Election Thread

[kandrathe]

Is there a country in the world where everyone is fed, clothed, and housed? I would add, where they are also given adequate medical care, and a chance to educate themselves?

Not many, I'd wager. Certainly not Canada. Certainly not the United States.

-Jester

Let's put it another way. There is no reason why it should not be that way without requiring socialistic or communistic redistribution strategies. People may be suffering in the US or Canada, but its in spite of all the social programs and safety nets. The problem I would venture is not in that there is not enough socialism, but that the socialism we have is not working for some small percentage. One problem now is that people EXPECT the government to take care of them, and as with every other social entitlement bureaucracy, it eventually fails some people. Adding in health care is difficult, because it is dependent on many factors, such as, the persons commitment to their own health, the availability of trained medical staff, regional uniqueness, geographic dispersion, poverty, crime, culture, nutrition, etc. A chance to educate themselves is also a bugaboo. What is acceptable? In the early 1900's getting a majority of the people through an 8th grade educations was considered a great accomplishment. People wanted to go to school, and you considered it a privilege. Now it's taken for granted, shrugged off, or expected to be offered as another free carrot.

[Jester]

Let's put it another way. There is no reason why it should not be that way without requiring socialistic or communistic redistribution strategies. People may be suffering in the US or Canada, but its in spite of all the social programs and safety nets. The problem I would venture is not in that there is not enough socialism, but that the socialism we have is not working for some small percentage. One problem now is that people EXPECT the government to take care of them, and as with every other social entitlement bureaucracy, it eventually fails some people. Adding in health care is difficult, because it is dependent on many factors, such as, the persons commitment to their own health, the availability of trained medical staff, regional uniqueness, geographic dispersion, poverty, crime, culture, nutrition, etc. A chance to educate themselves is also a bugaboo. What is acceptable? In the early 1900's getting a majority of the people through an 8th grade educations was considered a great accomplishment.

In short, you don't like socialism.

-Jester

[eppie]

Not necessarily true. Riches lie in more things than monetary and property wealth. I think it was John D. Rockefeller, Jr. whose only real occupation for his lifetime was figuring out how to distribute his fathers mountain of wealth to worthwhile causes. The real question though is, if I have 535 pieces of paper with 1$ printed on them, and you have 535 million similar pieces of paper, and a sandwich costs 5$ is either of us poor? No. The expression of wealth in bank notes only means that the person with more has a bigger cushion between comfort and discomfort. You could waste your money and buy all the sandwiches leaving me to go hungry, but as long as goods are abundant enough to feed, clothe, and house everyone, the only differences would be in ostentation. The whole "Gap" between the rich and poor is a rubric used by socialists to justify redistribution of wealth. If everyone is fed, clothed, and housed, there is no gap. Only jealousy.

I was not just talking about banknotes. I was talking about economy in general, the total world economy will increase if we can produce more, so that in fact everybody can be fed.
If we have enough at the moment is already debatable, in 50 years this might be a much bigger problem.

We are often more interested in our local (national) economy. If everybody starts buying dutch shoes, food, cars etc. that is very good for the dutch....other countries will not be so happy with it.

With big companies it is even clearer. Wal mart sells a lot of stuff....with as a direct consequence that smalles shops will go banckrupt. There is only place for 1 Walton family (maybe a few) in the US. It is impossible for everybody to be a financial succes without seriously decreasing the wealth of others.

The american dream (if it really existed) will have the same end result as socialism then.
But of course this does not happen.

[Doc]

The problem with the American dream, like any other dream, is that you must be sound asleep to experience it.

Waking reality is quite a bit different.

As I grow older, and maybe wiser, I appreciate socialism a bit more, but I am not so sure that it is the answer.

Ultimately, if you don't like being poor, do something about it. It really is that simple. Easy even.

Do not live beyond your means. Ditch your credit cards. Pay cash for everything you buy. Having to pay actual cold hard cash makes you not want to spend it. Suddenly, that 40 inch tv isn't so special and the 20 inch will do just fine. Getting your self thousands of dollars in debt over the impulsive purchase of an item is stupidity. If you have to save a few months to generate enough cash for said item, you begin to have second thoughts about whether or not the item is worth it. And if you are lucky, you realise, those thousands of dollars you just saved are better served making money in a bank or some kind of wealth generation. All those trips to the coffee shop add up. That 50 dollars a week you blow in snacks, drinks, coffee, etc, that comes out to 200 dollars a month. 2400 dollars a year. That's a lot of green slipping through your fingers. Invest it in something that makes you money instead. Go to an auction. Buy property. Buy out lot items at estate sales.

People do stupid things with money. Consumerism bleeds people dry. There is to much pressure to spend every last dime you have. Because of credit people are spending money they don't have in to an economy that does not exist. Scary.

[kandrathe]

I was not just talking about banknotes. I was talking about economy in general, the total world economy will increase if we can produce more, so that in fact everybody can be fed.
If we have enough at the moment is already debatable, in 50 years this might be a much bigger problem.

We are often more interested in our local (national) economy. If everybody starts buying dutch shoes, food, cars etc. that is very good for the dutch....other countries will not be so happy with it.

With big companies it is even clearer. Wal mart sells a lot of stuff....with as a direct consequence that smalles shops will go banckrupt. There is only place for 1 Walton family (maybe a few) in the US. It is impossible for everybody to be a financial succes without seriously decreasing the wealth of others.

The american dream (if it really existed) will have the same end result as socialism then.
But of course this does not happen.

No, you don't understand yet.

Just because the Waltons, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet might hold the lions share of digits on the wealth reports, does not mean that they have transferred those digits into holdings. If all the wealthy people insisted on transferring their wealth into physical assets, like land, stored grain, metals and minerals, only then would wealth hurt the less fortunate. So, the Debeers can own all the diamonds in the world for all I care, since I don't eat diamonds. If they start transferring their wealth into land holdings, and decreasing available farm land, then we have a problem.

Now, you mixed in a different issue with Walmart. Corporate success versus individual wealth.

Walmart has been successful in mastering efficiency in distribution of goods, and then obtaining a critical mass in merchandising. They are big enough to be able to tell a manufacturer, "if you make X and sell it for Y" we will buy the product from you. Vlassic, a pickle manufacturer, almost went bankrupt because of a bad deal. The power still rests in the decisions of the consumer, so if Mom and Pop's shop can keep the right products around at a reasonable price and convince people to buy their stuff they will stay in business. Walmart does well because they offer the products that people want at lower prices. From a capitalist perspective this is a good thing for consumers since they have driven inefficiency from the system of acquisition and distribution of goods, and that is reflected in the consumer being able to keep more of their wealth.

My son just asked me what I was writing to you about so I described it thus; Imagine their is a big birthday party, and we play tons of party games with the prizes being golden tokens. At the end of the party you can redeem your token for a piece of pie. So, you might redeem some tokens at the party, or leave the party with unspent tokens. But, should you get hungry later you can go into any cafe and redeem one for another piece of pie. As long as everyone plays and wins enough to get a single token in the games, then no one goes away without a piece of the pie. So the questions are; Is there enough pie to go around? Does everyone get to play in the games? Do unredeemed tokens matter to the happiness of the party goers? If Mike is skillful and lucky and wins a huge amount of tokens, would it be fair to then tell him to give away some tokens to others? Would you prevent Mike from playing the games, or make him do it blindfolded?

In the progressive socialist model everyone would be required to put 1/3 of their tokens into a hat, and they would be distributed to those who had less indexed by how few tokens they had. In the communist model, all the won tokens would be put into the hat, then redistributed equally. In the dictator model, one bully gets to determine who plays or not, then take anyones tokens at will and do whatever they want with them.

[Doc]

No, you don't understand yet.

Just because the Waltons, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet might hold the lions share of digits on the wealth reports, does not mean that they have transferred those digits into holdings. If all the wealthy people insisted on transferring their wealth into physical assets, like land, stored grain, metals and minerals, only then would wealth hurt the less fortunate. So, the Debeers can own all the diamonds in the world for all I care, since I don't eat diamonds. If they start transferring their wealth into land holdings, and decreasing available farm land, then we have a problem.

Now, you mixed in a different issue with Walmart. Corporate success versus individual wealth.

Walmart has been successful in mastering efficiency in distribution of goods, and then obtaining a critical mass in merchandising. They are big enough to be able to tell a manufacturer, "if you make X and sell it for Y" we will buy the product from you. Vlassic, a pickle manufacturer, almost went bankrupt because of a bad deal. The power still rests in the decisions of the consumer, so if Mom and Pop's shop can keep the right products around at a reasonable price and convince people to buy their stuff they will stay in business. Walmart does well because they offer the products that people want at lower prices. From a capitalist perspective this is a good thing for consumers since they have driven inefficiency from the system of acquisition and distribution of goods, and that is reflected in the consumer being able to keep more of their wealth.

My son just asked me what I was writing to you about so I described it thus; Imagine their is a big birthday party, and we play tons of party games with the prizes being golden tokens. At the end of the party you can redeem your token for a piece of pie. So, you might redeem some tokens at the party, or leave the party with unspent tokens. But, should you get hungry later you can go into any cafe and redeem one for another piece of pie. As long as everyone plays and wins enough to get a single token in the games, then no one goes away without a piece of the pie. So the questions are; Is there enough pie to go around? Does everyone get to play in the games? Do unredeemed tokens matter to the happiness of the party goers? If Mike is skillful and lucky and wins a huge amount of tokens, would it be fair to then tell him to give away some tokens to others? Would you prevent Mike from playing the games, or make him do it blindfolded?

In the progressive socialist model everyone would be required to put 1/3 of their tokens into a hat, and they would be distributed to those who had less indexed by how few tokens they had. In the communist model, all the won tokens would be put into the hat, then redistributed equally. In the dictator model, one bully gets to determine who plays or not, then take anyones tokens at will and do whatever they want with them.

And in a democratic beaurocracy, the tokens would be lost. A committee would be formed to discuss the formation of a committee that one day may lead to a committee being formed to find out what happened to the tokens, or if the tokens even existed. Once the proper paperwork was filled out to form the committee of course, which takes a special committee to discuss what kind of paperwork is needed and why. A regulatory commission would also be formed as a watch dog group to make sure that all of these committies involved were not hoarding tokens for themselves. Another committee would be formed in a few weeks discussing on what do with with stale pie and whether or not it should cost fewer tokens, or if the poor even need tokens, and if there should be free hand outs of free stale pie to the poor. And then a distrobution committee is formed...

And sadly, one day, a special committee would be formed to come up with a study on why a masked gunman came in to the offices and sprayed everybody with an uzi screaming about all he wanted was his fair share of the pie.

[eppie]

No, you don't understand yet.

Theoretically you would be right on the walmart issue (capitalist theory).
The fact is that there is a difference in money efficiency and goods efficiency. If you buy a very cheap plastic toy made in bangladesh for example, from the walmart you don't realize that for manufacturing this toy, people have been working for little or no money, in a place where environmental policies don't exist, often children worked on making it. Afterwards the toy has to be shipped over 20000km over our planets seas in a big boat, etc. etc.

If you would buy the same toy that has been made in your own town, according to local policies concerning labour rights, environment etc. you would have paid a bit more, but your lets say ecological footprint would be smaller. Oil (as ship fuel), people (as responsible well treated citizens of the world) and the environment are very sure a big part of our economy.....a part on which we don't put a price label yet, but still very important.


The fact that we buy so many things we don't need is of course another part of the story.

(ps I wasn't trying to get you interested in socialism with my remarks)

[Doc]

Theoretically you would be right on the walmart issue (capitalist theory).
The fact is that there is a difference in money efficiency and goods efficiency. If you buy a very cheap plastic toy made in bangladesh for example, from the walmart you don't realize that for manufacturing this toy, people have been working for little or no money, in a place where environmental policies don't exist, often children worked on making it. Afterwards the toy has to be shipped over 20000km over our planets seas in a big boat, etc. etc.

If you would buy the same toy that has been made in your own town, according to local policies concerning labour rights, environment etc. you would have paid a bit more, but your lets say ecological footprint would be smaller. Oil (as ship fuel), people (as responsible well treated citizens of the world) and the environment are very sure a big part of our economy.....a part on which we don't put a price label yet, but still very important.
The fact that we buy so many things we don't need is of course another part of the story.

(ps I wasn't trying to get you interested in socialism with my remarks)

They did that here. A local mill that made sheets and towels and stuff that prided themselves on quality work and good pay for the employees actually set up an outlet store right there at the mill.

The problem was, the sheets and towel sets cost upwards of 50 to 100 dollars. A single towel might be 10 or 15 dollars. Wal Mart down the road was selling towels and sheets for less than half of those prices. Guess where the mill workers, on their limited incomes, went and spent their money? Wal Mart. Outlet store was empty.

Mill wound up folding about a year after the outlet store opened, and the entire operation moved to China.

Sadly, the quality of the towels and sheets (Still sold locally!) actually went UP after the move. And Wal Mart gets to hang a sign over the goods saying "Made by an american owned business." But not made in America.

America's manufacturing base for consumer goods is toast. Economically you can not compete with slave labour. We are rapidly becoming a consumer plantation with an economy that does not physically exist. China has TRILLIONS of US dollars tied up and held in their economy. China is actually loaning our own money back to us and offering US business lines of credit from reserves of actual money. I am not sure how much longer we can keep up with China's real economy vs our elaborate ponzi schemes of credit bubbles.

I see dark times ahead.

[Ashock]

In the progressive socialist model everyone would be required to put 1/3 of their tokens into a hat, and they would be distributed to those who had less indexed by how few tokens they had. In the communist model, all the won tokens would be put into the hat, then redistributed equally. In the dictator model, one bully gets to determine who plays or not, then take anyones tokens at will and do whatever they want with them.

A couple of small corrections.

In a progressive socialist model - at least 1/2 of the tokens would be put back.

Oh and the communist model would automatically evolve into the communist dictator model, so there's no need to even mention it on it's own.

-A

[Ashock]

Ooo! Ooo! Me! Me! I'll chime in!

The success of Asian immigrants, I believe, is based on a multigenerational quality inherent to most Asian countries for more than a couple millenia. Confucianism, a philosophy that emphasizes education and meritocracy, has influenced many nations for a long, long, long, loooooooong time. China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam have all been influenced by this philosophy system. Buddhism and Hinduism also have ideologies that promote the pursuit of knowledge on the path of enlightenment as the spiritual goal for their followers, so that further promotes the Asian "culture of learning".

As Griselda mentioned multigenerational poverty with certain children are not expected to succeed as well as others, but that bias can go both ways. Asians are expected to excel in academics. Even if society didn't emphasize this through media, many asian parents expect their children to perform well at school. The children are taught from an early age by their parents to strive to succeed. Furthermore, Asian parents tend to go out of their way to give their child as many advantages as possible to seek new knowledge and excel. Anyone familiar with Japanese culture knows that not only do those children go to regular school, but they often go to other classes afterwards to compete in that society (Which does lead to some negative social connotations). Likewise, in Asian communities, you often see private schools offering enhanced education courses like those that aid in the SAT's.

In recent generations, Asian immigrants aren't always the poorest of the poor either. Take into account the rise of communism in Vietnam that caused many educated Vietnamese families to flee from their nation and immigrate to the United States. The Philippines was a colony of the United States for almost forty years counting the period of World War II. I personally know that in the Philippines, numerous doctors are going back to school to become nurses because they can immigrate much easier to the U.S. with those types of degrees. Successful immigrants bring in family members who support one another and make it easier for these new immigrants, so there are many first generation immigrants that do quite well.

I had a history teacher who retired recently who commented on the Americanization of Asian children. He noted that the further the children got from the first generation of immigrants and the more Americanized they were, the less diligent they were in their studies. There's something to be said about hunger from immigrating into the land of opportunity. I've heard the same said of Latino communities where first generation immigrants work hard as hell to provide their children opportunities and it's the latter generations that squander them.

As for the Black communities? People who immigrate from Africa are some of the hardest working and educated people I've met out there and often very successful. They haven't been indoctrinated by years of American expectations that also manage to benefit the Asians.

This has been another Asian immigrant offering a detailed explanation of his opinion. Thanks for reading!

My whole point was that Asians like many other legal immigrans are not given anything for nothing. The russian community which I'm really not a regular card carrying member of (but some of my friends are) is similar. We want to be successful, because we do not get anything given to us for nothing. We want our kids to be even more successful.

I don't see that in welfare communities... and we as immigrants come here with much less than they have. I dunno, but I have a feeling that if when we first came here, we were given enough money to survive, at least some of us would stay exactly where they are.

-A

[SwissMercenary]

The power still rests in the decisions of the consumer, so if Mom and Pop's shop can keep the right products around at a reasonable price and convince people to buy their stuff they will stay in business. Walmart does well because they offer the products that people want at lower prices. From a capitalist perspective this is a good thing for consumers since they have driven inefficiency from the system of acquisition and distribution of goods, and that is reflected in the consumer being able to keep more of their wealth.

Just like how in every country, the power eventually rests in The People.

However, funny how you don't see uprisings in North Korea.

The unregulated free market works only on the premise that people are smart enough to make an informed choice.

[Archon_Wing]

Ooo! Ooo! Me! Me! I'll chime in!

The success of Asian immigrants, I believe, is based on a multigenerational quality inherent to most Asian countries for more than a couple millenia. Confucianism, a philosophy that emphasizes education and meritocracy, has influenced many nations for a long, long, long, loooooooong time. China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam have all been influenced by this philosophy system. Buddhism and Hinduism also have ideologies that promote the pursuit of knowledge on the path of enlightenment as the spiritual goal for their followers, so that further promotes the Asian "culture of learning".

As Griselda mentioned multigenerational poverty with certain children are not expected to succeed as well as others, but that bias can go both ways. Asians are expected to excel in academics. Even if society didn't emphasize this through media, many asian parents expect their children to perform well at school. The children are taught from an early age by their parents to strive to succeed. Furthermore, Asian parents tend to go out of their way to give their child as many advantages as possible to seek new knowledge and excel. Anyone familiar with Japanese culture knows that not only do those children go to regular school, but they often go to other classes afterwards to compete in that society (Which does lead to some negative social connotations). Likewise, in Asian communities, you often see private schools offering enhanced education courses like those that aid in the SAT's.

In recent generations, Asian immigrants aren't always the poorest of the poor either. Take into account the rise of communism in Vietnam that caused many educated Vietnamese families to flee from their nation and immigrate to the United States. The Philippines was a colony of the United States for almost forty years counting the period of World War II. I personally know that in the Philippines, numerous doctors are going back to school to become nurses because they can immigrate much easier to the U.S. with those types of degrees. Successful immigrants bring in family members who support one another and make it easier for these new immigrants, so there are many first generation immigrants that do quite well.

I had a history teacher who retired recently who commented on the Americanization of Asian children. He noted that the further the children got from the first generation of immigrants and the more Americanized they were, the less diligent they were in their studies. There's something to be said about hunger from immigrating into the land of opportunity. I've heard the same said of Latino communities where first generation immigrants work hard as hell to provide their children opportunities and it's the latter generations that squander them.

As for the Black communities? People who immigrate from Africa are some of the hardest working and educated people I've met out there and often very successful. They haven't been indoctrinated by years of American expectations that also manage to benefit the Asians.

This has been another Asian immigrant offering a detailed explanation of his opinion. Thanks for reading!

I agree with most of this post, although I believe it's a bit more mundane. Consider there was a long period where Asians weren't very welcome in the United States. Laws were made to slow immigration down to a trickle. Thus, for those in their home countries, who would they send to take advantage of economic opportunity in America? Given limited resources and restrictive laws, they could really only afford to send the best and the brightest. The goal of many immigrants during the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s was simply to make money and return to the home country. Certainly, that didn't work out as planned. I'd like to gather some actual information, but I do think Asians who have been here in America are probaly the richest-- this is only based on my experience so far.

