Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/13/13 01:22 AM, Feoric wrote: Way to spoil the thread so early. Oh well.

What? It's not like Chris Christie's going to become the GOP's darling anytime soon. The Republicans are trying to smokescreen until they find a somewhat (ha) reasonable person to run against Hilary. I do hope they continue their trend of picking the runner up in the primaries. Rick Santorum versus Hilary? That would be hilarious.

It wasn't so much Obama was good, it was the fact that Romney screwed himself over every chance he got. This was completely evident in the Republcian primaries, since it was always, "Who do we have this week that's NOT Mitt Romney?" He never really came forward with something distinctive about his campaign (in the good way) besides the fact that he wasn't Obama. He attacked Obamacare which is hilarious because it's still effectively Romneycare. His tax plan was economically unsound and picking Paul Ryan was a mistake because he did nothing to appeal to independents. He pissed off women voters by sticking to party lines on abortion and other women's right, forget about the LGBTQQ vote, the Hispanic vote is ticked because of immigration policy which Romney probably wouldn't have changed, not to mention the flip-flopping positions that Romney held once becoming the nominee.

Romney's biggest problem? The media. Romney simply just didn't come off as a nice guy. This may be due to the fact Romney had to switch positions to stick with the party lines or he just had a shitty PR person, but as a result, the "mainstream" (oh shut up about this term, I don't know why we have to use it anyways, all media is biased) media painted as well, what he sort what he wanted (I guess) a hard strict CEO. The problem? No one wanted a hard assed CEO. That kind of Wall Street schitck, given our current economic status, wasn't going to fly with the American people. Let me put it this way: who are you more willing to trust if you're sleeping on a couch: the guy who'll kick you out because he needs to tighten up or the guy who'll ask around to see if other people can help out?

The "47%" comment was in many ways the death kneel to the Romney campaign because it confirmed what some thought of Romney, his campaign, and the entire Republican Party in general: they just don't care about poor people. Now, we could have a whole separate thread dedicated to inequalities in income and how we should tax appropriately, but the point is it was simply bad politics. You don't piss off a good chunk of the population who might be voting for you like that, especially with such a high number as 47. That was just plain stupidity and horrible politics.

By all means Republicans should have won this election; with the current economic status Republicans should have run away at the polls but somehow they mucked it up. Picking Romney was a great symbol for what the Republican Party has become in many people's eyes: the political party of old rich white people who don't care about others. And that, my friends, is a sure way to lose votes and guarantee a win for Obama.

At 4/12/13 03:17 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 4/12/13 02:55 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 4/12/13 03:04 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Yes and I have.

Would you invest in them now? Like, right now now, in the middle of a fluxuating market?

...fluctuating?

On a day to day basis this week, I should clearify :)

At 4/12/13 03:04 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Um, no, but do you really need a university to tell you that, say, a Ford employee isn't the best person to ask about how good Fords are?

I mean, if that's how you do business, that's fine, but personally, when judging the quality or value of something, I tend not to listen to the company's employees lol

But who are you going to ask then to prove your point besides the people who study this? These aren't government people, they're professors! They study this much more intensely then either of us. I could possibly see your point if there was even a hint of disagreement among them, but in this case the observation is clear: by most leading economic professors, switching to a gold standard would have no benefit and could in some cases harm the economy.

Yes and I have.

Would you invest in them now? Like, right now now, in the middle of a fluxuating market?

The government is also trillion in debt, we've started several wars since ending the Cold War,

Government spending, irrelevant to monetary policy

and the dollar is worth far, far, less than it was in 1971,

Oh no inflation. But wait, that happens naturally anyways.

and more people than ever are on govt assistance.

Since when did you care about other people?

Let's not forget the drugs in the food, and the shit quality of our education system.

Irrevevant to monetary policy.

The economy is pure shit.

Because of monetary policy? No. Y'all be trippin. If you want to argue because of current government policy, then that's a whole other topic all together. But because of monetary policy since the 70s? The economy's been doing just fine and growing normally.

