|
|
#41 | ||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#42 | ||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We should fix a lot of other problem's with economic policy before touching minimum wage, but ideally it needs to go. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#43 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Just to interject one or two little clarifications and comments:
Quote:
Quote:
Schools don't necessarily expose people to violence, that's a hasty generalization about schools. My highschool in the 5 years I was there, had a grand total of two fights on school property, neither of which involved weapons, neither of which involved more than two people, neither of which lasted more than 5 minutes. So, 10 minutes of isolated and minor violence (5 of which I didn't even personally witness) out of the over 75,000 minutes I spent at school, somehow I don't think "But schools expose you to violence" is an especially valid objection here. Certainly many many other areas of publically accessable places seem to demonstrate a higher average instance of violence. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#44 | ||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Two other things: weapons are not a requirement for serious bodily harm, and most fights don't last more than 5 minutes at any rate. In fact if one person in a fight is sufficiently skilled the fight will probably be over in well under a minute. The objection is perfectly valid. Maybe you're trying to say it's asinine? Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
FFR Player
|
I'm sorry, I only read first half of the first post in this thread. I stopped reading, because I was worried the stupidity was going to seep into my brain. Basically, I read that you (with no formal training/basic education) think that you are capable of all this stuff.
You can take apart and reassemble a computer. Great, do you understand how each piece of the computer works? If someone asked you to fix a computer, could you just look inside the CPU and determine what was wrong with it? Can you use the EQUIPMENT needed to understand what's wrong with it? My guess to your answer on all of my questions is no. You repeatedly say that a college(not colledge) should just borrow everything to you, then once you're done, be able to give everything back. Here's something you probably don't understand, MOST COLLEGES AREN"T NON-PROFIT. Why do you think they have the ability to reject people? You claim you and your mom both smoke 2+ packs of cigs a day. Do you realize that if you two didn't do that, You guys could probably buy a house. I live in a fucking nice apartment with my girlfriend, and guess what, it costs less than $800 a month. Plus, why on Earth are you smoking 2 packs a day at the age of 15?! As for the whole "workers permit" thing. I had a job when I was 14 as a bagboy at a grocery store. I'm pretty sure you can get a job if you truly wanted one. Also, when you turn 16, you can quit school. I guarantee that this computer technician job you're talking about though will never happen. Noone in their right mind would hire a 16 year old kid who doesn't even have a highschool education, a technician job. It won't happen. I seriously want to jump through my computer and slap you in the face. Highschool is a joke compared to the challenges of college. And guess what, you're a second year freshman in HIGHSCHOOL. This whole "natural born intelligence" thing you keep talking about does not apply in your case. Grow up, finish school and THEN get a job.
__________________
Last edited by rade0110; 10-4-2007 at 02:22 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 | |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Devonin: From my understanding, there're bartending courses, and then courses you need to take in order to serve alcohol, and they are 2 different courses. I wasn't talking about a bartending course, where you learn how to mix drinks.
I just gave an example of your straw manning, when you said schools provoke violence. Violence is possible in any social situation, and since we live in a society, we're going to have that possibility anywhere. If you want to be a part of most organized things, (which also allow tremendous opportunity through that organization), you're going to have to be a part of some sort of social group. Furthermore, your poor example of violence is only good if you are forcing people to go to school, which, is NOT true, hence my other statement. They don't have to do that, they can be home schooled or self-taught. Quote:
To paint an idea in a poor light is perfectly valid, (making it a straw man), insomuch that it may be true. It doesn't, however, address any merits the problem might have, or include how often worst case scenarios occur versus better ones. As far as the farmers who don't make money and then shut down, I don't really see that as a problem. Well, I sorta do, but not one which the US can rectify. Solving that would require no one to have a government of any type whatsoever, which is a silly idea, since you'd have to make people not organize their own groups and make their own currency, or hierachy, even when they'd want to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
And I don't see how saying that I don't want to argue about whether an educated society is a good thing is dishonest. I just don't want to argue it. Hey, look at all the billions of people in the world that aren't arguing it either. I just happened to say that I don't want to. It would take too much effort and come to no conclusion, IMO. But if you want to give me reasons why an educated society is a BAD thing, I'll consider them. With less strawman, please.
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Chrissi: Stop attacking me.
Kilroy: I'm not attacking you, lol. Chrissi: WEEELLLL if you refuse to stop attacking me, I'm out. Quote:
__________________
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#49 | ||||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is how the argument proceeded Chrissi: 1. It is the opinion of some that youth do not not what is best for them (Assumption, explicitly stated) 2. It is possible for there to be a good outside of what is valued by any given subject (Assumption, implicitly stated) 3. Youth should be made to do what is best for them (1,2) Me: 1. It is the opinion of some that almost no one knows what is best for them and that they should be made to do what is (supposedly) best for them (Assumption, explicitly stated) 2. Among these people are Hitler and Stalin (Assumption, explicitly stated) 3. The actions of Hitler and Stalin are undesirable (Assumption, implicitly stated) 4. The opinion that no one knows what is best for them can serve as at least partial justification for undesirable coercion (1,2,3) Quote:
Quote:
To the objection that this seems like an arbitrary designation of positive and negative, the statement can be rephrased as follows: Restriction is legitimate to the extent it maximally prevents infringement on person or legitimate property, and (perhaps this next part I'm adding will prove more contentious) was desired by the person(s) or property owner(s) who represent the primary victims. In other words, restriction should be considered legitimate only insofar as it prevents as much harm to the person who would be harmed by lack of restriction as possible, while doing as little harm to the individual who would be doing the primary act of harming as possible. The financing of public education is an infringement upon property. Certain instances of individuals in public schools are examples of violation of person. Quote:
What does a quantitative examination stand to teach us? What do you even mean by "merits the problem might have"? Quote:
Also, the problem of the farmers is simple; allow immigrant labor and allow the farmers to pay less than minimum wage. You don't even need to get rid of minimum wage, since we're just talking about the farmer's problems. There would of course be possible problems with this approach though. The market is messed up enough that there are almost guaranteed to be dramatic costs to almost any significant reform. There are a fair number of psychological components involved in this in addition to the mechanics of the market. |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
An argument cannot be stated by you and not be your own unless you state at that time that it's not. If you didn't mean that getting hurt in school is an act of forcing people to get hurt, then you shouldn't strongly imply that it is.
About Hitler thinking what was best for others, I understand everything the exact same way as I did before. The school system is NOT acting like Hitler as it lacks many other things for it to become so. That Hitler thought was was best for people is NOT the only thing that caused him to be Hitler. Your argument is basically an aside to the discussion about the school system. It is very annoying for someone to complain and say that something can be bad if it takes bad route when that something has not come close to going down that bad route. It's NOT THE ISSUE, and furthermore, if it were to become as bad as Hitler was, it would be rejected. The way you re-word 'restriction' doesn't change my views on the benefit of public schooling whatsoever, as I see public schooling benefitting the poorer people who would otherwise not have the resources (be it money, a library, time, smart parents, etc.). Poor people aren't taxed in Canada at least. (income tax that is.) It also hardly harms the richer people since, again, there is the option to go to public school if they don't like the public one or get homeschooled, and the richer you ARE, the less that amount of money means to you. That's key, for me. (Plus, most people will probably be happy to be a part of something which can break the catch22 of poverty.) Public schooling fits the criteria of being least restrictive like a glove, IMO. About age restrictions to what a person can or can't do, that's another issue which can be dealt with separately without stopping public schooling. (As an aside, not all age restrictions about what a person can do come from government either...people don't just not hire kids because the government tells them not to.) No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My gibberish makes sense to me, and I don't feel like re-stating things. It's about the issue I have with you comparing public schooling to Hitler, which I'm already addressing elsewhere anyways. About the farmer issue, it only happens because there's a difference in values of things across markets. Immigrant laborerers are happy with being paid less than minimum wage because they send their money back to Meixco where it's worth much much more, and as such, they're being paid over minimum wage. This isn't about coercion, this is about what happens when you've got more than 1 market. Besides which, like I'll say again, I don't see it as a problem that that farmer can't operate. (Errrm, part of me does, but because it's indicative that we're only allowing for factory farming, which, depending on what you're farming, shouldn't be allowed the way it's being done for environmental reasons.) |
|
|
|
|
|
#51 | ||||||||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. The act of putting children in school is sometimes against their will 2. This act is supposedly justified by the argument that children are people who do not know what is best for them 3. The act of Federalizing property and establishing a police state is largely against the will of one's citizens. 4. The act of Federalizing property and establishing a police state is supposedly justified by the argument that one's citizens are people who do not know what is best for them. Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, that doesn't change my beliefs. Maybe you should learn how critical discussion is supposed to work before attempting it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's undeniable that some people will use the current education system to make a better life for themselves. It isn't undeniable that they couldn't have benefited equally well or better from an alternative arrangement, or that other people would have had better lives than they currently do because the current education system had a detrimental effect on them. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Another thing. You are confusing two different things. The motivation for immigrants to come work is certainly not coercive. At least not on its own terms. It might be the result of coercion in the sense that market intervention, both from the Mexican government and internationally, created conditions which made immigration the most advantageous action to take. What is coercive is anti-immigration policies. It is coercive because the government has no claim to the land, labor, or property of (most) others. Specifically farmers. Quote:
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#52 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Congratulations, you've become the single most infuriating person I've ever discussed anything with.
I have addressed the issue with your re-wording of 'restriction', which, hard for you to believe, is the same definition of the wording which I saw beforehand. I'm not saying things are perfect the way they are, I'm saying I think they're better than what they would be. In order for you to convince me of a change which would be better, you'd have to describe in detail how having no public school system would be better than having one. I know already some of how it could be, from things we've discussed before, so I'd rather you not tell them to me again. What I DO want you to address for me, (and me specifically, since this is the issue I have with getting rid of social programs, like public education) is how we can break the cycle of poverty. I'm aware that obviously what we have isn't perfect, (before you mentioned them in your past few posts btw...It seems I'm not as ignorant as you think I am.) I'm also not concerned with people who choose, for themselves, from an equal starting ground, a life of poverty. I'm talking about the issue of people being born poor who are as a result, almost doomed to be poor without social programs. Here's a scenario how things could work without government, and yet get large projects funded. Well, without government, there's nothing to stop organizations which aren't government from helping out people. But there's no way they'd be as effective. The only way they could be is if EVERYONE contributed something, which isn't going to happen. Not only that, you'd have 1000's of different organizations, all running different things, yet all of which would benefit from being centrally organized. They could share resources. I suppose you could have a government-like organization which centrally runs all types of social programs, where it's not mandatory for people to put money into. But clearly, since people aren't heartless monsters, everyone who has anything to contribute will contribute something for some cause. Now there's also the issue of running around and collecting all this money. Can you imagine the phonecalls you'd get and the people knocking at the door for donations? That'd be almost an infringement of people's rights. You could simply put everything neatly into 1 bundle, where people fill out something each year for donations. Say one year, some famous person died of cancer, and suddenly everyone's putting money into fights against cancer, and some 90% of all donations collected were for cancer. (Since the place is 1 organization, because people realized they could do more with less, as we already saw, this is known data which would otherwise never be known.) But that's so much more money than the organization's ever gotten for cancer, so they've got tons of funds left over. Turns out that every other group is hurting for money because of this, and so to everyone in the organization, it makes sense to put at least some of this cancer money towards these other areas. So far, nothing that I've said has been questionable ethically, except for this. But lets say everyone who donated (so practically everyone) knew that 90% of the funds were actually towards cancer, and they knew how much money all the other organizations wanted afterwards, and knew the proposed projects and current ones, and people were given a chance to change where their money could go. You'd eventually get a good distribution of the funds across the areas that people thought would be best. However, in practice, that'd be impossible. Not everyone 1) would be able to know everything and 2) would be able to put that much time and effort into determining what exactly they should put their money into, because it depends on what everyone else puts their money into! This problem can be fixed by having a few people whose job it is to determine the need of the organizations who want money, and by knowing how much money they'll get. Maybe these people won't do a good job, but they'd certainly want to. Keep in mind that in order for this to happen, you'd have to agree with the previous things I've said, and you'd have to want things to be well-organized. This sounds like a government to me. The major difference so far is that it's run on donations versus mandatory taxes. And that's where the 2nd questionable thing is. Why should someone who makes more money HAVE to donate more? Say they didn't. People would know that. Word would get around, and they'd probably think poorly of them. In fact, if some rich person never donated anything at all to the organizations, people could get pissed and might try and harm them. And whatever law enforcement existed might not a give a **** and let people kick the crap out the person anyways. (Unless they were so rich as to pay their own guards, and then now you've basically got the set up for a dictator.) Or you could get people who don't want anything to do with government, because they think they ideas bad from the start, because they're looking at it backwards, and then you just end up with a bunch of pockets of organizations and people who refuse to function as a whole together, where opportunity is being passed by. Or you could end up with corruption in government over time, and end up with something like a dictatorship. Or a single rich person could be benevolent, smart, and start a non-corrupt government. How does government become corrupt? In my mind, when people start doing things for reasons other than to help others, and when you stop including the wishes of others in the way things are run. That you argue specific points about how things are done poorly right now is practically irrelevant about getting rid of public schools completely. That you put peoples individual rights to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others is fine, however, government is not impeding this more than not having one, since we know that not having one would not allow for the the same opportunity as exists with one. Did Hitler see that and try and make use of central organization? Probably. Does that matter? No. |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This last part doesn't even make an ounce of sense in light of the previous two segments of the sentence. That's right, you've created a sentence which is logically inconsistent with itself. Here's how. If every organization is running something different, something truly different, then central organization if it is even beneficial at all will be only marginally so. I mean seriously, let's look at some possible combinations of diverse private organizations. We could combine the tobacco lobby with the Students for a Democratic Society. We could combine Focus on the Family with the AARP. We could combine PFLAG with the Peace Corps. These are problematic enough. What about flat out contradictions that would be generated by complete centralization though? What about, say, combining Focus on the Family with PFLAG? Quote:
More importantly though, there is nothing preventing sharing of resources on the free market. In fact in typical incoherency critics of the free market often attack this as something which causes trends towards "monopoly", while simultaneously advocating government centralization. I'm most certainly not going to give you the benefit of the doubt in this area. Show me the following: *Sharing would never occur on the free market or *Sharing would occur less on the free market, with losses in utility incurred here greater than gains in utility incurred elsewhere. and *The government can consistently be expected to create an ideal amount of sharing, without incurring losses of utility elsewhere greater than the gains in utility from sharing. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If an organization dedicated to fighting cancer makes more money, they will probably use it to buy things that will help fight cancer. Lab equipment, perhaps. Maybe enticements for scientists. If they make an astronomical amount of money they might choose to pay for Scholarships for top students to study Biology and Chemistry. There are always more things to spend money on. Maybe they put it in a bank and use the interest to pay for more things in the future. Worst case scenario they turn out to be a ****ty charity and just pocket large portions of money, at which point they're taken to court for fraud or at least the bad publicity they get prevents further donations to them. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
*Plenty of actions are taken for reasons other than to help others in every readily conceivable government. Retributive punishment for example. *Plenty of actions taken in the name of helping others will not do so, and will actually lead to harm. *The wishes of others are often the direct cause of corruption, or of harm to others lastly *Corruption is a very nebulous concept. What constitutes corruption? Corruption will inevitably be characterized as any government action the speaker isn't fond of, which ultimately reveals yet again the incoherency of government itself. Government shows us conflicts of interest more clearly than anything else in existence, because it embodies them. It is the subjective nature of value which prevents Government from meeting the demands of its subjects, and it is the subjective nature of value which turns Government, as the monopoly of the legitimate use of force, necessarily into a tool of oppression. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Kilroy_x; 10-7-2007 at 03:08 PM.. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#54 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
"You'd eventually get a good distribution of the funds across the areas that people thought would be best." ... that happens no matter what. It's called self-interest.
__________________
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|