs; but since most businesses would much rather let their employees barely survive than to give up a few pennies in profits, it will not happen in significant way.

It's not most businesses. It's a few really big businesses. Most businesses are not raking in crazy profits. Most businesses are struggling to make ends meet. Regulations tend to favor big businesses (anti-competitive) and hurt the rest.

Please stop demonizing businesses. You would find me much more in agreement with you if you differentiated the abusive behavior of large corporations from those of us who are just trying to survive and make payroll. I very much agree that large corporations are behaving badly and there are changes that would be beneficial, but I'm tired of paying the consequences day after day of more regulations that are meant to hurt the large corporations but really only hurt us small businesses and make it harder for us to compete.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,077
Location: Reading, England

13 Mar 2014, 9:21 am

luanqibazao wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Conservatives don't claim the authority to compel your behaviour at gunpoint, unless you try and murder.


Or gamble, or smoke marijuana, or buy a beer on Sunday morning (or at all, some places). Or marry someone of the same sex. It wasn't libertarians who until recently, historically speaking, made simply being homosexual a criminal act.

Those rules aren't enforced at gunpoint. Unless the USA is worse for that sort of stuff than the UK is.

Of course, the illegality of such things is a great wrong in itself (except perhaps for some forms of gambling, like those machines that exist to eat the money of gambling addicts), but exaggerating to say that behaviour is controlled at gunpoint, well, it makes you look like a shrill.


Ad hominems do not strengthen your argument.

Perhaps in the UK some laws are no more than polite suggestions, and their violation will merely bring PC Featheringstonehaugh round for a cuppa and a genteel discussion of the social contract. In the US, however, all laws are backed by the threat of government violence. Flout them consistently enough, ignore the summonses and other official documents which then come your way, and eventually men with guns will show up to drag you away and lock you in a cage. This is not to say that all laws are unjust, but to mention that they are backed by force is not being a "shrill," it is recognizing reality. There are many laws which people would have little reason to obey were it not for fear of punishment meted out by the government.

It's the first time I have seen "shrill" used as a noun. Divided by a common language again no doubt.

"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Scum, freezebag! Don't move or I'll shoot!"

versus

"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Sorry sir, we don't serve beer on Sundays"
"Oh, go on!"
"OK then."
6 months later
"Oh, a small fine for breaking Sunday trading laws. Won't be paying that!"
3 months later
"Oh, a court summons... will be ignoring that!"
1 month and another court summons later
"Hello officer... no, I won't be coming to the station... oh, if you insist..."

One of those is "compelling behaviour at gunpoint". One of those is not.



TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

13 Mar 2014, 9:53 am

Shrapnel wrote:
The war on poverty will be won when government assistance is no longer needed, to think otherwise is irrational. The way to reduce poverty is to increase a person's motivation and education, not spend 50 years and billions of dollars creating a government dependent underclass.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. "Education"? What kind of Communist propaganda is this?



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

13 Mar 2014, 10:26 am

adb wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
To be honest, business regulation would accomplish much more in a much shorter period of time than social programs; but since most businesses would much rather let their employees barely survive than to give up a few pennies in profits, it will not happen in significant way.

It's not most businesses. It's a few really big businesses. Most businesses are not raking in crazy profits. Most businesses are struggling to make ends meet. Regulations tend to favor big businesses (anti-competitive) and hurt the rest.


So you are saying that small businesses that are barely scraping by are somehow more motivated to pay their employees more? I will agree that our current business regulations are poor (at best), and that the worst abuses are with large corporations, and that this is the largest contributor. I personally feel that this is due to our backwards approach to regulating business. The smaller the business, the less regulations it should be subject to, not vice versa. I also feel that once a company has gotten to the point where they can measurably impact the national economy it should be subject to fairly heavy regulation.

In my opinion, there also needs to be a separation of business regulation and corporate regulation. Corporations should have human beings that can be held accountable the same way that small businesses are (especially sole proprietor small businesses). Small businesses should be subject primarily to safety regulations and not to financial ones.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


luanqibazao
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner

13 Mar 2014, 10:50 am

The_Walrus wrote:
"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Scum, freezebag! Don't move or I'll shoot!"

versus

"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Sorry sir, we don't serve beer on Sundays"
"Oh, go on!"
"OK then."
6 months later
"Oh, a small fine for breaking Sunday trading laws. Won't be paying that!"
3 months later
"Oh, a court summons... will be ignoring that!"
1 month and another court summons later
"Hello officer... no, I won't be coming to the station... oh, if you insist..."

One of those is "compelling behaviour at gunpoint". One of those is not.


Q. Why, exactly, does the shop owner choose to accompany the nice policemen to the station?



adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

13 Mar 2014, 11:15 am

sonofghandi wrote:
adb wrote:
It's not most businesses. It's a few really big businesses. Most businesses are not raking in crazy profits. Most businesses are struggling to make ends meet. Regulations tend to favor big businesses (anti-competitive) and hurt the rest.


