| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
 Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:21 |
 The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
??
Explain the privacy part. Please don't become like Pat who just says "X is thus" and leaves it like that. Elaboration please.  |
Sure thing.
Under an income tax (what we have now, of course), one must disclose his earnings and other aspects of his private life (such as medical costs) to prove deductions. That's the government forcing themselves into our private lives. What business is it of their how much money I make and from where or how much I spent on medical care? Also, our current system tries to socially engineer us by providing benefits for marriage or owning a house or any number of things. Plus, the tax code is incredibly, incredibly complicated, such that it takes numerous hired professionals (i.e., the IRS) to deal with it (and they cost money too).
Under a consumption tax, no personal details whatsoever need be disclosed to anyone for tax purposes. You buy something, you pay a flat rate on the item in question. Done deal.
|
True. But insurance companies also have access to all your health records. So do credit bureaus. So will very soon everybody thanks to the internet  ... |
You don't have to have insurance, you don't have to have credit, and you don't have to use the Internet.
You have no choice about paying taxes.
I realize that's glib, but we're talking about the government not respecting your privacy, not any third party.
|
|
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:23 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Could you explain how Capitalism works?
How is Nike exploiting poor people by offering them jobs? Nike "sweatshops" give people an enemoursly higher standard of living than they would have without Nike's job. You calling it exploitation is absurd. They offer a job. People willingly take it. Their lives are improved. Nike's business is improved.
|
Capitalism - Rich people have the mode of production. Poor people wwork for them. Rich people pay poor people as little as they can get away with. Poor people will get more money if there are less poor people to exploit. Poor people will get more money if they have a limited skill. If rich people can find people who will work for less with the right skills then they will move their mode of prod to AAfrica r India or whereever.
Nike only check they are not employing kids who should be at school if they are forced to. |
Why should they check? What's wrong with child labor?
Anyone is able to control a mode of production. People of all income brackets work for those who have some mode of production.
Owners of a business pay as little as they can. Workers try to get as much money out of a businessman as they can. What you're describing is not exploitation, it is negotiation.
You didn't address my point at all. People working in sweatshops benefit from the work. They are better off because of the job. Nike is better off. Both parties benefit, and agree to the contract of their own free will.
|
 Everything is wrong with child labour. What you describe is basically what I described (Jokingly badly) as Capitalism. Children do not enter into this of their own free will. They often do it because they have no choice. Children of any country should be able to go to school. It is exploitation. There is no free will involved (Of course you know different as you will have talked to these kids) |
Freewill? That's what this is about?
Children here must attend school until they are 16 (at least). By law. How is that freewill?
|
|
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:23 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Lol failure to address any points.
Children don't agree to it? With the choice between go to school and eat rocks, or go to work and eat bread, you think they're not competent enough to make that choice?
I wanted to work when I was 10, but a mixture of child labor laws and minimum wage laws kept me from doing so. I was being protected from exploitation?
|
I think all your points are crazy libertarian propaganda!
lol I will fail to address whatever points I so wish I thank you very much
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:27 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Lol failure to address any points.
Children don't agree to it? With the choice between go to school and eat rocks, or go to work and eat bread, you think they're not competent enough to make that choice?
I wanted to work when I was 10, but a mixture of child labor laws and minimum wage laws kept me from doing so. I was being protected from exploitation?
|
I think all your points are crazy libertarian propaganda!
lol I will fail to address whatever points I so wish I thank you very much
|
It's a good strategy when you can't defend yourself. I'm glad you've adopted it.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:28 |
Epignosis wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Could you explain how Capitalism works?
How is Nike exploiting poor people by offering them jobs? Nike "sweatshops" give people an enemoursly higher standard of living than they would have without Nike's job. You calling it exploitation is absurd. They offer a job. People willingly take it. Their lives are improved. Nike's business is improved.
|
Capitalism - Rich people have the mode of production. Poor people wwork for them. Rich people pay poor people as little as they can get away with. Poor people will get more money if there are less poor people to exploit. Poor people will get more money if they have a limited skill. If rich people can find people who will work for less with the right skills then they will move their mode of prod to AAfrica r India or whereever.
Nike only check they are not employing kids who should be at school if they are forced to. |
Why should they check? What's wrong with child labor?
Anyone is able to control a mode of production. People of all income brackets work for those who have some mode of production.
Owners of a business pay as little as they can. Workers try to get as much money out of a businessman as they can. What you're describing is not exploitation, it is negotiation.
You didn't address my point at all. People working in sweatshops benefit from the work. They are better off because of the job. Nike is better off. Both parties benefit, and agree to the contract of their own free will.
|
Everything is wrong with child labour. What you describe is basically what I described (Jokingly badly) as Capitalism. Children do not enter into this of their own free will. They often do it because they have no choice. Children of any country should be able to go to school. It is exploitation. There is no free will involved (Of course you know different as you will have talked to these kids) |
Freewill? That's what this is about?
Children here must attend school until they are 16 (at least). By law. How is that freewill?
|
At least they get an education. Apparently ^ these children have a contract which they enter in to know ing all the facts and are paid well but know that the alternative is they go to school and eat well etc they do not have starvation or hungry families forcing them to work at all! This has nothing to do with what happens in the USA.
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:28 |
Epignosis wrote:
Freewill? That's what this is about?
Children here must attend school until they are 16 (at least). By law. How is that freewill?
|
You see Rob, to Marxists, mutually beneficial contracts entered into willing by both parties is slavery, but forcing people to follow governmental dictates at the point of a gun is divine freedom and equality.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:40 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Could you explain how Capitalism works?
How is Nike exploiting poor people by offering them jobs? Nike "sweatshops" give people an enemoursly higher standard of living than they would have without Nike's job. You calling it exploitation is absurd. They offer a job. People willingly take it. Their lives are improved. Nike's business is improved.
|
Capitalism - Rich people have the mode of production. Poor people wwork for them. Rich people pay poor people as little as they can get away with. Poor people will get more money if there are less poor people to exploit. Poor people will get more money if they have a limited skill. If rich people can find people who will work for less with the right skills then they will move their mode of prod to AAfrica r India or whereever.
Nike only check they are not employing kids who should be at school if they are forced to. |
Why should they check? What's wrong with child labor?
Anyone is able to control a mode of production. People of all income brackets work for those who have some mode of production.
Owners of a business pay as little as they can. Workers try to get as much money out of a businessman as they can. What you're describing is not exploitation, it is negotiation.
You didn't address my point at all. People working in sweatshops benefit from the work. They are better off because of the job. Nike is better off. Both parties benefit, and agree to the contract of their own free will.
|
Everything is wrong with child labour. What you describe is basically what I described (Jokingly badly) as Capitalism. Children do not enter into this of their own free will. They often do it because they have no choice. Children of any country should be able to go to school. It is exploitation. There is no free will involved (Of course you know different as you will have talked to these kids) |
Freewill? That's what this is about?
Children here must attend school until they are 16 (at least). By law. How is that freewill?
|
At least they get an education. Apparently ^ these children have a contract which they enter in to know ing all the facts and are paid well but know that the alternative is they go to school and eat well etc they do not have starvation or hungry families forcing them to work at all! This has nothing to do with what happens in the USA. |
I've been a student and a teacher in public education. Why should a student with an interest in welding or construction be forced to sit and memorize Shakespeare?
Again, you didn't address the question. You say this is about freewill. How is that freewill?
And aww gee, what a shame that we have to work in order to eat!  Get real.
Also "this has nothing to do with what happens in the USA." Um...yes it does. Youth should be allowed to work instead of going to school for 17.3% of their lives.
|
|
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:49 |
Epignosis wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Could you explain how Capitalism works?
How is Nike exploiting poor people by offering them jobs? Nike "sweatshops" give people an enemoursly higher standard of living than they would have without Nike's job. You calling it exploitation is absurd. They offer a job. People willingly take it. Their lives are improved. Nike's business is improved.
|
Capitalism - Rich people have the mode of production. Poor people wwork for them. Rich people pay poor people as little as they can get away with. Poor people will get more money if there are less poor people to exploit. Poor people will get more money if they have a limited skill. If rich people can find people who will work for less with the right skills then they will move their mode of prod to AAfrica r India or whereever.
Nike only check they are not employing kids who should be at school if they are forced to. |
Why should they check? What's wrong with child labor?
Anyone is able to control a mode of production. People of all income brackets work for those who have some mode of production.
Owners of a business pay as little as they can. Workers try to get as much money out of a businessman as they can. What you're describing is not exploitation, it is negotiation.
You didn't address my point at all. People working in sweatshops benefit from the work. They are better off because of the job. Nike is better off. Both parties benefit, and agree to the contract of their own free will.
|
Everything is wrong with child labour. What you describe is basically what I described (Jokingly badly) as Capitalism. Children do not enter into this of their own free will. They often do it because they have no choice. Children of any country should be able to go to school. It is exploitation. There is no free will involved (Of course you know different as you will have talked to these kids) |
Freewill? That's what this is about?
Children here must attend school until they are 16 (at least). By law. How is that freewill?
|
At least they get an education. Apparently ^ these children have a contract which they enter in to know ing all the facts and are paid well but know that the alternative is they go to school and eat well etc they do not have starvation or hungry families forcing them to work at all! This has nothing to do with what happens in the USA. |
I've been a student and a teacher in public education. Why should a student with an interest in welding or construction be forced to sit and memorize Shakespeare?
Again, you didn't address the question. You say this is about freewill. How is that freewill?
And aww gee, what a shame that we have to work in order to eat! Get real.
Also "this has nothing to do with what happens in the USA." Um...yes it does. Youth should be allowed to work instead of going to school for 17.3% of their lives.
|
If you read back. Equality brought up Free Will in regards to Nike sweat shops. I said it was not about free will because children in sweat shops do not start working there because they think it is better for them but because they have to for one reason or other. So I questioned his use of free will.
You misunderstand my post. But that doesn't mean I agree with you. Children shouldn't have to work in order to eat.
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:52 |
|
What does that mean? "Children shouldn't have to work in order to eat."
Sometimes, they do. That's a fact. Say what you really mean. You really mean that people should be forced to give to others or be punished.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:54 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Could you explain how Capitalism works?
How is Nike exploiting poor people by offering them jobs? Nike "sweatshops" give people an enemoursly higher standard of living than they would have without Nike's job. You calling it exploitation is absurd. They offer a job. People willingly take it. Their lives are improved. Nike's business is improved.
|
Capitalism - Rich people have the mode of production. Poor people wwork for them. Rich people pay poor people as little as they can get away with. Poor people will get more money if there are less poor people to exploit. Poor people will get more money if they have a limited skill. If rich people can find people who will work for less with the right skills then they will move their mode of prod to AAfrica r India or whereever.
Nike only check they are not employing kids who should be at school if they are forced to. |
Why should they check? What's wrong with child labor?
Anyone is able to control a mode of production. People of all income brackets work for those who have some mode of production.
Owners of a business pay as little as they can. Workers try to get as much money out of a businessman as they can. What you're describing is not exploitation, it is negotiation.
You didn't address my point at all. People working in sweatshops benefit from the work. They are better off because of the job. Nike is better off. Both parties benefit, and agree to the contract of their own free will.
|
Everything is wrong with child labour. What you describe is basically what I described (Jokingly badly) as Capitalism. Children do not enter into this of their own free will. They often do it because they have no choice. Children of any country should be able to go to school. It is exploitation. There is no free will involved (Of course you know different as you will have talked to these kids) |
Freewill? That's what this is about?
Children here must attend school until they are 16 (at least). By law. How is that freewill?
|
At least they get an education. Apparently ^ these children have a contract which they enter in to know ing all the facts and are paid well but know that the alternative is they go to school and eat well etc they do not have starvation or hungry families forcing them to work at all! This has nothing to do with what happens in the USA. |
I've been a student and a teacher in public education. Why should a student with an interest in welding or construction be forced to sit and memorize Shakespeare?
Again, you didn't address the question. You say this is about freewill. How is that freewill?
And aww gee, what a shame that we have to work in order to eat! Get real.
Also "this has nothing to do with what happens in the USA." Um...yes it does. Youth should be allowed to work instead of going to school for 17.3% of their lives.
|
If you read back. Equality brought up Free Will in regards to Nike sweat shops. I said it was not about free will because children in sweat shops do not start working there because they think it is better for them but because they have to for one reason or other. So I questioned his use of free will.
You misunderstand my post. But that doesn't mean I agree with you. Children shouldn't have to work in order to eat. |
My point is there's no freewill in the USA. You implied that there is freewill involved in the USA system since you said "this has nothing to do with what happens in the USA."
That's how I'm interpreting your words though, so I apologize if it's an inaccurate interpretation.
I don't see that anyone answered my question about government incompetence. I'll post it again.
Edited by Epignosis - September 27 2010 at 17:55
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:55 |
Epignosis wrote:
No liberal has addressed my issue of the government being one massive screw up after another.
Why should the government be trusted with health care or any other facet of business after we've seen what havoc its initiatives have wreaked on the housing industry (just to name one)- what good reason is there to trust the US government?
Let me put this another way. If you were an investor, would you continue to invest in a company that brought in 5000 billion dollars a year yet carried a massive 13.5 trillion dollar debt that grows by the day and must borrow money to pay the interest on this debt?
Would you invest in a company that ran many of its businesses as Ponzi schemes?
|
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:55 |
|
Can I answer?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 17:57 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Can I answer?
|
If you would like.
|
|
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 18:02 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
What does that mean? "Children shouldn't have to work in order to eat."
Sometimes, they do. That's a fact. Say what you really mean. You really mean that people should be forced to give to others or be punished.
|
You might notice Robert sad somit like 'aww gee get real we have to work in order to eat' (not a direct quote) So I said Iblah blah nbah blah 'Children should not have to work in order to eat' a response of sorts. But I said what I wanted to say ta very much.
Oh ok yes people should be forced to give to others or be punished (The comfy chair maybe  )
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 18:02 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Can I answer?
|
If you would like.
|
I do. I want to marry you.
|
Edited by The T - September 27 2010 at 18:02
|
|
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 18:03 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Can I answer? |
I have no idea?
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 18:03 |
|
Are we talking about children working in the USA aren't we? Just asking...
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 18:06 |
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
No liberal has addressed my issue of the government being one massive screw up after another. I did. And you said I was right.
Why should the government be trusted with health care or any other facet of business after we've seen what havoc its initiatives have wreaked on the housing industry (just to name one)- what good reason is there to trust the US government? Because they are great running USPS. And whoever can manage mail, can manage everything else.
Let me put this another way. If you were an investor, would you continue to invest in a company that brought in 5000 billion dollars a year yet carried a massive 13.5 trillion dollar debt that grows by the day and must borrow money to pay the interest on this debt?Yes. Because if I can invest in such company it means I can take the risk.
Would you invest in a company that ran many of its businesses as Ponzi schemes?I'd preferred one that run like Fonzi schemes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 18:10 |
Epignosis wrote:
No liberal has addressed my issue of the government being one massive screw up after another.
|
I'll take you on dude. Has the US government been less than perfect? Of course, it is a product of humans. One massive screw up after another? A bunch of crap. A lie perpetuated by those actively engaged in doing their best to make it so.
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 27 2010 at 18:11
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 18:10 |
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
No liberal has addressed my issue of the government being one massive screw up after another. I did. And you said I was right. Where?
Why should the government be trusted with health care or any other facet of business after we've seen what havoc its initiatives have wreaked on the housing industry (just to name one)- what good reason is there to trust the US government? Because they are great running USPS. And whoever can manage mail, can manage everything else. f**k that. The USPS cost our family $120 because of utter incompetence and refused to make it right. Private companies would have no choice but to do better than this.
Let me put this another way. If you were an investor, would you continue to invest in a company that brought in 5000 billion dollars a year yet carried a massive 13.5 trillion dollar debt that grows by the day and must borrow money to pay the interest on this debt?Yes. Because if I can invest in such company it means I can take the risk. This is why you are probably not wealthy.
Would you invest in a company that ran many of its businesses as Ponzi schemes?I'd preferred one that run like Fonzi schemes... Ayy....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
For my Libertarian friends
