[QUOTE=s0beit;29113597]You can't dispute however that under the current system it is indeed theft, there is no choice in the matter unless you desire to live in prison.[/QUOTE]
Yes I can because by definition its not theft.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29113597]Think about it for a moment, schools would only be needed for super complex specialized skills like becoming a scientist and things of that nature.[/QUOTE]
This will mean only the rich will be smart then. I dont want a world where only the rich go to school to learn and were only the rich are scientist especially since im trying to be a scientist.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29113597]The hospital has a genuine need for doctors, there is a demand but only a limited supply because schooling is very expensive. The hospital could then train the nurse to become a doctor, the nurse while in training could work for a nurses pay but could perform routines otherwise done by a doctor because she was trained by other doctors.[/QUOTE]
Why would it spend time training nurses when there are already people who went to school who already know how to nurse?
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29113597]There are so many fields that don't require a college education it's silly, I'm a programmer and i didn't go to school for that either, i learned it on my own and i could have been trained to learn it (and i would have preferred it, actually, because hands-on experience is just a great learning tool for me)[/QUOTE]
Yes but there are many that require high school education.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29113597]Taxes hurt a lot of people, the poor especially[/QUOTE]
Unless its military then yea taxes are helping them.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29113597]The real problem is the barrier to entry in the workplace,[/QUOTE]
Yea thats caused by bad school work and environmental stresses caused by being poor. So if you want to help then your going to want to have drug rehab, ways to get them food and ways to give them time for fun or else they wont be willing to work hard or join a gang.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29113597]You can do this through social programs too but to me, they're not as beneficial to society as people coordinating their interests willingly, would be.[/QUOTE]
You mean there are people out there that want to be poor? surprise to me because they are tying to be rich. Thats everyones dream but you cant do that when you live in such a bad environment or have problems. Also then theres businesses stopping people because of preexisting conditions.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29113616]Yes I can because by definition its not theft.[/quote]
Link me to the definition and I'll tell you why it's bullshit, then.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29113616]
This will mean only the rich will be smart then. I dont want a world where only the rich go to school to learn and were only the rich are scientist especially since im trying to be a scientist.[/quote]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29113616]Why would it spend time training nurses when there are already people who went to school who already know how to nurse?[/quote]
How can you not understand that only allowing the rich to be educated isn't enough to fuel an economy? It wouldn't work in a real world sense, businesses would be forced to train workers simply [b]because[/b] the workforce would be otherwise strangled. You [b]can not[/b] run an effective economy by only employing the rich.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29113616]
Yes but there are many that require high school education.[/quote]
In many cases that isn't even true, especially when you're talking about learning things targeted to a specific skill. You have eliminated about 60% of the curriculum in high school.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29113616]
Unless its military then yea taxes are helping them.
[/quote]
Wrong, like i stated earlier a decent amount of poor are paying into services they'll never utilize and aren't currently utilizing them right now. This extends far beyond the military into issues like Social Security (it is proven that the poor often die before they're able to collect benefits, their children don't get to collect it and yet they have to pay anyway for an empty promise from a failed system) and Welfare since even though many are poor, they aren't eligible for a lot of those services since they aren't poor enough to qualify.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29113616]
Yea thats caused by bad school work and environmental stresses caused by being poor. So if you want to help then your going to want to have drug rehab, ways to get them food and ways to give them time for fun or else they wont be willing to work hard or join a gang.[/QUOTE]
No, barriers to entry are created by the government. They can't work for a smaller pay to gain a skill, they can't go anywhere without being certified by government licensed institutions, they are keeping them poor.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29113616]
You mean there are people out there that want to be poor? surprise to me because they are tying to be rich. Thats everyones dream but you cant do that when you live in such a bad environment or have problems. Also then theres businesses stopping people because of preexisting conditions.[/QUOTE]
Nowhere did i ever say what you're implying i said. You need to stop attacking straw men it's getting old.
I know poor people want more money, but i also know that our current system isn't working. I think when people are able to be trained for a job outside of the context of schools they have more opportunity then they do with all the governmental regulations in place now.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29110822]It depends which state you're from, some require you signing up for a host of services you have no need for or would never buy (no demand), some impose regulations on who you can cover, there's also a federal incentive to sway employers to pay for health insurance for their employees, while this may seem beneficial at face value, it increases the prices for people who work at a company that does not provide health insurance, or the uninsured by creating false demand in the marketplace and covering people who either would never have gotten health insurance in the first place, or could otherwise afford it on their own.[/quote]
Wouldn't free basic care supported by taxes solve all of those? Companies don't need to pay to ensure their employees anymore. (Unless they want to offer insurance for extra services such as dental - assuming dental isn't already covered)
As for requiring people to sign up for services they don't want (as you'll argue), you already do that daily. Think of roads. Surely you wouldn't advocate for a toll booth on every road so you only have to pay for what you use, right?
[QUOTE=s0beit;29110822]I'm not all to sure of the horrible safety records of the early airlines but I must ask, in contrast to what? Were European or Canadian airlines known for their tremendous safety records in those days?[/quote]
In contrast to today. I doubt airlines were much better anywhere during that time. While technology obviously played a part, lack of regulation likely did as well.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29110822]It depends what you would call gouging them, while it's true they would probably pay more than the average consumer of insurance they would live to see another day.[/quote]
They'll live to see another day under my preferred system as well, and for much less money. A perfectly healthy person will likely pay more than they would under your system but society has maintenance costs and you have to pitch in if you want to use society, only seems fair to me.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29110822]You might feel a sense of responsibility and you might feel happy when you pay your taxes that it is going to be used to make other people get better, some other people might dispute the system's effectiveness (and they'd be right, governments often pay more then the free market because of the economic calculation problem i mentioned earlier), some people might not like that they've incurred the responsibility of the entire nation's well-being at the expense of their own property and even if you consider that greedy and you might be right, it is my position that your only legitimate means of getting that person to pay for another person's medical service would be to persuade them and give them a choice in the matter. (You can still form something like this around a tax system, though it is preferable you do not, to me, since i consider single-payer healthcare economically inefficient)[/quote]
Taxes don't make me feel good. Spending money on something intangible never feels good. I only feel good after I walk out of the hospital with no bill in hand for something that would have cost me tens of thousands of dollars in the United States had I not had insurance.
Hell if I had it my way I'd buy a wind turbine, some batteries, a gas generator, a few hundred kilometres of fibre optic internet cable, some seeds, a shotgun, and go build a cabin in the woods and live there. But as long as I'm in an incorporated region I'll pay for the infrastructure to support it - and healthcare is a part of that infrastructure.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29110822]It really depends how you look at this in this aspect, first, the issue is indeed moral, forcing people to do something against their will in an otherwise peaceful environment to me, is wrong. It's introducing force into an area that prior to government intervention involved no force. There's something beautiful in that, to me, about free market capitalism.[/quote]
It's beautiful for the people who are doing okay and devastating for the people who aren't. You envision a libertarian society where all the gaps can be filled with charity, but looking around I see a non-libertarian society where charity isn't able to fill even the few gaps that still exist under this system.
I don't see why making charity more necessary will make people more charitable, in fact I see the opposite. Once it becomes required to look out only for #1, #2 will fall to the wayside.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29113965]How can you not understand that only allowing the rich to be educated isn't enough to fuel an economy? It wouldn't work in a real world sense, businesses would be forced to train workers simply [b]because[/b] the workforce would be otherwise strangled. You [b]can not[/b] run an effective economy by only employing the rich.[/QUOTE]
Well businesses would not want to train someone who could turn out to be bad when again they can hire someone who already went to school. This would mean they would stop people with preexisting conditions first because of how much time and effort they must put into each person and this would also cause a lot of technological unemployment whenever possible because now you don't have to train a machine. Also this would stop people from getting a general understanding of the world if all there education was just to get a job. This would lower the IQ of people by a lot because no one would know how the universe or math works if its not needed for there jobs.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29113965]In many cases that isn't even true, especially when you're talking about learning things targeted to a specific skill. You have eliminated about 60% of the curriculum in high school.[/QUOTE]
Again if you want everyone to be stupid then sure and again there would still be a lot of people who cant afford school. In your world everyone except the rich would be stupid. And the only real jobs you can get without high school is patty flipper or something else that sucks.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29113965]Wrong, like i stated earlier a decent amount of poor are paying into services they'll never utilize and aren't currently utilizing them right now. This extends far beyond the military into issues like Social Security (it is proven that the poor often die before they're able to collect benefits, their children don't get to collect it and yet they have to pay anyway for an empty promise from a failed system) and Welfare since even though many are poor, they aren't eligible for a lot of those services since they aren't poor enough to qualify.[/QUOTE]
Well then you should be fighting the specific parts of tax you dont like not all taxes going to the poor. Now welfare isnt for all poor people but its needed if we dont want starving people all over the place.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29113965]No, barriers to entry are created by the government. They can't work for a smaller pay to gain a skill, they can't go anywhere without being certified by government licensed institutions, they are keeping them poor.[/QUOTE]
Sure they can its called mentor programs and im going to be apart of one. They cant get a job because no one will want to higher someone without a high school education when there are other people with it.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29114050]Wouldn't free basic care supported by taxes solve all of those? Companies don't need to pay to ensure their employees anymore. (Unless they want to offer insurance for extra services such as dental - assuming dental isn't already covered)
As for requiring people to sign up for services they don't want (as you'll argue), you already do that daily. Think of roads. Surely you wouldn't advocate for a toll booth on every road so you only have to pay for what you use, right?[/quote]
When i made that post i was talking about problems in the current system of government control we now all live under, it wasn't a critique of your type of system but rather suggestions to fix our existing system.
I know i pay for things i don't want or need daily, it doesn't make me happy whatsoever. I doubt it makes anybody else happy as well.
I advocate a tax system where you can decide, willingly what to pay for with your tax money. It's as simple as filling out a form.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29114050]
In contrast to today. I doubt airlines were much better anywhere during that time. While technology obviously played a part, lack of regulation likely did as well. [/quote]
You'll have to show me some specific examples, but in the United States at least there was a total monopoly on air travel which I'm sure you'd agree, wasn't good for safety. If a competing airline company is 50% less likely to result in a fatal crash, pretty sure you wouldn't pick the one where you are 50% more likely to die.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29114050]
They'll live to see another day under my preferred system as well, and for much less money. A perfectly healthy person will likely pay more than they would under your system but society has maintenance costs and you have to pitch in if you want to use society, only seems fair to me.[/quote]
Much less money in regards to whom exactly? If you mean the government spends less money then the total amount of money that would be spent in my system, I'd disagree with you. If you mean under our current system, quite possible. Your concept of fairness is subjective and i hope you understand that. Is it really fair that somebody who lives a healthy, safe life has to pay for people who live in an unhealthy fashion?
You have to remember money isn't just paper, it's a representation of labor. You're taking the product of labor away from people to afford your system. People are in effect working for free, or for somebody else under your system. Of course that isn't my only issue, there's also the issue of government intervention into people's personal lives, since it would be politicized maybe the people who live healthy lives are fed up and tired of paying for people who live an unhealthy lifestyle, so maybe they persuade the government to bar people from living such a lifestyle.
Furthermore, cost efficiency can not be calculated by the government since it's the only consumer. It is something pretty inescapable under a social structure. This means they will always pay more for services that would be cheaper otherwise, simply because there is no set market price for those goods, they have to take a stab in the dark as to what the best price for that service might be.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29114050]
Taxes don't make me feel good. Spending money on something intangible never feels good. I only feel good after I walk out of the hospital with no bill in hand for something that would have cost me tens of thousands of dollars in the United States had I not had insurance.
Hell if I had it my way I'd buy a wind turbine, some batteries, a gas generator, a few hundred kilometres of fibre optic internet cable, some seeds, a shotgun, and go build a cabin in the woods and live there. But as long as I'm in an incorporated region I'll pay for the infrastructure to support it - and healthcare is a part of that infrastructure.[/quote]
It wouldn't have cost you tens of thousands of dollars though, what makes operations cost? What makes medical expenses so high? This is what we must analyze, not the end result.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29114050]
It's beautiful for the people who are doing okay and devastating for the people who aren't. You envision a libertarian society where all the gaps can be filled with charity, but looking around I see a non-libertarian society where charity isn't able to fill even the few gaps that still exist under this system.
