The other day I was on the bus and I overheard a gang of scumbag white people bragging about how they robbed some guy by threatening to stab him. It's not about race, it's about dependancy on the state breeding scumbags.
That was pretty racist what you said about white people being supposedly more productive. Here in Glasgow in the UK, white people are fucking lazy cunts who want to stay on benefits while complaining that the more productive minorities (many of whom are Black) are taking derr jerbs.
All people do is make an ass of themselves during job interviews so they can remain on welfare.
@DoctorCapitalist I'm from Glasgow too. Most of the sub-human scum that I have ever encountered were white people who had no interest in improving themselves and getting a fucking job, whereas the immigrants are the ones that work the hardest. With that being said, we shouldn't scrap the system just because a few arseholes are exploiting it. Why make everyone else suffer? Some people actually do need these benefits.
@TheInternetRageGirl The problem with the system is that it's based entirely on the initiation of violence. There's nothing wrong with private charity since it's voluntary, but if someone points a gun at someone and demands that they give a percentage of labour or be thrown in a den of rapists and murderers, that's just extremely backwards morality. Private welfare would also have much less people exploiting, since people giving to them would ensure that people are being lifted out of poverty.
@TheInternetRageGirl The welfare state is keeping families in poverty and certainly not bringing them out of it. In the United States, poverty was decreasing rapidly until Lydon B Johnson installed the "Great Society" social programs which included the welfare state. The decline in poverty stopped and it began rising again.
@TheInternetRageGirl It sounds harsh but I don't think it's controversial to say. If someone can sit in the house and get money without working, of course you would probably take it.
@DoctorCapitalist Well, unfortunately, that is true for some people. However, I don't think that's true for everyone and (hopefully not true for most people. Certainly isn't the case with most people I know.
If you think the welfare system is so great, why don't you support it with your own money and call other people to voluntarily donate to it, instead of using the guns of the state to rob people to support it?
@TheInternetRageGirl Robbery is a strong word, "looked down upon" would be more accurate.
What have helped poor people more, charity or industrialized farming? One is about subsistence, the other about making food so cheap that anyone can afford it with close to no effort
The thing is, you can give to much money to charity, you can get too much money into charity. If we sell our productive capacity and use that money to lump over to poor people, who will benefit in the end?
@Visfen So if we make shittily made goods and sell them to poor people, that will end world hunger? And how do you think cheap products get made? It's because of outsourcing cheaper work, using shitty materials and cutting corners. Yeah, sounds like a wonderful business, eh?
I'm sorry - as much as I support capitalism, you're always going to need charities and government funded services.
@TheInternetRageGirl Shitty made? The point is that you can make things both cheaper and better, and that this happens to a greater extent the more free an economy is. Products today are both cheaper and better than 20 years ago.
So what if it is outsourcing? Companies that outsource hire more people than they fire, the problem there is a shift in labor force requirements.
No you're not. In fact since the war on poverty, poverty rates have gone down. Before, they shrunk.
@Visfen Yes. you need scientists, product designers, engineers, etc to do all of that.
Qualifications plz? Education plz? Decent quality of life plz? Y'know, so we can still have scientists and engineers, etc.
" the problem there is a shift in labor force requirements" Yeah, and that's a big big problem. That's a massive problem. That's so big a problem it violates the human rights act.
Well I guess we won't need public funded schools, road services, and fire department then!
@TheInternetRageGirl Then stop subsidizing hippies to take liberal arts crap. They can't pay it back.
It's not a big problem. It's a problem for uninos and as such it becomes a political problem because today unions are political operators (they don't even strike anymore). Any political problem will enter the narrative of the media and come to be taken seriously. I don't give a shit about the unions problem. People can find better work, we get richer by cheaper products.
@TheInternetRageGirl How the hell does free trade violate human rights? People are better of
Most roads in Sweden are owned by private road associations. Everything of that is already done privately
Public schooling is a complete failure, it's to the extent where the sector doesn't even know who the customers are anymore - it's the parents. Not the snotty kids or the teachers. It's the parents
Privatize everything. I don't support the religion of the state
@TheInternetRageGirl Again, in the real world, private funded schools almost universally do a better job and for much less money, fire services began and are still largely private in nature and private roads have proven very successful for centuries. The assumption that the state is required (or even competent) to provide these things is contrary to the available evidence.
@TheInternetRageGirl Studies made on government funded services, which should really be called payments to a beuracracy (as that it what most of it is), show that 30~% actually make it to recipients and 70% goes to the beuracracy, while the reverse is tru in private.
In minneapolis they made a study where they cut charity to the extreme, they measured that private chairty made up the difference afterwards, and that got to better use
@Visfen I live in the UK, so I can say with some authority that universal healthcare works fine over here.
Yeah, those statistics looks great, except for the fact that it only applies to those who actually have healthcare. Over here, everyone has access to healthcare (and it's pretty good, despite the few flaws). In the US, approximately 15% of americans are uninsured (source: CDC).
Can you send me the studies in an e-mail? I am interested in this.
@TheInternetRageGirl Well I live in Sweden and by the WHOs measurements (based on completely arbitrary criteria) we have a better health care system, and guess what - it's more free market.
Saying that coverage constitutes anything insofar as health care goes is preposterous. That's like commenting on that everybody got to stand in the bread lines in the Soviet Union, and therefor it's awesome, even though millions died.
Well, that's how standing in line works in a health care system, you die or you live in great discomfort. Generally they prioritize the lethal stuff more, because you don't measure the old woman walking around with a busted hip and knee for three years waiting for a surgery.
What studies? You can google the stuff about poverty rate, it's readily available.
There's a good summary on downsizinggovernment org about welfare spending, the study I mentioned is on there.
@TheInternetRageGirl Funny, the NHS's official statistics show that waiting lists (that can be lethal) are a perennial problem in the UK. Is it not possible that your anecdotal evidence is at odds with the complete picture? No doubt. And the statistics to which he refers are in AGGREGATE. The problem is you are making the wholly inaccurate assumption that lack of insurance is anything like lack of care. BTW, it's the Census Bureau that yields both the 15% figure and the more accurate 8%.
My anecdotal evidence may not be an accurate portrayal of the overall problems with the service, but the NHS still out performs the US in terms of providing healthcare. Incidentally, how can you have healthcare without insurance in the US? I know you guys have medicaid and medicare, but from what I've heard from americans on this service is that it sucks.
@TheInternetRageGirl Look at the offical statistics of the NHS in Britain and Health Canada for just two examples. In Ontario, 170 people die every year waiting for a single kind of heart surgery. Studies of actual care show consistently that if you are diagnosed with a serious illness, you will live FAR longer if you live in the US. And fee for service, unrestricted hospital care and other avenues are available without insurance not to mention those who can get on-demand insurance.
@TheInternetRageGirl For which point? You can look at the CDC data or the official statistics of Health Canada or the NHS or the study on adjusted life expectancy or survivability of illness, there's information on the labor market I can provide as well. I can certainly PM you later with all kinds of things but if you want something quick just let me know.
@TheInternetRageGirl The reason jobs are outsourced is because business can't afford to hire young people over here due to minimum wage laws. By lowering the minimum wage or abolishing it altogether, there'd be higher employment and young people would get the experience they need. They'd eventually get better jobs with higher wages in the future once businesses see that they're productive and more capable.
@DoctorCapitalist Yeah, there's a minimum wage for a reason - because companies can and will exploit that. And do the people who run the companies have wage cuts? Doubt it. And how would they eventually get better jobs if the companies can get away with making people wage slaves?
@TheInternetRageGirl So we should simly ignore the virtually unanimous economic evidence that shows that minimum wage laws serve only to reduce employment and have never wirked as an anti-poverty measure? If the "wage salvery" idiocy were even remotely true, then, by definition, no one would ever be hired above the legal minimum and it would be virtually impossible to move up ... which is demonstrably not the case.
@FletchforFreedom So what other ways do we improve the quality of life for people? Over here in the UK, you can get working tax credits depending on your circumstances or income. So that means that the taxpayer still has to pay for someone even though they are working. That's going to be a huge disadvantage for poor families if a) the minimum wage was lowered and b) people weren't obligated to pay their taxes. I'm open to your ideas, but I can't see how that can be progress.
@TheInternetRageGirl The best way to improve the quality of life (and provide access to education) is to let the market work. The taxation is part of the problem in the first place. And as the minimum wage demonstrably does not help the poor and instead increases unemployment, eliminating it entirely would be better for everyone.
@FletchforFreedom Then how do you ensure that companies don't exploit their power? Don't you see that you're turning the free market into a religion?
I think the government and the market need to work together. I don't see any reason to remove either or. That's like suicide in my opinion; there are other options.
@TheInternetRageGirl What do you mean "exploit"? The Marxian notion has been completely obliterated. Workers compete for jobs and engage in mutually beneficial employment contracts. Companies compete for consumers on price, quality, etc. What exploitation?
Demonstrably the most harmful activity for the consumer has always been regulation.
@FletchforFreedom How about health and safety regulations? What about working hours? What about outright lying about the value of your products? Supermarkets do thata lot - they'll say something like "oh, this is now better value" when really the price change was an increase.
@TheInternetRageGirl Actually, workong conditions improved most rapidly before any such regulations were put in place (and a graph of labor accidents in the US shows a steady decline completely unchanged by the implementation of OSHA - the biggest such regulation). The same trend applies with hours. In fact, before prosperity rose to later levels, attempts by companies to reduce hours led to workers seeking more money elsewhere. Industrial hours were less than farm hours - even for children.
@TheInternetRageGirl The minimum wage creates a Catch 22 situation. Can't get a job if you don't have experience, can't get experience if you don't have a job.
Here's a good idea - why don't they go back to the days where people learned on the job? Maybe it should be an obligation for older employees to teach the underlings. Yes, there could be the problem of possibly paying the tutors even more, but at least people get experience? Maybe voluntary work should be taken more seriously as a form of experience? Maybe companies should get a grip and hire people based on their qualities and not their qualifications or experience?
@TheInternetRageGirl Learning on the job is very much alive and well. It is one of the reasons that people CAN move up and make more rather than being replaced in the marketplace. Experience has value. Qualifications and experience do a better job of DEMONSTRATING someone's "qualities" than any other metric, which is why they are relied upon so heavily.
@FletchforFreedom Yes, but if you don't have access to an education, you're fucked. Plus, there are many jobs that now require qualifications when previously they were not necessary because you were trained on the job. Obviously I'm not suggesting that you can be a self taught surgeon or something, but why do (for example) bar staff now need previous experience?
@TheInternetRageGirl To the contrary, access to education is better provided by the private sector and is not limited to calssroom activity and degrees anyway. employers engage in educational activities either formally or as part of work (which is why experience is so valuable).
@FletchforFreedom That's my point exactly! We need to change education and we need to encourage employers to take risks with staff that may not have prior experience (or conversely have experience, but no qualifications). I agree that education is a problem, but it's not simply because of they way it's funded. It's the way its allocated. Kids are not taught important skills like critical thinking, which is imperative for day to day life (not just in academia).
@TheInternetRageGirl There is no need to "encourage" anyone to do anything. These activities took palce before public education was widespread and take place now because it is in the best interests of employers to do so. And illustrators are able more than most to demonstrate competence absent experience by providing a portfolio. In most cases, the demonstration of comeptence IS the experience.
And your criticism about what is taught applies most heavily to PUBLIC schools.
@FletchforFreedom Obviously I'm not just talking about art. For example, my grandfather worked as a programmer (and he was a very successful programmer) but has no qualification. Completely self taught. Nurses used to be taught on the job. lab technicians used to be taught on the job. How many jobs actually require college education?
@FletchforFreedom "Experience has value. Qualifications and experience do a better job of DEMONSTRATING someone's "qualities" than any other metric, which is why they are relied upon so heavily" Certainly experience (whether it be classes taken or time on the job) has value and is an important signal of future performance to grad schools, employers etc. However, I disagree with the argument that 'experience' is the best signaling metric. For instance, cont
@DoctorCapitalist Think about it like this - Walt Disney during the great depression hired artists who knew nothing about animation. They were taught on the job. It was a huge risk but a great pay off (and you can't say Snow White wasn't amazing).
So why is it that major food chains like Mcdonalds can't afford to have part-time students? Why is it that Starbucks requires people who already have experience behind a counter or in a cafe? It's all about greed. Nothing more.
@TheInternetRageGirl If there wasn't a minimum wage law there would be more opportunities for young people to gain experience. In fact there is a direct correlation between increases in the minimum wage and decreases in teenage employment.
@TheInternetRageGirl And, in fact, everyone that Disney hired was already an established illustrator with an impressive portfolio (and he first hired artists who DID have experience in animation, many of whom he'd worked with before. The risk was minimal (at least in that respect) BECAUSE he relied on their experience and qualifications. The example works entirely AGAINST your point.
@FletchforFreedom Can I simply establish that animation skills are not the same as illustration? it's a completely different artform all together with different principles. A good draughtsman does not mean a good animator. Incidentally, what about all the people that do have qualifications in [insert industry here] but are denied jobs because of their lack of experience?
@TheInternetRageGirl Yes, illustration and animation are different skills, but by absolutely no means "completely different", and even a draftsman has certain skills that are somewhat transferable (and you undermine yourself as a draftsman and illustrator are actually MORE different than an illustrator and an animator. And experience IS the best qualification and the best indicator of performance which is why they command greater demand.
@FletchforFreedom I think I need to correct you. When somebody says in casual conversation "he's a good draughtsman" what they really mean is "they're good at drawing on a technical level". While some animators will focus primarily on illustration (like in anime or UPA animation) animation is a totally different discipline than that of illustration. Animators are actors first and foremost.
@TheInternetRageGirl I think I need to correct you, knowing as I do both illustrators and draftsmen (though no professional animators). A good draftsman is good at a very specific kind of illustration, particularly proportion and technical application. Professional illustrators demonstrate skills in free form and dynamic art that translate well to animation work (the missing element is reproduction of the same image marginally altered - as in graphic novels). And what about self-taught...?
@FletchforFreedom Well I'm a student of animation and unfortunately we ignorantly use that term to mean "good at drawing of a technical level" so i do apologise for my ignorance. Limited forms of animation will rely on illustration, but disney animation (especially early disney) was all about "realism" so to speak (believably). An illustrator is not intuitively knowledgeable on animation....
@FletchforFreedom This is the fallacy that Richard Williams suffered from in his youth - that being good at drawing meant he was a good animator. Wrong. Totally different principles. Animation is a form of acting, not drawing. While I do like to blur that line at times, an exceptionally skilled animator is not necessarily a good illustrator.
@TheInternetRageGirl I'll defer to your expertise. The illustrators that I know are in the comics field so, perhaps it is that particular type of illustration that at least seems to me to be most like animation. The skill involves depicting multiple scenes to tell a story where each successive panel cannot deviate in the interpretation of the characters and scene to much from panel to panel.
@FletchforFreedom Well, I also have friends who work in comics and while it has some similarities to animation (ie, key frames are similar to a panel of a comic), it's very naive to think that drawing sequential art (like comics) makes you already skilled in animation. What comics don't have is the element of timing and spacing. A comic can be read at the pace of the reader, but time is linear.
@FletchforFreedom Young animators tend to animate way too much within so many frames. That's a common mistake and that's directly related to the fact that young animators are still trying to understand timing.
@FletchforFreedom grad schools and certain industries rely more on testing (GRE scores, intelligence tests etc) than they do upon grades (experience of being a student) or experience. On this view, proxies of fluid G(a purely innate measure) experience.
@earthshine2Y A fair point. I can't say I agree with the characterization of experience as a student being similar to work experience, but it's a minor point. It's also true that employers will rely heavily on test scores for ENTRY-level positions but that is when experience is generally less. Einstein and Ramanujan published to demonstrate their skill (not generally useful in most fields). Lens grinding left Spinoza vastly underappreciated during his life, Melville is till overrated.
@FletchforFreedom After all, Spinoza was a lens grinder, Einstein and Ramanujan were patent clerks, Melville used to boast that a "whale ship" was his "Yale and his Harvard."
@FletchforFreedom Incidentally, *slapswrist* no! Bad! Graphic novels are a composition of words and images. The placement of words and images are intentional. Graphic novels are STORYTELLING.Illustration is not necessarily storytelling. Different principles, my friend.
@Visfen Just look at the United States. Look at the kind of food that is affordable to poor people. It's usually junk food or food with terrible nutritional value. which means that they're most likely going to suffer from malnutrition. Yeah, so maybe the food is cheaper, but the health costs are not!
@TheInternetRageGirl By junk food you mean food you can get from restaurants, with a greater variety than the King of France 300 years back. Frankly though, if any people have time to cook for themselves shouldn't it be the people who don't even work? It's absurd to talk about the lack of dining options for poor people as if that is something that has ever been part of human life before the liberalization of markets we've seen since the enlightenment.
@Visfen I wasn't talking about home cookin'. I'm talking about malnutrition.
But sure, I suppose we should go back to the good old days when dietary choices were so lacking in diversity that if one source of sustenance was gone (like in the irish potato famine) them everyone dies of starvation. Maybe we should go back to the good old days when people only lived for 30 years because they didn't have their basic needs met. Yeah, because before, people scraped by just fine.
@TheInternetRageGirl Why would you get malnutrition if you cook at home? Then buy different food.
Who the hell lacks those dietary choices?! If I have eat for $10 a day, which is about what I do, I have plenty of choices.
The reason poor people are fat are because they don't cook for themselves, they eat fast food more than any other income group. Why? Well, the blunt answer is that they are lazy.
btw, the famine happened because they were forced by gov to grow potatoes.
@TheInternetRageGirl Going back? What are you talking about? We tried some policies, they didn't work by the standards set out and by the narrative of today the misconception is that they did, so I reckon that is still desire. Then why continue them?
We live longer now because of the productive capacity we have has increased, which happened originating from decentralization where governments in competition had to compete by liberating their economies. We know what works.
@TheInternetRageGirl And you should be unrepentantly thankful to capitalism hich is the direct reason for the greater variety of food choices (among other products) and their greater availability particularly among the poor and working class, not to mention the development and availability of modern medicines. It was UK intervention that was in large part responsible for the poverty that made the potato famine possible. Why should we expect it to do better now?
@TheInternetRageGirl And health care is cheaper, people just spend more on it because they live longer. If you want to cut health care cost in the US to standard western standards, then get your average life span of those that make it to over 50 years of age go down (it's the highest in the world). Heck, you could shave a year of and save about half of the costs of the system, since that is when half of the costs are concurred.I think though, these are choices for the people
@Visfen "f you want to cut health care cost in the US ...make it to over 50 years of age go down (it's the highest in the world)."
Sources plz?
Yeah, sorry but I'm looking at the website for WHO right now and actually America scores lower for life expectancy than most of the first world nations with universal healthcare. Go check it out.
@TheInternetRageGirl Yes, I know. I said so, but do you understand that the life expectancy for those over 65 (I used the wrong number, I'm doing this from memory), is a different group and therefor has a different life expectancy. When you're past 65 in the US or Britain, you have higher longelivity in the US than the UK.
Are you following?
And it matters, because it filters for living standards, accidents and differences in infant mortality measurements.
@TheInternetRageGirl And the study showing that, adjusted for instant death from accidents/murders, the US has the highest life expectancy, so correlation is not causation. In fact, every study of actual care (so much for the discredited WHO rankings), shows that life expectancy after the diagnosis of a serious illness is highest in the US.
@TheInternetRageGirl Flat wrong. The figures of care, illness survivabilty and life expecatncy (excluding instant death from accident/murder) all of which are highest in the US include the entire population not just the insured.
@TheInternetRageGirl So if the government forces you to accept their services, you're obligated to pay for it?
I suppose slaves are obligated to work for their slave masters. After all, the slave-master is providing accommodation for them (even though the slave doesn't want the accommodation and just wants to do his own things).
@DoctorCapitalist You're comparing paying taxes to slavery? Yet you think it's totally cool for people to basically live off nothing in a shitty job with a shitty working environment?
@TheInternetRageGirl Slavery is making someone labour for you against their consent, usually with the threat of violence.
If a slave (that is, someone forced to work against his will/consent) refuses to pick cotton, he will be brutalised by the master. If you do not pay your taxes (that which you do not of course, consent to) then you will be thrown into a cage where you will be raped.
@TheInternetRageGirl So is taxation voluntary or involuntary? If taxation is voluntary and you pay your taxes, then you are morally responsible for wars commited overseas, along with the deaths of thousands of innocent people. If you fund the KKK voluntarily, knowing of their lynchings, then you are morally supporting their actions.
@TheInternetRageGirl The FACT is that capitalism was directly and solely responsible for the massive improvement in working conditions, wages, health and overall prosperity (not to mention the near end of child labor) that has resulted since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, taking place to a greater degree and much faster, where either law or unions were least interfering. Your contention is refuted by actual history.
@TheInternetRageGirl To the contrary, free market capitalism has demonstrably resulted in social progress; it has been one of the greatest drivers of individual liberty in history.
Yes, forcing people to give their money at the point of a gun is robbery, even if the robbers call themselves "the state" or "government". Trust me. I'm an atheist, so I know what I'm talking about.
Fuck children and poor people. I hate those bastards. Oh, never mind that if a rich person became poor, the'd still be supported by the welfare system they so irrationally despise. Fucking thieves!
@TheInternetRageGirl Great point. So if I take 30% of what you own, and then use it to buy stuff, and then one day you actually use some of the stuff I bought as you fell on hard times, that means you endorse the whole arrangement.
Except that the money isn't yours of the government's to begin with, a minor detail which your statheist brain failed to grasp, which is quite odd in light of the fact that statheists tend to view themselves as the most enlightened creatures in the whole universe by virtue of their political views combined with their lack of belief in the gods. So what is there about property rights that is so hard to grasp for such uber-smart minds?
@Akatam0t0ma First of all, how do you know I'm an atheist? Second,how do you know I think that I'm better than others for supposedly being an atheist? Lastly, how hard is it for you to grasp that you have an obligation to your community and that everyone with an income has to pay their taxes?
Would couples who have like 5 kids at one time be excluded from this example? Seeing as this could be unpredictable. Or would they have to abandon the 4 fetuses and only keep the planned child?
In a sane society, they would, unless other people were willing to pay for the 4 babies they couldn't raise. This was done throughout most of human history. Babies that families couldn't raise would be exposed.
The problem with liberals is they want the state to solve problems that the state created. They propose the gov't create mass transit, but we'd already have mass transit if the gov't hadn't subsidized the auto industry and built the interstate. They rail on about water conservation, but we couldn't possibly of had people living in places like Las Vegas and Arizona if the gov't hadn't built the Hoover Dam. They're completely clueless.
@MinnesotaTwins24: true, because liberals fail to achieve freedom on the economic scale. Therefore watering down the ACTUAL process of stablizing economic measures and so forth. It's like saying liberals are utterly destructive to the general public and laughing at the agony of the state's increased tax revenue.
There are a lot of white people on welfare too! Not just black people or mexicans. Just cut out the program all together and see how many people of DIFFERENT races come out and complain about not being able to get help.
@shadowgeyser I agree that the Constitution is imperfect, how could I not? However, there is a mechanism in our Constitution to correct errors of omission, or commission. Also, it wouldn't matter how perfect ANY Constitution is, if people are simply going to ignore it anyway.
Stateless society (Anarchy) is a beautiful fantasy, but at this level of human development/understanding, that's all it is. I prefer to go after goals I believe are actually achievable, and this is proving hard enough.
All gov't programs have internal correction mechanisms. It's still central planning and it will still fail eventually.
Arguments about human nature hurt the case for a state, not for markets. We don't need to rely on an enlightened man for free market burritos, but we would need to rely on them for centrally planned burrito production. "Anarchy" refers to an actual ideology that's not mine.
Reform fails. Anti-statism is the movement. All else is ancillary side issues and dumb "realism".
I'd like to know more about your view regarding exactly what qualities man would need to have, in order to thrive in a stateless society. My bet is that you're already assuming those exact same qualities in the state without realizing it, and that this is why you subscribe to the belief in its desirability.
...I say all that to say this; what a person requires to thrive in a stateless society is personal awareness, and VOLUNTARY acceptance that FORCE is unnaceptable in a free society. The simple fact is, that you cannot try to FORCE someone to agree with you, and claim to advocate a society without force.
That means you have to deal with the world, and people as they ARE, not as you want them to BE.
The only way a stateless society can thrive, or even survive, is WITHOUT force.
It was arguments I first heard from Ron Paul, that made me question my own principles, and start thinking about what I was advocating. I was conservative then, but as much an advocate of state intervention as any liberal.
I don't want to argue with people about whether they are wrong, and I am right, I just want to get them to think, to question their own principles & preconceptions, and let that road lead them where it must...
@PanzerDivisionBOM I advocate Constitutional Governance not as desirable, but as an achievable starting point. It is a matter of practicality.
I grew up in a liberal family, and city, and state, so I don't have the visceral reaction to statists as most anti-statists (these are the people that love me after all). My family members are much more responsive to Constitutional arguments, than arguments that the very idea of government is tyrannical, violent, enslaving. The truth is, this...
Right, if by government you mean law, then yes, law precedes civilization, and civilization precedes the state. Without law, you can't have property ownership, dispute resolution, contracts and punishment for crimes.
@Donatellangelo Yeah, but civilization is a trade-off. You become dependent on other people to feed an clothe you. And don't think you can go into the wilderness and live off the land because civilization has most of the good water and land privatized or degraded. Good luck trying to grow food on marginal land and drinking water that was used to defrack oil shales.
I don't have to go into the wilderness, nobody does. Food, housing, cars, none of that stuff requires a welfare state. You're erecting a false dichotomy.
I'm not talking about food stamps. I'm talking about government intervention, period. A car based economy is a highly subsidized one. It was the government, not private companies that built all those highways that allow people to commute very far from home. Everyone knows the government subsidizes the agriculture industry to the point that vegetables, which are theoretically cheaper to grow than meat, are more expensive than meat.
You're babbling. I agree that there would be more rail in a stateless society, and more vegetables relative to meat you say? Whatever, sounds fine.
Yes, a market economy is highly interdependent, and this develops with minute and highly calibrated complexity in the absence of any state planning wherever allowed, and grows around it where the state meddles, like algae growing around some rod shoved in the swamp, roads beat out rail because of state intervention.
@shadowgeyser True, but again, this is a CORRUPTION of our system. This isn't the way it was designed. This is why the Confederate States seceded. Sadly the Confederacy fell to the statist forces of the Union. This changed our Union of Sovereign States, into a Nation of SUBJECT States.
The Constitution enumerates the specific areas in which the fed govt is allowed to operate. It is the near pathological ambivalence, and apathy of most of the citizenry that's allowed things to get so bad.
The Founders are not to blame for our society's decent into Democracy. That would be the doing of the statists and academics (I know, same thing), and the rest of us for not remaining vigilant, as we had been warned (by the Founders) to be.
The Founders set up a Republic because they were well aware of the inherent wretchedness of majority (mob) rule.
@fringeelements This is a common misconception, propagated by misinformation and outright deception. The two systems are actually unrelated. A definition of these terms may help explain their differences:
Democracy - rule by majority
Republic - rule by law
Also, I misspoke when I called the Founders US a Republic, it was a Constitutional Republic:
Constitutional Republic - Rule by law, limited specifically to those areas, which defend our Individual liberty, and protect our natural rights.
@fringeelements If you have never read the Federalist and AntiFederalist papers, I would recommend doing so. The arguments here describe exactly what was being debated. Also there are several sources which help to elaborate on the differences between the two systems:
Democracy or Republic - Benedict D LaRosa, several of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and many more I can't quite call to mind right now. I'll look through my texts to see which address this, and send you a list if you'd like.
@UtubeMyAccountName A republic is a representative or indirect form of democracy, rule of law was what the founders wanted the republic to focus on, but the general definition of a republic is rep/indirect democracy. There are republics which do no hold rule of law on high standards. It is idependent of the status of a republican style government or not.
@UtubeMyAccountName A constitutional republic is as you say very true, rule by law as a heavy focus is part of it, my point was that there are constitutional monarchies, parliaments, etc, which also use the same thing, but that majority rule can also be part of the government structure.
@TicTocKnight ...This is a corruption of the system they instituted, caused primarily by Lincoln and his Civil War. As he stated himself, when challenged on his Constitutional authority to make war on the Confederacy; "I must SUSPEND the Constitution in order to save the Union". Something else he didn't have the Constitutional authority to do. The rest of what has gone wrong with our society is our own fault for not remaining vigilant to govts accumulation of power.
@UtubeMyAccountName Very true about the electoral college, I was being too general with the definition of a republic and not focusing on the American constitution. The Constitution was a comprimise, so the nature of it open/loose ends is to be expected.
@TicTocKnight ...legal tender laws, no limit on the size of govt, the PROCESS of amendment (the ABILITY to amend the Constitution is what makes it a work of genius), etc.. you get the picture.
The difference between a Constitutional Republic, and any other form of government, Constitutional or otherwise is, as Thomas Jefferson put it; The INHERENT antagonism toward liberty. The Founders (again the anti-statists) never intended the OPERATION of our federal government to be democratic...
@TicTocKnight ...(sadly not the size) of govt is our Union of Sovereign States.
The Founders were apparently unable to come up with a solution to the problem of democratic elections, though they (the anti-statists founders)... ...tried valiantly, with methods such as the electoral college (which was just an oligarchical :-( method). There are also several MAJOR flaws in the Constitution itself; necessary and proper, eminent domain, the House of Representatives,...
@TicTocKnight First let me apologize before hand for being so wordy :-). Yes, a republic is a representative form of government in the sense that you democratically select a set of representatives. I did not mean to imply otherwise. However the only society in living history that has ever (attempted to) institute fixed limits (the Constitution) on the breadth & scope...
Anyways, you're only barely right. Yes, markets are majoritarian to a degree, but not to the flagrant degree of democracy. Niches are possible in markets. They are not in politics. While a product on a market requires significant custom to survive, at least there is variety. Politics is one-size-fits-all ham-fisted exercises with a degree of arbitrariness exponentially higher than in a market of scale.
I have to say I like Mexicans more then Blacks. Mexicans work harder. Though there are a few blacks I know that are really hard working like minded people, the majority that I have met just live up to the stereotypes; welfare whores.
While there are a tiny, tiny minority of decent blacks, the black race is pretty despicable. Although with the rise of anti-white groups like La Raza and criminal immigrants, I'm not a fan of Mexicans either. If Mexicans were truly hard workers, they would try to build up their own land rather than coming here to leech off our resources. They are better than blacks though.
I dont blame them for coming here. Mexico is a shit hole. If there was no welfare taxes etc I'd be for open borders but we still have those things. But besides that I dont blames Mexicans for coming. Now we just need to teach them about tax evasion and get them on our side.
Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children?!?! *Flips the Fuck Out*
And the worst part is, it's not unlikely for a socialist to say something just like this, relying entirely on sentimental, emotional drivel with no regards for practicality or personal responsibility.
@shadowgeyser He also defends the fiat currency which is astounding consider he supposedly at some level is against the empire, and corporatism... This was only a fraction of the crap he posted right on Reason.tv's channel. The bastard follows me around like a cancer.
If anything, I would be glad if I DIDN'T have ANY kids when I grow more up
AWAChamp619 3 weeks ago
that is are thought to be better signals of future performance
earthshine2Y 2 months ago
@SatanMitUns Isn't that a quote from A Christmas Carol?
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
The other day I was on the bus and I overheard a gang of scumbag white people bragging about how they robbed some guy by threatening to stab him. It's not about race, it's about dependancy on the state breeding scumbags.
DoctorCapitalist 4 months ago
That was pretty racist what you said about white people being supposedly more productive. Here in Glasgow in the UK, white people are fucking lazy cunts who want to stay on benefits while complaining that the more productive minorities (many of whom are Black) are taking derr jerbs.
All people do is make an ass of themselves during job interviews so they can remain on welfare.
DoctorCapitalist 4 months ago
@DoctorCapitalist I'm from Glasgow too. Most of the sub-human scum that I have ever encountered were white people who had no interest in improving themselves and getting a fucking job, whereas the immigrants are the ones that work the hardest. With that being said, we shouldn't scrap the system just because a few arseholes are exploiting it. Why make everyone else suffer? Some people actually do need these benefits.
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl The problem with the system is that it's based entirely on the initiation of violence. There's nothing wrong with private charity since it's voluntary, but if someone points a gun at someone and demands that they give a percentage of labour or be thrown in a den of rapists and murderers, that's just extremely backwards morality. Private welfare would also have much less people exploiting, since people giving to them would ensure that people are being lifted out of poverty.
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl The welfare state is keeping families in poverty and certainly not bringing them out of it. In the United States, poverty was decreasing rapidly until Lydon B Johnson installed the "Great Society" social programs which included the welfare state. The decline in poverty stopped and it began rising again.
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl It sounds harsh but I don't think it's controversial to say. If someone can sit in the house and get money without working, of course you would probably take it.
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
@DoctorCapitalist Well, unfortunately, that is true for some people. However, I don't think that's true for everyone and (hopefully not true for most people. Certainly isn't the case with most people I know.
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl:
If you think the welfare system is so great, why don't you support it with your own money and call other people to voluntarily donate to it, instead of using the guns of the state to rob people to support it?
Akatam0t0ma 3 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma I do. I volunteer and I give to charity.
And no, its not robbery. It's robbery to live in a community and not give back to it.
