Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles, CBD Topicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: monoamine]
    #1753790 - 07/27/03 08:29 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

If they meant every able bodied male,then why do females own guns?



Perhaps because it's no longer the 1700's?


Quote:

One could interpret "well-regulated militia" a million different ways.



Yes, one certainly could. However the ONLY correct interpretation is that of the writers. There are more than enough of their writings to have no doubt what that is.


Quote:

So you can cite the Federalist papers and all that jazz all you want,but our founding father's seemed pretty damn hypocritical and contridictory by their actions.



In their time it wasn't hypocritical. It's just how it was. I don't recall ever seeing them say that women had no rights. If you're aware of them having done so, please show me where.


Quote:

Totally unrestricted capitalism with no socialist support would mean the downfall of civilization,in my view.



We should all have a view. Mine is backed by the constitution and written words of the founders. Yours are backed by feelings. Sorry man but the written word trumps your feelings. If it didn't, whos feelings would we go by? Yours? Mine? John Does?


Quote:

Do you really think Billy Gates "earned" that couple billion or so he has?



Yup.


Quote:

No one deservers that much money.



I do.  :smirk:


Quote:

But that's the way capatalism works. 



And should.


Quote:

 


 


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: monoamine]
    #1753804 - 07/27/03 08:38 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

grandmasterfat writes:

One could interpret "well-regulated militia" a million different ways.

Even if one could, it is irrelevant. The right of the people to bear arms is still protected.

Totally unrestricted capitalism with no socialist support would mean the downfall of civilization,in my view.

Why do you believe that? By what process of reasoning did you arrive at that conclusion?

Do you truly believe that in order for "civilization" to survive, peaceful, non-interfering people must have force used against them? Can you please provide some supporting arguments for your position?

Do you really think Billy Gates "earned" that couple billion or so he has? I'm sorry,but no one is that important.No one deservers that much money.No single person can possibly contribute that much to society.

What if some guy discovers a surefire vaccination against AIDS. He patents it and gets a lousy buck for every shot sold. How can you argue that he wouldn't have earned that money?

As for Bill Gates, you say he hasn't earned all his money. Are you saying he inherited it? Stole it? The fact is that he sells stuff to people. People are free not to buy his stuff. For example I have never bought a Microsoft product and I have owned a personal computer since 1984.

But that's the way capatalism works.

If you mean that Capitalism works by people voluntarily exchanging goods and services, you are correct. What is your problem with that? You seem to be of the opinion that coercion must be thrown into the mix. Why?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1753823 - 07/27/03 08:48 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Perhaps because it's no longer the 1700's?



Yeah,people no longer carry muskets either. I think you know were I'm going with this one...so I'm no even going to bother.
They did say "men" in the Federalist papers and whatnot. If you'
re going to cite this stuff so much,it's either all or nothing.If you want to go word for word,then women shouldn't own guns. I think you're being a bit hypocrital in that respect.

Quote:

However the ONLY correct interpretation is that of the writers.




What is the "correct" interpretation? I do think interpretation involves opinion,no? You're also assuming every writer of the constitution had the same exact interpretation.

Quote:

In their time it wasn't hypocritical. It's just how it was.




I don't think hypocrisy is limited to a time peroid. I don't think "it's just how it was" is a very good arguement.

Quote:

Sorry man but the written word trumps your feelings.




See the "interpretation and opinion thing" above.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: monoamine]
    #1753837 - 07/27/03 08:56 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Yeah,people no longer carry muskets either.



Yup, and they read newspapers too. See where we both can go?


Quote:

If you want to go word for word,then women shouldn't own guns. I think you're being a bit hypocrital in that respect.


Hey, I can live with women being chattel, and not having the right to vote and what not. Good luck turning back the hands of time.  :wink:


Quote:

You're also assuming every writer of the constitution had the same exact interpretation.



I'm aware of the supporting writings. Perhaps you can show me some that didn't?


Quote:

I don't think "it's just how it was" is a very good arguement.




No, it isn't. Which is why times have changed and *gasp* women have rights. They didn't know any better when they wrote the constitution. Spank those that taught them if you wish.


Quote:

See the "interpretation and opinion thing" above.



I did. They were weak.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: monoamine]
    #1753882 - 07/27/03 09:13 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

I see all you "righties" (Can we please stop using all this rhetoric and stereotype crap?) point out that "lefties" are unrealistic. I think your idea of capatlism is quite a bit "utopian", to say the least. Unrestricted capitalism is just going to divide the line between the rich and poor even further. And the idea that most rich businessman earned the money is simply absurd to me.Contrary to what you seem to think, most wealth is inherited. I do think if you work harder than someone else you deserve to get payed more,but Billy Gates did not earn his dozens of billions or whatever the hell he has. He used fucked up loopholes in the law and bullshit beucratic business games to get where he is. Money stands for resources,and they are only so many resources for humans to share. When someone has that many resources,he's taking them from other people,plain and simple.
Contrary to what Ayn Rand (btw,Atlas Shrugged is the biggest piece of garbage ever written) says,capitalism does not allow the cream to rise to the top.If that were true,90% of PC's wouldn't be using windows.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,116
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 38 minutes
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1753884 - 07/27/03 09:13 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

You are aware, of course, that the constitution can be changed.

Right?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1753889 - 07/27/03 09:18 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
You are aware, of course, that the constitution can be changed.

Right?



Of course, but it's a deliberately difficult process. It's been changed many times. Too many. (does prohibition ring any bells?)

Those who wish to change it via a constitutional convention should be careful they don't get what they wish for.

If for example a convention is called.... ALL the amendments are open to change.

Of course 3/4's of the states can vote to change it. There's actually a debate on whether the amendment allowing an income tax was ever properly ratified by the full 3/4's in the alloted amount of time.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: monoamine]
    #1753968 - 07/27/03 09:49 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

grandmasterfat writes:

I see all you "righties" (Can we please stop using all this rhetoric and stereotype crap?) point out that "lefties" are unrealistic.

So you have no answers to my questions. *shrugs* Okay, then.

I think your idea of capatlism is quite a bit "utopian", to say the least.

Who here has ever said Capitalism is perfect?

Unrestricted capitalism is just going to divide the line between the rich and poor even further.

Can you support this assertion through a line of reasoning, please?

And the idea that most rich businessman earned the money is simply absurd to me.

This is because you haven't bothered to actually research the subject. There are far more businessmen becoming HWIs (high wealth individuals) every year than there are wealthy people dying and leaving their money to their heirs every year by at least one order of magnitude. If they didn't earn the money, how did they get it? Steal it?

Whether you find the idea repugnant or not, most rich businessmen (in the US, at least -- can't speak for Russia or Norway) didn't start out rich at all. That is not an opinion, that is a fact, and easily checkable.

Contrary to what you seem to think, most wealth is inherited.

Absolutely untrue, at least in the US. Source, please?

As an aside, note that the wealthiest individual in the world, the aforementioned Bill Gates, did not inherit his wealth.

I do think if you work harder than someone else you deserve to get payed more,but Billy Gates did not earn his dozens of billions or whatever the hell he has. He used fucked up loopholes in the law and bullshit beucratic business games to get where he is.

If he broke the law he of course should be tried and convicted.

Money stands for resources,and they are only so many resources for humans to share.

Ah. I see your error. You are equating currency with wealth. You compound your error by equating resources with wealth. Neither is correct. A free market economy is not a zero sum game. Wealth is created through productive human effort.

When someone has that many resources,he's taking them from other people,plain and simple.

Incorrect. What did Bill Gates take from other people? The opportunity to develop and sell a computer operating system? The chance to write a killer spreadsheet program or word-processing program? Or do you mean that he is taking (rather than buying) wood pulp resources from someone by printing too many "Microsoft Office" manuals?

Contrary to what Ayn Rand (btw,Atlas Shrugged is the biggest piece of garbage ever written) says,capitalism does not allow the cream to rise to the top.

Ayn Rand didn't invent Laissez-faire Capitalism, nor is she even its most convincing apologist. Further, the point of Capitalism is not to allow the cream to rise to the top, but to allow people the freedom to live as they choose as long as they don't fuck with anyone else. What is your objection to allowing people their right to exercise this freedom?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,116
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 38 minutes
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Phred]
    #1754025 - 07/27/03 10:09 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Didn't Gates give away like a quarter of his net worth a few years ago?

Something like 20 billion dollars.


Edited by Baby_Hitler (07/27/03 10:10 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1754045 - 07/27/03 10:18 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Baby_Hitler writes:

Didn't Gates give away like a quarter of his net worth a few years ago?

Something like 20 billion dollars.


Dunno if that was the exact amount, but yeah, it was a pretty hefty chunk of change.

Of course, it would have been far better if he had never made more than a few million tops and then retired. That way he wouldn't have taken any resources from people. The recipients of that 20 billion would never even have realized they had missed a windfall, right?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Phred]
    #1754049 - 07/27/03 10:21 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

*snicker*


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Phred]
    #1754057 - 07/27/03 10:25 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

So you have no answers to my questions. *shrugs* Okay, then.




Even though I didn't address you specifically,I think I answered many of your questions in my other posts.I'm only one person for christ's sake. I have to approve posts in ODD and whatnot now-which I'm neglecting for a little while.

I didn't see a few answers to some of my questions either,you don't see me bitching.
Quote:

Who here has ever said Capitalism is perfect?




I never said you guys did. I just hate it when the "righties" on the board accuse the "lefties" of being unrealistic,when most of the vocal "lefties"
support a mixed system,which in my view is far more realistic than this laissez-faire stuff.

Quote:

Can you support this assertion through a line of reasoning, please?




Can you support your line of reasoning? I think it's pretty self evident that if the current resistricted form is changed to a laissez-faire system in a less than a few snail's pace (or even at all),the rich are just going to get richer,or even worse,the whole fucking economy would colapse.


Quote:

If they didn't earn the money, how did they get it? Steal it?




Legally-no.In my view-many of them might as well have.

Quote:

If he broke the law he of course should be tried and convicted.




I think he has,on a number of occasions (broken the law that is). I guess I just imagined the anti trust thing a few years ago.

Don't be naive.If you have that much many,politicians,or that ones that make laws,are bought and sold.

Quote:

Ah. I see your error. You are equating currency with wealth. You compound your error by equating resources with wealth. Neither is correct. A free market economy is not a zero sum game. Wealth is created through productive human effort.




Yes,productive human effort that actually creates something is "resources". If money doesn't stand for resources,then what the hell does it stand for?


Quote:

Incorrect. What did Bill Gates take from other people? The opportunity to develop and sell a computer operating system? The chance to write a killer spreadsheet program or word-processing program? Or do you mean that he is taking (rather than buying) wood pulp resources from someone by printing too many "Microsoft Office" manuals?





See above.


Quote:

Further, the point of Capitalism is not to allow the cream to rise to the top, but to allow people the freedom to live as they choose as long as they don't fuck with anyone else.




I think people would lose many rights if completely unrestricted capitalism was implimented.
I thought that the biggest capitalist arguement was that it creates commpetition and that the consumer benefits this way.
If libertarianist Laissez-faire was implimented,there would be unprecedented monopolies.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,116
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 38 minutes
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: monoamine]
    #1754095 - 07/27/03 10:45 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Some actions create wealth, some destroy it.

you can take a little petroleum, and a few miligrams of metals and make a plastic disc with a thin metal film on it. On that disc you can put Windows XP, a college course in algebra, instructions on how to grow psilocybe mushrooms, or a whole lotta farting noises, each uses the same resources.

You can destroy good farming land for a few ounces of diamonds which have monetary value, but no real value. They are just useless shiny rocks, and destroy more wealth than they create.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1754105 - 07/27/03 10:48 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Actually diamonds have many industrial uses.

And the diamond industry keeps many employed.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDoctorJ
"Nazi, Satanist Anti-Christ"
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,843
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 month, 14 days
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1754114 - 07/27/03 10:51 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

^^^ a capitalist stands up for a monopolized industry.

happens more and more these days


--------------------
'You can go to a hospital
Get yourself cleaned out.'


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: monoamine]
    #1754121 - 07/27/03 10:54 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

grandmasterfat writes:

I have to approve posts in ODD and whatnot now-which I'm neglecting for a little while.

No problem. Take your time.

I didn't see a few answers to some of my questions either,you don't see me bitching.

Who's bitching? Just observing. Which question of yours have I failed to answer, by the way? I am usually pretty good at answering all direct questions asked of me.

I just hate it when the "righties" on the board accuse the "lefties" of being unrealistic,when most of the vocal "lefties" support a mixed system,which in my view is far more realistic than this laissez-faire stuff.

Interesting word, "realistic". If by realistic, you meant that "mixed system" economies can exist for long periods of time, who has ever said otherwise? Slave-based economies existed for long periods of time too. Totalitarian economies can limp along for decades as well -- see the USSR as the most famous example.

What I want to know is why you are convinced that giving people the freedom to live as they choose would result in an economic collapse. Take your time.

Can you support your line of reasoning?

Sure. I have done so dozens of times in previous threads. If you like, I can bump Trendal's thread titled "The United States is NOT Capitalist" one more time.

I think it's pretty self evident that if the current resistricted form is changed to a laissez-faire system in a less than a few snail's pace (or even at all),the rich are just going to get richer,or even worse,the whole fucking economy would colapse.

I don't think it is self-evident that the whole fucking economy would collapse, which is why I asked why YOU believe it will. As for the rich getting richer, what's wrong with that?

I think he has,on a number of occasions (broken the law that is). I guess I just imagined the anti trust thing a few years ago.

So he was taken to court, and the due process of law took place as it should. What's the problem?

Don't be naive.If you have that much many,politicians,or that ones that make laws,are bought and sold.

Let me get this straight. You are accusing the judges who heard the case of accepting a bribe to rule in his favor?

Yes,productive human effort that actually creates something is "resources".

Yes, it is. Which productive effort did Bill Gates take from whom?

If money doesn't stand for resources,then what the hell does it stand for?

Currency is a medium of exchange, nothing more. Money represents goods and services, both of which exist in ever-expanding quantities, not in fixed amounts. As I said, a free market economy is not a zero-sum game. It is not necessary to loot someone in order to gain more wealth.

See above

Uh, sorry, but "see above" does not address the question asked. Let me rephrase it slightly to clarify it -- How did Bill Gates's marketing of an operating system prevent others from doing the same? What resources did Gates "take" from anyone?

I think people would lose many rights if completely unrestricted capitalism was implimented.

Name a few for us, please. Take your time.

I thought that the biggest capitalist arguement was that it creates commpetition and that the consumer benefits this way.

Then you thought wrong. While it is true that the consumer benefits more under Capitalism than under any other system of which we are currently aware, that is just a side effect. The biggest argument for Laissez-faire Capitalism is that it is the only politico-economic system of which we are currently aware that fully recognizes the right of each peaceful person to live his life free from the interference of others.

If libertarianist Laissez-faire was implimented,there would be unprecedented monopolies.

This myth has been debunked thoroughly many times by many economists. In fact, monopolies cannot exist for any length of time without government interference.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,116
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 38 minutes
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1754129 - 07/27/03 10:57 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Industrial quality diamonds aren't that rare, and aren't worth destroying valuable farmland to get at. Mining of Gem quality diamonds results in the impoverization of subsistance farmers who then have no choice but to work for the people who destroyed their way of life.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: Phred]
    #1754187 - 07/27/03 11:23 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Interesting word, "realistic". If by realistic, you meant that "mixed system" economies can exist for long periods of time, who has ever said otherwise? Slave-based economies existed for long periods of time too. Totalitarian economies can limp along for decades as well -- see the USSR as the most famous example.




That's not what I meant by realistic at all. I think pure capitalism is unrealistic like pure socialism is unrealistic.

Quote:

What I want to know is why you are convinced that giving people the freedom to live as they choose would result in an economic collapse. Take your time.




Well,not being able to put food on the table is a damper to individual rights.


Quote:

Sure. I have done so dozens of times in previous threads. If you like, I can bump Trendal's thread titled "The United States is NOT Capitalist" one more time.



I don't know how else to support my position.I'm not going to cite sources that you probably wouldn't agree with anyway.

Quote:

As for the rich getting richer, what's wrong with that?





It'll make the poor poorer.In my view, a lot of rich people don't deserve the money they have.


Quote:

So he was taken to court, and the due process of law took place as it should. What's the problem?




Due process never took place in my view. I don't think any anti trust laws have ever been properly implimented.

Quote:

Let me get this straight. You are accusing the judges who heard the case of accepting a bribe to rule in his favor?




I never said nor implied that. I meant less overt ways of buying the law.

Quote:

Yes, it is. Which productive effort did Bill Gates take from whom?





Billy is pretty well known for his ruthless business practices. There are many smaller firms that have made legit claims they he has illegally misled or flat out stolen ideas from.

Quote:

This myth has been debunked thoroughly many times by many economists.




Economics is not a hard science.
You act like there is a common concensus and that every economist agrees with each other.





--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1754190 - 07/27/03 11:25 PM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

And the diamond industry keeps many employed.




Yeah,mainly through "slave labor".


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: A few "welfare" myths [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1754470 - 07/28/03 01:44 AM (17 years, 9 months ago)

Yes, one certainly could. However the ONLY correct interpretation is that of the writers.

Then why do you always ignore what the second amendment actually says and try and pick nonsense from the "federalist papers"? Looking at what the amendment actually says is the only correct way of interpreting it.


What exactly is "a well regulated militia?"

A Militias in 1792 consisted of part-time citizen-soldiers organized by individual states. Its members were civilians who kept arms, ammunition and other military equipment in their houses and barns?there was no other way to muster a militia with sufficient speed. Over time, however, the state militias failed to develop as originally anticipated. States found it difficult to organize and finance their militias and, by the mid-1800s, they had effectively ceased to exist. Beginning in 1903, Congress began to pass legislation that would eventually transform state militias into what is now the National Guard. Today, the National Guard?and Army Reserve?are scarcely recognizable as descendants of militias of the 1790s. The National Guard and Reserve forces, in fact, do not permit personnel to store military weapons at home. And many of today?s weapons?tanks, armored personnel carriers, airplanes and the like?hardly lend themselves to use by individuals.

Q Does the Second Amendment in any way guarantee gun rights to individuals?

A No. The weight of historical and legal scholarship clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee that states could maintain armed forces to resist the federal government. Most scholars overwhelmingly concur that the Second Amendment was never intended to guarantee gun ownership rights for individual personal use. Small arms ownership was common when the Bill of Rights was adopted, with many people owning single-shot firearms for hunting in what was then an overwhelmingly rural nation.

http://www.aclu-mass.org/archives/2ndamend.html



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles, CBD Topicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Exploding the left’s red state myths
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Echro 3,989 65 02/16/14 04:23 AM
by starfire_xes
* myth of the media
( 1 2 3 all )
phi1618 3,786 55 04/29/04 07:31 PM
by DigitalDuality
* General Welfare
( 1 2 3 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,414 45 12/14/03 05:37 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* The Twelve Myths of Hunger
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
silversoul7 9,388 117 10/21/05 11:48 PM
by Unagipie
* Pure Capitalism
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Lallafa 9,877 76 12/26/01 01:30 AM
by Phred
* The Myth of the Kerry Calamity Evolving 319 0 10/27/04 10:03 PM
by Evolving
* Welfare to Workfare
( 1 2 3 all )
lysergic 2,970 58 10/21/03 01:07 PM
by Rono
* Welfare in tribal societies
( 1 2 all )
somebodyelse 4,050 36 06/27/03 04:35 PM
by Xlea321

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,998 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Reliable Spores
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.038 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 17 queries.