Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/24/07 10:10 PM, Lindione wrote: those of you that say not all teenagers are competent why not have a competency test put into effect with those passing gaining certain rights.

Teenagers already can own property and work jobs. Note that "13" marks the beginning of teenagehood; the working age is "about" 14. Anyone can own property, even children too young to walk yet, as long as their guardians cosign (the ownership does not belong to the guardians, though).

Yes, intelligent teenagers are overly restricted and prevented from doing many things that they are more than mature enough to handle. However, that same "ignorant" majority in adults that you referred to also exists among teenagers. Since you have both stupid teenagers and stupid adults, everyone has to be supressed in an attempt to correct the next teenagers before they become the next adults. Or rather, they "have" to be supressed according to the current "ignorant" majority.

You can't win. Just deal with it until you turn 18 and 21. You lost the war long before you were even alive to fight the first battle.

At 11/24/07 11:38 AM, Wampbit wrote:

:Without the backing of America and China (am I right about china there?), who are some of the biggest pollutants, we cannot really do much.

Don't you mean China and India? They are the two countries projected to do the most polluting--by a huge margin--in the next several decades. The current generation of coal plants in China is supposed to produce more pollution in their lifetime of operation than the amount the U.S. has produced in its entire history. India is the next big polluter on the list.

It's developing nations that are the problem here, not mature nations. Don't do something idiotic to cripple ourselves when it will be completely pointless. Our sole goal should be to boost our economy and R&D capabilities so that we can do as we have always done--develop new technology. That is the only way we can do anything for the world, and we must have a strong economy and nation to keep up our spirit and spread our ideas when we develop the solution to this current situation.

Whatever pollution we leave on our way to a solution is a necessary problem. We should not kill ourselves over naive attempts to cut off (or even drastically limit) our own pollution just for the sake of this problem when we are not the source of the problem and our economic suicide would do nothing to help.

At 11/23/07 10:57 PM, RedSkunk wrote: My question is this - when is it ethical to deny a group of people their humanity and deem them unfit for the liberties that we all enjoy and call "self-evident"?

Sorry, I forgot to deal with this in my original post. According to the philosophy of the United States, it is never ethically right to deny a group their humanity. Rather, the driving force of most American actions is to enforce those freedoms--even if it means invading a country and overthrowing the repressive government. It's a fairly direct issue.

At 11/23/07 11:27 PM, RedSkunk wrote: No, the U.S. is not unique in the least bit. I just thought it might be helpful to limit the discussion to contemporary western society since we all know a bit about it.

The basis for the Superiority stance is fairly obvious: "I'm more powerful than you, therefore I must be doing something better." In the case of America, the drive for a Free Capitalist, Democratic society has been the defining struggle for our society. It was the source of the Revolution, a primary factor of the Civil War, an important part of the World Wars, especially with Imperial Japan in the Pacific theater and the ensuing Cold War with Communist Russia in the European theater.

Virtually every major war in our history can be tied back to supporting these two central ideas... so how is our continued desire to support them at all surprising? We are a nation defined by our support for Free Capitalism and Democracy; it would be a very disturbing sign if we did not try to promote it over other systems.

At 11/17/07 09:43 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: In other words, a good, decent discussion of politics on the internet is nigh impossible.

I think you're completely wrong in every sense. The Internet is where you are most likely to find a decent discussion of Politics because more intelligent people can collect together and the asses who show up can be ignored or mod slammed. In real life, it's those asses who shout the loudest-- and try to take over any discussion. You can't ignore them, and they often end up as the ones who get political power because they scream the loudest and longest, ruining any chance of real discussion. Real life is the world with the problem, not the Internet.

At 11/16/07 11:50 PM, PhoenixTails wrote: 1. Gay marriage is legal. To satisfy those religious types, we can call it "partnerships" instead, and preachers cannot be required to perform these.

And I file a lawsuit for bias based on sexuality. You are defining legal benefits on the sole basis of male-male or female-female sex, and you don't have the cop-out of "tradition" to justify it. Make the legal benefits of Marriage truly fair, meaning that sexual orientation or sex in general has nothing to do with the Partnerships, or don't fiddle with it at all.

2. Affirmative action is abolished.

Ryoukai. Although, it might be better reinterpreted to be truly fair again by applying to people in disadvantaged economic states, not based on ethnicity, which is blatantly racist.

3. Lobbies are illegalized. These are tantamount to bribery.

Can't do that, bud. It's an important part of the system. Limitations, sure, but the ability to actively petition the government cannot be removed.

4. The US will cease to aide foreign countries with things like food, vaccinations, etc., until the time in which the US is a utopia. I really don't see why we should help other people when we have our own problems.

Because then other people turn into Nazi Germany with Nukes and we're screwed. The outside world is full of threats and we, for all intents and purposes, control the world right now. We have to pay attention to it.

5. Border control will be heightened severely, and border guards will be authorized to use lethal force on illegal immigrants if they fail to cease moving after they are told so. The only rights an illegal has is the right to a fair trial.

Why do they get a trial, exactly? It's pretty simple and straightforward: get the hell out. Lethal force would probably provoke a war with Mexico, by the way.

6. Executions of convicted criminals will be conducted in a much cheaper way than the lethal injection. I'm thinking along the lines of a razorblade across the throat.

A bullet to the back of the head is cleaner and won't give the executioner HIV or other viruses.

At 11/15/07 11:14 PM, poxpower wrote: So, what would God do? Could he trick someone if it meant having two people happy?

It's called Instancing. There's no reason not to make up a heaven for every single individual and just trap them inside their own sphere--any omnipotent or even half-decent God could make passable illusions of people. There is no real conflict here.

At 11/11/07 10:51 AM, SevenSeize wrote: I will be teaching my class about Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Christmas, and Ramadan. We will probably look at how other cultures celebrate as well.

Wait, why are you even teaching them about holidays? That does not belong in the domain of the classroom at all. You should be teaching relevant material and leave the proper group-- parents --to teach kids about their own cultural or religious traditions. "Forced multiculturalism" through a system such as schooling is simply unfair to the students and an imposition of your teacher beliefs on the students.

The simplest, most reasonable justifications I have yet found for Agnosticism is very easy to describe:

Imagine life with worshipping of a deity. Imagine life without worshipping a deity. Are you any worse off without the investment of time and money demanded by most religions in their worship? No, life is exactly as it would be otherwise, but with fewer costs to you.

Also, should you favor religion, which deity do you choose? There are hundreds of different religions, different deities. As with any choice with so many options, there is no discernable "correct" choice. Simply doing what your parents did is not a valid justification-- there's nothing to say they were right, either. The only truly valid position is to not choose a deity, for you can never choose the correct one due to lack of evidence for anyone.

Eh, I know what they are doing to smoking is wrong, but due to my own preferences I support it, or at least won't ever speak against it.

Sure, the government is going overboard, but I hate the smell of smoke, I hate having people smoke around me, and I hate when any of the people I know smoke because of the stench. Any limitations on smokers directly benefits me-- so I can't really find a reason to argue against these laws because it has made it so much better for me to go to pubs and bars, or walk around parks, or be anywhere (my city has banned smoking in all public places).

It's wrong, but it's a win for me, so continue on.

At 11/4/07 06:04 AM, Thestickcreator wrote: Thomas Aquinas: There must have been a "first cause". This first cause must have been God.

Just as his own reasoning dictates, every cause has a prior cause. "God" is a complex phenomenon, though, arguably more complex than the Universe itself, so nothing can justify assigning (literally, violating your own reasoning) the position of First Cause to God.

Rather, the "First Cause" must be something so simple, so fundamental, that it does not exist, but simply is. In other words, eventually the First Cause reasoning must take you to the conclusion that some fundmental property of reality itself or Nothingness, as "existed" prior to the Universe is responsible for all of creation. Only a "state," not a "thing," can possibly be the First Cause, for any "thing" must have at some point become a "thing." Only a "state" is truly independent of time or creation; it is, rather than something that became.

Thomas Aquinas: Invalid Reasoning. God himself demands a Cause; he is an invalid First Cause solution.

Ludwig Feuerbach: The human imagination "projects" a picture of God from inside our minds, and then convinces itself that God really exists "out there."

Although this reasoning does not disprove any form of God, it does provide a valid alternative to the fundmental "proof" of any religion, that the God bestowed actual contact upon them at some unproveable point in time. Since religion is based on this proof of "God spoke to us, therefore he is," by providing another explanation ("You sought God, so you spoke for him") Feuerbach has gone towards "disproving" religion, not God. It is a valid point, though.

Feurbach: Valid point, but more of a "disproof of religion." Doesn't actually apply to "disproving God" at all.

William Paley: Watch Universe seems to have a purpose obviously designed and made by mind.

"Purpose" is something assigned by man, and not an inherent aspect of something. A Watch and a Waterdrop are equally predictable and capable of measuring time, but to which do you assign purpose?

(note, also, that at one time "water clocks" were used to keep time and "obviously" dripping water had a purpose)

Paley: Flawed reasoning. Purpose is something assigned by humans, not an inherent trait. Therefore, you can not say the Universe "must" have purpose or justify anything upon your assignment of purpose.

What a man is in need of he makes his god"

This one has been historically proven. See the history of Religion and the origination of various weather, fertility, etc. Gods.

At 10/19/07 03:35 PM, Drakim wrote: And, besides, even though we know entropy is true today, was it true billions of years ago? What if the natural laws are slowly changing? :p

Unfortunately for you, that's the one thing you can't argue. The one basic assumption fo Science is that the laws of physics are constant and have always been how they are today. It's the core assumption that allows Science.

All evidence so far has been consistent with that ideal, but it's not something you can argue. It's the one aspect of belief required for Science.

At 10/16/07 03:24 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: A secular, non-homophobic argument against Gay marriage.

To take a different direction than most people:

No form of Gay Marriage should be created because it is simply a perpetuation of bigoted traditions. Why, exactly, should our government only allow people to have shared property and rights if those two individuals are having sex with one another? Why is it only limited to two individuals? This entire concept of "you get extra goodies because you're having sex" is flawed and filled with bias over the nature of the sex. Gay Marriage is just more of the same and is just asking for discriminatory rules.

Instead, I say, strip Marriage of its benefits entirely, and redefine those benefits as a secular, non-sexual Partnership, so that married individuals can still have those benefits, but it is not marriage conferring the benefits. Once the element of sex is removed, these benefits for stable relationships between individuals-- be they lifelong friends, family, lovers, or even business partners --can be shared equally. Partnerships can be a binding and long-term sharing of property and rights, as a means to support one another, but there is no reason they should be "for life" as marriage (supposedly) demands, nor is there a reason why sex should even be part of it.

By seperating the secular benefits of marriage from the religious ceremony, and redefining those benefits in a non-discriminatory way, "gay" marriage need not exist, and this entire concept of companions being people who have sex together can finally be banished. Fix the root of the problem instead of building on it with more discrimination.

At 10/16/07 07:35 AM, LightandDark wrote: Fuck, I quoted the wrong person, but the argument still aplies, just replace Scotland with Finland and check if they ever had a winter like yours

These past winters have nothing to do with any of the predicted effects of Global Warming, didn't you know? They aren't proof for it at all because they aren't caused by it. Weather varies, the jet stream acts odd sometimes, and seasons can be unpredictable. Get over it.

Sorry, but your theory is seriously flawed: it drastically oversimplifies the factors behind birth rates and (falsely) assumes that attractive + promiscuity = many children. It doesn't.

At 10/10/07 09:25 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

It could be comparedto a debate over the existence of the air we breathe. while one argues in favor of its existence and another against it, they both breathe the air the whole time.

That's an invalid analogy; the two situations are not similar in that manner, so they cannot be compared in that manner. Air was the term invented for a physical thing that already existed, just as "rock" and "grass" are similar terms. God is not such a thing, but rather something with no physical component that is used in an ideological structure. Hence the invalid analogy.

Rather, the debate over God is much more akin to the debate over the existance of ether that happened decades ago; the worldviews held by some individuals demanded the existance of ether to be consistant within themselves, so they argued that it must exist and be so far undetectable. There was no true physical basis for the existance of ether, only a demand for it in the current worldviews.

Point you can use: Invalid analogy, God is not a physical object to be named. God is more similar to ether, something with no apparent physical component that is necessary for a set of ideological views to be consistant. God or no God, we still exist; ether or no ether, light still travels.

What do i mean by this? Simply that logic, natural law, and morality can only exist in the Christian theistic framework. When the non-theist uses arguments which rely on any of these things, he/she is borrowing from the Christian worldview because their own worldview cannot account for the existence of these concepts.

That is incorrect. Logic, natural law, and morality originated prior to the existance of Christianity and primarily from sources that were not even Jewish. Therefore, Christianity is not necessary for any of the above. Were the ancient Greeks and Romans Christian or Jewish? No.

Point you can use: Logic, natural law, and morality originated independent from and prior to Christianity and its predecessors. Therefore, Crhistianity and its predecessors are not necessary for logic, natural law, or morality.

Don't believe me? One must look no farther than postmodernism to see an example of the denial of God being carried to its conclusion. Since postmodernism refuted itself in my last few columns, I will now examine its father modernism.

One of the leaders of modernism in the world today is Richard Dawkins. He is a genius by many standards and a great scientist, but his philosophical ability is supremely lacking. For instance, he argues that materialistic science can not find an immaterial God, thus no such God exists. It does not take a very philosophically sophisticated person to see how silly this argument is.

But can you justify that something should exist outside of that set of rules? If God is an exception in a reality that otherwise does not tolerate exceptions, then his existance must be proven, not the reverse. It does not take a very philosophically sophisticated person to create a "God of the Gaps," either. The basis of proof should rest on the one proposing a violation of the rules, not the one with the consistant system.

Point you can use: God is an exception to the rules of reality as we know them, therefore the assumption that he does not exist is the reasonable, default one. A system that is otherwise completely consistant does not usually have exceptions. Therefore, the religious must prove the existance of God and not vice versa.

Further, Dawkins cannot explain why natural law and logic exists in the first place. In an atheist universe, a belief in natural law or logic is not justified because the universe and man are just the products of blind chance and natural selection.

Wrong. This statement must be corrected no matter what. Blind chance is not, never has been, and never will be a component of our reality. Everything about the scientifically-described universe is entirely ordered and directional. Atoms don't bond randomly, mass doesn't clump by chance, and the universe doesn't operate by luck; the entire universe relies on the basic concept of lower energy states and everything has a tendency to go towards those states. Natural selection is the process of ordered chemical reactions maintaining a higher energy state by lowering the energy around them and those that are most capable of sustaining the reaction eventually harvest the energy of the less capable reactions.

Point you can use: Absolutely nothing is random or by chance in our universe. In fact, it is the exact opposite, acting more predictably than even Determinism with a God could justify. God does not give order to the universe, God is the "random chance" element that people argue for.

Yet, Dawkins assumes the existence of natural law and logic, and he can only do so by borrowing from the Cthristian worldview. The Christian has a rational justification for natural law and logic because they know a rational God created the nattural world and created man in His image as a rational being who can understand this world.

No rational God is necessary for logic and natural law. A rational Universe is sufficient justification for logic and natural law, and logic is a construct of humanity based upon that rational universe.

Point you can use: A "rational" Universe is even better than a "rational" God, so no God is necessary to justify natural law and logic. Again, these concepts are older than Christianity, so they are obviously independent.

The atheist has no such justification, but just as the person arguing that air doesn't eit, he/she continues to breathe God's air and live in God's world.

The Atheist has a more valid justification because direct experience has proven that their assumption of natural law and logic is correct. The same cannot be said for those who base their beliefs in natural law and logic in a being that inherently violates natural law and all forms of logic.

Point you can use: Atheists base their belief in natural law and logic on direct experience and evidence. The Religious base their same belief in a being that violates natural law and is inherently illogical, a contradiction within itself.

As Romans 1:19-21 says of nonbelievers

As the leader of Nazi Germany said of Jews "...". Speakers that are obviously unreliable and biased cannot be used as evidence in favor of something. Bringing in an unsettled claim from an invalid source does not support your argument.

At 10/10/07 11:03 PM, Kazuhiro wrote: The conclusion, I guess, is that God is not all-loving, because he could prevent these things.

Actually, that's nothing new in terms of arguments, it's one of the classic ones to prove that God cannot be both omnipotent and purely benevolent:

1. Suffering and evil happen.
2. If God is purely benevolent, he would prevent suffering and evil if he could.
3. If he is unable to do so, he is not omnipotent
4. If he is able but chooses not to, he is not purely benevolent.

Anything alongs the lines of "suffering for the greater good" is purely a trash defense and simply isn't justifiable.

"Freedom of choice" arguments are also purely a trash defense because any omnipotent God also has control of the physical capability for evil/suffering and removing a method does not limit free will in any way.

"Satan" arguments are also trash defense since either God still has the omnipotent ability to stop Satan (and you have introduced a second God, violating Monotheism).

Those are three of the primary nonsense arguments thrown up to waste time when someone doesn't have a real counter to this situation because it is logically untenable. Don't even pay attention to them--they've already been thoroughly proven unjustifiable.

At 10/7/07 12:41 PM, Lizardcoolz wrote: You do know as it is stated in the bible that humans have free will? God just makes them first hand...

And by making them with free will, he is ultimately responsible for their ability to commit sins. He could just as easily have made it so that it wasn't possible to commit sins, either by taking away the ability or making the act impossible (i.e. humans can't be killed, so you can't murder each other). It's his failure one way or another.

At 10/4/07 02:54 PM, Elfer wrote: We already have something like this.

It's called "marriage."

No, marriage is not at all like that. The government will confer similar benefits to two people-- as part of the religious ritual --but it is not at all what it should be. Those benefits, as things are now, can only be shared by a man and woman, not any other combination of multiple people or of the same gender, and there is the explicit expectation of sexual relations and childrearing. I am talking about eliminating the government benefits of marriage, and instead creating a better, broader system that doesn't have the bias inherent in the current system.

This is not Gay Marriage. This is partnership of anyone. Sex is not part of the deal-- it's business, family, friendship, whatever that justify such a sharing of property, and it's a sharing for as long as you desire, not a "lifelone commitment" as explicitly sought from marriage. Two bachelors sharing an apartment should be just as justified in having shared property as a husband and wife with three children three children, that's what equality means. That's what we don't have right now.

Yes, additional benefits for a "Partnership supporting children" would be a good idea, a way to preserve the child-rearing benefits of Marriage, but it should not be a required part of the deal, nor even an expectation. Pull all of this stupid sex bias out of the issue and make it something secular and independent, as the government should be in all cases.

I am highly tolerant of virtually any lifestyle as long as the basic rights of humans are preserved, so I've never had any issues with homosexuals. However, I I favor a much stronger form of equality than even you, for I see bias in your proposals:

The idea of Gay marriage is inherently a deeply flawed proposal.

I want to support Equality-- and Gay marriage isn't equality, it's an extension of the bias towards sexual pairing and an inevitable source of stereotyping and conflict.

What I propose, and support, instead is the idea of Partnerships. Regardless of gender, sexuality, age, religion, or any of that, two individuals can declare a Partnership in which their property is shared in the general manner that marriage already provides, and the same rights of hospital care, etc. are also given. This is a truly equal, economic partnership that is just as reasonable between two Brothers as it is between a Husband and Wife.

Thus, the federal benefits of marriage could even be seperated from it, removing the religious preferences created by the law, and instead marriage can be a solely religious tradition recognized by the solely secular creation of a Partnership to match it.

Do away with this bigoted path of partnerships purely based on sex, support voluntary partnership between any indivuals.

Canada is actually surprisingly popular among Americans; the vast majority tend to feel some sort of brotherhood with Canada. In Canada, the opinion sort of varies, but it's mostly a "Yeah, we're neighbors, but we see a bit too much of each other" kind of attitude. I have found more Americas, though, who hate America, than I have ever found Canadians who do.

I believe in the procedure first set forth by the Romans: he who serves as a soldier shall earn citizenship. Extending that line of thought, I think the fmaily of any soldier should be considered temporary citizens for the term of his service and allowed to earn actual citizenship while still in the country. However, this should only extend to immediate family; bringing in your whole 100 member extended family is an abuse of the opportunity.

Basically:
illegally here, member of family in army = okay.
illegally here, all civilians = not okay.

I don't particularly see the issue here that everyone is getting worked up about:

One guy threatened others, so he was suspended from school (punished).

Six guys assaulted an individual, one with a prior assault record was (apparently) assumed to be the ringleader and was placed in jail temporarily.

So what's the issue? This sort of thing happens a hundred times a day across the country, but protestors choose now to get all worked up? And you guys, too? Basic criminal actions happened, get over it. Race is irrelevant in such a minor issue; this isn't ethnic gang wars, it's a bunch of fools and nothing more.

Well a distinct threat has been made, it is the repsonsibility of the school to do whatever it must to ensure that the student body will be safe. I, personally, would probably skip class on that day simply because I can, but either way I would be aware of the situation and be prepared for any incident that might occur, even if any actual problems are highly unlikely.

Such an act is not funny in any way and should not be treated a prank. It's the nature of that kind of threat that it must be taken seriously. If they catch who wrote it, he or she should be punished as if it was real (for inciting panic).

At 9/22/07 10:57 AM, Kenzu wrote: No, that's incorrect. Me and my brother have a commune.

No, you don't. Two people does not in any way emulate ina large social group, and a contract between you (whether stated or not) is acting as your Government. Your situation would not extend beyond just a few people, and the illusions it relies on would fade if you tried to expand it.

At 9/21/07 05:25 PM, Begoner wrote: 1. I don't know about you, but that seems like a tough sell to me; people generally aren't overly eager to throw money down the drain.

Apparently you didn't know that is how most new companies start, particularly all of the large, successful ones. Microsoft was started by a guy with effectively 0 capital-- nothing more than "wage slave" earnings and some time in a garage. That is how investment works.

2. Relying on the assistance of others. Even in the US, there are millions of homeless people who do not receive adequate assistance from others; acquiring such help in a dirt-poor country such as Cambodia is infinitely more difficult.

I'm not talking about Cambodia here. Cambodia can go screw itself for all I care; my concern is my nation, where we actually have a stable economy, a stable government, and a reasonably stable society.

Now, how do you define "adequate" assistance? If they are still alive, they must be getting enough assistance; the next step is for them to do something to deal with their situation. Many means and specific assistance are available for those people, although their reasons for homelessness are so varied that I can not possibly make any generalized statements about root causes for them.

3. Find a "better job." I'm pretty sure that if the opportunity to obtain preferable employment existed, sweat-shop workers would hurl themselves at it instantaneously.

Sweatshop workers usuallyh confine themselves through their own actions. TO some degree, some might be limited because they failed to integrate into American society, but the vast majority do not look for a job beyond the sweatshop. There are many industries that always have a demand for workers, but the people in the sweatshops rarely make the effort to shift to a better job, although they often do cycle between many different jobs on a constant basis.

Yeah; those idiotic sweat-shop workers should quit their day job and start producing high-quality cars. Why didn't I think of that?

Play stupid if you want, but you know the message: advertising and "reputation" can make people pay far more for a product than necessary. Any expensive line of goods can prove that as you get charged 1000X for 10X the quality improvement. THe same rule applies to goods at all levels; the proper advertising and promotion can make your goods sell.

If there is a market for more costly but hand-made goods which is profitable, it has already been "filled" to capacity. Do you understand the concept of perfect competition? This is an excellent example, as there are no capital requirements for operating such a business, making entry extremely easy to all those who aspire to enter. As I'm sure you know, despite your disingenuousness, a perfectly competitive firm cannot earn a profit in the long-run. So that possibility falls flat on its face.

Or in other words, "Wha?! BS THEORY BLOCK! Reality can't intrude here!"? The market for handmade or peronsally made goods is by no means full, as proven by the simle ability of children to sell lemonade at a street corner in the summer and make money. There isn't enough supply of independent workers to fill the total demand and the current demand is no where near the maximum sustainable demand. Reality-- what actually is working --overrides any theoretical claims you may make.

If it involves international shipping, you have a point. But I don't think that Australia is going to be selling many baskets to Cambodia. The transportation will be purely local, negating much of the potential costs.

What is with this Cambodia obsession of yours? If the goods are made locally, local jobs are now available. Problem solved, get a job with the best giant company and use local social networks to have a cohesive workforce.

Most little guys who ascended through the ranks did so because of ingenuity -- they created a new product and were able to market it effectively. I doubt there's going to be any breathtaking innovations in the hand-woven basket market like there was with Microsoft.

With your first statement, you confirm what I said before that you attempted to deny. With your second, you make it obvious that you have not listened to me at all. The entire point of the hand-woven basket market is that it is not one that will sustain a monopoly; that's the entire point of minor craftsmen markets that make them so appealing for any individual to go into. The point is that you build capital in the stable industry and use it to join the industries that have room for ingenuity, like the machine-made basket industry.

I have more than that. I have several millenia of human history prior to the development of urbanized, sedentary societies.

Unfortunately for you, no you don't. Disregarding the obviously subpar conditions of those times, never once has widespread Communism existed, even among the hunter gatherer societies of the far past. Even animals follow a basic form of Capitalism and stratified society, so you're deluding yourself if you think primitive humans formed some sort of Utopian society. Rather, they had a weak Capitalism that they abandoned as soon as a better route-- Established Capitalism --became available. Communism has only ever been seen in small, isolated pockets that quickly failed, often because they had no capability for effective growth or sustainability of a large population

At 9/20/07 08:56 PM, Begoner wrote: What do you mean by "finding" capital? Capital isn't going to fall in your lap and it isn't waiting around the next corner to be discovered; it must be purchased or manufactured.

You've obviously never tried to get capital for a project before. Finding is literally true; it is just waiting around the next corner for you to discover-- it's just a matter of convincing the right people that you are a good investment. No purchase or manufacture is necessary for me to raise 1 million dollars in capital for a new Biotech company, and that's the entire point of investors.

As wage slaves lack the funds necessary to buy sophisticated equipment outright and cannot efficiently create capital equipment in an efficient manner, they cannot come to possess capital in any way whatsoever. Thus, entrepreneurism is not an option for them.

Investment. Your argument is entirely nullified.

Without a social safety net, no job is not a possibility, unless one is desirous of starving in the streets.

"Social" safety net sounds like "government" safety net in the sense you say it, but there is always the option of family members, "group" members for whatever ethnic/religious/hobby groups you belong to, or even whatever person you can find to use as a fallback option. Those are the real "social" safety nets that always exist, but keep them entirely seperate from the "government" safety nets which are entirely different.

A different job would be the logical choice; however, many sweat-shop laborers lack the skills necessary to compete for higher-level jobs with better-qualified applicants.

Supply and demand. I didn't say find a skilled job, I said find a different job. There are many jobs that require no prior skills and always have demand, such as construction workers, harder jobs like mining and oil rigs, or government jobs such as being a clerk or janitor, etc.

Also, being at a disadvantage does not make it impossible, it just makes it take longer or be harder, so your absolute "they have no choice" is sheer bluffing.

So you're stating that one could produce goods that are vastly more expensive and sell them at a profit based on a great advertising campaign?

Lamborghini: Yes.

Any "new version" products: Yes.

A basic market principle is that consumers are rational and will pick the item that maximizes their satisfaction per dollar spent.

And you do not understand what affects "satisfaction" in this sense. Simply owning something does not mean as much as the social value (whether deserved or contrived through company PR), the personal value (subjective preferences), and the "authenticity" of a product (such as being hand-made, or a unique object, etc). Many factors beyond simply the cost are important.

True, but it is a minor detail insofar as it is vastly outweighed by the benefit of their capital machinery. Maybe you'd have a point if oil was far more expensive, but at this juncture, that cost is irrelevant.

That cost is not irrelevant. In fact, it is one of the most powerful market forces currently in effect due to Globalization. It is the reason why entire industries are staying in this country, and entire industries are moving out. Distance costs for national and international companies are not only relevant, they are critically important. Jane next door, though, does not have to worry about sustained infrastructure or transportation costs to bake blueberry pies and sell them to me; the giant company in Australia does have to worry.

In industrialized nations, there is some degree of anti-monopoly regulation, yes. However, the "little guy" stands very little chance even in the US, and no chance at all in a country such as Cambodia.

The "little guy" stands quite a good chance in the US. As I've said before, the vast majority of the big companies you see now were the "little guy" until they beat out the old group and expanded. Cambodia is meaningless because anything in a trash heap looks like a piece of trash.

I could say the same for you if I switched "communism" and "capitalism" around.

I have several thousand years of successful civilizations as real world proof. What do you have? Half a dozen failed nations which you can only hope to distance yourself from as "impure" Communistic ideals? Capitalism is the settled claim here, Communism is the upstart argument; the weight of proof before assumption is on you, not me. If you present with overbias, you simply get ignored; if I do so, my side has already won. Figure it out.

At 9/19/07 02:53 PM, Begoner wrote: Even if the wages offered by the market are obscenely cruel, a worker cannot opt out of this system and pursue his own entrepreneurial desires because he is constrained by his lack of capital.

Entrepreneurship was one option-- and finding capital is part of your responsibilities when you do that. However, a different job, a different industry, or no job are all possibilities. Unless workers are physically trapped (which I have heard happening with some sweatshops), then the workers are entirely free to leave a bad job and should do so.

He could not produce baskets or gather fruit as cheaply as a capitalist could; thus, his business would be doomed to failure.

Irrelevant detail. People don't buy purely on price, and a smart business owner will take advantage of any differences in product to get sales. For example, the weaver of baskets is selling hand-made, locally-made, "higher quality", custom-made, whatever baskets-- and people will buy them, regardless of price differences, the key is just selling enough.

Also, behemoth companies have an additional cost small ones don't: mass transportation. It costs more to move a basket from Missouri to Japan than it does to make and sell a basket on your doorstep.

It's impossible.

You are ignorant of Capitalism if you believe so. Monopolies are hard to beat, but they are also illegal; non-monopolies can and have been beaten many times before. In fact, most of the big companies you know <i.were<?i> the little guy with no funds who expanded. Even someone like McDonalds was the small fry at first.

The workers have no power whatsoever, save that of quitting one degrading job to get another just like it.

Your words practically ooze of Communistic bias, Begoner, and it is clear that you are ignorant of how the job market actually works. When you are ready to leave your fantasy world of "ultra evil Capitalism" and look at how the world actually operates, let me know, because I know that nothing I say will get through to you until you open you eyes and set aside what I can so easily see is a firmly rooted worldview that won't accept a "good" Capitalism under any circumstances.

(Better to say it now than waste 20 pages getting to that eventual point)

Unless you have anything to contribute, a list of links to the Conspiracy Videos is fairly pointless. They are wrong, one way or another, and if you're gonna waste my time having to show you how every one of those videos is wrong without you posting anything yourself then that is just plain rude.

I saw an MSN article discussing the saggy pants laws, and none have been deemed unconstitutional yet.

However, at some level "appropriate public clothing" laws are necessary because there are social limits that should be enforced. For example, walking around in lingerie or totally naked in the middle of New York City is likely to cause public disruption, so there are laws requiring a certain level of clothing. Saggy pants follow a similar reasoning, and there is some real logic behind it, although the vagueness of "saggy" is something I question; a clearer, extreme limit like "the bottom of your butt is visible above your pants waistline" would be something I might support. However, for obvious reasons, such rules should not extend to things like skirts or other apparel where it isn't actually disgusting for it to be revealing.