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl assumes "community"
fringeelements 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Robbery is a strong word, "looked down upon" would be more accurate.
What have helped poor people more, charity or industrialized farming? One is about subsistence, the other about making food so cheap that anyone can afford it with close to no effort
The thing is, you can give to much money to charity, you can get too much money into charity. If we sell our productive capacity and use that money to lump over to poor people, who will benefit in the end?
Visfen 3 months ago
@Visfen So if we make shittily made goods and sell them to poor people, that will end world hunger? And how do you think cheap products get made? It's because of outsourcing cheaper work, using shitty materials and cutting corners. Yeah, sounds like a wonderful business, eh?
I'm sorry - as much as I support capitalism, you're always going to need charities and government funded services.
But please correct me if I'm wrong.
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Shitty made? The point is that you can make things both cheaper and better, and that this happens to a greater extent the more free an economy is. Products today are both cheaper and better than 20 years ago.
So what if it is outsourcing? Companies that outsource hire more people than they fire, the problem there is a shift in labor force requirements.
No you're not. In fact since the war on poverty, poverty rates have gone down. Before, they shrunk.
Visfen 3 months ago
@Visfen Yes. you need scientists, product designers, engineers, etc to do all of that.
Qualifications plz? Education plz? Decent quality of life plz? Y'know, so we can still have scientists and engineers, etc.
" the problem there is a shift in labor force requirements" Yeah, and that's a big big problem. That's a massive problem. That's so big a problem it violates the human rights act.
Well I guess we won't need public funded schools, road services, and fire department then!
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Then stop subsidizing hippies to take liberal arts crap. They can't pay it back.
It's not a big problem. It's a problem for uninos and as such it becomes a political problem because today unions are political operators (they don't even strike anymore). Any political problem will enter the narrative of the media and come to be taken seriously. I don't give a shit about the unions problem. People can find better work, we get richer by cheaper products.
Visfen 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl How the hell does free trade violate human rights? People are better of
Most roads in Sweden are owned by private road associations. Everything of that is already done privately
Public schooling is a complete failure, it's to the extent where the sector doesn't even know who the customers are anymore - it's the parents. Not the snotty kids or the teachers. It's the parents
Privatize everything. I don't support the religion of the state
Visfen 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Again, in the real world, private funded schools almost universally do a better job and for much less money, fire services began and are still largely private in nature and private roads have proven very successful for centuries. The assumption that the state is required (or even competent) to provide these things is contrary to the available evidence.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Studies made on government funded services, which should really be called payments to a beuracracy (as that it what most of it is), show that 30~% actually make it to recipients and 70% goes to the beuracracy, while the reverse is tru in private.
In minneapolis they made a study where they cut charity to the extreme, they measured that private chairty made up the difference afterwards, and that got to better use
Mutual aid is better than government aid
Visfen 3 months ago
@Visfen I live in the UK, so I can say with some authority that universal healthcare works fine over here.
Yeah, those statistics looks great, except for the fact that it only applies to those who actually have healthcare. Over here, everyone has access to healthcare (and it's pretty good, despite the few flaws). In the US, approximately 15% of americans are uninsured (source: CDC).
Can you send me the studies in an e-mail? I am interested in this.
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Well I live in Sweden and by the WHOs measurements (based on completely arbitrary criteria) we have a better health care system, and guess what - it's more free market.
Saying that coverage constitutes anything insofar as health care goes is preposterous. That's like commenting on that everybody got to stand in the bread lines in the Soviet Union, and therefor it's awesome, even though millions died.
Visfen 3 months ago
Well, that's how standing in line works in a health care system, you die or you live in great discomfort. Generally they prioritize the lethal stuff more, because you don't measure the old woman walking around with a busted hip and knee for three years waiting for a surgery.
What studies? You can google the stuff about poverty rate, it's readily available.
There's a good summary on downsizinggovernment org about welfare spending, the study I mentioned is on there.
Visfen 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Funny, the NHS's official statistics show that waiting lists (that can be lethal) are a perennial problem in the UK. Is it not possible that your anecdotal evidence is at odds with the complete picture? No doubt. And the statistics to which he refers are in AGGREGATE. The problem is you are making the wholly inaccurate assumption that lack of insurance is anything like lack of care. BTW, it's the Census Bureau that yields both the 15% figure and the more accurate 8%.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Waiting lists are lethal? Example, plz.
My anecdotal evidence may not be an accurate portrayal of the overall problems with the service, but the NHS still out performs the US in terms of providing healthcare. Incidentally, how can you have healthcare without insurance in the US? I know you guys have medicaid and medicare, but from what I've heard from americans on this service is that it sucks.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Look at the offical statistics of the NHS in Britain and Health Canada for just two examples. In Ontario, 170 people die every year waiting for a single kind of heart surgery. Studies of actual care show consistently that if you are diagnosed with a serious illness, you will live FAR longer if you live in the US. And fee for service, unrestricted hospital care and other avenues are available without insurance not to mention those who can get on-demand insurance.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I'd like to read your sources if that's alright.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl For which point? You can look at the CDC data or the official statistics of Health Canada or the NHS or the study on adjusted life expectancy or survivability of illness, there's information on the labor market I can provide as well. I can certainly PM you later with all kinds of things but if you want something quick just let me know.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Great, thanks. I'll have a look at that.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl The reason jobs are outsourced is because business can't afford to hire young people over here due to minimum wage laws. By lowering the minimum wage or abolishing it altogether, there'd be higher employment and young people would get the experience they need. They'd eventually get better jobs with higher wages in the future once businesses see that they're productive and more capable.
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
@DoctorCapitalist Yeah, there's a minimum wage for a reason - because companies can and will exploit that. And do the people who run the companies have wage cuts? Doubt it. And how would they eventually get better jobs if the companies can get away with making people wage slaves?
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl So we should simly ignore the virtually unanimous economic evidence that shows that minimum wage laws serve only to reduce employment and have never wirked as an anti-poverty measure? If the "wage salvery" idiocy were even remotely true, then, by definition, no one would ever be hired above the legal minimum and it would be virtually impossible to move up ... which is demonstrably not the case.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom So what other ways do we improve the quality of life for people? Over here in the UK, you can get working tax credits depending on your circumstances or income. So that means that the taxpayer still has to pay for someone even though they are working. That's going to be a huge disadvantage for poor families if a) the minimum wage was lowered and b) people weren't obligated to pay their taxes. I'm open to your ideas, but I can't see how that can be progress.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl The best way to improve the quality of life (and provide access to education) is to let the market work. The taxation is part of the problem in the first place. And as the minimum wage demonstrably does not help the poor and instead increases unemployment, eliminating it entirely would be better for everyone.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Then how do you ensure that companies don't exploit their power? Don't you see that you're turning the free market into a religion?
I think the government and the market need to work together. I don't see any reason to remove either or. That's like suicide in my opinion; there are other options.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl What do you mean "exploit"? The Marxian notion has been completely obliterated. Workers compete for jobs and engage in mutually beneficial employment contracts. Companies compete for consumers on price, quality, etc. What exploitation?
Demonstrably the most harmful activity for the consumer has always been regulation.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom How about health and safety regulations? What about working hours? What about outright lying about the value of your products? Supermarkets do thata lot - they'll say something like "oh, this is now better value" when really the price change was an increase.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Actually, workong conditions improved most rapidly before any such regulations were put in place (and a graph of labor accidents in the US shows a steady decline completely unchanged by the implementation of OSHA - the biggest such regulation). The same trend applies with hours. In fact, before prosperity rose to later levels, attempts by companies to reduce hours led to workers seeking more money elsewhere. Industrial hours were less than farm hours - even for children.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl The minimum wage creates a Catch 22 situation. Can't get a job if you don't have experience, can't get experience if you don't have a job.
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
@DoctorCapitalist
Here's a good idea - why don't they go back to the days where people learned on the job? Maybe it should be an obligation for older employees to teach the underlings. Yes, there could be the problem of possibly paying the tutors even more, but at least people get experience? Maybe voluntary work should be taken more seriously as a form of experience? Maybe companies should get a grip and hire people based on their qualities and not their qualifications or experience?
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Learning on the job is very much alive and well. It is one of the reasons that people CAN move up and make more rather than being replaced in the marketplace. Experience has value. Qualifications and experience do a better job of DEMONSTRATING someone's "qualities" than any other metric, which is why they are relied upon so heavily.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Yes, but if you don't have access to an education, you're fucked. Plus, there are many jobs that now require qualifications when previously they were not necessary because you were trained on the job. Obviously I'm not suggesting that you can be a self taught surgeon or something, but why do (for example) bar staff now need previous experience?