So you are saying that small businesses that are barely scraping by are somehow more motivated to pay their employees more

No, I'm saying that small businesses generally *can't* afford to pay their employees more. We operate on very tight profit margins.

Quote:
I will agree that our current business regulations are poor (at best), and that the worst abuses are with large corporations, and that this is the largest contributor. I personally feel that this is due to our backwards approach to regulating business. The smaller the business, the less regulations it should be subject to, not vice versa. I also feel that once a company has gotten to the point where they can measurably impact the national economy it should be subject to fairly heavy regulation.

Although I disagree with government regulation in general, I can recognize this as a reasonable approach. My issue with what you said before is mostly that my little corporation is getting grouped in with exploitative large corporations.

Quote:
In my opinion, there also needs to be a separation of business regulation and corporate regulation. Corporations should have human beings that can be held accountable the same way that small businesses are (especially sole proprietor small businesses). Small businesses should be subject primarily to safety regulations and not to financial ones.

I don't think corporate versus non-corporate is a good separation. Anyone with more than a couple employees is going to incorporate, including little family businesses.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

13 Mar 2014, 1:01 pm

adb wrote:
Although I disagree with government regulation in general, I can recognize this as a reasonable approach. My issue with what you said before is mostly that my little corporation is getting grouped in with exploitative large corporations.


I apologize for how I came across. After re-reading my post, I realize that I made it sound like all business is to blame, which was not my intent. I hope stating it this way will help clarify my views:

Large businesses definitely bear the brunt by several orders of magnitude. Small companies do not want to pay higher wages either, but this is something caused by their tenuous financial position, for which I do not fault them.


I do believe that both large and small businesses would prefer to pay their employees less in order to increase profit, just that their reasoning and circumstances are different. The poor state of things is a product of the corporate run economy, but most small businesses must accept minimizing wages in order to survive. It is a difference of whether the business has any choice in the matter more than anything else.

Business is not evil. Even large corporations in and of themselves are not evil. The problem lies with a select group of wealthy and powerful individuals (in business, politics, and media) working together to maximize personal short term wealth at the expense of the future economic viability.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

13 Mar 2014, 1:07 pm

adb wrote:
I don't think corporate versus non-corporate is a good separation. Anyone with more than a couple employees is going to incorporate, including little family businesses.


I do think that a separation is needed. I feel that in order to incorporate and enjoy the protection to the individual they should meet stricter requirements. Primarily in the area of accountability being established prior to being granted status as a separate legal entity. I feel that if a business is to be incorporated, then someone must be held accountable. Too many hide their actions behind the corporation as an entity to get away with some serious violations of law, morality, fiscal responsibility, and public trust.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

13 Mar 2014, 3:12 pm

luanqibazao wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Scum, freezebag! Don't move or I'll shoot!"

versus

"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Sorry sir, we don't serve beer on Sundays"
"Oh, go on!"
"OK then."
6 months later
"Oh, a small fine for breaking Sunday trading laws. Won't be paying that!"
3 months later
"Oh, a court summons... will be ignoring that!"
1 month and another court summons later
"Hello officer... no, I won't be coming to the station... oh, if you insist..."

One of those is "compelling behaviour at gunpoint". One of those is not.


Q. Why, exactly, does the shop owner choose to accompany the nice policemen to the station?

Why does a child go to his room when his parents tell him to?

When you rail against the imposition of social order at such a benign level, you look like a child throwing a tantrum and screaming, 'You're not the boss of me! You can't tell me what to do!'
What, pray tell, do *you* think should happen when someone breaks the law and/or disturbs the social order, and will not accept social censure for it?

Maybe you think an embargo will work?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,077
Location: Reading, England

13 Mar 2014, 4:50 pm

luanqibazao wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Scum, freezebag! Don't move or I'll shoot!"

versus

"Hello, I'd like to buy a beer this Sunday morning!"
"Sorry sir, we don't serve beer on Sundays"
"Oh, go on!"
"OK then."
6 months later
"Oh, a small fine for breaking Sunday trading laws. Won't be paying that!"
3 months later
"Oh, a court summons... will be ignoring that!"
1 month and another court summons later
"Hello officer... no, I won't be coming to the station... oh, if you insist..."

One of those is "compelling behaviour at gunpoint". One of those is not.


Q. Why, exactly, does the shop owner choose to accompany the nice policemen to the station?

Because if he doesn't, the police will arrest him when he next leaves the house. Presumably then the fine is automatically withdrawn from his bank account or some such.

In this country, men with guns will only ever come if it is suspected that you are a threat to someone else's life. The above scenario is the unlucky one where the police take the trivial crime seriously. Most of the time, at some stage or another it will be ignored, because it isn't in the public interest.

