Teabaggers are Destroying My Home State [Archive]

jabarto

02-11-2010, 00:21

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

COLORADO SPRINGS — This tax-averse city is about to learn what it looks and feels like when budget cuts slash services most Americans consider part of the urban fabric.

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.

The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.

Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.

Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.

City recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools, and a handful of museums will close for good March 31 unless they find private funding to stay open. Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends. The city won't pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need.

"I guess we're going to find out what the tolerance level is for people," said businessman Chuck Fowler, who is helping lead a private task force brainstorming for city budget fixes. "It's a new day."

...

Voters in November said an emphatic no to a tripling of property tax that would have restored $27.6 million to the city's $212 million general fund budget. Fowler and many other residents say voters don't trust city government to wisely spend a general tax increase and don't believe the current cuts are the only way to balance a budget.

But the 2010 spending choices are complete, and local residents and businesses are preparing for a slew of changes:

• The steep parks and recreation cuts mean a radical reshifting of resources from more than 100 neighborhood parks to a few popular regional parks. The city cut watering drastically in 2009 but "got lucky" with weekly summer rains, said parks maintenance manager Kurt Schroeder.

With even more watering cuts, "if we repeat the weather of 2008, we're at risk of losing every bit of turf we have in our neighborhood parks," Schroeder said. Six city greenhouses are shut down. The city spent $19.6 million on parks in 2007; this year it will spend $3.1 million.

"If a playground burns down, I can't replace it," Schroeder said. Park fans' only hope is the possibility of a new ballot tax pledged to recreation spending that might win over skeptical voters.

• Community center and pool closures have parents worried about day-care costs, idle teenagers and shut-in grandparents with nowhere to go.

Hillside Community Center, on the southeastern edge of downtown Colorado Springs in a low- to moderate-income neighborhood, is scrambling to find private partners to stay open. Moms such as Kirsten Williams doubt they can replace Hillside's dedicated staff and preschool rates of $200 for six-week sessions.

"It's affordable, the program is phenomenal, and the staff all grew up here," Williams said. "You can't re-create that kind of magic."

Shutting down youth services is shortsighted, she argues. "You're going to pay now, or you're going to pay later. There's trouble if kids don't have things to do."

• Though officials and citizens put public safety above all in the budget, police and firefighting still lost more than $5.5 million this year. Positions that will go empty range from a domestic violence specialist to a deputy chief to juvenile offender officers. Fire squad 108 loses three firefighters. Putting the helicopters up for sale and eliminating the officers and a mechanic banked $877,000.

• Tourism outlets have attacked budget choices that hit them precisely as they're struggling to draw choosy visitors to the West.

The city cut three economic-development positions, land-use planning, long-range strategic planning and zoning and neighborhood inspectors. It also repossessed a large portion of a dedicated lodgers and car rental tax rather than transfer it to the visitors' bureau.

"It's going to hurt. If they don't at least market Colorado Springs, it doesn't get the people here," said Nancy Stovall, owner of Pine Creek Art Gallery on the tourism strip of Old Colorado City. Other states, such as New Mexico and Wyoming, will continue to market, and tourism losses will further erode city sales-tax revenue, merchants say.

• Turning out the lights, literally, is one of the high-profile trims aggravating some residents. The city-run Colorado Springs Utilities will shut down 8,000 to 10,000 of more than 24,000 streetlights, to save $1.2 million in energy and bulb replacement.

Hansen, the criminal-justice student, grows especially exasperated when recalling a scary incident a few years ago as she waited for a bus. She said a carload of drunken men approached her until the police helicopter that had been trailing them turned a spotlight on the men and chased them off. Now the helicopter is gone, and the streetlight she was waiting under is threatened as well.

"I don't know a person in this city who doesn't think that's just the stupidest thing on the planet," Hansen said. "Colorado Springs leaders put patches on problems and hope that will handle it."

Employee pay criticized

Community business leaders have jumped into the budget debate, some questioning city spending on what they see as "Ferrari"-level benefits for employees and high salaries in middle management. Broadmoor luxury resort chief executive Steve Bartolin wrote an open letter asking why the city spends $89,000 per employee, when his enterprise has a similar number of workers and spends only $24,000 on each.

Businessman Fowler, saying he is now speaking for the task force Bartolin supports, said the city should study the Broadmoor's use of seasonal employees and realistic manager pay.

"I don't know if people are convinced that the water needed to be turned off in the parks, or the trash cans need to come out, or the lights need to go off," Fowler said. "I think we'll have a big turnover in City Council a year from April. Until we get a new group in there, people aren't really going to believe much of anything."

Mayor and council are part-time jobs in Colorado Springs, points out Mayor Rivera, that pay $6,250 a year ($250 extra for the mayor). "We have jobs, we pay taxes, we use services, just like they do," Rivera said, acknowledging there is a "level of distrust" of public officials at many levels.

Rivera said he welcomes help from Bartolin, the private task force and any other source volunteering to rethink government. He is slightly encouraged, for now, that his monthly sales-tax reports are just ahead of budget predictions.

Officials across the city know their phone lines will light up as parks go brown, trash gathers in the weeds, and streets and alleys go dark.

"There's a lot of anger, a lot of frustration about how governments spend their money," Rivera said. "It's not unique to Colorado Springs."

This topic is a heated one on the forums I frequent, and since it's closer to home than most issues, I thought I'd follow it. As it turns out, Colorado Springs has a population of 380,000. The budget shortfall there is $27,600,000. That means that the city is actually cutting vital services to avoid a tax hike of a whopping $70 per person per year.

Beyond the surface insanity of this situation, I think it's indiciative of a greater problem in America; the expectation of a first world society without the expecatation of paying for it. Hopefully, the people who incessantly bleat about their taxes will take notice of this and realize just how cognitively dissonant they've been. Of course, it's far more likely that they'll find some other way to blame anyone but themselves.

Beskar

02-11-2010, 00:34

Why was I thinking of something completely different when I was reading the subject title?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKtP9-9W7yg

Vuk

02-11-2010, 00:58

Oh Noezez!! Dem Eevil TeebagErz Iz desTroIng Miez Statez!
lmao, where to start...

the expectation of a first world society without the expecatation of paying for it.
Or maybe we want to pay for what we want, and not have the government 'buy' it for us and everyone else at a much greater cost and loss to freedom. Did you ever think that? If I want something, I will pay for it. I don't need the government to tell me what I do and don't need, and then end up having to pay for everyone else too.
(Not to mention the outrageous amounts that are lost due to corruption)

HoreTore

02-11-2010, 01:01

Greatest country in the world my behind.

People will have to realize that if they want a nice community to live in, it will cost them in taxes.

Vuk

02-11-2010, 01:03

Greatest country in the world my behind.

People will have to realize that if they want a nice community to live in, it will cost them in taxes.
Why should it cost them in taxes beyond basic policing, street repair, etc, etc? Who is the government to say what I want? I happen to live very frugally and not spend my money on things I don't need. I give up TV, good food, etc so that I can buy things I care about...like cars :beam:. Those are my priorities. It should be my choice what I spend my money on, not that of the government.

Lemur

02-11-2010, 01:03

If I want something, I will pay for it. I don't need the government to tell me what I do and don't need, and then end up having to pay for everyone else too.
Libertarianism: The gnawing fear that someone, somehwere is recieving benefits.

HoreTore

02-11-2010, 01:07

Libertarianism: The gnawing fear that someone, somehwere is recieving benefits.

Indeed!

Vuk, look at what their cutting. Street repairs, park watering, etc. That stuff costs money, and that means taxes. Which these idiots are unwilling to pay. Ah well, screw them, they'll pay more when their car wrecks its suspencion from hitting a hole in the road.

Vuk

02-11-2010, 01:18

Libertarianism: The gnawing fear that someone, somehwere is recieving benefits.
No, not at all. I do not fear the current political situation, I am disgusted by it. Do you deny that it is exploitive and inefficient Lemur?
Tell you what Lemur, you don't be a Libertarian now and fear me. Just give me all your money and I will spend it toward your best benefit. :beam: Would be afraid to do that? :P Kind of obvious, huh?

Indeed!

Vuk, look at what their cutting. Street repairs, park watering, etc. That stuff costs money, and that means taxes. Which these idiots are unwilling to pay. Ah well, screw them, they'll pay more when their car wrecks its suspencion from hitting a hole in the road.

They should not be cancelling that stuff. They should be cancelling EVERYTHING except the bare minimum to keep their state running though (road repair, etc) at least until they work themselves out of a rut. We would not be in this situation now if tax money was only going toward basic neccesities such as road repair. In fact, people would have much more money (much no doubt going back into the economy in the form of investment) and a much higher standard of living.

EDIT: In fact, do you know what would keep situations like this from happening? If all higher up government officials received cuts to their salary proportional to increasing debt. Bet your bottom they would keep the state out of debt then. :P

Lemur

02-11-2010, 02:05

Tell you what Lemur, you don't be a Libertarian now and fear me. Just give me all your money and I will spend it toward your best benefit. :beam: Would be afraid to do that? :P Kind of obvious, huh?
I'll do it, so long as you agree to go spend the rest of your life in a real libertarian paradise: Somalia. You'll love it, no taxes to pay, no government to interfere, just the strong doing what they can while the weak endure what they must. And nobody is compelled to help anybody, ever.

So, I give you all of my money, and you go spend the rest of your natural life in a lawless hellhole. Deal?

Fixiwee

02-11-2010, 02:23

spmetla

02-11-2010, 02:26

Libertarians remind of the scene in Life of Brian when they're complaining about the Roman Empire. Government can and will provide a lot of services but it requires taxes, life is better with the Police, Fire Department, nice roads, clean water and so on. Libertarians are just anarchists in denial.

All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 02:45

Strike For The South

02-11-2010, 02:49

I doubt all these 380,000 people are taxpayers. person does not equal taxpayer

Lemur

02-11-2010, 02:52

Libertarians remind of the scene in Life of Brian when they're complaining about the Roman Empire.
Since we can now abuse direct-linked videos, and since there can never be too much Life of Brian:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 02:52

thank you for reinforcing my point heretic protestant.

:clown:

Beskar

02-11-2010, 03:00

Since we can now abuse direct-linked videos, and since there can never be too much Life of Brian:

This is why I always argue we should be efficient with our taxes and well-fund our projects, for good schools, healthcare, standard of living, etc. :yes:

I don't believe in any set amount, or "reducing taxes just for the sake of reducing taxes" as that never does anyone any good. I believe in a efficient and healthly system which can do and provide the standards of living we as a whole want and require.

Strike For The South

02-11-2010, 03:00

thank you for reinforcing my point heretic protestant.

:clown:

tl;dr

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 03:08

Removed

Strike For The South

02-11-2010, 03:25

Removed

Oh my lanta

It was a joke man, You think I've held in all this catholic hate to simply unleash it on one of the millions of religous affilation polls we've had?

I figured the hyperbole would be enough...I DONT HATE CATHOLICS

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 03:31

yep i know now...............

trust me some of it was believable.

ive heard similar sentiments.

*sigh* i think im going to go edit my posts.

Crazed Rabbit

02-11-2010, 04:25

So the entire city of Colorado Springs is made up of tea party members?
:rolleyes:

Now, what's the real problem here? Cutting services, or is it, like in Washington State, the fact that for the past half dozen years government spending has increased dramatically year after year? Maybe if the government could show a little restraint when the money was flowing they wouldn't be in this mess.

And speaking of Colorado; I was distraught when I learned the democrats gained power and promptly set about enacting a bunch of anti-business laws. Another state fallen to those )@$*_)@$*_)@*%P@)(*$)(@*_$@*%&@($*!(*%&##)(*%_)#*%_#(%&#*%#)(%** Cali expatriates.

EDIT: Oh yeah, if you think Libertarians don't want any government services like roads and fire departments, you don't know what libertarianism is.

CR

Vuk

02-11-2010, 04:33

I'll do it, so long as you agree to go spend the rest of your life in a real libertarian paradise: Somalia. You'll love it, no taxes to pay, no government to interfere, just the strong doing what they can while the weak endure what they must. And nobody is compelled to help anybody, ever.

So, I give you all of my money, and you go spend the rest of your natural life in a lawless hellhole. Deal?

umm...I have said many times that the number 1 duty of the government, and the one that should be pursued above all others is the protection of its citizens. In fact, unless I am mistaken, you argued with me about that on one of the threads about police.
The situation in Somalia is simply a smaller scale, higher intensity version of what we have here. The only difference is that a bunch of small groups make their own laws instead of an over-arching government. When the intensity of the exploitation of the large government grows till it eventually matches places like Somalia though, it will be much worse. Luckily I seriously do not think that will happen in the United States for a variety of reasons, but I think that if we are not careful we can end up being the next Nazi Germany (Yay, there is a Godwin for you Lemur!) or Soviet Union. If you take all the power away from the people and give it to the government, it is only a matter of time before that government's corruption grows so great that there will be nothing that can be done about it, and then we will be a danger to the rest of the world.
Even if the people of America are resilient enough to never let things get that far, the standard of living will only drop, people will be working much harder, be much more unhappy, and will be generally useless to everyone (including, and most importantly themselves) save the government they serve. When you start giving the government too much power it turns into a corporation, and the citizens of the country become the employees. Unlike with a private corporation though, there is no government to protect their rights, because now it is in the government's best interests to exploit them themselves.
You cannot fight against human nature, you have to work with it. Give you power and money to someone else, and they will exploit you. People suck, and they are greedy. It is just a fact of life, and all the warm, fuzzy thinking in the world will not stop it. There will always be evil, ambitious, manipulative people, and when you have seats of great authority, they will do what they can to get into them, and then to expand their power.
You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but it is history. (coincidently, we are talking on a thread started by a liberal who is scared crapless about not paying more taxes as a result of a large conservative conspiracy. :P I am still trying to figure that one out. :P) I have nothing against government as long as it is kept as a small but effective servant of the people. Government is what protects us against the worst of human nature, but if we are not careful, it can bring the worst of human nature out in people.

Beskar

02-11-2010, 04:37

Give you power and money to someone else, and they will exploit you. People suck, and they are greedy. It is just a fact of life, and all the warm, fuzzy thinking in the world will not stop it.

That would only occur if you gave your money to a ferengi. If you gave me your money on the otherhand, I wouldn't exploit you at all as that is who I am.

As for your Godwinism, etcs, thank Bush and the Republicans for doing illegal wiretapping, passing patriot act, etc.

Vuk

02-11-2010, 04:42

That would only occur if you gave your money to a ferengi. If you gave me your money on the otherhand, I wouldn't exploit you at all as that is who I am.

As for your Godwinism, etcs, thank Bush and the Republicans for doing illegal wiretapping, passing patriot act, etc.

lol, I am not a Republican, I am a Conservative. Half the Republican politicians out there deserve to be horse-whipped. I do note however that in a Bipartisan way you did not mention Obama taking people's personal information from off Facebook. :P
But sure, I will give you that you are an honest person who would not exploit me and create a position for you to fill as the one who handles the money. Now after you retire and people realize that there is such a position out there, who do you think it will attract? :P

miotas

02-11-2010, 04:50

Bah! Who needs communist things like the police and fire services. And roads, puh-lease, the US is a capitalist country isn't it? If people want roads they should make them themselves!

Lemur

02-11-2010, 05:25

umm...I have said many times that the number 1 duty of the government, and the one that should be pursued above all others is the protection of its citizens. In fact, unless I am mistaken, you argued with me about that on one of the threads about police.
Don't remember us tangling over it, but maybe it happened. The oddball thing about protecting citizens is that the government cannot do so. There will always be risks, dangers, screwballs, etc. I'd certainly phrase it differently, something along the lines of the government fostering an environment in which random violence is frowned upon by people of sense and fashion. In other words, those who rape, kill or assault will never be invited to crumpets and tea.

The situation in Somalia is simply a smaller scale, higher intensity version of what we have here. [... gratuitous Godwin skipped over ...] You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but it is history. (coincidently, we are talking on a thread started by a liberal who is scared crapless about not paying more taxes as a result of a large conservative conspiracy. :P I am still trying to figure that one out. :P) I have nothing against government as long as it is kept as a small but effective servant of the people. Government is what protects us against the worst of human nature, but if we are not careful, it can bring the worst of human nature out in people.
A very strange rant there. On the one hand, you seem to acknowledge the Hobbesian premise that a leviathan is necessary to protect men from men. Wonderful, we have some common ground. But then you're off about how excessive social services are creating another third reich, a rant you could have stolen verbatim from Beck, if only there were more Chavez references.

That's where I part company with you self-described libertarians. Your principles are fine, but your application in the real world is just paranoid hysteria, and (let's be honest) the angry, nauseous suspicion that someone, somewhere might be receiving benefits.

Maggie Thatcher presided over a national health care system and did nothing to dismantle it. By your "conservative" lights, she's another Stalin/Hitler/Obama. So please save us from the Socialism of Thatcher.

P.S.: Do you grin a little when you use the word "conservative"? 'Cause you should.

P.P.S.: The OP's complaint is not hard to comprehend if you aren't deafened and blinded by ideology. He'd like to pay $70 a year to get basic services back and not have a crippled local government. If that strikes you as a risible, ridiculous, nonsensical argument, the problem lies with your cognitive ability, not the poster's prose. There's plenty to argue in his case, as CR has already done and done well.

Beskar

02-11-2010, 05:29

Maggie Thatcher presided over a national health care system and did nothing to dismantle it. By your "conservative" lights, she's another Stalin/Hitler/Obama. So please save us from the Socialism of Thatcher.

:laugh4: I seem to remember that from a certain private message where you told me Thatcher would be classified as far-left in US Politics.

jabarto

02-11-2010, 05:29

So the entire city of Colorado Springs is made up of tea party members?
:rolleyes:

...yes? Colorado Springs is one of the most intense hotbeds of religious right ideology in the entire state.

Now, what's the real problem here? Cutting services, or is it, like in Washington State, the fact that for the past half dozen years government spending has increased dramatically year after year? Maybe if the government could show a little restraint when the money was flowing they wouldn't be in this mess.

The real problem is that these people are paying a pittance in property tax and refuse to accept even a modest tax hike to make up the shortfall.

EDIT: Oh yeah, if you think Libertarians don't want any government services like roads and fire departments, you don't know what libertarianism is.

I don't.

Aemilius Paulus

02-11-2010, 05:33

Beyond the surface insanity of this situation, I think it's indiciative of a greater problem in America; the expectation of a first world society without the expecatation of paying for it. Hopefully, the people who incessantly bleat about their taxes will take notice of this and realize just how cognitively dissonant they've been. Of course, it's far more likely that they'll find some other way to blame anyone but themselves.

Libertarianism: The gnawing fear that someone, somehwere is recieving benefits.
Yep, two best post of the month here :yes:

And roads, puh-lease, the US is a capitalist country isn't it? If people want roads they should make them themselves!
Yeah, but what is yet scarier is that almost all real libertarians and many Republicans beleive that :skull: Of course, the private enterprise can provide those roads and then flay people, instead of merely shearing the wool, as we say in Russia. Oh and then there will be competition. But wait, competition for roads? What, parallel roads then? Two choices: horrific perfect monopoly and horrific perfect inefficiency. Oh, but in both cases you will lose money.

Sure, the gov't is inefficient - such is the nature of non-private enterprise. But private enterprise squeezes every penny they can get without creating a PR disaster - something I too would do if I was a CEO. Real politics is knowing where to strike the balance, and not go after the gov't with a frothing mouth. But, of course, going madly after the corporatism is equally unwise - no one wants to be a Michael Moore, right?

OK, so much for a bunch of old clichés from me :shame:

jabarto

02-11-2010, 05:45

I think it's really funny how everyone is heaping on the criticisms of liberatriansim because I almost did it, too. I was this close to saying "libertarians" instead of "teabaggers".

Yep, two best post of the month here :yes:

Yes, Lemur's description of the ideology is one of the most apt I've ever seen.

Sure, the gov't is inefficient - such is the nature of non-private enterprise. But private enterprise squeezes every penny they can get without creating a PR disaster - something I too would do if I was a CEO.

THis is pretty much it right here. I'm a democratic socilalist, and even I distrust the govenment. But I distrust privatization even more, as when you privatize something, you, by definition, introduce a profit motive to the equation. I'll never get why Americans will put up with any amount of corporate bureaucracy but god forbid there's a line at the post office or it's "GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO NUTTIN'" for the next fortnight.

Lemur

02-11-2010, 05:57

Sure, the gov't is inefficient - such is the nature of non-private enterprise. But private enterprise squeezes every penny they can get without creating a PR disaster - something I too would do if I was a CEO. Real politics is knowing where to strike the balance, and not go after the gov't with a frothing mouth. But, of course, going madly after the corporatism is equally unwise - no one wants to be a Michael Moore, right?

OK, so much for a bunch of old clichés from me.
No, not clichés, sorry. I think that's one of the better summations of good, solid, common sense that I've seen in a while. Unchecked government = bad, but unchecked corporatism = bad too. So everybody should chill and stop being so extreme. But you phrased it better.

Aemilius Paulus

02-11-2010, 06:10

In Russia pushing the 'golden middle' is deathly cliché. I guess the Eastern influence :shrug:

miotas

02-11-2010, 07:05

Yeah, but what is yet scarier is that almost all real libertarians and many Republicans beleive that :skull:

Wha... but... huh... seriously? I was trying to do a reductio ad absurdum. The police and fire examples are pretty ridiculous by themselves, but I do know that there are a few people who would agree with it, so I threw in the roads so as to be insanely absurd.

Sure, the gov't is inefficient - such is the nature of non-private enterprise. But private enterprise squeezes every penny they can get without creating a PR disaster - something I too would do if I was a CEO. Real politics is knowing where to strike the balance, and not go after the gov't with a frothing mouth. But, of course, going madly after the corporatism is equally unwise - no one wants to be a Michael Moore, right?

OK, so much for a bunch of old clichés from me :shame:

:shrug: middle is the best is somewhat cliché, but you phased it quite well, so I'll let you off :wink:

Subotan

02-11-2010, 10:11

This topic is a heated one on the forums I frequent, and since it's closer to home than most issues, I thought I'd follow it. As it turns out, Colorado Springs has a population of 380,000. The budget shortfall there is $27,600,000. That means that the city is actually cutting vital services to avoid a tax hike of a whopping $70 per person per year.

Beyond the surface insanity of this situation, I think it's indiciative of a greater problem in America; the expectation of a first world society without the expecatation of paying for it. Hopefully, the people who incessantly bleat about their taxes will take notice of this and realize just how cognitively dissonant they've been. Of course, it's far more likely that they'll find some other way to blame anyone but themselves.
YESSSSSS.

Oh Noezez!! Dem Eevil TeebagErz Iz desTroIng Miez Statez!
lmao, where to start...

Or maybe we want to pay for what we want, and not have the government 'buy' it for us and everyone else at a much greater cost and loss to freedom. Did you ever think that? If I want something, I will pay for it. I don't need the government to tell me what I do and don't need, and then end up having to pay for everyone else too.
(Not to mention the outrageous amounts that are lost due to corruption)
But the free market under-supplies public goods such as street lights, museums, flowers, paving stones, buses etc. as there isn't as much profit in them. But, they are still very important to wellbeing and quality of life of citizens. I'd rather pay an extra 70 dollars in tax and have paved roads, flowers etc. than have a little more money in my wallet to spend on some mass-marketed consumerist junk.

And speaking of Colorado; I was distraught when I learned the democrats gained power and promptly set about enacting a bunch of anti-business laws. Another state fallen to those )@$*_)@$*_)@*%P@)(*$)(@*_$@*%&@($*!(*%&##)(*%_)#*%_#(%&#*%#)(%** Cali expatriates.

There a lot of Texan expats as well, who are probably responsible for the current wave of cuts in Colorado Springs.

Furunculus

02-11-2010, 10:26

Why was I thinking of something completely different when I was reading the subject title?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKtP9-9W7yg
haha, me too! :D

HoreTore

02-11-2010, 10:32

Really. 70$ per person. It would end up being a few people paying most of that. Hey whats our new debt ceiling now? 14.3 trillion dollars. But Hey thats all right if we only pay 47666.66 each. Thats every single persona, illegal, poor, criminal, rich, elite. Thats true equality. And we have to because we neeeeeeeeeed our healthcare we neeeeeed our social security, we neeeeeeed more "stuff". So everyone fork it up or we will all be racist murderers.

I never hear conservatives complaining about rising debt when there's a country to invade.

As Tony Benn says in Sicko; "if you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people".

Subotan

02-11-2010, 11:45

Tony Benn is awesome. I'd never dream of having him run the country, but he's awesome.

Husar

02-11-2010, 12:33

Yeah, but what is yet scarier is that almost all real libertarians and many Republicans beleive that :skull: Of course, the private enterprise can provide those roads and then flay people, instead of merely shearing the wool, as we say in Russia. Oh and then there will be competition. But wait, competition for roads? What, parallel roads then? Two choices: horrific perfect monopoly and horrific perfect inefficiency. Oh, but in both cases you will lose money.

Don't forget tolls for using these roads, and everybody who uses the roads has to pay them regardless of whether they damage the road a lot or just a tiny little bit. I wouldn't trust those commie corporations and their road welfare system either.

Fixiwee

02-11-2010, 13:08

I'm so glad that socialism is consense in Europe.

Louis VI the Fat

02-11-2010, 13:49

Hehe. :sneaky:

I just want to reiterate a key point about Colorado Springs City Councilman Sean Paige's recent claim (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-paige/sirotas-slurs-offer-skewe_b_452666.html) that Colorado Springs' economy is "a magnet for transplants" specifically because the city is supposedly "putting America's limited government ideals into practice." I did a little more digging on whether this was true, and found this little fact from the Colorado Springs Business Journal (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4190/is_20070824/ai_n19489377/):

One of every three residents of the Pikes Peak Region depends directly or indirectly upon the military. According to the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, the total economic impact of the military in Colorado Springs is $4.58 billion. This represents more than one third of the total regional economy.
That's right, one of every three people living in the Colorado Springs area "depends directly or indirectly upon the military" - ie. upon Huge Government. Add in city, county and state workers, and you are probably approaching half of the entire Colorado Springs economy relying on the government. In that sense, Colorado Springs is an American version of almost pure Marxism: a city that is as close as any major city in the United States to being a full-fledged ward of the state (only one that is now planning to stop its road/park maintenance, cut police/firefighting forces, etc.).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/colorado-springs-limited_b_455606.html

Ironside

02-11-2010, 14:46

To be honest, I think this is about as good as you can get for a libertarian budget btw:
http://www.springsgov.com/units/budget/2010/01-GFSummary-ExpenditureOverviewP.pdf.
54.6% of the budget on Police and Fire department.

Meneldil

02-11-2010, 15:13

Oh Noezez!! Dem Eevil TeebagErz Iz desTroIng Miez Statez!
lmao, where to start...

Or maybe we want to pay for what we want, and not have the government 'buy' it for us and everyone else at a much greater cost and loss to freedom. Did you ever think that? If I want something, I will pay for it. I don't need the government to tell me what I do and don't need, and then end up having to pay for everyone else too.
(Not to mention the outrageous amounts that are lost due to corruption)

Good luck building your own road and maintening your own school :thumbsup:

This is precisely why the US are going down the road. Hopefully at some point the moderate states will let nutjob america secede before it destroys the whole house. Or maybe someone could build a wall around fly-over America and let them go back to the stone age?

Subotan

02-11-2010, 15:14

Obviously those guys never played Sim City

Husar

02-11-2010, 15:54

I'm so glad that socialism is consense in Europe.

It's more like market socialism, or the golden middle or whatever you want to call the cliche.
It's not always golden of course but that is the nature of politics, show me a single country that is perfect for everybody, whether it's capitalist or socialist.
In a capitalist society the weak will suffer and complain, in anything else the strong will complain that they have to pay so that the week aren't suffering, you just can't make everybody happy. :shrug:

Lemur

02-11-2010, 16:02

You can't make this stuff up: the latest Fox News poll (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/think-tea-party-movement/).

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/foxpoll021010.jpg

Strike For The South

02-11-2010, 16:02

Hehe. :sneaky:

Yea, that's the funniest part of this whole thing. Colorado Springs exsists because of the teet of federal goverment. I know I said it would be more than 70$ (which it will be) but some of these things are necesities and people need to realize that.

Springs is a big city and to leave some of the PD and FD understaffed and funded is suicide.

3-1 odds In the next 4 years something bad happens and these idots will clammor the government did nothing to protect them

Sheep.

There a lot of Texan expats as well
Really?

CountArach

02-11-2010, 16:05

You can't make this stuff up: the latest Fox News poll (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/think-tea-party-movement/).

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/foxpoll021010.jpg
I love internet polls :laugh4: I also love that they talk about "exposing the socialist agenda" without providing the basis for that claim. Fox can be so frustratingly amusing at times.

Aemilius Paulus

02-11-2010, 17:52

I am pretty sure some liberal techie made a bot to stuff the poll. Obviously such results are not consistent with the Fox News audience, even if you consider the few occasional liberals who read it for teh lulz or just to get angry (I know I do).

Plus, look at the poll now:
https://img521.imageshack.us/img521/2603/foxnews.png

OK, this is bull:daisy:. The Devil take me if the poll is not being stuffed. I renewed the poll 5 times in a matter of 20 seconds and the number of voters is increasing by 20 or so at every refresh. The only percentage that is growing is of the choice that states 'teabaggers are racist nutjobs'. I then waited for a minute and refreshed it again, only to see the number of voters jump by 200. The winning choice grew from 75% to 76%...

Not only Fox knows nothing about hacking '4 chan report they did', but they also do not know how to protect themselves from it... God, at least the Nazis were smart sons of :daisy:. Fox is both crazy and too stupid to even survive on the Net (to say nothing of their intentional political/logical stupidity)...

Update #3: the number of voters is still rising at a regular +200 every minute...

I bet no one is surprised the poll is stuffed, right?

Yes, the messy MS Paint comment was intentionally crude and amateurishly-drawn, before someone bashes me for not being able to use Gimp, which I did not use in this case :tongue:

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 18:36

^ i find that poll a little hard to believe. pretty sure thats a hack. shouldnt be jumping like that.

Honestly i think that Fox news is one of the greatest business decisions of all time. Liberal networks are a dime a dozen, but a conservative network........ your almost guaranteed viewers. And then add in hot blondes..... Murdoch is a genius.

Aemilius Paulus

02-11-2010, 19:04

^ i find that poll a little hard to believe. pretty sure thats a hack. shouldnt be jumping like that.
Ouch... You, like, totally did not read my post. That is what I was jumping about - how patently blatant it was that the poll was stuffed, and still in the process of being stuffed.

Honestly i think that Fox news is one of the greatest business decisions of all time. Liberal networks are a dime a dozen, but a conservative network........ your almost guaranteed viewers. And then add in hot blondes..... Murdoch is a genius.
I know, damn right you are that Murdoch is a bleeping genius. I envy him too. In fact, I was thinking of becoming a conservative media personality. With my wits and logic of a 16-year old, I would make the rest look like, as Limbaugh remarked, 'total retards'... I would crush the liberals as well, who have grown soft from debating with such pathetic people like Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin. I will make the great Colbert stump, by God!

But really, I was seriosu about the first part. I did consider masquerading as a conservative just for the money

Imagine, even if I was not a relatively smart person, I could still rise pretty high - look at Palin! Oh God, if the conservatives assassinate her, that will be their best decision of the century. Palin will shut her mouth (I swear, her gaffes and idiocy are growing more embarrassing every day) and she will receive an insta +100% approval rating that usually comes with the assassinations of political figures. Add her folksy and populist appeal, and I reckon she will outshine Kennedy. Conservatives will talk for decades of what great thing she cold have done if she lived to 2012... :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

02-11-2010, 19:52

Lemur

02-11-2010, 20:01

One more thing about Libertarianism; one of the core responsibilities of the government, for Libertarians, is to protect it's citizens from force and make sure everyone gets along by consent and not threats of harm.
That's nothing but the Obama socialist state trying to tell you who you can and can't shoot. You know who else had police? HITLER and STALIN.

