The Ten Cannots

[spacecowboy342]

But that is what we are saying they do have a chance. if they just get out from under the yoke of government assistance and the whole culture of victimhood they can and do succeed. yes it is an unfair world but using the government (i.e. our tax money or worse money borrowed from china) to make it fair is not the right way the constitution was not set up for the government to wield that kind of power.

Have you ever lived in abject poverty? poverty that has been your family's legacy for generations? I know some people fight their way out of it but they are the exceptions. What real chance do they have? The constitution was set up by rich white men for the benefit of rich white men. All men are created equal? A little hollow coming from slaveholders intent on genocide. I'm not suggesting a complete redistribution of wealth or communism, just give people at least the hope of a better life. For that they at least need a chance for education beyond a HS diploma which is pretty much worthless for a decent job. And make sure everybody eats and gets medical care. And all that money from China wasn't to pay for welfare but a war for oil. And we didn't even end up getting the oil.But Halliburton made out pretty good didn't they? Canada and the rest of the civilized world manages to care for their poor but in the land of the free we are free to starve in the street

[Leonardo]

But that is what we are saying they do have a chance. if they just get out from under the yoke of government assistance and the whole culture of victimhood they can and do succeed. yes it is an unfair world but using the government (i.e. our tax money or worse money borrowed from china) to make it fair is not the right way the constitution was not set up for the government to wield that kind of power.

This, or variations along the same theme, get trotted out by people (Americans for the most part, for obvious reasons) all the time - but no-one ever bother to consider the ludicrousness of what is actually being said.

"The Constitution gives power to the people, and the individual States!"

"Government shouldn't have so much power!"

Sorry, but isn't govt just people? Aren't State govts just people?

If you "take power from govt" (meaning Federal Govt) and devolve it to State govt, or even back to the citizens themselves, you simply get the same mess, just on a smaller scale and repeated in every centre of authority.

Government is not the problem. The problem is people, and that the system we have created to live together in plays into our baser natures. Many fob this off with a "Well, it's like evolution. It's in our biology!", but we are smart (at least we assume we are) so why should we let ourselves be ruled by biology?

We are naturally selfish, and the system we have of living together reinforces that trait. And the effect of this reinforcement is magnified the higher up the social ladder you go. If we were smart, we would devise a system that didn't play to our baser natures, and live with that.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Leonardo

[spartan max2]

So...ya know...this is why people get p***ed at us....you make it all about the money...well **** you...it's not about the money for "true" libertarians....for some of us it is about our constitutional rights,,,,,

Christ...and to think I was starting to like you....you are sh!t....you are a "Stossel" libertarian....which means you are a selfish ****ing Republican and perhaps need to be put to sleep.....you are not a "real "Libertarian....I know you might want to pat your shoulders and show the folks how cool you are and how cold your heart is...but you are NOT a Libertarian...you just wish you were....no ...you are a neo-con disguised as a Libertarian....and you will not win. Hurting folks and rising up is NOT the Libertarian way.....we have heart and we have focus....

You are not welcomed and you will not be counted.....you do not represent "us"....we believe in freedom but we also believe in compassion...a cold heart is a dead heart and the dead are not part of us.... I hope the dead that think they can use us get the picture....we are Blade baby....and your voice will not be heard.

....okay...

The Roth ira statement was apolitical. I really just meant that its a good idea to invest in it. Like, that's it.

If its about the tax post. Well the whole point was to show that less taxing, hence letting people do what they want benefits everyone more then controlling them.

I like showing the practical instead of always just saying that " you should do this because of FREEDOM"

I like using practical arguments instead of always just philosophical.

The debate happened to be about taxes and big business so of course a lot of money talk

What exactly did I say to p*** you off?

[F3SS]

I'm talking about the fact that many in America can't send their kids to college so the cycle of poverty is maintained. Not everyone can get a scholarship. And student loans put you in serious debt from the start. Level the playing field/Make four year state college free(or trade school) Give people at least the chance to better themselves.

College is overrated. Many many people succeed or do just fine without it. There's nothing wrong with it but all one needs is to be raised properly and be halfway intelligent. Intelligence is not the same as being educated. Educated is just memorized info. Intelligence is the ability to critical think and be practical. Debt is a part of life. There's no way I support tax funded college "try-outs" for everyone. Shlts expensive. You know how many people drop out and party out when they are the ones paying? Imagine the waste and abuse if college were "free" which nothing is. I paid my loans. I had nothing. Why should someone else not have to do the same? Blah blah, fair shot and fighting chance.

Bite me

It's quite apparent my common sense approach is too much to handle. I'd say you lost this argument but there has to be a better rebut in your liberal handbook of talking points and insults which it seems that you are reading and plagiarizing verbatim with every thought you post. At least give me a challenge you unoriginal bleeding heart.

Have you ever lived in abject poverty? poverty that has been your family's legacy for generations? I know some people fight their way out of it but they are the exceptions. What real chance do they have? The constitution was set up by rich white men for the benefit of rich white men. All men are created equal? A little hollow coming from slaveholders intent on genocide. I'm not suggesting a complete redistribution of wealth or communism, just give people at least the hope of a better life. For that they at least need a chance for education beyond a HS diploma which is pretty much worthless for a decent job. And make sure everybody eats and gets medical care. And all that money from China wasn't to pay for welfare but a war for oil. And we didn't even end up getting the oil.But Halliburton made out pretty good didn't they? Canada and the rest of the civilized world manages to care for their poor but in the land of the free we are free to starve in the street

Alright, it is way more than apparent that you are a rabid racist of white people and you are out for reparations. The constitution doesn't work for just white men so shove it. That document is not quite as simple as you are. It isn't rocket science either.

You're not suggesting complete redistribution of my money or all out communism. Just a little bit of each though, right?

So free education, free medicine, free food, free shelter. I suppose a phone, clothes and transportation ought to make the list. Oh, and remember some free cash loaded onto that EBT card.

I must ask, where is the incentive to work? Flip to page 163 in your handbook for the proper bullshlt answer.

Edited August 28, 2013 by F3SS

[Leonardo]

I must ask, where is the incentive to work?

If there was no need for you to earn money, because money was not required to obtain things, what would you do with your time? And would you consider that a worthwhile contribution to human development (in any area, except economics for obvious reasons) or not?

Edited August 28, 2013 by Leonardo

[F3SS]

If there was no need for you to earn money, because money was not required to obtain things, what would you do with your time? And would you consider that a worthwhile contribution to human development (in any area, except economics for obvious reasons) or not?

That's a tough question since I'd have been born into another life in virtually another world with untold circumstances leading to the life I'd live. I could only guess that I'd be living a hunting/gathering/bartering lifestyle of some kind. All if my contributions would be contributing towards personal/familial survival or to the good of the small village I'd live in and therefor worthwhile. I'm not really sure how else to envision it. Are you trying to get me to open up to a socialist worldview? I'm not sure but I always said that system would work best in small indigenous populations but never the large and varied USA.

Anyways, what's your point?

[Bama13]

No i'm not suggesting anyone should pay for anything.There never could be justice for what was done. But recognise that there are reasons other than laziness that some need help. And the second part of the quote you mention "teach a man to fish". How about free education or at least trade school for those without resources? Your view smacks of social Darwinism and is about one step away from eugenics. I realise there are those who take advantage of the system and stay on assistance out of laziness but that is not the norm. Most would work if they could and there are those who need a hand up if not a hand out. It is a shame and almost criminal that in the richest country in the world there are those who go hungry and homeless while the rich whine about taxes while sucking down caviar on their jets

Umm.. we have free education here in the US, at least through grade 12. Now, IMO, it was much better before the federal government decided to get involved, but it is still free.

Your view smacks of socialism. At least Darwinism is a widely accepted scientific theory. Socialism is an economic theory that the jury is still very much out on. The returns are looking more and more negative as socialist country after socialist country realize they that you do indeed run out of other peoples money eventually.

[Kowalski]

Socialism is an economic theory that the jury is still very much out on. The returns are looking more and more negative as socialist country after socialist country realize they that you do indeed run out of other peoples money eventually.

[Leonardo]

That's a tough question since I'd have been born into another life in virtually another world with untold circumstances leading to the life I'd live. I could only guess that I'd be living a hunting/gathering/bartering lifestyle of some kind. All if my contributions would be contributing towards personal/familial survival or to the good of the small village I'd live in and therefor worthwhile. I'm not really sure how else to envision it. Are you trying to get me to open up to a socialist worldview? I'm not sure but I always said that system would work best in small indigenous populations but never the large and varied USA.

Anyways, what's your point?

My point was exactly what I asked, and I did not ask you to presume you'd be living in a small hunting community. Furthermore, your assumption that socialism only works in small communities is just that - an assumption. Not borne out by facts or studies. Regardless, my question was nothing to do with socialism, but about living in a world without money.

I appreciate you have a worldview completely centred on capitalism - at least I presume it is centred on capitalism - and you believe that is the best, or only, socio-economic system for humans. You may be right, but it might not be the best social system humans for humans. I hope you appreciate the difference.

[F3SS]

My point was exactly what I asked, and I did not ask you to presume you'd be living in a small hunting community. Furthermore, your assumption that socialism only works in small communities is just that - an assumption. Not borne out by facts or studies. Regardless, my question was nothing to do with socialism, but about living in a world without money.

I appreciate you have a worldview completely centred on capitalism - at least I presume it is centred on capitalism - and you believe that is the best, or only, socio-economic system for humans. You may be right, but it might not be the best social system humans for humans. I hope you appreciate the difference.

Well your question was wide open. I had to presume something.

My assumption of socialism might be just that, an assumption. However, this isn't my first crack at thinking about socialism. In fact, there is a good chance you and I have had this conversation before? I just have a common sense approach. With real true socialism incentive to aspire diminshes quickly once people realize that someone else can work harder for them until nobody feels like doing anything at all. It creates dependency and big government. I've broken it down much more before but that's the gist.

Next, a world without money... How else am I supposed to envision such a thing? I can only look to pre-new world exploration when native Americans, African tribes and the like were isolated from the rest of the world. Small villages, hunting, gathering and farming were how they lived. Other than cultures like that, when has there been a world without money? Monetary systems have been in place for thousands of years. So, I really can't tell you what I'd be up to in a world without money or what my contributions would be. The fact is that we live in a world where money is what we need to survive IF we want to live a somewhat comfortable life with modern amenities. I do not think that capitalism is the only socio-economic model fit for humans as a whole but it is the only one fit for those of us living in modern first world countries. So I do see the difference. It's the best system we have to prosper in today's world. Unless you want to be a mountain man or live in the jungle as a survivalist it's the system you are going to have to accept.

See, when I denounce socialism or other views on social/political/economic matters it doesn't automatically mean I hate those things. I just know they aren't fit for my country. That said, I don't see a bright side to some things in any circumstance either, such as dictatorships and aristocracies.

Edited August 28, 2013 by F3SS

[Leonardo]

So, I really can't tell you what I'd be up to in a world without money or what my contributions would be.

Can't tell me, or don't want to consider what such a world would be like because it might reveal some uncomfortable truths about this world and the socio-economic system we live under?

Personally, I find it difficult to accept you are incapable of envisaging such a world.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Leonardo

[spartan max2]

Can't tell me, or don't want to consider what such a world would be like because it might reveal some uncomfortable truths about this world and the socio-economic system we live under?

Personally, I find it difficult to accept you are incapable of envisaging such a world.

Paper money could not exist but there will always be some form of currency. Its just what your trading something for

Or I guess there is were everyone does the same work and gets what they need from the collective work. Aka communism. Even then the currency is your labor so still cuerency

There is always currency. Even in anarchy

Edited August 28, 2013 by spartan max2

[Leonardo]

Paper money could not exist but there will always be some form of currency. Its just what your trading something for

Or I guess there is were everyone does the same work and gets what they need from the collective work. Aka communism.

There is always currency. Even in anarchy

No, there isn't. Currency is an invention, and it is entirely unnecessary for us to live, progress and even thrive. All I have asked is for the consideration of a world without money, without currency.

Why is that so difficult for people to envisage? Have we become so addicted to the stuff we cannot even imagine a world without it?

Edited August 28, 2013 by Leonardo

[F3SS]

Can't tell me, or don't want to consider what such a world would be like because it might reveal some uncomfortable truths about this world and the socio-economic system we live under?

Personally, I find it difficult to accept you are incapable of envisaging such a world.

Dude, what kind of epiphany about the state of humanity are you trying to get me to realize. I am capable of envisioning such a world and my vision is living off the land in small communities. You can't honestly believe there would be big cities and modern amenities for everyone in a non-economic world. Who would pay for that stuff and how? If those things did exist in a no money world they'd be built by serfs and slaves to be used by warlords who force them to do it.

Seriously, that's what I envision. I'm trying to work with you here. I understand human nature. It's not as if we'd be lifted into some utopian spiritual plane. We'd be living like ancient people and third world jungle folk.

I have an idea, why don't you just spell out for me what the heck is on your mind. Every time I answer, you take it to a 'deeper' level.

[Leonardo]

You can't honestly believe there would be big cities and modern amenities for everyone in a non-economic world. Who would pay for that stuff and how?

Ah, the irony. So, you really cannot conceive of a world without money?

[questionmark]

Dude, what kind of epiphany about the state of humanity are you trying to get me to realize. I am capable of envisioning such a world and my vision is living off the land in small communities. You can't honestly believe there would be big cities and modern amenities for everyone in a non-economic world. Who would pay for that stuff and how? If those things did exist in a no money world they'd be built by serfs and slaves to be used by warlords who force them to do it.

Seriously, that's what I envision. I'm trying to work with you here. I understand human nature. It's not as if we'd be lifted into some utopian spiritual plane. We'd be living like ancient people and third world jungle folk.

I have an idea, why don't you just spell out for me what the heck is on your mind. Every time I answer, you take it to a 'deeper' level.

economy is completely different from currency, in fact the economy works without currency (i.e. bartering or mutual credit) but currency is meaningless without economy. That is the point to understand.

[F3SS]

This is how you are starting to make me feel

[Leonardo]

economy is completely different from currency, in fact the economy works without currency (i.e. bartering or mutual credit) but currency is meaningless without economy. That is the point to understand.

This is a possible world without money, but we could go even further and remove barter or mutual credit from the equation. Let's say nothing has a 'price'.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Leonardo

[spartan max2]

No, there isn't. Currency is an invention, and it is entirely unnecessary for us to live, progress and even thrive. All I have asked is for the consideration of a world without money, without currency.

Why is that so difficult for people to envisage? Have we become so addicted to the stuff we cannot even imagine a world without it?

Okay money doent exisit.

I want to buy your chicken. You won't give me a chicken for free. So I trade you a shovel.

The chicken and shovel are now considered currency.

Anytime there is a trade be it material emotional or mental. Something that is being traded becomes the currency.

[F3SS]

economy is completely different from currency, in fact the economy works without currency (i.e. bartering or mutual credit) but currency is meaningless without economy. That is the point to understand.

I get it, I tried that route. I mentioned bartering and meant to include it in my last post. But I'm not sure that bartering doesn't count as money. Even in a no money world bartering with food and trinkets will only get you so far. Gold and things like that would rule and would be not much different than a world with money.

[F3SS]

Okay money doent exisit.

I want to buy your chicken. You won't give me a chicken for free. So I trade you a shovel.

The chicken and shovel are now considered currency.

Anytime there is a trade be it material emotional or mental. Something that is being traded becomes the currency.

That's what I'm trying to say. He really is pulling a Jack Nicholson anger management scene on us.

[questionmark]

I get it, I tried that route. I mentioned bartering and meant to include it in my last post. But I'm not sure that bartering doesn't count as money. Even in a no money world bartering with food and trinkets will only get you so far. Gold and things like that would rule and would be not much different than a world with money.

Because in bartering items do not have a relative value.

And I doubt gold would rule, there is not enough of it and does not increase in the same rate as the rest of the economy. Basing your money on gold is the same as basing your money on good faith, only heavier.

[Leonardo]

This is how you are starting to make me feel

This is what you said in your previous post...

I understand human nature.

But do you, do any of us? We have only ever lived in a world with money - with currency - and this reinforces our natural greed and selfishness. So, how much do we really know about our actual human nature, that we haven't distorted through applying systems allowing a few to accumulate and control, and leaving the many to grasp for that control?

[Leonardo]

Okay money doent exisit.

I want to buy your chicken. You won't give me a chicken for free. So I trade you a shovel.

The chicken and shovel are now considered currency.

Anytime there is a trade be it material emotional or mental. Something that is being traded becomes the currency.

I don't need to barter. There is no rule saying a moneyless society has to rely on barter or mutual credit. You need a chicken, I have a chicken I don't need. Why should I expect something in return?

That is setting a price on things, and that's the same as having money, or currency.

In helping you, I am also helping myself. because whatever you do produces things for others. I might one day need one of those things, or something from someone else who needs one of the things you produce.

It is mutual benefit, not mutual credit. And yes, it does require a paradigm shift in the way we think, but it is a perfectly viable replacement for the current system we have which only leads to misery for most.

It's not a 'utopia', but it is, to my mind, better for the majority than what we have today.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Leonardo

[spartan max2]

economy is completely different from currency, in fact the economy works without currency (i.e. bartering or mutual credit) but currency is meaningless without economy. That is the point to understand.

okay that makes more sense. I guess in a perfect world without trading everything would be free. And everyone I guess could love there jobs and love shareongans helping people. Best uthopia I can picture without currency. To bad humans suck could never woek

ok using mobile right now so bare with me

Edited August 28, 2013 by spartan max2