Saffire

What'll most likely happen is Obama will end up screwing up the economy even worse, and his supporters will just blame it on externalities he can't control. A few possible excuses include: 1. Bush made the economy so bad, not even Obama can fix it in just four years! 2. Those greedy people in the healthcare industry are keeping prices high, forcing Obama to raise your payroll taxes! 3. We can't pull out of Iraq just yet because someone might die! Or sprain their ankle! 4. Food costs are going up because of a cold spring and a drought in the summer! et cetera.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e62444aa8c/brave-new-obamaian-world-from-ucbcomedy This is awesome and hilarious.

Aha! Very good question. Let's say we were playing God with a group of savages on an island somewhere. I suggest tossing a few guns on the island, and you respond: "That's a ridiculous idea! The clans will all kill each other!" So I ask you what your alternative solution is. You suggest giving the three guns to a single island clan, in effect giving that clan a monopoly on the use of force on the island. Your solution is a government. Now the rest of the islanders all vote for policies according to democratic ideals, but they inevitably vote for the islander who offers them the most ice cream. To get the ice cream, the clan uses their guns to take it from the rich islanders and give it to the poor ones. This continues until there is less incentive to produce ice cream, and the total amount of island ice cream is less than it was when the experiment began. ______________________________________________________ So now take a look at what would happen if each of the three island clans had a gun. You suggest the island would devolve into a state of chaos, without a government to control things. But a curious thing happens - the islanders are aware of this scenario, and avoid it at all costs! They know the risk of losing their own lives is high, and that if they killed another islander their families would make them outcasts. Instead they trade among each other. There is no politician to vote for, so they don't worry about taking ice cream from the rich islanders. Instead, they work to buy it. Other islanders see the potential to make money, so they start producing ice cream, too. The increase in total island ice cream causes the COST of ice cream to fall!

No, Obama wants to reduce payroll taxes on the lower class. That's effectively "spreading the wealth" because now the lower class enjoys all the benefits of paying FULL payroll taxes (social security, medicare, medicaid) without paying their fair share. They will be taking more from the system than they get out of it.

Well 2732, what we're debating is striking some balance between anarchy (which I support) and totalitarianism (which I'm aware you don't support, although I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't). Why wouldn't businesses be willing to maintain the roads leading to them? It makes little sense to me they'd let them rot. Second, how many parents do you know who don't care to send their kids to school? Just because a school is public doesn't make it "easy" to send your kid to. Parents want the best for their kids, and if they had a choice they would choose private schools. Third, when's the last time you've been to a hospital, or a library, or a university? Odds are you'd see a building named for a rich person. Finally, why should I (or anyone) have to guarantee that a system should work? I'm not proposing a centrally-planned society like Obama is. The burden of proof lies on you guys, not me.

I think it could work quite well. Of course it hasn't been tried, because usually when a government collapses it's replaced by another one very quickly. But you can view humanity one of three ways: 1. People are all fundamentally evil. 2. People are all fundamentally good. 3. People are all some mix of good and evil. If you look at 1, then you have to discount government altogether. Because giving evil people a monopoly on the use of force really isn't going to help things. Looking at 2, in a society of angels government really isn't necessary. And 3, which is the most likely situation, it makes no sense to take a chance with government. It's like saying "Well, a little bit of cancer is good. But not the whole tumor."

Okay well let's take a look at this: Roads might be owned by the businesses they lead to. After all, businesses want you to drive the distance so you can spend your money - so they could pay to build a road up-front, and collect toll fees or simply include the charge in the price of their products. Your parents would have extra money in their pocket to send you to a private school. They'd have a choice, as there would likely be several smaller private schools all competing for you to attend. Remember that "private" doesn't necessarily mean "expensive", particularly in a society without public schools. Now, by your own admission you'd be willing to pay extra if you made "loads of money". Don't you think other people who make "loads of money" feel the same way? Or are they all greedy and hold on to every single dime they get? Of course not! Rich people would still donate to charity. They'd build schools (with the stipulation that the school is named after their family, of course) and even build roads.

What's wrong with anarchy? Have you ever seriously considered what life would be like without government? Give it some thought, because you might be surprised at what would actually happen.

Robin Hood wasn't a socialist because back then there was a feudal economy, which wasn't capitalist. So his interference in the market didn't really have any net moral effect. 2732, I sympathize with you that your family might have been hovering near the lower-class at some point. But MrCool and I aren't being insensitive when we suggest limited (or zero) taxation is the best policy for everyone, especially the poor. In a taxless society, the prices of all essential goods and services falls BIG TIME. Wages (for everyone) go up BIG TIME. Money can't be printed, so there's no inflation. New businesses are formed daily, creating job opportunities for anyone who looks. And most importantly, there aren't huge swings in economic conditions - recessions, after all, are caused by government interference in the economy.

Pessimism about the government? Just look at history! You'll see that governments have caused more death and destruction than any other institutions, even religion. You should cast a skeptical eye toward government once in a while. It will make you more grown up (as a 16 year old) than 90% of all adults who trust the benevolence of the thugs in government to help them out. You probably attend a government school, use government paper as money, and half your parents' income is snatched away from them before they even get a chance to see it.

Good point. Once you listen to enough Stefan Molyneaux podcasts you realize every logical argument you make is effectively met with this:

I'm going to post again to emphasize this point to any socialists reading this page: Rich people save and invest their money. Poor and middle-class people spend their money. Rich people are not like poor people. Even though they spend more on leisure and their own lifestyle, as a percentage of their total net worth they save FAR more than the lower and middle classes. These savings are vital to keeping an economy from becoming burned-out (as our's has been lately). When you don't have a pool of savings, loans can't be made to start new businesses or invest in existing ones. Jobs are lost. True, the government helps poor people by giving them the money, but they spend it rather than using it to create value.

2732, you need to quit reading Obama books and learn about the importance of capital accumulation in an economy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics) This is why we need an upper-class. By shifting money away from the upper-classes and spreading it among the lower classes, you are moving money out of savings (capital accumulation) and toward consumer spending. Remember that the current economic crisis was driven by depleted savings (in banks). Banks don't have money to lend out because Americans' savings rate is typically only 3 or 4%. Consumption is what got us into this mess.

Are you suggesting that without taxes, nobody would help these people voluntarily? People tip waiters and give to charity even though they know there are other people who never do...

I'd save it... or buy a nice suit-jacket.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s]YouTube - Obama Civilian Security[/ame] Whoa!

I wonder what Dawkins has contributed - in the way of original thought - to either the scientific or philosophical communities? He's a great advocate for atheism, but beyond that I'm not aware of any particularly novel concepts he has advanced. Let me quickly toss this bit of red meat out there for you evolutionists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma Haldane's dilemma is a serious mathematical impediment to my belief in the current model of evolutionary biology. As it stands, I don't think anyone has come up with a sufficient explanation about why the speed of evolution in higher vertebrates is so breakneck relative what the numbers show is possible.

No I think it's fair to say war has claimed FAR more lives than terrorism ever has!

Obama accused those who don't want to pay higher taxes of "selfishness". Take a look at Obama's own charitable contributions since 2000, as a percentage of his total income: He only started picking up the pace after he became a millionaire (from his book sales) and he knew he would run for president. Still pretty weak.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Fart-Proudly-Writings-Benjamin-Franklin/dp/1583940790/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225515144&sr=1-11]Amazon.com: Fart Proudly: Writings of Benjamin Franklin You Never Read in School: Carl Japikse: Books[/ame]

Dude, Angela Merkel means business. Her speeches are getting more and more passionate!

Well you can be good at the game in the sense that you know when to quit. If you're good at doing weighted averages in your head, then comparing the result to the bank's offer, then you will get the most out of the game. If I ever got on Deal or No Deal I'd just open all the cases in the order of their numbers, starting with 1. It would be the most boring game ever!

Well at least they use the same alphabet... it's a start!

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113.html Oh dear.