Page 2 of 1682 FirstFirst 1234512521025021002 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 33640
  1. #21
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Member Since
    Nov 2008
    Location
    King's Landing
    Posts
    4,563

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by mad_gater View Post
    indeed.....I don't hunt mainly cuz I couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.....

    I tried some skeet-shooting once at boy scout summer camp and I missed every single clay disc....the only one that broke did so cuz it hit the tree....
    Practice makes perfect. I have a friend who family owns a house and quite a bit of land in the countryside. We went there to do some rabbit shooting one weekend. Unfortunately there was a very good pub nearby and we were to hung over to get up in the morning to take a shot at the rabbits. Still did lots of shooting during the day, just at targets but it helps get your eye in for when you do have a rabbit in your sights. And I've drifted off topic.

    I suppose we could talk about gun politics but I think that would cause this thread to tread into herp derp territory faster than anything i could think of.

  2. #22
    Colonel mad_gater's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6,811

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mighty 6 platoon View Post
    Practice makes perfect. I have a friend who family owns a house and quite a bit of land in the countryside. We went there to do some rabbit shooting one weekend. Unfortunately there was a very good pub nearby and we were to hung over to get up in the morning to take a shot at the rabbits. Still did lots of shooting during the day, just at targets but it helps get your eye in for when you do have a rabbit in your sights. And I've drifted off topic.

    I suppose we could talk about gun politics but I think that would cause this thread to tread into herp derp territory faster than anything i could think of.
    yeah...

  3. #23
    Lieutenant Colonel xxxevilgrinxxx's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    4,295

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mighty 6 platoon View Post
    I don’t have a problem with hunting a whale per say, if this is just talking about killing a whale for practical reason, like food. However only an idiot hunts a species to extinction, a good hunter should manage the species they are after, ensure that there are sufficient numbers so that they can continue to survive and provide a resource for the hunter. The fact that whales are endangered shows the idiocy of the whaling community. I’m a hunter, though obviously shooting rabbits and pheasants in England is a little different in scale to whale hunting. However the principle is the same, myself and fellow hunters and game keepers, we don’t over hunt and gamekeepers manage populations to make sure the numbers are kept up. After all it’s in our best interests to keep the population of these creatures high so there’s plenty of them for us to shoot for years to come.
    I have no problem at all with sustainable, responsible hunting. It IS idiotic to hunt a species to extinction and yes, a good hunter should manage and respect what he hunts. Hunting a species to death is not respect and in the long run, ensures that it's YOU that dies of hunger. I think it's the sheer amount of money that gets tossed around that blows this to the proportions it does. Plinking at a few rabbits for dinner isn't going to rake in a lot of bucks and it's not going to wipe out a species either. Killing whales (or shark-finning, or over-fishing for that matter) doesn't usually come out of a need to put food on people's plates so much as it comes from a desire to put a hell of a lot of money in people's pockets.



    SGU-RELATED FANART | IN YOUNG WE TRUST | FANDUMB

  4. #24
    Captain Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Leeds,West Yorkshire, U.K
    Posts
    1,132

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    It's bit like oil industry as some point the oil WILL run out but they make so much money off it their not willing to slow down (though some are looking to renewables).

  5. #25
    Lieutenant Colonel jmoz's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Undefined
    Posts
    4,001

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    In order to make things fair, I say give the hunted a gun and the ability to use a gun. Otherwise, it's 'oh look at me, I have a gun that can kill you in one shot from a distancce, aren't I a big man'. Yes, I think hunting for sport is wrong. Especially hunting endangered species.

    I'll delve further and present two points of reasoning for my stance. Or just take them at their face value.

    Imagine nothing but blackness. Then you come into existence. You are one being and all around you there is nothing. You have no idea whether you are still or moving at a great speed. There is no air for you to make that determination. Then another being comes into existence a distance away from you. But you still cannot determine if you are still or moving. All you can determine is that you can move some distance relative to that person. That other person gives you perspective. Then there are more persons and more different beings. They all give you unique and different perspectives, not just confined to your spacial status.

    To tie that back into the animals thing, all the various animals give us new perspectives. If we don't have certain perspectives, we just become closer to that singular lone being in a region of nothingness. Of course, some perspectives should be squelched because they infringe on other more numerous perspectives. Infringe on others existences. Such as hunting something to extinction when it plays a crucial role in the food chain.

