It's all about the individual, isn't it? All about you? Your insistence on confusing Democrats with liberalism is both myopic and rude. That's an issue the people need to consider more than they have. To the other, though, it's not like people and corporations weren't trashing the place. And what we would probably agree is horrific discrimination was just fine and dandy, and even moral to other people who thought the government was meddling on that count. Okay, fine. It's hogwash. After all, feeding the poor and working to reduce the occurrence of crime in the first place are both difficult tasks that some question whether government should be about. The alternative, of course, is to create more poor and create more crime. Question: Do we, the people, exist for the benefit of governments? How about for Nike? What about for "the economy"? If the answer is yes, and that condition is so right, why do people teach their children otherwise? One road leads to an uncertain future, and the other leads to an established, discriminatory, oppressive past in which the many serve the few. No, they're cowards for denying what they are and putting on an unnecessary pretense of respectability. You missed the part about "any solution requires good faith". I'm not surprised. So what's the point of society? Does it all exist for you, then? Ever hear of "civilization", String? Humans aren't perfect, but the point of civilization is not to simply give over to the gory, messy struggle of life. Neither is it simply to sublimate that gory, messy struggle. Hey, it's not my fault people are hung up on money. The whole point of currency and wealth is to mark privilege and deprivation, which inherently makes the civilized aspect of civilization more difficult. If the only reason to feel good about your life is money and possessions, fine. It's your spiritual and emotional poverty. Unfortunately, this poverty is visited on other people, and they suffer for your obsessions. That's only because the current social structure requires it to be that way. People are afraid to undertake big, risky changes. And one of the reasons they're so scared is because of people who intentionally exploit that fear in defense of a "natural" way in which inequity is artificially supported by natural systems that are anything but natural, and anything but honest. Something about "tripe" goes here. Maybe if people put some effort into understanding what statements like that actually mean, those statements would actually mean something. In the meantime, it's just sublimated machismo. People feel better when they get to "punish" something. You're stuck in time on that one. After all, it is equally true to say that in conservative society, the carrot is a lie, and the stick is actually three times bigger than the one they'll show you. Do you imagine that you're one of the supermen who, if given the free reign to succeed, will actually do so? Are you a rich heir? Because it is liberalism that has in the past broken pyramid schemes designed to support the few at the expense of the many. Modern American conservatives pitch a new kind of pyramid scheme, but ultimately "success" includes creating conditions that make it harder for other people to succeed in order to preserve one's own success. What you look at as a "cushion" can also be looked at in terms of society. Remember that? Society? It's composed of individuals. Considering that civilized society requires certain things in order to get about its business, it's only an obsession with the individual that makes it sound like a bad idea to try minimizing the labor given to basic necessities of life in order to see what the species can do. Humans can do great things, but that greatness intrudes on your individual ability to wallow in the mire, so it's wrong to even try. Social conditioning. If humanity was inherently, instinctively lazy, we never would have made it this far. Poisoning children's minds with the individually-obsessed filth you're spewing is a very effective way of distracting them from the great things they could otherwise seek and take part in. (chortle!) That's a sick joke, String. Your worship of individuality would sacrifice the species at large, so don't give me that crap about evolution. You're stuck in time, String. I would invite you to think of the bigger picture, but then I'd just be oppressing your individuality. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Society is not, in evolutionary terms, for the individual. Figuring out the individual's relationship to society is important. The individual contribution is very important. But society as a whole is an evolutionary tool of the species. Stop judging everything according to what you see in the mirror, and perhaps you'll remember that there is a human species out there.
Actually I have stated elsewhere that this is one means of staying the crash. However it would have to be sprung upon the American people, since even the thought of darkies jumping the border has some of them running for their shotguns. If the US government can do it and launch the Amero, then yes, there is a way. However, if the people get a whiff of it and start calling their senators, then it may get stuck in the works. I'm assuming most people in the US want to stay solvent, but I'm wondering if they have the brains to understand what that entails. Perhaps a depression will help things along. Or lead to civil war. After all the xenophobic south will be the one faced with the mexicanos.
And yet it's a fact that, apparently, you're incapable of dealing with. I accept that. Sure, people WERE trashing the place. I was referring to the society where people didn't expect anything from their government but civil and national defense, and therefore, saw fit to take care of themselves a great deal more than they seem to do now. Yes, because conservatives and libertarians are secretly plotting to increase crime and poverty. No... strike that, I can't speak for conservatives, who long ago sold their souls to the twin demons of religious zealotry and corporate greed. I'll only speak for libertarianism as I see it. Libertarian's are against FEDERAL institutions, the state run ones are fine as long as they keep their hands off of people's private business. Libertarians are all about civil policing efforts and for increasing the number of police while DECREASING the number of laws which create criminals (i.e. decriminalizing drugs would eliminate how many prisoners and gang wars?) When governments become so large that they fool themselves into believing that they are doing good by providing whatever milieu of services that the public selfishly demands, it begins to forget that it's the people they serve and becomes so large and unattached that it sees people as the servants of the government. Smaller governments who are more accountable to the people are far better at keeping reality in perspective. How is that, did your Chrystal ball tell you that? You have no better way of predicting the future than I do. All we have to go on is empirical evidence, which evidence has shown that NO nation has taxed itself into wealth and stability. One provided service inevitably leads to another, and another until the system cannot support the weight of its own services. Whew! I'm glad we have you as the moral police to clarify that for us. Case closed. Tiassa wins! You're being petty by thinking that you somehow have the moral and ideological authority to make that call. So, again, we're on to the crux of your truth: Tiassa's way (liberalism) is a self evident truth and anybody not agreeing is wrong, especially libertarians who are cowards for not drawing the same conclusion. Well, judging from what I've seen from you, I'm not too concerned about that label. No I didn't, I just ignored it because it's more metaphysical nonsense. Clap really hard and Peter Pan will live! Give me a break. You're right: I have ZERO faith in government to solve the ills of society. I have taken the hand that I've been given in life and done my best with it. People who live in this society either see themselves as entitled to something from the government or they see themselves as the sole responsibility for their success and happiness. Which one's do you think succeed, innovate, create, produce, invent and drive this economy more? You're confusing government with society. Typical of liberals. Government is a part of society, but society does not need a government, though it exists best with a stable one in place. We need government to survive because the alternative is anarchy. We do NOT need national health care or government housing to avoid anarchy. Society exists because we are social organisms who operate in a grey world somewhere between the collective and individuality. Yes, Tiassa, I know what civilization is, and it is and should be messy business. It's that struggle that defines our character and makes us who we are. Some do well in the struggle, and some do poorly. Civilization, in contrast with the constant flow of liberal chanting, can exist in a healthy balance with humans and NOT provide such things as health care and housing to its poor. You may not LIKE that notion, but it is possible. The point of currency is to establish a common conversion point for labor. The fruits of my labor in exchange for the fruits of your labor. That it is a marker of wealth and privilege is ancillary. One is the cause, the other is the effect. You're blathering about my spiritual and emotional poverty without having a clue as to who I am. My friends and family always, like most human beings, comes first. That's the source of my happiness and joy. The fact that I have wealth is merely a measure of my ability to have those things I want, which contrary to liberal madness, is perfectly acceptable. Here, you're in some liberal vs. conservative debate that I could care less about. Again, libertarians aren't about abolishing labor laws, the minimum wage (which I'm in favor of), anti-trust laws. It's all about balance. It's amusing to hear you whine about "civilized society" like liberals are the only one with license on that term. Only a liberal knows what true civilization is, everybody else just is in denial. I can live with your delusions. Yawn. Blah, blah, blah. You're getting pissy here and I love it when your sophomoric colors begin to show. Yeah, "filth". Sure. I get it. Anybody who disagrees with Tiassa and who isn't a liberal is spewing filth. Guess what, the reason why society advanced, by and large, was because if people didn't fend for themselves, they died. Simple as that. The threat of death by way of starvation is a powerful motivator. Society has removed that threat, thus for many, there is no reason to do much at all. I do worship the individual. And, again, I love it when you put your opinions forth as if they were facts, "The end of the species of anybody does what String says!" Yeah. I forgot, you've got a Chrystal ball which tells the future. And yet, it's you who I think has missed the big picture. I couldn't have said it better myself, except about you and most liberals. Thank you. ~String
Most people have no clue what it entails. I'm beginning to believe that the US Government is allowing the Dollar to collapse. Such a collapse when coupled with an explanation a la, "My American people, grave times are upon us. A depression many times greater than anything in the 1930's can only be staved off with a new currency." With both political parties secretly accepting that reality, and starvation on the horizon, then I'm certain that the populations of each nation (who are tied totally into the success of the USA) will go along with the idea of the Amero. ~String
You haven't. That was when and where, exactly? Hollywood westerns don't count. ? It's an interesting and novel "libertarianism" that welcomes the state in its historically most intrusive form. And of course the exclusion of power from the individual's realm is something normally accomplished by government only - or isolation. How did the wealthy and stable nations do it, then? Or haven't there been any? Not only possible, but the norm, historically. Depending on your notion of "healthy", of course. Medieval Europe presents us with fine examples, as does China, India, Egypt, etc. Not too many libertarians back a minimum wage law. But on point: actually, it's all about establishment - actually having and enforcing an anti-trust law, or a minimum wage, or a property right, or a privacy right, or the right to quit a job, against an entity such as, say, Exxon.
Two things wrong here. (1) US is not "allowing." - The dollar, like all fiat money is based on peoples belief that it they accept some (dollars) then at some point in time they will be able to use them to buy some thing with very little loss in purchasing power (compared to what the currency had when they accepted it) For example, When I must spend next two years in Kansas, I may accept $5000 for my boat on Chesepeak Bay (rather than store it for two years) and plan to buy another two years hence when I return, but if I find that it takes $10,000 to buy the equivalent boat and this is happening* not just in boats, I will become reluctant to accept dollars. All over the world, both people and central banks are learning that dollars are not buying what they did. (Of course there in inflation in most currencies, but my point is that the dollar is sinking wrt to other currencies - US Treasury issue has been way to lose purchaing power for a couple of years now - See my thread Sover Funds ..." I saw this drop coming 5+ years ago and got into ADRs to protect my purchasing power - not fully aware then that many would be doing the same now and their demand has greatly increased my purchaing power (even in dollars I.e. a basically denfensive move turned out to be the best investment by far). SUMMARY - The US can not stop the flight from the dollar so long as it can not pay its way, but must borrow more every year. (NOT "ALLOWING") (2) Calling in green dollars and replacing them with blue ones etc.? What good will that do? The problem is not what the US currency is called - but that the US is deep in debt and going deeper with the difference from others that are in this same boat being that the US economy is losing out in the productive jobs. More and more Americans are reduced to selling hamburgers, cutting someone's hair etc. Tiny Germany exports more and is not saddled with a war without end. Factories are closing in US while the same corporations are opening them in many other countiries, especially China. SUMMARY - It is too simplistic to think the fundamental problems of US will go away by changing the color or name of the currency! Canada and Mexico would only lose if they shared a common currency with US. Would they want take on the US debt? - I don't think so. ---------------------- *For example, in last two years the dollar has lost more than half of its purchasing power if you want to buy things in Brazil. - Have you priced what a vacation in Europe will cost you now days?
Faithless? Well, the fact that you're confusing the two doesn't really help anything. As long as you're comfortable being part of the problem, I suppose that's your business, right? Even though any actions you take based on erroneous beliefs affect other people, it's no concern of theirs, right? And the burden of providing certain necessities also slows human progress. There are only so many hours in the day. If people spend a third of their lives working, a third of their lives sleeping, and the rest of the time fetching and boiling the water to make sure its clean, collecting firewood to keep the place warm, and distilling the whiskey for medicinal purposes, how many hours are going to be spent advancing the species? Maybe you think going to the moon or Mars is a bad idea, but would you pretend that government participation in education has done nothing at all to bring medical and nutritional solutions? Should we leave it until someone reasonably argues that life on Mars, or widespread hunger among the uneducated presents a threat to civil security? Americans could languish as many around the world have, left to devote our lives to merely surviving, and that would, I suppose, be just fine and dandy. It's worked so well in the third world .... You try to paint it as a liberal disease, but you overlook that the situation arises from diverse inspirations. Your sarcasm actually raises an important point: it's not that libertarians and conservatives are secretly plotting anything. Rather, the self-centered focus requires a pretense of indifference; perhaps it's a romantic notion to consider a world where you're always walking around with one hand on your pistol, waiting for that evil criminal to strike. I admit, there's a certain attraction to swashbuckling and machismo, but being alive is about much more than just looking good in one's own eyes. To the other, the decriminalization of drugs is a bad example to use in this case. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. But what to do, then, about the effects of drug use? Decrim alone isn't going to get rid of crack rage and desperate theft to finance drug use. Of course, then I guess we're back to swashbuckling and machismo: just pretend you're scared out of your skirts and shoot the poor bastard, right? Take, for instance, midnight basketball. It's fair enough to question whether the government should be involved in such a small program designed to fit local needs, but it worked. Sometimes, simple opportunities will provide an alternative to the criminal route. Education is key; opportunity is vitally important. Which actually considers your next point: It's an interesting twist of logic, although it still points back to the root cause: the People. Until the People change, we're stuck in this cycle. After all, smaller governments are not necessarily better at keeping reality in perspective. Local governments are especially good at warping and factionalizing "reality". The real problem facing us at this point is apparently the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Perhaps we need to repeal that portion of the Constitution in order to satisfy you? I admit it's generally amusing to read someone get self-righteous while repeating my point. No, I don't need a crystal ball to see that the future is uncertain. And no, I don't need to see into the future to see what the past brought. Returning to an archaic outlook will only bring more of what history shows us such perspectives brought. If someone wants to reinstitute slavery, and I protest that we should not go back to a system of entrenched inequality, would you object that I'm pretending to be psychic in expecting entrenched inequality? What the hell are you going on about here? All I'm pointing out is that "libertarians" use the same rhetoric that used to be condemned in anarchists. The only difference between "libertarians" and the anarchists of history is that instead of reclaiming a wrongly-impugned cause, libertarians want to pretend they're something different. Apparently, this is a sore nerve for you. Given the poor reading comprehension, the only question is whether you're simply ignorant or deliberately malicious. So read carefully, String, and figure it out for once: Libertarians are not cowards for having different ideas, they are cowards for trying to pretend they're something other than what they are. Consider the following from the early 20th century: • "... questioned all forms of authority as expressed in the church, the army, the patriarchal family, developing alternative institutions such as libertarian schools to help educate people for freedom." • "... combined [the] ideal of a libertarian society ... with a strong Nietzschean individualsim, and ... often took a dim view of 'the ordinary man'." Both are statements about Emma Goldman's anarchism (see Wexler, Alice, Emma Goldman in Exile: From the Russian Revolution to the Spanish Civil War). To correct a couple of your errors from above: liberalism is an historical truth, not a self-evident truth; disagreement in and of itself does not mean someone is wrong--after all, I'm not perfect; libertarians are cowards for being afraid to call themselves by their true name. I had thought you smarter than those errors, String. Is it your emotion that compels you to such errors, or are you simply running low on pretense? Good faith is metaphysical nonsense? What about your libertarian utopia? Good faith is required in any convention of agreement, whether it's between two people or millions. However, now that you've acknowledged your assessment of good faith, not only do a number of things about your behavior resolve more clearly, but the future of how to deal with you is also better defined. It's really easy to run with simplifications, isn't it? Of course, why bother with the subtlety of "metaphysical nonsense", right? Interesting question. Will you pretend that none of the successful, creative, productive, innovative inventors have ever taken anything from the government? (That's the problem with those "two kinds of people" arguments; they don't work until you consider them according to the subtleties that defy such simpleminded categorization.) You have enough trouble thinking for yourself, String, so don't try to do mine for me. We can call whatever convention of authority the people come up with whatever we want, but it will still equal the concept of government. The rules of civilized society, without enforcement, aren't rules at all. It is demonstrable that we cannot at this time rely on good faith--especially if we decide that good faith is "metaphysical nonsense"--and that it is unwise to rely on the illusions of respectability and decency put forth by our neighbors who, like you, reject good faith in favor of wishes. True anarchy is impossible: the people are evolutionarily inclined to organize and impose a form of authority. Simply calling the rules "customs" or "community habits" doesn't change the fact of government if anything is done to enforce those customs. Well, some people have simply hope for more than merely avoiding anarchy. Once we get rid of national boundaries and operate as a species, it will be easier to lower our expectations to merely avoiding anarchy. It will also be easier to focus on the advancement and security of the species. Flip a coin, or draw a line in the sand; whatever suits you. If you say so. And you called good faith "metaphysical nonsense"? Civilization should be uncivilized? The whole of human social evolution has worked toward buttressing ourselves against nature and dealing with the universe around us as if we and it were separate things. It really doesn't make sense that the species should circle the wagons to protect itself only in order to reserve the privilege of our extinction to our own wills. The idea that evolution is founded in such contradictory arrogance is worth a chuckle at least. Civilization, then, is reserved to an arbitrary few? After all, some do well, some do poorly, and some never have a chance if for no better reason than the people who do well are afraid of other people doing well. Certainly it is possible. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians alike tend to agree, though, that those other conditions are distasteful at best. There are practical reasons for attending the poor, and accommodating human necessity. The whole argument that we shouldn't seek to work on better things because we might, in doing so, be too nice to "people who don't deserve it"--or however one chooses to phrase it--is just stupid. It's a romantic definition, I admit, but in those terms our civilized society appears perverse. Of course we won't have a clue; since you consider good faith to be "metaphysical nonsense", we can't rely on anything you say to actually be an honest representation of your person. It's also a reflection of your priorities. That balance, of course, is defined by your own personal outlook. Part of what is so annoying about libertarianism is its rejection of any common framework for defining things like "balance". Your criticisms of liberalism would be considerably more effective if they weren't rooted in conservative superstition. Of course, knowing that you were operating in good faith would help, but you've already cleared that one up. Nice dodge. Let's get you a brick wall and a spotlight, and maybe you can get paid for bad jokes. Right. Which is exactly why the prevailing culture on the planet asserts compassion. Seriously, there were people in the nineteenth century that truly believed slavery was compassionate. There were people into the twentieth century who believed it was cruel to ask women to vote. You could have at least tried to answer the issue. Or maybe not. I shouldn't presume what you're capable of. And I definitely should not presume good faith on your part. Strange that you would pretend to agree when your arguments appear to disagree. Of course, given your rejection of good faith, and your need to make the point a sting against liberalism, maybe it's not so strange.
It would depend on what you mean by "decriminalizing drugs." If you mean actually *legalizing* the production, import, sale and possession of drugs, then it would eliminate lots of prisoners and gang wars. However, most people understand "decriminalization" to refer to the reduction of penalties for petty drug possession to the point of negligibility. While this might reduce prison populations somewhat (not that many people are in jail for plain old possession), it would actually fuel even greater gang wars, as these are waged over the production and distribution of drugs, and the market for these services would have increased due to the decriminalization.
What do you think of my plan for attacking the economics of the drug industry? See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1406344&postcount=159 http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1403427&postcount=139 http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1396192&postcount=54[/url] and other posts of same thread but even that thread is not the first time I have set forth this idea.
I don't have time to read through that thread right now, but there are a couple of things in that post that stood out to me. First, there is no real statistical link between use of marijuana and harder drugs, so you can dispence with that aspect of it right away. Anti-pot types like to point to a statistic saying that 95% of hard drug users used marijuana first. But this doesn't prove anything; 100% of hard drugs users drank water before using hard drugs, but that doesn't prove any causality. To examine causality, you have to ask the question "what percentage of people who use marijuana go on to use harder drugs?" And the answer is "a very small one." More importantly, you're neglecting methamphetamines. It's true that the cocaine and heroin comes from abroad (as does most of the ecstasy for that matter). But the meth, which is by far the most problematic hard drug, is produced almost entirely inside the US. It's produced by a simple titration on psuedoephedrine, which is probably the most popular nasal decongestant in pharmaceutical history, and so produced and sold in vast quantities throughout the US.
To Quad: I added a couple more links to make it easier for you to gain an over view of my suggestion and my reply to some objections. I hope you do get time to look at thread. On your comment about meth being produced domestically, that may be true but as I noted in the tread, my main concern is not with the fact that hard drugs fund some foreigners we would not like to have well funded, - it is with the damage hard drug do to the US economy and population. My plan would make the sale of meth more difficult also, but perhaps not as much so as the drugs (the payments for them actually) that need to travel great distances to the US. There are, I think, several other benefits* of the plan, not related to drugs at all. --------------------- * Lower taxes for honest payers Less crime and associated prison expenses To mention two of the more impoortant ones.
