|
CJay
Dark Stranger


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Blair - the man, the music
#2896219 - 07/16/04 07:24 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
He can dance, but he can't face the music. And as for troubles ahead -- oh yeh!
Let's travel back thru time:
"We expected, I expected to find actual usable, chemical or biological weapons after we entered Iraq. But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy." (Tony Blair 14/07/04)
?I'm confident that when the Iraq Survey Group has done its work we will find what's happened to those weapons because he had them." (tony Blair 16/12/03)
"I don't concede it at all that the intelligence at the time was wrong. I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes." (Tony Blair 08/07/03)
"There are literally thousands of sites. As I was told in Iraq, information is coming in the entire time, but it is only now that the Iraq survey group has been put together that a dedicated team of people, which includes former UN inspectors, scientists and experts, will be able to go in and do the job properly. As I have said throughout, I have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction." (Tony Blair 04/06/03)
Blair needs to resign, any honourable man in his position who has cocked up (or should I say talked sh*t) that much would do so. That is what they call responsibility. (Actually a starring role in the dock at the Hague would be most appropriate...) Passing the buck is however his greatest skill, followed by acting.
And that other funky-fool Bush does it just as well too, except without the oratory flair. Thankfully intelligence isn't a prerequisite to being president. Ok so he's not so dumb, he's crafty as hell, or at least his advisors are. How else can you get away with so much.
An incredible pair....an incredible show.
Muppets out there take note - that hand up your ass must be itching you a bit by now?
Where's my popcorn?
|
Stein
Stranger


Registered: 07/02/03
Posts: 35,129
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: CJay]
#2896243 - 07/16/04 07:41 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It was a great show and I can't wait for the sequal. Hopefully all the original actors will be back to take their starring roles.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: CJay]
#2896479 - 07/16/04 09:43 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Thousands of people killed and these two dipshits are more concerned with covering their backs.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Stein
Stranger


Registered: 07/02/03
Posts: 35,129
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: Xlea321]
#2896508 - 07/16/04 09:58 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I remember when terrorist held their press conferences and were backpedalling their way out of their acts and killing sprees.
|
CJay
Dark Stranger


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: Stein]
#2896658 - 07/16/04 11:00 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
In making the initial case for war: "They put exclamation marks where there had been question marks and I think that is hyping, a spin, that leads the public to the wrong conclusions." Hans Blix - I would love to think Blair and Bush are simply incompetent to a degree unachievable by most humans. But alas I cannot shake the feeling they are manipulative, machivellian, and downright dastardly. Call me a cynic if you must, but call me a justified cynic at least. Either way, neither are fit to lead nations of millions....except to a disasterous outcome. "Yet again, it was about to be "the prime minister's worst week so far". Yet again, at the end of it, Tony Blair is not only still standing; he seems as cheerily self-confident as ever.....unexpected events permitting, he will reshuffle his government and, on holiday, lie back in the sand with a quiet smile on his face. His week from hell? It wasn't even a close run thing." (Andrew Marr - BBC Political Editor) Blair is amazing - a marvel
Edited by CJay (07/16/04 11:00 AM)
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: CJay]
#2899809 - 07/17/04 01:13 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Blair is a slimy little bastard, but without Bush we wouldn't have gone to war, and Blair would certainly be more popular than he currently is. Personally, I think Blair is better than Major was or Howard would be. Lets not forget how bad the Tories really are, with their hobby of union-bashing and unashamed denial of the need for redistribution of income.
Labour could have been good, indeed it was good until they jumped on the privatisation bandwagon. Labour is/was supposed to be slightly left of centre. Anyone who claims they still are needs a frontal lobotomy.
If Blair stepped down, Brown would obviously replace him, and I have no idea if he would be better.
To be honest, I don't really believe that any prime minister/president holds as much power as people think. Blair was but a leaf on the tide of the last decade of world politics (lets face it, Saddam was gonna get it anyway).
I say count our blessings. At least he's not Bush.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2900252 - 07/17/04 03:57 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lets not forget how bad the Tories really are, with their hobby of union-bashing and unashamed denial of the need for redistribution of income.
That kind of thought, so prevelant in your continent, is why Europe is and will remain an Economic shithole.
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: Ancalagon]
#2900556 - 07/17/04 06:17 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
And your kind of thought is why the US is and will remain in the pockets of big business.
Heh. Only joking, but do you really not see a need to redistricute wealth?
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2900597 - 07/17/04 06:31 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Only joking, but do you really not see a need to redistricute wealth?
I see very little need for government to do anything outside of securing the natural rights of its citizens. Redistributing wealth is not one of those legitimate functions and is, on top of that, grossly immoral.
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: Ancalagon]
#2901741 - 07/18/04 04:52 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I would say it is grossly immoral, given the state of poverty in some parts of the world, and indeed some parts of my country and yours, to leave the rich and the poor to their own devices.
In theory, I agree that the government interferes in a lot of issues in which it should have no say. However, I think that since governments did a lot to create the conditions under which this inequality thrives, it has a duty to try and close the gap some.
If we had a system that was fair, ie any two people in a country have a reasonably equal chance of having a good quality of life, then yes, the government should stop there and do nothing but, as you say, secure the rights of its citizens. I don't think that will be for a while, though. As it stands, I don't think the free market can cater for all it's negative effects.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2901953 - 07/18/04 09:08 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I would say it is grossly immoral, given the state of poverty in some parts of the world, and indeed some parts of my country and yours, to leave the rich and the poor to their own devices.
And there in a nutshell is the difference between the Collectivist mentality and the Capitalist one.
The Capitalist believes it is immoral (unethical, bad, incorrect, the wrong thing to do) to initiate force against peaceful individuals. The Collectivist believes it is immoral not to. The Collectivist justification? Some people have more than some other people. This in and of itself is seen as a problem requiring a solution. The Collectivist solution? Seize the "extra" from whoever has it and give it to whoever doesn't.
pinky
--------------------
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: Phred]
#2901996 - 07/18/04 09:39 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, that's the big divider.
I think initiation of force is a bit of a strong term for taxation. I do think the rich have a moral duty to help the poor. I think it is unfair that a lot of people are set up for life just for being born into a rich family, and some people don't stand a chance because they are born in some third world country. I also think that if the disparity gets too great then civil war is inevitable.
I also think that many business practises should count as "initiation of force", such as patenting AIDS drugs.
I suppose it stems from different premises. One is a belief in the right of the individual to do whatever they want without initiating force against another, the other is a belief that everyone deserves an equal chance in life. These premises both look like "good" things, but ultimately lead to contradiction if both are followed.
Do you agree with this characterization?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2902015 - 07/18/04 09:51 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
So you would prefer that there be no AIDS drugs at all?
--------------------
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: zappaisgod]
#2902023 - 07/18/04 09:57 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The vast majority of people with AIDS have no way of paying for the overpriced drugs which cost jack shit to make. No-one should own the rights to millions of people's lives. In my opinion. That was a bit of a silly question. No offence meant.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?



Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2902083 - 07/18/04 10:44 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Actually the question was quite reasonable. Your response, and your belief that people MUST do things out of the goodness of their hearts, was the foolish bit.
Feel free to donate all the time and money you wish, just don't ask the government to steal from me to finance your dream.
-------------------- 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
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2902105 - 07/18/04 10:55 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
It cost millions upon millions of dollars to develop the AIDS drugs. If there was no chance to recoup that cost and make a profit there would be no incentive to develop them. Further, when these corporations developed these drugs there was no guarantee that they would ever see one penny of revenue. Some development streams end nowhere. The successful ones have to pay for the failed ones as well. Grow up. Respectfully, I appreciate your frustration that the world is not perfect, but yours is not the path to any kind of improvement. At all.
--------------------
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: zappaisgod]
#2902195 - 07/18/04 11:21 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Respectfully, I feel the same. I suppose some points of view can never be reconciled.
I interpreted your question as a sort of put down, sorry if I got that wrong.
The drugs companies have recouped their costs many times over. If it was up to me, the government would be the one to control the making and price of drugs. Some development streams do end nowhere, but drugs companies typically make profits of 600%, which when it comes to life saving drugs is pretty excessive, in my opinion.
When you say mine is not the path to any kind of improvement, would you share your views on what the improved world would look like?
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2902347 - 07/18/04 12:13 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The drugs companies have recouped their costs many times over.
Sigh. Very common fallacy. SOME drug companies have recouped their costs many times over, some meaning not all. The part of this equation that might be hard to see, is that those companies that haven't recouped their costs no longer exist(whether through acquisition by a more profitable company or outright bankruptcy).
Quote:
If it was up to me, the government would be the one to control the making and price of drugs.
That would truly be a disaster. When government takes control of something, ALL incentive is lost for that something to succeed. The chance of making a profit on investments is what drives companies to invest millions(and billions...) into the research of new drugs. A chemist working towards the creation of a new AIDS drug will work his ass off with the knowledge that if he and his coworkers don't produce after a given time, there funding will be cut. A chemist working directly for the government, however, can cut corners and generally half-ass(at best) his way through the day with the knowledge that whether he produces or not, he'll be payed.
Quote:
Some development streams do end nowhere, but drugs companies typically make profits of 600%
Are you SURE it's typical for drug companies to make profits of 600%? Are you SURE the companies that make profits of 600% aren't the small number of companies that met success as opposed to the potential majority that didn't?
Quote:
which when it comes to life saving drugs is pretty excessive, in my opinion.
If you come to power and decree that the profit return on life-saving drugs may be no more than X%, I ASSURE you that the healthcare manufacturers, with their research departments, will leave your country in droves. Profit is incentive and incentive is what gets things done.
Quote:
When you say mine is not the path to any kind of improvement, would you share your views on what the improved world would look like?
True capitalism raises the standard of living for ALL the citizens of a nation. Statists have such a problem with the rich getting richer that they completely ignore the fact that the poor are also getting richer, though they are not rich. Statists also love to throw around statistics that show how poor the bottom quartile or quintile of people are, with total disregard to the fact that people VERY RARELY stay in a bottom quartile or quintile throughout their lives, and in fact, a good many people who are in that bottom portion of the chart at one point of their lives, are in the top portion at some other point. Socialism doesn't work...at all. The last century has proven that. The sooner people accept that government cannot fix problems, only exacerbate them, the better off humanity as a whole will be.
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2902832 - 07/18/04 02:41 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
where in the world did you get the impression that drug company's profit margin is 600%. That's insane. Maybe for botox.
My wish list is fairly long. At the top, god would be relegated to a quaint, at best, concept of the past. Government would stay out of business altogether except to prosecute fraud and to ensure a minimum amount of non-collusive competitiveness. There would be no subsidies to prop up failures. Fraud would be prosecuted as theft and theft would be prosecuted and punished in terms of the amount of the theft. Violent crimes would be severely punished. "victimless crimes" would not be punished at all (see end of god corollary). There would be a slightly graduated scale of taxation, less so than now, but there would be no deductions for anything other than direct business expenses (e.g. cost of materials, not cost of lunch or golf outings). Capital gains would not be a tax category, income is income. No mortgage deduction, which screws renters, no child deduction which screws the childless, no charity deductions, which screw all taxpayers who can't afford to make charitable contributions and makes everyone contribute to the donor's cause. Social Security and medicare will be gone and employers will be relieved of the responsibility to collect taxes for the government. Inheritance would be taxed at, oh say, 33% in excess of 100 times the average annual earnings of the populace, on the premise that the rich have, more than others benefited from the protection of the government and might be reasonably expected to give a bit more back (I'm gonna guess that this is currently somewhere around the 5 million dollar range). There would be no taxes on corporations except property taxes and a small tax for enforcement, say 1-2% on gross revenue (see removal of capital gains as a category). Birth control would be encouraged.
That's enough for now. There will always be a top 5% and a bottom 5%. A bell curve is a bell curve and it's called "normal" distribution for a reason. Even if you have a chance to escape the bottom, which you do, it will be because you climbed past someone else.
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2903292 - 07/18/04 06:17 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
deafpanda writes:
I think initiation of force is a bit of a strong term for taxation.
You do? Try this experiment -- refuse to pay them. When the government comes to get you, refuse to go with them. Then you can tell us what term best suits the methods the government used on you.
I do think the rich have a moral duty to help the poor.
Being forced against your will to do the "moral" thing isn't a demonstration of morality on the part of the one being forced.
I think it is unfair that a lot of people are set up for life just for being born into a rich family...
So they therefore have less rights than others? It is okay to initiate force against them because (through no fault of their own) they were born a Rockefeller?
...and some people don't stand a chance because they are born in some third world country.
Same comment as above. The ones born in the US should be forcibly deported to Niger?
I also think that many business practises should count as "initiation of force", such as patenting AIDS drugs.
Protecting your property isn't initiating force.
I suppose it stems from different premises. One is a belief in the right of the individual to do whatever they want without initiating force against another, the other is a belief that everyone deserves an equal chance in life.
The problem is that the second premise contradicts the facts of reality. The laws of nature are such that not all individuals (of any species) have an equal chance of survival.
These premises both look like "good" things...
Actually, the second one doesn't look "good" at all. It looks like evasion of fact.
.... but ultimately lead to contradiction if both are followed.
What contradictions will be "lead to" if the first premise is followed?
Do you agree with this characterization?
Nope.
pinky
--------------------
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: Phred]
#2904556 - 07/19/04 04:33 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You do? Try this experiment -- refuse to pay them. When the government comes to get you, refuse to go with them. Then you can tell us what term best suits the methods the government used on you.
Okay, point taken.
"Being forced against your will to do the "moral" thing isn't a demonstration of morality on the part of the one being forced."
Sure, it's a demonstration of morality on a state level.
"So they therefore have less rights than others? It is okay to initiate force against them because (through no fault of their own) they were born a Rockefeller?"
But if you are born a Rockefeller, you have the world at your feet. I would still "initiate force" against the poor, there's no inconsistency there. The poor would pay relatively less because they have less money. Overall, they're carrying an equal tax burden.
"Same comment as above. The ones born in the US should be forcibly deported to Niger?"
Heh, no...stop using hyperbole . Redistribution of income is simply taxing the rich more than the poor, and giving the very poor benefits.
"Protecting your property isn't initiating force."
But I'm saying the patents for life-saving drugs shouldn't be considered legitamate property.
"The problem is that the second premise contradicts the facts of reality. The laws of nature are such that not all individuals (of any species) have an equal chance of survival."
It in no way contradicts the facts. I was not saying "Everyone does have an equal chance", I was saying "everyone SHOULD have an equal chance". The laws of nature do dictate what you say, but the laws of nature are also such that animals will initiate force against each other on a regular basis. We, rightly, should be above the laws of nature, as humans.
"Actually, the second one doesn't look "good" at all. It looks like evasion of fact."
I wasn't commenting on a fact, I was commenting on an ideal state of affairs.
"What contradictions will be "lead to" if the first premise is followed?"
I'm saying if both of them were followed at the same time it would lead to contradiction. I don't think if either one was followed there would be a contradiction.
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: Ancalagon]
#2904577 - 07/19/04 05:08 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"Sigh. Very common fallacy. SOME drug companies have recouped their costs many times over, some meaning not all. The part of this equation that might be hard to see, is that those companies that haven't recouped their costs no longer exist(whether through acquisition by a more profitable company or outright bankruptcy)."
This is true.
"That would truly be a disaster. When government takes control of something, ALL incentive is lost for that something to succeed. The chance of making a profit on investments is what drives companies to invest millions(and billions...) into the research of new drugs. A chemist working towards the creation of a new AIDS drug will work his ass off with the knowledge that if he and his coworkers don't produce after a given time, there funding will be cut. A chemist working directly for the government, however, can cut corners and generally half-ass(at best) his way through the day with the knowledge that whether he produces or not, he'll be payed."
Now this is interesting. The UK and the US couldn't have different track records in regard to private/public services. I am aware that your healthcare system, transport infrastructure etc. are all private (is this right?) and works fine. In the UK, until about '92, our railways were working perfectly. They got privatised, and now the government regular has to hand out sums in the region of hundreds of millions of pounds. Overall, billions have been wasted on "rebranding" and private companies who have no prior experience of this industry fucking things up. There have been three major accidents on our railways since the privatisation, there were none before.
Recently, Blair has started part-privatising hospitals with the same ridiculous results. Costs are typically doubling. The same companies always get the contracts aswell, usually donors to Blair's party, always incompetent. As usual, the government has to fork out to end up with an actual finished hospital.
I know there are huge benefits from introducing competition (usually) with efficiency being driven up to lower costs, but this just hasn't proved to be the case in the UK. Maybe our companies are just shit, I don't know.
"Are you SURE it's typical for drug companies to make profits of 600%? Are you SURE the companies that make profits of 600% aren't the small number of companies that met success as opposed to the potential majority that didn't?"
I can only speak for the UK here, but there has been a lot of price-fixing by the major drugs companies - they all band together and agree not to price their products competetively. Some work is being done on this by some watchdog or other. Yes, profits of 600% were being enjoyed by all the drugs companies. This may not be the case any more.
"If you come to power and decree that the profit return on life-saving drugs may be no more than X%, I ASSURE you that the healthcare manufacturers, with their research departments, will leave your country in droves. Profit is incentive and incentive is what gets things done."
Yes, this is very true, and is why something like this needs international co-operation. Which I know is not likely to come in the near future.
"True capitalism raises the standard of living for ALL the citizens of a nation. Statists have such a problem with the rich getting richer that they completely ignore the fact that the poor are also getting richer, though they are not rich."
If this is what is happening in the US, then that's cool. In the UK, the poor are no better off in real terms (adjusted for inflation) than they were a decade ago.
"Statists also love to throw around statistics that show how poor the bottom quartile or quintile of people are, with total disregard to the fact that people VERY RARELY stay in a bottom quartile or quintile throughout their lives, and in fact, a good many people who are in that bottom portion of the chart at one point of their lives, are in the top portion at some other point."
Again, in the UK, I would say this isn't true. People born into lower socio-economic groups tend to get a worse education and so end up poorer by, on average, a great deal.
"Socialism doesn't work...at all. The last century has proven that. The sooner people accept that government cannot fix problems, only exacerbate them, the better off humanity as a whole will be."
Well, maybe there's some fundamental difference between the US and Europe which makes capitalism innefective here. Socialism certainly can work - Germany, the Scandinavian countries and the UK in the 70s proved that. Of course, I would never recommend socialism to the US, don't get me wrong. Similarly, though, our experiences of capitalism leave much to be desired.
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: zappaisgod]
#2904587 - 07/19/04 05:15 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The 600% figure was true as of a few months ago.
Your recommendations are a recipe for economic growth. Do you consider this to be the standard by which countries should be judged?
What I am alluding too, really, is what do you do once you've grown as much as is feasible and practical? I mean what should a country be aiming at, beyond economic growth?
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2905050 - 07/19/04 09:43 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deafpanda said: "Being forced against your will to do the "moral" thing isn't a demonstration of morality on the part of the one being forced."
Sure, it's a demonstration of morality on a state level.
States don't have morals. A state is an unfeeling, unthinking apparatus of centralized power. Stealing does not cease to be theft when farmed out to others. It is not a moral man who sends agents of the state to extort funds from his fellow man to give to another, but a moral coward who does not have the strength of conviction to give of himself, nor the creativity or foresight to look beyond the use of force for other methods to fund his schemes.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: Evolving]
#2905075 - 07/19/04 09:57 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Stealing does not necessarily have to be wrong. Just as lying and even killing can be justified, so can stealing, if it is for the common good, in my opinion.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2905198 - 07/19/04 10:55 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well then, you are in the good company of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and numerous others who have seen nothing wrong with the destruction of humanity for the 'common good' (whatever your whims may deem that to be).
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: Phred]
#2905337 - 07/19/04 12:03 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Try this experiment -- refuse to pay them
Try this experiment while you're at it - don't use any roads built with tax money, don't expect your child to be educated in schools built with tax money, don't expect any garbage removal and don't expect the police (paid for by tax money) to help you or any members of your family. And don't expect tax money to pay to keep criminals off your streets. See how it goes.
Protecting your property isn't initiating force.
Try this experiment. Formulate a version of the drug in your own lab and try and sell it for a cheaper price. See what force is initiated against you.
So they therefore have less rights than others?
Straw man. Almost everyone pays tax - not just Rockefeller.
The laws of nature are such that not all individuals (of any species) have an equal chance of survival.
Sounds like the kind of idea Himmler was pushing in the 30's. People generally live in cities these days. Not "nature". Certainly if we lived by the laws of nature Bill Gates wouldn't have survived. Without police to protect him, he would have been robbed and killed long ago.
Actually, the second one doesn't look "good" at all. It looks like evasion of fact.
Nope - it looks like the best method of ensuring the survival of the planet and our species.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
CJay
Dark Stranger


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: deafpanda]
#2911296 - 07/21/04 04:15 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Sure, Blair is as you say a leaf on the winds of world politics, but like all chief politicians he's the leaf that increased the beef.
I agree that the tories are a scary lot, wspecially with that nosferatu Howard at the Helm.
Labour has turned into a doublespeak word and all in all things are all moving one way.
Saddam was teed up with precision for decades, as the post WW2 world leader America set about making sure the status quo was kept in their favour for as long into the future as possible.
Like you say who will be better? Has anyone ever been? The queue to take Blair's job is packed with no answer. But that doesn't detract from the fact he's a complete wanker.
Who needs a f*ckin leader on this scale anyway? I mean how can one person head 60 million? It's a bit out of proportion and this is a major problem as I see it.
Ban 'em
Power addict type personalities are all it encourages. I contest that people who go for these positions have an instability of character based on a need to feed their power addictions. We as humans all develop habits, obsessions and addictions; and some of us cannot control our limits. We become unhealthy. Well in every nation a certain section of society is displays a pathological need to gain power. These people mostly become politicians. They convince all the time how we need them, defer their insecurities onto the masses, and set about their megalomaniac ways.
And - Yes I suppose British people should count themselves lucky that they do not have Bush. .....except inadvertently they do......
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Blair - the man, the music [Re: Xlea321]
#2911957 - 07/21/04 10:42 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Try this experiment. Formulate a version of the drug in your own lab and try and sell it for a cheaper price. See what force is initiated against you.
If by "version" you mean an analog unprotected by patent, you are legally free to do so. If by "version" you mean the same patented compound, then of course you will be charged.
Almost everyone pays tax - not just Rockefeller.
Read what I wrote, not what you pretend I wrote. I didn't say "all others".
Sounds like the kind of idea Himmler was pushing in the 30's.
Lol! When stumped for a response, drag out the tired old "that sounds just like what the Nazis used to say," ploy. Tiresome.
People generally live in cities these days. Not "nature".
And this is relevant to my point how?
Certainly if we lived by the laws of nature Bill Gates wouldn't have survived.
Incorrect. Gates is certainly competent enough to have been a hunter gatherer, or perhaps a tool maker for hunters.
Without police to protect him, he would have been robbed and killed long ago.
Lol! This is true of countless individuals. Way to dodge the point being made.
The fact remains that not all individuals are as suited for survival as others. Some individuals are so ill-suited that without the assistance of other humans they will surely die. This is not some Himmleresque brainwashing making me say this, it's a simple acknowledgment of reality.
Nope - it looks like the best method of ensuring the survival of the planet and our species.
The planet will survive regardless of human action. As for survival of our species -- it is indisputable that human prosperity increases in direct relation to human freedom. The more prosperous an individual becomes, the greater are the number of survival options available to that human.
This is not rocket science, Alex. It's self-evident.
pinky
--------------------
|
|