    My other point of reasoning is the zoo hypothesis (not unique, many of you probably already know this one). Imagine we're all ants. We go about our daily lives of collecting food and surviving. Then some being comes and kills us with chemicals because we are a nuisance. They don't understand our pleas when we try to get them to stop. All we want to do is live. Now imagine that but replace ants with humans and the beings that are killing with advanced aliens. We're nothing more than a nuisance to them and are in no position to explain our right of existence to them due to a lack of communication and unwillingness of the aliens. We are inferior animals to them.

    To tie that into animals, what right do we have to end their existence because they lack our mental facilities and greater perspective into the world?

  6. #26
    Captain Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Leeds,West Yorkshire, U.K
    Posts
    1,132

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jmoz View Post
    In order to make things fair, I say give the hunted a gun and the ability to use a gun. Otherwise, it's 'oh look at me, I have a gun that can kill you in one shot from a distancce, aren't I a big man'. Yes, I think hunting for sport is wrong. Especially hunting endangered species.

    I'll delve further and present two points of reasoning for my stance. Or just take them at their face value.

    Imagine nothing but blackness. Then you come into existence. You are one being and all around you there is nothing. You have no idea whether you are still or moving at a great speed. There is no air for you to make that determination. Then another being comes into existence a distance away from you. But you still cannot determine if you are still or moving. All you can determine is that you can move some distance relative to that person. That other person gives you perspective. Then there are more persons and more different beings. They all give you unique and different perspectives, not just confined to your spacial status.

    To tie that back into the animals thing, all the various animals give us new perspectives. If we don't have certain perspectives, we just become closer to that singular lone being in a region of nothingness. Of course, some perspectives should be squelched because they infringe on other more numerous perspectives. Infringe on others existences. Such as hunting something to extinction when it plays a crucial role in the food chain.

    My other point of reasoning is the zoo hypothesis (not unique, many of you probably already know this one). Imagine we're all ants. We go about our daily lives of collecting food and surviving. Then some being comes and kills us with chemicals because we are a nuisance. They don't understand our pleas when we try to get them to stop. All we want to do is live. Now imagine that but replace ants with humans and the beings that are killing with advanced aliens. We're nothing more than a nuisance to them and are in no position to explain our right of existence to them due to a lack of communication and unwillingness of the aliens. We are inferior animals to them.

    To tie that into animals, what right do we have to end their existence because they lack our mental facilities and greater perspective into the world?
    I get what your saying but as a meat eater I don't value an animals life as much as human so I support hunting as long as it doesn't effect the species as a whole. Saying that us humans are responsible for countless extinctions so I might support drastic action to stop this trend.

  7. #27
    Colonel mad_gater's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6,811

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    it appears certain people are still blind as to why charity is superior than basically having the government take care of you in a de facto nanny state:

    it's because certain people have been brainwashed into thinking that free-market is evil....it's not.....in the free-market system it's based on one simple concept.....the world does NOT owe you a living, so if you want a living you go out and you invest blood, sweat, and tears like the rest of us....in a free market system though it allows for the rise of businesses in the form of non-profits designed to give people a helping hand in learning how to function under such a simple concept....in this system government is there to support charities, not the other way around.....in this system control lies with the citizenry on an individual basis as to how best to use their time, talent, and treasure to help the needy

    de facto socialism through government welfare though seeks to perpetuate the idea that somehow the world owes you a living on a silver platter......in this system control of the use of time, talent, and treasure to help the needy is taken away from the hands of the people through confiscatory taxation policies designed to punish success and hard labor....because once the government levies those taxes......the person's control over the fruits of his labor disappears

    under the free market system the economy operates under the common sense fact that wealth is PRODUCED by the hard work of laborers....the more you labor the more wealth you produce for yourself

    by contrast de facto socialism thru government welfare programs operates under the faulty notion that wealth is something to be consumed...as if wealth is set at a constant number and people are lining up at the proverbial feeding trough....but this reliance on such a faulty notion is why socialism eventually collapses on itself.....cuz you'll eventually run out of wealth to "consume".....because there is no more wealth being produced because EVERYONE has bought into the faulty notion that they're owed a living on a silver platter

    under the free market one labors and receives a tangible reward for his labor....under socialistic economic policies there is no incentive to labor.....because confiscatory taxation policies have robbed them of that incentive, causing the society to grind to a halt and the utopia everyone wished for to come crumbling down like a house built on sand

  8. #28
    Colonel mad_gater's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6,811

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    free market is by no means perfect, but it's the best out of all economic systems.....it's not perfect because yeah you'll get your Ebenezer Scrooges from time to time.....but on the whole people in a free market society are extremely generous with the fruits of their labor......it might surprise you to know that on average, conservatives gave more to charity than liberals, while making on average less than liberals....just think how much more could be donated when the people are freed of the shackles big government

    "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government strong enough to take away everything you have"

  9. #29
    Captain
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,337

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by mad_gater View Post
    free market is by no means perfect, but it's the best out of all economic systems.....
    And therefore, logically, free market supplemented by regulation to mitigate the downsides is the best option.

    ......it might surprise you to know that on average, conservatives gave more to charity than liberals, while making on average less than liberals...
    Yes, but do they give enough to actually offset the need for government-sponsored healthcare?

    If you're going to claim that private charity is a viable substitute to government welfare, it's not enough to merely show that people donate money. You have to prove that the amount of wealth privately donated to charities would exceed the amount currently invested in government welfare. But is that the case? If the conservatives had their way on welfare and taxes, would they actually donate as much to charity as they currently pay in taxes?

    The problem with your first post is that you're trying to free-float between the economic and the moralistic arguments, and even throw political arguments into the mix. "The world doesn't owe you a living" is not an economic argument that shows free market as superior; it's a sanctimonious proclamation that people who are poor and starving should get over it, go out and get a job. The talk about how "in this system control lies with the citizenry" is not economic talk; it's purely political talk. So let's quit the misdirection and separate the steaks from the flies, shall we?

    Economy wise, unregulated free market is superior... for a while. Wealth is invested (mostly) based on economic merit, initiative is (mostly) rewarded, social mobility is (mostly) encouraged, intelligent and hardworking people (sometimes) get rich. So long as the market factors are the only factors in play, it all works more or less smoothly. Then what?

    Then wealth begins to accumulate in the upper tier, and the free market begins to undo its own advances. You can't start small anymore. With exceedingly rare exceptions, it is no longer possible to succeed by opening a coffee shop or a bookstore, because the market is saturated and big companies control most of it. They can take more losses than you can, and that allows them to force you out of the market by lowering their prices long enough for you to go bankrupt, then crank the prices WAY up and recoup their losses at the consumer's expense. Suddenly you need money to make money. If you weren't born into money, your chances of making it into the first tier are slim to none. There goes the social mobility.

    Then there is the employer-employee conflict. Employers want maximum profit for minimum investment, so they want to pay workers less and invest less into maintaining safe and proper working conditions. They also want to be able to fire anyone, for any reason, at any time. During the Industrial revolition- the height of laissez-faire, unregulated industrial freedoms- it made children the ideal workers because they could be paid 20% of an adult's wage, they ate less and they were easier to control as a workforce. In the early 1800-s, for 30% of all British families, children aged 4-13 were the breadwinners, working up to 16 hours a day in factories, agriculture and coal mines. In some industries- like cotton mills- up to two-thirds of all workers were children. Eventually, the British government intervened and put legal limits on this mess. Which was terrible, of course. Nobody owed those children a living. Those meddling government regulators never let the free market work its magic, do they?

    Or, for that matter, take the phenomenon of mining towns, entirely dependend on a single large company for livelyhood.

    Then there's the increasing cost of professional education, which prevents people from getting even into the second tier. When education is treated as a commodity that must be bought at a fair market price, it creates a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty and kills social mobility on the spot. I know an American family- a white, non-immigrant family- whose child is the first member of the family to go to college- because they are the first generation of their family who can afford the costs of education. When you start off poor and all your sweat, blood and tears doesn't earn enough to send your children to college, your society has a big nasty problem that cannot be handwaved away as "nobody owes you a living on a silver platter".

    Bottom line is, free market only truly works when government intervention provides and maintains a fertile soil for it to grow in. Healthcare, education, workers' rights, defense and welfare cannot be left to the mercy of the market because without them, the free market runs itself into stagnation and drags the society into the abyss.
    If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.

  10. #30
    Lieutenant Colonel jmoz's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Undefined
    Posts
    4,001

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble View Post
    I get what your saying but as a meat eater I don't value an animals life as much as human so I support hunting as long as it doesn't effect the species as a whole. Saying that us humans are responsible for countless extinctions so I might support drastic action to stop this trend.
    Yea, I agree with you on that, overpopulation and such. There you go another topic of discussion: overpopulation.

    Sorry, hasty reply. I have to disagree with some things though. If some advanced aliens saw us as animals, by your reasoning, its ok for them to hunt us as long as it doesn't effect our species as a whole. I guess the discrepancy comes when one attempts to set parameters of effecting a species as a whole.

    Sorry the market/economy/charity stuff is too dense for me. I'll just offer an opinion. Free market works initially, but then it becomes more totalitarianistic. You get the rise of rich and wealthy individual. And you try to say that they earned it through their own hard work and whatnot. Sure, some actors and entertainment related people earned their wealth through hard work. But vast majority earned their wealth due to their vanity, inheritance, and whatnot. You honestly cannot be arguing that they earned their wealth.

    And the whole concept of materialistic wealth is not very moralistic, now is it? What does wealth imply? It essentially means you have more than someone else. There will always be that discrepancy. You having more than someone else if wealth exists. In order for you to have wealth, someone has to have less than you to give rise to the concept of wealth.

    And about charity, I'll bring up Peter Singer. He's a prolific philosopher. In one of his works, he establishes what moral duty is:

    If you see a child drowning, you would save the child, would you not?

    That's your moral duty. And he goes on further to say that moral duty should not be limited to your proximity or immediate physical exertion. You can fulfill your moral duty by donating money. That is akin to saving that child.

    And the point he makes is that charity is going beyond your moral duty. It is going beyond just saving that child. It is finding out why that child was drowning, giving that child swimming lessons, etc. He definitely makes a distinction between what our moral duty should be and what charity should be. Charity should be going beyond what is and already should be our moral duty. So what you're describing as charity is not really charity according to Singer, that's just your moral obligation.

  11. #31
    Colonel mad_gater's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6,811

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jmoz View Post
    Yea, I agree with you on that, overpopulation and such. There you go another topic of discussion: overpopulation.

    Sorry, hasty reply. I have to disagree with some things though. If some advanced aliens saw us as animals, by your reasoning, its ok for them to hunt us as long as it doesn't effect our species as a whole. I guess the discrepancy comes when one attempts to set parameters of effecting a species as a whole.

    Sorry the market/economy/charity stuff is too dense for me. I'll just offer an opinion. Free market works initially, but then it becomes more totalitarianistic. You get the rise of rich and wealthy individual. And you try to say that they earned it through their own hard work and whatnot. Sure, some actors and entertainment related people earned their wealth through hard work. But vast majority earned their wealth due to their vanity, inheritance, and whatnot. You honestly cannot be arguing that they earned their wealth.

    And the whole concept of materialistic wealth is not very moralistic, now is it? What does wealth imply? It essentially means you have more than someone else. There will always be that discrepancy. You having more than someone else if wealth exists. In order for you to have wealth, someone has to have less than you to give rise to the concept of wealth.

    And about charity, I'll bring up Peter Singer. He's a prolific philosopher. In one of his works, he establishes what moral duty is:

    If you see a child drowning, you would save the child, would you not?

    That's your moral duty. And he goes on further to say that moral duty should not be limited to your proximity or immediate physical exertion. You can fulfill your moral duty by donating money. That is akin to saving that child.

    And the point he makes is that charity is going beyond your moral duty. It is going beyond just saving that child. It is finding out why that child was drowning, giving that child swimming lessons, etc. He definitely makes a distinction between what our moral duty should be and what charity should be. Charity should be going beyond what is and already should be our moral duty. So what you're describing as charity is not really charity according to Singer, that's just your moral obligation.
    who's to say that the person that gave away the wealth to inherit didn't work for it? as laborers who produce wealth it is the laborer's right to do with it as he pleases.....if he wants to pass it on to his son....esp. for the purpose of paying for things like college....who are we to stop him.....so yeah....while the person who inherited the wealth didn't work for it......the person whom he inherited it from most likely did....and what I was describing as Charity is almost exactly like what Singer describes......in short singer is describing charity the same way I was....helping the needy help themselves.....giving the needy assistance in basic needs while also doing what you can to teach them skills which they can take to the job market is equivalent to what singer says about first saving the child and then addresing why the child was drowning in the first place

    and the free-market is never totalitarian......the more you labor the more wealth you produce.....nothing totalitarian in that concept....yeah...some people become very wealthy.....but having wealth is not in and of itself intrinsically evil as long as they came by it honestly...either by working for it or by inheriting it from people who worked for it honestly (i.e., stolen wealth would be very wrong to possess).....and the only thing we have the right to do in terms of a nation based on civil liberties is strongly ENCOURAGE, not DEMAND, that if a person is able to financially, to help the needy. Yeah most religions treat giving to the poor as a moral obligation, but again an obligation you only need to fulfill if you are in a fiscal position to do so....and while one may not have financial wealth they may have a wealth of time and/or talent....which are also good tolls in helping the needy.....it's why the biggest donors financially tend to be church-goers....but because of the prevailing notion that the needy don't deserve help, but a livelihood handed to them on a silver platter, the government confiscates more and more of what wealth we produce...leaving such church-going people with less and less in their pockets for charitable endeavors

  12. #32
    Colonel Spimman's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Chasing 8 little feet
    Posts
    6,853

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jmoz View Post
    Sorry, hasty reply. I have to disagree with some things though. If some advanced aliens saw us as animals, by your reasoning, its ok for them to hunt us as long as it doesn't effect our species as a whole.
    Can you give a real life example of this? What if scenarios this unrealistic tend display weakness in a position.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmoz View Post
    I guess the discrepancy comes when one attempts to set parameters of effecting a species as a whole.
    Do you eat fish?
    <a href=http://s6.photobucket.com/user/spimman/media/Sig1_zps2497bbad.jpg.html target=_blank><a href=http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y202/spimman/Sig1_zps2497bbad.jpg target=_blank>http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y20...ps2497bbad.jpg</a></a>

  13. #33
    Colonel mad_gater's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6,811

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Womble View Post
    And therefore, logically, free market supplemented by regulation to mitigate the downsides is the best option.


    Yes, but do they give enough to actually offset the need for government-sponsored healthcare?

    If you're going to claim that private charity is a viable substitute to government welfare, it's not enough to merely show that people donate money. You have to prove that the amount of wealth privately donated to charities would exceed the amount currently invested in government welfare. But is that the case? If the conservatives had their way on welfare and taxes, would they actually donate as much to charity as they currently pay in taxes?

    The problem with your first post is that you're trying to free-float between the economic and the moralistic arguments, and even throw political arguments into the mix. "The world doesn't owe you a living" is not an economic argument that shows free market as superior; it's a sanctimonious proclamation that people who are poor and starving should get over it, go out and get a job. The talk about how "in this system control lies with the citizenry" is not economic talk; it's purely political talk. So let's quit the misdirection and separate the steaks from the flies, shall we?

    Economy wise, unregulated free market is superior... for a while. Wealth is invested (mostly) based on economic merit, initiative is (mostly) rewarded, social mobility is (mostly) encouraged, intelligent and hardworking people (sometimes) get rich. So long as the market factors are the only factors in play, it all works more or less smoothly. Then what?

    Then wealth begins to accumulate in the upper tier, and the free market begins to undo its own advances. You can't start small anymore. With exceedingly rare exceptions, it is no longer possible to succeed by opening a coffee shop or a bookstore, because the market is saturated and big companies control most of it. They can take more losses than you can, and that allows them to force you out of the market by lowering their prices long enough for you to go bankrupt, then crank the prices WAY up and recoup their losses at the consumer's expense. Suddenly you need money to make money. If you weren't born into money, your chances of making it into the first tier are slim to none. There goes the social mobility.

    Then there is the employer-employee conflict. Employers want maximum profit for minimum investment, so they want to pay workers less and invest less into maintaining safe and proper working conditions. They also want to be able to fire anyone, for any reason, at any time. During the Industrial revolition- the height of laissez-faire, unregulated industrial freedoms- it made children the ideal workers because they could be paid 20% of an adult's wage, they ate less and they were easier to control as a workforce. In the early 1800-s, for 30% of all British families, children aged 4-13 were the breadwinners, working up to 16 hours a day in factories, agriculture and coal mines. In some industries- like cotton mills- up to two-thirds of all workers were children. Eventually, the British government intervened and put legal limits on this mess. Which was terrible, of course. Nobody owed those children a living. Those meddling government regulators never let the free market work its magic, do they?

    Or, for that matter, take the phenomenon of mining towns, entirely dependend on a single large company for livelyhood.

    Then there's the increasing cost of professional education, which prevents people from getting even into the second tier. When education is treated as a commodity that must be bought at a fair market price, it creates a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty and kills social mobility on the spot. I know an American family- a white, non-immigrant family- whose child is the first member of the family to go to college- because they are the first generation of their family who can afford the costs of education. When you start off poor and all your sweat, blood and tears doesn't earn enough to send your children to college, your society has a big nasty problem that cannot be handwaved away as "nobody owes you a living on a silver platter".

    Bottom line is, free market only truly works when government intervention provides and maintains a fertile soil for it to grow in. Healthcare, education, workers' rights, defense and welfare cannot be left to the mercy of the market because without them, the free market runs itself into stagnation and drags the society into the abyss.
    it's not a sanctimonious argument.....earning your own money is the natural antidote for poverty.....you'd be correct if the free-market capitalism were based on greed, like the economic system on Ferenginar is....to use a sci-fi example....their free-market system does not allow for the rise of businesses whose business it is to provide for basic humanitarian needs, education being one of these basic needs....our free-market system DOES allow for the rise of these non-profit businesses....and most likely once unshackled from government welfare, church-goers and other conservatives probably wouldn't even need to donate as much to provide the same level of service....because a lot of non-profits use volunteers on their staff....so that's less people to be paid....some people in the non-profit....like the person who started it might take away a stipend for themselves but only because it's their full-time life's work whereas volunteers tend to be part time.....government by contrast uses a bunch of very-highly paid czars to accomplish the same task...or try to anyway but usually a politician's natural longing for power winds up getting in the way

    some non-profits are very well-prepared already....like Catholic Charities, they already have one of the largest, if not the largest, nationwide presence and even an extensive international presence.....and the list of services Catholic Charities provide may vary slightly from area to area but it still usually tends to be as long as my arm.....just think how much more they could do if the people who would like to donate weren't shackled by costly government mandates....simply put....we need to receive tangible fruit for our labor.....this is a concept as old as the time depicted in the Book of Genesis.....because of the Fall of Man....we blew our shot at a utopian paradise on earth.....now the only way we can get something is to work for it

  14. #34
    Colonel mad_gater's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6,811

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    and the argument that the wealth tends to become heavily concentrated amongst a small elite population is disingenuous at best....yeah...I won't deny that there exist people who subscribe to Ebenezer Scrooge's way of thinking....but thankfully the Scrooges of the world tend to be in the minority......the majority of the wealthy are surprisingly generous.....when given the chance to be generous on their own terms, not on the government's that is

  15. #35
    Lieutenant Colonel Rickington's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    4,002

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by mad_gater View Post
    and the argument that the wealth tends to become heavily concentrated amongst a small elite population is disingenuous at best....yeah...I won't deny that there exist people who subscribe to Ebenezer Scrooge's way of thinking....but thankfully the Scrooges of the world tend to be in the minority......the majority of the wealthy are surprisingly generous.....when given the chance to be generous on their own terms, not on the government's that is
    Indeed... of the top of my head, you would be surprised (or not) to find out how much money Bill Gates gives to charity. I mean, for starters, there's the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Don't touch Lola

  16. #36
    Colonel mad_gater's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6,811

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    and therefore, logically, regulation would make matters WORSE......because government involvement in the private sector only serves to eventually increase the cost of goods and services.....this is because the government does not produce nor innovate, it only regulates....and it costs the government money to enforce such regulations.....so companies by necessity would eventually have to start increasing the cost of their goods and services to pay for this government oversight....frankly a system where were free to conduct business knowing that both parties, company and consumer, are held accountable to the same set of fair and just judicial laws is all the regulation we need

    but in the end people like you are just content to repeat history.....cuz if you actually learned from it you would understand that socialism has no place in any society...every country that has tried it grinds to a halt and collapses on itself

  17. #37
    Lieutenant Colonel Rickington's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    4,002

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by mad_gater View Post
    but in the end people like you are just content to repeat history.....cuz if you actually learned from it you would understand that socialism has no place in any society...every country that has tried it grinds to a halt and collapses on itself
    "People like you?" ...

    Don't touch Lola

  18. #38
    Colonel mad_gater's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6,811

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickington View Post
    "People like you?" ...
    not you personally, but the people here that act like Brezhnev-era Apparatchiks just touting the party line that government is always good and the bigger government gets the better it is for everyone...even when faced with undeniable common sense truth to the contrary

  19. #39
    Captain
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,337

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by mad_gater View Post
    it's not a sanctimonious argument.....earning your own money is the natural antidote for poverty....
    Two words: working poor.

    you'd be correct if the free-market capitalism were based on greed, like the economic system on Ferenginar is....to use a sci-fi example....their free-market system does not allow for the rise of businesses whose business it is to provide for basic humanitarian needs, education being one of these basic needs....our free-market system DOES allow for the rise of these non-profit businesses...
    "Non-profit business" is a contradiction of terms.

    Yes, businesses donate to charities. No, not all of them and not most of them. Nor do they always, or usually, do so out of the goodness of their heart. Most do so because they get tax breaks for it (in other words, because the government stimulates them towards philanthropy), often while getting rid of substandard products or stuff they couldn't sell by donating it and thereby cutting disposal costs. Another reason they donate to charity is public relations: Gates, in particular, was largely forced to establish the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation by the mounting public pressure.

    Still, how does what Gates donates to charity compare to what he pays in taxes?

    some non-profits are very well-prepared already....like Catholic Charities, they already have one of the largest, if not the largest, nationwide presence and even an extensive international presence.....and the list of services Catholic Charities provide may vary slightly from area to area but it still usually tends to be as long as my arm.....
    And it is still not enough to cover all the needs of the needy. It never was, not even when the Church was infinitely wealthier than it is today.

    just think how much more they could do if the people who would like to donate weren't shackled by costly government mandates
    Why the need for guesswork? Let's look back in history, to the fairly recent time when those evil government regulations were not yet in place. Back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, or to the Old West that libertarians so love to fetishize. Were the poor better off than now, or were they worse off? Did more people starve to death or did less? Did charity cover the basic needs of all people, or did it not?

    The very reason why Marxist ideas spread like wildfire in the late 19th century and why the superpowers of that day were nearly swept away by worker revolts was because the lassez-faire attitude was approaching the point of disaster. Marx was as mad as a hatter when it came to predicting the future, but he did a decent job describing the state of things during his own time.
    If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.- Abba Eban.

  20. #40
    Colonel mad_gater's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    6,811

    Default Re: The Political Discussion Thread

    I never said I was against labor laws.....cuz the free-market system we use is one in which we're free to conduct business as wee see fit as long as no crimes are being committed.....and what those people way back when did was a crime by any stretch of the imagination....although even the free-market would help in this instance too.....if a company commits such crimes what we're free to do is conduct a boycott of the business which would directly attack this company's bottom line....and in general boycotts tend to be pretty successful.....so basically a company that works its employees to the bone and doesn't give them a reward proportionate to their investment of time in the company usually goes out of business eventually as potential consumers catch wind of it and refuse to do business with said company......as less and less people of good will simply refuse to purchase the company's goods/services, the company will eventually go belly-up....so we really don't need the government to deal with that kind of crime either.....the solution is much more simple than that if you know of any companies that are doing such things to their employees.....organize a boycott

Tags for this Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3363
    Last Post: March 5th, 2008, 10:02 AM
  2. Political Discussion: The proper place of the Law
    By uknesvuinng in forum Off-Topic Chatter
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 28th, 2007, 11:37 AM
  3. The WW2 Discussion Thread
    By the_dark_light in forum Off-Topic Chatter
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: July 20th, 2007, 12:12 AM
  4. X-Men III Discussion Thread
    By twiggy in forum Marvel Universe (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: October 6th, 2006, 10:12 PM
  5. Replies: 38
    Last Post: August 25th, 2004, 08:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •