|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
 Posted - 10/14/2010 : 11:59:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Dave and Kil,
The boat-a-yuz are now clearly justifying the thoughts that the young Mr. Crowder has expressed in his srticle. |
Having re-read it, I still don't see how what I'm saying justifies Crowder's nonsense, unless you think that "people sometimes cannot be self-reliant" and "man is not good enough" are equivalent statements.
...I was about to say that most people are good enough, but that's not the case. Left on their own, most people today would get eaten by feral chihuahuas. Give the average Fox News viewer a flint, a rifle and a knife and send 'em out into the woods, and they'll bleed out before the week is over.
|
You are absolutely right Dave. I apologize. I did not find any snippets in any of your responses that directly confirm the thoughts of the young Mr. Crowder. I shall edit my post to remove your name.
Kil's rant hits the nail right on the head though.
originally posted by Dave
Give the average Fox News viewer a flint, a rifle and a knife and send 'em out into the woods, and they'll bleed out before the week is over. |
Shit Dave, you are so wrong here. I'm an average guy and a Fox News viewer (although I do not take FNC as gospel). If you gave me those items and found me six months later you would find me living in a two story log home with a hot-tub, all the meat and vegetables I could eat, and all the beer I could drink. I would love that opportunity. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
 |
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 12:36:21 [Permalink]
|
I am so proud. I have reached the 500 post mark and now I have advanced to the level of "SFN regular".
Do I get like a pin or a cap or at least unlock some sort of cool new weapon to kill monsters with? |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 15:29:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Kil's rant hits the nail right on the head though. |
I'm not sure about that.| Shit Dave, you are so wrong here. I'm an average guy and a Fox News viewer (although I do not take FNC as gospel). |
You're nowhere close to average, so far as I can tell.
(For the record, I'd likely starve to death, but it might take longer than a week. I've got ample, self-contained food supplies.)
By the way, the really ironic part about the Fox piece is that the three "manly" heroes he picks all had lots of help. None of them were truly self-reliant. Rocky would have continued to be a bum if Mickey hadn't trained him. Wallace had an excellent education and would have been dead early in the film if not for the Irishman's help. And Patton, fercryinoutloud, had a whole frikkin' modern army. An army which, I shouldn't have to mention, was paid, fed, sheltered, clothed and armed with public funds. Socialism!!1!I am so proud. I have reached the 500 post mark and now I have advanced to the level of "SFN regular".
Do I get like a pin or a cap or at least unlock some sort of cool new weapon to kill monsters with? |
So now you're feeling entitled to free stuff, too? A self-reliant man would forge his own pin, sew his own cap, or invent his own weapon.
Congrats on your 500, Ebone. It's good to have you around. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 17:33:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
[ou must have missed the part where Ebone doesn't want the programs deleted, he wants to replace Federal efforts with local efforts. |
Cmon be serious. Replacing one program with other different programs deletes the one.
| People will cheat the local programs, just like they cheat the Feds. Do you have evidence that says otherwise? More importantly, even all of these government programs were privatized, there'd still be fraud and your money would go to waste. |
Nice try, turning it about face. But you are the one making the claim that government programs are better. Prove it. I know the federal government is already a huge misallocation of funds from top to bottom, and the single most inefficient way to help anyone. Heck, you know as well as I that the government doesn't do much it just takes a piece of the pie for bureaucracy and then sends a smaller portion off to a private (faith based) charity. Giving direct to the charity automatically increases efficiency.
Even the research you tout is not done by the government but by private groups with government grants. The cost of managing the grant is add on cost. If the money was delivered direct it would be more efficient no matter how inefficent the end organization is.
| Because some people will still feel entitled to get something for nothing. Changing the level (local or Federal) at which the program exists does nothing to counter that. |
But Ebone and I have given you ample reason why it would. You have just said "no it don't" provide some reason.
| A nice straw man. I said that the national government is equipped to do things better, not that the government we've had has done things better. |
Not at all a straw man. Direct real life evidence that the government does not seem to be better equipped if results are measured. How else do you ultimately measure "better equipped"? Government PC's are more up-to-date? Doubtful. Governments have more resources wrong by it's very fact, charity dollars are suppressed by tax contribution. Taking a classic leftist page from the book, there is a limited charity pie, if most of it goes through the added bureaucracy of government maladministration he outcome is less resources for the cause not more.
There are lots of things about our current system which would need to change to bring us closer to a liberal ideal, but ideals are what we're talking about in this thread, not the illiberal reality of the Bush years.  |
I am so tired of this tripe trotted out. The bush years of malfeasance started with Carter ( a liberal) went through Reagan and Bush were taken to dizzying heights by Clinton (a super-liberal) and continued about on par with Bush. By the way, look at the guy we got in now. A liberal, giving the farm away to the inerests at the expense of the little man. It is fun to bash bush, I do it too, never voted for him and never liked him, but it is just a sort of self therapy if we think he was responsible for all the troubles in the world. He was not. I contend government (bigger worser) was. And lets not talk about the congress. More often than not a democrat controlled institution in the past 50 years.
I agree with Twain "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." And Douglas Adams "Any person capable of getting themselves made president, should on no accounts be allowed to do the job."
| A very key point you miss with the rest of the glorification of government Dave, is that with government the average payer has zero control over the spend amount or direction. Most of the money put into government is mixed up, fermented, and then sidetracked in a million different ways to a million interests that you or your community may have no truck with: wars, pork, bank bailouts, auto bailouts, overpriced hammers, bridges to nowhere, and all that kind of shit. |
You have not really addressed this. Why shouldn't private people decide what money goes where? You and I now pay for charities that eschew condoms, insist people get indoctrinated with Christian fundamentals, are given religion along with MRE's that are also given because we also paid to bomb pay to bomb third world tribesman. Oops, our bad.
| Yes, things haven't been good. But it hasn't been a liberal's ideal government, ever. |
Hmmm now we are getting into a "no true liberal fallacy" here. I know how you feel, I feel the same every time I hear someone spout off about the libertarian government they assert we have had recently. But a key difference is that we have many actual liberal to the point of socialist government experiments over the past century, and they have not solved the problems endemic in government, in some cases they were the worst of all possible worlds.
But I'll agree with you that many (not just liberal) political philosophies die a tragic still birth and we will never know how they could actually perform. But that is because people are not ideals, they are much too dumb all over for that, and maybe even a little ugly on the side.
I could also add some rather famous examples of charities in which 85% or more of the money went to administration, and the people running them worked hard to disguise that fact. Private charities can themselves be frauds. How much of your donations have gone towards things you don't want them going towards?
|
Yes you could add that but it is irrelevant. I have a huge wealth of tools at my disposal to select charities. Forbes, Charity Navigator and so on. They not only tell me how efficient the org is, but also how secular, how pointed how quick, how broad based. I (who takes the time to study my charity contributions as well as my tax) am confident in every dollar I donate...at least I am doing no evil, and am actually doing some good. I have no confidence in a single dollar of tax.
But the thing I find most odd about secular and atheist liberals is that its seems to me these people who have rationally rejected a heavenly father who is wiser further seeing and more caring than, us. Who have rejected a church that is wiser further seeing and more caring than, us. Who have rejected the idea that the saints and all the angels in heaven will be able to guide us to a prosperity we can not reach on our own.
These same brilliant people turn right around and invest all that magical thinking in a government of the same corrupt, common and well meaning people to somehow be be able to guide us to a prosperity we can not reach on our own.
And their fallback, is, just like a biblical apologist arguing moral imperative to an atheist, is that we individuals and small cooperative groups are not wise enough far sighted enough or caring enough to do good without doctrine and direction handed down from above.
From tribal high muckedy muck, to divine king, and eventually to heavenly host, I see nothing but groups of humans claiming to be somehow (without any evidence) superior to other humans and yet still fucking it up. But because they have suborned the produce of the masses they fuck it up on scales as grand as the battles of heaven.
As to misuse of charity, I would say it depends on your perspective of what is a reasonable or fair use.
I recently had a someone close to me in grave need, they were self employed and became injured. While they had some coverage for the injury they had no ability to make income for many months. I, while I am in a similar economic position, have saved quite well, and also had perhaps better income. So I sent a rather large sum of money to help my loved one get through the tough times.
You can not get a more direct contribution than that (note the game is already rigged against us as it is not tax exempt for either of us, in fact he will (or should) declare it as a gift. and i can get no reduction of tax for helping keep him off the government tit).
In his time laid up, he went on a cross country trip to in a wedding, that I believe I prudently didn't go to as I am in a position where income is zero and this was a non-essential outflow.
I do not know if he used funds I sent for the trip, but he used funds, and those funds could have helped him cover more essential things. That can not be doubted.
Did he misuse my charity? Maybe. Should I get to decide every jot and title of his budget for a time frame? That seems like a bit much. Will it impact my desire to help him in future? Maybe. Same with a private, vetted Charity. I may think they spent to much on bathroom tissue, but then I can opt not to support.
Again with tax derived charity one can not even know what or where ones money is being used let alone have control in that use or have an option to withdraw support. Bad, bad and worse.
|
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 10/14/2010 18:27:46 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 19:25:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Kil's rant hits the nail right on the head though. |
I'm not sure about that.
|
Of course I did. I'm a professional carpenter. Sheesh!!!
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 20:38:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Cmon be serious. Replacing one program with other different programs deletes the one. |
Be serious. Replacing one with another is a replacement, not an elimination.| Nice try, turning it about face. But you are the one making the claim that government programs are better. Prove it. |
Actually, I'm claiming that government programs could be better, and I've already provided my reasoning. I'm in complete agreement that the government we have now sucks. I don't know of a single elected official who is more interested in proper governing than in grabbing and/or maintaining power, which is what I think the biggest problem we face is (along with the millions of regular voters who enable such behavior).| I know the federal government is already a huge misallocation of funds from top to bottom, and the single most inefficient way to help anyone. |
Such a blanket statement is bound to be wrong. Let's compare the overhead costs and profits of Medicare to one of the insurance giants, shall we? Or maybe we should examine the public funding of the Patent and Trademark Office (zero). Not everything about the current government is totally screwed up. Only most of it.| Heck, you know as well as I that the government doesn't do much it just takes a piece of the pie for bureaucracy and then sends a smaller portion off to a private (faith based) charity. |
Yeah, that's exactly the way the government works with regard to Medicare, Welfare, the military, roads, education, etc., etc.. Seriously: this discussion isn't about only charities.| Giving direct to the charity automatically increases efficiency. |
Eliminating the private charities would also increase efficiency, so why not do that? Either way, we get rid of one of the two middlemen bureaucracies. Hell, charities themselves are nothing more than middlemen, and so for peak efficiency we should all just give money or other aid directly to the people who need it. So forget about soup kitchens, we should all walk around our neighborhoods in our spare time giving bowls of soup to hungry people. That solution has no bureaucracy whatsoever, and so must be the pinnacle of efficiency, right?| Even the research you tout is not done by the government but by private groups with government grants. The cost of managing the grant is add on cost. If the money was delivered direct it would be more efficient no matter how inefficent the end organization is. |
If the money were delivered direct. Would it be? What you're asking me to do is instead of writing one check per year that helps to fund thousands of projects in which I have an interest, I would have to write thousands of checks. I'm not particularly enthralled by that idea, so the amount of funding I might deliver direct would assuredly drop dramatically.
(But let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that I were to dole out to ten different research projects the same amount of money that my pre-bureaucracy taxes give out to 1,000 projects. Are we sure that the other 990 projects will meet similar fates, and thus all get funded as required? If we assume that the taxpayers all do the same thing but with an evenly distributed set of ten "pet" projects each, the answer would be "yes." But I don't think we can make that assumption. Most people in the US today wouldn't fund anything that sounds like it might have something to do with evolution, for example, but funding research grants through taxation forces them to do so.)
Along another line, instead of spending weeks of time every year writing grant proposals to the government, researchers would instead spend months - or even the whole year - writing numerous grant proposals to numerous foundations, corporations and private individuals, with every proposal in a different format and requiring different data. That sounds loads more efficient. Especially since the cost of managing the grants won't be any less in total, it'll just be spread out over the zillion sources of money, instead of in one central location.| Because some people will still feel entitled to get something for nothing. Changing the level (local or Federal) at which the program exists does nothing to counter that. |
But Ebone and I have given you ample reason why it would. You have just said "no it don't" provide some reason. |
No, Ebone is taking it on faith that local efforts will be more efficient than governmental efforts. And the only comparison you've made is to the government we've had, and not to the government we'd need to have in order for my brand of liberalism to function.| Not at all a straw man. Direct real life evidence that the government does not seem to be better equipped if results are measured. How else do you ultimately measure "better equipped"? Government PC's are more up-to-date? Doubtful. Governments have more resources wrong by it's very fact, charity dollars are suppressed by tax contribution. Taking a classic leftist page from the book, there is a limited charity pie, if most of it goes through the added bureaucracy of government maladministration he outcome is less resources for the cause not more. |
The strawman is in ignoring the fact that the citizenry would have to change priorities for liberalism to work. Just like it'd have to change for free markets to work. Amusingly, the civic outlook of most people would have to change mostly in the same way for either system to function well at all.| I am so tired of this tripe trotted out. The bush years of malfeasance started with Carter ( a liberal) went through Reagan and Bush were taken to dizzying heights by Clinton (a super-liberal) and continued about on par with Bush. |
From my point-of-view (and the point-of-view of most of Europe), Carter and Clinton were way right of center. They weren't liberals by anyone's definition but Republicans. The idea that a tax-lowering, welfare-reforming, small-government-seeking centrist (within the US system) like Clinton was a "super-liberal" is just bizarre.| By the way, look at the guy we got in now. A liberal, giving the farm away to the inerests at the expense of the little man. |
Obama's not a liberal, either. Not a few liberal pundits have pointed out that Obama's to the right of Goldwater, and may even be to the right of Nixon. And as has been in the news numerous times this year already, Obama just got a 20-year-old Republican healthcare plan passed. I'd very much appreciate it if you'd stop trying to equate my liberalism with a bunch of conservative hacks.| It is fun to bash bush, I do it too, never voted for him and never liked him, but it is just a sort of self therapy if we think he was responsible for all the troubles in the world. He was not. |
The thing is, the examples of government-caused problems you volunteered, "Two wars of aggression, the Patriot Act, Katrina, Economic Disaster, Fannymae, Freddymac, Blagoyavich, Bush," included only one that wasn't mostly Bush's problem.| I contend government (bigger worser) was. |
Yes, I understand that. I agree with the "worser" part, but don't agree that "bigger" is necessarily "worser."| A very key point you miss with the rest of the glorification of government Dave, is that with government the average payer has zero control over the spend amount or direction. Most of the money put into government is mixed up, fermented, and then sidetracked in a million different ways to a million interests that you or your community may have no truck with: wars, pork, bank bailouts, auto bailouts, overpriced hammers, bridges to nowhere, and all that kind of shit. |
You have not really addressed this. Why shouldn't private people decide what money goes where? You and I now pay for charities that eschew condoms, insist people get indoctrinated with Christian fundamentals, are given religion along with MRE's that are also given because we also paid to bomb pay to bomb third world tribesman. Oops, our bad. |
The only way to eliminate that problem is to eliminate government entirely. But you're not an anarchist, you're a libertarian. So how do you get a libertarian government in which not a dime of public funds goes to anything with which you disagree? I contend that you cannot do so. Part of the role of the government - any government - is to say, "this needs to be done, even if most of the citizens don't want it to be done." As soon as you grant that power (and without it, we have only mob rule, which we know doesn't work, either), you'll be paying for things that you don't want to pay for.| Yes, things haven't been good. But it hasn't been a liberal's ideal government, ever. |
Hmmm now we are getting into a "no true liberal fallacy" here. |
See above for my reaction on who you're calling "liberal."| I know how you feel, I feel the same every time I hear someone spout off about the libertarian government they assert we have had recently. But a key difference is that we have many actual liberal to the point of socialist government experiments over the past century, and they have not solved the problems endemic in government, in some cases they were the worst of all possible worlds. |
Well, if I were claiming to be able to solve "the problems endemic in government," you might have a point, there. I think I've got a good idea of where to start, but what I've said certainly isn't everything that's required to solve them.| But I'll agree with you that many (not just liberal) political philosophies die a tragic still birth and we will never know how they could actually perform. But that is because people are not ideals, they are much too dumb all over for that, and maybe even a little ugly on the side. |
So much for acting with enlightened self-interest, eh?| Yes you could add that but it is irrelevant. |
No, it's not. Because...| I have a huge wealth of tools at my disposal to select charities. Forbes, Charity Navigator and so on. They not only tell me how efficient the org is, but also how secular, how pointed how quick, how broad based. I (who takes the time to study my charity contributions as well as my tax) am confident in every dollar I donate |
...you've got to spend your valuable time checking and double-checking. You've just shifted the loss of productivity (due to policing the charities) away from a central location and into your own hands. Multiply that effort by several hundred million and tell me it's more efficient than having a single entity do it.
Of course, as I've already noted, there's a ton of charity work which my ideal liberal government wouldn't be doing. (My priorities include more than just raw efficiency.) It would, however, be checking for fraud among the organizations that would exist, and groups like Forbes or Charity Navigator don't have the power of subpoena.| ...at least I am doing no evil, and am actually doing some good. |
Oh, the Law of Large Numbers would suggest that you've funded (in part) some murderers, wife-beaters, child molesters, etc.. The only way to ensure that your money does no evil whatsoever is to not hand it to anyone else for any reason.| I have no confidence in a single dollar of tax. |
Of course not. Not while politicians have the reins.But the thing I find most odd about secular and atheist liberals is that its seems to me these people who have rationally rejected a heavenly father who is wiser further seeing and more caring than, us. Who have rejected a church that is wiser further seeing and more caring than, us. Who have rejected the idea that the saints and all the angels in heaven will be able to guide us to a prosperity we can not reach on our own.
These same brilliant people turn right around and invest all that magical thinking in a government of the same corrupt, common and well meaning people to somehow be be able to guide us to a prosperity we can not reach on our own.
And their fallback, is, just like a biblical apologist arguing moral imperative to an atheist, is that we individuals and small cooperative groups are not wise enough far sighted enough or caring enough to do good without doctrine and direction handed down from above. |
Wow. A huge, burning straw man. Unless you weren't including me in "secular and atheist liberals."
Why is it that "small cooperative groups" are about as large as government should get? Why not "huge cooperative groups," say of about 300 million? The difference between a neighborhood home-owners group and the Federal government is one of degree, not of kind. Or is there a magic number of citizens at which governance necessarily turns bad?
Besides which, you really can't complain that people "are much too dumb all over for that [testing out ideal governments], and maybe even a little ugly on the side" and then appeal to their wisdom, compassion and far-sightedness when arguing for your own ideals. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 22:05:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Again with tax derived charity one can not even know what or where ones money is being used let alone have control in that use or have an option to withdraw support. Bad, bad and worse. |
It seems to me that the fundamental difference between us is that you want an option to refuse to fund things that I think are so essential to both individuals and good governance that they should be considered rights. So of course, I cannot agree.
The efficiency and transparency (or lack thereof) of government are actually separate issues. You seem to consider the inability to withdraw your funding to be the worst of the three problems you've identified, while I think that mandating support for certain functions is vital. So, since the argument about efficiency is going to be about a shift of a couple dozen percent at worst, and I'm sure I'd agree with you that we need microscopic visibility into government functions, we appear to be on polar opposites on the question of whether some key functions merit legal coercion for support. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 23:55:23 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W.]It seems to me that the fundamental difference between us is that you want an option to refuse to fund things that I think are so essential to both individuals and good governance that they should be considered rights. |
You mean wars of aggression, pork, massive wealth transfers from tax payers to corporations, and faith based services (those being some of the important and costly issues I wouldn't fund...along with excesses like multi-million dollar inauguration parties).
The efficiency and transparency (or lack thereof) of government are actually separate issues. You seem to consider the inability to withdraw your funding to be the worst of the three problems you've identified, while I think that mandating support for certain functions is vital. So, since the argument about efficiency is going to be about a shift of a couple dozen percent at worst, and I'm sure I'd agree with you that we need microscopic visibility into government functions, we appear to be on polar opposites on the question of whether some key functions merit legal coercion for support.
|
The big difference to me is that it all works by the funding. Remove that you solve the other problems. I am no anarchist (most days) and I am not a member of the libertarian party either. I do closely associate with the ideas of many libertarian philosophers and most often consider most aligned with the classical liberalism of the enlightenment. That is to say I am committed to the ideal of government restricted only to service of the whole populous, and not drawn into minority or special interest service. Paramount to me is liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, free exchange/trade and the freedom to pursue their own happiness or folly as long as by doing so they do not directly infringe on the equal rights of others.
I know, awful isn't it, what a vile capitalist I am. By the way, being a horrible "libertarian" as I am you might know that I have given 10% of my income (itself not insubstantial) to charity organizations large and small since I first started working. Yes you are right it is so difficult to give. I guess I should stop and just let the government handle the dispersement of my funds for me. After all if I am not given liberty why should I want responsibility? But of course given my philosophy, I don't believe I can relinquish my responsibility so easily.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2010 : 00:28:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
These same brilliant people turn right around and invest all that magical thinking in a government of the same corrupt, common and well meaning people to somehow be be able to guide us to a prosperity we can not reach on our own.
|
You sound bitter.
I don't recognize your description of the Government anyway. It must be an American thing.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2010 : 00:59:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You sound bitter.
I don't recognize your description of the Government anyway. It must be an American thing.
|
Transference I guess.
If I were you I would look a bit at the sparkling gem of an example in Sweden's governmental past. Recent past even. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2010 : 04:37:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Transference I guess.
If I were you I would look a bit at the sparkling gem of an example in Sweden's governmental past. Recent past even.
|
Sweden doesn't have wars of aggression, pork, massive wealth transfers from tax payers to corporations, nor faith based services. Not like you do.
I'll admit my government isn't perfect, and the last 4 years has seen a trend toward the things you've mentioned, but it has been (baby) steps in that direction, unfortunately. I chalk that up to the influence from Big Brother in the West. Of course, even the Social Democratic government has made a few bluders (after being pressured by your government), but nothing compares to the massive cluster fuck that is USA.
Seriously, I think you need to dial down a notch.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2010 : 04:41:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Originally posted by Dave W.
It seems to me that the fundamental difference between us is that you want an option to refuse to fund things that I think are so essential to both individuals and good governance that they should be considered rights. |
You mean wars of aggression, pork, massive wealth transfers from tax payers to corporations, and faith based services (those being some of the important and costly issues I wouldn't fund...along with excesses like multi-million dollar inauguration parties). |
No, of course none of that is what I mean.| The big difference to me is that it all works by the funding. Remove that you solve the other problems. |
Well sure. If the government has no money to spend, then we won't need to worry about how it spends it.| I know, awful isn't it, what a vile capitalist I am. By the way, being a horrible "libertarian" as I am you might know that I have given 10% of my income (itself not insubstantial) to charity organizations large and small since I first started working. Yes you are right it is so difficult to give. I guess I should stop and just let the government handle the dispersement of my funds for me. After all if I am not given liberty why should I want responsibility? But of course given my philosophy, I don't believe I can relinquish my responsibility so easily. |
I don't think I've never seen anyone nail themselves to a straw cross like that.
I'm still interested, by the way, in the number of citizens at which governance necessarily turns bad. An order-of-magnitude estimate would be nice. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2010 : 04:47:29 [Permalink]
|
Just as an example of large scale organization (and non-profit) benefits: The Swedish health insurance system has an overhead around 2%. What's the average for a private American health insurance company?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2010 : 05:01:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
.
Seriously, I think you need to dial down a notch.
|
Thanks for the warning. Didn't know I was rocking the boat so much. I'll dial all the way down to out. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2010 : 08:02:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Thanks for the warning. Didn't know I was rocking the boat so much. I'll dial all the way down to out.
|
That won't be necessary, but some of your ranting produces images in my mind of a guy frothing at his mouth while shouting about the evil of government, and besides recognising a bit of myself in it, I also figured that isn't an image you'd like to be associated with.
The point is, when you're railing against the Evil of Government(tn), you need to consider it is the American Government you're railing against. Which does not necessarily equal any-and-all governments. Some, like North Korea are even worse, but North Korea aren't waging wars against other nations on the other side of the planet to secure oil-reserves. So you're one up on that one, in evilness.
Other governments are better. I submit Scandinavian countries as examples of how it could be better. But I'll never claim they are infallible.
It also have some to do with the attitude of the people in the country you're living in. I've spent 2 weeks in Atlanta, Georgia. And I didn't like what I saw there (outside Dragon*Con which was awesome). Where I grew up, I was taught that the strong and/or fortunate has an obligation to help the weak and/or less fortunate. In my country everyone (with very few exceptions) pays taxes, which means that everyone butts in on the help to people in need. We are raised with the understanding that the American Dream is just an illusion for most people, and aren't bought up to fight with nails and claws to be successful. No man is an island, and together we are stronger than apart. In Sweden, libertarianism is rumoured to be a zombie walking around, but barely anyone has seen it.
I don't understand how it can work. But that's for a completely different thread.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Liberalism and Manliness
