SEEMS AS IF YOU WANT AN EVERY-MAN-FOR-HIMSELF SOCIETY.
.
...
Hehe....god I love this board!
An every-man-for himself society is a society wherein every man simply takes up arms to extract the greatest value he can from his neighbors via force. That is what you're proposing, not me.
An every-man-for himself society is a society wherein every man simply takes up arms to extract the greatest value he can from his neighbors via force. That is what you're proposing, not me.
Actually, you are proposing a society where a poor neighborhood won't have any parks, while the more affluent one's will.....thats an every-man-for-himself society.
NMyTree, let me see if I can explain this to you in a manner you'll understand.
Imagine, if you will, a society comprised of three individuals. The first is a carpenter, the second is a seamstress, the third a farmer. Now, let's say the carpener builds himself a nice house, the seamstress makes herself a nice wardrobe and the farmer builds himself a nice farm. Now, let's imagine the following happens:
The carpenter continues to labor 8 hours per day, but only for himself. He builds himself more and more pieces of furniture and makes his home bigger and bigger. The seamstress continues to labor 8 hours per day, but only for herself. She makes more and more clothes until her wardrobe is fit for a queen. The farmer continues to labor 8 hours per day, but only for himself. He grows himself more and more food until it simply rots in the field, since he cannot eat it all.
In that scenario, all three people have operated outside a system of "wage labor". They receive no benefit from their labor other than its value to them individually. Their profit eventually becomes negative, since the value of the benefits (bigger house, the additional furniture, the additional clothing, the additional food) becomes less than the costs (the labor required to make them).
However, in a society wherein the three people trade, they can arrive at a situation wherein each one profits. The carpenter receives clothing and food in exchange for his labor. The clothing and food have a value greater than the value of the labor to the carpenter, while the carpenter's labor has a greater value than the food and clothing of the farmer and seamstress, respectively. All 3 parties profit by receiving value from the others greater than the value of their labors without those others.
Actually, you are proposing a society where a poor neighborhood won't have any parks, while the more affluent one's will.....thats an every-man-for-himself society.
No, it's a society wherein affluent neighborhoods may end up with more playgrounds than poor ones, on average. It has nothing to with "every-man-for-himself". The society I'm proposing requires people who want playgrounds to work with other people who want playgrounds to help each other build playgrounds or buy them.
The society you're proposing, much like the one we live in, forces everyone to pay for the playgrounds of a few. It does so through force and coersion. Your system makes it possible for one man to force one million to provide him with his needs. That is much closer to an "every-man-for-himself" society.
No, it's a society wherein affluent neighborhoods may end up with more playgrounds than poor ones, on average. It has nothing to with "every-man-for-himself". The society I'm proposing requires people who want playgrounds to work with other people who want playgrounds to help each other build playgrounds or buy them.
The society you're proposing, much like the one we live in, forces everyone to pay for the playgrounds of a few. It does so through force and coersion. Your system makes it possible for one man to force one million to provide him with his needs. That is much closer to an "every-man-for-himself" society.
What if the playgrounds help develop kids into good citizens...then there is less crime, so we all benefit......do you place any value in that?
What if the playgrounds help develop kids into good citizens...then there is less crime, so we all benefit......do you place any value in that?
Of course I place value in that. Your system, however, doesn't care what I place value in or how much I value it. It simply decides what I should value and forces me to pay for it. When the tax system allows me to actually involve my own valuations into the process, you'll have a true right to ask me these questions. Until then, they're completely irrelevant.
No, it's a society wherein affluent neighborhoods may end up with more playgrounds than poor ones, on average. It has nothing to with "every-man-for-himself". The society I'm proposing requires people who want playgrounds to work with other people who want playgrounds to help each other build playgrounds or buy them.
The society you're proposing, much like the one we live in, forces everyone to pay for the playgrounds of a few. It does so through force and coersion. Your system makes it possible for one man to force one million to provide him with his needs. That is much closer to an "every-man-for-himself" society.
I'm not seeing the logic here. At all. I believe America was the first country in the world to set aside land for the public and in the interest of environmental protection in the form of our National Parks and Forests. I believe that says something about the poeple who live here, and even if you disagree with the process that this was/is made possible, consider what the burgeoning industrial age would have wrought on the landscape at the turn of the century without it.
I've seen that you consider yourself "forced" at "gunpoint" to pay for things that you would not ordinarily pay for. Isn't the preservation of these lands a good example of what good government can do?
Of course I place value in that. Your system, however, doesn't care what I place value in or how much I value it. It simply decides what I should value and forces me to pay for it. When the tax system allows me to actually involve my own valuations into the process, you'll have a true right to ask me these questions. Until then, they're completely irrelevant.
The current system allocates funds based on the ideas of elected officials. This may be simplifying the process a bit, but in theory, you have the right to elect officials who you think will best carry out your ideas of govenment.
Imagine if we all had the right to fund the services we see fit.....it may sound like true democracy, but it would turn into anarchy.
I'm not seeing the logic here. At all. I believe America was the first country in the world to set aside land for the public and in the interest of environmental protection in the form of our National Parks and Forests. I believe that says something about the poeple who live here, and even if you disagree with the process that this was/is made possible, consider what the burgeoning industrial age would have wrought on the landscape at the turn of the century without it.
I've seen that you consider yourself "forced" at "gunpoint" to pay for things that you would not ordinarily pay for. Isn't the preservation of these lands a good example of what good government can do?
The preservation of these lands (at least some of them) is a wonderful example of what good government can do. The fact that it costs billions of dollars per year in the complete absence of any fundamental checks on its cost is also a wonderful example of what bad government can do.
Again, none of these questions matter, however, until what I value would actually come into play. What I would pay for or would not pay for holds no relevance to the proposition I'm given.
The current system allocates funds based on the ideas of elected officials. This may be simplifying the process a bit, but in theory, you have the right to elect officials who you think will best carry out your ideas of govenment.
Imagine if we all had the right to fund the services we see fit.....it may sound like true democracy, but it would turn into anarchy.
Yes, in theory I have a right to "elect officials who you think will best carry out your ideas of govenment." Now, let me ask you a fundamental question:
If, in theory, me and my friends elected officials who reinstated institutional slavery for black people, would that be ok? If those slaves then protested, could I simply respond with "well, you got to vote on it".
The preservation of these lands (at least some of them) is a wonderful example of what good government can do. The fact that it costs billions of dollars per year in the complete absence of any fundamental checks on its cost is also a wonderful example of what bad government can do.
I agree with you there, but I think we need to fix the govt, as opposed to relying on them less.
Yes, in theory I have a right to "elect officials who you think will best carry out your ideas of govenment." Now, let me ask you a fundamental question:
If, in theory, me and my friends elected officials who reinstated institutional slavery for black people, would that be ok? If those slaves then protested, could I simply respond with "well, you got to vote on it".
Does your democracy hold a monopoly on morality?
Slavery vs Building playgrounds are obviously much different.....there is no morality involved in decided to build playgrounds.
Some issues are protected, such as morality and religion....separation of church and state is needed.
The preservation of these lands (at least some of them) is a wonderful example of what good government can do. The fact that it costs billions of dollars per year in the complete absence of any fundamental checks on its cost is also a wonderful example of what bad government can do.
Again, none of these questions matter, however, until what I value would actually come into play. What I would pay for or would not pay for holds no relevance to the proposition I'm given.
Example?
We've all read about the $100, 000 hammer billed by the Pentagon, and all the bogus military spending. I'm not familiar of any similar situations regarding the NPS.
We've all read about the $100, 000 hammer billed by the Pentagon, and all the bogus military spending. I'm not familiar of any similar situations regarding the NPS.
We've all read about the $100, 000 hammer billed by the Pentagon, and all the bogus military spending. I'm not familiar of any similar situations regarding the NPS.
NPS spending total $16.5B / year. That's around $200 / acre, the last time I checked. Compare that to a farm, which costs around $1000 / acre (that's a vast generalization, by the way).
There aren't a lot of $100,000 hammers there. Just a lot of $100,000 people and projects.
You might try examining the machinations of the tax system, and the underlying threats behind the expropriation of $1T from the American public each year. Then we can talk about "extreme".
You might try examining the machinations of the tax system, and the underlying threats behind the expropriation of $1T from the American public each year. Then we can talk about "extreme".
If we were free to fund most of our own services, would you fear an uprising from the poor, who are now left to put out their own fires, build parks for their kids, etc.?
I am not a socialist, but I know that all of us will eventually pay the price if too many people are left behind. I am not in favor of a welfare state, but there will always be those that get more out of the govt then what they put in.
Someone will always pay for the buffet and only take the expenisve meats, but those who pay the same price and only eat salad will fund the meateaters.
It all averages out.
The salad eater may be paying a bit extra, but they will be healthier in the long run.
Alright, good article. There are plusses and minuses in the logic of that design, and I agree the price of the planning and design costs were proabbly unecessary. Still, this article is 10 years old.
If we were free to fund most of our own services, would you fear an uprising from the poor, who are now left to put out their own fires, build parks for their kids, etc.?
No, I wouldn't.
I am not a socialist, but I know that all of us will eventually pay the price if too many people are left behind. I am not in favor of a welfare state, but there will always be those that get more out of the govt then what they put in.
Sure. There will always be those that get more out of govt then what they put in. Unfortunately, this country is now giving nearly everyone more than what they put in. That does not bode well.
Someone will always pay for the buffet and only take the expenisve meats, but those who pay the same price and only eat salad will fund the meateaters.
It all averages out.
The salad eater may be paying a bit extra, but they will be healthier in the long run.
Most restaurants I go to sell salads for less than meats. I haven't seen too many meat eaters stage full-on revolts.
NPS spending total $16.5B / year. That's around $200 / acre, the last time I checked. Compare that to a farm, which costs around $1000 / acre (that's a vast generalization, by the way).
There aren't a lot of $100,000 hammers there. Just a lot of $100,000 people and projects.
Well, you keep throwing the "billions" out there like it carries more weight than actually showing what this money is being used for. So far, I've seen one good article that shows an example of inappropriate spending, and that comes from 10 years ago.
It's a good article, though.
Sure. There will always be those that get more out of govt then what they put in. Unfortunately, this country is now giving nearly everyone more than what they put in. That does not bode well.
Most restaurants I go to sell salads for less than meats. I haven't seen too many meat eaters stage full-on revolts.
I was making a comparison where the buffet = the tax pool.
Well, you keep throwing the "billions" out there like it carries more weight than actually showing what this money is being used for. So far, I've seen one good article that shows an example of inappropriate spending, and that comes from 10 years ago.
It's a good article, though.
Dude, do the math for yourself. Try to justify $200 for "preserving" an acre of land. How do you get there?
Meanwhile, the NPS employs something like 25,000 people.
I don't mind paying taxes... I don't like the way we spend a lot of our taxes... but, on the whole, I don't mind.
I don't mind because I kind of like the idea of things like National Highway systems where there are standards that have to be adhered to. Like, when I'm driving cross country, I like the continuous ribbon of concrete instead of my nice paved highway turning into a dirt road as it passes through counties and states who don't want to pay for highways.
And i know that B-2 Bombers aren't cheap and I don't mind having B-2 Bombers because i still don't think the Russians won't try to start some shit sometime in the future... and I don't trust China, either.
I don't even mind paying for welfare. I know there are some people that cheat the system... and that is wrong and those people need to be punished. But, like everything, it's a few that make the headlines... sort of like it's only the asshole Christians that are on T.V., it doesn't mean all Christians are money grubbing fakes and that the whole religion needs to be scrapped. Just because a few people cheat the welfare system... doesn't mean we should punish the one who truely need our help. We are Americans... we're suppose to be a place where the strong help the weak... not ignore or punish them.
What I don't like is the way we shovel money to just any one in another country and do nothing about how they spend the money. It shouldn't be a 'Gift' to their leader so he can buy guns to oppress his people. I think we need to attach conditions to that moey... to go towards bettering the lives of their people, not to bolster an oppressive regime that ends up becoming a revolutionary state that hates us because we empower their oppressor. Make friends with the people of other countries, not with the politiciands of other countries.
Anyway... I pay may taxes... which is okay. I can deal with it much easier if I believe that my specific dollars are being spent on highways, National Parks, B-2 Bombers and Welfare checks to some poor mom living in a shitty part of town.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
Hehe....god I love this board!
An every-man-for himself society is a society wherein every man simply takes up arms to extract the greatest value he can from his neighbors via force. That is what you're proposing, not me.
Actually, you are proposing a society where a poor neighborhood won't have any parks, while the more affluent one's will.....thats an every-man-for-himself society.
Imagine, if you will, a society comprised of three individuals. The first is a carpenter, the second is a seamstress, the third a farmer. Now, let's say the carpener builds himself a nice house, the seamstress makes herself a nice wardrobe and the farmer builds himself a nice farm. Now, let's imagine the following happens:
The carpenter continues to labor 8 hours per day, but only for himself. He builds himself more and more pieces of furniture and makes his home bigger and bigger. The seamstress continues to labor 8 hours per day, but only for herself. She makes more and more clothes until her wardrobe is fit for a queen. The farmer continues to labor 8 hours per day, but only for himself. He grows himself more and more food until it simply rots in the field, since he cannot eat it all.
In that scenario, all three people have operated outside a system of "wage labor". They receive no benefit from their labor other than its value to them individually. Their profit eventually becomes negative, since the value of the benefits (bigger house, the additional furniture, the additional clothing, the additional food) becomes less than the costs (the labor required to make them).
However, in a society wherein the three people trade, they can arrive at a situation wherein each one profits. The carpenter receives clothing and food in exchange for his labor. The clothing and food have a value greater than the value of the labor to the carpenter, while the carpenter's labor has a greater value than the food and clothing of the farmer and seamstress, respectively. All 3 parties profit by receiving value from the others greater than the value of their labors without those others.
Hail! Hail! our National Parks system.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
No, it's a society wherein affluent neighborhoods may end up with more playgrounds than poor ones, on average. It has nothing to with "every-man-for-himself". The society I'm proposing requires people who want playgrounds to work with other people who want playgrounds to help each other build playgrounds or buy them.
The society you're proposing, much like the one we live in, forces everyone to pay for the playgrounds of a few. It does so through force and coersion. Your system makes it possible for one man to force one million to provide him with his needs. That is much closer to an "every-man-for-himself" society.
What if the playgrounds help develop kids into good citizens...then there is less crime, so we all benefit......do you place any value in that?
Of course I place value in that. Your system, however, doesn't care what I place value in or how much I value it. It simply decides what I should value and forces me to pay for it. When the tax system allows me to actually involve my own valuations into the process, you'll have a true right to ask me these questions. Until then, they're completely irrelevant.
I'm not seeing the logic here. At all. I believe America was the first country in the world to set aside land for the public and in the interest of environmental protection in the form of our National Parks and Forests. I believe that says something about the poeple who live here, and even if you disagree with the process that this was/is made possible, consider what the burgeoning industrial age would have wrought on the landscape at the turn of the century without it.
I've seen that you consider yourself "forced" at "gunpoint" to pay for things that you would not ordinarily pay for. Isn't the preservation of these lands a good example of what good government can do?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The current system allocates funds based on the ideas of elected officials. This may be simplifying the process a bit, but in theory, you have the right to elect officials who you think will best carry out your ideas of govenment.
Imagine if we all had the right to fund the services we see fit.....it may sound like true democracy, but it would turn into anarchy.
The preservation of these lands (at least some of them) is a wonderful example of what good government can do. The fact that it costs billions of dollars per year in the complete absence of any fundamental checks on its cost is also a wonderful example of what bad government can do.
Again, none of these questions matter, however, until what I value would actually come into play. What I would pay for or would not pay for holds no relevance to the proposition I'm given.
Yes, in theory I have a right to "elect officials who you think will best carry out your ideas of govenment." Now, let me ask you a fundamental question:
If, in theory, me and my friends elected officials who reinstated institutional slavery for black people, would that be ok? If those slaves then protested, could I simply respond with "well, you got to vote on it".
Does your democracy hold a monopoly on morality?
I agree with you there, but I think we need to fix the govt, as opposed to relying on them less.
Let me ask you a question: if someone shot you, would you ask them to perform surgery?
Slavery vs Building playgrounds are obviously much different.....there is no morality involved in decided to build playgrounds.
Some issues are protected, such as morality and religion....separation of church and state is needed.
you make very extreme comparisons, my friend.
Example?
We've all read about the $100, 000 hammer billed by the Pentagon, and all the bogus military spending. I'm not familiar of any similar situations regarding the NPS.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
NPS spending total $16.5B / year. That's around $200 / acre, the last time I checked. Compare that to a farm, which costs around $1000 / acre (that's a vast generalization, by the way).
There aren't a lot of $100,000 hammers there. Just a lot of $100,000 people and projects.
You might try examining the machinations of the tax system, and the underlying threats behind the expropriation of $1T from the American public each year. Then we can talk about "extreme".
If we were free to fund most of our own services, would you fear an uprising from the poor, who are now left to put out their own fires, build parks for their kids, etc.?
I am not a socialist, but I know that all of us will eventually pay the price if too many people are left behind. I am not in favor of a welfare state, but there will always be those that get more out of the govt then what they put in.
Someone will always pay for the buffet and only take the expenisve meats, but those who pay the same price and only eat salad will fund the meateaters.
It all averages out.
The salad eater may be paying a bit extra, but they will be healthier in the long run.
Alright, good article. There are plusses and minuses in the logic of that design, and I agree the price of the planning and design costs were proabbly unecessary. Still, this article is 10 years old.
Is that it?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
No, I wouldn't.
Sure. There will always be those that get more out of govt then what they put in. Unfortunately, this country is now giving nearly everyone more than what they put in. That does not bode well.
Most restaurants I go to sell salads for less than meats. I haven't seen too many meat eaters stage full-on revolts.
Well, you keep throwing the "billions" out there like it carries more weight than actually showing what this money is being used for. So far, I've seen one good article that shows an example of inappropriate spending, and that comes from 10 years ago.
It's a good article, though.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I was making a comparison where the buffet = the tax pool.
Dude, do the math for yourself. Try to justify $200 for "preserving" an acre of land. How do you get there?
Meanwhile, the NPS employs something like 25,000 people.
I'll look further into it. I don't like misspending any more than the next guy.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I don't mind because I kind of like the idea of things like National Highway systems where there are standards that have to be adhered to. Like, when I'm driving cross country, I like the continuous ribbon of concrete instead of my nice paved highway turning into a dirt road as it passes through counties and states who don't want to pay for highways.
And i know that B-2 Bombers aren't cheap and I don't mind having B-2 Bombers because i still don't think the Russians won't try to start some shit sometime in the future... and I don't trust China, either.
I don't even mind paying for welfare. I know there are some people that cheat the system... and that is wrong and those people need to be punished. But, like everything, it's a few that make the headlines... sort of like it's only the asshole Christians that are on T.V., it doesn't mean all Christians are money grubbing fakes and that the whole religion needs to be scrapped. Just because a few people cheat the welfare system... doesn't mean we should punish the one who truely need our help. We are Americans... we're suppose to be a place where the strong help the weak... not ignore or punish them.
What I don't like is the way we shovel money to just any one in another country and do nothing about how they spend the money. It shouldn't be a 'Gift' to their leader so he can buy guns to oppress his people. I think we need to attach conditions to that moey... to go towards bettering the lives of their people, not to bolster an oppressive regime that ends up becoming a revolutionary state that hates us because we empower their oppressor. Make friends with the people of other countries, not with the politiciands of other countries.
Anyway... I pay may taxes... which is okay. I can deal with it much easier if I believe that my specific dollars are being spent on highways, National Parks, B-2 Bombers and Welfare checks to some poor mom living in a shitty part of town.
Hail, Hail!!!
Don't agree, but really enjoyed this post. Well written and thought out.
naděje umírá poslední