Are you afraid of the US of no longer being the world's economic powerhouse? Because really, when you look throughout history, we've had a pretty damn good run here in industrial USA. It's not surprising if we're not in the lead anymore. Maybe it's time for someone else to deal with the responsibiles of being the leading economic country. Not much would change, that's for sure.

At 4/11/13 11:41 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Right. A bunch of government pawns trying to sell us on how superior the govt-produced product is. That's trustworthy

So surely you have good academic data supporting your assertion from leading economists from top universities from across the country? This should be good to see.

Bitcoin and Litecoin actually...gasp...appreciate in value, unlike the dollar, which is worth half what it was a century ago. A fluctating currency doesn't really matter because transactions and value of any currency, be it a gold coin, a dollar, a chicken, or a bead, or whatever, should be decided by those participating in the transaction. A government is not needed to decide the value of the currency, as they are not involved in the transaction to begin with. The fluctuation of bitcoin is irrelevant in general, because it's value is usually decided by those who use it

Okay then, would you then invest in BitCoins? Like you said, those prices appreciate in value, so you should probably thus then invest most of your money then to make the best of the situation, right? Would you? No, because of precisely what you yourself said: inflation! Like we saw in less than an 18 hour period the value of a BitCoin dropped over 100 dollars! There were some people (speculators) who lost a lot of money in that time. Are you willing to now your hard earned money in that kind of a system? You'd have to be the gambling type.

Let's think about this. We've abolished the gold standard. Look around you. Do you think the current economic state is worth it. Like, a currency that's lost half it's value is actually a good thing, or what? I mean, if abolishing the gold standard had some sort of positive effect on the economy or the dollar in general, i could maybe see your case, but fact is, the economy has been in a nosedive since we got rid of it.

We got rid of the gold standard in 1971. Since then GDP has risen, a Cold War has ended, and a good chunk people on the planet know what the company Apple makes. Unemployment, granted, is about 2% higher, but at the same time Nixon wasn't in a middle of a depression. GDP per capita more than doubled. (Go check the FRED if you want the exact numbers, that's the federal reserve economic database, that's where all economists get numbers from)

"I could maybe see your case, but the fact is, the economy has been growing since we got rid of it."

At 4/11/13 08:51 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Oh, do tell how that was the money's fault :)

Because the gold standard is one of the most popular ideas among right-wing libertarian economists, even though nearly 100% of the US's leading economists have debunked the idea of a gold standard.

Btw, you want to see why we don't have free market currency? Take a look at Bitcoin this week.Their prices are fluctuating like a mofo. Why? Because it's a free-market currency system based on a limited resource. Just like what a gold standard would do.

Lemoncrush-2 things.

1) Do you believe "economic freedom" is the same as "personal freedom"?

2) Do you play GTA or any other of those free roaming, open world games? WoW even would work for this example. And in those games, what do you do? Do you follow exactly what the programmers want you to do (follow storylines, side missions, etc.)? I don't know about you, but I get a kick out of just messing with game, whether it's stealing a car, starting a fight, etc. These are things, provided that they are included in game, is not optimal (getting wanted by the cops obviously is bad) yet PLAYERS STILL DO THESE THINGS ANYWAYS. Why? God knows. Maybe they're like me; they like messing with the in game mechanics. Maybe they have a desire to go kill people, who knows. (Actually, if you really wanted to be specific, they're optimizing their utility in a way that derives the most pleasure at that moment in time, but that's really technical) The point is, even in a controlled "free" environment individuals don't make the optimal choice. What makes you think the real world is any different?

At 4/1/13 10:17 AM, AlexNOSAM wrote: No, you don't understand. There is no such thing ever as killing all possible competition. Wherever there is a place to enter the market and make more profits than your competitors people will always do so unless there is a government crippling regulation like giving monopoly to a certain company by law. You will ALWAYS have people who won't sell their business for anything and you will ALWAYS have new faces once old ones are gone so long as there isn't a special licence-based regulation that prevents new companies to enter markets.
Mark Zuckerberg always kept receiving offers to buy facebook from him while still wasn't the monster that it is today and he never sold it nor even intended to negotiate over it. You will always have people like that statistically.

But you can have natural monopolies; I.e. rare earth minerals. Monopolies by definition don't just have to be government supportive, it just needs to have a high enough sink cost the dissuades other suppliers from trying to enter the market. For example, I could be in some high tech computer chip guy, and my special (so no substitutes) computer chip is made from a rare mineral. Since I'm the only person selling this chip, I'm making fat profits. Now, everybody can see I'm making fat profits, yet most hesitate to try to enter the market. Why? Because it costs too much. As a result of making this very specialized product my costs are high enough in comparison it becomes not worth it to most people. However, because I'm all ready invested in the process of making this product, it's still worth it to me, because while my product margins are a lot thinner I can still make it up in gross quantity. I, as an owner of this monopolistic good, could probably drive up that price even more somehow if I wanted, whether it would be through development, labor, technology, etc. So yes, you can kill competition by either buying it out, or just discourage people from ever entering the market.

At this point I'd like to point out this thread made a few months backbecause I feel it's also relevant to why right wing economics fails upon the general media, and quite frankly, it appalling that such ideas are even considered when most leading economists to be null. While it is true that Keynesian principles now are more popular than ever, it still doesn't stop the fact that in some cases neoclassical economics flies past the face of conventional economics like its no big deal.

At 3/28/13 05:24 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: It's a political argument until a law is interpreted by the Supreme Court.

If you want more elaboration, read the opening post and following two pages.

I have. You still haven't provided the legal basis for banning gay marriage. So considering again you've beaten around the bush on the question, I'm going to drop it for the time being.

So basically now you're argument is, "We shouldn't legalize it, it [would cost] too much money,"

Actually, that was my argument from the start.

Wow. How selfish. I'm so flabbergasted by this I'm no longer going to debate with you. If you don't realize how incredibly selfish, stupid, not to mention insulting that statement is, I don't know how you can promote yourself of being "open minded".

At 3/28/13 04:58 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: No it's not. It's a political argument until a law is interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Okay then, give me the legally based political argument against gay marriage. That's all I've been asking for, but you keep beating around the bush. It's a very simple question.

I understand the question just fine; the problem is you confuse "relationships" with "marriage."

Marriage is a relationship. A long term one, but a relationship none the less. Even you can't deny that.

Relationships, alone, are not (and should not be) acknowledged by the government. However, an acknowledgment comes when a privilege is provided by the government - this includes marriage. There is a clear benefit to society for encouraging marriage; there is not a benefit to society for spending money on institutions that serve no functions - this is the hypothetical merging of gay and heterosexual marriage.

So basically now you're argument is, "we shouldn't legalize it, it costs too much money, even though it lowers the rights of certain citizens". That's like saying, "we shouldn't racially integrate schools because it'll cost to much." And there isn't a benefit for society by legalizing gay marriage? Hahaha that's laughable: marriage promotes long term investments and a helping other economic benefits to society that has no relation to procreation in any way.

Better idea. Replace all instances of "homosexual marriage" with "interracial marriage." The argument starts to sound really stupid right? That's because you're making the exact arguments that were bing made 60+ years ago about interracial marriage and look how that went! You look at pictures of people protesting racial integration back in the 60's and you think how could they do that but in 50 years people are going to be looking at the opponents of gay marriage the same way.

Which is why if the definition is changed, it must evolve further and no longer be associated with benefits.

Great! That would cool if it was going to be applied equally to everybody in the eyes of the law. However, excluding one group over another again is in institutionalized discrimination and such is the case in legal argument against gay marriage.

This is going to be the third time I'm going to ask you for a clear, precise legal argument against homosexual marriage. Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter what you think the purpose of marriage is or how gay marriage might affect the population (here's a hint: probably not a big difference. Whoop dee frickin do) it's an legal argument of should gay marriage exist in the eyes of the law?

Let me phrase this differently so you might understand this better: do you believe that there is benefit for society in which government not only prevents but also fails to recognize relationships an individual may choose to have throughout their life?

It's a simple question this way, really.

At 3/28/13 01:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I am against gay marriage, not gay relationships. Were there to be a separate institution created for gay couples with benefits specific to them, although it is difficult to think of some that wouldn't include heterosexual couples, I would have absolutely no issues. But, traditional marriage will become completely emotional with no functionality if gays are allowed to marry in the same institution. it is extremely unfortunate that many conservatives and religious people are opposed to gay marriage on the basis of what they believe constitutes "improper bed behavior." Both sides misunderstand the marriage debate, and take it as a sex debate. Few people acknowledge the purpose of marriage, and thus become bigots because they either dislike gay sex or hate conservative philosophy.

That's great you think that. Here's the problem though: marriage has evolved from what it was 1000, 500 years ago. It's still evolving as a social construct within economic and political structures. If you want to argue that at its core marriage is about reproduction then what about all the single parents and married couples who don't have children? But I'm getting slightly off track here, marriage has evolved from being whatever it was in the past to something that is engrained into our social, economical, and most importantly legal systems. You may have your own views on how marriage should be defined socially but the problem here is law. The law has to be impartial to every group, otherwise that's institutionalized discrimination. Banning gay marriage in the eyes of the law is effectively saying, "Congratulations, you're a 2nd class citizen who can't enjoy their full rights under the law because you like the wrong group of people."

Side note: I personally don't believe in gay marriage in the eyes of the law because I don't approve of use of the word "marriage" in law. First Admenent says we cannot make laws pertaining toward religion, and marriage before the use in law was primary a religious function historically. Ergo, we shouldn't have made any laws pertaining to it in the first place. Instead, I argue we change all instance of the word marriage in our laws with the term civil union. In the eyes of the government, you don't get married, you get a civil union, regardless of who you choose to be with. Privately in social situations call it whatever you like, but in the eyes of the law don't call it marriage, period.

At 3/28/13 02:56 AM, Feoric wrote: You can point to Prop. 8 or DOMA but none of this really answers your question, because there is no legal reason for banning gay marriage: it's a political reason instead. DOMA is laughably unconstitutional and I fully expect at least a 5-4 decision to strike down Section 3. Finding no rational basis or creating a quasi-suspect class for homosexuals will be the death knell for anti-gay marriage legislation. For Prop. 8, if the Supreme Court finds that all same sex marriage bans doesn't hold up against the equal protection clause, well there goes Section 2 of DOMA. What the GOP will do when it's not longer socially and legally acceptable to make this a central theme of their platform is anyone's guess, but that's another discussion entirely.

This is my point: this whole debate is worthless from a legal standpoint and now that there's more political majority for it it'll finally be settled......regardless of what you think the purpose of marriage is.

At 3/28/13 01:25 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: If it were that simple, the Supreme Court wouldn't be tackling the issue.

Look, it doesn't matter what we think marriage should or should not be, because at the end of the day, that doesn't matter. The question here is what effects will happen if gay marriage is banned, and is beneficial to society in the eyes of the law? And, as we can see, the law says little if any about this so I ask again, what's the legal reason for banning gay marriage?

If you can't defend the bill in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter if you're right. Any lawyer will tell you this.

Can someone give me a complete legal argument why homosexuals shouldn't get married? Let's forget the science and look at what the law has done: after all, all science aside, it's ultimately the law's decision. What legal precedent is there for defining marriage as such? What impact would this have upon other laws, etc? Because from a legal standpoint, there should be no reason on a ban of gay marriage.

At 3/12/13 09:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I disagree entirely. You're telling me if there was no government, you would see minorities as less than human, for example?

How is that relevant? If there was no government, it would be survival of the fittest, as it would anarchy, would it not? The minorities would be those with traits that are not suitable for their environment whatever that environment is too, so techniticalty speaking racial minorities as we know the may not exist, correct?

Exactly. In no way is that related to out and out anarchy.

Missing my point. "Free markets" have zero government interference, not limited, 0. Z-E-R-O. So where the hell are you getting your definition?

The difference is, those "markets" deprive or infringe the lives of others. Therefore, would not be supported by a free market society.

You didn't read that page at all? Let me summarize it for you since you seem like the lazy type:
Whenever there is a transaction at all, there is always some cost/benefit that occurs upon society. Since it's in society's best interest to minimize its costs and maximize its benefits, society tries to find a way to do so. Most often this way is government because its the only force large enough to compare to the consumer/producer base. This is done through taxes and subsidies typically. Other solutions are harder to come by.

Long story short, a complete "free market" society would be bunk, because it implies no government at all.

At 3/10/13 12:46 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, that's where we differ. You, along with most statists, believe that rights are granted by governments or kings or people. I happen to believe that all humans are equal, and rights are inherent to being human.

You're not born with rights. You just happen to get them bestowed upon you by society. If society didn't exist, there wouldn't be any rights because there wouldn't be a concept of rights.

Free market doesn't mean "no government". Free society promotes the concept of the government's role being limited to what is prescribed by the constitution (or state/city/etc laws). That includes the government protecting people.

"A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by governmentor monopolies."

Murder is a market. We "outlaw" that market. So is mass terrorism. Etc. etc.

At this point, I can see you've never read about externalities, which is funny, considering it's one of the most crucial part of economics. So do me a solid and read this and then come back, will you?

At 3/7/13 01:37 AM, Warforger wrote: The part I don't get when a new technology arises is where people are frightened that it kills people. Hello, that's the point of the military, why are drone strikes in particular so much different than having a special forces? Stealth fighters? Police force? Why was the nuclear bomb such a big deal? Conventional bombing did even more damage during WWII. Likewise if we're using these standards Drone strikes are a step forward since they tend to kill less civilians than alternative forms of attack.

Look at it this way too: how many SEALs did we send in to get Bin Laden? I think the count was close to 80. Granted, this was Bin Laden, but even if the group was 1/5 it's original size that's still over 10 lives being put in danger instead of piece of technology of which the basic components are probably known by most foreign intelligence agencies already. Long story short, why waste human resources at this point when we can use technology?

Furthermore, this has been going on since 2009, and there wasn't as big of a huff back then either. The joke of the matter is that both parties, even though they'll never admit to it, agree on this issue on using drones: Dems because there's direction intervention without the risk of human life and Republicans because we're maintaining that aggressive foreign policy.

Say what you want about the ethical and legal issues, but drone warfare is here to stay and is the future of how we'll maintain safety in peacetime.

Obligatory Terminator/1984 joke

At 3/5/13 01:27 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Pollution is an infringment on a free society. The "Dump where you want" infringes on the rights of others, therefore would be a punishable offense in a free society, just as it is now.

What rights? We haven't talked a single bit about rights. They don't exist here, they're a social construct to keep people happy, and happy doesn't mean efficient, and it's not about efficiency, then people don't give a damn.

Btw, who would be the people enforcing the offense? It couldn't be the government, otherwise it's not a free market. So then who then? Possibly corrupt 3rd party security enforcers.

this is where the common misconception comes in. Free market does not mean "everyone just does whatever the fuck they want". FWIW, in a free society, you could easily sue a polluter. good luck doing that now.

How could you sue a polluter if there is no pollution laws? In a free market, there is 0 government regulation-which also means 0 are enforced as well.

I didn't say people will do the fuck they want, but look at it this way: for firms, it's all about profit maximization. How do you do that? Simple: maximize revenue and minimize costs. From the demand side consumers want to maximize their surplus. In a vaccum, this "equilibrium" is "free market". However, this system is only optimized for two groups we've been looking at and not a) society as a whole b) the planet (realize a lot of models assume infinite resources) c) even other consumers who may not be in that particular market. Thus, just by math, you can clearly see that a "free market" isn't optimal because it doesn't include everybody in its model.

Furthermore: whenever you produce something, anything, there's a cost and part of that cost is externality. These externalities can be good or bad, and bad ones are taxes or outlawed by the government. Negative externalities taxes or outlawed by the government? Pollution, child labor laws, safety standards, etc.

But hey, I've always wanted to experience Upton Sinclair's The Jungle as much as you, so lets go for it!

Lemoncrush: here's an example of where free market fails: pollution laws. It's cheaper and more efficient for companies just to dump their waste somewhere, even in nature. Without government laws, companies will begin to do so once again. You don't need Einstein to tell you that polluting the planet is going to destroy it faster. In this sense, "efficient" does not necessarily mean "socially optimal"-even over the long run.

At 2/25/13 11:52 PM, Ceratisa wrote: No goal post we changed, you posted numbers, I posted facts why your numbers weren't a valid comparison.
White guy vs White guy

Black Guy vs White guy

The Democratic Party has gotten at least 68% of the African American vote since 1936, and since LBJ the Dems have gotten at least 70% of that vote. It would be never unbelievable if Obama got less than 85%, in which he got 90% in 2008.

Try again.

So implying race has something to do with it now? Who's showing their true colors now?

At 2/24/13 03:18 PM, Feoric wrote: What's the difference between this and flat out bombing Iran with drone strikes?

If we add in the possibility of a chemical weapon/WMD might have been stolen from Syria, it would make for the plot of the next Tom Clancy book.

Look, no matter when you take polls or data or ballots or whatever, there's always going to be a margin of error because people enviably mess things up somehow. That's part of data collection as any stastician will tell you, and this is especially true when conducting such a large scale poll in a large population.

...so why is a little error a big deal?

Is this an attempt to discredit Nate Silver's streak? Cause it's been four months, and soon enough the Birthers will come around again....

At 2/16/13 11:25 AM, Ericho wrote: I am reminded of someone saying that although back in the old days, minimum wage was low because of inflation, we were actually paid more in those times with inflation adjusted. From the last I heard, minimum wage was $8, so wouldn't this be an improvement?

Nope. National minimum wage is still $7.25, but what's funny is that if we had allowed minimum wage to inflate naturally, along with other prices it would be closer from anywhere between $9.22 and $21.72 per hour. So actually Obama's $9.00 is still below the market value of labor. Riddle me this then: why are you against minimum wage increase when even the market value of labor is higher?

ITT: Lemonhead doesn't understand natural influation of prices and in which we find out he's never had to work minimum wage.

Wait, you tell me there's no inflation on common household goods? Lol right

Minimum wage might lower employment? Again, lol right.

"Our results show a minimal impact on employment. In San Francisco and Santa Fe, the large increases in the prevailing minimum wage raised wages paid in typically low-wage establishments, including fast food, retail, and small businesses. At the same time, we found no consistent impact on employment in these same sectors. The large majority of employment changes we observed were small and not statistically distinguishable from zero. Of the statistically significant changes we did see, slightly more were positive-suggesting job gains after the minimum wage-than negative."

Quite frankly at this point I don't know how it is possible to survive on minimum wage, let alone standards below that market rate. Raising would certainly increase the quality of living in the United States, that for sure.

At 1/2/13 10:43 PM, The-Great-One wrote:

ugh. Congress is full of a bunch of petty, childish dickwads.

Yeah and we voted them in! Isn't that great!

I was watching Lincoln the other night, and if you replace "the 14th amendment" with "budget cuts", you realize Congress really hasn't changed in 150 years.

Besides, the problem with the House is that it's always the montra of "it's everybody else's representative, not mine" that occurs. Tis a shame, really. Now we won't get to see Boehner's horrible tans and crying anymore.

At 1/2/13 09:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote: The definition I posted (not mine, btw), doesn't apply to something like education.

Yes it does. It says "A thing that belongs to a person". How is education not a thing? Unless you want to be really philosophical, education is a thing, ergo, property.

Because the definition you posted says "politics"

Have I been talking about politics? No. This is a nonissue. Either say something meaningful, or shut up. That fact that is is even an issue shows how immature you are.

See, you say this. But I look at socialist cultures throughout recent history, and what you describe is not the case.

I'm not talking about other socialist cultures. I'm talking about America and for the most part every 1st world country who don't even consider themselves socialist. I'm just talking about how history and society has dictated certain markets are best run by government rather than individuals.

Except that isn't what capitalists do. That's what cheaters, thieves, and shills do.

Then you might as well call everybody a cheater, a thief, and a shill because that's human nature, to always try to take advantage of the situation. That's the basis of rational decision making, people will always make the choice that benefits themselves. As a capitalist you should know people are self-interested, so those people who see a system and thus take advantage of the system should be applauded by capitalists; these are the people who have made the world work for them, not the other way around. Capitalism doesn't have ethics. It doesn't exist when all you care about is benefit.

You see, corruption and fucked up governments have always existed. What America was founded on, was bringing balance to the government/citizen relationship.

No it wasn't. America was founded on the core idea that people ultimately didn't want to pay taxes for a war they initatially supported. (Wait, people wanting to get more out of a system than what they put in? Where have I heard that before?) it was an economic argument that ultimately resulted in what would be called today terrorist acts. This, combined with the emotional zeal of (at the time) a radical left, lead to the revolution. Not government corruption. Britain had every right to tax the colonies, how else were they going to pay for war?

So, corporate welfare is a "government service" now? Awesome. Can you show me where that is permitted in the Constitution?

Can you show me where I said that? No? Then shut up, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And no, the military would still exist in a free market. Not sure why you think it wouldn't.

Yes, it would as I said.......except it would be entirely PMCs. And like I said: do you really want another Blackwater scandal?

I have taken advanced civics/econ classes...that's how I know your concepts and theories are incorrect.

Then what the hell are you smoking, and where can I get some?

At 1/2/13 06:23 PM, LemonCrush wrote: An education is an intangible object. It isn't "owned" by anyone.

You just provided a definition of property. Education, by your definition,is property. Your statement contradicts your own definition!

I thought we weren't talking about "political socialism"?

We're not. Why did you bring it up? It's just part of the definition, but that's not that part I'm using.

I see them as something everyone pays for, because everyone uses it. Opposite of socialism, in practice.

If everybody pays for it and everybody uses it and if the payment is done through the government, who then distributes the good equally to everybody (I don't think you get more protection from the police moreso than the next person) again, that's the definition of socialism! (Which, for everybody's sake, I've already provided the definition of)

Oh it does fund roads and education. But it also funds CEO private jets. It also funds propping failing businesses. It also funds corporate welfare.

Someone mad about government corruption? Aw, too bad that has only been around since forever. If anything, corruption shows that there are individuals who have learned to game the system to their advantage and thus are enjoying the benefits of said advantage. If anything you should be praising those individuals; they're doing what any capitalist would do: trying to get more from the system than what they put in.

That's the issue. As I've said probably 5 times now, I have no problem paying taxes when it goes to benefit the nation. I have a problem paying taxes so that insurance tycoons can buy new mansions. I have a problem paying taxes so Obama can kill more kids. I have a problem paying taxes to prop up companies that cannot run themselves.

It doesn't matter what kind of tax you're paying. The very fact that you're paying taxes means that there are government services, which ergo is socialism! In a truly "free market" there's not going to be a national guard. The military would be PMCs, and a look at Blackwater back in Iraq tells you why we shouldn't hire PMCs. I can apply the same argument to any government service provided now.

Have you taken a basic civics/economics class or are you Mitt Romney's campaign manager still in rehab?