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl To the contrary, access to education is better provided by the private sector and is not limited to calssroom activity and degrees anyway. employers engage in educational activities either formally or as part of work (which is why experience is so valuable).
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom That's my point exactly! We need to change education and we need to encourage employers to take risks with staff that may not have prior experience (or conversely have experience, but no qualifications). I agree that education is a problem, but it's not simply because of they way it's funded. It's the way its allocated. Kids are not taught important skills like critical thinking, which is imperative for day to day life (not just in academia).
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl There is no need to "encourage" anyone to do anything. These activities took palce before public education was widespread and take place now because it is in the best interests of employers to do so. And illustrators are able more than most to demonstrate competence absent experience by providing a portfolio. In most cases, the demonstration of comeptence IS the experience.
And your criticism about what is taught applies most heavily to PUBLIC schools.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Obviously I'm not just talking about art. For example, my grandfather worked as a programmer (and he was a very successful programmer) but has no qualification. Completely self taught. Nurses used to be taught on the job. lab technicians used to be taught on the job. How many jobs actually require college education?
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom "Experience has value. Qualifications and experience do a better job of DEMONSTRATING someone's "qualities" than any other metric, which is why they are relied upon so heavily" Certainly experience (whether it be classes taken or time on the job) has value and is an important signal of future performance to grad schools, employers etc. However, I disagree with the argument that 'experience' is the best signaling metric. For instance, cont
earthshine2Y 2 months ago
@DoctorCapitalist Think about it like this - Walt Disney during the great depression hired artists who knew nothing about animation. They were taught on the job. It was a huge risk but a great pay off (and you can't say Snow White wasn't amazing).
So why is it that major food chains like Mcdonalds can't afford to have part-time students? Why is it that Starbucks requires people who already have experience behind a counter or in a cafe? It's all about greed. Nothing more.
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl If there wasn't a minimum wage law there would be more opportunities for young people to gain experience. In fact there is a direct correlation between increases in the minimum wage and decreases in teenage employment.
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl And, in fact, everyone that Disney hired was already an established illustrator with an impressive portfolio (and he first hired artists who DID have experience in animation, many of whom he'd worked with before. The risk was minimal (at least in that respect) BECAUSE he relied on their experience and qualifications. The example works entirely AGAINST your point.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Can I simply establish that animation skills are not the same as illustration? it's a completely different artform all together with different principles. A good draughtsman does not mean a good animator. Incidentally, what about all the people that do have qualifications in [insert industry here] but are denied jobs because of their lack of experience?
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Yes, illustration and animation are different skills, but by absolutely no means "completely different", and even a draftsman has certain skills that are somewhat transferable (and you undermine yourself as a draftsman and illustrator are actually MORE different than an illustrator and an animator. And experience IS the best qualification and the best indicator of performance which is why they command greater demand.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I think I need to correct you. When somebody says in casual conversation "he's a good draughtsman" what they really mean is "they're good at drawing on a technical level". While some animators will focus primarily on illustration (like in anime or UPA animation) animation is a totally different discipline than that of illustration. Animators are actors first and foremost.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl I think I need to correct you, knowing as I do both illustrators and draftsmen (though no professional animators). A good draftsman is good at a very specific kind of illustration, particularly proportion and technical application. Professional illustrators demonstrate skills in free form and dynamic art that translate well to animation work (the missing element is reproduction of the same image marginally altered - as in graphic novels). And what about self-taught...?
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Well I'm a student of animation and unfortunately we ignorantly use that term to mean "good at drawing of a technical level" so i do apologise for my ignorance. Limited forms of animation will rely on illustration, but disney animation (especially early disney) was all about "realism" so to speak (believably). An illustrator is not intuitively knowledgeable on animation....
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom This is the fallacy that Richard Williams suffered from in his youth - that being good at drawing meant he was a good animator. Wrong. Totally different principles. Animation is a form of acting, not drawing. While I do like to blur that line at times, an exceptionally skilled animator is not necessarily a good illustrator.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl I'll defer to your expertise. The illustrators that I know are in the comics field so, perhaps it is that particular type of illustration that at least seems to me to be most like animation. The skill involves depicting multiple scenes to tell a story where each successive panel cannot deviate in the interpretation of the characters and scene to much from panel to panel.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Well, I also have friends who work in comics and while it has some similarities to animation (ie, key frames are similar to a panel of a comic), it's very naive to think that drawing sequential art (like comics) makes you already skilled in animation. What comics don't have is the element of timing and spacing. A comic can be read at the pace of the reader, but time is linear.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Young animators tend to animate way too much within so many frames. That's a common mistake and that's directly related to the fact that young animators are still trying to understand timing.
Sigh...I much prefer talking about art with you.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl We can talk books at some time if you like too!
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom grad schools and certain industries rely more on testing (GRE scores, intelligence tests etc) than they do upon grades (experience of being a student) or experience. On this view, proxies of fluid G(a purely innate measure) experience.
earthshine2Y 2 months ago
@earthshine2Y A fair point. I can't say I agree with the characterization of experience as a student being similar to work experience, but it's a minor point. It's also true that employers will rely heavily on test scores for ENTRY-level positions but that is when experience is generally less. Einstein and Ramanujan published to demonstrate their skill (not generally useful in most fields). Lens grinding left Spinoza vastly underappreciated during his life, Melville is till overrated.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom After all, Spinoza was a lens grinder, Einstein and Ramanujan were patent clerks, Melville used to boast that a "whale ship" was his "Yale and his Harvard."
earthshine2Y 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Incidentally, *slapswrist* no! Bad! Graphic novels are a composition of words and images. The placement of words and images are intentional. Graphic novels are STORYTELLING.Illustration is not necessarily storytelling. Different principles, my friend.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom What about self taught artists?
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@Visfen Just look at the United States. Look at the kind of food that is affordable to poor people. It's usually junk food or food with terrible nutritional value. which means that they're most likely going to suffer from malnutrition. Yeah, so maybe the food is cheaper, but the health costs are not!
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl By junk food you mean food you can get from restaurants, with a greater variety than the King of France 300 years back. Frankly though, if any people have time to cook for themselves shouldn't it be the people who don't even work? It's absurd to talk about the lack of dining options for poor people as if that is something that has ever been part of human life before the liberalization of markets we've seen since the enlightenment.
Visfen 3 months ago
@Visfen I wasn't talking about home cookin'. I'm talking about malnutrition.
But sure, I suppose we should go back to the good old days when dietary choices were so lacking in diversity that if one source of sustenance was gone (like in the irish potato famine) them everyone dies of starvation. Maybe we should go back to the good old days when people only lived for 30 years because they didn't have their basic needs met. Yeah, because before, people scraped by just fine.
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Why would you get malnutrition if you cook at home? Then buy different food.
Who the hell lacks those dietary choices?! If I have eat for $10 a day, which is about what I do, I have plenty of choices.
The reason poor people are fat are because they don't cook for themselves, they eat fast food more than any other income group. Why? Well, the blunt answer is that they are lazy.
btw, the famine happened because they were forced by gov to grow potatoes.
Visfen 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Going back? What are you talking about? We tried some policies, they didn't work by the standards set out and by the narrative of today the misconception is that they did, so I reckon that is still desire. Then why continue them?
We live longer now because of the productive capacity we have has increased, which happened originating from decentralization where governments in competition had to compete by liberating their economies. We know what works.
Visfen 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl And you should be unrepentantly thankful to capitalism hich is the direct reason for the greater variety of food choices (among other products) and their greater availability particularly among the poor and working class, not to mention the development and availability of modern medicines. It was UK intervention that was in large part responsible for the poverty that made the potato famine possible. Why should we expect it to do better now?
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl And health care is cheaper, people just spend more on it because they live longer. If you want to cut health care cost in the US to standard western standards, then get your average life span of those that make it to over 50 years of age go down (it's the highest in the world). Heck, you could shave a year of and save about half of the costs of the system, since that is when half of the costs are concurred.I think though, these are choices for the people
Visfen 3 months ago
@Visfen "f you want to cut health care cost in the US ...make it to over 50 years of age go down (it's the highest in the world)."
Sources plz?
Yeah, sorry but I'm looking at the website for WHO right now and actually America scores lower for life expectancy than most of the first world nations with universal healthcare. Go check it out.
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Yes, I know. I said so, but do you understand that the life expectancy for those over 65 (I used the wrong number, I'm doing this from memory), is a different group and therefor has a different life expectancy. When you're past 65 in the US or Britain, you have higher longelivity in the US than the UK.
