- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
Who determines that a business is "out of hand"?
. The company should be allowed to charge what ever they want. If customers pay it, it's justified.
Liberal vs Conservative, democrat vs republican
- Thread starter GellyBird
- Start date
Who determines that a business is "out of hand"?
. The company should be allowed to charge what ever they want. If customers pay it, it's justified.- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
What the fuck? What country do you live in? I want to move there. The US is nowhere near Lassiez-Faire. NOT CLOSE.
That quote alone makes you lose all credibility.
You had some up until this point. Don't tell me to use facts. Where are yours? And as I said, it's irrelevant. End statistics do not justify a system. The ends do not justify the means. Capitalsim is the most moral economic system that ever existed. When discussing these matters abstractions are necesary.
"
Lassiez-Faire Capitalism(our country's form)"- WTF????
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
This is true of most government intrusion into private matters.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
Nexus,
You will find most capitalists do not rip people off and do not like when that happens.
However, it is not the job of the government to protect us from ourselves. In almost any example you can find, people who were ripped off were ripped off voluntarily. In a case where someone has a legitimate grievance, such as a broken contract, that is where the government can step in to enforce that contract. It is no excuse for someone to go around breaking up companies with only a slight suspicion of any wrong doing and without due process.
Yeah, well I have a phd in in so there. You said you were poor earlier.
If you have a degree and live poor, what does that say for your country? You definitly wouldn't stand for it's policies. That is, unless you were a complete idiot(which, I'm starting to think).
I call bull shit.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
I'm sorry Sir,but if you think we have Lassiez-Faire, you are the idiot . ( See above).
And if you read my posts directly above you would know the answers to your questions. As far as inteligence, I admit I am a little ashamed that I am only a level 2 genius. When I recieved my IQ results, I was a little upset to be among the basement of Mensans.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
If you have a PhD, good for you. It's a lot of work. That's not in my plans.
A degree, of course, does not guarantee economic prosperity. I grew up poor and remain relatively poor, mostly due to my young age. It is not my plan to remain poor. That is why I support capitalism.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2003
- Messages
- 668
hey guys . . . not that i'm one to talk . . . but if everybody starts fighting over who's smarter, better educated, ect, the thread will never go anywhere further.
so far far it has been an even mixture of frustrating and interesting; the simple fact that we keep checking back and feel compelled to post demonstrates that it has peaked our interests. it seems better to keep it topical. so far as the IQ, education argument. if anybody thinks that having a high IQ or a higher level of formal eduaction necessarily makes them right . . . then shame on you. anybody that has really learned anything should know that a piece of paper or a test score don't necessarily make what you think correct. shame shame.
another thing . . . nobody quoted out of my long tirade. . . fell kinda left out
that being said . . . somebody mentioned drug companies being able to charge whatever they want for their products. when corporations hold control over production and distribution of life-saving or life-enhancing products - should they really be allowed to profit from human misery? can a drug comapny morally justify charging outrageous prices for increased profit margins for drugs that people require to stay alive, extend their lives, funtion normally, without pain, ect? conservatives often claim to have the moral upper hand (admittedly, liberals do as well), but can somebody morally justify that to me, in a non-abstract fashion? should they be allowed to charge whatever they want . . . because without certain government control and subsidy millions of people would be in severe pain and close to death because drug companies continually push their pricing to the limit . . . is the almight good of pure capitalism and it's moral implications superior overriding in these cases? should a few needy folks be sacrificed (fuck 'em, we can't see 'em?) . . . just a thought.
a poor black boy, child of a single drug-addicted mother, and a sufferer of abuse, lies desperately ill with a chronic syndrome. the mother, reformed, wishes to do the right thing, but has no welfare or federal program to help her procure the necessary funds to buy the medecine that can ease his pain. as a black female with a poor legal history and no resources she is the absoulte lowest wrung of the socio-economic ladder. this woman herself was born into abuse and poverty and recieved a limited education, as a person of only average intelligence and far less than average means, she had little opportunity for success or even to raise herself form the day to day struggle of brutal poverty. she is denied any insurance, and cannot get adequite government support to medicate her sick child. is this fair, is this right? and if anybody denies that things like this don't go on every day, then well, do yourself a favor and go do a little volunteer social work and take a look at the real world.