HoreTore

02-11-2010, 20:02

It's more like market socialism, or the golden middle or whatever you want to call the cliche.
It's not always golden of course but that is the nature of politics, show me a single country that is perfect for everybody, whether it's capitalist or socialist.
In a capitalist society the weak will suffer and complain, in anything else the strong will complain that they have to pay so that the week aren't suffering, you just can't make everybody happy. :shrug:

Social democracy, Husar.... Or if you were talking about the economy itself, then it's called a "mixed economy".

Basically what 90% or more of the world wants, except for some nutters in random places like the US and North Korea. Capitalism curtailed by a democratic society to ensure that it meets the needs of the society has been proven to be the best. Fortunately, it also leaves plenty of room for everyone to bicker about just how much government should interfere, and how much the market should handle...

One more thing about Libertarianism; one of the core responsibilities of the government, for Libertarians, is to protect it's citizens from force and make sure everyone gets along by consent and not threats of harm.

So Somalia is. Not. A. Libertarian. State.

It's anarchy.

CR

Anarchy, eh? Funny, I didn't know that there were worker-owned cooperatives in Somalia...

Or did you just rant on someone for misusing your ideology by misusing another ideology?

Crazed Rabbit

02-11-2010, 20:16

Anarchy, eh? Funny, I didn't know that there were worker-owned cooperatives in Somalia...

Or did you just rant on someone for misusing your ideology by misusing another ideology?

Anarchy requires worker owned cooperatives? :inquisitive:

I'm using the "no government worth the name" definition.

CR

Louis VI the Fat

02-11-2010, 20:25

Aemilius Paulus

02-11-2010, 20:28

Anarchy requires worker owned cooperatives? :inquisitive:

HoreTore is correct. That is what the anarchist philosophers advocate (pretty much all of them). Surely you do not think anarchy is literal? Well, it could be, but then it would be just plain chaos - a popular misconception. The political theory of anarchy is not that simple, in fact it is quite a read, but a large part of it are collectives such as the ones HoreTore hinted at.

The government is the group of individuals working together, for their collective good, and deciding only the issues that affect themselves as a group. There is no central government, true, but the definition you were using is a popular one. Frankly, I do not know that much about anarchism either, but I read the really long articles at Wikipedia and Wikipedia is the holy grail of truth as we all know...

Wikipedia is FTW, so don'tcha be sayin' baad things 'bout it, bhoy!

HoreTore

02-11-2010, 20:48

Anarchy requires worker owned cooperatives? :inquisitive:

I'm using the "no government worth the name" definition.

CR

Then might I suggest using a more appropriate term in the future; like "chaos". Anarchism, like your libertarianism, isn't just to "get ze government off our backs", it's a fully working ideology. "No government worth the name" would be "chaos", definitely not anarchism. The core of anarchism is worker-owned collectives(see the difference to Lenins state-owned collectives).

Beskar

02-11-2010, 21:05

One more thing about Libertarianism; one of the core responsibilities of the government, for Libertarians, is to protect it's citizens from force and make sure everyone gets along by consent and not threats of harm.

So Somalia is. Not. A. Libertarian. State.

It's anarchy

Anarchy, eh? Funny, I didn't know that there were worker-owned cooperatives in Somalia...

Or did you just rant on someone for misusing your ideology by misusing another ideology?

This is an excellent point, and all very true.

It is also true that communism is about freedom, justice and equality. So the USSR was not communist, but a dictatorship - as some would maintain to this very day.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Wait, what was it you said CR in another thread... oh, that is it.... "TEH TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY"

Subotan

02-11-2010, 21:50

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 22:09

Ouch... You, like, totally did not read my post. That is what I was jumping about - how patently blatant it was that the poll was stuffed, and still in the process of being stuffed.

No i read but i was simply agreeing with you.

Viking

02-11-2010, 22:54

The political theory of anarchy is not that simple

Thus do never say that worker owned cooperatives are a requirement for anarchist thought. Anarchism does not have be a form of socialism.

Crazed Rabbit

02-11-2010, 22:55

This is an excellent point, and all very true.

It is also true that communism is about freedom, justice and equality. So the USSR was not communist, but a dictatorship - as some would maintain to this very day.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

How is the lack of government a libertarian government? A libertarian government is something that exists and provides services, albeit limited. There existed no central authority in Somalia for a long time.

I'm certain there's drawbacks from a libertarian government, but you can't attribute problems from a non existent entity to it.

The Somalian Government allows every Somalian to own a gun and therefore have the right to defend himself. That's about as Libertarian as you get.

Good grief. You can own a pistol nearly anywhere in the US, but no state is really libertarian.

The right to own and use firearms, while part of libertarianism, is by no means the one defining value. :wall:

Wait, what was it you said CR in another thread... oh, that is it.... "TEH TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY"

It's not called that, but here it doesn't apply.

Then might I suggest using a more appropriate term in the future; like "chaos". Anarchism, like your libertarianism, isn't just to "get ze government off our backs", it's a fully working ideology. "No government worth the name" would be "chaos", definitely not anarchism. The core of anarchism is worker-owned collectives(see the difference to Lenins state-owned collectives).

HoreTore is correct. That is what the anarchist philosophers advocate (pretty much all of them). Surely you do not think anarchy is literal? Well, it could be, but then it would be just plain chaos - a popular misconception. The political theory of anarchy is not that simple, in fact it is quite a read, but a large part of it are collectives such as the ones HoreTore hinted at.

Well let's see, from wikipedia...

Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state to be unnecessary, harmful, or otherwise undesirable, and favour instead a stateless society or anarchy.[1][2] Individual anarchists may have additional criteria for what they conceive to be anarchism, and there is often broad disagreement concerning these broader conceptions. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[3]

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[4] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of socialist and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[5][6] Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[7][8] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an individualist strain,[9] with that strain supporting a market economy and private property, or unrestrained "egoism" that bases right on might.

So it seems there are separate views on anarchy as a political philosophy. And a lot of those views are more or less collectivist.

But Somalia seems to be an example of anarcho-capitalism. Glancing at the modern examples of anarchy, it would seem Somalia is prominent among them. So while in theory the collectivist views may be more numerous, in real life the ratio is more even.

Therefore, I still don't think anarchy requires collectivist worker's groups.

CR

Ironside

02-11-2010, 22:56

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Wait, what was it you said CR in another thread... oh, that is it.... "TEH TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY"

To be fair to poor CR, Somalia never claimed to be a libertarian state and CR supports a sort of night-watch state (found that name by accident today). Not sure if a Libertarian state is really defined.

CR since we're arguing most freedom here, would you say that having your education level directly linked to your parents income (since your parents can't afford those fully privatised schools) is freedom?
Should a public bus system run maximum profit at all lines?

And would you say that Colorado Springs runs a libertarian budget, since the almost the entire budget goes to police, fire and infrastructure (at least 70-80% of it)?

Centurion1

02-11-2010, 22:58

Many of the amenities that the Colorado Springs resident receives are national not local. So your point on that issue is moot.

Crazed Rabbit

02-11-2010, 23:06

To be fair to poor CR, Somalia never claimed to be a libertarian state and CR supports a sort of night-watch state (found that name by accident today). Not sure if a Libertarian state is really defined.

See above. I'll have to check out this 'night watch' state. If it's rule by a benevolent Terry Pratchett, I'm for it.

CR since we're arguing most freedom here, would you say that having your education level directly linked to your parents income (since your parents can't afford those fully privatised schools) is freedom?

When did I say no money would go to school systems? I would support getting rid of teacher's unions (and all public employee unions), and having most schools be charter schools.

Should a public bus system run maximum profit at all lines?

It should be able to maintain it's services by itself, or at least get close to that. In my home county, 90% of the cost of every rider is paid for by taxes, not fares themselves. And then the stupid riders write in to papers and say those who don't use the bus and already pay for 90% of it ought to pay "their fair share". :furious3:

Heavily subsidizing bus transport results in economic inefficiencies. The bus riders overuse the system because they don't pay the full cost. (And even then, near my home many of the buses only have 10% of their seats filled a lot of the time. And that's before they go out to all the very rural cities.)

And would you say that Colorado Springs runs a libertarian budget, since the almost the entire budget goes to police, fire and infrastructure (at least 70-80% of it)?

Maybe. There was something about city employees getting an average of $89,000 per year, which is to high.

CR

Beskar

02-11-2010, 23:35

The Somalian Government allows every Somalian to own a gun and therefore have the right to defend himself. That's about as Libertarian as you get.

I cracked up laughing at that one. Damn.

HoreTore

02-12-2010, 08:04

When did I say no money would go to school systems? I would support getting rid of teacher's unions (and all public employee unions), and having most schools be charter schools.

Since when is it FREEDOM or LIBERTY to deny individuals to group together to further their agenda...?

Crazed Rabbit

02-12-2010, 09:10

Since when is it FREEDOM or LIBERTY to deny individuals to group together to further their agenda...?

Public (well, most all) unions in the US aren't needed, and they're detrimental to government. They'll protect teachers considered to dangerous to allow near children from being fired.

But I wouldn't care how many existed if the taxpayers had the freedom of firing them without having to claw through a bunch of union red tape.

CR

jabarto

02-12-2010, 09:22

Public (well, most all) unions in the US aren't needed, and they're detrimental to government. They'll protect teachers considered to dangerous to allow near children from being fired.

The role that unions play is absolutely critical to *any* society, even if some of them are corrupt.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion you don't know what a charter school is, else you wouldn't be supporting them.

HoreTore

02-12-2010, 09:30

Public (well, most all) unions in the US aren't needed, and they're detrimental to government. They'll protect teachers considered to dangerous to allow near children from being fired.

But I wouldn't care how many existed if the taxpayers had the freedom of firing them without having to claw through a bunch of union red tape.

CR

So.... You wish to ban those who do not have the same aims as you do?

have fun playing with your little state.

Crazed Rabbit

02-12-2010, 09:55

So.... You wish to ban those who do not have the same aims as you do?

have fun playing with your little state.

No, I want to prevent them from extorting the state to pay $100k salaries and $80k pensions to teachers who try to get students to have sex with them.

The role that unions play is absolutely critical to *any* society, even if some of them are corrupt.

How so? Are public schools hazardous to one's health like 1900 coal mines? Are they getting paid illegally low wages?

CR

jabarto

02-12-2010, 10:05

No, I want to prevent them from extorting the state to pay $100k salaries and $80k pensions to teachers who try to get students to have sex with them.

How so? Are public schools hazardous to one's health like 1900 coal mines? Are they getting paid illegally low wages?

CR

Collective bargaining is pretty much the only chance that workers have to keep from getting exploited hand over fist by management.

Also, things aren't as hunky dory as you think. Americans work more hours than less pay than almost any other first-world citizen. And even were that not the case, it's laughable to think that just because things are better now means unions aren't needed. That would be analogous to saying, "Black people aren't slaves anymore, so we don't need those laws prohibiting slavery anymore."

Ironside

02-12-2010, 10:37

See above. I'll have to check out this 'night watch' state. If it's rule by a benevolent Terry Pratchett, I'm for it.

From what I've red it's the original name on a minimalist state, that would only ensure public safety (hence night watch). Didn't read that much about it though.

When did I say no money would go to school systems? I would support getting rid of teacher's unions (and all public employee unions), and having most schools be charter schools.

Still, public funding? We might yet turn you into a (sort of) leftie CR. ~;)

It should be able to maintain it's services by itself, or at least get close to that. In my home county, 90% of the cost of every rider is paid for by taxes, not fares themselves. And then the stupid riders write in to papers and say those who don't use the bus and already pay for 90% of it ought to pay "their fair share". :furious3:

Heavily subsidizing bus transport results in economic inefficiencies. The bus riders overuse the system because they don't pay the full cost. (And even then, near my home many of the buses only have 10% of their seats filled a lot of the time. And that's before they go out to all the very rural cities.)

Hm, our publically owned bus company makes a small profit. How much does a city bus ticket cost? A quarter? And it's intended for the bus users to overuse the system, as buses are competing with cars. Cars cost money, lots of it. So to ensure that cars aren't needed you'll need a good bus system.

Maybe. There was something about city employees getting an average of $89,000 per year, which is to high.

CR

That I can agree on, but I've got a suspicion that those numbers need to be checked a bit more carefully (cannot be counted out though, the salary/benefit post is over 100.000/employee), since otherwise they're on average amongst the 80-90% highest income taker in the US. A resonable salary for some of them I guess though, they're the equivalent of a 1500 people company with a 200 million dollar budget.
That 24.000 rambling is really bad though. There's not exactly unskilled jobs, without health insurance and social security (pensions) we're talking about.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-12-2010, 13:43

Collective bargaining is pretty much the only chance that workers have to keep from getting exploited hand over fist by management.

Also, things aren't as hunky dory as you think. Americans work more hours than less pay than almost any other first-world citizen. And even were that not the case, it's laughable to think that just because things are better now means unions aren't needed. That would be analogous to saying, "Black people aren't slaves anymore, so we don't need those laws prohibiting slavery anymore."

As I am sure CR will note, he is not against collective bargaining -- only against the closed shop.

HoreTore

02-12-2010, 15:33

Centurion1

02-12-2010, 16:18

No, I want to prevent them from extorting the state to pay $100k salaries and $80k pensions to teachers who try to get students to have sex with them.

Trust me teachers do not make that much money. Most thankless job on earth with no upside. Kids are total ********

Aemilius Paulus

02-12-2010, 18:21

.
Also, things aren't as hunky dory as you think. Americans work more hours than less pay than almost any other first-world citizen. And even were that not the case, it's laughable to think that just because things are better now means unions aren't needed. That would be analogous to saying, "Black people aren't slaves anymore, so we don't need those laws prohibiting slavery anymore."
Yep, another marvellous point, very well stated. :bow: If not for unions and Federal regulations, we can just as easily regress back into the "good ol' times".

Trust me teachers do not make that much money. Most thankless job on earth with no upside. Kids are total ********
Yeah, this too is very true. Teaching is one of the lousiest jobs in terms of work:pay ratio. Starting pay is anywhere from 32k to 36k, but your hours are long and hard. Every teacher I know (and I know my former school teachers very well) has to stay after school, or sometimes instead go home and grade papers/write tests/prepare other assignments/etc. Lots of responsibilities, lots of stress, and your superiors as well as parents and their obnoxious kids harassing you.

That is why teachers are divide into two kinds - those who passionately love teaching and the ones who just want a steady paycheque. The latter do not last for long, not in the better schools at least. The only upside are the summer/spring/winter/sometimes autumn vacations - which is a great benefit indeed.

Thus do never say that worker owned cooperatives are a requirement for anarchist thought. Anarchism does not have be a form of socialism.
No, every anarchist I have read about advocated the same. Really, there is no way you can not support this as an anarchist, because no matter what, organisations, however small, must continue to run. But jeez, I do often wish Machno could have won in Ukraine - if he did, he would probably end up tarnishing anarchism like Stain did to communism.

Meneldil

02-12-2010, 18:35

No, every anarchist I have read about advocated the same. Really, there is no way you can not support this as an anarchist, because no matter what, organisations, however small, must continue to run. But jeez, I do often wish Machno could have won in Ukraine - if he did, he would probably end up tarnishing anarchism like Stain did to communism.

Talking about that, do you know any good and somewhat unbiaised book about that?

HoreTore

02-12-2010, 20:01

Trust me teachers do not make that much money. Most thankless job on earth with no upside. Kids are total ********

With inflated Norwegian salaries, I will be making around 320K NOK once I finish my teacher education, which would be around 54k USD. So I'm guessing that the american wage is around 45k, if the ratio is about the same as cop wages.

Kadagar_AV

02-12-2010, 22:58

Such a promising thread title :(

Teabagging must mean something completely different where you are from...

Centurion1

02-13-2010, 00:12

it means putting your genitalia in someones face. yes very respectful.

and in america, horetore 45k is not really good money especially for having an expensive 4 year education.

Kadagar_AV

02-13-2010, 00:16

it means putting your genitalia in someones face. yes very respectful.

In the "mobile infantry", it's hanging in a rope under the helicopter as it hoovers up and down over water... :)

Centurion1

02-13-2010, 00:18

ah well both make sense in their own context at least though yours is more literal.

Beskar

02-13-2010, 01:29

it means putting your genitalia in someones face. yes very respectful.

and in america, horetore 45k is not really good money especially for having an expensive 4 year education.

No it isn't, it is putting your "teabags" into some ones mouth.