"Compelled by the possible threat of guns if you are an idiot and commit several more crimes" is not equal to "compelled at gunpoint".



luanqibazao
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner

13 Mar 2014, 10:04 pm

LKL wrote:
Why does a child go to his room when his parents tell him to?


So a private citizen who's committed a victimless "crime" is like a child, and government officials are like everybody's parents. That's a telling choice of analogies.

Quote:
When you rail against the imposition of social order at such a benign level,


Sunday blue laws and the like are no more than minor annoyances, most of the time, but they are still rights violations and thus hardly benign. They benefit nobody. If I want to stop at a store on Sunday morning and buy a six-pack of beer (maybe because I work nights, and that's when I do my shopping), and Bob the grocer wants to sell it to me, nobody else is being harmed or affected in any way. By what right do people who don't even know either of us say, "Oh no, we can't allow that, not before noon"? It's absurd.

Quote:
you look like a child throwing a tantrum and screaming, 'You're not the boss of me! You can't tell me what to do!'


More ad homs. Well, you look like an apologist for any atrocity a government may commit. Just accept it, they no doubt told Alan Turing, it's the will of society ....

Quote:
What, pray tell, do *you* think should happen when someone breaks the law and/or disturbs the social order, and will not accept social censure for it?


"The social order" has no objective definition. I advocate a legal system which employs force only against those who initiate its use, through force or fraud. Interactions among adults which violate nobody's rights should not be crimes at all. To express it in terms of current controversies, I support the right of gay married couples to defend their marijuana plants with guns.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

14 Mar 2014, 12:34 am

luanqibazao wrote:
LKL wrote:
Why does a child go to his room when his parents tell him to?


So a private citizen who's committed a victimless "crime" is like a child, and government officials are like everybody's parents. That's a telling choice of analogies.

Regardless of what you think of the analogy, the child goes to his room because he accepts the parents' authority. The parents don't have to threaten to shoot the child, and neither does the cop. Mr.Beer-on-Sunday accepts the cop's authority to tell him what to do. It's a power that we, collectively, give to cops - not because we're children, but because we accept that humans sometimes need limits and people to enforce those limits.

Quote:
Sunday blue laws and the like are no more than minor annoyances, most of the time, but they are still rights violations and thus hardly benign. They benefit nobody. If I want to stop at a store on Sunday morning and buy a six-pack of beer (maybe because I work nights, and that's when I do my shopping), and Bob the grocer wants to sell it to me, nobody else is being harmed or affected in any way. By what right do people who don't even know either of us say, "Oh no, we can't allow that, not before noon"? It's absurd.

I agree. But the way to fight a blue law is not to revolt; it's to change the law.
Quote:
Quote:
you look like a child throwing a tantrum and screaming, 'You're not the boss of me! You can't tell me what to do!'

More ad homs.

Yes. I will be more constructive, then: someone who protests against the enforcement of order is someone who is as greedy and selfish as a child who has not yet learned that the world does not revolve around him, and is exactly the type of person that law enforcement exists to protect the rest of us from.
Quote:
Well, you look like an apologist for any atrocity a government may commit. Just accept it, they no doubt told Alan Turing, it's the will of society ....

Accepting a minor fine is a far cry from accepting chemical castration.

Quote:
"The social order" has no objective definition. I advocate a legal system which employs force only against those who initiate its use, through force or fraud. Interactions among adults which violate nobody's rights should not be crimes at all.

So, what do you do when someone won't pay a fine? Do you even acknowledge the existence of legitimate crimes not involving use of force, or of punishments not involving the use of force?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract



luanqibazao
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 754
Location: Last booth, Akston's Diner

14 Mar 2014, 6:45 am

LKL wrote:
It's a power that we, collectively, give to cops - not because we're children, but because we accept that humans sometimes need limits and people to enforce those limits.


Limits based on the principle of individual rights = rule of law.
Limits based on arbitrary whims and primitive superstitions = rule of men.
I know which system I want to work toward.

Quote:
I will be more constructive, then: someone who protests against the enforcement of order is someone who is as greedy and selfish as a child who has not yet learned that the world does not revolve around him, and is exactly the type of person that law enforcement exists to protect the rest of us from.


The onus is on you to explain exactly how private behavior such as we are discussing poses a threat to anybody else.

Quote:
Accepting a minor fine is a far cry from accepting chemical castration.


Can you think in principles? Once you grant the State the power to control private, non-rights-violating behavior, where do you draw the line, and on what principle?

Quote:
Do you even acknowledge the existence of legitimate crimes not involving use of force,


I said 'force or fraud,' but arguably fraud also involves the indirect use of force. So, no.

Quote:
or of punishments not involving the use of force?


If inflicted by the State, name one.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

14 Mar 2014, 7:09 am

luanqibazao wrote:
Limits based on the principle of individual rights = rule of law.
Limits based on arbitrary whims and primitive superstitions = rule of men.
I know which system I want to work toward.


By your definition, there is no one in the DC political arena advocating a rule of law.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche