Capitalism

[mpjh]

Yeah, all you religious nuts think negotiation and cooperation with your fellow man is folly. You want some god or "invisible hand" to solve your problems.

Sorry, you are going to have to learn to get along with the rest of us.

That is not what I was talking about. And getting along with others doesn't mean that I have to be robbed by my government so that you can eat. Get off you ass and get a job. I wouldn't want to let you think that you are entitled to anything that you aren't willing to work for. If you are hungry, I have weeds in my back yard that you can pull.

You probably don't know this yet, and it may take you a few years to learn it, but the tactic of assuming something is true and then basing your attack on that assumption, before having any evidence of its veracity, makes you look real ignorant.

But more importantly, you will learn that you need the rest of us to survive. As someone succinctly put it "No man is an island."

When you grow up a bit, maybe you can contribute to an argument like this with a little more intelligence, and a bit of class.

[comic boy]

So now answer my question, if you believe governments shouldn't meddle then at what point in time should they have stopped passing new laws?

[mpjh]

To which post are you referring?

[captain.crazy]

So now answer my question, if you believe governments shouldn't meddle then at what point in time should they have stopped passing new laws?

Passing laws that pertain to the economy vs laws passed that pertain to citizen conduct are completely unrelated. Federal laws need to be extremely minimal, citizenry laws should be vastly managed at the state level.

[captain.crazy]

Yeah, all you religious nuts think negotiation and cooperation with your fellow man is folly. You want some god or "invisible hand" to solve your problems.

Sorry, you are going to have to learn to get along with the rest of us.

That is not what I was talking about. And getting along with others doesn't mean that I have to be robbed by my government so that you can eat. Get off you ass and get a job. I wouldn't want to let you think that you are entitled to anything that you aren't willing to work for. If you are hungry, I have weeds in my back yard that you can pull.

You probably don't know this yet, and it may take you a few years to learn it, but the tactic of assuming something is true and then basing your attack on that assumption, before having any evidence of its veracity, makes you look real ignorant.

But more importantly, you will learn that you need the rest of us to survive. As someone succinctly put it "No man is an island."

When you grow up a bit, maybe you can contribute to an argument like this with a little more intelligence, and a bit of class.

See, that's where you are wrong. I do not need you to survive. You may need others to gather your food for you, fix your car for you, entertain you... but I don't. I can hunt, fish, forage... What you don't know is that I am a survivalist. I don't need you to survive. I don't need a government to take care of me. Ever since 911 I have been teaching myself how to survive. You could do it too, if you would just convince your self that you were man enough to do it.

[mpjh]

Says who, and for what reason?

[captain.crazy]

Says who, and for what reason?

You can't even seem to ask a coherent question... forget it, you do need the government.

[mpjh]

Thank you, once again you demonstrate that you have no argument because you have no evidence, no facts, to support anything you say. You are just babbling.

[comic boy]

So now answer my question, if you believe governments shouldn't meddle then at what point in time should they have stopped passing new laws?

Passing laws that pertain to the economy vs laws passed that pertain to citizen conduct are completely unrelated. Federal laws need to be extremely minimal, citizenry laws should be vastly managed at the state level.

So the South should never have abolished slavery then, it was very popular at State level ( amongst those who got to vote ! )

[captain.crazy]

Thank you, once again you demonstrate that you have no argument because you have no evidence, no facts, to support anything you say. You are just babbling.

you have offered nothing to support your argument. Tell me why it is that you think a socialist and regulated approach is better than a natural and organic approach to economics.

[captain.crazy]

So now answer my question, if you believe governments shouldn't meddle then at what point in time should they have stopped passing new laws?

Passing laws that pertain to the economy vs laws passed that pertain to citizen conduct are completely unrelated. Federal laws need to be extremely minimal, citizenry laws should be vastly managed at the state level.

So the South should never have abolished slavery then, it was very popular at State level ( amongst those who got to vote ! )

Slavery was wrong. Blacks are people too and should have been considered when the declaration of Independence said that all men were created equal and were free to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This was a justified application of the federal governments authority. Notice, though, how it did not grow the government or add to its power?

[mpjh]

I offered a very serious critique of the standard economic model (which even the libertarians accept) and you blew it off because you clearly don't understand any basic economics. You even said mathematical models are useless. You have ignored every serious argument presented. You are an empty suit, my friend.

[muy_thaiguy]

Yeah, all you religious nuts think negotiation and cooperation with your fellow man is folly. You want some god or "invisible hand" to solve your problems.

Sorry, you are going to have to learn to get along with the rest of us.

That is not what I was talking about. And getting along with others doesn't mean that I have to be robbed by my government so that you can eat. Get off you ass and get a job. I wouldn't want to let you think that you are entitled to anything that you aren't willing to work for. If you are hungry, I have weeds in my back yard that you can pull.

You probably don't know this yet, and it may take you a few years to learn it, but the tactic of assuming something is true and then basing your attack on that assumption, before having any evidence of its veracity, makes you look real ignorant.

But more importantly, you will learn that you need the rest of us to survive. As someone succinctly put it "No man is an island."

When you grow up a bit, maybe you can contribute to an argument like this with a little more intelligence, and a bit of class.

Need I dig up a certain old thread mpjh? Besides, all you are doing right here is "You iz teh stupid becuz u beeleive in god!" No actual contribution on your part at all. Besides, this;

You probably don't know this yet, and it may take you a few years to learn it, but the tactic of assuming something is true and then basing your attack on that assumption, before having any evidence of its veracity, makes you look real ignorant.

is quite hypocritical of you, as you have done the exact same, and even posted false information on several occasions.

Editor's Note:This post is not an actual contribution to comic boy's and captain. crazy's discussion.

[mpjh]

So now answer my question, if you believe governments shouldn't meddle then at what point in time should they have stopped passing new laws?

Passing laws that pertain to the economy vs laws passed that pertain to citizen conduct are completely unrelated. Federal laws need to be extremely minimal, citizenry laws should be vastly managed at the state level.

So the South should never have abolished slavery then, it was very popular at State level ( amongst those who got to vote ! )

Slavery was wrong. Blacks are people too and should have been considered when the declaration of Independence said that all men were created equal and were free to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This was a justified application of the federal governments authority. Notice, though, how it did not grow the government or add to its power?

What bunk, it took a civil war that grew the federal government to unprecedented levels.

[captain.crazy]

I offered a very serious critique of the standard economic model (which even the libertarians accept) and you blew it off because you clearly don't understand any basic economics. You even said mathematical models are useless. You have ignored every serious argument presented. You are an empty suit, my friend.

Oh, yeah... I countered that with a reference to Austrian School of Economics. That should have tipped you off to the fact that I know that school of thought, and though you may not understand it, it is a widely accepted theory, and cannot be ruled out because it has been successful when left to work, and only failed when government goons like Bush and Obama have had so little faith in it that they just had to mess it up.

[captain.crazy]

So now answer my question, if you believe governments shouldn't meddle then at what point in time should they have stopped passing new laws?

Passing laws that pertain to the economy vs laws passed that pertain to citizen conduct are completely unrelated. Federal laws need to be extremely minimal, citizenry laws should be vastly managed at the state level.

So the South should never have abolished slavery then, it was very popular at State level ( amongst those who got to vote ! )

Slavery was wrong. Blacks are people too and should have been considered when the declaration of Independence said that all men were created equal and were free to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This was a justified application of the federal governments authority. Notice, though, how it did not grow the government or add to its power?

What bunk, it took a civil war that grew the federal government to unprecedented levels.

Care to expand on that with some documentation, or shall we all just take your word for it?

[mpjh]

You can goggle it.

[mpjh]

Your friends at the Mises Institute are no fans of Lincoln. They hate his expansion of federal power. Look it up.

Further, those weirdo's sponsor things like unregulating the airlines. They believe that the free market should govern air travel. If an airline has an accident the market will react because the families of the dead will sue, thus punishing bad airlines. So we get a safe air transport system because the families of the dead can sue.

[captain.crazy]

Your friends at the Mises Institute are no fans of Lincoln. They hate his expansion of federal power. Look it up.

Further, those weirdo's sponsor things like unregulating the airlines. They believe that the free market should govern air travel. If an airline has an accident the market will react because the families of the dead will sue, thus punishing bad airlines. So we get a safe air transport system because the families of the dead can sue.

I see where you are talking about civil rights legislation. You are correct about that, so I will concede you on that one. I don't think it was an unjustified measure of the federal government to take either. As for airlines, I think free markets for that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Anyway, it would be nicer if you weren't so belligerent. It makes you look like an ass hole, like most of the liberals that I come across, which really gets in the way of any kind of point you might be trying to make. You would change more minds if you weren't such a dick.

I'm off, its late. I will have to ideally kick your butt some more another time.

cio.

[mpjh]

If that makes you feel better, crawl into bed, maybe a few pages of your favorite fairytale will helpl

[comic boy]

So now answer my question, if you believe governments shouldn't meddle then at what point in time should they have stopped passing new laws?