Crazed Rabbit

02-13-2010, 06:47

Then start another union which doesn't do that and convince others to join.

Gawd.

And just how am I going to convince teachers to quit a union that promises a life of full pay for doing nothing if a teacher is found to be too dangerous to be near kids, but without multiple witnesses with perfect testimony to be fired? The problem with public unions is their collusive dealings with 'management' which has no core reason to oppose ever increasing salary demands.

Collective bargaining is pretty much the only chance that workers have to keep from getting exploited hand over fist by management.

Bah, complete bunk. I've worked labor intensive jobs were the employees actually deunionized in the past, and other non-union work force jobs were the employees were happy and well paid.

Also, things aren't as hunky dory as you think. Americans work more hours than less pay than almost any other first-world citizen. And even were that not the case, it's laughable to think that just because things are better now means unions aren't needed. That would be analogous to saying, "Black people aren't slaves anymore, so we don't need those laws prohibiting slavery anymore."

Bah again. We've got laws enshrining many of the protections the original unions fought for. I think workers should have the right to unionize and go on strike. And employers should be able to fire all of them and hire new people.

As to the teacher salary example; yes, $100k is much higher than most teacher's salaries. It was an example of one teacher from NYC who was at the top of the pay grade there. He currently goes to a 'rubber room' (where the system sequesters teachers deemed too incompetent or dangerous to teach kids, but can't be fired because of the teacher's union) and contributes nothing to the school system all day.

Yep, another marvellous point, very well stated. If not for unions and Federal regulations, we can just as easily regress back into the "good ol' times".

I very much doubt that. Employees simply wouldn't stand for it. And in reality, corporations don't have complete power that's only held in check by the government.

As to the term in the OP; well, it's just another shining example of the tolerance some those on the left display for people who disagree with them; they tagged small government protesters from last year with the term.

CR

Sasaki Kojiro

02-13-2010, 07:33

And just how am I going to convince teachers to quit a union that promises a life of full pay for doing nothing if a teacher is found to be too dangerous to be near kids, but without multiple witnesses with perfect testimony to be fired? The problem with public unions is their collusive dealings with 'management' which has no core reason to oppose ever increasing salary demands.

Well CR, is your problem with the teachers union or with "innocent until proven guilty"?

Teachers get a bad rep because no parents want to think their kids are lazy and stupid. Obama's education plan feeds that impulse in the worst way unfortunately (from what little I've heard of it).

jabarto

02-13-2010, 07:43

Bah, complete bunk. I've worked labor intensive jobs were the employees actually deunionized in the past, and other non-union work force jobs were the employees were happy and well paid.

Look at these exceptions! Clearly they are the rule.

Seriously, some people do just fine, but there are many, many more who get shafted from lack of unionization.

Bah again. We've got laws enshrining many of the protections the original unions fought for. I think workers should have the right to unionize and go on strike. And employers should be able to fire all of them and hire new people.

So...you want unions to have rights, but not for those rights to be enforced?

But I'm of the mind that employers shouldn't be able to to fire anyone at anytime just because they feel like it. I dunno, crazy idea?

And in reality, corporations don't have complete power that's only held in check by the government.

So what is holding them in check? Serious question.

As to the term in the OP; well, it's just another shining example of the tolerance some those on the left display for people who disagree with them; they tagged small government protesters from last year with the term.

Good god, do all of the people cracking jokes and criticizing my use of the word "teabagger" not understand that that's what they actually call themselves?

I'm not even going to touch on the fact that the intolerance the left displays utterly pales in comparison to the hateful bile that the right spews out on a daily basis.

HoreTore

02-13-2010, 08:45

it means putting your genitalia in someones face. yes very respectful.

and in america, horetore 45k is not really good money especially for having an expensive 4 year education.

That was kinda teh point.... I wasn't arguing, I was agreeing ~;)

And just how am I going to convince teachers to quit a union that promises a life of full pay for doing nothing if a teacher is found to be too dangerous to be near kids, but without multiple witnesses with perfect testimony to be fired? The problem with public unions is their collusive dealings with 'management' which has no core reason to oppose ever increasing salary demands.

It would be rather nice to simply outlaw every opinion you disagree with. There's no way to call it liberty though.

Freedom means that people are free to do as they please. If that means a bunch of people will join a union which in your opinion is bad, then you're unfortunately screwed. There's no way to force a change and still call it liberty; your only option is to discuss and convince.

EDIT: To give an example, I consider the "right to own firearms" as idiotic as you consider unions. But I can't stop you from forming pressure groups aimed at upholding gun rights, my only option to live in the gun-free paradise I long for(let's assume I'm a yank for a sec), is to discuss and convince.

Crazed Rabbit

02-13-2010, 08:48

Well CR, is your problem with the teachers union or with "innocent until proven guilty"?

Teachers get a bad rep because no parents want to think their kids are lazy and stupid. Obama's education plan feeds that impulse in the worst way unfortunately (from what little I've heard of it).

I don't think one should have to bring a legal criminal court case to fire someone.

Look at these exceptions! Clearly they are the rule.

Seriously, some people do just fine, but there are many, many more who get shafted from lack of unionization.

Funny, you haven't provided any examples of your doom saying about a lack of unions. If only unions can protect from the evils of fat cat corporations, why has private union membership been declining for decades? Clearly the American people don't agree with you.

Good god, do all of the people cracking jokes and criticizing my use of the word "teabagger" not understand that that's what they actually call themselves?

Really? Please show some examples. I've seen them refer to themselves as the 'Tea Party', but not as teabaggers.

So what is holding them in check? Serious question.

Economics. If you pay workers crap, you only get crap workers applying for jobs. Henry Ford dramatically raised wages back in the early days of Ford and the company, the shareholders, were better off.

There's the understanding that you get what you pay for in economics.

I'm not even going to touch on the fact that the intolerance the left displays utterly pales in comparison to the hateful bile that the right spews out on a daily basis.

Oh please. There's hateful loons on both sides.

So...you want unions to have rights, but not for those rights to be enforced?

But I'm of the mind that employers shouldn't be able to to fire anyone at anytime just because they feel like it. I dunno, crazy idea?

No, I don't want Unions to have the right to control everyone who works for a certain company, and to strike and prevent anyone from filling their place.

And employers should be able to fire anyone they feel like. The smart companies will do it efficiently and only fire unproductive workers. The stupid companies won't and will therefore suffer for their stupidity economically, and go out of business if they continue.

CR

jabarto

02-13-2010, 09:07

I don't think one should have to bring a legal criminal court case to fire someone.

And I don't think you should be fired for your political/religious veiws or your sexual orientation. Which happens all the time in right-to-work states.

Funny, you haven't provided any examples of your doom saying about a lack of unions. If only unions can protect from the evils of fat cat corporations, why has private union membership been declining for decades? Clearly the American people don't agree with you.

Bahaha, are you serious? Union memberships are down because unioins have been systematically hemorrhaged in this country for decades by propaganda campaigns and right wing policy. And I mentioned already that Americans work more hours for less pay than almost any other first world people. That, and the cost of living has been steadily rising for 40 years and wages have remained the same or decreased since then.

Really? Please show some examples. I've seen them refer to themselves as the 'Tea Party', but not as teabaggers.

Granted, all I've got are anecdotes. I know several who refer to themselves as such. But that doesn't change tthe fact that the whole "tea-whatever" naming convention started with them. Hint: "tea" is an acronym.

HoreTore

02-13-2010, 09:31

No worries, jabarto, I'll provide asylum for you here ~:)

Xiahou

02-13-2010, 18:07

Yeah, this too is very true. Teaching is one of the lousiest jobs in terms of work:pay ratio. Starting pay is anywhere from 32k to 36k, but your hours are long and hard. Every teacher I know (and I know my former school teachers very well) has to stay after school, or sometimes instead go home and grade papers/write tests/prepare other assignments/etc. Lots of responsibilities, lots of stress, and your superiors as well as parents and their obnoxious kids harassing you.

That is why teachers are divide into two kinds - those who passionately love teaching and the ones who just want a steady paycheque. The latter do not last for long, not in the better schools at least. The only upside are the summer/spring/winter/sometimes autumn vacations - which is a great benefit indeed.

Stress, answering to superiors, and dealing with obnoxious clients? Sounds like part of any job to me. 32-36k is good starting pay for someone just out of college and thanks to the union contracts, they get guaranteed raises every year, plus whatever more they get when they renegotiate the contracts. In around 5 years, that 36k could easily be 50k. The hours are no worse than most other jobs and teachers get the benefit of having all summer and most every holiday off. Then there's the cadillac benefit packages and pensions.

Sorry, some teachers might have to work hard, but so do lots of other people and teachers are better compensated than most.

HoreTore

02-13-2010, 18:19

Aemilius Paulus

02-13-2010, 18:29

@Xiahou

:shrug:

You may be right, I know very little here to argue with you.

Viking

02-13-2010, 19:20

No, every anarchist I have read about advocated the same. Really, there is no way you can not support this as an anarchist, because no matter what, organisations, however small, must continue to run. But jeez, I do often wish Machno could have won in Ukraine - if he did, he would probably end up tarnishing anarchism like Stain did to communism.

What the different forms of anarchism have in common, is the abolishment of the state. There is no conflict between this and that one or more persons more or less own the workplace of others. Don't judge the forest by its biggest trees.

Lemur

02-13-2010, 19:42

Sorry, but anarchism strikes this lemur as exactly as likely to work in the real world as libertarianism.

Meanwhile, it's nice to see that end-of-the-world whackos now have their own semi-political party.

Man Charged With Stockpiling Weapons Was Tea Partier, Palin Fan (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/man_charged_for_stockpiling_weapons_was_tea_partie.php?ref=mp)

The Massachusetts man charged this week with stockpiling weapons after saying he feared an imminent "Armageddon" appears to have been active in the Tea Party movement, and saw Sarah Palin, who he said is on a "righteous 'Mission from God,'" as the only figure capable of averting the destruction of society. [...]

Girard's wife said her husband had recently told her: "Don't talk to people, shoot them instead," and "it's fine to shoot people in the head because traitors deserve it."

But it appears that Girard had lately found a community with which to share some of his growing fears. A "Greg Girard," listing his location as Manchester, Mass., has a personal page on the "Patriots of America" online network, a popular site affiliated with the Tea Party movement. [...]

In Girard's view, only one person can save us: Sarah Palin. Later in the lengthy post, he wrote:

I believe that the ONLY ----- ONLY ------ potential presidental (sic) candidate I have seen with the sheer force of will and God-insprined (sic) rightous (sic) determination to bringdown (sic) this "War Powers" evil is Sarah Palin.

Girard praised Palin's "magical combination of charisma, a remarkable reserve of personal strength and committment (sic), and her righteous 'mission from God' drive (sic) return this country to its convservative (sic), Constitutional foundation."

Sasaki Kojiro

02-13-2010, 19:50

Now we need a party for people who overuse "sic".

HoreTore

02-13-2010, 20:15

Beskar

02-13-2010, 20:27

Bwhahahahahahaha!!

Damn Lefty Radicals, getting equal rights for blacks, >:(

Centurion1

02-13-2010, 20:59

Stress, answering to superiors, and dealing with obnoxious clients? Sounds like part of any job to me. 32-36k is good starting pay for someone just out of college and thanks to the union contracts, they get guaranteed raises every year, plus whatever more they get when they renegotiate the contracts. In around 5 years, that 36k could easily be 50k. The hours are no worse than most other jobs and teachers get the benefit of having all summer and most every holiday off. Then there's the cadillac benefit packages and pensions.

Sorry, some teachers might have to work hard, but so do lots of other people and teachers are better compensated than most.

look i do not like the teachers union but i know my mother who is a teacher.

She comes home and does 90% of her grading and planning for the next day. She does not get steady raises she gets cost of living increases. These are not raises. A pension requires 25-30 years of work. And my mother has a terrible health package. We kept our old insurance. Finally, her education cost over 100k she started off making about 45k before they took money out for pension, and other assorted taxes. To receive any form of promotion she needs her masters degree. Teaching is not a profession to enter if you want a comfortable life. And dealing with children and their *** parents as well as the administration catering to these children and parents, is just ridiculous. so i dont like the union but even my mother admits that it helps protect teachers rights.

Crazed Rabbit

02-13-2010, 21:35

And I don't think you should be fired for your political/religious veiws or your sexual orientation. Which happens all the time in right-to-work states.

Any evidence of that?

Bahaha, are you serious? Union memberships are down because unioins have been systematically hemorrhaged in this country for decades by propaganda campaigns and right wing policy. And I mentioned already that Americans work more hours for less pay than almost any other first world people. That, and the cost of living has been steadily rising for 40 years and wages have remained the same or decreased since then.

What propaganda campaigns and what anti-union legislation? Unions, especially car workers unions, have become anti-union poster-children. I think people didn't see the need for unions and that's why membership is down.

Granted, all I've got are anecdotes. I know several who refer to themselves as such. But that doesn't change tthe fact that the whole "tea-whatever" naming convention started with them. Hint: "tea" is an acronym.

It started, as I recall, with 'tea parties' in reference to the Boston Tea Party. Some leftist commentators, seeing an opportunity to slander their opponents without debating the issues, started using the 'tea baggers' term.

So perhaps you could show some evidence of the Tea Party groups referring to themselves as that, instead of using anecdotes?

Sorry, but anarchism strikes this lemur as exactly as likely to work in the real world as libertarianism.

Meanwhile, it's nice to see that end-of-the-world whackos now have their own semi-political party.

So now one nutcase joining a group means that group is now the 'nutcase group'? Sounds like the fallacy of guilt by association.

There's no reason why a libertarian government wouldn't work.

CR

HoreTore

02-13-2010, 21:39

Any evidence of that?

What propaganda campaigns and what anti-union legislation? Unions, especially car workers unions, have become anti-union poster-children. I think people didn't see the need for unions and that's why membership is down.

It started, as I recall, with 'tea parties' in reference to the Boston Tea Party. Some leftist commentators, seeing an opportunity to slander their opponents without debating the issues, started using the 'tea baggers' term.

So perhaps you could show some evidence of the Tea Party groups referring to themselves as that, instead of using anecdotes?

So now one nutcase joining a group means that group is now the 'nutcase group'? Sounds like the fallacy of guilt by association.

There's no reason why a libertarian government wouldn't work.

CR

Show me your friends and I will show you who you are.

There's no reason why a communist or anarchist utopia wouldn't work either. But practice shows that they don't.

(though to be fair, Anarchism haven't been tried independently yet...)

Crazed Rabbit

02-13-2010, 21:54

Show me your friends and I will show you who you are.

There's no reason why a communist or anarchist utopia wouldn't work either. But practice shows that they don't.

(though to be fair, Anarchism haven't been tried independently yet...)

Ah, but friends are quite different than using every single member of a national organization.

And anarchy helped Somalia get some utility services that were better than other African nations with, you know, governments.

Libertarianism in the US would, as I see it, uses the same government structure as what we have here in the US, but simply get rid of lots of extraneous laws and departments. I see no reason why the current two party collusion scheme must remain.

CR

HoreTore

02-13-2010, 21:58

Ah, but friends are quite different than using every single member of a national organization.

And anarchy helped Somalia get some utility services that were better than other African nations with, you know, governments.

Libertarianism in the US would, as I see it, uses the same government structure as what we have here in the US, but simply get rid of lots of extraneous laws and departments. I see no reason why the current two party collusion scheme must remain.

CR

Are you still living with the confusion that Somalia is an anarchist state? I suggest you gain some knowledge about both Somalia and Anarchism.

Crazed Rabbit

02-13-2010, 23:30

Are you still living with the confusion that Somalia is an anarchist state? I suggest you gain some knowledge about both Somalia and Anarchism.

Are you still insisting that all anarchist 'states' have to have worker's collectives? I already addressed this. Just because some anarchist theories are collectivist doesn't mean all are.

Somalia seems similar in some ways to anarcho-capitalism.

Perhaps if you had read my posts, or more about anarchist philosophies, you'd see that.

CR

jabarto

02-14-2010, 00:22

Any evidence of that?

Not of the sort you're probably expecting; employers aren't so stupid as to say that aloud, you see. In practice, though, if employers have complete carte blanche to fire anyone for any reason, it's pretty naive to think that what I'm describing has never happened.

