[Zyx]

extension they own their property

Who decides what is whose property?

Is the White House mine?

What if I say it is, then is it?

I'm assuming you're a hot chick

I guess your assumption is justified, since I do sort of sound like a hot chick . . . sort of.

Sure you do, you can lecture them, you can boycott them, you can rally people to the cause... you just don't have a right to to destroy or steal the toys, or make it illegal for them to have such toys.

What a world you permit!

And this is good how?

I would. I don't expect you would, but as long as you don't try to get it outlawed or vandalize the store you're free to do whatever you want.

You do know what a sex toy is right?

I mean like a "Dildo."

Gargh . . . that's sick.

I usually do not have an imagination, but I cannot imagine (no pun intended) the imagination that you have to give your seal of approval to children with sex toys . . . oh gosh!

No I was thinking more like a 10% flat tax.

Oh, THAT flat tax. That's not a "flat tax" but I suppose I get what you mean, either way, don't the rich pay more in such a system?

Why should the rich pay more according to you?

If I were made President, I would abolish them both.

Well at least I learned something new about you, not only do you oppose seatbelts (for no reason) but you also oppose NASA.

I would not mind voting for you though, you'd be the destruction of this terrible state and that is, I guess, somewhat a good thing.

But seriously, I do not know how you can claim "property" without a societal component, and then how you can argue for a % tax when it is against your principle of having the rich pay more.

If you are merely opposed to the rich paying "proportionately more" than it seems you are in the same boat as what you'd accuse me of except you wish to generate less revenue. I do not get it.

All the same, if you plan to run for government, report it here first, so that I can contact China and try to get a post in its government. .

[Dr House]

Who decides what is whose property?

Is the White House mine?

What if I say it is, then is it?

No. The Federal Government already bought the land where it was built and paid for its construction. If you buy it, then it's yours.

What a world you permit!

And this is good how?

It's not "good" in the traditional sense... but they're not hurting anyone by having those toys. And since they own them, I see no reason to take them away.

You do know what a sex toy is right?

I mean like a "Dildo."

Ever seen the cartoon of the little kid who strapped a dildo to his head and pretended he was a rhino? Let the kid use it as a regular toy, just because we got a dirty mind doesn't mean we got a right to take it away.

Well at least I learned something new about you, not only do you oppose seatbelts (for no reason) but you also oppose NASA.

I would not mind voting for you though, you'd be the destruction of this terrible state and that is, I guess, somewhat a good thing.

Why would I be a destruction of this state?

The government spends way too much. I wanna keep those things that are better kept in government hands in government hands. I want public insurance, public schooling, public law enforcement and a public national defence. How does a ban on prostitution and drugs help us? How does the USA taking on the role of world police help us? How does a ban on insider trading (which provokes transparency) help us?

But seriously, I do not know how you can claim "property" without a societal component, and then how you can argue for a % tax when it is against your principle of having the rich pay more.

If you are merely opposed to the rich paying "proportionately more" than it seems you are in the same boat as what you'd accuse me of except you wish to generate less revenue. I do not get it.

Since we need a basic template where everyone starts off on equal footing (we're all equal, after all), I think all unclaimed land should be public property, and then sold off to the highest bidder. Afterwards, the price of land and who owns it is determined by the open market.

As for taxation, I don't want the rich to pay proportionately more than the poor, but I don't want them to pay proportionately less. That would be unfair to the poor. An yes, I want less revenue, as I want the Government to spend a lot less than it currently does.

All the same, if you plan to run for government, report it here first, so that I can contact China and try to get a post in its government.

Good luck. I doubt the CPC will take you, and their people don't vote.

[Zyx]

No. The Federal Government already bought the land where it was built and paid for its construction. If you buy it, then it's yours.

You have not established why I should respect another's purchase.

Do you respect the trades of animals? Think to what allows us to respect other's wishes.

Ever seen the cartoon of the little kid who strapped a dildo to his head and pretended he was a rhino? Let the kid use it as a regular toy, just because we got a dirty mind doesn't mean we got a right to take it away.

If there is any proof to dirty cartoons desensitizing a human this is it; "Oh I gave Jane a dildo, she'll just use it as a to pretend to be a rhino . . . not that rhinos are shown on tv as much as porn in my government system, it does not hurt anyone . . . hmm."

How does a ban on prostitution and drugs help us? How does the USA taking on the role of world police help us? How does a ban on insider trading (which provokes transparency) help us?

None of these are related to what I said. Seatbelts, are good. And NASA is good.

How can you hate on NASA?

NASA, space agency, NASA.

but I don't want them to pay proportionately less. That would be unfair to the poor.

You believe that you are all about being fair to the poor, I presume?

Good luck. I doubt the CPC will take you, and their people don't vote.

Some people say "better dead than Chinese," I do not really believe it but I think it would be worth a try, {JOKE.}

[Dr House]

None of these are related to what I said. Seatbelts, are good. And NASA is good.

How can you hate on NASA?

NASA, space agency, NASA.

Yes, seatbelts are good. That's no reason to mandate their use, though. If anyone's dee-dee-dee enough to not realize the pavement is harder than their head, then the world is better off without them.

As for NASA, I don't hate NASA. I just think it a waste of taxpayer money at best, and a state monopoly at worst. It does good work, but why can't it just be funded by private individuals? Why must the government impose its will that NASA is good on us, and use our own money to do it?

You have not established why I should respect another's purchase.

Do you respect the trades of animals? Think to what allows us to respect other's wishes.

Well, I say if animals traded we should respect their trades. Animals are living beings, too.

If there is any proof to dirty cartoons desensitizing a human this is it; "Oh I gave Jane a dildo, she'll just use it as a to pretend to be a rhino . . . not that rhinos are shown on tv as much as porn in my government system, it does not hurt anyone . . . hmm."

Well, all it hurts is your sensibilities. it doesn't actually do any physical harm to you.

You believe that you are all about being fair to the poor, I presume?

Not exactly. I believe that the way to pull the poor out of poverty is to free the markets, open the borders and let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Having grown up in what is probably the only third-world welfare state on the face of the Earth I can personally assure you, welfare does the poor more harm than good. And so do labour regulations.

[Kapanda]

NASA would never ever work if private. Its main function is as an R&D firm into a field that gives zero return on interest. Space research is only used to further humanity, there is no money to be made there.

[Dr House]

Yes, there is. And that's not the point. If it's so beneficial to humanity, why not being funded by private grants, or through private fundraising schemes? I understand the importance of science, but it all boils down to human curiosity. If the people are really that eager to know what's out there, they should voluntarily fork over the money for it. Personally, I would donate to the cause.

[Zyx]

If anyone's dee-dee-dee enough to not realize the pavement is harder than their head, then the world is better off without them.

This is not the reason for seat belts though . . . the science behind seat belts is sort of basic but no where near common knowledge.

It has to do with the reflex of landing safely after a jump; but this is no way is obvious to the average layperson.

Why must the government impose its will that NASA is good on us, and use our own money to do it?

Sometimes a group specializing in thinking is better at thinking than an individual who is not.

Would you think that stupid people need a government, or do you approve of a dee-dee-dee self-inflicted genocide?

Well, I say if animals traded we should respect their trades. Animals are living beings, too.

They do trade; when you cut a tree down you disrespect their ownership of that tree.

You think animals do not trade, communicate, and form their own societies?

The lion believes that the wilderbeast is its property, does that stop man from hunting wilderbeast?

Animals do trade; and we do not respect it, mostly because animals do not communicate to us in a rational enough manner.



This bear says "Curse you humans, and your blatant disrespect for my property!"

In other words, no, we do not just recognize "property" without a system of society or communication that allows us to; the "Americans" did not come to America thinking that the inhabited land was inhabited.

welfare does the poor more harm than good.

Welfare little relates to taxing the rich, and not to mention, welfare sometimes does not work and welfare sometimes does work; but perfecting it is where it is at.

I do not honestly believe however, that equal terms can be met so long as achievements can be kept. Not without outside assistance.

Personally, I would donate to the cause.

Yeah, I have heard this before!



You only do not donate to NASA because someone forces you to already.

I bet that's why Liberia's space program is doing so well today.

[Dr House]

This is not the reason for seat belts though . . . the science behind seat belts is sort of basic but no where near common knowledge.

It has to do with the reflex of landing safely after a jump; but this is no way is obvious to the average layperson.

So seatbelts are good. Doesn't mean we should be required to wear them by law.

Would you think that stupid people need a government, or do you approve of a dee-dee-dee self-inflicted genocide?

Well unless you mean mass suicide (which would be a favor to humanity and the planet) I don't see how your argument makes any sense. People either kill themselves or they kill each other. If they kill each other, that's bad and must be stopped, but if they kill themselves, good riddance.

I do not honestly believe however, that equal terms can be met so long as achievements can be kept. Not without outside assistance.

WTF? can you elaborate on that please?

Yeah, I have heard this before!

Well, I don't mind donating to NASA. I like what they do. I just don't think that people who may not want to do so are forced to, anyway.

[Zyx]

Well, I don't mind donating to NASA. I like what they do. I just don't think that people who may not want to do so are forced to, anyway.

There are certain things, that when others do not want . . . it should not matter.

What if I did not "want" Public Schools, would you not tax me for it?

You yourself insisted that I am taxed.

WTF? can you elaborate on that please?

I mean, that I do not see how a first generation can be anything but advantaged to its second generation counterpart; maybe advantages would average out to nothing, but certainly some who start off at the "basic" level would be behind the "advanced" level . . . and then it boils down to, who was first rather than who was better.

For instance, say that you outperformed me in every manner; but I am a year [I could be any amount but for this example it can be just one] older than you, suppose hiring laws are such that I get a job that we both want first, or even, suppose that I just apply to a job before you do; I get the job, then you cannot get the job and so, do I not have an generational advantage over you? As in, is not it that your talents are not proportional to your achievements, that indeed, I get a higher pay than you for a reason other than skill. How do you justify this phenomenon?

Maybe I could be fired, but let's assume that the employer is not one like that. Or even, suppose there are merits that I have above you that mimick nepotism within the company; what then?

What exactly do you mean by "equal terms?"

What if all the good positions were filled by people 30 years your senior; sure, when they die there positions will empty but then would not the younger crowd be more attainable and thus leave you, no matter your skill, in the dark?

In other words, how do you account for the complexities of society; do you embrace them all? Do you not care that a "genius" can waste in poverty?

[Kapanda]

Public schools, public roads, public lighting, national defense... the list can easily go on. Certain things have to have government funding to function.

And that welfare does more harm than good is, again, not as clear cut as that. It depends on the level. We have unemployment benefits here, but unemployment is low (usually, not too sure how the figures will be for 97, but that is because it was an unusual year).

[Dr House]

I mean, that I do not see how a first generation can be anything but advantaged to its second generation counterpart; maybe advantages would average out to nothing, but certainly some who start off at the "basic" level would be behind the "advanced" level . . . and then it boils down to, who was first rather than who was better.

For instance, say that you outperformed me in every manner; but I am a year [I could be any amount but for this example it can be just one] older than you, suppose hiring laws are such that I get a job that we both want first, or even, suppose that I just apply to a job before you do; I get the job, then you cannot get the job and so, do I not have an generational advantage over you? As in, is not it that your talents are not proportional to your achievements, that indeed, I get a higher pay than you for a reason other than skill. How do you justify this phenomenon?

Maybe I could be fired, but let's assume that the employer is not one like that. Or even, suppose there are merits that I have above you that mimick nepotism within the company; what then?

What exactly do you mean by "equal terms?"

What if all the good positions were filled by people 30 years your senior; sure, when they die there positions will empty but then would not the younger crowd be more attainable and thus leave you, no matter your skill, in the dark?

In other words, how do you account for the complexities of society; do you embrace them all? Do you not care that a "genius" can waste in poverty?

I'd say you got lucky. But I don't see how in a country with a fully deregulated job market that could happen. If we both apply for the same job and I'm better qualified than you, then I would get the job. A deregulated job market means there are no age limits.

Public schools, public roads, public lighting, national defense... the list can easily go on. Certain things have to have government funding to function.

Yes, but the list is very short in my opinion. For example, all roads can be privately owned toll roads, and if they are you would see a lot less cars on the road, thus less congestion and less contamination. Public lighting can be provided for the roads as a courtesy, just like perks are added to every other service by companies to stay competitive.

And that welfare does more harm than good is, again, not as clear cut as that. It depends on the level. We have unemployment benefits here, but unemployment is low (usually, not too sure how the figures will be for 97, but that is because it was an unusual year).

I don't consider unemployment insurance welfare, I consider it insurance. And I think it's good public policy to have unemployment insurance.

[Zyx]

If we both apply for the same job and I'm better qualified than you, then I would get the job.

But if only I apply for the job? Then I get the job, no? The end result is I get more than you though you were more qualified than me, right?

[Dr House]

But if only I apply for the job? Then I get the job, no? The end result is I get more than you though you were more qualified than me, right?

Well, if I did not apply by choice, then you can take advantage of the fact I didn't apply and get the job yourself. I don't see how that's relevant.

[Zyx]

Well, if I did not apply by choice, then you can take advantage of the fact I didn't apply and get the job yourself. I don't see how that's relevant.

Well before I cite that the mission purpose of "Affirmative Action" is to advertise jobs to those who would not be advertised it, I should probably ask if you disagree with nepotism.

If so, then maybe you'd disagree with a job post not being advertised to all qualified.

You do not "choose" to not do something if you do not know that you can do it; you simply do not know that you can do it.

I thought this would have been a concern about income being proportional to skill, but then again, I did sort of write it poorly.

Nevermind then, are you opposed to nepotism?

[Dr House]

Well, nepotism is stupid, and potentially as costly to the employer as it is to the employees he/she didn't hire. But it isn't bad enough to be legislated against.

[Zyx]

Nepotism is actually pretty good; just as hiring friends over strangers has its advantages.

I guess you do not care for worker's rights, or even unions?

What about the use of paramilitaries by a corporation?

What about environmental damages? What if someone did not want to pay for protection of the environment?

What about monopolies?

What about the situation in which the maximum wage for workers is hardly decent . . . like Ford had it's 5 dollar innovation but it was hardly worth it.

And child labour? What about that?

My, it's like you want to go back to Capitalist beginnings and yet forgot that no one really liked that time.

[Dr House]

I guess you do not care for worker's rights, or even unions?

I don't really believe in worker's "rights". If a job is too dangerous for you, you don't have to take it. And a legal minimum wage is either unnecessary, inflationary or causes unemployment. As for unions, they have a right to exist, but they should not be protected by the government. Unless a contract was signed specifying it, employers should not be legally prevented from firing workers if they go on strike, for example, and employees should not be required to join the union.

What about the use of paramilitaries by a corporation?

They can hire private security (and most do) to protect their property, but they have no right to use force to enslave anybody, if that's what you mean. Slavery is wrong.

What about environmental damages? What if someone did not want to pay for protection of the environment?

If somebody's property is damaged by the actions of a corporation, they should have the right to demand compensation. However, government regulation is unnecessary. As for global warming, it is the big problem it is today because of the government. Here's why: If all roads and city parking were private, people would find ways to drive less because driving would carry a cost beyond just buying the car. As it is right now, once you drive the car off the lot, you can use it as much as you want at practically zero cost to you (not counting gas and maintenance). That means driving is way too cheap, and it has been for decades. That causes the roads to be choked with cars and that in turn is partly responsible for global warming. The other reason is that the same environmentalists who are now demanding the government do something about global warming pretty much halted the construction of nuclear power plants. If they hadn't almost half of the power grid would currently be nuclear, and nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases. The problem would exist, but it wouldn't have spiraled out of control like it did now. However, since the government made the problem too big for the private sector to fix it, it is up to the government to fix it in a non-intrusive way. The best way is using a cap-and-trade scheme, which would price the damage and re-direct the economy away from it.

What about monopolies?

Cannot form on a true free market.

What about the situation in which the maximum wage for workers is hardly decent . . . like Ford had it's 5 dollar innovation but it was hardly worth it.

Well if we guarantee a "living wage" for workers then in some places many employers won't be able to afford it and we would see a sharp reduction in employment rates. So some people would live well, but the majority will be out of a job. That's what we see in Puerto Rico, where two-thirds of all employees work for the minimum, and barely 30% of the adult population is employed.

And child labour? What about that?

Won't exist if the economy produces enough money for the parents to take care of the kids, which can only happen if we let the economy grow. Tight labour regulations make it stagnate.

My, it's like you want to go back to Capitalist beginnings and yet forgot that no one really liked that time.

That time was the birth of capitalism. Remember that Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea were all third-world hellholes less than half a century ago, and they all grew to be among the richest nations in the world. Supply-side stimulus made it happen for three of them and laissez-faire did the trick for the fourth. All of them have meagre labour standards compared to the West (two don't even have a minimum wage), yet they all got lower unemployment, similar wages as the West and a high standard of living. Capitalism made it happen, not regulations.

[Zyx]

If somebody's property is damaged by the actions of a corporation, they should have the right to demand compensation. However, government regulation is unnecessary.

I meant like dumping waste in rivers, or outright draining rivers.

If all roads and city parking were private, people would find ways to drive less because driving would carry a cost beyond just buying the car.

This is sophomoric; who is to say that certain car companies would not own the roads and as such have a the problem would persist but cars would be just as driven if not more?

Perhaps companies would pay people to drive cars or so, who can tell.

Either way, you seem to assume that the owner of the road would not be the car maker.

The other reason is that the same environmentalists who are now demanding the government do something about global warming pretty much halted the construction of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear waste is an environmental hazard as well though.

Cannot form on a true free market.

Do enlighten why.

So some people would live well, but the majority will be out of a job.

Some people living well is better than a lot of people living unwell IMO.

Won't exist if the economy produces enough money for the parents to take care of the kids, which can only happen if we let the economy grow. Tight labour regulations make it stagnate.

No, child labour is a family decision and when family income can increase the dolt, or desperate, family can advocate the idea.

Remember that Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea were all third-world hellholes less than half a century ago, and they all grew to be among the richest nations in the world.

Their governments played a role; besides, this is called biased fielding (or atleast I just made up that phrase for this post) in that you only seem to take out, what you consider, success stories even though there are a plenty of stories that are not necessarily as well.

I hear that a good percentage of the Chinese have cancer because the coal that is mined goes into their waters.

I do not know about the health of these other nations, but say Japan, they sexualize and feminize animals . . . I hardly approve of those capitalists.

If money is your guiding principal then I suppose you can sacrifice all of society for it, but I do not think that people unite for the sole purpose of getting money.

[Dr House]

This is sophomoric; who is to say that certain car companies would not own the roads and as such have a the problem would persist but cars would be just as driven if not more?

Well, that would mean cars would be more expensive at least, because roads are expensive to build and maintain.

Perhaps companies would pay people to drive cars or so, who can tell.

The company would lose money, so why would they do that?

I meant like dumping waste in rivers, or outright draining rivers.

Again, if they're privately owned, that's property damage and owners have a right to sue. That should be enough to stop it.

Nuclear waste is an environmental hazard as well though.

An easily containable one, unlike carbon gases.

Some people living well is better than a lot of people living unwell IMO.

Oh, so you support capitalism then? That's what everyone argues is wrong with capitalism, isn't it? I think it's better for the poorest among ur to live less unwell, rather than some of us living well, and others not, which is what happens in a poor country with excessively rigid labour regulations. And the entire Earth is an example of that, since the Earth has fallen victim of protectionism and mercantilist policies on behalf of Western powers, and as a result all resources got concentrated on the hands of Europe, the USA and their allies at the expense of every other country in the World.

[Zyx]

Well, that would mean cars would be more expensive at least, because roads are expensive to build and maintain.

Who else but the rich to pay for it?

You seem to think that a car company would not want to own roads.

The company would lose money, so why would they do that?

To gain a monopoly. Do you not know anything about strategy?

Again, if they're privately owned, that's property damage and owners have a right to sue. That should be enough to stop it.

If the water is privately owned, then it cannot be used for public use. Once the water cannot be used for public use, those who depend on it suffer.

Again, if they're privately owned, that's property damage and owners have a right to sue. That should be enough to stop it.

Only easy in your world, actually.

Oh, so you support capitalism then?

I was in a rush when I typed that; but at the same time, I cannot agree with your statement.

That is not "capitalism," that is the scenario that Puerto Rico would be in if it were not for regulations.

In essence, a claim against capitalism.

Remember the Great Depression that you cited, did you think FDR a fool during that time period?