Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Begoner, perhaps I should have elaborated more on my equal taxation plan. In addition to charging the smae proportion, I would also eliminate all tax-holes, meaing that if, including stocks and all that stuff, earned 1 billion dollars, you would pay x percent, and the perosn who earns 10000 dollars would also pay x percent, where x is equal for both.

Also, about the idea thing, I wasn;t going for fastest idea, i was going for highest quality. Oh, and btw, in cas i was not clear, i meant 2 teams of 5 people each, not the other way around.

As for he death penalty, i dont believe its state sponsored murder.

Also, about the idea thing, I wasn;t going for fastest idea, i was going for highest quality. Oh, and btw, in cas i was not clear, i meant 2 teams of 5 people each, not the other way around.

It is impossible for 2 teams of 5 people each, working independently from each other and
not sharing information with each other to perform equally well as 2 teams of 5 people each, working with each other and sharing information. It just doesn't make any sense to assume that you will be perform better if you are restricted in your access to information.

At 11/3/06 03:16 PM, Begoner wrote: It is impossible for 2 teams of 5 people each, working independently from each other and
not sharing information with each other to perform equally well as 2 teams of 5 people each, working with each other and sharing information. It just doesn't make any sense to assume that you will be perform better if you are restricted in your access to information.

That is a false statement, Begoner. First of all, effectively nothing is impossible when discussing human interactions. Past history has clearly shown that multiple groups working independently can achieve solutions excellent for their unique methods, while multiple groups collaborating can be counter-productive through conflict or completely destroy their chances of success by all pursuing a false path to a solution.

You cannot assume that either situation will perform better than the other, but if all groups have relatively similar source information, the isolated groups will likely be more effective overall because they will pursue independent solutions, not link onto one idea and have half the effectiveness because of communication barriers and conflict.

You cannot assume that either situation will perform better than the other, but if all groups have relatively similar source information, the isolated groups will likely be more effective overall because they will pursue independent solutions, not link onto one idea and have half the effectiveness because of communication barriers and conflict.

You know that you are trying to fabricate any reason, no matter how patently false or far-fatched, to support your ultra-capitalistic frame of mind. For the love of God, let it go. You're wrong. It is impossible to perform worse work if you have access to more information than if you have access to less. That's like saying that a mathematician would be more productive if he had to start from scratch instead of reading the published works of former mathematicians. To imply that information prevents progress is absurd to the extreme. It might be a typical opinion in the Dark Ages in Europe, but not in modern-day America.

At 11/3/06 06:31 PM, Begoner wrote: To imply that information prevents progress is absurd to the extreme. It might be a typical opinion in the Dark Ages in Europe, but not in modern-day America.

No, it is not absurd.

The Middle Ages are a perfect example of why it is completely possible and reasonable. When received information creates pre-conceived notions, such as the belief in geocentricity and that stars orbit in perfect circles, it stifles new thought and development, just as the Catholic Church attempted with those ideas.

It is only when the people broke away from old, false information and ideas, and developed a brand new set of ideals through which they could observe the universe (science and rationalism) that major advancements were made (the Rennaissance).

It is completely rational to assume that information can be both dangerous and beneficial, especially "truths" enforced by one group of people. Science has fought with such problems continuously throughout its history, and religions have proven just how lethal conflicting information can be (Crusades, Jihads, Holocaust, etc.).

So don't give me all that crap about "More information can never be bad!" History has proven time and again that more information, especially conflicting or domineering "truths" and ideas, can be thoroughly stagnating and dangerous.

What's Wrong With Capitalism?

Huge companies taking over everything, everywhere, and keeping people from getting anything at all. Screw capitalism.

At 11/26/06 09:11 AM, SomeNick wrote:

What's Wrong With Capitalism?

Huge companies taking over everything, everywhere, and keeping people from getting anything at all. Screw capitalism.

Sort of like socialism, where there's one big monopoly called the government and only businesses sanctioned by the government can function. Not only that, but its extremely hard to break away from the middle class and elevant yourself due to government interference.

So in conclusion: like most socialists, SomeNick, you're an irrational dumbass who'se full of flowery ideas. Have a nice day.

Without a total brainwashing, the communism/socialism concept work with the human race, due to our inherently greedy nature, which ahas its roots based in survival. As for the big business vs big government thing, at least in capitalism people can TRY to rise up to the level of the big business, whereas they cant in communism