What propaganda campaigns and what anti-union legislation? Unions, especially car workers unions, have become anti-union poster-children. I think people didn't see the need for unions and that's why membership is down.

The classic example is when Reagan fired 13,000 air trafic controllers who were striking. That was the metaphorical foot in the door that led to the complete disestablishment of the responsibility that employers have to their employees. The Republicans ran with this until their lungs burst, which is why you have these bogus claims that unions increase unemployment and the like.

There's no reason why a libertarian government wouldn't work.

Libertarianism is about as feasible a government form as a communist utopia.

EDIT: Oh, and thenks, Ameliuys Paulus and HoreTOre for the kind words. I meant to acknowledge that earlier.

Fixiwee

02-14-2010, 03:27

Libertarianism is about as feasible a government form as a communist utopia.
Exactly.
To say "There's no reason why a libertarian government wouldn't work." is a nil statement. The same argument can be said about americans and communism. Just because it hasn't work in Russia doesn't mean it does not work in the US. It doesn't make make the statement just or reasonable by saying "it could".

That's no comprehensible hard evidence. It is only pure subjective guessing.
I applaud Jabarto's thoughtful words over simple eloquence of other members.

HoreTore

02-14-2010, 09:57

Are you still insisting that all anarchist 'states' have to have worker's collectives? I already addressed this. Just because some anarchist theories are collectivist doesn't mean all are.

Somalia seems similar in some ways to anarcho-capitalism.

Perhaps if you had read my posts, or more about anarchist philosophies, you'd see that.

CR

It ain't no anarcho-capitalism either. In fact, there isn't any single ideology that applies to Somalia, simply because Somalia is a country at war. What system of government they will have once the civil war is over is unknown. But currently, Somalia is neither socialist, democratic, social-democratic, capitalist, anarcho-syndicalist, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian or any other such ideology, it's simply a collapsed state in a nation at war.

I find it interesting that you call it "anarcho-capitalist" though. Do you actually know what anarcho-capitalism is all about? If so, would you mind explaining just what makes you think Somalia fits the description? Somalia isn't left without a central government because of a wish to do so, it doesn't have one because nobody is able to control the entire country, and in fact has several "governments". One of the chief tenents of Anarcho-capitalism is the complete abolition of taxes - and somalians pay tax.

Kralizec

02-14-2010, 14:39

Stress, answering to superiors, and dealing with obnoxious clients? Sounds like part of any job to me. 32-36k is good starting pay for someone just out of college and thanks to the union contracts, they get guaranteed raises every year, plus whatever more they get when they renegotiate the contracts. In around 5 years, that 36k could easily be 50k. The hours are no worse than most other jobs and teachers get the benefit of having all summer and most every holiday off. Then there's the cadillac benefit packages and pensions.

Sorry, some teachers might have to work hard, but so do lots of other people and teachers are better compensated than most.

Don't confuse "hours spent in the classroom" with "hours of work".

HoreTore's right, at least assuming that teaching jobs are more or less similar in the USA and the Neth's (and Norway).
My mom is a part-time teacher for 24 hours per week (if I recall correctly) and gets paid accordingly, but the actual workload is more like 32 hours.

As for "cadilac benefit packages", not over here, anyway. I suspect that this varies immensely state by state in the USA as well.

Kralizec

02-14-2010, 14:45

Ah, but friends are quite different than using every single member of a national organization.

And anarchy helped Somalia get some utility services that were better than other African nations with, you know, governments.

Libertarianism in the US would, as I see it, uses the same government structure as what we have here in the US, but simply get rid of lots of extraneous laws and departments. I see no reason why the current two party collusion scheme must remain.

CR

I strongly suspect that whatever infrastructure and services Somalia has was set up by the short-lived Union of Islamic Courts...until this goverment was obliberated by Ethiopia.

Beskar

02-14-2010, 15:02

Show me your friends and I will show you who you are.

There's no reason why a communist or anarchist utopia wouldn't work either. But practice shows that they don't.

(though to be fair, Anarchism haven't been tried independently yet...)

Also small communists utopias work (Kibbutz in Israel is one example). Hasn't been successful tried large-scale, due to corruption/intent of those who are leading it.

There's no reason why a libertarian government wouldn't work.
Libertarianism is about as feasible a government form as a communist utopia.

Most likely true.

Tellos Athenaios

02-14-2010, 16:48

Sorry, but the Kibbutz does not “work” either.

Beskar

02-14-2010, 17:12

Sorry, but the Kibbutz does not “work” either.

Why doesn't it?

Crazed Rabbit

02-14-2010, 19:49

I find it interesting that you call it "anarcho-capitalist" though. Do you actually know what anarcho-capitalism is all about? If so, would you mind explaining just what makes you think Somalia fits the description? Somalia isn't left without a central government because of a wish to do so, it doesn't have one because nobody is able to control the entire country, and in fact has several "governments". One of the chief tenents of Anarcho-capitalism is the complete abolition of taxes - and somalians pay tax.

I said it was similar in some ways.

Not of the sort you're probably expecting; employers aren't so stupid as to say that aloud, you see. In practice, though, if employers have complete carte blanche to fire anyone for any reason, it's pretty naive to think that what I'm describing has never happened.

Ah, so - no evidence. How do you know it's not just incompetent employees making false claims?

The classic example is when Reagan fired 13,000 air trafic controllers who were striking. That was the metaphorical foot in the door that led to the complete disestablishment of the responsibility that employers have to their employees. The Republicans ran with this until their lungs burst, which is why you have these bogus claims that unions increase unemployment and the like.

How is what Reagan did - which was completely legal, since the ATC were not allowed to strike - either propaganda or legislation? Also, unions were declining before that.

Really, that's another example of unions being their own worst enemy. The median pay for the ATC was $33k/yr, and they wanted a $10k/yr increase, a cut from 40 hours work per week to 32, and the ability to get full retirement benefits after only 20 years of work. The public was against them before Reagan fired them, and no other unions supported them with strikes.

And unions increasing unemployment is part of economic theory, not something made up by the GOP.

Libertarianism is about as feasible a government form as a communist utopia.

Libertarianism doesn't rely on changing human nature. In the US, it'd keep the structure of the current government, but with less laws and regulations. You could get rid of the EPA and let the individual state's environment agencies take over. You get rid of a host of federal laws, like making it illegal to possess a fish in the USA because some other country has a law against it. You'd get rid of seatbelt laws and laws against pot.

I strongly suspect that whatever infrastructure and services Somalia has was set up by the short-lived Union of Islamic Courts...until this goverment was obliberated by Ethiopia.

Not according to wikipedia. :shrug:

Why doesn't it?

The collectivist Kibbutz came to an end some years ago. People just didn't like living there; they had to live communally, they couldn't save anything for themselves and were therefore unable to rent an apartment someplace else, they could be highly educated scientists but have to give all their earnings to the community and work in fields for a large part of the year.

CR

Centurion1

02-14-2010, 19:55

According to alot of economists union are meant to help the worker and then decline. It's natural in a capitalist society once the worker has agained a voice and recieved basic rights. Which in America the worker has achieved in most jobs. For example, the AWU is now just huting their constituents. They drove away manufacturers and lost workers jobs. Really, the money some of those auto workers receive is simply ridiculous, you don't need a high school education and your job consists of screwing a bolt on an assembly line....... you don't deserve that kind of money not to mention very good benefits.

Beskar

02-14-2010, 21:32

The collectivist Kibbutz came to an end some years ago. People just didn't like living there; they had to live communally, they couldn't save anything for themselves and were therefore unable to rent an apartment someplace else, they could be highly educated scientists but have to give all their earnings to the community and work in fields for a large part of the year.

CR

They are still around and it wasn't because they "just didn't like living there", it is because they some members could benefit more individually (selfishly) in a capitalist society. All in all, they still worked and still working. There is nothing stating that they don't work. Only things suggesting that the very top were better-off not being there, then again, those who left were simply for selfish reasons. In the so-called Communist World-Wide Utopia, they simply can't just "move-away" to a exploitive society. Standard of living in the kibbutz is significantly higher than the rest of Israel, so no, it isn't a failure of the system.

Many of the existing kibbutz recieve thousands of applications, which they generally turn down, due to obvious population control reasons. They all live in Middle class styled accomendation. They all have all the normal luxeries like we have in life such as computers, etc. There is a long list of things showing that the system indeed works very well. They have basically non-existant crime-rate, non-existant poverty, high standard of education, I can't figure out how some one can argue they 'don't work' because by every measure, they basically do.

HoreTore

02-14-2010, 21:33

I said it was similar in some ways.

You called Somalia anarchy, plain and simple. Now you're just making excuses instead of admitting the mistake.

Lemur

02-14-2010, 22:26

I think the kibbutz system illustrates a basic truth: Ideological creations can work fine in small groups of like-minded people. Hence the kibbutz being the positive example of collectivism, and I'm sure we could come up with many other examples if we gave it some thought. Monasteries and other devotional communities are explicitly meant to be positive examples of theocracy and the golden rule on earth. I suppose the Cosa Nostra would be a positive example of Libteratianism (i.e., I got mine jack, and I deserve it, and nobody else gets none, so gidouddahere).

But none of these systems works well on a large scale with a diverse population.

CR, if you feel that I'm being unfair to Ayn Rand's bastard child, please provide a verifiable example of Libertarianism at work on a national (at the very least statewide) level. Without an example to poke at, it all feels a bit like talking to those graying, sad communists down at the grocery co-op who claim that collectivism's best days are ahead of it.

Crazed Rabbit

02-14-2010, 22:28

They are still around and it wasn't because they "just didn't like living there", it is because they some members could benefit more individually (selfishly) in a capitalist society. All in all, they still worked and still working. There is nothing stating that they don't work. Only things suggesting that the very top were better-off not being there, then again, those who left were simply for selfish reasons. In the so-called Communist World-Wide Utopia, they simply can't just "move-away" to a exploitive society. Standard of living in the kibbutz is significantly higher than the rest of Israel, so no, it isn't a failure of the system.

Many of the existing kibbutz recieve thousands of applications, which they generally turn down, due to obvious population control reasons. They all live in Middle class styled accomendation. They all have all the normal luxeries like we have in life such as computers, etc. There is a long list of things showing that the system indeed works very well. They have basically non-existant crime-rate, non-existant poverty, high standard of education, I can't figure out how some one can argue they 'don't work' because by every measure, they basically do.

They may still exist nowadays, but they're far from the collectivist vision that governed them at the beginning. It was tried and withered and died. They are no more capitalistic than when they began. Could you give some evidence for the standard of living being higher? From what I read it was not.

And you may call the people who move away selfish - but they're helping society. 'Society' benefits a heck of a lot more from a scientist doing science than working in some field. And 'society' also benefits from having those scientists be paid high salaries, so more people will be encouraged to become scientists.

You called Somalia anarchy, plain and simple. Now you're just making excuses instead of admitting the mistake.

And you are ignoring the qualifiers I included in my statements so you can set up strawmen to knock down. :coffeenews:

CR

Beskar

02-15-2010, 00:53

Could you give some evidence for the standard of living being higher? From what I read it was not.

What I have seen of one. It was like walking into a posh middle/middle-upperclass suberb area.

And you may call the people who move away selfish - but they're helping society. ''Society' benefits a heck of a lot more from a scientist doing science than working in some field. And 'society' also benefits from having those scientists be paid high salaries, so more people will be encouraged to become scientists.

Actually, that is wrong. Since the area itself is the 'society' thus moving away is abandoning it. Also, they don't just "work in some field", they actually do science work. They only help out in the fields when needed (which is harvesting season, go figure), for obvious and practical reasons.

Then again, it is also the concept of scale, since a far-larger based community would have larger structures and areas and ultimately, they would never touch a field almost. Then again, working in a field for the day would probably ease you of you of misconceptions.

I think the kibbutz system illustrates a basic truth: Ideological creations can work fine in small groups of like-minded people. Hence the kibbutz being the positive example of collectivism, and I'm sure we could come up with many other examples if we gave it some thought. Monasteries and other devotional communities are explicitly meant to be positive examples of theocracy and the golden rule on earth. I suppose the Cosa Nostra would be a positive example of Libteratianism (i.e., I got mine jack, and I deserve it, and nobody else gets none, so gidouddahere).

True. It is like I wish the tomorrow was here, and I can board some colony ship with all my Libertarian Socialist friends and go "Good bye, you cursing anti-egalitarian nationalists/monarchists/etc" and go to live in paradise.

But none of these systems works well on a large scale with a diverse population.

Not entirely true. You can't suddenly force people to go a certain way, you need to create them. It's not like any system in existence works straight away.

Crazed Rabbit

02-15-2010, 04:38

What I have seen of one. It was like walking into a posh middle/middle-upperclass suberb area.

I assume, then, that you saw enough in that Kibbutz and others for a statistically significant sample size, which you compared against the results of the statistically significant sample from non-Kibbutz Israeli society.

Because if you haven't, that's just an anecdote. Also, they've been moving away from the pure collectivist society for decades, so what you saw was not the result of collectivism.

Actually, that is wrong. Since the area itself is the 'society' thus moving away is abandoning it. Also, they don't just "work in some field", they actually do science work. They only help out in the fields when needed (which is harvesting season, go figure), for obvious and practical reasons.

It depends on how you define the size of the 'society'. If you only include the Kibbutz, then yes, any benefit may be negligible to negative.

But that's rather exclusive, isn't it? ~;p If you include the whole of Israel as the 'society' then my answer is correct. Having scientists work in the fields for any time is inefficient and so people are worse off.

Then again, it is also the concept of scale, since a far-larger based community would have larger structures and areas and ultimately, they would never touch a field almost. Then again, working in a field for the day would probably ease you of you of misconceptions.

Working in 'a' field or in a Kibbutz field?

I think the kibbutz system illustrates a basic truth: Ideological creations can work fine in small groups of like-minded people. Hence the kibbutz being the positive example of collectivism, and I'm sure we could come up with many other examples if we gave it some thought. Monasteries and other devotional communities are explicitly meant to be positive examples of theocracy and the golden rule on earth. I suppose the Cosa Nostra would be a positive example of Libteratianism (i.e., I got mine jack, and I deserve it, and nobody else gets none, so gidouddahere).

I think the difference between a Kibbutz and the monastery is that the Kibbutz is supposed to work for everyone (see Beskar's statements about utopia being one world full of nothing but them), while the people in a monastery made a big decision to live like that, for important reasons. Those in a monastery can also leave at will, so only those who are committed live there.

But even the Kibbutz couldn't sustain itself, so it didn't work fine.

And please tell me you're joking about the mafia; surely that can't be how you see libertarianism. Libertarians believe the government should do few things, but one of the very important things it should do is prevent coercian, which is the mafia's modus operandi.

CR, if you feel that I'm being unfair to Ayn Rand's bastard child, please provide a verifiable example of Libertarianism at work on a national (at the very least statewide) level. Without an example to poke at, it all feels a bit like talking to those graying, sad communists down at the grocery co-op who claim that collectivism's best days are ahead of it.

Libertarianism is not any child of Ayn Rand. :stare:

I recall you asking this before, and I thought I found something, but I can't find it again.

But you can take bits and pieces of some policies and see how they work, like how in Vermont you can carry a concealed pistol in public with no license or permit so long as you're over 21 and not a criminal, or how in Nevada prostitution is legal, or how you can buy hard alcohol nearly anywhere in California, or how some states don't require seatbelts while driving.

The way I see it, to make the US libertarian would involve getting rid of most federal felony laws, getting rid of a lot of federal agencies, and getting rid of lots of intrusive state laws, ensuring strong civil liberties, etc. I don't think most people would notice a big change - how does the Department of Education affect them? - what does the Department of Housing do that some state agency can't? - What does the Department of Agriculture do but give subsidies to farming businesses?

We got along fine before all those agencies came into existence; what makes them indispensable now?

CR

Tellos Athenaios

02-15-2010, 10:44

Why doesn't it?

'Cause of the same reason why the hippy communities didn't work out either. On the face of it, some idyllic place with happy ideals; but once you dig deeper it becomes more an more nasty.

Lack of personal freedom, intimidation, abuse, control freaks, and the general dissatisfaction when “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” seem to be taken quite literally if selectively in the first clause but a bit more flexibly in the second... it all applies to the Kibbutz too.