I don't see why making charity more necessary will make people more charitable, in fact I see the opposite. Once it becomes required to look out only for #1, #2 will fall to the wayside.[/QUOTE]
Charity in this society is plentiful, and it was plentiful in early societies as well. If they had the incentive to be charitable and the means to be charitable, they would be charitable.
Incentive doesn't only come in the form of holding a gun to your head. In fact, that isn't charity at all.
[editline]e[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29114163]Well businesses would not want to train someone who could turn out to be bad when again they can hire someone who already went to school. This would mean they would stop people with preexisting conditions first because of how much time and effort they must put into each person and this would also cause a lot of technological unemployment whenever possible because now you don't have to train a machine. Also this would stop people from getting a general understanding of the world if all there education was just to get a job. This would lower the IQ of people by a lot because no one would know how the universe or math works if its not needed for there jobs.[/quote]
First, it has nothing to do with the business wanting anything besides workers. They have no alternative choice in the matter. (cont.)
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29114163]Again if you want everyone to be stupid then sure and again there would still be a lot of people who cant afford school. In your world everyone except the rich would be stupid. And the only real jobs you can get without high school is patty flipper or something else that sucks.[/quote]
I disagree with your assessment that high school is what separates the stupid from the intelligent. People throughout history have proven this to be false. Since grammar and high schools wouldn't be state recognized entities the only way you could employ somebody is polling them on their experience as it pertains to that job.
It doesn't matter to the employer [i]at all[/i] if somebody knows about science or the universe or geography unless it pertains to that specific job, it might matter to the person but that's why you are free to [b]educate yourself[/b] in a free society. I know many people who have dropped out of college and high school both and are extremely intelligent. The people who dropped out of high school often are required to get a GED to prosper in the workplace, but that's only because the system perpetuates the need for broad, general schooling.
Many people who drop out of college are also successful. Schooling hardly matters in this modern age, people can educate themselves and educate each other in topics they're generally interested in and can ignore topics they aren't interested in, employers only need them to learn the skill necessary to complete the job.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29114163]Well then you should be fighting the specific parts of tax you dont like not all taxes going to the poor. Now welfare isnt for all poor people but its needed if we dont want starving people all over the place.[/quote]
No, i should be fighting to enrich the poor instead of giving them the minimal assistance they need to survive.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29114163]Sure they can its called mentor programs and im going to be apart of one. They cant get a job because no one will want to higher someone without a high school education when there are other people with it.[/QUOTE]
Once again you're assuming that broad general knowledge is necessary to work a job. It isn't, employers shouldn't be incentivised to hire people due to any knowledge they might lack outside of knowledge that pertains to that job specifically.
Look, you're saying people can't work because they haven't succeeded in the educational system, i agree, i say give them jobs, you say educate them in a broad sense so they can earn a degree for a job they might otherwise have been qualified to work in the first place. This is highly inefficient.
It doesn't make sense to educate people for reasons that have nothing to do with the job they desire [i]unless they want to learn it of their own free will[/i]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29115218]First, it has nothing to do with the business wanting anything besides workers. They have no alternative choice in the matter. (cont.)[/QUOTE]
Yes they do they can hire people who went to school vs people who didnt.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29115218]I disagree with your assessment that high school is what separates the stupid from the intelligent.[/QUOTE]
Sure high school definitely doesnt mean everyone will be smart but if you say without highschool everyone will be just as smart then your full of it. Also school helps social skills and task management. SO dont lie and say everyone will be just as smart with no school.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29115218]No, i should be fighting to enrich the poor instead of giving them the minimal assistance they need to survive.[/QUOTE]
Then do both because you cant enrich anyone whos starving.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29115218]Look, you're saying people can't work because they haven't succeeded in the educational system, i agree, i say give them jobs, you say educate them in a broad sense so they can earn a degree for a job they might otherwise have been qualified to work in the first place. This is highly inefficient.
It doesn't make sense to educate people for reasons that have nothing to do with the job they desire [i]unless they want to learn it of their own free will[/i][/QUOTE]
They cant if they cant pay for school. now if you have 2 people. 1 with a school degree and one without who do you think is going to be hired?
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
There will be a lot less people with general information which will hurt art and science.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29115328]Yes they do they can hire people who went to school vs people who didnt.[/quote]
No. Your logic is becoming circular, I'm not going to be answering this any longer. Go back and find a new complaint instead of repeating things I've already responded to.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29115328]Sure high school definitely doesnt mean everyone will be smart but if you say without highschool everyone will be just as smart then your full of it. Also school helps social skills and task management. SO dont lie and say everyone will be just as smart with no school.[/quote]
Not going to high school doesn't mean everyone will be stupid, socially awkward mismanaging idiots either.
I didn't say no school, i said training as it pertains to the job with the option to learn on your own. I learn on my own all the time, many people do. The people who don't either don't care or are too busy with their routine lives to educate themselves any further but this shouldn't impact their job opportunities.
As for "social skills" and "task management" give me a break, people aren't fucking retarded.
I believe people will be just as smart if not smarter with the educational hierarchy being taken down. They'll also be better off financially since getting a job will be easier than investing tens of thousands of dollars into general education.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29115328]Then do both because you cant enrich anyone whos starving.[/QUOTE]
Circular, refute something else because I'm not playing Ring around the Rosie with your logic any longer. Sorry.
[editline]e[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29115328]There will be a lot less people with general information which will hurt art and science.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how education has anything to do with art unless you're talking about artists making general critique of culture or something stupid like that, which they can do either way. There was no public or even private schooling (in most cases) in the renaissance yet their art is extremely extravagant, their science wasn't too shabby either.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29115505]No. Your logic is becoming circular, I'm not going to be answering this any longer. Go back and find a new complaint instead of repeating things I've already responded to.[/QUOTE]
No you have not. you have not gave a good reason why a business would not pick someone who didnt go to school vs someone who did.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29115505]Not going to high school doesn't mean everyone will be stupid, socially awkward mismanaging idiots either.
I didn't say no school, i said training as it pertains to the job with the option to learn on your own. I learn on my own all the time, many people do. The people who don't either don't care or are too busy with their routine lives to educate themselves any further but this shouldn't impact their job opportunities.[/QUOTE]
Or because they don't have the money to pay for it. And yes without school people would be generaly dumber and I don't think i have to defend that.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29115505]Circular, refute something else because I'm not playing Ring around the Rosie with your logic any longer. Sorry.[/QUOTE]
I refuted your reason so its not circular.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29115505]I don't see how education has anything to do with art unless you're talking about artists making general critique of culture or something stupid like that, which they can do either way. There was no public or even private schooling (in most cases) in the renaissance yet their art is extremely extravagant, their science wasn't too shabby either.[/QUOTE]
There are public art programs that help. Being smart creates better stories and people cant create art if they can barely stay alive.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
Oh and also you still have not given a good reason of how to stop monopolies.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29115975]No you have not. you have not gave a good reason why a business would not pick someone who didnt go to school vs someone who did.[/quote]
Because if schooling really was too expensive one of two scenarios would happen
1) Schooling would become less expensive because they can't make a profit if nobody can go to school
2) The labor market would be so under-developed they would have no choice but to avoid the issue of schooling altogether.
Like i said before, you can't run an industrialized economy with a select few "rich" able to afford schooling, it just doesn't work out.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29115975]Or because they don't have the money to pay for it. And yes without school people would be generaly dumber and I don't think i have to defend that.[/quote]
Well then you've made a grave mistake. People are smart. I don't mean rich people or middle class people or poor people, just people. They are fully capable of learning everything they want to know and more. To me, schools represent a certain degree of economic repression, primarily because people can not move forward without schooling in areas they either don't care about or will never fully utilize in their work environment, if people want to learn about subjects like physics, algebra, geometry, geology and etc. then they can either learn that through job training, training for the job they desire or alternatively, they can learn it on their own. There's nothing wrong with learning on your own, receiving information from a book or the internet is not much different than receiving information from a teacher or a lesson plan.
People would learn a lot about topics they want to know about and wouldn't be bound by the mediocrity of learning the bare minimum to pass schooling exams, they wouldn't feel burdened to live up to expectations and would only be fueled by the desire to learn.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29115975]I refuted your reason so its not circular.[/quote]
I disagree, you did not refute my "reason" because i already responded to that claim which i guess you decided to ignore or keep another line of dialog going which i covered in those responses. You can feel free to pick apart my reasoning on those areas but not one's I've already covered.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29115975]There are public art programs that help. Being smart creates better stories and people cant create art if they can barely stay alive.[/quote]
You keep implying that under my system people would drop dead, without the educational system to get in their way of obtaining jobs i don't see how they would starve unless they were absolutely incapable of obtaining any capital, of any sort. Such as if they were disabled, to which i say, charities would be more than ample enough to cover that very small minority of people if they really needed assistance. (Or, in those rare instances i might actually be in favor of the states helping those individuals. Some things can't be legislated away or solved economically, but again, this is just me. Some other libertarians might have a solution i haven't thought of yet and to them i say present your case if you have a better idea)
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29115975]
Oh and also you still have not given a good reason of how to stop monopolies.[/QUOTE]
That video i linked you to should be sufficient, if not, present me with evidence of monopolies in the marketplace and I'll tell you why they exist. Since you made the claim monopolies are harmful (which mostly, they are) and since you claim monopolies need to be stopped by the government (which i argue, monopolies can only be perpetuated by means of government), present some evidence to back up your claims and we can go from there.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29116490]Because if schooling really was too expensive one of two scenarios would happen
1) Schooling would become less expensive because they can't make a profit if nobody can go to school
2) The labor market would be so under-developed they would have no choice but to avoid the issue of schooling altogether.
Like i said before, you can't run an industrialized economy with a select few "rich" able to afford schooling, it just doesn't work out.[/QUOTE]
Education should not be about whether or not someone can make profits or whether or not there's a market for something. That taints the very essence of unbiased learning, or the pursuit of unbiased learning.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29116490]Because if schooling really was too expensive one of two scenarios would happen
1) Schooling would become less expensive because they can't make a profit if nobody can go to school
2) The labor market would be so under-developed they would have no choice but to avoid the issue of schooling altogether.[/QUOTE]
So either 2 things. School would get worse to get the most amount of people still leaving the poor out because theres a limit to how cheap they can make something and 2 the middle class and rich would still be able to go to school meaning all the poor end jobs would just be taken by machines. again this still stops a lot of people from going to school or if they do its much worse and it would make it much worse for the ones who cant go.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29116490]Because if schooling really was too expensive one of two scenarios would happen
1) Schooling would become less expensive because they can't make a profit if nobody can go to school
2) The labor market would be so under-developed they would have no choice but to avoid the issue of schooling altogether.
Like i said before, you can't run an industrialized economy with a select few "rich" able to afford schooling, it just doesn't work out.
Well then you've made a grave mistake. People are smart. I don't mean rich people or middle class people or poor people, just people. They are fully capable of learning everything they want to know and more[/QUOTE]
But they cant if they dont go to school. Sorry but studies show that school helps and its why we have school. Trying to argue that school doesnt make people smarter is like arguing that mint chip is the best flavor of icecream. (which it is)
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29116490]You keep implying that under my system people would drop dead, without the educational system to get in their way of obtaining jobs i don't see how they would starve unless they were absolutely incapable of obtaining any capital[/QUOTE]
Well sure I guess some people will live off of sucking dick but at least they are alive. No its not a small minority there are a lot of people who cant work for other reasons besides disability and even if they can get enough money to eat again its still a shitty life.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29116490] i argue, monopolies can only be perpetuated by means of government)[/QUOTE]
First give the link again and 2ndly you really believe that the government is the only reason why we have monopolies?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29116616]Education should not be about whether or not someone can make profits or whether or not there's a market for something. That taints the very essence of unbiased learning, or the pursuit of unbiased learning.[/QUOTE]
Yes but it wouldn't be like learning today, you'd have programs targeted specifically to allow people to work. If they wanted additional schooling they could buy it with the money made from there, or, they could just learn on their own. (It's fun, bro)
There is nothing more "unbiased" then absorbing information directly from the source and using your own critical thinking skills.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29116643]So either 2 things. School would get worse to get the most amount of people still leaving the poor out because theres a limit to how cheap they can make something and 2 the middle class and rich would still be able to go to school meaning all the poor end jobs would just be taken by machines. again this still stops a lot of people from going to school or if they do its much worse and it would make it much worse for the ones who cant go.[/quote]
I don't see how you automatically assume schools would get worse just because they offer a better price. College educations today are extremely expensive yet don't guarantee you a job in the marketplace. How does that benefit the college student? He might know more about the world at large but in the end he's still working a shit job.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29116643]But they cant if they dont go to school. Sorry but studies show that school helps and its why we have school. Trying to argue that school doesnt make people smarter is like arguing that mint chip is the best flavor of icecream. (which it is)[/quote]
Schools help as opposed to what? No prospects and no education whatsoever? Clearly, that isn't the argument. If that was the argument i would have little ground to stand on, but that isn't my argument. My argument is there should be two separate institutions for learning.
In one hand, the business education that helps you to get a job and in the other hand schooling for general knowledge or self-taught education.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29116643]Well sure I guess some people will live off of sucking dick but at least they are alive. No its not a small minority there are a lot of people who cant work for other reasons besides disability and even if they can get enough money to eat again its still a shitty life.[/QUOTE]
That's just vulgar and all around misrepresenting my position. I'm not saying people should suck dick to stay alive (although, what's wrong with legalizing prostitution after all? :v:)
And right, disability aside the problem isn't that they don't have enough money right now. The problem is they're stuck in an environment that removes the possibility for them to earn more money without some serious restructuring of society and many irrational economic policies that only hurt people in the end.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29116643]
First give the link again and 2ndly you really believe that the government is the only reason why we have monopolies?[/QUOTE]
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=eO8ZU7TeKPw[/media]
Absolutely i do, the term monopoly was coined, as you'll see in that video, when kings gave sole rights to the businesses to conduct business exclusively in certain regions.
It works the same way now, except the definition is different in some people's perspective. They see monopolies of recent and even today and cry "free market failure", since we don't have a free market this confuses me deeply.
Present evidence of a free market monopoly, we can talk some more.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29116808]In one hand, the business education that helps you to get a job and in the other hand schooling for general knowledge or self-taught education.[/QUOTE]
Yea and both are not going to allow some poor uneducated person to work when they have an educated one. You have not explained why a business would spend time paying someone when they don't have to and get someone who already went to school.Also again being taught by business will not teach a person how the world works or about art or science.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29116808]
Absolutely i do[/QUOTE]
Sorry but you have been drinking to much rand juice if you dont think a big company cant buy local businesses or other competing companies.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29116808]And right, disability aside the problem isn't that they don't have enough money right now. The problem is they're stuck in an environment that removes the possibility for them to earn more money without some serious restructuring of society and many irrational economic policies that only hurt people in the end.[/QUOTE]
I agree the current system sucks but I dont see how allowing them to have food stamps, the ability to get educated and drug rehab will some how hurt them.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29116808]If they wanted additional schooling they could buy it with the money made from there, or, they could just learn on their own.[/QUOTE]
Well explain how they will. Again all the things you are talking about could be implemented in are current system. If you care instead of taking away money from the poor instead try the business learning thing your talking about. Your going about it all wrong.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29117080]Yea and both are not going to allow some poor uneducated person to work when they have an educated one. You have not explained why a business would spend time paying someone when they don't have to and get someone who already went to school.Also again being taught by business will not teach a person how the world works or about art or science.[/quote]
Because the workforce general education provides will not be sufficient to meet the market demand for workers. I have explained this many times over and you're just ignoring me so let's just move past that.
I said people should be taught both, separate from one another [b]because[/b] what helps somebody obtain knowledge about the world at large has nothing to do with how much money they might make with that understanding, often times. History of government has nothing to do with being a geologist, general algebra often has nothing to do with being a mechanic, so on and so forth.
If people want to learn more about the general way things work in society, science and art, they are free to learn those things. They now have the money to do so, if they choose to not do those things then they're free to not learn them if they choose not to.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29117080]Sorry but you have been drinking to much rand juice if you dont think a big company cant buy local businesses or other competing companies.[/quote]
Great job with ad hom attacks and not refuting any points in the video or any points I've presented to you. I don't read rand, not a single one book she's wrote. Ever. Not even an excerpt.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29117080]
I agree the current system sucks but I dont see how allowing them to have food stamps, the ability to get educated and drug rehab will some how hurt them.[/quote]
Food stamps are just a means to perpetuate the system, not actually give them any means to gain higher education or targeted education to find a job. While i agree in the short term, small scope they will be able to provide for their family i have rarely met a person on food stamps before or during my talks with them that has actually made their life better. Food stamps themselves are not beneficial to society, they aren't highly detrimental either, at least not as much as some other things, however they don't give that person the means to succeed in life either.
Giving people equal access to schooling is [i]one[/i] solution, however, it is not my solution. It also has other problems that i disagree philosophically and economically with. When i say economically i don't think you're quite understanding what i mean, to you, you think MONEY, that isn't what i mean however. When i say things aren't beneficial economically i mean they aren't the most efficient means to solve that problem, i mean that you're wasting resources inefficiently in an area they might not otherwise be needed in. You have nit-picked my solutions and really the arguments you've presented thus far have been pretty bad. I'm hoping somebody else can come along and give me some incentive to continue this debate, pretty fun stuff.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29117080]
Well explain how they will. Again all the things you are talking about could be implemented in are current system. If you care instead of taking away money from the poor instead try the business learning thing your talking about. Your going about it all wrong.[/QUOTE]
The business education or training is not efficient in the distorted market incentive structure through education we have created. Education, while good (it is good, and i think all people should be educated in the subjects they want to learn) education must also be the most economical (efficient) and beneficial it can possibly be. That's all I'm advocating, I'm not advocating making people stupid.
I'm self-educated in many ways, so are a lot of people i talk to. People I know have learned how to decipher assembly language in their own spare time, for Christ sakes, that's dedication.
I know people are capable of doing jobs the educational system is denying them and i know people would learn on their own if given the opportunity. Right now, the focus is on education [i]because[/i] they must use that higher education to find a job. You can't argue education shouldn't be about those things because clearly, under every system I've seen so far, they are.
I'm advocating a system where yes, there is a structure in which you can obtain a job but also a structure where you can educate yourself generally, which, i believe will allow people to be far more intelligent then they are today.
My reasoning for this is two-fold,
1) People who are targeted and are educated strictly as a means to make a wage now have far more time (and now money) to dedicate to general education and in areas they might genuinely enjoy, schooling would be a much faster process (job training) which leads me to
2) Now, with the [i]means[/i] to make money, they have the capital to invest into their other forms of education in the form of computers, books, tuition if you decide to go to a college of some sort and so on.
Of course, there will be people who choose not to generally educate themselves in which case [i]they would still have a job at the end of the day and would still be able to eat[/i]!
Summary of the past two pages:
ismallpiggy and Zeke find ways to repeat the same arguments while S0beit repeats the same logic which disprove said arguments.
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;29118088]Summary of the past two pages:
ismallpiggy and Zeke find ways to repeat the same arguments while S0beit repeats the same logic which disprove said arguments.[/QUOTE]
Don't hate on people. I don't advocate that either, really, i don't question that they're being genuine and that they really mean well (Zeke is also a p cool dood).
I only disagree with them, nothing to get uppity about :v:
[QUOTE=s0beit;29118080]Great job with ad hom attacks and not refuting any points in the video or any points I've presented to you. I don't read rand, not a single one book she's wrote. Ever. Not even an excerpt.[/QUOTE]
I wouldnt call that an ad hom. Please the only points you have said is that the government is what creates monopolies without going into detail of how it could not happen like how I described. You never fully describe your arguments but go on something that needs further explaining.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;29118080]Because the workforce general education provides will not be sufficient to meet the market demand for workers. I have explained this many times over and you're just ignoring me so let's just move past that.
I said people should be taught both, separate from one another [b]because[/b] what helps somebody obtain knowledge about the world at large has nothing to do with how much money they might make with that understanding, often times. History of government has nothing to do with being a geologist, general algebra often has nothing to do with being a mechanic, so on and so forth.
If people want to learn more about the general way things work in society, science and art, they are free to learn those things. They now have the money to do so, if they choose to not do those things then they're free to not learn them if they choose not to.
Great job with ad hom attacks and not refuting any points in the video or any points I've presented to you. I don't read rand, not a single one book she's wrote. Ever. Not even an excerpt.
Food stamps are just a means to perpetuate the system, not actually give them any means to gain higher education[/QUOTE]
Yes but it does give them food. Environment plays a major role in how people act and if they arent getting the proper amount of food then they wont be motivated to do anything.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
Basically you never give good reasons. Like the school thing. you never explain how people will learn about the science if they don't go to school but instead day they can after they get money. Well I say first after they (if) they get money they will already be adults and adults cant learn as fast as children which have been proven. You also have not really explained how these people can get a job when there are other people who went to school and already know there stuff. Now please describe in detail how there will be no monopolies, how everyone can get a job and why people will hire them instead of a machine or some one with an education and why you hate taxes so much and not please do not say because it stealing.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
Im sorry if you think its circular arguments but I need those questions to be really answered before we can move on.
[editline]11th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;29118088]Summary of the past two pages:
ismallpiggy and Zeke find ways to repeat the same arguments while S0beit repeats the same logic which disprove said arguments.[/QUOTE]
I can say everyone who agrees with me is awesome and everyone who doesnt is stupid too.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29118500]I wouldnt call that an ad hom.[/quote]
The ad hominem i was referring to was that you claimed i read rand, which has nothing to do with the validity of my reasoning and (i suppose, like i said i never read her books) was intended to be negative.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29118500]
Please the only points you have said is that the government is what creates monopolies without going into detail of how it could not happen like how I described. You never fully describe your arguments but go on something that needs further explaining.[/quote]
Have you watched the video? It's rather hard to give you a decent example without any examples to go off of. Since you made the claim that the only way monopolies are stopped are by government control i think it's only fair you back that up with some kind of proof.
I can actually give you some examples of where governments have perpetuated monopoly such as Intellectual property rights, barriers to entry and all that and i can give you some examples of monopolies past which have been perpetuated by government (such as the "East India Trading Company" and so on) that isn't to say all monopolies are bad. Some monopolies are actually so efficient and so good at doing their job and sell products so cheap they really shouldn't be dismantled due to legislation anyway.
However, at the point this monopoly starts to charge unfair prices the market is forced to intervene and undercut the monopoly for a cheaper price. If it is impossible to charge less for the product the monopoly is selling and they can't compete strictly on the basis that the monopoly is more efficient and sells products for a cheaper price, i don't see the problem. Unless it's a workers rights issue and they're treating workers unfairly, however, i don't generally oppose workers rights either (as long as the government isn't helping, when i say helping i don't mean making it legal, it should be legal to peaceably assemble and demand things if you think you're being exploited unfairly, I mean granting them special privledges nobody else in society has.)
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29118500]
Yes but it does give them food. Environment plays a major role in how people act and if they arent getting the proper amount of food then they wont be motivated to do anything.[/quote]
I imagine food to be much, much cheaper under my system. However, even if it isn't, charities give out food all the time. If people want to be sustained and kept from starving with states funds there are plenty more objectionable things to argue about. I concede to that point since it's a relatively small problem in society (The small problem is the food stamps, not the people starving to be clear).
Still, i disagree to the practice for my own moral reasons, in any case, done with that.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29118500]
Basically you never give good reasons. Like the school thing. you never explain how people will learn about the science if they don't go to school but instead day they can after they get money. Well I say first after they (if) they get money they will already be adults and adults cant learn as fast as children which have been proven.[/quote]
Well people would have the means to learn more, that doesn't necessarily mean they will learn more. People who don't want to learn shouldn't have to learn but giving them the opportunity to learn at any time they wish is not a bad situation. For the record, i don't think people should be forced to learn either. I'm pretty tired of this whole attitude of forcing people to do things for their own good nonsense.
I am hearing what you're saying about children but once people understand the fundamentals (which aren't that hard to learn) isn't it just absorbing information to compliment those fundamentals from there on in?
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29118500]You also have not really explained how these people can get a job when there are other people who went to school and already know there stuff. [/quote]
This is because since the market would expand at a rate that employers would constantly need a fresh supply of people to work for them, [i]even with[/i] the existing labor in the marketplace.There simply wouldn't be enough supply to meet the demand when it comes to the labor market. The only way they could possibly expand in that system would be to hire workers that don't exist, obviously this is impossible so they must train them.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29118500]Now please describe in detail how there will be no monopolies, how everyone can get a job and why people will hire them instead of a machine or some one with an education[/quote]
I already responded to the college argument however the machine argument is by and large irrelevant since it can and will happen to any job market in any society, even a social democracy. Even if social democracy accepts the rights of workers and a company decides to automate, say, repairing cars with machines. The social democracy would lose money if the capitalist society decides to allow this practice and they did not. It wouldn't be as efficient. Their entire economy would suffer as a whole because they're missing out on a giant money saving venture. Since resources would no longer need to be allocated as much in that area they could be allocated in other areas, this is known as advancement or progress or whatever you want to call it.
It's a good thing we don't generally have to farm for our food ourselves anymore, that we don't have to build cars anymore by hand and can reallocate those resources to fixing problems that actually do need fixing.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29118500]and why you hate taxes so much and not please do not say because it stealing.[/QUOTE]
It is my position, philosophically that without a choice in the matter it is stealing or coercion. We had this argument a while back, I'm sorry you don't feel the same way but it's a position i hold. You might disagree that it's a negative thing and you might see it for the greater good and [b]that's fine[/b] if you think that way. You just can't deny you're taking it from people without their consent or taking money away from people that might never benefit them directly.
I know to you, it doesn't matter if those people benefit directly. That's fine. You're doing it for the greater good of society, [i]however[/i], it is my position that it's theft and that a wrong can never make a right in these types of situations.
I just want to know where all the money will come from.
This isn't an opener into an attack upon Liberals, I'm an independent and I want to know: We're deep in debt and I don't see the logic in doing anything but cutting back on spending, and doing our best to redistribute the money we are already sending out in order to make it more efficiently used.
Liberals are god damn greedy idiots.
I really care SO MUCH. REALLY.
On a serious not, I'm pretty much anti-anything remotely conservative, the future is forward, the way of freedom, not backward, the way of the Dark Ages.
[QUOTE=sergeantsmiles;29120297]I really care SO MUCH. REALLY.
On a serious not, I'm pretty much anti-anything remotely conservative, the future is forward, the way of freedom, not backward, the way of the Dark Ages.[/QUOTE]
You'd have to explain what your perception of conservatism is, why you're against it and so on.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but that isn't really an argument.
[QUOTE=sergeantsmiles;29120297]I really care SO MUCH. REALLY.
On a serious not, I'm pretty much anti-anything remotely conservative, the future is forward, the way of freedom, not backward, the way of the Dark Ages.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like something Castro would have said. Since when did the future promise positive change?
[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;29120095]Okay, let me start out by saying that I'm kind of a crossdresser.[/QUOTE]
So uh. OP is looking pretty credible right now.
I do want to mention, as of 2007, beer company Anheiser Busch, maker of the most popular beer on the market, Budweiser, held 72% of the market share. That's a massive leap over any other company, holding at most 10%.
I'll look for a source on it, but this was stated by them in a press release for a documentary on the beer industry in america. There's over 3000 beer varieties in america under a few thousand companies, but they all very much compete with one giant monopoly. You don't acknowledge the power of ads? Ad space and visual volume of the ads and how often you can bombard people with ads and what not is what sells products today, not nessacarily competition or a better product. Go to a liquor store, and go to the beer wall/area. Tell me, how much room is taken up by brands owned by the Anheiser Busch company? How much room does that leave for other brands? How much awareness of other brands exists due to this?
My point is this, in particular about advertising and the need to acknowledge it in your world view sobeit, psychologists, staticians, number crunchers and very smart and very clever people have been for many years now, honing ads down to a science. We may not understand psychology, but god damn can we sell ourselves a product. The average consumer for a product that requires marketing is more often than not these days, brought to a product solely by it's ads. Now, they had to get there through some means, and often they did get there through success with a legitimate product at least at one point. But, that doesn't change the issue of a company gaining market dominance and then through superior advertising through superior finances, simply drowns out the competition.
I'm truly curious as to the libertarian answer to said problem.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29124312]I do want to mention, as of 2007, beer company Anheiser Busch, maker of the most popular beer on the market, Budweiser, held 72% of the market share. That's a massive leap over any other company, holding at most 10%.
I'll look for a source on it, but this was stated by them in a press release for a documentary on the beer industry in america. There's over 3000 beer varieties in america under a few thousand companies, but they all very much compete with one giant monopoly. You don't acknowledge the power of ads? Ad space and visual volume of the ads and how often you can bombard people with ads and what not is what sells products today, not nessacarily competition or a better product. Go to a liquor store, and go to the beer wall/area. Tell me, how much room is taken up by brands owned by the Anheiser Busch company? How much room does that leave for other brands? How much awareness of other brands exists due to this?
My point is this, in particular about advertising and the need to acknowledge it in your world view sobeit, psychologists, staticians, number crunchers and very smart and very clever people have been for many years now, honing ads down to a science. We may not understand psychology, but god damn can we sell ourselves a product. The average consumer for a product that requires marketing is more often than not these days, brought to a product solely by it's ads. Now, they had to get there through some means, and often they did get there through success with a legitimate product at least at one point. But, that doesn't change the issue of a company gaining market dominance and then through superior advertising through superior finances, simply drowns out the competition.
I'm truly curious as to the libertarian answer to said problem.[/QUOTE]
Well beer itself is a horrible example of monopolies, since it has many restrictions of entry. Safety regulations are fine, however, just to get a license to sell some of those products you have to spend money just to have the right to make it and sell it (as well as sell it as an establishment like a store or a bar), so right there, that's a problem.
72% of the market is fine if consumers are absolutely fine with their products and services, if they overcharge they'll buy another brand. Advertising might help to get the brand known but if people feel it tastes like shit, charges too much or otherwise prefer another brand, they'll just buy that.
I used to like Corona, can't drink anymore though (stomach issues). Plus i have a lot of Mexican friends and the choices they often gave me were Modelo, Corona, or go away, lol. (Although i have been able to drink stuff like Miller before)
Sure advertisers can sell a product but only to a point. If consumers feel they're being ripped off or that they're being sold an inferior product they won't keep buying it. I don't know how much advertising would solve that problem.
Advertising alone, to me, doesn't seem like an appropriate means to gain a monopoly. Consumers have to enjoy that product or else they wouldn't ever buy it.
Let's say Budweiser held 100% of the market share, all of it, their advertising has quadrupled in expenditure and it's all over the place, there are no regulations on where to advertise so you're being bombarded on all fronts.
What about the people who think they're charging unfair prices or the people who think it tastes like shit as a personal preference? More companies will pop up to cater to those people, I'd think even those businesses understand that especially in a market of taste buds it's impossible to hold the entire market down.
[QUOTE=sgman91;29121196]Sounds like something Castro would have said. Since when did the future promise positive change?[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I don't see how any one could proudly call themselves Conservative. Here's the wikipedia definition:
[quote][b]Conservatism[/b] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the [b]maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society[/b].[/quote]
If there's any pretty way of saying ass-backwards, that would be it.
Also, I don't get how Progressive can be used negatively over there in America. It's so 1984-ish.
Though, I'm pretty sure S0beit isn't conservative, maybe just in a Fiscal sense.
S0beit, what's your opinion on the new Tobacco packs they have in Australia? [url=http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/world/europe/australia-unveils-tough-new-cigarette-pack-rules-416]Article with picture[/url]
[QUOTE=torero;29124758]To be honest, I don't see how any one could proudly call themselves Conservative. Here's the wikipedia definition[/quote]
It depends what type of conservative you're talking about with that definition, "fiscal" conservatives such as myself only believe the government should be slowed to gaining more power and should let people live how they choose (sort of flies in the face of neo-conservatism or social conservatism)
[QUOTE=torero;29124758]
Also, I don't get how Progressive can be used negatively over there in America. It's so 1984-ish.
Though, I'm pretty sure S0beit isn't conservative, maybe just in a Fiscal sense.[/quote]
Some people might find it negative, i don't really. It's just a disagreement, i don't hate anybody and i don't hate the idea (since hating an idea is well, futile)
[QUOTE=torero;29124758]
S0beit, what's your opinion on the new Tobacco packs they have in Australia? [url=http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/world/europe/australia-unveils-tough-new-cigarette-pack-rules-416]Article with picture[/url][/QUOTE]
Obviously i think they're silly, lol, people should be able to choose what they want and shouldn't be persuaded by the government on what to consume. (It is also useless in practical application since i doubt a lot of people give a fuck, most already know the dangers)
I like a lot of the "truth" programs out that that try to convince people to not smoke over government ideas, mostly because informing a mass of people of the dangers and effects of smoking is far more friendly (and useful, and provided they don't spin the truth) than a government attempting to force them. I think the same about marijuana, harmful drugs and so on.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29125002]It depends what type of conservative you're talking about with that definition, "fiscal" conservatives such as myself only believe the government should be slowed to gaining more power and should let people live how they choose (sort of flies in the face of neo-conservatism or social conservatism)[/quote]
I think your feeling is that because the government regulates economy, our social freedoms are also being repressed. I just don't see how they are connected.
[QUOTE=s0beit;29125002]
I like a lot of the "truth" programs out that that try to convince people to not smoke over government ideas, mostly because informing a mass of people of the dangers and effects of smoking is far more friendly (and useful, and provided they don't spin the truth) than a government attempting to force them. I think the same about marijuana, harmful drugs and so on.[/QUOTE]
I don't yet have an opinion on the matter of the packs, but I'm leaning to agree with it. If anything, it might cause some would-be smokers to reconsider, which is a good enough result.
I don't see how the Australian government is attempting to force anyone to stop smoking.
[QUOTE=ShivanCommander;28983340]It's failed everywhere it was tried. It makes everyone pay higher taxes. It lowers the quality of healthcare. It makes longer waiting lines. It eliminates people's ability to choose their own healthcare plans and their own doctors. It means lesser healthcare for the elderly. It makes things even easier on people who don't work and skim off government. There is absolutely no desire for anyone to be a doctor. Oh and don't forget that ever since England adopted universal healthcare, patient deaths due to doctor negligence have risen nearly 80% more than they were before.
This is America, if you need a surgery, you get a job and you work for a living like a normal person, don't skim off government programs that let you sit on your ass for 5 years, or wait, even more years now, since they extended unemployment. For every one person who is legitimately bad off and incapable of rational thought and/or working, there are a thousand people who abuse the system for their own personal gain and take money off of social security. Plus it's not like people don't all get healthcare when they need it, liberal propaganda has people believing that if you go into an emergency room you won't get treated simply because you're not "super rich" which is a complete and utter lie. They are required to treat you, it doesn't matter how much money you have.
Why should the government decide what healthcare I get? Why should the government decide who my doctor is? It shouldn't, but that's what people want. People are getting lazy and stupid, they want the government to do everything for them, since they're too lazy to actually get off their ass and do something like they're supposed to. If anyone remembers during the 2008 election, reporters were asking random people off the street why they were voting for who they were voting for, and the number one answer for people who voted for Obama (a Democrat), was that he would "take care of them" and "pay off their debt for them" because they were too fucking stupid to pay off their own debt, in fact, they were stupid enough to get in debt to begin with by purchasing things they don't need on credit.[/QUOTE]
dude please come live in Australia for a little while and learn yourself a good hard lesson
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