it's a pet scenario, and vivid fictionalized examples aren't emperic evidence, which we often call for, but rarely get around these parts. but it does mean something. it seems that conservatives dismiss human frailty, are able to turn a blind eye to suffering. you can hold abstract economic models and far flung sociai theories up to the candle all night, but in the end i will support a political system that protects people not necessarily able to protect themselves. i know i don't like to suffer, or have those close to me suffer, and i also know that i would gladly contribute a large chunk of my wealth to the greater value of my fellow citizens and human beings. if this means greater state regulation, tax, anything, then fine. take my money, i'll make more. and i will sleep better at night knowing that the marginal amount of necessary income the government took went to support human beings in need of help. however, when republicans have their way i am faced with the reality that the majority of my contribution will go to irrelivant defense contracts and non-functional missile defense systems.
since we have some students here i am sure they have all been exposed to good old adam smith, who cites personal interest as an inherent good for society. fair enough. but adam didn't live in the modern world, and his labor economics might have been prophetic, but nothing is all-encompassing. somebody tell me why people with no opportunity and chance should be made to suffer. and better yet, tell me how a liberal, idealistic, and socialist influenced state causes this anymore than whatever it is the conseratives propose. at this point we're just debating the flow of money and the realative fairness of class structure, so somebody tell me how the country could be so wonderful if we did things differently? who has the big answer, since we obviously all seem to know what is wrong . . .
so far far it has been an even mixture of frustrating and interesting; the simple fact that we keep checking back and feel compelled to post demonstrates that it has peaked our interests. it seems better to keep it topical. so far as the IQ, education argument. if anybody thinks that having a high IQ or a higher level of formal eduaction necessarily makes them right . . . then shame on you. anybody that has really learned anything should know that a piece of paper or a test score don't necessarily make what you think correct. shame shame.
another thing . . . nobody quoted out of my long tirade. . . fell kinda left out
that being said . . . somebody mentioned drug companies being able to charge whatever they want for their products. when corporations hold control over production and distribution of life-saving or life-enhancing products - should they really be allowed to profit from human misery? can a drug comapny morally justify charging outrageous prices for increased profit margins for drugs that people require to stay alive, extend their lives, funtion normally, without pain, ect? conservatives often claim to have the moral upper hand (admittedly, liberals do as well), but can somebody morally justify that to me, in a non-abstract fashion? should they be allowed to charge whatever they want . . . because without certain government control and subsidy millions of people would be in severe pain and close to death because drug companies continually push their pricing to the limit . . . is the almight good of pure capitalism and it's moral implications superior overriding in these cases? should a few needy folks be sacrificed (fuck 'em, we can't see 'em?) . . . just a thought.
a poor black boy, child of a single drug-addicted mother, and a sufferer of abuse, lies desperately ill with a chronic syndrome. the mother, reformed, wishes to do the right thing, but has no welfare or federal program to help her procure the necessary funds to buy the medecine that can ease his pain. as a black female with a poor legal history and no resources she is the absoulte lowest wrung of the socio-economic ladder. this woman herself was born into abuse and poverty and recieved a limited education, as a person of only average intelligence and far less than average means, she had little opportunity for success or even to raise herself form the day to day struggle of brutal poverty. she is denied any insurance, and cannot get adequite government support to medicate her sick child. is this fair, is this right? and if anybody denies that things like this don't go on every day, then well, do yourself a favor and go do a little volunteer social work and take a look at the real world.
it's a pet scenario, and vivid fictionalized examples aren't emperic evidence, which we often call for, but rarely get around these parts. but it does mean something. it seems that conservatives dismiss human frailty, are able to turn a blind eye to suffering. you can hold abstract economic models and far flung sociai theories up to the candle all night, but in the end i will support a political system that protects people not necessarily able to protect themselves. i know i don't like to suffer, or have those close to me suffer, and i also know that i would gladly contribute a large chunk of my wealth to the greater value of my fellow citizens and human beings. if this means greater state regulation, tax, anything, then fine. take my money, i'll make more. and i will sleep better at night knowing that the marginal amount of necessary income the government took went to support human beings in need of help. however, when republicans have their way i am faced with the reality that the majority of my contribution will go to irrelivant defense contracts and non-functional missile defense systems.
since we have some students here i am sure they have all been exposed to good old adam smith, who cites personal interest as an inherent good for society. fair enough. but adam didn't live in the modern world, and his labor economics might have been prophetic, but nothing is all-encompassing. somebody tell me why people with no opportunity and chance should be made to suffer. and better yet, tell me how a liberal, idealistic, and socialist influenced state causes this anymore than whatever it is the conseratives propose. at this point we're just debating the flow of money and the realative fairness of class structure, so somebody tell me how the country could be so wonderful if we did things differently? who has the big answer, since we obviously all seem to know what is wrong . . .