HoreTore

02-15-2010, 17:13

And you are ignoring the qualifiers I included in my statements so you can set up strawmen to knock down. :coffeenews:

CR

I don't really believe that you have any knowledge of anarchism beyond what you just read on wikipedia, CR ~;)

But hey, it is quite amusing...

ajaxfetish

02-15-2010, 17:54

I don't really believe that you have any knowledge of anarchism beyond what you just read on wikipedia, CR ~;)

But hey, it is quite amusing...

With all the side argument and confusion on the meaning of anarchy, perhaps it would have been best to simply separate anarchism as a political philosophy from anarchy as a state of chaos early on. Whatever value and complexity the word has in its meaning as a political philosophy, it is also used as CR first used it, to describe a state of chaos.

Kind of along the same lines that a liberal, a libertarian, and a libertine are not all the same thing.

Ajax

Lemur

02-15-2010, 18:30

I don't really believe that you have any knowledge of anarchism beyond what you just read on wikipedia, CR ~;)
It ain't CR's job to elucidate a political philosophy you advocate. That's on you, friend.

Or to put it more amusingly ...

ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.

HoreTore

02-15-2010, 20:17

It ain't CR's job to elucidate a political philosophy you advocate. That's on you, friend.

Or to put it more amusingly ...

ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.

I'm a social democrat, and also angry that you didn't provide the video for that one...

Centurion1

02-15-2010, 20:59

i want to know hore tore if your people actually embrace this norwegian cross country skier, i keep hearing about who sounds like a pompous ass.

HoreTore

02-15-2010, 21:01

i want to know hore tore if your people actually embrace this norwegian cross country skier, i keep hearing about who sounds like a pompous ass.

Petter Northug? Yeah, we all love him...

jabarto

02-16-2010, 02:05

Hey guys I'm back. :D

How is what Reagan did - which was completely legal, since the ATC were not allowed to strike - either propaganda or legislation? Also, unions were declining before that.

Well, it's not just legislation per se. It's also the complete lack of enforcement of workers' rights, which is what happened after this incident. Employers began firing unionized workers thus openly flouting the law. Reagan was just the instigator.

Really, that's another example of unions being their own worst enemy. The median pay for the ATC was $33k/yr, and they wanted a $10k/yr increase, a cut from 40 hours work per week to 32, and the ability to get full retirement benefits after only 20 years of work.

Yoe left out the part where the the wages and lower work hours would have cost the company $700,000,000 annually when they were already making $30,000,000,000 a year. :juggle2:

And unions increasing unemployment is part of economic theory, not something made up by the GOP.

I never siad it was. I'm saying they propagate it, and that it's dead wrong.

Libertarianism doesn't rely on changing human nature. In the US, it'd keep the structure of the current government, but with less laws and regulations. You could get rid of the EPA and let the individual state's environment agencies take over. You get rid of a host of federal laws, like making it illegal to possess a fish in the USA because some other country has a law against it. You'd get rid of seatbelt laws and laws against pot.

Libertarianism hinges on the notion that humans are completely rational actors and have perfect access to information, though.

Also, I find it amusing that you bring up the EPA. I read a quote on another forum that essentially said that the free market solution to environment issues is to pretend they don't exist. When it's proven they do exist, they claim they don't matter. When it's proven that it does matter, they do nothing. I can't remember the whole quote but you get the idea.

Crazed Rabbit

02-16-2010, 02:34

Well, it's not just legislation per se. It's also the complete lack of enforcement of workers' rights, which is what happened after this incident. Employers began firing unionized workers thus openly flouting the law. Reagan was just the instigator.

Any evidence of this?

Yoe left out the part where the the wages and lower work hours would have cost the company $700,000,000 annually when they were already making $30,000,000,000 a year. :juggle2:

So, you're including the entire revenue of the United States Federal Government as the baseline? Why not look at how much the government was spending on ATC right before the strike? And $700 million is a very large sum.

I never siad it was. I'm saying they propagate it, and that it's dead wrong.

I, and noted economic theorists, say it's right. Why do you say it's wrong? The logic is quite simple; unions raise wages and make people harder to fire, so employers are less likely to hire people.

Libertarianism hinges on the notion that humans are completely rational actors and have perfect access to information, though.

No, it does not 'hinge' on that. It would work with current human nature.

Also, I find it amusing that you bring up the EPA. I read a quote on another forum that essentially said that the free market solution to environment issues is to pretend they don't exist. When it's proven they do exist, they claim they don't matter. When it's proven that it does matter, they do nothing. I can't remember the whole quote but you get the idea.

Well what some fool says on some other forum isn't really my concern. But he's completely wrong.

The extreme free market method for dealing with pollution is having the people affected by it and the group producing the pollution come to some sort of contractual agreement without government involvement so that both parties are satisfied.

Not that I support that.

CR

jabarto

02-16-2010, 03:01

Any evidence of this?

Wal-Mart is pretty well known for firing workers who even suggest unionising.

I, and noted economic theorists, say it's right. Why do you say it's wrong? The logic is quite simple; unions raise wages and make people harder to fire, so employers are less likely to hire people.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/unions-and-unemployment-the-battle-over-the-employee-free-choice-act-gets-ugly/

The extreme free market method for dealing with pollution is having the people affected by it and the group producing the pollution come to some sort of contractual agreement without government involvement so that both parties are satisfied.

The problem with this scenario is that only one side has any real power. What's to stop the polluting companies from telling the people to sod right off?

Beskar

02-16-2010, 03:04

The problem with this scenario is that only one side has any real power. What's to stop the polluting companies from telling the people to sod right off?

I was going to say "Who is going to enforce the said contract?" but that also does it.

In sort, a hyper-capitalist society only benefits the corperations, never the citizens.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-16-2010, 03:06

I lived through the PATCO strike. My father was an ATC and a union member. 6 months before the strike, he went to his last meeting; told them they were would lose and that Reagan would fire the lot of them and asked them not to do it. He was, of course, ignored. He turned in his card that night. Ended up staying at work for another 10 years. Many of the family friends did not and took it on the chin.

Reagan's use of the "big hammer" DID encourage many other businesses to take a tougher stance with their unions. Very few illegal firings occurred, but the next rounds of negotiations and strikes were not really beneficial to the union rank and file (at least as they'd always defined it). Reagan made a lot of businesses aware that the government would enforce the letter of the law on Labor Relations but would NOT go to bat for the unions. Since the unions had already taken a hit in the 70s with the collapse of big steel and the Japanese invasion of the US auto market -- and given the recession of 1978-1981 that had a lot of belts already tight -- the unions were in a much weaker position in the 80s and into the early 90s.

Difficulties in firing employees (whether due to unions, EEO regs or whatever) HAS changed hiring. Lots of firms now hire temps, using the temp job as a prolonged screening of the individuals and tossing the ones who don't fit. That way, once they're committed formally, they have a better sense of what they're getting.

jabarto

02-16-2010, 03:07

I was going to say "Who is going to enforce the said contract?" but that also does it.

In sort, a hyper-capitalist society only benefits the corperations, never the citizens.

Pretty much. To be fair to CR, though, he said he doesn't support that.

ajaxfetish

02-16-2010, 03:10

I tend to be libertarian-leaning overall, but there are some things I don't think it works for, and environmental protection is one of those. The state should have a responsibility to prevent environmental destruction and exploitation. Those who do the damage usually don't care and reap all the benefits, while the society as a whole suffers the damages. I would put that right up there with maintaining the peace and national defense, as a definite government responsibility.

Ajax

Centurion1

02-16-2010, 03:31

Petter Northug? Yeah, we all love him...

he just sounds like a complete arse.

he is rather talented at what he does though.

Crazed Rabbit

02-16-2010, 03:49

Wal-Mart is pretty well known for firing workers who even suggest unionising.

Evidence? Though I recall every Wal-Mart nationwide getting rid of some meat butchering related department after one started to unionize. I smiled.

Though this is in the best interests of the millions who shop at Wal Mart, the hard working employees at Wal-mart, and their shareholders.

Consider also that employees might simply not want to be in a union (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/LaborUnions.html);

In recent decades, union representation of workers has declined in all private industries in the United States. A major reason is that employees do not like unions. According to a Louis Harris poll commissioned by the AFLCIO in 1984, only one in three U.S. employees would vote for union representation in a secret ballot election. The Harris poll found, as have other surveys, that nonunion employees are more satisfied than union workers with job security, recognition of job performance, and participation in decisions that affect their jobs. And the U.S. economy’s evolution toward smaller companies, the South and West, higher-technology products, and more professional and technical personnel continues to erode union membership.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/unions-and-unemployment-the-battle-over-the-employee-free-choice-act-gets-ugly/

That's a pretty sorry blog post;

Of course the immediate response might be to ask, if this study's findings are accurate, why Canada's unemployment rate isn't 7 percentage points higher than the U.S. rate? Canada's unionization rate is about 20 percentage points higher than in the U.S., yet its unemployment rate is somewhat lower.

Gee, maybe because of a huge host of other factors that could be involved. :rolleyes:

Oh, and Obama's Director of the White House's National Economic Council, Larry Summers, agrees with me (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html);

Another cause of long-term unemployment is unionization. High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy. Also, those who lose high-wage union jobs are often reluctant to accept alternative low-wage employment. Between 1970 and 1985, for example, a state with a 20 percent unionization rate, approximately the average for the fifty states and the District of Columbia, experienced an unemployment rate that was 1.2 percentage points higher than that of a hypothetical state that had no unions. To put this in perspective, 1.2 percentage points is about 60 percent of the increase in normal unemployment between 1970 and 1985.

There is no question that some long-term unemployment is caused by government intervention and unions that interfere with the supply of labor.

The bottom line is that unions raise the cost of hiring employees. Companies therefore hire fewer employees.

Unions in this control still have too many legal protections.

The problem with this scenario is that only one side has any real power. What's to stop the polluting companies from telling the people to sod right off?

IIRC, the people experiencing the pollution could offer a sum of money. So the hundred thousand people in the vicinity of a factory could offer $10 each if the factory agreed not to pollute.

Again, this isn't how I would deal with pollution.

I was going to say "Who is going to enforce the said contract?" but that also does it.

In sort, a hyper-capitalist society only benefits the corperations, never the citizens.

The state would enforce the contract, of course.

Also, who do you think makes up corporations? Robots?

CR

Centurion1

02-16-2010, 03:57

The problem with this scenario is that only one side has any real power. What's to stop the polluting companies from telling the people to sod right off?

money and fear of the consumer. This is a very idealized solution of course which i do not advocate.

In sort, a hyper-capitalist society only benefits the corperations, never the citizens.

Rubbish corporations are made up of citizens. And to some extent if enough workers dont like policy they can change it.

Beskar

02-16-2010, 04:51

It is sad that unions are seen as a bad thing, when they are all about holding the employee's best interests.

"Though I recall every Wal-Mart nationwide getting rid of some meat butchering related department after one started to unionize. I smiled."
Looks like our little rabbit has sadistic streak for corperations exploiting their employees.

Crazed Rabbit

02-16-2010, 05:53

It is sad that unions are seen as a bad thing, when they are all about holding the employee's best interests.

Not necessarily. Many unions use forced dues from employees for political contributions the union leadership approves of, but that membership has no say in.

Or you have employees who work hard getting passed over for someone else who's got seniority or an in with the leaders.

Just some of the reasons people don't want to work in unions.

"Though I recall every Wal-Mart nationwide getting rid of some meat butchering related department after one started to unionize. I smiled."
Looks like our little rabbit has sadistic streak for corperations exploiting their employees.

I just love seeing growing monopolistic cartels get cut off at the root. Why do you love cartels that hurt the consumer so much?
:inquisitive:

CR

HoreTore

02-16-2010, 09:46

Not necessarily. Many unions use forced dues from employees for political contributions the union leadership approves of, but that membership has no say in.

Or you have employees who work hard getting passed over for someone else who's got seniority or an in with the leaders.

Just some of the reasons people don't want to work in unions.

Then start your own bloody union. Gawd.

Alright CR; let's say you have something to complain about at work. How do you present your case to management? Do you go by ourself OR do you find some others who think the same as you and go together to make the complaint? The second option is the one that's by far the most likely to succed. And that's a union, folks!

Beskar

02-16-2010, 10:52

I just love seeing growing monopolistic cartels get cut off at the root. Why do you love cartels that hurt the consumer so much?
:inquisitive:

CR

The poor consumer. :cry: They are hurt so much.

I know, why don't they make cuts at the top, to fuel the increase pay in the bottom? You know, I doubt that manager needs another BMW so badly when his employees are on minimum wage.

Have you heard of fair-trade for example? This is where they pay the African farmer far more for his goods, so they actually get some income to live on. Also, the price difference is completely negilable to the consumer, due to economics of scale.

I mean, if Walmart even added 1 cent onto all their products, they could give their employees a nice pay increase.

It isn't the consumer that is affected at all.

The whole "monopolistic cartels" ( :laugh4: :laugh4:) are nothing of the sort.

Also, not sure about the US, but memberships to Unions here mean they provide representatives, legal support (they hire a top quality lawyer to help your case) and all sorts of benefits for a minimum contribution sum.

Crazed Rabbit

02-16-2010, 19:30

Then start your own bloody union. Gawd.

Starting a new union to push out the old one? I believe that verges on impossible in the US, due to the legal protections of unions and the fact that each chapter is part of a national organization. You sure like help for the little man when he's going up against a corporation, but not when he goes against a union that's far bigger than that corporation. Especially here since unions like to come down hard on any worker who crosses them.

Alright CR; let's say you have something to complain about at work. How do you present your case to management? Do you go by ourself OR do you find some others who think the same as you and go together to make the complaint? The second option is the one that's by far the most likely to succed. And that's a union, folks!

No, not in the US it isn't. It's a group of people complaining to management; heck that isn't a union at all, which is elected, certified, and handles all negotiation for all workers on everything.

And have you not heard of worker's associations?

I know, why don't they make cuts at the top, to fuel the increase pay in the bottom? You know, I doubt that manager needs another BMW so badly when his employees are on minimum wage.

Supply and demand. Lots, heck, nearly every worker int he US could do a minimum wage job.

And need doesn't matter.

The whole "monopolistic cartels" ( ) are nothing of the sort.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Oh my, what a laugh. You know where I got that term? From a professor of economics at Harvard. So perhaps you should consider that he's much more likely to know what he's talking about than you.

CR

HoreTore

02-16-2010, 19:41

No, not in the US it isn't. It's a group of people complaining to management; heck that isn't a union at all, which is elected, certified, and handles all negotiation for all workers on everything.

And have you not heard of worker's associations?

Just how do you think the union-thing started...? It started simple; by a bunch of workers realizing that their complaint will get more weight if they made it together instead of individually. That's still the essence of what a union is.

Crazed Rabbit

02-16-2010, 19:56

Just how do you think the union-thing started...? It started simple; by a bunch of workers realizing that their complaint will get more weight if they made it together instead of individually. That's still the essence of what a union is.

Whatever the 'essence' is, the legality and reality of it is that your scenario does not resemble a modern day US union at all.

CR

Strike For The South

02-16-2010, 20:04

I mean, if Walmart even added 1 cent onto all their products, they could give their employees a nice pay increase.
.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

HoreTore

02-16-2010, 20:17

Whatever the 'essence' is, the legality and reality of it is that your scenario does not resemble a modern day US union at all.

CR

Then it's your duty to start a new and better one.

See? that's how this freedom-thingy works. People are free to do whatever they want, but in order to get things done they will still have to do them.

jabarto

02-16-2010, 21:24

Starting a new union to push out the old one? I believe that verges on impossible in the US, due to the legal protections of unions and the fact that each chapter is part of a national organization. You sure like help for the little man when he's going up against a corporation, but not when he goes against a union that's far bigger than that corporation. Especially here since unions like to come down hard on any worker who crosses them.

You know, you're really something. What, unions are always designed to protect shoddy workers, but corporations aren't? Why do you always give the latter the benefit of the doubt in every single instance?

Me: "Hey guys I just provided a study showing that unions don't raise unemployement."
You: "Bah, there's probably other factors at work. *doesn't bother to cite them*"

Me: "Is it really so outlandish to believe that people can be fired for their opinions is there are no protections against that sort of thing?"
You: "Yes because FREE MARKET INVISIBLE HAND WILL NOT ALLOW IT."

That thing about unions protecting workers is what baffles me. Why is it so outlandish to you that people shoudln't be fired unless they demonstrably were not doing their jobs or grossly violating the law? I'll grant that sometimes unionis will look out for thier workers' interests to the exclusion of all else (there's actually a rather specific term for that), but were it not for unions, all workers everyhwere would be in a worse postions than they are now - not to mention that we're actually regressing in the wake of the loss of unions...

Crazed Rabbit

02-16-2010, 21:36

You know, you're really something. What, unions are always designed to protect shoddy workers, but corporations aren't? Why do you always give the latter the benefit of the doubt in every single instance?

Me: "Hey guys I just provided a study showing that unions don't raise unemployement."
You: "Bah, there's probably other factors at work. *doesn't bother to cite them*"

Here's some for the bit I quoted; the fact that the US and Canada are different countries, with different workforces, immigration levels, education levels, age demographics, companies, environmental regulations, energy regulations, workplace regulations, etc. That post you linked to responded as none of those factors existed.

Me: "Is it really so outlandish to believe that people can be fired for their opinions is there are no protections against that sort of thing?"
You: "Yes because FREE MARKET INVISIBLE HAND WILL NOT ALLOW IT."

Way to not read what I wrote:

And employers should be able to fire anyone they feel like. The smart companies will do it efficiently and only fire unproductive workers. The stupid companies won't and will therefore suffer for their stupidity economically, and go out of business if they continue.

So, I said it's possible, but that free enterprise will mean the companies who don't act stupidly will perform better.

That thing about unions protecting workers is what baffles me. Why is it so outlandish to you that people shoudln't be fired unless they demonstrably were not doing their jobs or grossly violating the law? I'll grant that sometimes unionis will look out for thier workers' interests to the exclusion of all else (there's actually a rather specific term for that), but were it not for unions, all workers everyhwere would be in a worse postions than they are now - not to mention that we're actually regressing in the wake of the loss of unions...

Regressing, huh? Is this another one of your claims that is based on a few anecdotes and no data?

Also, Beskar - I want to know, who do you think makes up corporations? Also, you sarcastically dismiss the welfare of the consumer. Consider that consumers represent far, far more people than the employees at a factory. Why do you want all those people to be worse off so that a small group is better off?

See? that's how this freedom-thingy works. People are free to do whatever they want, but in order to get things done they will still have to do them.

Gee, I feel like I addressed this already. Oh, right, I did:

Starting a new union to push out the old one? I believe that verges on impossible in the US, due to the legal protections of unions and the fact that each chapter is part of a national organization. You sure like help for the little man when he's going up against a corporation, but not when he goes against a union that's far bigger than that corporation. Especially here since unions like to come down hard on any worker who crosses them.

CR

HoreTore

02-16-2010, 22:13

Gee, I feel like I addressed this already. Oh, right, I did:

All I hear is defeatist whining. Grow up and be a man.

EDIT: If in doubt, that comment was meant to be more light-hearted than it may sound....

Crazed Rabbit

02-16-2010, 22:21

All I hear is defeatist whining. Grow up and be a man.

EDIT: If in doubt, that comment was meant to be more light-hearted than it may sound....

I'll just be sure to remember it the next time anyone complains about Union being hard to form because of those big bad corporations. :beam:

CR

HoreTore

02-16-2010, 22:38

I'll just be sure to remember it the next time anyone complains about Union being hard to form because of those big bad corporations. :beam:

CR

Never in my life have I complained about that. Workers rights are a struggle, there is no reason why anyone would want to give them, that's why people demand them.

If you convince enough people that your demand is just, you will succeed. If you can't convince enough people to succeed, your demand isn't just.

Beskar

02-17-2010, 02:27

You know who else who hates Unions?

https://img33.imageshack.us/img33/7595/krqn.jpg

Here is Crazed Rabbit's Economic Bible (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition).

Centurion1

02-17-2010, 02:55

Never in my life have I complained about that. Workers rights are a struggle, there is no reason why anyone would want to give them, that's why people demand them.

If you convince enough people that your demand is just, you will succeed. If you can't convince enough people to succeed, your demand isn't just.

just let me add that to my little red book of bull.

jabarto

02-17-2010, 02:58

Regressing, huh? Is this another one of your claims that is based on a few anecdotes and no data?

I told you twice over that the cost of living in America has been steadily increasing for decades while wages remain the same or even lower.

Centurion1

02-17-2010, 02:59

I told you twice over that the cost of living in America has been steadily increasing for decades while wages remain the same or even lower.

wrong they increase at disproportionate rates, yes. but wages have gone up with the cost of living your employer HAS to give you a cost of living adjustment.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-17-2010, 06:20

wrong they increase at disproportionate rates, yes. but wages have gone up with the cost of living your employer HAS to give you a cost of living adjustment.

Actually, the only employers REQUIRED to provide cost of living adjustments are those that are bound to do so by law (federal government jobs) or by contract (some union contracts include such a provision). You are correct that most employers make such increases anyway, else they risk losing their employees (and usually their best ones) to other employers who will provide such increases. Any compulsion is de facto, not de jure.

Beskar

02-17-2010, 06:52

Actually, the only employers REQUIRED to provide cost of living adjustments are those that are bound to do so by law (federal government jobs) or by contract (some union contracts include such a provision). You are correct that most employers make such increases anyway, else they risk losing their employees (and usually their best ones) to other employers who will provide such increases. Any compulsion is de facto, not de jure.

Experience over-here shows the opposite. Those at the bottom don't get such an increase unless the minimum wage is increased, generally this is sort of done in-line with inflation in the UK at least. Outside of this and public sector or contracts done due to Unions, it never happens.

Also, in America, with your service culture, minimum wage is around the $2.13 mark, so they do not even see the benefits of the federal $7.50 rate.

Crazed Rabbit

02-17-2010, 20:27

Experience over-here shows the opposite. Those at the bottom don't get such an increase unless the minimum wage is increased, generally this is sort of done in-line with inflation in the UK at least. Outside of this and public sector or contracts done due to Unions, it never happens.

Also, in America, with your service culture, minimum wage is around the $2.13 mark, so they do not even see the benefits of the federal $7.50 rate.

Um, no it isn't. The only people who get paid less are those who get a lot of tips, ie waitresses. And even then the base wage is much higher than $2.13.

Oh, look , I found your Little Red Economic Book:
https://img688.imageshack.us/img688/120/1984gray318.jpg

I told you twice over that the cost of living in America has been steadily increasing for decades while wages remain the same or even lower.

:rolleyes: Wages have been increasing. Color me completely unconvinced.

CR

Beskar

02-17-2010, 20:42

Um, no it isn't. The only people who get paid less are those who get a lot of tips, ie waitresses. And even then the base wage is much higher than $2.13.

Do you tip the employees at Mc Donalds for your burger?

Oh, look , I found your Little Red Economic Book:
https://img688.imageshack.us/img688/120/1984gray318.jpg

You are right, I do share a lot of beliefs with Orwell. As Wikipedia mentions -

His work is marked by keen intelligence and wit, a profound awareness of social injustice, an intense, revolutionary opposition to totalitarianism, a passion for clarity in language and a belief in democratic socialism.

I would say I am aware of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and have ideas rooted in democracy and socialism. Thank you for realising that. <3

Unfortunately, the example you quote is not an economic theory, but a political statement.

HoreTore

02-17-2010, 20:49

Beskar

02-17-2010, 21:01

It's always so cute when right-wingers think that Orwell attacked socialism.

He attacked Stalin, because in his mind he had turned CAPITALIST, which is the worst thing in Orwell's book(that's everyone looks the same in the final scene of Animal Farm).

It is amusing because Orwell is attacking the right-wing. He is attacking authoritarianism in its aspects. He sees the Animal Farm (USSR) getting corrupted by Napoleon (Stalin) from its original loafty inspirational goals. He was attacking what the USSR became, not what it was in the beginning. Unfortunately, Stalin had too many fingers in too many pies, and people were more worried about other people, that Stalin was simply overlooked.

HoreTore

02-17-2010, 21:12

It is amusing because Orwell is attacking the right-wing. He is attacking authoritarianism in its aspects. He sees the Animal Farm (USSR) getting corrupted by Napoleon (Stalin) from its original loafty inspirational goals. He was attacking what the USSR became, not what it was in the beginning. Unfortunately, Stalin had too many fingers in too many pies, and people were more worried about other people, that Stalin was simply overlooked.

Well at least CR has removed that qoute from his siggy where Orwells calls for an armed socialist revolution....

Ironside

02-17-2010, 21:42

:rolleyes: Wages have been increasing. Color me completely unconvinced.

CR

Inflation adjusted? The 2009 data should be quite interesting and we're talking on 30 year scale here.
Now I can agree that the cost of living haven't probably increased more, inflation adjusted.

Centurion1

02-17-2010, 22:41

Do you tip the employees at Mc Donalds for your burger?

No but they make minmum wage. definetly not 2.13 lol.

Beskar

02-17-2010, 23:01

Want weird statistics?

1 in 8 people in America suffer from Hunger.

6 in 10 suffer from overweight/obesity.

lol.

TinCow

02-17-2010, 23:11

1 in 8 people in America suffer from Hunger.

That's not quite correct. That includes people whose income is low enough that they risk hunger if the income flow is disrupted, but they're not actually experiencing a shortage of food. They're essentially people who are at risk of going hungry in the future. The number of people who actively do not get enough food to eat is much lower. This report (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR29/ERR29b.pdf) says that 3.7 percent of the population fell into that category in 2005.

Husar

02-18-2010, 00:17

Aemilius Paulus

02-18-2010, 00:25

I do not get it. How do the libertarians propose handling economics with no central authority? I thought the Panic of the 1907 was the final lesson needed, after which the people and the gov't finally grew wiser, and created the Fed. What will happen without it? And even before the Fed, the government still had quite a few options to tinker with the economy. What will happen when this is gone? Everyone knows about the vicious circular nature of recessions. With no outside money, the effects will be catastrophic, leading to prolonged busts where a slight downturn would have sufficed.

And in general, with the power void left following the dramatic shrinking of the government duties, is it not reasonable to point out that there is no such thing as a prolonged power vacuum, and that the sole solution would be for the corporations to fill that in, as it is in so many places in the world? If there is one thing certain, it is that power will always be in someone's hands, and that it will be in the hands of very few. Libertarianism does not lead to a free paradise, but rather the institution of some other oppressive force. Since I cannot find more positive oppression in this world than the oppression of the US gov't, I would rather have the status quo.

Just to spite the libertarians, I would love to see some advanced country go along with this. The only problem is, it would likely be US, and I would never wish such harm to this great nation. But purely as a Russian, I would rejoice. How can you expect US to stay a global superpower with a libertarian government? Such a demanding position requires a strong government. A government ready to not only defend itself, but intervene, and to actively participate in various interventions on a daily basis. With a libertarian government, China and Russia shall inherit the world. And maybe the EU playing a secondary role, but I can imagine China and Russia easily playing off the nations of EU one against the other. As usual, the euro-skeptics will help out. Many thanks to EMFM and Furnuculus :bow:

Libertarianism is a very fashionable idea today in the US. It reminds me so much of communism in theearly 1900s - 10s, 20s, and to a lesser degree, in the 30s. Except that far left movements were actively persecuted in most nations. Still, a great deal of intellectuals supported it. Many people liked it too, although USSR was already running an experiment of it starting with the 20s, so the sentiments were a bit sobered by the negative stories leaking out of the secretive USSR. In the late 1800s, the far left ideologies were still fresh, though, and no one has tried them yet, and so the socialist agenda was widespread, even if it so often collided with various governments, persecuted through the urgings of either the European monarchs, not comfortable with the revolutionary rhetoric, and the big business, for very obvious reasons.

However, today there are no political restrictions in US. But there is that history of libertarian tendencies, as we can observe in Jefferson's writings, for instance (thank God in the end it ended up in favour of the more prudent and realistic Hamilton, Adams, and Madison). Today, libertarianism has the advantages communism did not enjoy. So it spreads and spreads. It advocates a different, yet similar utopia. It promises solutions which are overtly simplistic - and we know better than to trust that sort of argumentation, right? All this theory needs is the implementation of it to show everyone what it truly leads to.

Just the notion that any sort of extreme can prove to be the most optimal solution strikes me as pure ideological madness. Since when have such extremes, extremes which will affect every aspect of gv't, since when have such extremes proven to be successful? Answers do not lie on the extremes. Nothing is so simple. Why can a libertarian not see how similar a communist society as prescribed by Marx is not all that much different from libertarianism in its practical results? But whatever, this is still debatable. The larger question is the one I have already put forward - how can this extreme lead to any good? It goes beyond all common sense and history. For hundreds of years we see national governments go far into left and right, and we always see the shift to the centre, eventually, or else the nation stagnates or some other misfortune occurs.

Germany went from the ultra-liberal Weimar Republic (both in the social and economic sense - classical economic liberalism, that is). Then it went to Hitler's ultra-right government. France went from rather far-right of DeGaulle and into the rather far-left of Mitterand. But both came back to the relative centre. A libertarian nation will soon turn from one extreme into the opposite extreme, after overwhelming discontent drives the state to turn to an extreme of command economy - as the historical rule states. In the end though, the nation will set itself back on the same, moderate course which it followed before the libertarian revolution. I do not see any other way.

TinCow

02-18-2010, 02:07

Well, considering the USA are a first world country I'd expect that to be 0%, 3.7% is definitely way too much IMO.
I don't know what the numbers are here in europe but if they're above 0%, that's just as bad.

I would expect that the numbers would be similar in most developed nations. Hunger is directly linked to poverty rates, and no developed nation has successfully reduced poverty to an acceptable level.

[edit]I've been looking for statistics, but it seems the UN, WHO, etc. do not even bother gathering hunger data for developed nations. The stats for the US come from national estimates. I'm guessing European stats would have to come from similar sources. Google isn't producing much when I look for individual EU nation stats.

Crazed Rabbit

02-18-2010, 02:32

Do you tip the employees at Mc Donalds for your burger?

:laugh4:
They get paid minimum wage at least. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
:laugh4:

Well at least CR has removed that qoute from his siggy where Orwells calls for an armed socialist revolution....

I had no such sig. I once had this quote:

"That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

Which most of you socialists seem to vehemently disagree with.

I would say I am aware of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and have ideas rooted in democracy and socialism. Thank you for realising that. <3

Unfortunately, the example you quote is not an economic theory, but a political statement.

So you're saying I have similar views to Gene Roddenberry? Or are you just incapable of actual debate such that you bring up star trek nerd stuff?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I do not get it. How do the libertarians propose handling economics with no central authority? I thought the Panic of the 1907 was the final lesson needed, after which the people and the gov't finally grew wiser, and created the Fed. What will happen without it? And even before the Fed, the government still had quite a few options to tinker with the economy. What will happen when this is gone? Everyone knows about the vicious circular nature of recessions. With no outside money, the effects will be catastrophic, leading to prolonged busts where a slight downturn would have sufficed.

The Panic of 1907 was contained, and the damage quite limited, because of the actions of owners of large banks. Those heads of corporations got together without the government and prevented a large collapse of banks.

At the beginning of the great recession, the recently created Fed didn't do anything. For whatever reason (and there are several possible) it allowed banks to collapse where, if the Fed didn't exist, private banks might have stepped in as they did in 1907 and limited the damage.

Also, AP; I don't believe libertarianism has anything like the popularity of communism back in the early 1900s. It certainly isn't 'spreading and spreading'. Nor does Libertarianism require changing human nature.

CR

Aemilius Paulus

02-18-2010, 02:53

The Panic of 1907 was contained, and the damage quite limited, because of the actions of owners of large banks. Those heads of corporations got together without the government and prevented a large collapse of banks.
Ha! You swallowed the bait. Surely you do not think out of all the recessions, some even depressions, I chose that one on random, do you? But that is precisely why the Fed was created - the people and the gov't were very alarmed to see a single man, J.P. Morgan bail out all of US. The previous recessions did not have that, because there was no such one powerful individual. After Morgan's death, there was no such individual again, save for John D. Rockefeller - and he did not lived until the late 30s. The point is, the bailout only comes with such powerful individuals, and if there is such a powerful individual, then he has no business being so powerful. A fabulously wealthy business magnate is not at all accountable with how he uses the money. As long as he does not fund genocide, he will pretty much remain OK, even in terms of his PR.

And hell, IBM sure got away with literally making the Holocaust possible, and they were not even German-based. On the contrary, they were a US company, and they retained their usual relationship with their business branch in Germany. They knew what they did, and they did not do a thing to pull out, even though they could have - at the very least, they could have broken their relations with the German branch. Instead, they kept working along. The worst part, of course, is that they totally got away with it. No, I am not at all anti-corporatist. But I am anti-libertarian, which will set loose the corporations. No, I am just a centrist.

At the beginning of the great recession, the recently created Fed didn't do anything. For whatever reason (and there are several possible) it allowed banks to collapse where, if the Fed didn't exist, private banks might have stepped in as they did in 1907 and limited the damage.
Muahahahaha!!!11 Not only you swallowed my first bait, but you also fell into a nearby trap. The very reason why nothing was done before and in the beginning of the Great Depression as that because Hoover was what you call a libertarian. He kept insisting the businesses should go their way and that the gov't should not interfere. Yeah, lot of good that led to...

Anyhow, I gotta run, sorry for not elaborating more.

Crazed Rabbit

02-18-2010, 03:35

Ha! You swallowed the bait. Surely you do not think out of all the recessions, some even depressions, I chose that one on random, do you? But that is precisely why the Fed was created - the people and the gov't were very alarmed to see a single man, J.P. Morgan bail out all of US. The previous recessions did not have that, because there was no such one powerful individual. After Morgan's death, there was no such individual again, save for John D. Rockefeller - and he did not lived until the late 30s. The point is, the bailout only comes with such powerful individuals, and if there is such a powerful individual, then he has no business being so powerful. A fabulously wealthy business magnate is not at all accountable with how he uses the money. As long as he does not fund genocide, he will pretty much remain OK, even in terms of his PR.

Some pointers; you're wrong about the Fed. While created in response to various panics including the 1907 one, it was a response to the dangers of such a panic, not the thought that one individual had the power to bail out the US. Secondly, Morgan didn't 'bail out' anyone by himself. His bank and other large banks worked to shore up the reserves of sound banks in order to stop the panic.

The bailout didn't come from powerful individuals but powerful banks. Your sentence about people having no business being so powerful is nonsensical. The end, regarding genocide, veers off into the rather completely irrelevant.

Muahahahaha!!!11 Not only you swallowed my first bait, but you also fell into a nearby trap. The very reason why nothing was done before and in the beginning of the Great Depression as that because Hoover was what you call a libertarian. He kept insisting the businesses should go their way and that the gov't should not interfere. Yeah, lot of good that led to...

You shouldn't try to set a trap when the other guy has written college papers about the topic :evil:

Some information on how and why the Fed failed; (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/)

Friedman and Schwartz argued that all this was due to the Fed’s failure to carry out its assigned role as the lender of last resort. Rather than providing liquidity through loans, the Fed just watched as banks dropped like flies, seemingly oblivious to the effect this would have on the money supply. The Fed could have offset the decrease created by bank failures by engaging in bond purchases, but it did not. As Milton and Rose Friedman wrote in Free to Choose:

The [Federal Reserve] System could have provided a far better solution by engaging in large-scale open market purchases of government bonds. That would have provided banks with additional cash to meet the demands of their depositors. That would have ended—or at least sharply reduced—the stream of bank failures and have prevented the public’s attempted conversion of deposits into currency from reducing the quantity of money. Unfortunately, the Fed’s actions were hesitant and small. In the main, it stood idly by and let the crisis take its course—a pattern of behavior that was to be repeated again and again during the next two years.

According to Friedman and Schwartz, this was a complete abdication of the Fed’s core responsibilities—responsibilities it had taken away from the commercial bank clearinghouses that had acted to mitigate panics before 1914—and was the primary cause of the Great Depression.

The obvious question is: Why didn’t the Fed act? We don’t know for sure, but Friedman and Schwartz proposed several possible explanations: 1) the Fed officials did not fully understand the disastrous consequences of letting so many banks go under. Friedman and Schwartz wrote that Fed officials may have “tended to regard bank failures as regrettable consequences of bank management or bad banking practices, or as inevitable reactions to prior speculative excesses, or as a consequence but hardly a cause of the financial and economic collapse in process”; 2) Fed officials may have been acting out of their own self-interest since many of them were affiliated with large Northeastern banks. Bank failures, at least in the early stages, “were concentrated among smaller banks and since the most influential figures in the system were big-city bankers who deplored the existence of smaller banks, their disappearance may have been viewed with complacency”; 3) The inactivity may have been caused by political infighting between the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, D.C., and regional Fed banks, in particular the New York district bank, which was the most important part of the system at that time. But we may never know the real reason.

As the current head of the Fed said (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/default.htm):

As everyone here knows, in their Monetary History Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of 1929-33 was the product of the nation's monetary mechanism gone wrong. Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s, Friedman and Schwartz argued that "the contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces [p. 300; all page references refer to Friedman and Schwartz, 1963]."
...
It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's infamous 'liquidationist' thesis, that weeding out "weak" banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks--which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed--felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. Bank failures and depositor withdrawals greatly reduced the quantity of bank deposits, consequently reducing the money supply. The result, they argued, was greater deflation and output decline than would have otherwise occurred.
...
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

So we see it was not Hoover, it was not some executive libertarian principles, but rather the failure of the central bank by itself. Indeed, the existence of the central bank may have contributed to the magnitude of the crash.

Furthermore, the decidedly non-libertarian policies of FDR (high taxes, price fixing, encouraging business and then worker cartels, etc.) also prolonged the depression (http://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedmwp/597.html).

You've been hoisted by your own petard.

:cool:

CR

P.S. - in some ways a libertarian is anti-large corporations because they oppose rent-seeking by such large companies with lots of lobbyists, and they oppose burdensome regulations that small businesses don't have the lawyers to deal with.

HoreTore

02-18-2010, 08:40

I had no such sig. I once had this quote:

Which most of you socialists seem to vehemently disagree with.

That's a call for an armed revolution, my friend.

But I'm no revolutionary socialist like you are, CR, so I see no need to kill and oppress the bourgouise class if they don't agree with the working class. I believe in dialouge and reforms instead of revolutions, as they tend to end up all Stalinist....

But hey, we agree in principle, Comrade!!

Centurion1

02-18-2010, 17:26

That's a call for an armed revolution, my friend.

But I'm no revolutionary socialist like you are, CR, so I see no need to kill and oppress the bourgouise class if they don't agree with the working class. I believe in dialouge and reforms instead of revolutions, as they tend to end up all Stalinist....

But hey, we agree in principle, Comrade!!

no its not

Crazed Rabbit

02-18-2010, 18:52

Beskar

02-18-2010, 19:23

:laugh4:
They get paid minimum wage at least. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
:laugh4:

I was told they get paid service minimum. Blame the Americans that told me, if that is not the case. One of them worked in Pizza Hut at the time as well.

So you're saying I have similar views to Gene Roddenberry? Or are you just incapable of actual debate such that you bring up star trek nerd stuff?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I was talking about Ferengi economic theory, which Gene Roddenberry did devise as a representation based on your type of Free-market ecominics. While the Federation is a Socialist/Communist styled economy and everything is paradise. Also, there are many other concepts of dystopian future based on your ideas, such as in Robocop. Also books such as Jennifer Government.

Crazed Rabbit

02-18-2010, 19:41

I was talking about Ferengi economic theory, which Gene Roddenberry did devise as a representation based on your type of Free-market ecominics. While the Federation is a Socialist/Communist styled economy and everything is paradise. Also, there are many other concepts of dystopian future based on your ideas, such as in Robocop. Also books such as Jennifer Government.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You have no idea what sort of government I think is best, do you?

CR

Beskar

02-18-2010, 20:24

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You have no idea what sort of government I htink is best, do you?

CR

No government. Just like the Ferengi, or an extremely limited one like in the book, Jennifer Government.

HoreTore

02-18-2010, 21:14

no its not

Thank you, that added something to the discussion.

Saying a symbol of democracy must be kept is a call for armed revolution?
Right........ :rolleyes:

CR

Just what do you believe a revolutionary socialist like Orwell would want that rifle used for?

Orwell wanted an armed workers class to prevent it from being abused by the other classes, by using the threath of an armed revolution.

Beskar

02-18-2010, 22:02

Just what do you believe a revolutionary socialist like Orwell would want that rifle used for?

Orwell wanted an armed workers class to prevent it from being abused by the other classes, by using the threath of an armed revolution.

Also why there is the 2nd Amendment, it is there to oppose government for if they get turned into a Monarchy/etc so the people can take control.

Though, an armed mob would lose to a F14 pretty fast now-a-days.

Aemilius Paulus

02-18-2010, 22:38

Some pointers; you're wrong about the Fed. While created in response to various panics including the 1907 one, it was a response to the dangers of such a panic, not the thought that one individual had the power to bail out the US. Secondly, Morgan didn't 'bail out' anyone by himself. His bank and other large banks worked to shore up the reserves of sound banks in order to stop the panic.
You are correct about the first point, and I agree with you. Many were indeed alarmed by the power of J.P. Morgan, but that was not the main reason. The main reason, was the instinctive and immediate self-preservation in the form of making sure such a disaster would not happen again, as similar events occurred so many times before.

Your second point, I however, do not agree with. Not from all the books I have read. Obviously, Morgan did not do it single-handily. But his capital, and his power, which stemmed from his capital, played a defining role in the organisation of the bail-out effort. This alarmed no small number of people. Are you even debating this?? Literally every source mentions this. Would you like for me to go through the books I have read on this topic and list all the ones which described the well-justified fears about the amounts of power individuals such as Morgan held? And it started because of Morgan too. Does the name 'Pujo Committee' not ring a bell in your head?

The bailout didn't come from powerful individuals but powerful banks. Your sentence about people having no business being so powerful is nonsensical.
:shrug: Have it your way... Powerful individuals led the banks, as in those days the board of directors consisting of the major stockholders were little like what they are today. It was not until the 20s, IIRC, when they began to take crystallise as what they are today, with similar powers and such. As the wealthiest banker, Morgan had the most power, which enabled him to take the position of the main director of the bail-out effort. It was his initiative, or at the very least, he was the driving force which made it possible. Have you read Wessel, for instance?

The end, regarding genocide, veers off into the rather completely irrelevant.
How so, my post was a general critique of libertarianism. Mainly that relying on corporations to do the right thing is not a wise choice. I could see nothing more relevant, in fact. You are defending corporations and seemingly supporting the naturalistic theory of economics, where the corporations sort things out by themselves, and more or less for the common good.

A major tenet of libertarianism rests on the assumption that the corporations will not go wild when unhinged from the gov't control. You defended your views on this very topic earlier in this thread, insisting that he corporations will not play to the socialist fears in the case of the institution of libertarianism. And I pointed out why relying on large businesses to do the right thing may not be prudent. Easy to dismiss a point by calling it 'nonsensical', instead of actually refuting it, but it helps when the said point is actually irrelevant, and not, at least slightly, pertinent as my point surely was.

You shouldn't try to set a trap when the other guy has written college papers about the topic :evil:
You mean you have? And so what? I am in college too, and I too have written about Bernanke in a research project for Macro-Economics, and that led to me studying the Great Depression and the Panic of 1907, as they happened to be Bernanke's main interests.

Not to mention, I never said I set the trap. My trap, my intentional bait was the one regarding the Panic of 1907. What I meant by 'fell into a nearby trap' was that you seemingly fell into a trap which I never intended, which I never set myself, but noticed only when you set it off yourself for whatever reason.

Some information on how and why the Fed failed; (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/)

As the current head of the Fed said (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/default.htm):

So we see it was not Hoover, it was not some executive libertarian principles, but rather the failure of the central bank by itself. Indeed, the existence of the central bank may have contributed to the magnitude of the crash.
Yes, I see your point, and it has merits, but I have read just as much, nay, much more marital dumping a hefty amount of blame on Hoover. Now, to give him justice, he thought he was acting in best interests of the nations, and so on, but that does not mitigate the fact he contributed to the Great Depression through his inaction.

Furthermore, the decidedly non-libertarian policies of FDR (high taxes, price fixing, encouraging business and then worker cartels, etc.) also prolonged the depression (http://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedmwp/597.html).
Oh yes, FDR never did as good of a job as so many think, and any scholar will tell you that if not for WWII, God knows how long it could have lasted in US, but seriously, CR, you are evading all my main points of my initial post. I am not going to defend FDR, as he made blunders, no doubt. But the Republicans simply did not do anything about the Depression when it began under their administration. You can nitpick FDR's shortcomings, but what have you to say about your party?

You've been hoisted by your own petard.
Admittedly the risk of that occurring is rather high when attempting such things. :tongue:

P.S. - in some ways a libertarian is anti-large corporations because they oppose rent-seeking by such large companies with lots of lobbyists, and they oppose burdensome regulations that small businesses don't have the lawyers to deal with.
Riiight... And in some way the communists are pro-corporation because state owned-enterprise is essantially a one, giant monopoly... My point is that the pro-corporatist nature of libertarianism is so absurdly blatant that it is even more absurd to push forth a minuscule exception to this general characteristic and hope that will do anything but make the debate opponent laugh in your face... :rolleyes::tongue:

In case you are wondering why I did not debate the specifics of your arguments regarding the causes of the Great Depression, I will repeat that you ignored basically everything else in my initial post regarding the general evaluation of libertarianism. All you did was point out a relatively minor (when faced with the rest of my post) inconsistency having to do with the Crisis of 1907 and an equally minor point of mine which compared the popularity of libertarianism with communism and the implications of that.

But what about all this:

I do not get it. How do the libertarians propose handling economics with no central authority?

And in general, with the power void left following the dramatic shrinking of the government duties, is it not reasonable to point out that there is no such thing as a prolonged power vacuum, and that the sole solution would be for the corporations to fill that in, as it is in so many places in the world? If there is one thing certain, it is that power will always be in someone's hands, and that it will be in the hands of very few. Libertarianism does not lead to a free paradise, but rather the institution of some other oppressive force. Since I cannot find more positive oppression in this world than the oppression of the US gov't, I would rather have the status quo.

Just to spite the libertarians, I would love to see some advanced country go along with this. The only problem is, it would likely be US, and I would never wish such harm to this great nation. But purely as a Russian, I would rejoice. How can you expect US to stay a global superpower with a libertarian government? Such a demanding position requires a strong government. A government ready to not only defend itself, but intervene, and to actively participate in various interventions on a daily basis. With a libertarian government, China and Russia shall inherit the world. And maybe the EU playing a secondary role, but I can imagine China and Russia easily playing off the nations of EU one against the other. As usual, the euro-skeptics will help out. Many thanks to EMFM and Furnuculus :bow:

Just the notion that any sort of extreme can prove to be the most optimal solution strikes me as pure ideological madness. Since when have such extremes, extremes which will affect every aspect of gv't, since when have such extremes proven to be successful? Answers do not lie on the extremes. Nothing is so simple. Why can a libertarian not see how similar a communist society as prescribed by Marx is not all that much different from libertarianism in its practical results? But whatever, this is still debatable. The larger question is the one I have already put forward - how can this extreme lead to any good? It goes beyond all common sense and history. For hundreds of years we see national governments go far into left and right, and we always see the shift to the centre, eventually, or else the nation stagnates or some other misfortune occurs.

Germany went from the ultra-liberal Weimar Republic (both in the social and economic sense - classical economic liberalism, that is). Then it went to Hitler's ultra-right government. France went from rather far-right of DeGaulle and into the rather far-left of Mitterand. But both came back to the relative centre. A libertarian nation will soon turn from one extreme into the opposite extreme, after overwhelming discontent drives the state to turn to an extreme of command economy - as the historical rule states. In the end though, the nation will set itself back on the same, moderate course which it followed before the libertarian revolution. I do not see any other way.
?

EDIT: But the comparison to Ferengi was pure brilliance, once I went over to Memory Alpha and read all about them. :grin: Yeah, that's CR all right :laugh4:. Well, sort of :tongue:. I also watched my first episode of Deep Space Nine :yes: