US drops from the top 10 free economies list

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
A society can't have needs, unless you erase individuality and assume there is a system of "net rights", "net needs", and "net happiness". Really wanna go down that road?

Societies certainly have needs. Don't be silly. And yes, net happiness is very important, but what's more important is that govt is used to solve problems, not just protect rights.

Bull****. The measure of a good government is how much it allows us to meet our own needs - how much it respects our individual rights.

Only to libertarians and anarcists.

Really? And who "picked" our rights? The government? "Society"? Bull****. Our rights at a fundamental level come down to life and liberty (property is a logical extension of both), and those rights exist regardless of government. They are inherent to us. I bet you can't find a single person, anywhere, who thinks that it is OK for someone else to rob and murder them, and if you can find such a person (who is sane) I will gladly abandon my belief system.

I don't need to find such a person. Your argument is silly. No one wants rights if they aren't a benefit.

You see, there's a contradiction in your belief in a social safety net, and there's a contradiction in the majority of people's beliefs as well. That contradiction is that you don't believe it is OK for anyone to rob YOU, no matter what the law says, but at the same time it's perfectly acceptable for you to rob OTHER people.

Now, you may say that it isn't robbery if the government says it's OK, but let me ask you this: If the government passed a law mandating that every single possession you owned be taken away and distributed among the poor, would the government be stealing from you, or would it be OK as long as Congress passed a law?

Now, if it isn't OK for Congress to pass a law stripping you of all your property - and be honest with both of us, you KNOW that is neither fair, moral, or acceptable - then where can you draw the line? I don't think you can. Taking all of your property and giving it away is wrong because stealing is wrong ("legal" stealing is still, morally speaking, stealing). Looked at in that light, the amount of money or property that is taken from you doesn't matter. It's still stealing.

So, if you are willing to accept a government that steals some of your property, then you must also be willing to accept a government that steals all of your property. You may not like it, but you have no real objection. Your belief system is based on utilitarianism, not rights and morality, and that's why it fails. It ends in slavery and totalitarianism, any way you cut it.

No. It doesn't end in slavery and totalitarianism. It just ends in problems that we have being solved. All I can say is that it's not stealing, because it's necessary. It's like lying. It's wrong to lie, but sometimes you have to because it's the best thing to do.

[Berzerker]

Total freedom is anarcy.

Strange, my dictionary does not show the word "total" in the definition of freedom. "Total" freedom is rule by contract.

That's not what people want.

True, most people despise freedom. Its easier to be taken care of. Thats why welfare is such a trap.

People want reasonable govt that solves problems. They want to be obligated, in so far as its fair, and it creates happiness.

If people want to be obligated, they can obligate themselves. That isn't your argument, you want to obligate others and then hide that desire behind majority rule. So what do you say when the majority commits atrocities because it decided the victims were obligated? You can't defend it so what good is majority as a principle?

[Berzerker]

where there is no safety net, prison populations are very high.

The US has ten times the number of people in prison than any other Western democratic country. Maintaining a law and order regime like that is horrendously expensive, far more expensive than social welfare.

Thats largely a result of our drug war

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


So what? Many people want that, but that's not necessarily what government should do, just because people want it.

Lot's of people may want the government to pass a law allowing slavery. Should the people get their way then, too?

Rights are what matter, not what the majority wants.

Don't you know by know that I'm not a utilitarian. I don't believe in slavery. I wouldn't say that slavery were ok, even if it did bring a 'net benefit.' I would, however, say that taxing people is ok, if it does bring a 'net benefit' and create a fairer society.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Hey, if people are willing to steal, they probably belong in jail anyway. I'd rather get the riffraff behind bars than have to deal with them on a daily basis, especially not once they get a legal entitlement to the **** they'd otherwise just steal. Works out great for the crooks, doesn't it?

Not really - a good social welfare system provides incentives for self improvement. The payments are maintenance based, not a good living, may be dependent on work or study.

As for our prison population, you have to account for our War on Drugs, which is emphatically NOT something I support. Attributing our prison population to a lack of social spending isn't accurate.

The War on Drugs was really a war on the poor, which you in fact seem to approve of given the earlier quote.

There is a better way. Its not like the US is the only country with drug problems. It is the only country with a hugely expensive punitive approach. Economic madness.

As I said, your taxes at work Where we get hospitals and schools, you get police and prisons for your tax dollar. That ain't real smart in my opinion.

And remember, there is nothing new about any of this. Europe made the same mistakes in the 18th and 19th century and paid the price.

[David Floyd]

Societies certainly have needs.

No, individuals have needs. You are talking about "society" like society is an individual. Societies are made up of millions of individuals, and what you are doing is grouping them all into a hive mind.

And yes, net happiness is very important

Find an accurate way to measure "net happiness", then we can talk.

but what's more important is that govt is used to solve problems, not just protect rights.

Funny thing, though, is that when governments try to solve problems, they generally end up creating more. The government tried to wage a war on poverty through social welfare, and what did we get? Millions of people unable to be self-reliant, a bunch of scumbags who buy lotto tickets and Budweiser and don't do a goddamn thing. The government tried to wage a war on drugs, and what happened? That's right, drug addiction skyrocketed. Face it, the private sector is far better at solving problems than the government, because in the private sector, "problems" are determined by the marketplace. If enough people are interested in solving what they perceive as a problem, then they will pay to do so. Funny thing is, you should be in favor of this sort of system, given how interested you are in letting "the people" run things.

Of course, "the people" is codetalk for "centralized state government", and we all know that.

I don't need to find such a person. Your argument is silly. No one wants rights if they aren't a benefit.

So you agree that objectively, no sane person will say that murder and robbery are OK, even if the law says those things are OK?

In that case, then, you must admit that perhaps the government ISN'T the final word on right and wrong.

No. It doesn't end in slavery and totalitarianism.

Well, your "rebuttal", if I were to even deign to call it such, certainly doesn't show any such thing. You don't resolve any of the contradictions I pointed out, and the only substantial part of your reply grants me MY POINT that no sane person thinks that murder and robbery are objectively OK.

It just ends in problems that we have being solved.

Well hell, Mussolini made the trains run on time, right? And the Nazis certainly had some positive social programs, if you were the right race, of course.

If "solving problems" was the be-all end-all of government, then it would stand to reason that the most efficient governments would be the best governments. Right?

All I can say is that it's not stealing, because it's necessary. It's like lying. It's wrong to lie, but sometimes you have to because it's the best thing to do.

That analogy is dumb. First you claim that stealing is no longer stealing when it's "necessary". Then you bring in lying, and say that sometimes lying is OK. I agree that sometimes lying is OK, but that doesn't mean it isn't lying. I'm perfectly OK with you lying to someone who is trying to kill you in order to save your life. But you still lied.

So are you granting that stealing is stealing, even when it's "necessary"? Or are you saying that unlike lying, stealing is no longer stealing when it's "necessary"?

[Berzerker]

what's more important is that govt is used to solve problems, not just protect rights.

The inevitable result being a bunch of chicken littles running around screaming bloody murder about their perceived problems demanding politicians violate our rights to make them happy. Imagine Jerry Falwell running your life because his "moral majority" outnumbers you...

[David Floyd]

Kid,

Don't you know by know that I'm not a utilitarian. I don't believe in slavery. I wouldn't say that slavery were ok, even if it did bring a 'net benefit.' I would, however, say that taxing people is ok, if it does bring a 'net benefit' and create a fairer society.

And I would say that your belief system is incredibly inconsistent, because fundamentally, you can't separate the two. In the case of slavery, you are depriving people of their rights. In the case of stealing ("for the greater good", of course), you are depriving people of their rights. You might argue that it's a matter of degree, but that's irrelevant and not what we are discussing (although if you want to argue over whether or not one right is more important than another we can do that too).

Of course I know you don't believe in slavery. No sane person does. The problem is, you don't realize the full implications of your beliefs. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all.

AH,

Not really - a good social welfare system provides incentives for self improvement. The payments are maintenance based, not a good living, may be dependent on work or study.

Yeah, but some people are quite content sipping their Bud, scratching lotto tickets, and watching "Judge Judy". They don't give a **** about self improvement, and why should they? The government is already giving them everything they need to watch TV, drink beer, and play the lotto.

he War on Drugs was really a war on the poor, which you in fact seem to approve of given the earlier quote.

I believe in a war against criminals. Lock criminals up - but only for real, actual crimes that have victims. If that means lots of poor people go to jail, **** it - if they are committing crimes that have victims, then they belong in jail.

There is a better way. Its not like the US is the only country with drug problems. It is the only country with a hugely expensive punitive approach. Economic madness.

I agree, but for different reasons. Drugs should be legal because of basic freedom issues, not because of utilitarian-type economic issues.

[Berzerker]

Don't you know by know that I'm not a utilitarian. I don't believe in slavery. I wouldn't say that slavery were ok, even if it did bring a 'net benefit.' I would, however, say that taxing people is ok, if it does bring a 'net benefit' and create a fairer society.

So less slavery - like ~%35 of "total" slavery - is what you think is moral? Or do you want us to pay %50? Maybe %75 for the rich? Wait a minute, you're a commie - there is no taxation in your system. The state owns everything and to get things loaned or given to them people have to work for the state. Yeeesm Master, I be rite on that chore...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, individuals have needs. You are talking about "society" like society is an individual. Societies are made up of millions of individuals, and what you are doing is grouping them all into a hive mind.

I'm talking about society like it's an individual and you talk about it like there is no such thing. So what? Individuals and needs and societies have needs. They're the same thing really.

Find an accurate way to measure "net happiness", then we can talk.

You just don't want to lose.

Funny thing, though, is that when governments try to solve problems, they generally end up creating more. The government tried to wage a war on poverty through social welfare, and what did we get? Millions of people unable to be self-reliant, a bunch of scumbags who buy lotto tickets and Budweiser and don't do a goddamn thing. The government tried to wage a war on drugs, and what happened? That's right, drug addiction skyrocketed. Face it, the private sector is far better at solving problems than the government, because in the private sector, "problems" are determined by the marketplace. If enough people are interested in solving what they perceive as a problem, then they will pay to do so. Funny thing is, you should be in favor of this sort of system, given how interested you are in letting "the people" run things.

Capitalist govts do **** things up a lot, but with out any govt at all to obligate peoplw things would be worse.

So you agree that objectively, no sane person will say that murder and robbery are OK, even if the law says those things are OK?

Sane people are reasonable, and don't look at things black and white. A govt taking something from individuals to benefit society, and not some king or special interest group is good, but mugging an old lady is bad. People can tell the difference.

In that case, then, you must admit that perhaps the government ISN'T the final word on right and wrong.

Of course I would admit that.

Well hell, Mussolini made the trains run on time, right? And the Nazis certainly had some positive social programs, if you were the right race, of course.

Of course. Again, I'm not advocating totalitarianism.

If "solving problems" was the be-all end-all of government, then it would stand to reason that the most efficient governments would be the best governments. Right?

No. You also should use what problems they solved as a measure, not how efficiently they did so.

That analogy is dumb. First you claim that stealing is no longer stealing when it's "necessary". Then you bring in lying, and say that sometimes lying is OK. I agree that sometimes lying is OK, but that doesn't mean it isn't lying. I'm perfectly OK with you lying to someone who is trying to kill you in order to save your life. But you still lied.

And it's a good thing to lie to save a life, and it's a good thing to tax to benefit society.

So are you granting that stealing is stealing, even when it's "necessary"? Or are you saying that unlike lying, stealing is no longer stealing when it's "necessary"?

Stealing can be good and bad.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And I would say that your belief system is incredibly inconsistent, because fundamentally, you can't separate the two.

I don't want to seperate the two. No morality is consistently right, so why would I use just one, and eliminate the possibility of being right.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Yeah, but some people are quite content sipping their Bud, scratching lotto tickets, and watching "Judge Judy". They don't give a **** about self improvement, and why should they? The government is already giving them everything they need to watch TV, drink beer, and play the lotto.

A small proportion are like that - but guess what? They aren't robbing you and the costs are far lower than incarceration, with all the evil that brings to society.

Your problems and current solutions are not unique at all. Its all about policy choices and basic economics.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So less slavery - like ~%35 of "total" slavery - is what you think is moral? Or do you want us to pay %50? Maybe %75 for the rich? Wait a minute, you're a commie - there is no taxation in your system. The state owns everything and to get things loaned or given to them people have to work for the state. Yeeesm Master, I be rite on that chore...

It's not slavery and it's not stealing as long as it goes toward progress, not even 1%.

[Berzerker]

Kid

I'm talking about society like it's an individual and you talk about it like there is no such thing. So what? Individuals and needs and societies have needs. They're the same thing really.

No they aren't, if %51 have a "need" to enslave %25, the "need" of the %25 is not the same as their slavemasters. And David didn't say there were no individuals or societies, only that individuals make up societies and there is very little they can agree on. If we lived in the days of slavery and we opposed it, would slavery fulfill our needs?

It's not slavery and it's not stealing as long as it goes toward progress, not even 1%.

Hmm...didn't y'all start calling yourselves "progressives" when socialist and liberal went out of fashion? Sorry, I don't trust people who "need" aliases.

Capitalist govts do **** things up a lot, but with out any govt at all to obligate peoplw things would be worse.

No government? You don't even know where we stand after all these debates? Thats depressing, I just realised what a waste of time this is .

A govt taking something from individuals to benefit society, and not some king or special interest group is good, but mugging an old lady is bad. People can tell the difference.

Most people, including me, understand the validity of paying taxes to use public roads or for police protection. You dont see overwhelming support for taxes to pay for alot of the nonsense in Washington.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious



You can grow an economy with communism, but you have to plan it and yes, you have to sacriftice stability, and the current generation must pay for it.

Communism can build more of the same which is growth in a sense. Invention is needed to advance technology and to improve productivity. Inventions cannot be "planned." They are the result of individual genius applied to problems. Governments cannot plan the creation of the light bulb.

China must have realised this as they have chosen the capitalist path to growth. They actually seem to now understand the role of patents in life.

But on at least one point we seem to agree, there must be retained earnings for an entity, government owned or not, to grow. Tax policy should be directed to balancing demand and retained earnings so that we keep growth high and sustainable. A tax policy that strips entities of retained earnings to fund current spending robs the people of a prosperous future.