Are you following?
And it matters, because it filters for living standards, accidents and differences in infant mortality measurements.
Visfen 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl And the study showing that, adjusted for instant death from accidents/murders, the US has the highest life expectancy, so correlation is not causation. In fact, every study of actual care (so much for the discredited WHO rankings), shows that life expectancy after the diagnosis of a serious illness is highest in the US.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom But you would only get a diagnosis if you have the money to pay for the diagnostician.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Flat wrong. The figures of care, illness survivabilty and life expecatncy (excluding instant death from accident/murder) all of which are highest in the US include the entire population not just the insured.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl So if the government forces you to accept their services, you're obligated to pay for it?
I suppose slaves are obligated to work for their slave masters. After all, the slave-master is providing accommodation for them (even though the slave doesn't want the accommodation and just wants to do his own things).
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
@DoctorCapitalist You're comparing paying taxes to slavery? Yet you think it's totally cool for people to basically live off nothing in a shitty job with a shitty working environment?
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Slavery is making someone labour for you against their consent, usually with the threat of violence.
If a slave (that is, someone forced to work against his will/consent) refuses to pick cotton, he will be brutalised by the master. If you do not pay your taxes (that which you do not of course, consent to) then you will be thrown into a cage where you will be raped.
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl So is taxation voluntary or involuntary? If taxation is voluntary and you pay your taxes, then you are morally responsible for wars commited overseas, along with the deaths of thousands of innocent people. If you fund the KKK voluntarily, knowing of their lynchings, then you are morally supporting their actions.
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl The FACT is that capitalism was directly and solely responsible for the massive improvement in working conditions, wages, health and overall prosperity (not to mention the near end of child labor) that has resulted since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, taking place to a greater degree and much faster, where either law or unions were least interfering. Your contention is refuted by actual history.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@FletchforFreedom I never said that capitalism never leads to progress. Your point is moot.
The only thing I'm establishing is that we need to have a regulated market. Free market capitalism does not lead to social progress.
TheInternetRageGirl 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl To the contrary, free market capitalism has demonstrably resulted in social progress; it has been one of the greatest drivers of individual liberty in history.
FletchforFreedom 2 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl:
Yes, forcing people to give their money at the point of a gun is robbery, even if the robbers call themselves "the state" or "government". Trust me. I'm an atheist, so I know what I'm talking about.
Akatam0t0ma 2 months ago
Fuck children and poor people. I hate those bastards. Oh, never mind that if a rich person became poor, the'd still be supported by the welfare system they so irrationally despise. Fucking thieves!
TheInternetRageGirl 4 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl Great point. So if I take 30% of what you own, and then use it to buy stuff, and then one day you actually use some of the stuff I bought as you fell on hard times, that means you endorse the whole arrangement.
fringeelements 4 months ago 4
@fringeelements I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you trying to say that only the rich or middle class pay taxes?
TheInternetRageGirl 4 months ago
@fringeelements besides, tax money is not your money or my money - it's everyone's money.
TheInternetRageGirl 4 months ago
Oh noes! Rich people have to pay a higher tax rate? NO WAY!!!! That's so unfair (except it makes perfect sense).
TheInternetRageGirl 4 months ago
@TheInternetRageGirl:
" (except it makes perfect sense)"
Except that the money isn't yours of the government's to begin with, a minor detail which your statheist brain failed to grasp, which is quite odd in light of the fact that statheists tend to view themselves as the most enlightened creatures in the whole universe by virtue of their political views combined with their lack of belief in the gods. So what is there about property rights that is so hard to grasp for such uber-smart minds?
Akatam0t0ma 3 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma First of all, how do you know I'm an atheist? Second,how do you know I think that I'm better than others for supposedly being an atheist? Lastly, how hard is it for you to grasp that you have an obligation to your community and that everyone with an income has to pay their taxes?
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
oh, and a million bucks
thanks andrew
MrEndrew8 4 months ago
-clones self 9 times- Whats the governmental stuff kirby?
WOAHH! we'll talk about that later. GET THEM! -kills all 5-
here's some kids, kirbies
thanks andrew
MrEndrew8 4 months ago
My favorite videos of yours are the ones made of kirby/videogame sprites.
nightpotato 6 months ago 2
@fringeelements
Question:
Would couples who have like 5 kids at one time be excluded from this example? Seeing as this could be unpredictable. Or would they have to abandon the 4 fetuses and only keep the planned child?
ProDCloud 8 months ago
In a sane society, they would, unless other people were willing to pay for the 4 babies they couldn't raise. This was done throughout most of human history. Babies that families couldn't raise would be exposed.
fringeelements 8 months ago
@fringeelements What can I say but wow. You're sub-human scum afterall :)
TheInternetRageGirl 3 months ago
Thank you for this video
lalagordo 9 months ago 5
The problem with liberals is they want the state to solve problems that the state created. They propose the gov't create mass transit, but we'd already have mass transit if the gov't hadn't subsidized the auto industry and built the interstate. They rail on about water conservation, but we couldn't possibly of had people living in places like Las Vegas and Arizona if the gov't hadn't built the Hoover Dam. They're completely clueless.
MinnesotaTwins24 10 months ago
@MinnesotaTwins24: true, because liberals fail to achieve freedom on the economic scale. Therefore watering down the ACTUAL process of stablizing economic measures and so forth. It's like saying liberals are utterly destructive to the general public and laughing at the agony of the state's increased tax revenue.
Ringvireot 4 months ago
Great Video! It'd be funny if it weren't so, so true.
MinnesotaTwins24 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anarcho-capitalists are the ONLY people who know what is going on.
AnarchoCapMonstr 11 months ago
Uh... white [remove] rabbit [remove] radio [remove] .net?
warcrafter21 11 months ago
We're voting ourselves your money
BloodNorseGods 1 year ago
God, I hate these people.
Micro8Bit 1 year ago
wonderful video, very simple and very entertaining
JamesCatlane 1 year ago
There are a lot of white people on welfare too! Not just black people or mexicans. Just cut out the program all together and see how many people of DIFFERENT races come out and complain about not being able to get help.
toomuch4em 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser I agree that the Constitution is imperfect, how could I not? However, there is a mechanism in our Constitution to correct errors of omission, or commission. Also, it wouldn't matter how perfect ANY Constitution is, if people are simply going to ignore it anyway.
Stateless society (Anarchy) is a beautiful fantasy, but at this level of human development/understanding, that's all it is. I prefer to go after goals I believe are actually achievable, and this is proving hard enough.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
All gov't programs have internal correction mechanisms. It's still central planning and it will still fail eventually.
Arguments about human nature hurt the case for a state, not for markets. We don't need to rely on an enlightened man for free market burritos, but we would need to rely on them for centrally planned burrito production. "Anarchy" refers to an actual ideology that's not mine.
Reform fails. Anti-statism is the movement. All else is ancillary side issues and dumb "realism".
fringeelements 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName
I'd like to know more about your view regarding exactly what qualities man would need to have, in order to thrive in a stateless society. My bet is that you're already assuming those exact same qualities in the state without realizing it, and that this is why you subscribe to the belief in its desirability.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
...I say all that to say this; what a person requires to thrive in a stateless society is personal awareness, and VOLUNTARY acceptance that FORCE is unnaceptable in a free society. The simple fact is, that you cannot try to FORCE someone to agree with you, and claim to advocate a society without force.
That means you have to deal with the world, and people as they ARE, not as you want them to BE.
The only way a stateless society can thrive, or even survive, is WITHOUT force.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
...was my own path to awareness.
It was arguments I first heard from Ron Paul, that made me question my own principles, and start thinking about what I was advocating. I was conservative then, but as much an advocate of state intervention as any liberal.
I don't want to argue with people about whether they are wrong, and I am right, I just want to get them to think, to question their own principles & preconceptions, and let that road lead them where it must...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM I advocate Constitutional Governance not as desirable, but as an achievable starting point. It is a matter of practicality.
I grew up in a liberal family, and city, and state, so I don't have the visceral reaction to statists as most anti-statists (these are the people that love me after all). My family members are much more responsive to Constitutional arguments, than arguments that the very idea of government is tyrannical, violent, enslaving. The truth is, this...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
Government=civilization.
DaFuckyouat 1 year ago
Right, if by government you mean law, then yes, law precedes civilization, and civilization precedes the state. Without law, you can't have property ownership, dispute resolution, contracts and punishment for crimes.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@DaFuckyouat Government = force of law. If you believe force is civilized, then so be it.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@DaFuckyouat:
Cyanide pill=life
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@DaFuckyouat Yeah, so? What's so good about civilization? I take what I need from it, then fuck it.
Donatellangelo 1 year ago
@Donatellangelo Yeah, but civilization is a trade-off. You become dependent on other people to feed an clothe you. And don't think you can go into the wilderness and live off the land because civilization has most of the good water and land privatized or degraded. Good luck trying to grow food on marginal land and drinking water that was used to defrack oil shales.
DaFuckyouat 1 year ago
I don't have to go into the wilderness, nobody does. Food, housing, cars, none of that stuff requires a welfare state. You're erecting a false dichotomy.
fringeelements 11 months ago
@fringeelements
I'm not talking about food stamps. I'm talking about government intervention, period. A car based economy is a highly subsidized one. It was the government, not private companies that built all those highways that allow people to commute very far from home. Everyone knows the government subsidizes the agriculture industry to the point that vegetables, which are theoretically cheaper to grow than meat, are more expensive than meat.
DaFuckyouat 11 months ago
You're babbling. I agree that there would be more rail in a stateless society, and more vegetables relative to meat you say? Whatever, sounds fine.
Yes, a market economy is highly interdependent, and this develops with minute and highly calibrated complexity in the absence of any state planning wherever allowed, and grows around it where the state meddles, like algae growing around some rod shoved in the swamp, roads beat out rail because of state intervention.
fringeelements 11 months ago
@shadowgeyser True, but again, this is a CORRUPTION of our system. This isn't the way it was designed. This is why the Confederate States seceded. Sadly the Confederacy fell to the statist forces of the Union. This changed our Union of Sovereign States, into a Nation of SUBJECT States.
The Constitution enumerates the specific areas in which the fed govt is allowed to operate. It is the near pathological ambivalence, and apathy of most of the citizenry that's allowed things to get so bad.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
But if we don't raise your taxes, who will pay for Laquisha's 17 kids?
TheSupremeSkeptic 1 year ago 3
lol, market correction...
fringeelements 1 year ago
@TheSupremeSkeptic
RastaJesus will pay for them.
WAMill3R 1 year ago
Bloody brilliant! I love this! That's been happening right here in L.A. for years.
jeremyshaw 1 year ago
It falls on mostly deaf ears sadly, but this is spot on, excellent video.
LifeIsPietzsche 1 year ago
The Founders are not to blame for our society's decent into Democracy. That would be the doing of the statists and academics (I know, same thing), and the rest of us for not remaining vigilant, as we had been warned (by the Founders) to be.
The Founders set up a Republic because they were well aware of the inherent wretchedness of majority (mob) rule.
Otherwise great video.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
A republic is a form of democracy. "The founders" are to blame, they allowed for voting, and this "right" was expanded, and now it's a nightmare.
fringeelements 1 year ago
@fringeelements This is a common misconception, propagated by misinformation and outright deception. The two systems are actually unrelated. A definition of these terms may help explain their differences:
Democracy - rule by majority
Republic - rule by law
Also, I misspoke when I called the Founders US a Republic, it was a Constitutional Republic:
Constitutional Republic - Rule by law, limited specifically to those areas, which defend our Individual liberty, and protect our natural rights.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@fringeelements If you have never read the Federalist and AntiFederalist papers, I would recommend doing so. The arguments here describe exactly what was being debated. Also there are several sources which help to elaborate on the differences between the two systems:
Democracy or Republic - Benedict D LaRosa, several of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and many more I can't quite call to mind right now. I'll look through my texts to see which address this, and send you a list if you'd like.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName A republic is a representative or indirect form of democracy, rule of law was what the founders wanted the republic to focus on, but the general definition of a republic is rep/indirect democracy. There are republics which do no hold rule of law on high standards. It is idependent of the status of a republican style government or not.
TicTocKnight 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName A constitutional republic is as you say very true, rule by law as a heavy focus is part of it, my point was that there are constitutional monarchies, parliaments, etc, which also use the same thing, but that majority rule can also be part of the government structure.
TicTocKnight 1 year ago
@TicTocKnight ...This is a corruption of the system they instituted, caused primarily by Lincoln and his Civil War. As he stated himself, when challenged on his Constitutional authority to make war on the Confederacy; "I must SUSPEND the Constitution in order to save the Union". Something else he didn't have the Constitutional authority to do. The rest of what has gone wrong with our society is our own fault for not remaining vigilant to govts accumulation of power.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Very true about the electoral college, I was being too general with the definition of a republic and not focusing on the American constitution. The Constitution was a comprimise, so the nature of it open/loose ends is to be expected.
TicTocKnight 1 year ago
@TicTocKnight ...legal tender laws, no limit on the size of govt, the PROCESS of amendment (the ABILITY to amend the Constitution is what makes it a work of genius), etc.. you get the picture.
The difference between a Constitutional Republic, and any other form of government, Constitutional or otherwise is, as Thomas Jefferson put it; The INHERENT antagonism toward liberty. The Founders (again the anti-statists) never intended the OPERATION of our federal government to be democratic...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@TicTocKnight ...(sadly not the size) of govt is our Union of Sovereign States.
The Founders were apparently unable to come up with a solution to the problem of democratic elections, though they (the anti-statists founders)... ...tried valiantly, with methods such as the electoral college (which was just an oligarchical :-( method). There are also several MAJOR flaws in the Constitution itself; necessary and proper, eminent domain, the House of Representatives,...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@TicTocKnight First let me apologize before hand for being so wordy :-). Yes, a republic is a representative form of government in the sense that you democratically select a set of representatives. I did not mean to imply otherwise. However the only society in living history that has ever (attempted to) institute fixed limits (the Constitution) on the breadth & scope...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
inb4 ZOMG RACISM!!111111
chorizo1337 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shadowgeyser
Accidentally voted your comment up. Oops.
Anyways, you're only barely right. Yes, markets are majoritarian to a degree, but not to the flagrant degree of democracy. Niches are possible in markets. They are not in politics. While a product on a market requires significant custom to survive, at least there is variety. Politics is one-size-fits-all ham-fisted exercises with a degree of arbitrariness exponentially higher than in a market of scale.
doucher337 1 year ago
I have to say I like Mexicans more then Blacks. Mexicans work harder. Though there are a few blacks I know that are really hard working like minded people, the majority that I have met just live up to the stereotypes; welfare whores.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige
While there are a tiny, tiny minority of decent blacks, the black race is pretty despicable. Although with the rise of anti-white groups like La Raza and criminal immigrants, I'm not a fan of Mexicans either. If Mexicans were truly hard workers, they would try to build up their own land rather than coming here to leech off our resources. They are better than blacks though.
UncreativeName222 1 year ago
@UncreativeName222
I dont blame them for coming here. Mexico is a shit hole. If there was no welfare taxes etc I'd be for open borders but we still have those things. But besides that I dont blames Mexicans for coming. Now we just need to teach them about tax evasion and get them on our side.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
Why is your tumblr down?
adjohnson916 1 year ago
@TheQuestioner132 Inverted commas because you doubt them, or dislike the word?
SaviorOfLogic 1 year ago
Kirby is back! Kirby cares about the children!
GuardofLiberty 1 year ago
Carest not about thee children!
Worldslargestipod 1 year ago
they may outnumber us, but they can't count either, lol. we are screwed.
4lifejackhammer 1 year ago
Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children?!?! *Flips the Fuck Out*
And the worst part is, it's not unlikely for a socialist to say something just like this, relying entirely on sentimental, emotional drivel with no regards for practicality or personal responsibility.
Bluecho4 1 year ago
Ahhh... sweet.
THE children - exactly.
"Now we outnumber you 5 to 1!!!" LOL
TheLegalImmigrant05 1 year ago
FRINGEELEMENTS respond to nomoresunsets that femme fatal is eating you
trilerkiler 1 year ago
@trilerkiler She is sucking his dick in the subconscious.
BIackOp 1 year ago 6
Screw the children, i support DEMOCRACY
Worldslargestipod 1 year ago
@Worldslargestipod same here
jugeteable 1 year ago
INCENTIVES NEVER MATTER, YOU MARKET FUNDIES!
Morrakiu 1 year ago
@Morrakiu
Except the profit motive, which only applies to people I dislike!
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
I love these
ToastMyBoy 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser He also defends the fiat currency which is astounding consider he supposedly at some level is against the empire, and corporatism... This was only a fraction of the crap he posted right on Reason.tv's channel. The bastard follows me around like a cancer.
BIackOp 1 year ago