Then of course, immigration opened up during the 60s and you had this huge influx of people coming to America to make a living and quite frequently to escape oppression. My feeling is that the drive for success isn't strictly due to a stronger work ethic but perhaps a realization of opportunities. Yes, life doesn't suck that much here, soo... it's so much easier when you don't have to live in fear of a Mao or a Pol Pot. Naturally, later generations who have not lived through the turmoil cannot appreciate that. All and all, I don't think it's something inherent in Asian culture, although it certainly helps.

And of course, remember that that are quite some areas of extreme Asian poverty. Check out any local Chinatown.

And yea, family connections and traditions are still huge in dealing with economic success. Indeed, I don't think I'm being racist when I say the Black family structure in general has been quite fragmented. Then of course, we could always attribute that to slavery and the deliberate separation of families in there. I'm guessing many African Americans simply cannot trace their family lines that far. Yes, it's been a while since slavery but these kind of things don't really pass off that easily.

And this is another child of Asian Immigrants giving a somewhat detailed explanation of his opinion.:P

[Archon_Wing]

I couldn't figure out why there wasn't a thread about this already so I created one.

What particularly surprised me is Bush's rare showing of (apparent) candidness where he took the heat for Republican losses, announced Rumsfeld's resignation, and claim that he is open to new ideas for handling Iraq. It brought to mind the stereotypical bully who softens up when slugged in the gut.

So: thoughts and opinions?

Divided government is what I feel works best. When one group has too much say then the more extreme elements will pop up. IMO, the last few years have been a example of that.

I hope this will convince the GOP to regroup and stick to those great ideals of small government and wise spending. They have veered way off course, and it seems like they pander to the Religious Right way too much.

Democrats, bleh... I hope compormise will be a big word. And they could have issues now, instead of objecting to issues. ;p

All and all, divided government rocks because it'll take them longer to do things which hopefully will cause each side to think things through more carefully. At the very least, they'll take longer to annoy us.;)

[kandrathe]

Just like how in every country, the power eventually rests in The People.

However, funny how you don't see uprisings in North Korea.

The unregulated free market works only on the premise that people are smart enough to make an informed choice.

Do you think DRNK's problems are rooted in Walmart? If enough people were fed up with Kim Jong Il then they might be able to improve their situation, or bring the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.

All joking aside though, to support any position based on the belief that the people are not smart enough to make an informed decision is tyranny.

[eppie]

I see dark times ahead.

Me too, and we are not the only ones. If China wants (which they don't anyway but still) they can from one day to the next let the US and with that the EU economy fall in a recession on a scale we have never seen before. The only option is that we (especially in the US) stop borrowing money and because of that of course, stop consuming like we do now. Or of course wait 20 years, so the chinese buy us.

The only good thing is that because of the rising economies of China, but also India etc. the labour is getting more expensive in those countries as well.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Do you think DRNK's problems are rooted in Walmart?

Not really, no. However, the deal is the same - the people could oust Kim, if they were to massively try to do so. Much like how the people could resist an abusive monopoly, if enough gave a damn about the consequences. I'm not saying anything about Walmart here, but that's what the unregulated free market would lead to.

However, that simply isn't happening, until they'll get really desperate. (And likewise, if the lot of us were starving, and Walmart placed a monopoly-backed ridicilous price on bread, I can imagine that it would be only a matter of time before you'd start seeing riots. And even then, the riots would be to adress people's short-term needs, not the root of the problem. Barring that event, riots won't be happening, as it is in everyone's (Wal-mart included) best interests to keep the majority of people fed).

All joking aside though, to support any position based on the belief that the people are not smart enough to make an informed decision is tyranny.

A person can make an informed decision. People cannot. To assume otherwise is probably criminal negligence.

[kandrathe]

A person can make an informed decision. People cannot. To assume otherwise is probably criminal negligence.

I think that may be the crux of the difference between us.

I believe that people deserve the consequences they earn. I can be compassionate to the less fortunate up to a point. But, even that last statement "less fortunate" sounds like I just got lucky to have my finances and house in order. When I was 18, my parents got divorced and when my moms new boyfriend moved in, I moved out. I lived out of my car and my work for a year and took 4 years off from my college education to get my life in order. It was hard work to put myself through college without parental aid, and then pay off my student loans for 15 years. It was hard to save a 10% down payment and it was hard to furnish my first home, and when I needed a new roof I had to take out a 24 month loan. So, was I lucky, or just hard working. Was it luck that I was given a brain to think with, an able body to work hard with, and parents who instilled in me good morals and ethics?

I explained it to a friend recently thus; unemployed people without a bed need a place to sleep, but it should not be too comfortable. For the weary, a place to sit, but a wood stool, not a overstuffed leather recliner. We should never remove the motivation for them to go out and get a job to improve their lot.

You would be surprised by the number of people here on public rent and food assistance that have a regular smoking or drinking habit, a cell phone, digital cable, high speed internet, a full entertainment center with plasma TV. They can spend $200 to $300 a month on luxuries, but can't put themselves through courses in the local vocational school. Their children suffer for the parents sloth. So, I do want to help to make sure they survive and not suffer, but I don't want them to be comfortable.

I'm really tired of people feeling all compassionate, then paying for their fuzzy warm feelings with my money.

[SwissMercenary]

I explained it to a friend recently thus; unemployed people without a bed need a place to sleep, but it should not be too comfortable. For the weary, a place to sit, but a wood stool, not a overstuffed leather recliner. We should never remove the motivation for them to go out and get a job to improve their lot.

And I'm in agreement with that. It should be tolerable, but a far cry from what people should be able to do from themselves.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Big Business, what you may end up with can be below 'tolerable'. Lead-based sweetener for candy in Mexico? Microsoft-ish 'captive' audiences? 19th century 70-hour work-week sweatshops? In any of the cases that fall under what we would consider to be harmful or intolerable, people do not act until it hits them where it hurts - close to home.

While I wouldn't want to go on another 'Lol business sucks' tangent here, indulge me in this point - do you think the average person understands exactly what they are signing away when they check off the mandatory 'Yes, I grant you permission to sell my person information to anyone and everyone' on their credit card application? While credit cards in themselves are not yet mandatory, they certainly seem to be heading that way?

Should an effort not be made to protect people from their own ignorance? I believe so, seeing as how to do otherwise would be fairly good grounds for justifying the legalisation of, well, any scam that you could think of.

You've simply got to have relevant regulation and taxation, because if you don't, to make an analogy, that bed for the unemployed would resemble a flea-infested rag under a highway overpass, then, well, a bed. That, and we would all be sleeping on it, with a few exceptions.

I can't say that applies to whatever instance of libertarianism you subscribe to, since for all I know, you may be supportive of laws prohibiting this or that in the 'free' market.

There's plenty of fat that can be trimmed from any government system, and plenty of ministries that could really use some help in various respects. For one thing, I'm pretty sure that my local high school doesn't need 90 Windows Vista licenses, when they are gutting the tech department to five classes, instead of seven.

[kandrathe]

And I'm in agreement with that. It should be tolerable, but a far cry from what people should be able to do from themselves.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Big Business, what you may end up with can be below 'tolerable'. Lead-based sweetener for candy in Mexico? Microsoft-ish 'captive' audiences? 19th century 70-hour work-week sweatshops? In any of the cases that fall under what we would consider to be harmful or intolerable, people do not act until it hits them where it hurts - close to home.

While I wouldn't want to go on another 'Lol business sucks' tangent here, indulge me in this point - do you think the average person understands exactly what they are signing away when they check off the mandatory 'Yes, I grant you permission to sell my person information to anyone and everyone' on their credit card application? While credit cards in themselves are not yet mandatory, they certainly seem to be heading that way?

Should an effort not be made to protect people from their own ignorance? I believe so, seeing as how to do otherwise would be fairly good grounds for justifying the legalisation of, well, any scam that you could think of.

See, I believe you are close to the answer here. You have the notion that in order to protect people, business needs to be rigorously regulated. You advocate prevention before a wrong can be committed, and I'm advocating punishing those who do wrong things. So, for example, if people want to work 70 hour weeks, who are we to tell them "no"? Isn't that a matter of negotiation between an employee and employer? As long as people have the right to quit an abusive job, I think regulating things like minimum wage or maximum hours are infringing on the rights of employees and employers. So, no. Sweat shops, slavery and indentured service should not be allowed, but if a single young person with no social life wants to work and get paid for 6 x 12 hour days, who are we to step in and limit his weekly wage? If people are stupid enough to allow their information to be sold to list brokers and telemarketers, then they deserve to get calls and junk mail. I'm more fed up with the ones who harvest and spam me illegally.

You've simply got to have relevant regulation and taxation, because if you don't, to make an analogy, that bed for the unemployed would resemble a flea-infested rag under a highway overpass, then, well, a bed. That, and we would all be sleeping on it, with a few exceptions.

Well, hardly. I believe as a corporation, or anyone selling a product for that matter must fairly represent the quality of the product. To do otherwise is fraud. Consumer beware. Now, when it comes to putting rat poison in hot dogs, you have a criminal act. I think there should be incredibly tough criminal laws on endangering peoples health.

I can't say that applies to whatever instance of libertarianism you subscribe to, since for all I know, you may be supportive of laws prohibiting this or that in the 'free' market.

There's plenty of fat that can be trimmed from any government system, and plenty of ministries that could really use some help in various respects. For one thing, I'm pretty sure that my local high school doesn't need 90 Windows Vista licenses, when they are gutting the tech department to five classes, instead of seven.

I would call myself a pragmatic libertarian. Anything done to extreme or excess is bad for someone. So yes, I would say criminalize importing and selling drugs, but not necessarily consuming them. Being a junkie is punishment enough. I would not criminalize the sex trade, rather regulate it, require a license and heavily tax organizations with more than one employee. I believe if governments fairly design a system of punishments and rewards, you will naturally mold behavior toward your desired goal.

But, then in the not so libertarian side, I believe that all young adults upon passing their GED or graduation from high school should serve two years of compulsory service to the nation, before being given full citizenship and being allowed to vote. This serves a few purposes; it gives them some real experience, it allows them to mature a couple of more years before jumping into a career, it provides them with some esteem, and it instills a sense of pride for serving ones nation.

So, if you apply those same notions to business, you punish severely any corporate breech of law, holding all the corporate officers equally culpable, and impose a fine of say not less than 10% of profit for a number of years. You would be surprised how cleanly corporations would run, when the risk of not running clean cuts into the bottom line. So, there is not a need for huge government bureaucracies to run peoples lives or businesses. Only laws and prosecutors, and some basic safety nets to keep businesses and people from hitting the hard ground.

[Swiss Mercenary]

See, I believe you are close to the answer here. You have the notion that in order to protect people, business needs to be rigorously regulated. You advocate prevention before a wrong can be committed, and I'm advocating punishing those who do wrong things. So, for example, if people want to work 70 hour weeks, who are we to tell them "no"?

Because it won't be an isolated incident. If that is permitted, it will quite probably result in everybody else getting the said 70 hour sweatshop work weeks, as long as the consumers don't care about the policies of the company they purchase from.

And that rarely happens.

Isn't that a matter of negotiation between an employee and employer?

They are not on even remotely equal grounds, here, so I don't see it as much of a negotiation.

As long as people have the right to quit an abusive job, I think regulating things like minimum wage or maximum hours are infringing on the rights of employees and employers. So, no. Sweat shops, slavery and indentured service should not be allowed, but if a single young person with no social life wants to work and get paid for 6 x 12 hour days, who are we to step in and limit his weekly wage?

And he should be able to do that.

Howevber, what if the employer takes the next step - require all the rest of his employees to work 6x12, knowing that he can always replace them (People are a renewable resource, right?), if they don't agree. It need not be 6x12 drastic, but it may very well come in small steps.

If people are stupid enough to allow their information to be sold to list brokers and telemarketers, then they deserve to get calls and junk mail.

Stupid enough? Most of the contracts wherein you signed it away prior to most recent times had checking that box as a requirement, if you want that service/credit card/whatnot. Stupid enough? That's similar to saying that the elderly are stupid enough to fall for schemes and scams.

I'll respond to the rest in a bit.