If you truly were a level 2 genius, you would have realized that no one on here would believe you, so you wouldn't have wasted your time saying it. You also would have spelled "intelligence" right. Also, any IQ over 140 is considered to be genius. About 1/2% of the population has that IQ level or above. After debating with you, I have enough intelligence to realize you're not in that 1/2%. You also wouldn't be ashamed of it. Once again, I call bullshit.
I was joking when I said I had a phd. Anyone can claim to have anything over the internet, its pointless to claim accomplishments.
I second NeXus's statement.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
I'm NOT a Republican!! DO you read?
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
1. You are correct that saying that anyone can say anything about their personal statistics online and there is no point in doing so.
2. I think it's closer to 2%, but you may be correct. I am sure you know the minimum for Mensa. I am in Mensa. Figure it out.
3. I am a hurried and lazy typist, and I do not pay much attention to my spelling online. Even if I could not spell out all, I could still be a genius. IQ tests don't measure spelling.
4. Actually the fact that I am specific and ashamed should show my honesty. I could say I have an IQ of 180, 190, or 200,but I don't. You also presume a lot about my personality when making your judgements. Maybe most people would not be ashamed of a 148 IQ, but I am not most people. I assume most people would not feel insecure with an 8"+ penis either,but I do. In all honesty I was sad when I learned I was "only" a level 2 or so genius. That is a geniune reaction on my part. The fact that you are on a Penis Enlargement board should make you more likely to understand that.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
Personal Freedom.
Your a Republican in Denial. What state are you from or in? How old are you?
You gotta admit it was pretty funny that when you were advocating how much of a genius you were, that you spelled intelligence wrong.
You know there is spell check. But you already knew that...............all level 2 geniuses know that.
You gotta admit it was pretty funny that when you were advocating how much of a genius you were, that you spelled intelligence wrong.
You know there is spell check. But you already knew that...............all level 2 geniuses know that.
An 180 IQ score would put you around the level of Einstein. Based on my experiences talking with you.
I also looked into it. There is no such thing as a 'level 2 mensan'.
You said you were a genius, which puts you in the top 1/2% of the population. A 148 score would put you even higher than that. To be a mensan, you have to be in the top 2%. Not all mensans are geniuses.
And how could you not be a republican? You stand for everything they do.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
I did not mean level 2 Mensan. I was referring to a scale I found somewhere that had different levels. I believe 136-146 was the first level, 146-158 second ( or maybe it was 130-142, anyway, you get the point).
Haha. It's funny you guys think Libertarians are Republicans. Republicans(especially Neocons) HATE Libertarians. those National Review guys spend half their time writing about how Libertarians are evil and they steal elections from Republicans. If you are a Democrat, you would like to know that Libertarians have probably helped you win many elections. In 2002, the LP ran an attack operation on many incumbent Republicans, including Bob Barr and helped get them out of office. At least 50% of Libertarian policy beliefs are in direct opposition to GOP.
Also Republicans DO NOT support capitalism for the most part. They believe in a mixed economy, as do Democrats. The difference between the two is a matter of degrees. there are a handful of libertarian Republicans,but they represent less than 5% of the Republicans in Congress. The GOP has even attempted to force out it's own members. The GOP is running an attack for 2004 against Ron Paul (R)-TX, because he is a principled libertarian who supports the Constitution and makes speeches on the house floor against waging war without an official declaration, and against the rise of Neocons, among other things.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,542
Originally posted by goodbutnotgreat
another thing . . . nobody quoted out of my long tirade. . . fell kinda left out
Feel better?
I am working on a point by point response. You raised some good concerns. I think for the most part everyone is equally compassionate and genuinely concerned with those who suffer. We just disagree on the proper role of government.
I am more in the vein of former Congressman Davey Crockett. I dont believe in using taxpayer money for charity purposes, especially when overpaid beauracrats waste most of the funds. I support and encourage private charity. I think it is much more efficient and means a lot more. Also, I am an atheist who supports church based charity.
I think an individual cares much more if he is willing to open his own wallet instead of trying to appropriate the wallets of others. In other words, put your money where your mouth is.
