# "Common Good"? Hogwash.



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

Believing the propaganda about "The Greater Good" and "Your Responsibility for taking Care of the Less Fortunate" is crazy. Buy into this, and enjoy a life of mediocrity, frustration and unrealized dreams. Take care of yourself first. Everything else will follow. 
Living in poverty, mooching off of others, suffering, none of those serve God. God provides a universe full of bounty, love, wealth and abundance, if only people would open themselves to it. I don't believe that God wants any of us dependent on others, and that by not serving ourselves first, we fall into the original definition of Sin, or "Miss the Mark". Put another way, we weren't put here to sit on our butts and collect a welfare check that someone else worked to fund, but to work for our own rewards, and enjoy them fully.

"People who spend their existence worrying
solely about the needs of others and not themselves are not nobles,
benevolent, and spiritual. They are crazy. "- Randy Gage
The Purpose That Drives Your Life
Source: www.successmethods.org


Fire away.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 16, 2009)

Oh my!

Enough said.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

Expanding on that, if someone else is supporting you, and you are capable of making your own way on your own (I'm not referring to real needy people here) then no matter how much you pray, how deeply you believe, how many good works you do, if your living in government housing, collecting welfare, living on food stamps, having the government pay for your heat, water, electric, and so on, you are -not- "serving God". God (I'm using the term God here in the Christian sense) didn't put you on this planet for others to support, but to become so rich in so many ways that Bill Gates would look at you in awe and go "wow!". I'm tired of hearing from people how there are no jobs. There are plenty of jobs, they are just jobs you don't want to do, think are below you, or jobs you have no idea if you can do. I did 2 stints at Burger King, 3 stints at a supermarket, 3 stints at McDonalds, and sorted garbage for a recycler standing knee deep every day in other peoples rot. I've cut grass, shoveled snow, delivered papers, and washed cars, all while being "better than that". It paid the bills, kept a roof over my head, food on the table and the lights on so I could see it. There's a former CEO who's now slinging coffee at a Starbucks for a fraction of what he used to make. I know a greeter at a local Walmart who used to own his own business. Every home game there are a dozen people at least who scour the stadium parking lot of recyclables.  I know dozens of people who were fired from their jobs due to the economy who have hung out their own shingles and are now running their own businesses.  The universe is full of riches, full of abundance, full of prosperity.  You do not "serve God" if you do not "serve yourself" first by opening yourself up to it, by welcome it, and most importantly by working for it. 


(rant inspired by a friend who has a dozen excuses for not getting off their *** and even looking for work while crying all the time over how ****ed up their life is)


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 16, 2009)

But it is so convenient to say "God will provide" then sit back and wait for the world to fall at your feet.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

True. And those people who say that and sit on their asses and wait for "God" (or the 'Government' as it turns out) are leeches needing to be lanced like a boil on the *** of Humanity.

I don't bust my *** so someone else can get free cable at my expense. I think the best thing we could do is drop every and all welfare programs provided by the government.  No more HEAP, no more Welfare, no more Food Stamps, no more Medicaid, Medicare, no more HUD, no more Belmont, and so on.  

Bring back real WorkFare programs, pay people an honest days wages for an honest days work.  Stop telling people "its ok to be on the dole". No it's not.  

Guys with no arms or legs have figured out a way to paint with a brush stuck up their ****, you can figure out how to work through that "fatigue" you have.

Messed up spine doesn't mean "go get a job crabbing in Alaska", but there are things you can do. Go find them. Might take some effort, but you'll find them.

It's not my responsibility to look after anyone on this planet, except ME. I deserve to keep 100% of the fruits of my labors, not have chunks stolen through mandatory taxes and fees by a government intent on condoning laziness, sloth and graft.

Leave me all the profits of my efforts and let me decide who to help myself.  It might surprise you.

People love to pile hate on Bill Gates. As of 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates were the second most generous philanthropists in America, having given over $28 billion to charity.

Bill couldn't do that if he'd sat on his *** and "prayed a lot".  Neither could Rockefeller, Buffett and others. "God" didn't give Gates his billions, he earned them by putting in 20 hr days, 8 day weeks, and being faster, smarter and hungrier than anyone else.  

We might not get all that Gates, etc have, but we won't get any of it sitting naked on a bean bag chair eating gov. cheese outta a can waiting for our fudstamps.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Expanding on that, if someone else is supporting you, and you are capable of making your own way on your own (I'm not referring to real needy people here) then no matter how much you pray, how deeply you believe, how many good works you do, if your living in government housing, collecting welfare, living on food stamps, having the government pay for your heat, water, electric, and so on, you are -not- "serving God". God (I'm using the term God here in the Christian sense) didn't put you on this planet for others to support, but to become so rich in so many ways that Bill Gates would look at you in awe and go "wow!".



Hey Bob, I agree with your sentiment to a very large degree, so I am not going to argue against that. The thing I don't take as gospel (sorry for the pun) in your argument is the notion that

a) The Christian concept of God is valid.
b) Our individual existence has a specific God Given purpose.
c) We need to 'serve' God.

It is perfectly possible to have this same discussion without any mention to theology whatsoever, so I am curious why they are brought up at all.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

This is based on a "discussion" I've been having offline with someone who insists that
a- God rewards you if you suffer and do without now
b- It's the governments "Job" to take care of people

I'm a pagan who doesn't subscribe to the idiotic idea that any being powerful enough to create this universe and fill it full of things would want me to suffer, and be without.

I'm also a Libertarian who doesn't subscribe to the notion that the Government should do anything other than guard the borders, deliver the mail and keep the roads safe so I can earn my way.

My friend disagrees and sees it as the "responsibility" of government to make sure that we all (read people who work for a living) contribute (read pay taxes) our fair share (read lots) so that they can sit at home, drink beer, watch tv and be taken care of.   Tacked on to this leech dream is the "noble" reason of "God has called upon them to spread Gods message", and of course working a 9-5 or any type of job to do so "interferes in their being able to serve God completely and be at Gods call 24/7/365".

They were upset I called ******** on the ********, using many words that would trigger our filter here, and cause more than 1 of my staff to face palm and wonder how they were going to infract the Gawd-Emperor.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 16, 2009)

"Am I my brother's keeper?" 

If so, how do I best serve my "brother"? 

Can I take care of my "brother" if I can't take care of myself? 

By taking care of myself, does that somehow contribute to the care of my "brother." I think it does...

It's an abstract, fundamental value...taken too literally I think. I don't take care of my "brother" by working my butt off to give them everything they need when they're perfectly capable of providing for themselves. 


...reminds me of a joke...

Guy sitting on a roof top during a flood when a guy from the shoreline yells, "Hey man! You want me to throw you a rope?" 

Guy on roof says, "Naw man, God will take care of me."

The waters rise and a boat comes by. Guy in boat yells, "Hey man! You want me to take you to shore?" 

Guy on roof says, "Naw man, God will take care of me."

The water continues to rise and a helicopter flys over and the pilot yells, "Hey man! You want me to drop down a ladder?" 

Guy on roof says, "Naw man, God will take care of me."

The water rises above the roof and the guy drowns. 

Upon entering heaven he runs into God and asks, "I had faith in you that you would take care of me yet you let me drown...what gives?"

God shakes his head and replies, "What the heck do ya mean? I sent you a rope, a boat, and a helicopter for cryin' out loud!"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

:cheers:You got it.


----------



## MBuzzy (Oct 16, 2009)

Hey, the way I see it, religion is awesome....it gives EVERYONE an excuse.  I mean ask the right person and god put the classifieds in the newspaper.  God made unemployment lines.  God created job fairs.  Heck, God is responsible for McDonalds....so if you don't take advantage of those, it is STILL your own fault!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

The problem, as I see it, is that all of our fates are intertwined.

As a business, if there is no one to buy my goods or services, I cannot succeed.  As a customer, if I have no money, I cannot buy goods or services.  As an employer, if I have no employees, I cannot make goods or services.

While a society can tolerate a certain level of non-productive behavior, in the long run most must contribute if the society is to survive.

We do not exist in a vacuum, but voluntarily congregate in societies.  The fact that we choose to be members of societies implies obligation to that society, and those obligations take certain forms.

I do not subscribe to the belief that I ought to give money to the poor in the form of social programs to which they are entitled by virtue of their being poor (or sick, or a member of a certain group, or whatever) because they deserve it.

However, that is not to say I'm always against it.  My motives are more selfish.  If my society fails, I cannot succeed.  Therefore, I am willing to pay into societal programs that help those who would otherwise place a greater burden or danger on that society.  For the same selfish reason, I am against paying into society programs that create a culture of dependency that will eventually erode and destroy my society.

So I am no longer as dead-set against welfare, social security, and other forms of government aid as I was when I was younger.  However, that is not the same as saying I wish to see such programs expanded to create ever-larger groups of people who do not contribute back to society in material ways.

My desires are selfish, but I now see as I get older that selfishness is also seeing rationally that society must succeed for me to succeed.  In this way, I have come to grips with Ayn Rand's book,  _"The Virtue of Selfishness."_


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

I being an objectivist was never a believer int he concept of a "common good."  It's just an excuse used to prop up the lazy and mediocre under the guise of brother love, religious duty or for the state.  
_
When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. - Ayn Rand, Capitilism The Unknown Ideal

Only on the basis of individual rights can any good&#8212;private or public&#8212;be defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own sake&#8212;neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to others&#8212;only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible. - Ayn Rand, Textbook Of Americanism (column)._


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> I being an objectivist was never a believer int he concept of a "common good."  It's just an excuse used to prop up the lazy and mediocre under the guise of brother love, religious duty or for the state.



We build prisons, and put people in them whom we believe represent a threat to society.  This is done at the expense of the taxpayer, for the good of society.  This is a form of welfare, as those incarcerated do not contribute to the good of society or to our own individual benefit, except in the fact that they are off the streets and not threatening us at the moment.  Most would, I presume, agree that prisons are necessary.

Enlightened self-interest eventually sees that as society benefits, so do we as individuals.  There is a limit to the good society can do us, and as such, there is a limit we should authorize society to take from us in our name.

I do not like my government giving money to others who will not work, and I'm not thrilled about giving money to those who cannot.  However, I see a role for government in this, to the extent that it keeps society functioning at a particular level that does me the most good.  I consider how it benefits me, and I see that as a level of Objectivism that is not often explored.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

Role of National Government:
1 - Raise and Support an army to be used to defend the borders
2 - Raise and Support a police force to be used to defend our right to life, liberty and property.
3 - Provide for the means of peaceful settling of disputes through the establishment of a fair and just court.

Or, as Randy Gage out it "provide an army to defend the borders, a police force for security, and a court system to adjudicate disputes.  Everything else would do better if run by the private sector."


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

Actually, their being in prison is a huge benefit to society and individual freedom.  they are there because of crimes against other men.  If not in prison they would continue to do so, in that it's a small price to pay.  Prisons, punishment and rehabilitation is about the individual freedoms of those willing to live and work according to the rules we must all live by, the freedoms of the victims infringed upon by those being punished.

As for welfare, I don't agree with it at all.  It rewards laziness and failure, it creates a situation where people are happy with just getting by because they can just get by on the backs of those who actually produce. Morally, the promise of an impossible right to economic security is an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. It can and does mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who dont. If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.  There can be no such thing as the right to enslave, i.e., the right to destroy rights.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Role of National Government:
> 1 - Raise and Support an army to be used to defend the borders
> 2 - Raise and Support a police force to be used to defend our right to life, liberty and property.
> 3 - Provide for the means of peaceful settling of disputes through the establishment of a fair and just court.
> ...



I agree that this is the basic role of the federal government.  However, the federal government has enlarged and expanded its sphere of power and I do not think in realistic terms it is going to stop.  So I deal with what is rather than what I wish it would be.

With regard to the private sector running things better, I do not agree.  I used to, but I have changed my views.  There are things that the private sector would not do at all without either a) government regulation or b) the government actually doing it.  An example would be rural folks having phones.  If the phone company had not been forced to string wire out into the country at a loss to themselves on a per-rural-customer basis, you'd have two choices if you lived out in the sticks - go without a phone, or pay gazillions to have a wire run just for you.  That's one example, there are others.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Actually, their being in prison is a huge benefit to society and individual freedom.  they are there because of crimes against other men.  If not in prison they would continue to do so, in that it's a small price to pay.  Prisons, punishment and rehabilitation is about the individual freedoms of those willing to live and work according to the rules we must all live by, the freedoms of the victims infringed upon by those being punished.



I think we're agreed then.  To live in a society, we all agree to live by rules that ensure maximum benefit to all, including being safe from predation.  All must pay for such services, including police, courts, and prisons.  An example of a social good performed by taxes and a form of social service.



> As for welfare, I don't agree with it at all.  It rewards laziness and failure, it creates a situation where people are happy with just getting by because they can just get by on the backs of those who actually produce.



Agreed.  However, I have eventually come to recognize that there is a point where one is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.  Rewarding laziness is bad.  Having an economy collapse because people are not able to buy things is worse.  There is a certain level of non-productivity that a society can tolerate and probably cannot avoid.  I'd like the level to be lower, but I do not think it can be eliminated.  I hate giving money to people who will not work, but I try to keep in mind the benefit to me.



> Morally, the promise of an impossible right to economic security is an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. It can and does mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who dont. If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.  There can be no such thing as the right to enslave, i.e., the right to destroy rights.



Nobody wins in societies that do not function.  If you are a producer, but no one can buy your goods, you fail.  If you are a business but can hire no employees, you fail.  People without incomes cannot purchase, and they fail.

Society must be kept functioning, and that is (as I see it) one of the roles of government.  Social services feed into that by keeping those who otherwise cannot produce from being an even bigger drag on society and at least allowing them to participate at the level of consumer.  I agree with you that it is reprehensible that those who can work and choose not to are also given protections.  I do not see an easy way out of that which does not threaten society - which harms me.

I used to take Ayn Rand's words in a very personal way.  Now I begin to see that one must consider all impact to one's own personal good before deciding what the best course of action might be.  Not just direct, but also indirect.  That's my opinion, anyway.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that this is the basic role of the federal government. However, the federal government has enlarged and expanded its sphere of power and I do not think in realistic terms it is going to stop.


 
Exactly...so why in the blue hell would anyone think it a good idea to give them more? 

They already abuse what power they have, often at the expense of our rights and freedoms. 

That's why I will fight tooth and nail to prevent them passing any more legislation that will contribute to their expanding sphere. If it contninues, in a few generations there will be nothing even remotely similar to the sovereign nation intended by the founders.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

So by your standard money must be taken out of my pocket to give other people so they can spend it?  As if they would do any better with it than I would?  The economy is not going to collapse because those people are not spending money, it collapses because the idea of a free market is being corrupted and used as a system to reward mediocrities while chastising those who produce.  Would you like to see what happens when you take from those who produce and give to those who can't, look at Russia during the height of communism, look at Cuba, look at North Korea with it's 3 million dead of starvation last year alone.  If you are not rewarded but punished for producing (being turned into a slave for common good) then nobody will have the drive to produce and it becomes an entire society of parasites.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Exactly...so why in the blue hell would anyone think it a good idea to give them more?



I don't.  But it appears to be the fact.



> They already abuse what power they have, often at the expense of our rights and freedoms.



Yes.



> That's why I will fight tooth and nail to prevent them passing any more legislation that will contribute to their expanding sphere. If it contninues, in a few generations there will be nothing even remotely similar to the sovereign nation intended by the founders.



I agree.

My point was merely that quoting rule and verse about what the federal government ought to be is probably not going to change anything.  I further added that I doubt it is changeable at this point.  That doesn't mean I like it.


----------



## JDenver (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Would you like to see what happens when you take from those who produce and give to those who can't, look at Russia during the height of communism, look at Cuba, look at North Korea with it's 3 million dead of starvation last year alone.  If you are not rewarded but punished for producing (being turned into a slave for common good) then nobody will have the drive to produce and it becomes an entire society of parasites.



Look at Canada, a terrible place of unhappy people.

Interesting discussion for sure, but the generalizations are getting a little wild for me.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

What about Canada?  point out a specific man.  Can't have a conversation without macing points.  What about shoes?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> So by your standard money must be taken out of my pocket to give other people so they can spend it?



It's not my standard.  I point out that societies function because there is a functioning balance between producers, employers, employees and consumers.



> As if they would do any better with it than I would?  The economy is not going to collapse because those people are not spending money, it collapses because the idea of a free market is being corrupted and used as a system to reward mediocrities while chastising those who produce.



Economies collapse for all sorts of reasons.  One of them is when there is no credit.  Another is when there is no money.  It doesn't really matter what brings that about.



> Would you like to see what happens when you take from those who produce and give to those who can't, look at Russia during the height of communism, look at Cuba, look at North Korea with it's 3 million dead of starvation last year alone.  If you are not rewarded but punished for producing (being turned into a slave for common good) then nobody will have the drive to produce and it becomes an entire society of parasites.



I believe I said that.  A functioning society can tolerate a certain number of 'parasites' as you put it.  Too many, and you get the outcome you described above.  If societies fail to protect those at the bottom-most rung, the society is disrupted as well.  There is an area where a certain balance is reached.  We all benefit with minimum disruption.  We fail with excesses to either side.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 16, 2009)

JDenver said:


> Look at Canada, a terrible place of unhappy people.
> 
> Interesting discussion for sure, but the generalizations are getting a little wild for me.


 
Canada is Communist?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

No, the US is heading that way though. What with all our "Great guy that Mao" stuff....but I digress.

Yes, the government is over it's limits. When your employees over step their bounds and start running their own side projects on your dime, you smack em and bring them back in line, or fire their asses.  Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc, are OUR employees. They work FOR us, or are supposed to. Time to force them back in line.

It's hard.  We have several generations who bought into the "government will care for you" crap.  Can't end Social Security, too many old folks depend on it.  Can't end welfare, too many children might starve. Can't end Medicaid, too many over priced drugs we're told we need. Etc.

People need to understand that the Government isn't supposed to take care of you.
It's not supposed to make sure you get cheap drugs. Drugs aren't a right any more than a Ferrari is.
It's not supposed to be your retirement fund.  That is what savings, budgeting and planning is for.
It's not supposed to make sure that every business has a wheel chair ramp, accessible toilets, and a braille menu. It's not supposed to force anyone to serve anything to anyone.  Mind you, a smart business will cater to and be accessible by those and reap the rewards, while the one that limits themselves will face public scorn and economic harm. But that's free market, not forced compliance.

Government needs to be forced to live within it's means, make drastic cuts when it can't afford it's wants, just like we do.

It's time to put the genie back in the bottle, and it's time for people to take responsibility for their lives and not just sit on their *** and wait for some anti-prosperity politician (re Dem or Rep) to steal more of their hard earned labors to dole out to those lay about do nothings who sit on their *** all day drinking beer and playing WOW.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

How do you propose to bring the government to heel?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> How do you propose to bring the government to heel?


 
The first and most obvious step would be to stop voting the same arses in over and over!!! You know, like the ones that didn't respond to you in regards to the widow. 

Educate people every chance you get. 

Be proactive and involved...

And of course...there's the final option...dun-dun-dunnnnnn. :snipe2:


----------



## JDenver (Oct 16, 2009)

In a thread about 'common good', someone wants to point to communism as an example of how severe and destructive the principles can be.  Cuba?  Russia?

It's a silly assertion.  Canada is an example of preserving the good that a sense of community can do while balancing individual freedoms and rights.  It's not so black and white.

As for Canada being 'communist', there's a healthy number of Americans that believe so.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 16, 2009)

JDenver said:


> In a thread about 'common good', someone wants to point to communism as an example of how severe and destructive the principles can be. Cuba? Russia?
> 
> It's a silly assertion. Canada is an example of preserving the good that a sense of community can do while balancing individual freedoms and rights. It's not so black and white.
> 
> As for Canada being 'communist', there's a healthy number of Americans that believe so.


 
Really? I always thought you were a good natured and very clean people, but not Communist.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's not my standard.  I point out that societies function because there is a functioning balance between producers, employers, employees and consumers.
> 
> Economies collapse for all sorts of reasons.  One of them is when there is no credit.  Another is when there is no money.  It doesn't really matter what brings that about.
> 
> I believe I said that.  A functioning society can tolerate a certain number of 'parasites' as you put it.  Too many, and you get the outcome you described above.  If societies fail to protect those at the bottom-most rung, the society is disrupted as well.  There is an area where a certain balance is reached.  We all benefit with minimum disruption.  We fail with excesses to either side.



Economies don't collapse for all sorts of reasons.  There are two, non producers turning predator on their fellow man, and dishonest business practices.  If you wish to protect and support the "bottom most rung" then go ahead, I don't think it's the government's place to dispense with my hard earned money to those who have not earned it but feel they are entitled to it.  Government has by far overstepped it's duties (Army, Police, Courts, maintaining and building infrastructure).  Nowhere in there it says that it has the right to also take a larger chunk to feed those in need.  You know who needs the money I earn, me!

I wish I could opt out of the taxes I don't agree with but I'm forced.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Economies don't collapse for all sorts of reasons.
> There are two, non producers turning predator on their fellow man, and dishonest business practices.



I think we could debate that.  History is replete with various examples of economies collapsing, the reasons appear to me to be varied.



> If you wish to protect and support the "bottom most rung" then go ahead, I don't think it's the government's place to dispense with my hard earned money to those who have not earned it but feel they are entitled to it.



I do not think you will find that I said I wanted to give my own hard-earned money to anyone.  Please read my statements carefully.  Nor do I feel any particular moral compulsion to protect or support those on the bottom of the economic strata.

I am greedy and selfish, which is as it should be.  I just recognize that being a member of society, I cannot prosper in a society that collapses.



> Government has by far overstepped it's duties (Army, Police, Courts, maintaining and building infrastructure).  Nowhere in there it says that it has the right to also take a larger chunk to feed those in need.



I have agreed with that statement several times in this thread.  Please show me where I said otherwise.



> You know who needs the money I earn, me!
> 
> I wish I could opt out of the taxes I don't agree with but I'm forced.



I agree with this as well.  I merely note that it is difficult to spend money in a non-operating society.  What is good for society - to a certain extent - is good for me as well.  Too many people on the dole and society collapses.  Too many people unable to work, with no money, and no social assistance, and society breaks down violently.  The solution, it appears to me, is balance.  That does mean that there will always be those who take unjustly from society.  The goal is to keep that to a minimum, I think.

One can say that there should be no social programs at all.  If a person loses their job, let them get another, or starve.  And I have no problem with that morally.  I'm not a bleeding heart.  However, if there are no jobs, people will eventually do what they feel they must to survive.  That means increased crime in the beginning, and if the situation becomes dire, revolution.  It would not be the first revolution founded on starvation.

My outlook is purely pragmatic and selfish.  I cannot function well in a society that does not function.  It benefits me to help keep society functioning.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> How do you propose to bring the government to heel?


Step 1
Public Referendum
All Elected Officials Pay and benefit increases to be voted on by the public not by the officials themselves.

Public Referendum
Limit all elected offices to -2- terms maximum.

Public Referendum
Any action as far sweeping as National Health Care and bailing out failing auto makers, investment firms or banks, to be voted on by the People.

Remove some of the power they gave themselves.  Reign them in. Don't neuter them, but remind them who is boss.


Step 2
Repeal personal income tax across the board.
Institute a flat 10% Federal sales tax on all good and services OTHER than life sustaining. Meaning, raw foods, baby food, baby formula, cloth diapers, medicine, water, electric and home heating (gas, oil, etc) are -exempt- from this tax.


Step 3
Hold government accountable and run it with a controlled budget.  Stop the idea of "we're shot of cash, lets add a tax".  Force them to work with in their means, or start cutting back, even at the risk of their own salaries and benefits.  The same terms that WE are under.


Step 4
All bills, motions, laws, etc should be read aloud in each session. Require that they go through individually, not bundled into unread super bills. Any elected official able to vote on a measure, is forbidden from doing so if they can not prove they actually read it first.


Step 5
Hold elected officials and their subordinates to the same laws, regulations and restrictions the public has.  No more "for life" income for 1 term officials. No more 'elite' benefits. Etc.



There's my 5 steps.  Want to put them in motion?  There's 300+ million of them, they can't arrest us all.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> There's my 5 steps.  Want to put them in motion?  There's 300+ million of them, they can't arrest us all.



What are the realistic chances that any of your otherwise excellent suggestions will happen?

I tend to believe the chances are near-zero for any of those you listed.  Not because they're not a good idea, mind you.  Given that, I propose to deal with what is as opposed to what should be.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think we could debate that.  History is replete with various examples of economies collapsing, the reasons appear to me to be varied.
> 
> I do not think you will find that I said I wanted to give my own hard-earned money to anyone.  Please read my statements carefully.  Nor do I feel any particular moral compulsion to protect or support those on the bottom of the economic strata.
> 
> ...



There's no such thing as a "non operating society" as you put it man.  A *society* (

_ The totality of social relationships among humans._
_ A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.)_
 by nature of it existing operates.  It's level of success is the part that's debatable.  As far as giving people money to spend, no, it should never happen.  The society's not going to grind to a halt because parasites can't feed off of producers.  They'll just have to adapt, get a job, learn a skill, come up with an idea or they are SOL.  As they say, necessity is the mother of all invention, most of the greatest capitalists come from nothing and started not from a hand out but from a good idea.  This cannot happen when laziness is rewarded.

Where people live together (society) there will always be a supply and a demand so there are niches for everyone.  Societies specialize, nobody does and produces everything they need that's why we have money, we specialize in our field that benefits people in one way or another and we are awarded accordingly with our pay check which we spend in other areas we see fit.  As long as people live together and specialize there will always be supply and demand with many niches to be filled.  I learned a lot from my mom and step dad who are economists, and one of those lessons is that economics functions just like nature where things evolve to fit in certain places.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> There's no such thing as a "non operating society" as you put it man.  A *society* (
> 
> _ The totality of social relationships among humans._
> _ A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.)_
> by nature of it existing operates.  It's level of success is the part that's debatable.



Fair enough.  A 'successful' society as opposed to a 'non operating society' then.  Poor choice of words on my part.



> As far as giving people money to spend, no, it should never happen.  The society's not going to grind to a halt because parasites can't feed off of producers.  They'll just have to adapt, get a job, learn a skill, come up with an idea or they are SOL.



There will always be those who cannot work, for one reason or another.  From invalids to the elderly, from orphans to those mentally unwell and unlikely to get better.

I do not claim any desire to help them with tax dollars based on sympathy, but I ask if if by 'SOL' you mean that these people are to be left to die?  There are private charities, but at least in my area of the country, private charities are falling short.  At my local church, there are a few beds available for homeless people.  They turn away people every night, and the lines have gotten longer.  What would happen to them under your philosophy besides them being 'SOL'?



> As they say, necessity is the mother of all invention, most of the greatest capitalists come from nothing and started not from a hand out but from a good idea.  This cannot happen when laziness is rewarded.



I agree.  Those who become addicted to the dole and who have the ability to work will never succeed and will always be a drain on our economy.



> Where people live together (society) there will always be a supply and a demand so there are niches for everyone.  Societies specialize, nobody does and produces everything they need that's why we have money, we specialize in our field that benefits people in one way or another and we are awarded accordingly with our pay check which we spend in other areas we see fit.  As long as people live together and specialize there will always be supply and demand with many niches to be filled.  I learned a lot from my mom and step dad who are economists, and one of those lessons is that economics functions just like nature where things evolve to fit in certain places.



I am not an economics expert, but I am aware that most economics experts disagree on just about everything.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

The elderly should be cared for by their investments if they were smart enough to look ahead.  Or their children if they have failed to.  The disabled both physically and mentally should be cared for from the pockets of their families or from private funds set up for them.  I have no problem giving money to education and health care if I know where it's going and it's my choice.  Philanthropy, charity and kindness does not disappear in an objectivist world, it's just that these are not forced upon you.

As for economists disagreeing, yeah, they do.  But my parents and by extension I subscribe to the Ludwig Von Mises and the Austrian School when it comes to economics.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> The elderly should be cared for by their investments if they were smart enough to look ahead.  Or their children if they have failed to.



I have no children and have not managed to plan well enough for my retirement.  What would be your fix for my problem that does not involve social security?


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

You didn't plan for your retirement so I think you should get cracking on it.  Sadly many people are like yourself and don't plan.  There is a story about some small animal who played all summer and starved in the winter.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> You didn't plan for your retirement so I think you should get cracking on it.  Sadly many people are like yourself and don't plan.  There is a story about some small animal who played all summer and starved in the winter.



You are not answering my question.  I am too old to save enough to retire on now, and I could become disabled and unable to work.  I would like to hear an answer and not a platitude.  What is your solution for people like me?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Role of National Government:
> 1 - Raise and Support an army to be used to defend the borders
> 2 - Raise and Support a police force to be used to defend our right to life, liberty and property.
> 3 - Provide for the means of peaceful settling of disputes through the establishment of a fair and just court.
> ...



Everything you buy would be from a monopoly if the private sector ruled unfettered. That's expensive, but it makes great business sense.

There'd be no 40-hour work week, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc., unless implemented state-by-state--it's unclear to me how much you'd allow the states to legislate.

Natural utilities like water, electricity, etc., would be much more expensive--and it would have been worse early on, when these were new technologies.

Personally, I like having the Dept. of Agriculture inspect meat rather than having private industry set its own tolerances based on how much each death will cost them in a lawsuit vs. the cost of making the product safe (and similarly for cars, etc.).

Do you really mean to have fire departments, ambulance services, restaurant health inspectors, medical licensure, etc., all be privatized ("Everything else would do better if run by the private sector")?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> So by your standard money must be taken out of my pocket to give other people so they can spend it?



If you're over 18, you're a voluntary member of the United States of America. Your money isn't being taken, you've chosen to join a group where those are the dues. You can agitate to get the rules of your organization changed, but don't complain as though you're being held here against your will.



Bob Hubbard said:


> Step 1
> Public Referendum



Oh yeah, that's worked so well for California.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What are the realistic chances that any of your otherwise excellent suggestions will happen?
> 
> I tend to believe the chances are near-zero for any of those you listed.  Not because they're not a good idea, mind you.  Given that, I propose to deal with what is as opposed to what should be.


Do I think they would work?

If American's had the same guts their fathers did, in the same quantity, sure.  Not the brainwashed soft bastards we have now who think they are entitled.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Everything you buy would be from a monopoly if the private sector ruled unfettered. That's expensive, but it makes great business sense.
> 
> There'd be no 40-hour work week, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc., unless implemented state-by-state--it's unclear to me how much you'd allow the states to legislate.
> 
> ...


You do realize that most of this "government intervention" screws things up right?

Minimum wage is for entry level workers, not people looking to raise families.  Any employer paying crap has problems getting and keeping competent employees.  That's why when min wage in NY was $4.25, the Burger King at the one mall hired at $8 an hour.   Had nothing to do with minimum wage. 

Run the country like a successful business does, watch government cut 80% or more.



Give everyone over 30 every last cent they paid into SSI back, in one lump sum, with a fair amount of interest, then shut down SSI totally.

You are responsible for saving, budgeting and investing.  If you can't, if you blow it in stupidity, well, then starve or freeze, like any other stupid animal.


One other point.
If you smoke, drink, party, eat out, do drugs, you are not broke!
You just choose to spend your money on crap and not what you need.


Oh, the Dept of Agro. Fine job they do.  How much meat has been recalled the last few years? Fine job that.  Oh, understaffed?  Then staff them, and stop paying Senator LardAss's wine requirement.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You are not answering my question.  I am too old to save enough to retire on now, and I could become disabled and unable to work.  I would like to hear an answer and not a platitude.  What is your solution for people like me?



I don't have an answer for you.  My retirement is well in hand, as yours should be in your hands.  My advice, hope social security is enough to take care of you, start investing wisely, invent something or find some other way to get rich while you can still work.  What you have done or failed to do is not my concern at all.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> If you're over 18, you're a voluntary member of the United States of America. Your money isn't being taken, you've chosen to join a group where those are the dues. You can agitate to get the rules of your organization changed, but don't complain as though you're being held here against your will.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, that's worked so well for California.


California issues should be decided by Californian's. Not folks in Utah, Florida or Canada.  That whole "States Rights" stuff in that tattered document thing.  

You may be fine with having 30% of your earnings taken and divided out by fat bureaucrats who will be happy to tear down your house and give you a pittance should they feel the need to do so. I take issue with it and call it all what it is. Theft.  



> The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade &#8212; for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.


  100% agreement.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> If you're over 18, you're a voluntary member of the United States of America. Your money isn't being taken, you've chosen to join a group where those are the dues. You can agitate to get the rules of your organization changed, but don't complain as though you're being held here against your will.



You are correct, but SS is somethings added by the government a long while after the founding fathers and it is pretty much a failed experiment.  It's another exampe of the government trying to do something responsible but in the end people just cared less about their futures because big brother would take care of it.

It's a lovley theory, but I don't think anyone should depend on SS providing the lions share (or in a few years any) of their retirement fund.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You do realize that most of this "government intervention" screws things up right?



Nope.



> Minimum wage



I didn't mention that. I mentioned child labor laws. Child labor makes excellent business sense--they work very cheaply and don't demand much else, and in some cases parents will send them to work so the parents don't have to.



> Give everyone over 30 every last cent they paid into SSI back



I didn't mention SSI. I mentioned the govt.'s power to regulate monopolies.



> Oh, the Dept of Agro. Fine job they do.  How much meat has been recalled the last few years?



How much would have been recalled if the industry self-policed?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> California issues should be decided by Californian's.



They are. How's it working for them? That seems relevant, since you're proposing it on a national level.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Nope.
> I didn't mention that. I mentioned child labor laws. Child labor makes excellent business sense--they work very cheaply and don't demand much else, and in some cases parents will send them to work so the parents don't have to.
> I didn't mention SSI. I mentioned the govt.'s power to regulate monopolies.
> How much would have been recalled if the industry self-policed?



You make a great point man.  My sister and I were working really early.  But then most of our childhood was not spent in the US having Indian and Jamaican parentage.  I've had every job from office boy, shelf stocking in supermarkets, cleaning in a butcher shop, bag room attendant all before I was legal age to work here.  

I guess the child labor laws protect some, but I think the age can be brought down to lets say 14.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> What you have done or failed to do is not my concern at all.



And this where we disagree.  Whilst I am fully in agreement that you should not have any personal concern for my welfare, if there are enough people in my situation, it will affect our society, and it will affect our economy.  Not in a good way.  This is why I say that it is not by way of morals that I have concern for those on the fringes of our society, but by way of my own self-interest.  If ignoring them can damage our society, then it damages me.

Imagine you have a neighbor whose fence borders yours, and it is falling down.  It looks so bad that it's damaging your property values.  He has no money to fix it.  You finally offer to assist him financially, and the fence is repaired.  You had no obligation to do so, and by rights, it was strictly his problem.  But by helping him, you kept his poor choices from harming you.  Perhaps a wise decision?


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

You sink or swim by your own doing.  People who don't know how to save or invest won't affect the economy one way or another, money will be made and spent, goods and services will be exchanged as always but everyone learns a lesson, make hay while the sun shines.

I see where you are coming from Bill.  But it's a position I cannot take.  Money's value comes from those who produce and those who trade.  Handing out free money to those who didn't earn it but as a consolation prize actually does more to devalue money than just about anything out there, and that includes printing more money.

It's a nice sentiment, but it leads to economic disaster.  As to your friend who lives next door, fix the part of the fence that adjoins your property, and have the neighborhood association deal with him.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> You sink or swim by your own doing.  People who don't know how to save or invest won't affect the economy one way or another, money will be made and spent, goods and services will be exchanged as always but everyone learns a lesson, make hay while the sun shines.



Enough people will.  That much is already clear - look how the huge number of foreclosures have driven down house prices.  Enough of anything causes change.



> I see where you are coming from Bill.  But it's a position I cannot take.  Money's value comes from those who produce and those who trade.  Handing out free money to those who didn't earn it but as a consolation prize actually does more to devalue money than just about anything out there, and that includes printing more money.



All true on that side of the equation, but there is also protecting the value of your money to consider.



> It's a nice sentiment, but it leads to economic disaster.  As to your friend who lives next door, fix the part of the fence that adjoins your property, and have the neighborhood association deal with him.



You are aware that a) not everyone lives in covenant property (in fact, most don't) and b) that doesn't help the value of your real estate stay up, right?

The problem as I see it is that much of the _"I've got mine, you get yours"_ sentiment is predicated upon not accepting the fact that bad things that happen to others can cause you problems too.  

Also, there is a lot of _'well you should have planned better'_ sentiment - that's as may be, but what's done is done, eh?  You don't want to come right out and say that if I haven't enough money to retire, and I have no other means of support, then I should (and will) starve to death.  Now, I haven't pushed you too hard on this, but if one is going to pursue your line of 'only me' reasoning, one has to go to this logical conclusion.

And again, I don't hold that you owe me a debt, or that you have a moral obligation to me (or those like me, etc).  I point out that if there are a million people like me, sick, broke, and facing starvation, we'll tear your house down and eat you and your family if we have to.  J/K, but what I mean is that yes, enough people like me bloody will affect the economy and the economy is a boat we all float in.  You really don't want me busting holes in the bottom of my end of the boat - your side sinks too.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I didn't mention that. I mentioned child labor laws. Child labor makes excellent business sense--they work very cheaply and don't demand much else, and in some cases parents will send them to work so the parents don't have to.



Repeal them. Along with min wage, minority  hiring quotas, etc.



> I didn't mention SSI. I mentioned the govt.'s power to regulate monopolies.



They shouldn't.  Not their job.





> How much would have been recalled if the industry self-policed?



Don't know.  Probably the same amount of spit-filled burgers that are caught on their way to your table after you complained about not enough mayo.



arnisador said:


> They are. How's it working for them? That seems relevant, since you're proposing it on a national level.



I disagree with some of their decisions. If I were inclined to move there, I'd work for change there. As Im not, well..... NMP.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Enough people will.  That much is already clear - look how the huge number of foreclosures have driven down house prices.  Enough of anything causes change.
> All true on that side of the equation, but there is also protecting the value of your money to consider.
> You are aware that a) not everyone lives in covenant property (in fact, most don't) and b) that doesn't help the value of your real estate stay up, right?
> The problem as I see it is that much of the _"I've got mine, you get yours"_ sentiment is predicated upon not accepting the fact that bad things that happen to others can cause you problems too.
> ...



Bill, as I pointed out, money's value is hurt by handing it out to those who didnt earn it.  Rates of exchange, values and such are set by people who produce and trade in large sums.  Handing out money is one of the two worst things you can do to money's value.  You liken the economy to a sinking boat which is a bit naive.  Criminals of all stripes, those who would take, seize or by some other means co-opt what they did not earn are not the ones who decide the value of money.  Short term it'll be a *****, but the more that's stolen or handed out, the less money will value and the higher prices will be, the stealing will never keep up and grow organically with the market.  The market is self correcting and as the prices go up those who decide the prices will adjust and you've just priced yourself out of everything ... then it'll return to normal once all the funny money is done away with.

You also say that you and those like you will break down my doors and steal from me.  So your response to not taking responsibility for yourself is to enslave me now and take it out of my wages or break into my house and take it later.  Gotta love that morality.  Basically it's a threat at gunpoint, "give me your money or else."  Common good, brother love, more like theft with a smile.

Here are a couple of my favorites:
Henry Hazlit -  Economics In One Lesson  http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=pd_sim_b_11
Isabel Paterson - The God Machine  http://www.amazon.com/God-Machine-Isabel-Paterson/dp/1560006668
Milton Friedman - A Monetary history Of The United States  http://www.amazon.com/Monetary-History-United-States-1867-1960/dp/0691003548/ref=pd_sim_b_17
Ludwig Von Mises - Human Action http://www.amazon.com/Human-Action-...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255747130&sr=8-3

Now I'm gonna go watch some TV with the wife, I hope you and your friends don't break in.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> "People who spend their existence worrying
> solely about the needs of others and not themselves are not nobles,
> benevolent, and spiritual. They are crazy. "- Randy Gage
> The Purpose That Drives Your Life
> ...


 
"Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community." - Andrew Carnegie 

"This country cannot afford to be materially rich and spiritually poor." - John F. Kennedy 

"Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures*.**But there is another harm; and it is evident that we should try to do away with that. The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.* _Theodore Roosevelt,_Speech at Providence, Rhode Island (1902-08-23), _Presidential Addresses and State Papers_ (1910), p. 103 

*We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers.* Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals. _Theodore Roosevelt,Speech at Progressive Party Convention, Chicago (1912-06-17) _

_*Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.* _To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. _Theodore Roosevelt,The Progressive Covenant With The People" speech (August, 1912) _

_*A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune.* No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood. We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves. But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories. Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows." Theodore Roosevelt, 1907_

_"*We cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income,until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced*." Dwight D. Eisenhower, on taxing "the rich."_


_*"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. *_ There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." _Dwight D. Eisenhower, on the obvious_

In 1960 Eisenhower signed into law the Kerr-Mills Bill, generally considered to be the forerunner of Medicare. For the first time, Kerr-Mills provided for government payment of medical bills of 70% of citizens aged 65 and older.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> You also say that you and those like you will break down my doors and steal from me.  So your response to not taking responsibility for yourself is to enslave me now and take it out of my wages or break into my house and take it later.  Gotta love that morality.  Basically it's a threat at gunpoint, "give me your money or else."  Common good, brother love, more like theft with a smile.



The response of hungry people is to do what they have to do to feed themselves.  Is that a problem for you?

You said it yourself, morality does not matter.  Not my problem, man.  So we're going to get hungry and break into your house.  And that's my problem how?  That sounds like you'll have the problem here, not me.

I said at the outset that this wasn't an issue of morality for me.  It was one of practicality.  You can say _'not my problem, man'_ when it doesn't affect you - hopefully you will understand that when it does affect you, it isn't their problem, either.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

I didn't say morality doesn't matter Bill, putting words in my mouth.  Go ahead, steal now, steal later, it's still stealing, glad to see you advocating it.  Unless hard work and earning is a crime rather than theft now.

No I don't care what someone else does with his or her life as long as it does not hurt me physically or financially.  But if they do there are laws about that.

A guess the morality of a _religious_ man goes out the window when convenient.  But then the "common good" was always used as an excuse to take the unearned ... Russian Revolution anyone?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

Roosevelt was a nut case who did more to ignore the Constitution than Bush I-Obama combined.  Interesting though that he would be quoted as much of what was posted simply justifies my position._  "__*Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. *__*Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes"  *_No ****. Sounds like what's been said about our current "Big 2"


Explain to me where it's right to take what someone legally earns and divy it up amongst those who didn't earn it. You can't, not without somehow trying to justify theft in fancy words and "make me feel good" bull.

Simple idea: 
I work hard, I earn it, it's mine, to do with as -I-, -I-, -I- please, not what some illiterate self serving non-representing representative in Washington decides to do with. _
You will never convince me otherwise.
_


----------



## arnisador (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Repeal them. Along with min wage, minority  hiring quotas, etc.



Repeal child labor laws? And allow individual states to regulate it, or just figure that if a five year old signs a bad contract, it's his own fault fornot reading it more carefully?



> They shouldn't.  Not their job.



Regulating interstate commerce _is _their job, and monopolies surely fall under that. I suspect you'll find yourself alone among the nation's great economic thinkers in favoring the allowance of monopolies and price-fixing. They really screw up the whole supply and demand thing. Under your system, wouldn't the makers of necessities band together to set price floors to guarantee profits? What would be the counter-incentive?



> I disagree with some of their decisions. If I were inclined to move there, I'd work for change there. As Im not, well..... NMP.



If national referenda, as you call for, came about, it would indeed be your problem.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Oct 16, 2009)

Just watching this discussion, but I'm enjoying it a great deal. Thanks boys and girls.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Roosevelt was a nut case



I'd be careful about throwing stones at this point.



> Explain to me where it's right to take what someone legally earns and divy it up amongst those who didn't earn it. You can't, not without somehow trying to justify theft in fancy words and "make me feel good" bull.



It's practical. People without money will steal to get food. You could be the victim. You may not like that, but the Custom of the Sea isn't fair either...yet it happens when people get thirsty and hungry.

It's also the govt. that has developed via this "experiment in democracy" of which you are _a willing participant_. You'd be free to emigrate to Canada. Trying to make changes here instead is great and I am all for that, but complaining that a group you are a voluntary member of, that has its own systems of rules for changing the laws, is stealing from you is nonsense. In a nation of 350 million, not everyone is going to be happy about every aspect of the country. You like the free speech but dislike the welfare. Deal with it.



> Simple idea


Indeed...





> _You will never convince me otherwise.
> _



Luckily our system doesn't require your assent for every law passed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> I didn't say morality doesn't matter Bill, putting words in my mouth.  Go ahead, steal now, steal later, it's still stealing, glad to see you advocating it.  Unless hard work and earning is a crime rather than theft now.



I'm not advocating anything, so who is putting words in whose mouth?



> No I don't care what someone else does with his or her life as long as it does not hurt me physically or financially.  But if they do there are laws about that.



Millions starving will hurt your financially.  No law will protect you.



> A guess the morality of a _religious_ man goes out the window when convenient.  But then the "common good" was always used as an excuse to take the unearned ... Russian Revolution anyone?



My religion is a very different thing from my morality, but in any case, I did not advocate anything as I said. I simply said what would happen if millions were starving.  You say they can't affect the economy, and what happens to others is none of your business.  I say they can, and while it may be none of your business, it can very well affect you.  If that's not enough reason to care, then by all means don't.  However, if it doesn't bother you now, it should bother you later if it should happen that my prediction comes true.  Right?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Explain to me where it's right to take what someone legally earns and divy it up amongst those who didn't earn it.



It isn't right.  There's no right about it.  It's wrong.

It is also a) not likely to change and b) practical from the standpoint of protecting ourselves by protecting the basis of our society.

Enlightened self interest says that as contradictory as it sounds, social and economic stability benefits everyone - at the very least it can be demonstrated that social and economic instability harms everyone.



> You can't, not without somehow trying to justify theft in fancy words and "make me feel good" bull.



I don't see what's so fancy about doing what is best for oneself.  The short view is to say _"This is mine, I worked for it and nobody else is entitled to it."_  And it is certainly true in a purely capitalist society.  The longer view recognizes that if the economy is severely damaged by millions out of work with no taxpayer-financed financial safety net, you will be damaged too.

And that doesn't make me feel good, either.  It sucks doesn't it?

But it's interesting.  I see the same argument from folks here on MT with regard to 'fighting back' if mugged.  Let's say they could surrender their wallet and walk away unharmed - but they are not going to do that, because in their words 'why should I have to give in to a crook?'

Well, nobody should have to give in to a crook, just like nobody should have to pay their hard-earned money in taxes just to have it end up buying Hostess Ho-Ho's for some rummy who refuses to work.  But if it's self-defense we're interested in, and not cutting off our noses to spite our faces, then sometimes it is smarter to give the wallet to the mugger or to pay the taxes so Joe Sixpack can avoid working for another week - _because it represents a longer-term value proposition for us._

If you're going to fight a mugger when you know you could walk away, _because of the principle of the thing_, or if you're going to fight against paying taxes to fund social services for the sick lame and lazy, then I would suggest you're not really interested in what's best for your own long-term interests, but more into what political values you hold.  Rather be right and dead than wrong and alive?  It's your choice, of course, but I tend to go with the odds favor my survival.

Social services to me are not about feeling sorry for anyone.  They're about making the smart choice to protect my society, upon which almost all of my happiness and survival depend.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I'd be careful about throwing stones at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read about his blatant "I'll do what I damn well please" attitude as President. You might think otherwise.

It's practical that I submit to a lot of things.
Practical doesn't always mean right.

System doesn't require my approval, that's fine.  But don't white wash a turd and tell me it's a taco.  Your government is stealing from you, is contemplating stealing more from you, so that others don't have to work for a living.  You're fine with that. I'm not.  

But, lets make this fair then.  Lets drop the income tax on everyone making under say, $35,000 a year.   Less than that, you pay, nothing.

Everyone else, anything you earn over 35k, is Uncle Sams to pass out to the under 35kers.

35k is a decent buck, quite livable.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It's practical that I submit to a lot of things.
> Practical doesn't always mean right.



No, but when right means getting a raw deal, what's the point?



> Your government is stealing from you, is contemplating stealing more from you, so that others don't have to work for a living.  You're fine with that. I'm not.



I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not fine with it.  There is a balance that must be kept.  Too much in the way of social netting and everything falls apart.  Too little and it's the same.



> But, lets make this fair then.  Lets drop the income tax on everyone making under say, $35,000 a year.   Less than that, you pay, nothing.
> 
> Everyone else, anything you earn over 35k, is Uncle Sams to pass out to the under 35kers.
> 
> 35k is a decent buck, quite livable.



Everyone making less than 35K now is pretty much paying nothing in taxes, aren't they?  I'm not sure.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

No, millions starving won't affect me.  3 million dead in N Korea last year of starvation, I didn't bat an eye, Somalia, Zimbabwe, nope, not my concern.  It's a shame, but it's for them, their governments (through proper infrastructure and ensuring individual rights) and whoever wants to be a philanthropist.  At this point I can't help, but when I am rich enough I will, my money is not for others to dispense with as they see fit to feed whoever.

You are probably the first person I've seen to have separate columns for their religion and their morality.  Though I've seen many people in jail invoke the name of god/gods.  

You keep bringing up people's starving "affecting me" what sort of effect are you hinting at?  They produce nothing, they trade nothing so they are not an economic factor (or they would not be starving) so it's not as if their buying or not buying is going to affect me.  Printing and handing out money to pay bills and feed people pretty much is the Zimbabwe model where there is an inflation rate of 2000000% because Mugabe took land, factories and interests from people who produced and gave to friends in the name of the common good.  He's also got a great facet of his plan that's concerned with seizing lands in The Congo to continue with this same plan.  Now they have 1 Billion dollar bills that are simply called 1$ but it's worth even less.  Similar stories are happening in Somalia, N Korea and a mirad of other countries.

Taking from one and giving a group in the name of common good pretty much is the beginning of destroying a country.  Slow and inexhorable or fast breakneck, it'll happen when money (value) is devalued by handing it out to those who did not earn it.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 16, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Read about his blatant "I'll do what I damn well please" attitude as President. You might think otherwise.



Was there ever a good president of the U.S., in your estimation?



> It's practical that I submit to a lot of things.
> Practical doesn't always mean right.



Oh, I agree. I studied, put myself through 8 years of college, worked long hours to get where I am at the expense of time with my family, and don't enjoy seeing the difference between my alleged salary and my actual pay stub. But, _I get it_. I like not speaking German, for example, which is both gendered and declined, both of which I find very annoying. Hence, I don't regret money spent on the armed forces. Welfare and state-supported medical care for people who don't work but could isn't something I like in the abstract but it is practical--hungry people steal things. Welfare etc. for the truly needy is a form of insurance and makes sense. No one who _needs _social security or state-supported medical care or the like turns it down, proving that the only people opposing it are those who don't think they'll need it.



> System doesn't require my approval, that's fine.  But don't white wash a turd and tell me it's a taco.  Your government is stealing from you



Nonsense. Your continued presence here is assent to the system. Try to change it if you like, but comparing taxes in a representational system to stealing is 100% BS. Calling it stealing is a way of whining about it because you feel powerless to change it--not because it's true.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

Just for the record, if you say it's not right that we set a limit on what people earn, yet think taxes on income are ok, then you don't realize we're already doing that.

You make 60k, pay 10% to US.  You're only allowed to keep 90%.


I want to be like Gates.  Other than nerdy I mean. I want to be in a position where I can say "Keep pissing me off US and I'll move the entire operation off shore and you can kiss the millions in corporate and other taxes good by.  Microsoft, the evil monopoly that bought all new gear for the local Fire Department, saving local tax payers a ton o cash.  I want to be so damn rich I could cut a check and buy New Orleans and fix in 6 months what the US Gov hasn't figured out in 4+ years.  But I want to make that call, not some paper pusher in DC who demands I do it because of some ******** idea that I 'owe' them.

The fact that I'm currently not effected by this stuff, don't matter.  I'm going to be eventually, and damn it, I want to keep every last cent I earned.
Unless I choose to give it away.  Control over ones property is the key point. 

With that, I bid y'all good night, I'll pop in on Monday if I survive the Expo. LOL!


----------



## arnisador (Oct 16, 2009)

Omar B said:


> No, millions starving won't affect me.



People stealing for meth money is a hell of a problem where I live. I wonder what they'd do if they needed food?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2009)

> Was there ever a good president of the U.S., in your estimation?



Washington.
Adams.
Jefferson.
Kennedy.

Couple more.

Not FDR. Not Carter. Neither Bush. Not Clinton. Not Obama.
Def. not Lincoln.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> People stealing for meth money is a hell of a problem where I live. I wonder what they'd do if they needed food?



I know man.  I always find it funny people who always have money enough for drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, gambling.  Weird huh?

I like beer but I only have a drink when I'm watching football, I like weed but I could not tell when was the last time I smoked.  Oddly enough, I spend all my time working.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not an economics expert, but I am aware that most economics experts disagree on just about everything.


 

I am, or, more accurately, I was and, as with most areas of human investigation, it is quite true that there are competing theories that vie for credability.  

The problem we have at present is that none of them work terribly well - at least not for those of us down towards the bottom end of the econmic ladder because the systems have been skewed towards aiding those at the top.

I'm also a qualified professional in the field of history, which helps to give a perspective on matters such as this also.  Most people who have been arguing for 'freedom' from tax, resentment for assisting those they feel to be redundant and expressing a desire to 'make their own way' should invest in a time machine and get themselves back to a time when societies were organised along lines more suited to that way of thinking.

Those ways have been tried for a long time, ladies and gentlemen - there is a very good, underlying, reason why societies are no longer structured in such a fashion ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 17, 2009)

Omar B said:


> It's a lovely theory, but I don't think anyone should depend on SS providing the lions share (or in a few years any) of their retirement fund.


 
One of the few areas *Omar* and I agree on. 

The State Pension is there to stop our elderly dying in droves when winter comes and is not some princely sum. That's why I contribute to the Second State pension (which is voluntary) and also have one main private pension and two secondary ones.

Whether they'll be enough we shall have to wait and see and take the roll of the dice that the self-serving bastards in the free market financial sector don't wreck the Stock Market just at the point when I retire.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and on a total aside here, Omar, I cannot mandate your choice of Economists to listen to any more than I can mandate any other choice you make but, especially Friedman, the ones you name are a good example of taking a bad idea to it's logical conclusion. That sort of no-morality, no-society, Monetarist thinking is what got the Western world into the state it's in now - even Friedman had a 'death-bed' enlightenment and repudiated his own theory a few years before he passed on.

We've had several threads on Economics here at MT, so I'm not going to drone on, reiterating my thoughts on the subject again - especially as I've just realised that the _femme fatale_ that is the Study has dragged me in again :lol:.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 17, 2009)

Omar B said:


> You keep bringing up people's starving "affecting me" what sort of effect are you hinting at?  They produce nothing, they trade nothing so they are not an economic factor (or they would not be starving) so it's not as if their buying or not buying is going to affect me.



I'm not hinting, I am stating it directly.  Millions starving will affect you (and me) in many ways.

First, everyone in an economy participates in it.  That means the poor, even though they have little, buy things.  Think Wal-Mart.  If millions are starving, they cannot buy things.  That affects companies that sell, and it affects companies that make things.  It leads to more unemployment, which exacerbates the problem.  At a very basic level, it is important that people keep consuming.

Second, as I've pointed out, people who are literally starving are dangerous.  They may be religious and they may have morals, but few will starve quietly to death in a corner while there is food for their family in the local grocery store.  Given a high enough misery index, people will begin to do what they think they have to in order to survive.  I was alluding to this when I joked about breaking in to your house and eating you; sorry, I should have been more clear.  History is replete with examples of small societies (stranded parties of people) who turned to murder and cannibalism to survive.  Law, morals and religion go out the window when actual life and death are on the line.  But whether people will break into your house and eat you, or just start swarming local stores and simply taking what they want, as social order breaks down, it will indeed affect you.  It will affect all of us.

You speak of Somalia and other nations like that where starvation is rampant.  You're right, that mostly doesn't affect us in a manifest way.  The people who live there do not take part in our local economy, nor in the global economy in a major way.  Our economies are not tied together by trade, and the Somalis, for example, don't really have an alternative to starving, when there is nowhere near them where they could go and steal food either.

As I said, I am not an economist, nor am I an expert on economies.  What I do know is pretty simple stuff, like the fact that economies require companies to make goods, people to sell goods, and people to buy goods.  If there is not a balance between them, they will seek equilibrium by reducing what they do to match the others.  Fewer buyers means fewer manufacturers, which means fewer employees, and so on.  I used to believe it was best if government did not attempt to apply a steadying hand to that balance.  I still believe the lightest of touches is all that is required, too much is as destructive as too little.  And yes, that light touch is in the form of taxes that take from you (and me) and give it to the undeserving.  I believe that is actually of benefit to me as long as the balance is kept.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 17, 2009)

Yes, and you keep pointing out that.  I'm wondering how many other ways you can state that if I don't allow men to feed off of me now they'll do it later by force.    But as always, you're right Bill, examples, books and references to where it's actually happened be damned.  Simply stating that if those who don't produce will seize by force is a great argument, especially here in the US where we have the law, police and military.  But as always, your right, take it now, take it later, as long as nobody has to plan and think of their own future.  

Starving people are dangerous.  But since the thread is about brotherly love and common good, not about starving zombie hordes and marauding bands styled off of Cormac Mcarthy's "The Road" I cant really solve that problem here.

Sukerin, you make some valid points.  Tell me, what economic model/models you subscribe to.  I would like to look more into that side since you are learned in that area and get back to you.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 17, 2009)

Omar B said:


> You didn't plan for your retirement so I think you should get cracking on it.  Sadly many people are like yourself and don't plan.  There is a story about some small animal who played all summer and starved in the winter.



The problem with this line of thinking is that the Central Bank is continually confiscating part of our income through inflation.  For middle class people, the effect of losing buying power year after year after year makes it nigh impossible to save very much.  The government has under reported inflation for fifty years and people just don't realize that they are being hit by this hidden tax.  When one couples this with the income the government outright confiscates, it's no wonder that people are left impoverished at the end of their lives.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 17, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Money's value comes from those who produce and those who trade.



Money's value is actually determined by how much is in circulation.  Money is created when people take out loans.  People take out more loans when they cannot save enough to purchase goods.  People cannot save enough to purchase goods because of limited incomes, heavy tax burdens, and backdoor income confiscation due to inflation.  Private industries exert downward pressure on incomes.  Governments exert upward pressure on taxes.  The Central Bank determines inflation.  At every step of the way, we see that the regular person has very little impact on the value of money.


----------



## shinbushi (Oct 17, 2009)

The best way to help the poor is not to be come one of them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 17, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Yes, and you keep pointing out that.  I'm wondering how many other ways you can state that if I don't allow men to feed off of me now they'll do it later by force.    But as always, you're right Bill, examples, books and references to where it's actually happened be damned.  Simply stating that if those who don't produce will seize by force is a great argument, especially here in the US where we have the law, police and military.  But as always, your right, take it now, take it later, as long as nobody has to plan and think of their own future.



You want an example?  OK...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 17, 2009)

Whilst I support many traditional libertarian ideals, I can never be a true believer in the philosophy because I have never seen the ideology effectively deal with the Tragedy of the Commons.  At best, they deny that this actually happens, which, IMO, is a gross abuse of logic.  One really has to ignore a lot of evidence in order to claim that.  

The bottom line is that the human animal operates like any other animal when it comes to shared resources.  It's boom and bust...which is great when one is booming sucks when busting.  Human social structure is the one thing that has allowed our species to reach equilibrium at various times in history.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 17, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> The problem with this line of thinking is that the Central Bank is continually confiscating part of our income through inflation.  For middle class people, the effect of losing buying power year after year after year makes it nigh impossible to save very much.  The government has under reported inflation for fifty years and people just don't realize that they are being hit by this hidden tax.  When one couples this with the income the government outright confiscates, it's no wonder that people are left impoverished at the end of their lives.



Another classic problem is that retirement savings are meant to work through compound interest over a long period of time.  Small investments at the beginning of a working career are not the same as small investments made at the end of a working career.  In fact, not even very large investments (assuming such funds are available) make up for the 30-40 years of compound interest that has been missed.  One cannot really start late and make up the difference.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 17, 2009)

Of course you're right as always Bill, even though the French Revolution was not a capitalist society so the rules of the distribution of money was vastly different and the government's power was vastly larger than it is even now.  So the example doesnt really fit at all.  

But as you said, people will take if you don't give.  Zombie Apocalypse!


----------



## Omar B (Oct 17, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Money's value is actually determined by how much is in circulation.  Money is created when people take out loans.  People take out more loans when they cannot save enough to purchase goods.  People cannot save enough to purchase goods because of limited incomes, heavy tax burdens, and backdoor income confiscation due to inflation.  Private industries exert downward pressure on incomes.  Governments exert upward pressure on taxes.  The Central Bank determines inflation. * At every step of the way, we see that the regular person has very little impact on the value of money.*



I agree whole heartedly with you man.  Those loans devalue money because it's pretty much a blank check drawn on basically no value produced in the form of goods or work.  They didn't have money to pay back the loan in the first place and then it's compounded by them wanting to throw more money at the problem.

Great post!


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 17, 2009)

In answer to your earlier question, Omar, I used to be what is termed a Neo-Keynsian in terms of my views on what constituted a viable model for maintaining a reasonable equilibrium for the 'ordinary' person in a society.

At present, it is my view that there is no cohesive model that actually works. Part of the problem is that certain forces have acted to disconnect 'money' from the value of the products and the means of production.

What makes this a really bad problem is that a couple of those forces are significant elements of the Western economies viz the banking sector, the stock exchanges and the legal fiction that is the 'corporation'. These have created an enormous conflation of illusiory wealth by means of credit, over-production of 'baseless' cash and the harvesting of the 'real' resources of the world to prop up a relatively few economies in a non-sustainable style.

Another related big problem is that, if you are socialist/liberal in your outlook (as I mostly am), it is tempting to try and get government to act as a stabaliser on errant market fluctuations. But economies are hugely complex flows and eddies of activity and predicting and managing them is as fruitless a task as predicting the weather :lol:. That means that too heavy a government hand on the 'regulator' can make matters worse rather than better.

It's why I believe that the only hope of reasonable success in management of economies is to have what we call a Mixed one - where the government takes care of certain essentials that private enterprise just does not do well (civil infrastructure, heath care, power, water etc) and non-corporate private enterprise takes care of the rest.

We had that more or less in Britain and it worked pretty well. If we hadn't impoverished ourselves with two World Wars and getting a conscience too late about Empire and trying to be a little America we'd be doing alright. Sadly, we did do all those things and fell right into the same bear-pit that the USA is in now.

Anyhow, huge precis coming up. 

Control of economies by control of the money supply was a popular theory embraced by America in particular but also by other nations, including Britain. Sadly, those theories were based upon shaky foundations that were hidden by the short-term apparent gains for those in financial and political positions of superiority.

In part they were genuinely an attempt to propose an alternative to the earlier models which had seen government try to achieve the same stated goal by control of expenditure in capital projects when times were 'hard'. Those Keynsian models had worked for a time but failed to handle certain circumstances when stagflation came into existence.

So, at present, tho they would never admit it, our 'leaders' have no cogent basis upon which to found their decisions as both major approaches seem to fail. That is, as noted above, because certain key 'institutions' in capitalist economies are poisoned chalices that afflict the very body of which they are a part.

I don't have a solution that has a snowballs chance in hell of ever being implemented because most of them involve the removal of power and wealth from those very institutions that are a part of the problem.

To give an idea of how wrong things have gone, when I first started studying economics in the '70's, it was assumed that by now, with increasing automation and efficiency in production, we would either be working part-time or only if we wanted to!


----------



## Omar B (Oct 17, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> In answer to your earlier question, Omar, I used to be what is termed a Neo-Keynsian in terms of my views on what constituted a viable model for maintaining a reasonable equilibrium for the 'ordinary' person in a society.
> 
> At present, it is my view that there is no cohesive model that actually works. *Part of the problem is that certain forces have acted to disconnect 'money' from the value of the products and the means of production.*
> 
> ...



Quoted, bolded and highlighted for truth.  I like your take on the issue man, I'll be looking up info on this model, or if you can point me to books that would flesh it out.  I'm used to thinking of economics from the Austrian and Chicago models.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 17, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> In answer to your earlier question, Omar, I used to be what is termed a Neo-Keynsian in terms of my views on what constituted a viable model for maintaining a reasonable equilibrium for the 'ordinary' person in a society.
> 
> At present, it is my view that there is no cohesive model that actually works. Part of the problem is that certain forces have acted to disconnect 'money' from the value of the products and the means of production.!


 
And I'm *still* a _Malthusian_....hehehe..there is *no* viable model for maintaining equilibrium for anyone-much less the 'ordinary' person...that's why I have a boat, and more than enough food and ammo for a year
*....bwahhahah*...*haha...*and all that


----------



## Omar B (Oct 17, 2009)

How does one measure ammo for time?  Ammo for a week, day, hour, year?


----------



## elder999 (Oct 17, 2009)

Omar B said:


> How does one measure ammo for time? Ammo for a week, day, hour, year?


 

Well, I also handload-but *do you really want to know?!!!*

It's ugly: one deer every two months, an elk every 6, a family of about 10 shooters-two handguns, a shotgun and a rifle each,a pair of higher caliber rifles for the family unit, and anticipate killing about 100 people a month. Caluclate in some misses, don't add damage from the variety of non firearm dirty tricks we have for eliminating "others," and then......

.......do the math yourself. 

Of course, those numbers are much lower for the boat......when we can expect being able to run away....sometimes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 17, 2009)

Just out of curiousity....

If it's ok to take some of my money and give it to those who don't have any, and
if it's ok to take some of my property and give it to those who have none, and
if it's ok to take some of my food and give it to those who have none.....

when are you going to try and take my wifes "girl parts" and give them to those who can't get laid otherwise?

Also, will Sci-Fi and Gamer geeks be included in -that- give away? Cuz, if so, you better also take some of my soap and insist they use it or she's gonna hurt them some.


----------



## Omar B (Oct 17, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Well, I also handload-but *do you really want to know?!!!*
> It's ugly: one deer every two months, an elk every 6, a family of about 10 shooters-two handguns, a shotgun and a rifle each,a pair of higher caliber rifles for the family unit, and anticipate killing about 100 people a month. Caluclate in some misses, don't add damage from the variety of non firearm dirty tricks we have for eliminating "others," and then......
> .......do the math yourself.
> Of course, those numbers are much lower for the boat......when we can expect being able to run away....sometimes.



I was kidding ya man, but good explanation anyways.  The first time I ever held or even fired a gun was this summer!  I know next to nothing about guns and such except for Ian Flemming, Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum and other thriller type novels.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 18, 2009)

I've been 'out of the loop' for quite a while on the academic Economic front, I do confess.  So much of what I speak of is memories of what I was taught in the 70's and early 80's and what I read up on for discussions here when it came to showing the failure of Monetarism.

I know that it is bad form to use Wikipedia as a basis of argument but it is useful as a source of finding more authoratitive texts on a subject (I also noted, with a small degree of pride that my memory still works, that some of the preamble reads very much like what I wrote above ).

Have a look at these and see where they lead you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Keynesian_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

Also:

http://www.swan.ac.uk/economics/cware/ec304/topic2.pdf

An interesting snippet here (not sure of the credability of the poster as he doesn't seem to seperate politics and economics very well):

http://decisionoptions.blogspot.com/2009/04/rise-of-neo-keynesian-economics-and.html

This seems a concise snapshot:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/New_Keynesian_economics

A good book to cover the whole subject area might be "A History of post Keynesian economics since 1936" by J.E. King.  It's available on Google Books if you can stand reading on screen.

Hope those help as vague pointers in the direction of research materials anyhow.


----------