Passing laws that pertain to the economy vs laws passed that pertain to citizen conduct are completely unrelated. Federal laws need to be extremely minimal, citizenry laws should be vastly managed at the state level.

So the South should never have abolished slavery then, it was very popular at State level ( amongst those who got to vote ! )

Slavery was wrong. Blacks are people too and should have been considered when the declaration of Independence said that all men were created equal and were free to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This was a justified application of the federal governments authority. Notice, though, how it did not grow the government or add to its power?

Thats the point, it was obviously the correct solution yet tens of thousands died because they did not agree, who decides what is best for all ? Should the schools in bible belt states be able to teach Creationism as Science and dismiss Evolution as an Atheist inspired fraud, because they would if they had the chance. The United States is one country and the states need to be bound together with Federal administration, tax and other things can be tweaked at local level but central government must drive the economy as a whole.
It is actually laughable that you guys are always complaining about how downtrodden you are and how you have no freedom wheras in fact you are incredibly lucky to have been born where you were, go live in a Sub Saharan village for a year and then you might get some perspective.

[b.k. barunt]

I disagree that ones origins can really be a factor when determining the ability of one to find success in a capitalist society.

Hell i leave for a couple hours and there's 5 fooking pages. Usually i would leave off posting, since i'm not going to read all that, but this, this has to be one of the most glibly ignorant statements i've heard on the forum. Just thought i'd let you know.


Honibaz

[kiddicus maximus]

I disagree that ones origins can really be a factor when determining the ability of one to find success in a capitalist society.

Hell i leave for a couple hours and there's 5 fooking pages. Usually i would leave off posting, since i'm not going to read all that, but this, this has to be one of the most glibly ignorant statements i've heard on the forum. Just thought i'd let you know.


Honibaz

mod edit you calling something ignorant is as contradictory as "never say never"

Just because you can't afford anything better than a 1983 Chevy Nova for a house, don't take it out on the privileged. Its not my fault you're a person with no money.

[comic boy]

I offered a very serious critique of the standard economic model (which even the libertarians accept) and you blew it off because you clearly don't understand any basic economics. You even said mathematical models are useless. You have ignored every serious argument presented. You are an empty suit, my friend.

Oh, yeah... I countered that with a reference to Austrian School of Economics. That should have tipped you off to the fact that I know that school of thought, and though you may not understand it, it is a widely accepted theory, and cannot be ruled out because it has been successful when left to work, and only failed when government goons like Bush and Obama have had so little faith in it that they just had to mess it up.

The mind boggles as to how you think Obama has has time to muck up anything yet, you might wait and see how things turn out before making such claims or are you clairvoyant perhaps ?
Actually the Austrian schools ideas are widely known in theory but far from accepted, I would be interested in seeing some examples from you as to where it has been put into practice on a large scale and found to work. The problem with it is that it allows ( by lack of regulation ) companies to grow bigger and stronger with no provision to limit excess , its ironic that you champion this yet adopt an entirely contrary view when it comes to Government ( who at the very least are reigned in by the democratic process ). Big Business ( responsible only to share holders) should be unrestrained and do entirely as it wishes whilst Government ( responsible to all ) should turn a blind eye regardless of the consequencies. On the other hand you maintain that Government has no right to interfere with its citizens in anything but the slightest way yet think it entirely appropriate that Big Business can act in a manner that may have huge implications and consequencies for the public at large....doesn't add up !

[jonka]

Anybody with average intelligence and average hearing can be a great musician if they spend 1,000 hours or more practicing.

Success is mainly a matter of effort and as a general rule if you have average potential in a field and you spend 1,000 hours doing it you will be very good. Most people never approach their true potential in anything.

I refute that statement, people have natural talents based on how their brain is structured, as well as environmental pressures. They're are several well known types that are often found together, giving people multiple talents, but not all brain types. The fact of the matter is, you are most suited for what your parents are best at. Its all organic chemistry.

As for the ideological debate going on here, its completely irreverent, almost nothing anybody registered to this game is qualified to talk about actually would be. Capitalism and Communism both have been proven to work, but they both have their flaws. What you guys are arguing about is just the top, what it really comes down to is mathematical efficiency, as well as happiness(how do you measure happiness, freedom does not generate happiness(look at peoples support for totalitarian leaders), there is really no way).

The way I view it, it comes down to this. Two cars are speeding down a hill, would you rather be in the car driven by economists, or supply and demand?

Anyways in increasingly socialized countries you have less and less need for fluff jobs- Investors, bankers, ceo's, stock traders, ect. and you could get them real jobs that actually produce something, you could directly benefit from those things.