Obama - If You've got a business, you didn't build that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT
 

Not G. Ivingname:

2. It is called a fire extinguisher, Mr. President.

Fire extinguishers are not for putting out fires. They only contain a few seconds of spray each. They're intended for aiding escape from burning buildings.

Magichead:

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, reality is as reality is. YOU did not pay for the roads, the society in which you live paid for them, collectively. Even when you exchange money for goods or services, if those goods or services are necessary for you to complete your own work then said work is, to a greater or lesser extent, dependent on those goods and services existing, and the environment which allowed those goods and services to exist.

I am only able to sculpt as well as I do because I am able to purchase specialist tools for extremely fine detail work; I cannot make those tools myself, and despite the fact I paid for them, there is still a causal link between their existence and availability and my own ability, and there is still a causal link between the conditions, created by society, which allowed the creator of those tools to make them available to me and others, and my ability. Nobody is arguing that any one of these dependencies alone makes another specific person responsible for my own effort, nor is anyone arguing that the fact that all individual effort is based on prior collective effort invalidate the worth of the individual effort, the argument being made(and calling it an "argument" is charitable, it's more a statement) is that taxation, and in particular progressive taxation, are entirely justifiable given the complex web of these dependencies and how we all, collectively, benefit from its existence.

When people bring up this argument(statement of fact), they are not trying to devalue individual effort, but rather are attempting to disabuse the ravings of the American Right, who insist that their success exists in a vacuum.

Quoting this to make sure people read it.

major28:

Stagnant:
You may not like the idea, but you not liking something doesn't make it untrue. And just because you think you payed for something doesn't mean you did. The idea that you payed for the services afforded to you is wrong. You didn't pay for the roads and bridges and electrical systems and public water/sewage systems and legal protection. Everyone did. Every member of the nation, many of which are long dead, have paid that bill forward to give future generations a better country to live in than themselves. We're the second generation that's said "Fuck it, we can get away with not paying it forward" - the budget was fairly balanced up until Carter and Reagan; then it just went down the drain.

Your right, me paying for something does not make me the creator of it but it also does not make me in debt to it. If I buy a hat I do not owe the hat company for making hats. They make hats and I like a hat enough to pay the denomination that they have deemed to be equivalent to the value of the hat. We are equals in business, I gain a hat they gain money. They aren't making hats so that they can have fancy bonfires with leather logs they make them to get money. In the same way I buy hats so I can have a hat. Neither of us owe the other anything in this case we both are embarking on this transaction in the pursuit of personal gain.

Yep. And now let's talk about the difference between hats and roads.

A hat can generally be produced in a matter of a few days by just about anyone with a very basic idea of leatherworking. The material costs are extremely low, and it's for an individual.
Roads take dozens of people working for days to stamp out. They require a certain level of expertise in tar-mixing somewhere along the line, and the material costs are very, very high, as are the costs of the tools needed to create these roads. It's built for a collective to drive on.

So... Care to tell me what the point of this comparison was? Comparing hats to roads is senseless. Yeah. No shit, you don't owe the hatmaker anything. But you didn't build this road. You didn't pay for this road, you didn't buy the land this road is on, you didn't protect the land this road is on for centuries. Your entire life is financed largely in part by the dedicated efforts of those who came before you to make your life better. It's called the social contract, and failing to continue this chain of paying it forward is a great way to ensure that society as a whole falls right the fuck apart. We're not asking that you bend over backwards here, just that you do your part to ensure that society is just as beneficial for those who come after you as it was for you.

The problem: republicans are really bad at this. Gutting our social safety nets, our medical systems, our school systems, our budgets, all for a misguided notion that "starving the beast" is the best way to go, and the failed mantra of "the government can't do anything right". Yeah, no.

As for the other people who pay for roads and electricity, I completely disagree with the idea that these people paid for roads so that the future generations could use them, they paid for roads so THEY can use them.

Yep. But you know what? Those things are still kicking around, aren't they?

major28:

Also shout out to a fellow Ayn Rand fan.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Rand is a hack, and her philosophies are a great way to make the world a more uncaring, unsustainable place. I have no respect for objectivists, as it seems to be a philosophy built around justifying sociopathy.

ravenshrike:
Out of curiosity, where exactly did people claim to build the roads?

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's pointing out that we're all profiting from the collective investments. Is he calling them out for claiming such or merely reminding them of the fact of the collective investments? That speech of his did not focus solely on infrastructure, you know.
He talks about teachers and education, he talks about the American system as a whole, he does mention roads and bridges, he talks about the internet and then he acknowledges individual initiative.
I think it's pretty clear he is talking about the entirety of the societal framework that lets people thrive. He's basically talking about the "shoulders of giants" I mentioned, albeit without using that particular phrase.

major28:

Vegosiux:

major28:

I don't agree with the idea that just because I didn't personally create the tools of my trade my accomplishments are partially attributed to the creator of these tools.

Could you have accomplished the same without those tools? No? Then give credit where it's due.

I suppose I agree with that in the same way a baker owes the guy who made the first cake. While it is true he probably wouldn't make cakes had that guy never existed, but his business isn't based off the mere fact he can bake and sell a cake, it is based on the fact that he can bake HIS CAKE. While the original materials were necessary for the business to exist the value of the business comes from the creation of something new, not what was required to create that new thing.

The problem's not so much a lack of piety towards the first man to make a cake; he's motherfucking dead. Heaven, Hell or oblivion I doubt he gives a damn if you respect him. The problem is these greedy motherfuckers with their myopic view of their self worth breaks the chain that creates tommorow's baker.

This greedy "I changed my own diapers" attitude ensures there's no new breakaway bakers.

These guys took from the penny jar and now want to abolish it because they don't want to till the garden of innovation or competition. They don't want to deal with "your cake", and what better way to avoid it than convince you to eliminate means they didn't approve or profit from.

The thing is, is that all of you guys think your the the protagonist of the universe so your so damn certain that initiatives that destroy future competition is somehow going to effect everybody but you. They got you so damn convinced you're tomorrow's billionaires if you just do this methods they themselves didn't even do. This method specifically designed to make sure you're not.

They took from the penny jar others paid into and you guys are backing up their claim that they should be able to choose whether or not to pay anything back. What a fucking deal. I wish I could get such a deal. Walk into a restaurant, eat whatever I want, walk into a lumber store, take whatever I want and use that energy and lumber to build a house on land I decided I now owned and claim that I did all this shit on my own and so I don't owe nobody a goddamn thing. Of course I'd still want the police and courts to come in if I'm robbed myself.

But nope I guess that sort of free ride only happens if your rich and stealing from the government.

If you get 70,000 to take your horse to the prom once you're a fucking patriot for doing what every American should strive to do: find nebulously legal loopholes to shortchange the government. If you get that over a lifetime in food benefits you're a layabout bum whether or not you used offshore banking to misrepresent your taxable wages.

If Democrats are Socialists because they want the rich to pay for shit they used in the past, then Republicans are socialists too, they just redistribute wealth in the other way.

Vegosiux:

major28:

There is a difference between you not understanding the meaning and the meaning not being clear. It means exactly what it says; that what I do is what I believe to yield the best possible results for me, and I do not allow others to provide for me or live off the charity/grace of others.

Well, better let them dirty coppers know you won't stand for them protecting your well-being from those who would do you harm. What, you think "providing for" people means only "giving them stuff"? And don't try to weasel out of that one with "I pay taxes."

But I get it. You've got yours, and you don't have a clue about what it means to "be in need". I sincerely hope it never comes to that, of course, because I do not wish bad things upon anyone. Even if there's a perspective to be gained from the circumstance...

I liked the subtle insult at the start, though, that was a nice touch. Oh or maybe you didn't mean to insult, just patronize. Don't know which one I like more.

How is the fact that I pay for a service through taxes "weaseling out", if my town had no police force and one day a group of people showed up and said "hey we will protect you from criminals for x dollars" and I agreed to it no one would say that I am in debt to those people. The police force is the same situation only my money doesn't go directly to the police.

Also, how else do you provide for someone without "giving them stuff". I don't even know what else to say on this point, unless your referring to some kind of emotional support

major28:

How is the fact that I pay for a service through taxes "weaseling out", if my town had no police force and one day a group of people showed up and said "hey we will protect you from criminals for x dollars" and I agreed to it no one would say that I am in debt to those people. The police force is the same situation only my money doesn't go directly to the police.

Let me ask you a question or two. Do you pay taxes voluntarily? Are you okay with the height of taxes? Would you be willing to voluntarily pay more taxes when the country hits a rough road in order to help improve the situation for everyone (yourself included) quicker; even if that means helping others through contributions to social safety nets?

Or do you pay your taxes grudgingly, because you don't want to get jailed for fraud, and complain about social policies you don't support, such as welfare policies, universal public healthcare and the like?

And yes, this is bloody relevant to the point.

major28:

Vegosiux:

major28:

There is a difference between you not understanding the meaning and the meaning not being clear. It means exactly what it says; that what I do is what I believe to yield the best possible results for me, and I do not allow others to provide for me or live off the charity/grace of others.

Well, better let them dirty coppers know you won't stand for them protecting your well-being from those who would do you harm. What, you think "providing for" people means only "giving them stuff"? And don't try to weasel out of that one with "I pay taxes."

But I get it. You've got yours, and you don't have a clue about what it means to "be in need". I sincerely hope it never comes to that, of course, because I do not wish bad things upon anyone. Even if there's a perspective to be gained from the circumstance...

I liked the subtle insult at the start, though, that was a nice touch. Oh or maybe you didn't mean to insult, just patronize. Don't know which one I like more.

How is the fact that I pay for a service through taxes "weaseling out", if my town had no police force and one day a group of people showed up and said "hey we will protect you from criminals for x dollars" and I agreed to it no one would say that I am in debt to those people. The police force is the same situation only my money doesn't go directly to the police.

Also, how else do you provide for someone without "giving them stuff". I don't even know what else to say on this point, unless your referring to some kind of emotional support

Do you think a police force should charge only for its cost, or do you think that a police force ought to make a profit? Do you think a society should demand in taxes from you only that which it needs to pay for the benefits it gives you and no one else, or do you think it should profit from the transaction?

Personally, I think society should profit from that transaction, because the services rendered are more valuable than their cost-- rational persons ought to be willing to pay more than the cost as with any other good or service that actually gets both produced and sold: whenever you buy something, presumably you profit from the transaction. The seller profits from the transaction as well: it's not a zero sum game. You profit by the benefit less the price, the seller profits by the price less the cost. In the case of police services, roads and so on, the benefit derived is much larger than the cost. A fair tax puts the price (the tax) somewhere between the cost of the service and the benefit provided.

The best way for society to profit from such a transaction is by paying back into things like public education and healthcare. I think it's justified that people pay more taxes than it takes to provide only the services that they individually use because the business environment-- that free market we all know and love-- is an important consideration for individual achievement, and the healthier and wealthier are all others, the more opportunities a person has to sell them shit. The market works best when participants all have value to share.

And I think it's perfectly permissible for society to engage in price discrimination when it comes to taxes: the value of government services-- especially those pertaining to law and order-- is much higher for wealthy people. Enforcing the current set of legally recognized property rights disproportionately benefits those with more property. It sounds banal, but it's important: this is why progressive taxation is justified.

Magichead:

major28:

reonhato:

how does it not get better, he is clearly referring to the fact that you did not build the roads and bridges or invent the internet.

I don't agree with the idea that just because I didn't personally create the tools of my trade my accomplishments are partially attributed to the creator of these tools. While it is true that any business owes the government for creating and maintaining roads, it is also true that every business pays taxes (or at least they are suppose to) and therefore pays for the creation and maintenance of roads. According to the basic premises of economics that does not leave me indebted to the government; I pay for roads, they take my money and make roads. I guess I don't like the idea that I owe anyone for an item or service I payed for.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, reality is as reality is. YOU did not pay for the roads, the society in which you live paid for them, collectively. Even when you exchange money for goods or services, if those goods or services are necessary for you to complete your own work then said work is, to a greater or lesser extent, dependent on those goods and services existing, and the environment which allowed those goods and services to exist.

I am only able to sculpt as well as I do because I am able to purchase specialist tools for extremely fine detail work; I cannot make those tools myself, and despite the fact I paid for them, there is still a causal link between their existence and availability and my own ability, and there is still a causal link between the conditions, created by society, which allowed the creator of those tools to make them available to me and others, and my ability. Nobody is arguing that any one of these dependencies alone makes another specific person responsible for my own effort, nor is anyone arguing that the fact that all individual effort is based on prior collective effort invalidate the worth of the individual effort, the argument being made(and calling it an "argument" is charitable, it's more a statement) is that taxation, and in particular progressive taxation, are entirely justifiable given the complex web of these dependencies and how we all, collectively, benefit from its existence.

When people bring up this argument(statement of fact), they are not trying to devalue individual effort, but rather are attempting to disabuse the ravings of the American Right, who insist that their success exists in a vacuum.

I feel like your missing the point of my argument. I am not saying that the work of others is not necessary, I am saying that we do not owe those people for doing what they did. People who created these things did so, not because they wanted my life to be easier, but to make THEIR lives better. To use your example the person who invented your precise sculpting tools didn't make them so you could make better sculptures he made them so either HE could make more precise sculptures. You don't owe that person trying to make his life better, and unless you got your tools for free, you paid a price that this person determined to be worth the that tool and as such you both personally gain from you having that tool.

Stagnant:

major28:

Also shout out to a fellow Ayn Rand fan.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Rand is a hack, and her philosophies are a great way to make the world a more uncaring, unsustainable place. I have no respect for objectivists, as it seems to be a philosophy built around justifying sociopathy.

Yeah that really unstable place where people pay for the things that they want, look out for there own self interest, no human rights are violated, and the best of society run the show. Your right sounds like sociopathic ideas to me.

If the President wanted to make the argument that a businessman used public resources to create a business why didn't he say "If you got a business, you built it with the help of public resources."

Only someone who doesn't respect the hard work and effort to create a business would make the quote Obama made. Also the quote is illogical. Would McDonalds be around without Ray Kroc, Apple without Steve Jobs or Facebook without Mark Zuckerberg. If they didn't create the businesses who did?

If want to use the logic of Obama he can't take credit for the assassination of Bin Laden. He only gave a yes or no. Where was the the work in that? Even taking Obama logic further a armed robber is not responsible for a robbery he committed. Someone else made the gun, the money he stole was provided by someone else and the road he used to get away he didn't make.

Damien Granz:

major28:

Vegosiux:

Could you have accomplished the same without those tools? No? Then give credit where it's due.

I suppose I agree with that in the same way a baker owes the guy who made the first cake. While it is true he probably wouldn't make cakes had that guy never existed, but his business isn't based off the mere fact he can bake and sell a cake, it is based on the fact that he can bake HIS CAKE. While the original materials were necessary for the business to exist the value of the business comes from the creation of something new, not what was required to create that new thing.

snip

I never said anything about political parties, or the Romney family's outrageous tax breaks on stupid things which I completely agree is ridiculous. But i am going to ignore that and focus on the issue.

How does my cake stop other people from selling their cake. If I am selling cake and someone says "you know I could make a better cake", they are free to go open their own bakery and if their cake is truly better than mine they will steal my business and prosper.

Your metaphor is sort of all over the place so maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but are you suggesting that I should help other bakeries, because that is utter insanity. You want me to use my money to help people take my business, what possible motivation could there be for that. And no we may not be "the protagonists of the world" but nor are we the antagonists, why do others deserve what we have worked to achieve? Are they the protagonists? What have they done that make them more deserving?

major28:

Yeah that really unstable place where people pay for the things that they want, look out for there own self interest, no human rights are violated, and the best of society run the show. Your right sounds like sociopathic ideas to me.

Yeah because there's no way looking out for one's own self interest is ever going to conflict with other people's human rights, and because being better off than other people obviously means you are better than other people, because if they could, they would, right? Not like anyone else has a different set of priorities or has been born in some backwater village in Poland as opposed to next door to the Silicon Valley.

So yes, damn right it sounds sociopathic.

Charles_Martel:

Only someone who doesn't respect the hard work and effort to create a business would make the quote Obama made. Also the quote is illogical. Would McDonalds be around without Ray Kroc, Apple without Steve Jobs or Facebook without Mark Zuckerberg. If they didn't create the businesses who did?

Did those businesses make millions moments after their creation? No? You mean that lots of other people had to contribute in order to make them million-making businesses? Now how could that be...

Well that just goes to show that just "creating" something isn't worth a rat's ass if contributions aren't made to make that something a successful something. Show me a billionaire CEO that has a 100% share in the contribution towards making their business a successful one, and thus deserves 100% of the acclaim, acknowledgement and rewards that come with the business' success.

Steve Jobs created Apple. Steve Jobs did not single-handedly make Apple so successful through his own effort and without contribution by anyone else. Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg did not single-handedly make Facebook so prevalent through his own effort and without contribution by anyone else. See where I'm going, or do you need a picture?

Vegosiux:

major28:

How is the fact that I pay for a service through taxes "weaseling out", if my town had no police force and one day a group of people showed up and said "hey we will protect you from criminals for x dollars" and I agreed to it no one would say that I am in debt to those people. The police force is the same situation only my money doesn't go directly to the police.

Let me ask you a question or two. Do you pay taxes voluntarily? Are you okay with the height of taxes? Would you be willing to voluntarily pay more taxes when the country hits a rough road in order to help improve the situation for everyone (yourself included) quicker; even if that means helping others through contributions to social safety nets?

Or do you pay your taxes grudgingly, because you don't want to get jailed for fraud, and complain about social policies you don't support, such as welfare policies, universal public healthcare and the like?

And yes, this is bloody relevant to the point.

In order:

Your correct I do not pay taxes willing, not because of the fact I lose money from it, but because my money goes towards things I don't agree with. For instance I have no problems paying for police departments but I don't like my money goes to supporting a war I don't support.

That's a tough question, I suppose I'm okay with the amount (though like anyone else I wish it were lower) but I wish my funds weren't being used for certain things

No I would not be

See first answer

Seanchaidh:

major28:

Vegosiux:

Well, better let them dirty coppers know you won't stand for them protecting your well-being from those who would do you harm. What, you think "providing for" people means only "giving them stuff"? And don't try to weasel out of that one with "I pay taxes."

But I get it. You've got yours, and you don't have a clue about what it means to "be in need". I sincerely hope it never comes to that, of course, because I do not wish bad things upon anyone. Even if there's a perspective to be gained from the circumstance...

I liked the subtle insult at the start, though, that was a nice touch. Oh or maybe you didn't mean to insult, just patronize. Don't know which one I like more.

How is the fact that I pay for a service through taxes "weaseling out", if my town had no police force and one day a group of people showed up and said "hey we will protect you from criminals for x dollars" and I agreed to it no one would say that I am in debt to those people. The police force is the same situation only my money doesn't go directly to the police.

Also, how else do you provide for someone without "giving them stuff". I don't even know what else to say on this point, unless your referring to some kind of emotional support

Do you think a police force should charge only for its cost, or do you think that a police force ought to make a profit? Do you think a society should demand in taxes from you only that which it needs to pay for the benefits it gives you and no one else, or do you think it should profit from the transaction?

Personally, I think society should profit from that transaction, because the services rendered are more valuable than their cost-- rational persons ought to be willing to pay more than the cost as with any other good or service that actually gets both produced and sold: whenever you buy something, presumably you profit from the transaction. The seller profits from the transaction as well: it's not a zero sum game. You profit by the benefit less the price, the seller profits by the price less the cost. In the case of police services, roads and so on, the benefit derived is much larger than the cost. A fair tax puts the price (the tax) somewhere between the cost of the service and the benefit provided.

The best way for society to profit from such a transaction is by paying back into things like public education and healthcare. I think it's justified that people pay more taxes than it takes to provide only the services that they individually use because the business environment-- that free market we all know and love-- is an important consideration for individual achievement, and the healthier and wealthier are all others, the more opportunities a person has to sell them shit. The market works best when participants all have value to share.

And I think it's perfectly permissible for society to engage in price discrimination when it comes to taxes: the value of government services-- especially those pertaining to law and order-- is much higher for wealthy people. Enforcing the current set of legally recognized property rights disproportionately benefits those with more property. It sounds banal, but it's important: this is why progressive taxation is justified.

I agree that police force should charge more than cost. Ideally I would like to see the police force be privatized.

major28:
I agree that police force should charge more than cost. Ideally I would like to see the police force be privatized.

Why do you think that would be better?

Vegosiux:

major28:

Yeah that really unstable place where people pay for the things that they want, look out for there own self interest, no human rights are violated, and the best of society run the show. Your right sounds like sociopathic ideas to me.

Yeah because there's no way looking out for one's own self interest is ever going to conflict with other people's human rights, and because being better off than other people obviously means you are better than other people, because if they could, they would, right? Not like anyone else has a different set of priorities or has been born in some backwater village in Poland as opposed to next door to the Silicon Valley.

So yes, damn right it sounds sociopathic.

Have you read any of Ayn Rand's work because that is the not at all how the idea works. A big part of it is not exchanging favors and only trading in value; virtue for virtue. Under this system exploitation is impossible. Trade and employment is only achieved between two consenting parties, if someone doesn't want to sell their land or work for a certain price they are free not to. Also if someone has a different set of priorities then good for them, they can go ahead and pursue them. And finally anyone who has less opportunities because of where they were born can move for a modest price.

Seanchaidh:

major28:
I agree that police force should charge more than cost. Ideally I would like to see the police force be privatized.

Why do you think that would be better?

Indeed, that is a horrible idea. How on earth do you think a private police force would be trustworthy enough to handle public safety. Mall cops are not the same as SWAT.

Seanchaidh:

major28:
I agree that police force should charge more than cost. Ideally I would like to see the police force be privatized.

Why do you think that would be better?

I think it would be similar to how it is now, but with competing police forces which I believe would increase efficiency. I also see it's potential for horrible corruption.

major28:

Seanchaidh:

major28:
I agree that police force should charge more than cost. Ideally I would like to see the police force be privatized.

Why do you think that would be better?

I think it would be similar to how it is now, but with competing police forces which I believe would increase efficiency. I also see it's potential for horrible corruption.

What would be their business model?

Seanchaidh:

major28:

Seanchaidh:

Why do you think that would be better?

I think it would be similar to how it is now, but with competing police forces which I believe would increase efficiency. I also see it's potential for horrible corruption.

What would be their business model?

That would be a better question for them, lol.

major28:

Seanchaidh:

major28:

I think it would be similar to how it is now, but with competing police forces which I believe would increase efficiency. I also see it's potential for horrible corruption.

What would be their business model?

That would be a better question for them, lol.

I think chiefly it's a question for legislators seeking to privatize their police departments, or those proposing it. That potential for horrible corruption that you mention is cause for legal and political concern.

hardlymotivated:
Get your canaries ready, boys. We're goin' quote mining.

But sir, mine is already dead from the toxic fumes. Doesn't this mean that we should get out of this thread-mine?

major28:

Vegosiux:

major28:

Yeah that really unstable place where people pay for the things that they want, look out for there own self interest, no human rights are violated, and the best of society run the show. Your right sounds like sociopathic ideas to me.

Yeah because there's no way looking out for one's own self interest is ever going to conflict with other people's human rights, and because being better off than other people obviously means you are better than other people, because if they could, they would, right? Not like anyone else has a different set of priorities or has been born in some backwater village in Poland as opposed to next door to the Silicon Valley.

So yes, damn right it sounds sociopathic.

Have you read any of Ayn Rand's work because that is the not at all how the idea works. A big part of it is not exchanging favors and only trading in value; virtue for virtue. Under this system exploitation is impossible. Trade and employment is only achieved between two consenting parties, if someone doesn't want to sell their land or work for a certain price they are free not to. Also if someone has a different set of priorities then good for them, they can go ahead and pursue them. And finally anyone who has less opportunities because of where they were born can move for a modest price.

And this means that there are plenty of people that are free to starve, instead of working for that less-than-minimum wage you offer <3

What's that? Cruel you say? Pah! It's freedom!

Realitycrash:

major28:

Vegosiux:

Yeah because there's no way looking out for one's own self interest is ever going to conflict with other people's human rights, and because being better off than other people obviously means you are better than other people, because if they could, they would, right? Not like anyone else has a different set of priorities or has been born in some backwater village in Poland as opposed to next door to the Silicon Valley.

So yes, damn right it sounds sociopathic.

Have you read any of Ayn Rand's work because that is the not at all how the idea works. A big part of it is not exchanging favors and only trading in value; virtue for virtue. Under this system exploitation is impossible. Trade and employment is only achieved between two consenting parties, if someone doesn't want to sell their land or work for a certain price they are free not to. Also if someone has a different set of priorities then good for them, they can go ahead and pursue them. And finally anyone who has less opportunities because of where they were born can move for a modest price.

And this means that there are plenty of people that are free to starve, instead of working for that less-than-minimum wage you offer <3

What's that? Cruel you say? Pah! It's freedom!

Unlike now when everyone eats like a king every night?

major28:

Seanchaidh:

major28:

I think it would be similar to how it is now, but with competing police forces which I believe would increase efficiency. I also see it's potential for horrible corruption.

What would be their business model?

That would be a better question for them, lol.

No, it's actually crucially important. It's one of those things that never get thought through closely in the objectivist "every man for themselves" world, and one of those little things that the government needs to do. Y'see, it's not just those who can afford to hire a private police force or protector who need the type of legal protection the police can provide, and only the very richest among us can actually afford it... Unless we band together into a type of government. Overall selfishness is most often incredibly short-sighted. Which ties into my later point:

major28:

Stagnant:

major28:

Also shout out to a fellow Ayn Rand fan.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Rand is a hack, and her philosophies are a great way to make the world a more uncaring, unsustainable place. I have no respect for objectivists, as it seems to be a philosophy built around justifying sociopathy.

Yeah that really unstable place where people pay for the things that they want, look out for there own self interest, no human rights are violated, and the best of society run the show. Your right sounds like sociopathic ideas to me.

That sounds a nice place... In Rand's dreams. As has been pointed out multiple times throughout history, the Randian Utopia is a fantasy. A place that never has existed. The closest we've gotten, historically, to an Objectivist society, is the Gilded age, and let me explain why that actually makes a lot of sense:

major28:
Have you read any of Ayn Rand's work because that is the not at all how the idea works. A big part of it is not exchanging favors and only trading in value; virtue for virtue. Under this system exploitation is impossible. Trade and employment is only achieved between two consenting parties, if someone doesn't want to sell their land or work for a certain price they are free not to. Also if someone has a different set of priorities then good for them, they can go ahead and pursue them. And finally anyone who has less opportunities because of where they were born can move for a modest price.

Reducing things to just what people agree to in terms of value trades does not remove exploitation. I don't have to take that job at the mill; I could just let my family starve to death. I don't have to accept the subhuman conditions; I could just try to negotiate with a boss who knows that I can easily be replaced by any number of other people. Or quit my job, try to find a job in a job market which is almost always lopsided in favor of those who want labor, rather than those who provide it. You want to claim that that's not exploitative? Not likely to happen. A lack of care about others leads entirely in that direction.

major28:

Realitycrash:

major28:

Have you read any of Ayn Rand's work because that is the not at all how the idea works. A big part of it is not exchanging favors and only trading in value; virtue for virtue. Under this system exploitation is impossible. Trade and employment is only achieved between two consenting parties, if someone doesn't want to sell their land or work for a certain price they are free not to. Also if someone has a different set of priorities then good for them, they can go ahead and pursue them. And finally anyone who has less opportunities because of where they were born can move for a modest price.

And this means that there are plenty of people that are free to starve, instead of working for that less-than-minimum wage you offer <3

What's that? Cruel you say? Pah! It's freedom!

Unlike now when everyone eats like a king every night?

How on earth did you make a Black/White-morality of what I said? Of course not everyone eats well, because our system isn't perfect. I was just pointing out the folly of Ayan Rands system, and especially the folly of believing that "freedom" is WORTH ANYTHING when your choices are either "sell yourself to prostitution/work for slave-labor or starve to death".
That's no choice.

Charles_Martel:
If the President wanted to make the argument that a businessman used public resources to create a business why didn't he say "If you got a business, you built it with the help of public resources."

Only someone who doesn't respect the hard work and effort to create a business would make the quote Obama made. Also the quote is illogical. Would McDonalds be around without Ray Kroc, Apple without Steve Jobs or Facebook without Mark Zuckerberg. If they didn't create the businesses who did?

If want to use the logic of Obama he can't take credit for the assassination of Bin Laden. He only gave a yes or no. Where was the the work in that? Even taking Obama logic further a armed robber is not responsible for a robbery he committed. Someone else made the gun, the money he stole was provided by someone else and the road he used to get away he didn't make.

Don't bother trying to save face, you fell for a shitty quote mine, then posted it on the political sub forum of a video game website. It really does not get worse then that.

Tirunus:

Charles_Martel:
If the President wanted to make the argument that a businessman used public resources to create a business why didn't he say "If you got a business, you built it with the help of public resources."

Only someone who doesn't respect the hard work and effort to create a business would make the quote Obama made. Also the quote is illogical. Would McDonalds be around without Ray Kroc, Apple without Steve Jobs or Facebook without Mark Zuckerberg. If they didn't create the businesses who did?

If want to use the logic of Obama he can't take credit for the assassination of Bin Laden. He only gave a yes or no. Where was the the work in that? Even taking Obama logic further a armed robber is not responsible for a robbery he committed. Someone else made the gun, the money he stole was provided by someone else and the road he used to get away he didn't make.

Don't bother trying to save face, you fell for a shitty quote mine, then posted it on the political sub forum of a video game website. It really does not get worse then that.

I apologize that President Obama made such an ignorant quote. I'm sure you are going to be sick of seeing the phrase in the months to come. Maybe Obama can save you the aggravation by relying on teleprompters in the future so he doesn't make a similar boneheaded statement.

Charles_Martel:

Tirunus:

Charles_Martel:
If the President wanted to make the argument that a businessman used public resources to create a business why didn't he say "If you got a business, you built it with the help of public resources."

Only someone who doesn't respect the hard work and effort to create a business would make the quote Obama made. Also the quote is illogical. Would McDonalds be around without Ray Kroc, Apple without Steve Jobs or Facebook without Mark Zuckerberg. If they didn't create the businesses who did?

If want to use the logic of Obama he can't take credit for the assassination of Bin Laden. He only gave a yes or no. Where was the the work in that? Even taking Obama logic further a armed robber is not responsible for a robbery he committed. Someone else made the gun, the money he stole was provided by someone else and the road he used to get away he didn't make.

Don't bother trying to save face, you fell for a shitty quote mine, then posted it on the political sub forum of a video game website. It really does not get worse then that.

I apologize that President Obama made such an ignorant quote. I'm sure you are going to be sick of seeing the phrase in the months to come. Maybe Obama can save you the aggravation by relying on teleprompters in the future so he doesn't make a similar boneheaded statement.

He's obviously referring to roads and infrastructure. If Romney wants to base his campaign on a misquote, it might just work. However, it's more likely that voters will think Romney is more of a dishonest shit than they already think he is.

Realitycrash:

hardlymotivated:
Get your canaries ready, boys. We're goin' quote mining.

But sir, mine is already dead from the toxic fumes. Doesn't this mean that we should get out of this thread-mine?

We're going to keep digging until we're completely out of context! I don't care how many poorly researched quotations it takes!

Charles_Martel:

I apologize that President Obama made such an ignorant quote. I'm sure you are going to be sick of seeing the phrase in the months to come. Maybe Obama can save you the aggravation by relying on teleprompters in the future so he doesn't make a similar boneheaded statement.

So your clever strategy is to quote mine and then make a teleprompter joke.

You didn't answer my question though: How much faith do you really have in your own views if the only way you can see to win is to intentionally misquote and misrepresent your opponent?

The heavily biased one way or another love a good quote mine. This goes for liberal drones as well as conservative ones. Seriously, there is nothing to see here. Move along.

Pandabearparade:
The heavily biased one way or another love a good quote mine. This goes for liberal drones as well as conservative ones. Seriously, there is nothing to see here. Move along.

Both sides are bad!

Please provide evidence of the last time a (major?) Dem politician quote mined their opponent. I'm ever so curious as to what you can come up with.

Amnestic:

Pandabearparade:
The heavily biased one way or another love a good quote mine. This goes for liberal drones as well as conservative ones. Seriously, there is nothing to see here. Move along.

Both sides are bad!

Please provide evidence of the last time a (major?) Dem politician quote mined their opponent. I'm ever so curious as to what you can come up with.

I'm just trying to be fair (and balanced, too!), here -- but I do see your point. I shouldn't be even handed when it isn't deserved and pretend both sides are "guilty" of this to the same extent.

...fine, fine. The conservatives are clearly much -more- guilty about this sort of bullshit, but there are almost certainly examples of quote mining from liberals just speaking statistically. There are a lot of democrats who do a lot of talking, numerically it's impossible they don't quote mine some of the time.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked