iMtG Server: Gathering

Do you think that we are in a job crisis at the moment.

And if so, who is to blame?

Slightly. A lot of manufacturing jobs gave returned to US. And if anyone says Obama remember that one of his greatest achievements is making a ton of auto industry jobs that pay well in the US.

In Canada we've lost many jobs because traders don't want processed goods they want cheap raw goods. So we sell the raw low, they process it and make a finished product. And sell it back to us 10x the raw price. Canada's free trade logic.

The military is always hiring! :3 I joined the Marine Corps a few years ago and now I'm reaping the educational rewards and make enough money from that to not need a job at the moment.

Also, aren't the majority of jobs Obama has "created" part time jobs that don't pay enough for people to support their families?

I'm also not into .politics. at all so everything is just hearsay to me.. Haha

Quote from: gtfotis on August 09, 2013, 01:10:30 PM
The military is always hiring! :3 I joined the Marine Corps a few years ago and now I'm reaping the educational rewards and make enough money from that to not need a job at the moment.

Also, aren't the majority of jobs Obama has "created" part time jobs that don't pay enough for people to support their families?

I'm also not into .politics. at all so everything is just hearsay to me.. Haha

Of course they are always hiring, have you seen our defense budget? It's sickening.

Quote from: imthelolrus on August 10, 2013, 07:44:37 PM

Quote from: gtfotis on August 09, 2013, 01:10:30 PM
The military is always hiring! :3 I joined the Marine Corps a few years ago and now I'm reaping the educational rewards and make enough money from that to not need a job at the moment.

Also, aren't the majority of jobs Obama has "created" part time jobs that don't pay enough for people to support their families?

I'm also not into .politics. at all so everything is just hearsay to me.. Haha

Of course they are always hiring, have you seen our defense budget? It's sickening.

There was a period of time where we weren't getting paid.. A very tiny fraction of that budget actually goes to the average Marine/Soldier/Squid/Chairman :(

I was actually kidding about them hiring, they're actually trying to kick as many people out as they can because they're losing so much money

Quote from: gtfotis on August 10, 2013, 07:48:43 PM

Quote from: imthelolrus on August 10, 2013, 07:44:37 PM

Quote from: gtfotis on August 09, 2013, 01:10:30 PM
The military is always hiring! :3 I joined the Marine Corps a few years ago and now I'm reaping the educational rewards and make enough money from that to not need a job at the moment.

Also, aren't the majority of jobs Obama has "created" part time jobs that don't pay enough for people to support their families?

I'm also not into .politics. at all so everything is just hearsay to me.. Haha

Of course they are always hiring, have you seen our defense budget? It's sickening.

There was a period of time where we weren't getting paid.. A very tiny fraction of that budget actually goes to the average Marine/Soldier/Squid/Chairman :(

I was actually kidding about them hiring, they're actually trying to kick as many people out as they can because they're losing so much money

Yeah, idk I'm just a giant hippie who thinks we don't need to spend so much $$ on defense and guns while we ignore education and healthcare. 😥

Is that why you karma'd me? 😭
I'm not pro military at all. I joined for the education benefits and got out early :(

Quote from: gtfotis on August 10, 2013, 08:15:23 PM
Is that why you karma'd me? 😭
I'm not pro military at all. I joined for the education benefits and got out early :(

I did it because the post struck me as a little boastful. I'm a full time graduate student working part time and working an unpaid internship as part of my training. It's impossible and expensive but that's besides the point, the point is I thought you were also pro military :P

Also: don't worry so much about your karma or it'll just sink lower.. It's just a number :)

Ah, I'm sorry it came off that way, I wasn't attempting to show off or anything. Reaping was a bad word. It just covers my video gaming haha

Yeah I know it's just a number, I just happen to piss someone off with everything I say haha

Quote from: gtfotis on August 10, 2013, 08:48:52 PM
Ah, I'm sorry it came off that way, I wasn't attempting to show off or anything. Reaping was a bad word. It just covers my video gaming haha

Yeah I know it's just a number, I just happen to piss someone off with everything I say haha

Nah, I gave you +1

The reason that we don't have more jobs is that we have so much gridlock in the capital. It has been proven that spending stimulates the economy so why don't we put money into job growth and education and stop fighting wars in countries that don't want us there? Do you know why Al-queda is attacking us? After World War II the Soviet Union faced off in a pissing contest called the Cold War. During the Cold War the Soviet Union and America basically started paying off other countries (mostly in the Middle East and in South America) to be our allies. In 1978 the Soviet Union tried to work with the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) which seized power in Afghanistan in the Saur Revolution. An uprising against the new government rose up called the Mujahideen. The United States Central Intelligence Agency decided to train and supply the rebels (during Operation Cyclone) and after they fought back the Soviets, we basically said, .love. you we're done here, leaving their country war-torn and in ruins. The Mujahideen, with their leader Osama bin Laden (sound familiar?) then changed their name to Al-queda and decided to fight western influences (like the one who left their country in ruins). Wouldn't you be pissed too? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying terrorism is okay, I am saying maybe if we weren't such assholes we wouldn't have to spend decades with our soldiers over seas risking their lives.

Now to the reason welfare programs are so broken. Welfare programs started in the mid 1900's and were going fine...until the Vietnam conflict broke out. After John F. Kennedy died, the new president Lyndon B. Johnson instead of pulling out, decided to go in full force, diverting money away from social welfare programs and because the programs never really got full funding, they never did their full job.

Congrats stupid presidents, you .love. ed the country!

Quote from: Taysby on August 08, 2013, 11:17:43 PM
Obama created 1.4 mil jobs (I think.  My numbers might be off) in 2 years.  Ronald regan created 1.4 mil jobs in 1 month.  And there was a lot less people in the us back then.

Yes Obama created jobs, but it wasn't that many and he sucked at it.

Neither Reagan nor Obama created any jobs. The jobs are created by enterprises which sell enough product that it warrants hiring more people.

Government job creation is a myth, they cannot create any jobs without destroying jobs, because they only redistribute wealth, they do not create wealth, they extort it from taxpayers. For every dollar spent by the government to 'create, stimulate, whatever' there is over a dollar stolen from someone. It is well over a dollar extorted from a place where it would create more than a dollar worth of jobs. Government bureaucracy is not free, they take a dollar from you, pay the bureaucracy, then spend the remainder on their current agenda. Then they will lie to you that they created jobs, while in fact they destroyed more than they created.

You can argue that government is more efficient at creating jobs than we are. Go ahead, make my day.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 10, 2013, 10:42:02 PMIt has been proven that spending stimulates the economy

Has it been proven that extorting money from the economy slows it down? When you extort 1.2 dollars from economy, pay 0.4 dollars for the cost of extortion and stimulation, then stimulate the economy by the remaining 0.8, didn't you in fact created a lot of hot air and bureaucracy while destroying 0.4 worth of real jobs?

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 10, 2013, 10:42:02 PMNow to the reason welfare programs are so broken. Welfare programs started in the mid 1900's and were going fine...until the Vietnam conflict broke out. After John F. Kennedy died, the new president Lyndon B. Johnson instead of pulling out, decided to go in full force, diverting money away from social welfare programs and because the programs never really got full funding, they never did their full job.

Welfare programs are broken by design. They assume people are not greedy, which is not true. If people were not greedy and just take from the welfare programs what they need, as in theory, all would be fine. The problem is, people are greedy and when they see opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of others, they will do so. The other problem is, welfare programs are designed to help people who are needy. It is not possible to verify whether their needs are true or whether they come from greed and laziness. That is why all welfare programs and all forms of socialism and communism fail in the long run. They never go fine.

On top of that we have a little bit of a moral problem here. To pay for welfare programs you have to extort money from someone first. The goal is to help the needy people, which is noble and glorious, but the means to reach this goal is extortion of money at gunpoint. This is a nono under iMtG law, and any compatible ethics.

It's the baby boomers fault for reproducing.

Quote from: Piotr on August 11, 2013, 04:36:18 AM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 10, 2013, 10:42:02 PMNow to the reason welfare programs are so broken. Welfare programs started in the mid 1900's and were going fine...until the Vietnam conflict broke out. After John F. Kennedy died, the new president Lyndon B. Johnson instead of pulling out, decided to go in full force, diverting money away from social welfare programs and because the programs never really got full funding, they never did their full job.

Welfare programs are broken by design. They assume people are not greedy, which is not true. If people were not greedy and just take from the welfare programs what they need, as in theory, all would be fine. The problem is, people are greedy and when they see opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of others, they will do so. The other problem is, welfare programs are designed to help people who are needy. It is not possible to verify whether their needs are true or whether they come from greed and laziness. That is why all welfare programs and all forms of socialism and communism fail in the long run. They never go fine.

On top of that we have a little bit of a moral problem here. To pay for welfare programs you have to extort money from someone first. The goal is to help the needy people, which is noble and glorious, but the means to reach this goal is extortion of money at gunpoint. This is a nono under iMtG law, and any compatible ethics.

Now I don't always agree with Piotr (although always respect this is his forum so he deserves respect), but I feel you sir are spot on in your post's. although unemployment benefits are in theory good, people abuse it. When you have a safety net you are not afraid to fall, in this case you are not afraid of loosing your job. Therefore the people that don't work hard have no incentive TOO work hard. This inflates unemployment, taking money out of the pockets of people who may have paid a person with that money. Now I'm not bashing anyone "in a bind" closing the knot with welfare, but let be realistic, a lot of people don't want to do poo and let everyone else take care of them. Like the McDonald's workers on strike because they want $14 an hour, do what the rest of us did, obtain a skill set worth a good wage and then get paid. Sorry, I'm done.

Makes more sense now, thanks.

Quote from: Wingnut on August 11, 2013, 07:48:04 AMI don't always agree with Piotr

Tell me more please :D

Quote from: Piotr on August 11, 2013, 05:10:57 PM

Quote from: Wingnut on August 11, 2013, 07:48:04 AMI don't always agree with Piotr

Tell me more please :D

Honestly nothing in particular, I just remember there being a thread a few months back that I agreed that we disageed, that's all. Don't remember the situation( I'm 99% sure it was political, not that I'm a real political person).

Quote from: imthelolrus on August 10, 2013, 07:51:57 PM

Quote from: gtfotis on August 10, 2013, 07:48:43 PM

Quote from: imthelolrus on August 10, 2013, 07:44:37 PM

Quote from: gtfotis on August 09, 2013, 01:10:30 PM
The military is always hiring! :3 I joined the Marine Corps a few years ago and now I'm reaping the educational rewards and make enough money from that to not need a job at the moment.

Also, aren't the majority of jobs Obama has "created" part time jobs that don't pay enough for people to support their families?

I'm also not into .politics. at all so everything is just hearsay to me.. Haha

Of course they are always hiring, have you seen our defense budget? It's sickening.

There was a period of time where we weren't getting paid.. A very tiny fraction of that budget actually goes to the average Marine/Soldier/Squid/Chairman :(

I was actually kidding about them hiring, they're actually trying to kick as many people out as they can because they're losing so much money

Yeah, idk I'm just a giant hippie who thinks we don't need to spend so much $$ on defense and guns while we ignore education and healthcare. 😥

The price we pay for the greatest military :/

Yup. The "greatest military" with the worst public support.

No worries, you will need the military to protect you from the public... no, wait! Oh.

Quote from: Piotr on August 22, 2013, 09:07:29 PM
No worries, you will need the military to protect you from the public... no, wait! Oh.

So much truth right there.

Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on August 22, 2013, 01:17:21 PM
Yup. The "greatest military" with the worst public support.

Maybe if we weren't fighting unnecessary wars in countries that don't want our help and playing "planetary superhero" all the time the military would have more support.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 22, 2013, 09:26:26 PM

Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on August 22, 2013, 01:17:21 PM
Yup. The "greatest military" with the worst public support.

Maybe if we weren't fighting unnecessary wars in countries that don't want our help and playing "planetary superhero" all the time the military would have more support.

It's not the militaries decision to be there, they are simply pawns being used for political gains. Try not to forget that in theory we are there because of terrorism and the future prevention of it. No, they do not want us there, who would? But the same people who are asking how 9/11 could happen are the same people complaining that we should not be at war. (Mind you, I agree that we've been there for a LONG time without solid proof of progress and I am by no means justifying the majority of the actions of the US government).

Quote from: Wingnut on August 24, 2013, 02:14:37 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 22, 2013, 09:26:26 PM

Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on August 22, 2013, 01:17:21 PM
Yup. The "greatest military" with the worst public support.

Maybe if we weren't fighting unnecessary wars in countries that don't want our help and playing "planetary superhero" all the time the military would have more support.

It's not the militaries decision to be there, they are simply pawns being used for political gains. Try not to forget that in theory we are there because of terrorism and the future prevention of it. No, they do not want us there, who would? But the same people who are asking how 9/11 could happen are the same people complaining that we should not be at war. (Mind you, I agree that we've been there for a LONG time without solid proof of progress and I am by no means justifying the majority of the actions of the US government).

Ya, good idea. Cause there is no justification. Just ulterior motives, lies and excuses

Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on August 24, 2013, 02:44:57 PM

Quote from: Wingnut on August 24, 2013, 02:14:37 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 22, 2013, 09:26:26 PM

Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on August 22, 2013, 01:17:21 PM
Yup. The "greatest military" with the worst public support.

Maybe if we weren't fighting unnecessary wars in countries that don't want our help and playing "planetary superhero" all the time the military would have more support.

It's not the militaries decision to be there, they are simply pawns being used for political gains. Try not to forget that in theory we are there because of terrorism and the future prevention of it. No, they do not want us there, who would? But the same people who are asking how 9/11 could happen are the same people complaining that we should not be at war. (Mind you, I agree that we've been there for a LONG time without solid proof of progress and I am by no means justifying the majority of the actions of the US government).

Ya, good idea. Cause there is no justification. Just ulterior motives, lies and excuses

Oh I absolutely think that there has been justification. I 100% believe that we should have gone there and that it was needed. I just hope that the loss of respect from other countries, money and most of all lives of our brothers and sisters turns out to have been successful and worth it. That's all. I just hope our leaders created the best plan of action and it creates the results we wanted.

"War is the greatest plague to affect humanity. It destroys lives, it destroys families, and it destroys nations. Any scourge is preferable to it."
~Martin Luther.

I had never thought of Piotr's perspective that welfare assumes people are NOT greedy. I always assumed there were welfare programs because capitalists WERE by nature too greedy to share. For me welfare was insurance against a great many people languishing as a result of the greed of a powerful few who monopolized the goods and services. A friend of mine argued against government run social programs (the context was education in particular but this applies to welfare, UNEMPLOYMENT, medical, etc). It would be interesting to see what would fill the void were the government to stop "extorting" the populous for such programs and left social services to the private sector. I would like to believe Piotr is right that people, when left to their own devices, would help others out.

I'm feeling uppity. Maybe I'll skip paying taxes and support a charity, an invalid, a soldier, a school, and a construction site and see if my government will accept it as fair trade.

Quote from: Langku on August 24, 2013, 03:56:25 PM
I'm feeling uppity. Maybe I'll skip paying taxes and support a charity, an invalid, a soldier, a school, and a construction site and see if my government will accept it as fair trade.

I am more than sure they would frown on this, most likely heavily.

Quote from: Langku on August 24, 2013, 03:56:25 PMIt would be interesting to see what would fill the void were the government to stop "extorting" the populous for such programs and left social services to the private sector. I would like to believe Piotr is right that people, when left to their own devices, would help others out.

Government run welfare programs are relatively new thing in the history of civilisation. We had various forms of voluntary charity before that, and it was without a shadow of a doubt a better system of supporting the needy, even in the old times before Green Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution). People would help each other mostly using family ties and organised religions, these are also forms of charity. This is why family and church are primary enemies of all kinds of socialists who try to takeover the traditional role of family and church.

It is very important to note that with current technology true poverty defined as 'unable to buy food' does not really exists in any country but the likes of some parts of Korea where socialism is fully implemented, or countries where there is no rule of law whatsoever, such as big parts of Africa. We do not need government welfare programs.

Quote from: Piotr on August 25, 2013, 07:50:17 AM

Quote from: Langku on August 24, 2013, 03:56:25 PMIt would be interesting to see what would fill the void were the government to stop "extorting" the populous for such programs and left social services to the private sector. I would like to believe Piotr is right that people, when left to their own devices, would help others out.

Government run welfare programs are relatively new thing in the history of civilisation. We had various forms of voluntary charity before that, and it was without a shadow of a doubt a better system of supporting the needy, even in the old times before Green Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution). People would help each other mostly using family ties and organised religions, these are also forms of charity. This is why family and church are primary enemies of all kinds of socialists who try to takeover the traditional role of family and church.

It is very important to note that with current technology true poverty defined as 'unable to buy food' does not really exists in any country but the likes of some parts of Korea where socialism is fully implemented, or countries where there is no rule of law whatsoever, such as big parts of Africa. We do not need government welfare programs.

But if government shut off their support SSSOOOO many people would have to find a job and the government would lose the control they have of people and of other people's money. We can't have that.

Quote from: Wingnut on August 25, 2013, 07:59:09 AMBut if government shut off their support SSSOOOO many people would have to find a job and the government would lose the control they have of people and of other people's money. We can't have that.

While I appreciate your sarcasm, I would also like to point out that a lot of people would still choose to insure themselves voluntarily*. At the moment it is very difficult for the private insurance sector to compete with the 'free' government welfare programs. When government monopoly is removed, private insurance companies will start competing for that market and will most likely hire  a lot of the people who are already doing the job.

* for example, car insurance in NH is not mandatory yet majority of local drivers are still insured.

We've got some economic outcomes to think about:
A) Earn money.
B) Be given money.
C) Steal.

Some amount of people won't work, can work and won't, and some can't work. If you subscribe to the unfounded belief that these people are "lazy", then you're pushing them toward the outcomes described in 3.

I agree with Piotr, we don't need the government stealing money from us at gunpoint to pay for this - but it must be paid for. Humans that are in our communities need to be provided with the necessities. That is something an informed, compassionate, free people will be able to handle - and much more efficiently.

We should set up work programs like FDR did so that if you are receiving government aid, you must work if you are able. I think that we should revoke certain rights for a period of time if a person has shown they are unwilling to work and are still receiving certain forms of government aid over a long period of time. If you couldn't vote, own a gun, have a hunting and/or fishing permit and maybe even drive you would have a HUGE incentive to work. Also, politicians wouldn't have to be scared of the "47%" actually closer 10-20% because they wouldn't have a say. Lastly, I understand many people use the aid for all the right reasons (they work but are unable to support themselves/their family) and this system would account for that and only target those who are abusing the system by staying on it over long times without attempting to work.

The biggest problem with unemployment (I and know people don't want to hear this) is the minimum wage. Many times it is easier and pays more (when you account for taxes, welfare, WIC, soup kitchens and the million other programs that will help you pay any bill imaginable) than to work for minimum wage, that need to be fixed by raising minimum wage or limiting the amount of support one can receive. In many cases though, limiting the amount of aid would leave some in the cold and hungry so the only solution I see here is raising the minimum wage.

I also think there should be an across the board 1-.1% cut of all government spending no matter what and a 1-.1% hike in all taxes, no matter what. I believe that such a plan would help to balance the budget without throwing too much out of wack and hopefully such minute changes would be able to pass through the House and Senate without problems.

Minimum wage is illegal under iMtG law. It also does precisely the opposite of what you described, it increases the unemployment by destroying the low paid jobs. If a job is there paying X dollar, you increase minimum wage to X+1, the person on X is fired. As simple as this.

Quote from: Dudecore on August 25, 2013, 05:15:47 PMIf you subscribe to the unfounded belief that these people are "lazy", then you're pushing them toward the outcomes described in 3.

It is not a question of belief, it is a fact, people are lazy. And greedy. You are quite mad if you believe otherwise, I'm sorry. I also totally disagree with your suggestion that I'm pushing anyone towards stealing by not giving them freebies, this is absurd logic. I may be not preventing them from stealing, but that's a completely different thing.

Having said that, I still have no problem whatsoever supporting charities in a voluntary way, and I do. Not because I have to, but because I want to help others.

Quote from: Piotr on August 26, 2013, 05:41:20 AM
Minimum wage is illegal under iMtG law. It also does precisely the opposite of what you described, it increases the unemployment by destroying the low paid jobs. If a job is there paying X dollar, you increase minimum wage to X+1, the person on X is fired. As simple as this.

The real world doesn't use iMTG law and in America the cost of living is well above what minimum wage provides to families. Also many of the minimum wage jobs in America are restaurant workers and other "un-outsourceable" jobs, so long as the business wants to make money they would have to pay the workers an extra 50 cents more or so an hour.

There are several deterministic factors for why some will not work, or plenty more for why they cannot work. The 20% of people or so who will not do so. People can be lazy and greedy, of course - not everyone is that way for "no reason". It's difficult for me to refer to welfare as "freebies", as though it were some great gift were giving people.

Welfare in this country is broken, absolutely, but the people accepting it are not all lazy, greedy, leeches. iMtG Law solves the problem of poverty by simply ignoring it. We all are profoundly lucky to be who we are, some of us more then others, and we all could have been dealt a much different hand in life. I notice believers of free will are 100x more likely to blame welfare recipients (lazy, intentionally dodging work) then they are to explore what causes poverty or how many different factors go into shaping ones life.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 26, 2013, 07:11:03 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 26, 2013, 05:41:20 AM
Minimum wage is illegal under iMtG law. It also does precisely the opposite of what you described, it increases the unemployment by destroying the low paid jobs. If a job is there paying X dollar, you increase minimum wage to X+1, the person on X is fired. As simple as this.

The real world doesn't use iMTG law and in America the cost of living is well above what minimum wage provides to families. Also many of the minimum wage jobs in America are restaurant workers and other "un-outsourceable" jobs, so long as the business wants to make money they would have to pay the workers an extra 50 cents more or so an hour.

See, here is my opinion on this. I feel that minimum wage jobs are not meant for people supporting a family, they are meant for younger people in school, people not in school that need a second job for extra income and the such. Once your done with school, you should have in theory developed a skill set that will allow you to get a job paying better than minimum wage. How the "f" does everyone think people make more than minimum wage. Increasing minimum wage is simply going to increase the cost of living, if employers are forced to pay people more, than the money has to come from somewhere, therefore they increase prices to sustain the same level of profits, making the product more expensive, making people complain they deserve more money. Instead of financing welfare they need to better fund schools, to give people the tools needed to support a family. I feel that this will also reduce the costs of running jails, lower crime reducing the amount of police forces needed. But that's not what the government is about, reducing itself...........just food for thought to everyone and my opinion.

Quote from: Wingnut on August 11, 2013, 07:48:04 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 11, 2013, 04:36:18 AM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 10, 2013, 10:42:02 PMNow to the reason welfare programs are so broken. Welfare programs started in the mid 1900's and were going fine...until the Vietnam conflict broke out. After John F. Kennedy died, the new president Lyndon B. Johnson instead of pulling out, decided to go in full force, diverting money away from social welfare programs and because the programs never really got full funding, they never did their full job.

Welfare programs are broken by design. They assume people are not greedy, which is not true. If people were not greedy and just take from the welfare programs what they need, as in theory, all would be fine. The problem is, people are greedy and when they see opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of others, they will do so. The other problem is, welfare programs are designed to help people who are needy. It is not possible to verify whether their needs are true or whether they come from greed and laziness. That is why all welfare programs and all forms of socialism and communism fail in the long run. They never go fine.

On top of that we have a little bit of a moral problem here. To pay for welfare programs you have to extort money from someone first. The goal is to help the needy people, which is noble and glorious, but the means to reach this goal is extortion of money at gunpoint. This is a nono under iMtG law, and any compatible ethics.

Now I don't always agree with Piotr (although always respect this is his forum so he deserves respect), but I feel you sir are spot on in your post's. although unemployment benefits are in theory good, people abuse it. When you have a safety net you are not afraid to fall, in this case you are not afraid of loosing your job. Therefore the people that don't work hard have no incentive TOO work hard. This inflates unemployment, taking money out of the pockets of people who may have paid a person with that money. Now I'm not bashing anyone "in a bind" closing the knot with welfare, but let be realistic, a lot of people don't want to do poo and let everyone else take care of them. Like the McDonald's workers on strike because they want $14 an hour, do what the rest of us did, obtain a skill set worth a good wage and then get paid. Sorry, I'm done.

I can't believe I just read this in the twenty-first century. You sound like Trevelyan or a British liberal...

Let's cut to the chase shall we. There is a number that I like to trot out whenever people like to start talking about the evils of welfare. 91 percent. What's that you say? That would be the percentage of households who receive government support who are elderly, disabled, or working. 84 percent of households living below the poverty line have a working member. So this idea that all the poor are lazy or just soaking up benefits is ludicrous, a fairy tale the rich like to tell themselves in order to not feel bad as they drive by hobos.

As for the charity argument, that's a load of hogwash. Just look at liberal England with the potatoe famine or the artificial famines of India to know that the cognitive dissonance of the rich keep them for knowing the cycle of poverty. This goes hand on hand with the point above, the rich like to think they got where they are because they're worked harder than the poor people. Yet the people who didn't have the advantages they had wont get as much out of the same hard work. As a result, the poor are kept poor, the rich stay rich and without social safety nets the poor will never have any class mobility. The minimum wage should go up and we need to get out of our bubble worlds and stop thinking "oh the poor love being poor." Yes, sweating over whether your next paycheck will keep your family clothes and fed is a decision every person cherishes.

On a side note, I hate this notion of welfare as "stealing." Yes, you're successful through hardwork, but somewhere along the line you or your family received benefits or privelege and behind every success story you better believe there is a lot of luck. Welfare isn't stealing, it's helping those who lost the genetic and birth lottery and didn't have the good fortune to cash in on a right place right time idea

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 26, 2013, 10:23:43 AM
I can't believe I just read this in the twenty-first century. You sound like Trevelyan or a British liberal...

I don't know that I would say I'm a liberal necessarily, I just feel that the U.S. government could spend its money more wisely (I know, that's a BIG duh!). I don't feel people should simply be left to there own accord to sink or swim, but if more and more people don't know how to swim, eventually they're going to be grabbing onto people who do know how to swim and everyone is going to drown. Hope that makes sense.

Quote from: Wingnut on August 26, 2013, 10:48:15 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 26, 2013, 10:23:43 AM
I can't believe I just read this in the twenty-first century. You sound like Trevelyan or a British liberal...

I don't know that I would say I'm a liberal necessarily, I just feel that the U.S. government could spend its money more wisely (I know, that's a BIG duh!). I don't feel people should simply be left to there own accord to sink or swim, but if more and more people don't know how to swim, eventually they're going to be grabbing onto people who do know how to swim and everyone is going to drown. Hope that makes sense.

And what gives them this chance? The ability to receive education and not have the looming spector of poverty hovering over them and keeping them from seizing chances. Lower classes don't have the freedom to take chances and risk failing and bettering yourself takes time and money.

So what if in theory we slowly cut back supporting countries that we send billions of dollars to and cut back on military budgets (not drastically, but lets be real here, we can cut a few million here and there and that make that bug of an impact), start funneling that into the education system. Over say, 8-9-10 years, we have a better educated group of young adults that will HOPEFULLY lead to better opportunities for a percentage of these people. HOPEFULLY reducing the amount needed for welfare, which we funnel the extra into education, circle circle, MAYBE we cut the need for it in half. I'm not saying stop welfare, I'm saying come up with a plan to reduce the need for it. "Teach people to swim"

Quote from: Wingnut on August 26, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
So what if in theory we slowly cut back supporting countries that we send billions of dollars to and cut back on military budgets (not drastically, but lets be real here, we can cut a few million here and there and that make that bug of an impact), start funneling that into the education system. Over say, 8-9-10 years, we have a better educated group of young adults that will HOPEFULLY lead to better opportunities for a percentage of these people. HOPEFULLY reducing the amount needed for welfare, which we funnel the extra into education, circle circle, MAYBE we cut the need for it in half. I'm not saying stop welfare, I'm saying come up with a plan to reduce the need for it. "Teach people to swim"

We could do that, or we could have some equitable wealth distribution and labour unions worth a ****

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 26, 2013, 11:15:59 AM

We could do that, or we could have some equitable wealth distribution and labour unions worth a ****
[/quote]

Equitable wealth distribution (in moderation) I agree with (which we already have). Now labor unions, I'm weary of, ONLY because as employee wages go up than so do product prices. EVERYONE in the country can't make $15 an hour and up, all that is going to do is drive prices through the roof fast, making American made products (even more) impossible to sell overseas as they will simply be too expensive, then people get laid off cause there is nothing being sold, therefore nothing to make, then no money to buy anything, then less sold, less to make, and so on and so forth. Unfortunately this isn't something you flick off or on, it's more of a freight train (not implying you didn't know this, just simply that it is), it simply takes time and patience moving in the CORRECT direction. It's my opinion this country is being led the wrong way.

By the way, not just by Obama, but for many years by many different presidents.

Quote from: Wingnut on August 26, 2013, 11:33:55 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 26, 2013, 11:15:59 AM

We could do that, or we could have some equitable wealth distribution and labour unions worth a ****

Equitable wealth distribution (in moderation) I agree with (which we already have). Now labor unions, I'm weary of, ONLY because as employee wages go up than so do product prices. EVERYONE in the country can't make $15 an hour and up, all that is going to do is drive prices through the roof fast, making American made products (even more) impossible to sell overseas as they will simply be too expensive, then people get laid off cause there is nothing being sold, therefore nothing to make, then no money to buy anything, then less sold, less to make, and so on and so forth. Unfortunately this isn't something you flick off or on, it's more of a freight train (not implying you didn't know this, just simply that it is), it simply takes time and patience moving in the CORRECT direction. It's my opinion this country is being led the wrong way.

By the way, not just by Obama, but for many years by many different presidents.
[/quote]
We do not have moderate wealth distribution. The wealth is firmly placed in the top ten percent. The cost raising minimum wage is overstated (for example raising the price on all Walmart products by less than 2% would raise enough capital to pay the 15 dollar minimum wage).

America should be putting more into education, make the completion of high school mandatory (or a technical school) and provide more youth job programs. They would make our citizens more employable (because they would know more and have more experience) and would teach work ethic. Before anyone starts arguing about the effectiveness of youth work programs, trust me, I know they work I have taken place in them the last two years. They give non-for-profits free employees, supply young workers with a paycheck and work experience and in many cases (like me!) the workers who go to these programs get hired by the businesses or non-for-profits they were placed at.

And hopefully this will clear up the whole "welfare recipients are lazy" dispute. I hope we all know that there are many people who receive welfare and unemployment and need it to sustain themselves and their families. That being said there are multiple people (and I know a few) who scam the system, trying to collect the most they can, as long as they can because they would rather sit around. Its true, you can't deny it. But is that a reason to take food out of the mouths of those who need it? No, it isn't. This is a complex problem and it requires a complex and elegant answer that would be able to force those who are being lazy to participate in society and those who are trying their best to supply for their family, the help they need.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 26, 2013, 11:46:19 AM
America should be putting more into education, make the completion of high school mandatory (or a technical school) and provide more youth job programs. They would make our citizens more employable (because they would know more and have more experience) and would teach work ethic. Before anyone starts arguing about the effectiveness of youth work programs, trust me, I know they work I have taken place in them the last two years. They give non-for-profits free employees, supply young workers with a paycheck and work experience and in many cases (like me!) the workers who go to these programs get hired by the businesses or non-for-profits they were placed at.

And hopefully this will clear up the whole "welfare recipients are lazy" dispute. I hope we all know that there are many people who receive welfare and unemployment and need it to sustain themselves and their families. That being said there are multiple people (and I know a few) who scam the system, trying to collect the most they can, as long as they can because they would rather sit around. Its true, you can't deny it. But is that a reason to take food out of the mouths of those who need it? No, it isn't. This is a complex problem and it requires a complex and elegant answer that would be able to force those who are being lazy to participate in society and those who are trying their best to supply for their family, the help they need.

.

Well put, I have made statements that are blanket statements and it was incorrect of me. I 100% know not everyone is abusing the system, I know there are tons of people working 2-3 jobs and just need help. But I personally know 5 families that I can think of, that won't work because they are better off, they can literally sit home, do drugs and get food stamps, cash benefits, free phones and have their rent paid. All things I work 50-60 hours a week to obtain on my own, mind you, I did not come from a wealthy family, not poor, but def not wealthy (and yes, on welfare at times and purchased MANY outfits at the Salvation Army), but I wanted better for my life and my children, so I worked at it and went to work EVERY day wether I wanted or not. I'm still by no means wealthy, but I have better than growing up (this magic addiction isn't helping though).

Government welfare and drug addiction is a huge problem in the southern states. The poorest state in the union - Mississippi takes the most money in welfare, also has the highest drug addiction rates, crime rates, lowest education, more illiterate, lowest life expectancy, highest birth rate (and highest infant mortality) and highest unemployment (among other things). They're also the ones that vote republican and want to get rid of welfare.

I'm not saying anyone here is doing it, but most of the time when people want to get rid of welfare - they mean black people. They see blacks as the primary recipients of welfare. Which is untrue. So a bit of compartmentalized thinking going on.

The most poverty stricken areas of this world are also the most dangerous, people will do what they must to survive. Welfare could use an overhaul - but it's elimination directly effects those who need it most. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a solution.

Our taxes are already too high anyway. No reason to raise it. I get taxed nearly 40% of my income, I cannot give any more. I'll be working for strictly benefits soon enough. What more then 40% of my income is enough? Stop the drug war, stop corporate subsidies, stop the militarization of the police force.

Quote from: Dudecore on August 26, 2013, 02:14:19 PM
Government welfare and drug addiction is a huge problem in the southern states. The poorest state in the union - Mississippi takes the most money in welfare, also has the highest drug addiction rates, crime rates, lowest education, more illiterate, lowest life expectancy, highest birth rate (and highest infant mortality) and highest unemployment (among other things). They're also the ones that vote republican and want to get rid of welfare.

I'm not saying anyone here is doing it, but most of the time when people want to get rid of welfare - they mean black people. They see blacks as the primary recipients of welfare. Which is untrue. So a bit of compartmentalized thinking going on.

The most poverty stricken areas of this world are also the most dangerous, people will do what they must to survive. Welfare could use an overhaul - but it's elimination directly effects those who need it most. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a solution.

Our taxes are already too high anyway. No reason to raise it. I get taxed nearly 40% of my income, I cannot give any more. I'll be working for strictly benefits soon enough. What more then 40% of my income is enough? Stop the drug war, stop corporate subsidies, stop the militarization of the police force.

We can have higher taxes on those who can pay more. We could also get rid of sales tax.

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 26, 2013, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: Wingnut on August 11, 2013, 07:48:04 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 11, 2013, 04:36:18 AM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 10, 2013, 10:42:02 PMNow to the reason welfare programs are so broken. Welfare programs started in the mid 1900's and were going fine...until the Vietnam conflict broke out. After John F. Kennedy died, the new president Lyndon B. Johnson instead of pulling out, decided to go in full force, diverting money away from social welfare programs and because the programs never really got full funding, they never did their full job.

Welfare programs are broken by design. They assume people are not greedy, which is not true. If people were not greedy and just take from the welfare programs what they need, as in theory, all would be fine. The problem is, people are greedy and when they see opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of others, they will do so. The other problem is, welfare programs are designed to help people who are needy. It is not possible to verify whether their needs are true or whether they come from greed and laziness. That is why all welfare programs and all forms of socialism and communism fail in the long run. They never go fine.

On top of that we have a little bit of a moral problem here. To pay for welfare programs you have to extort money from someone first. The goal is to help the needy people, which is noble and glorious, but the means to reach this goal is extortion of money at gunpoint. This is a nono under iMtG law, and any compatible ethics.

Now I don't always agree with Piotr (although always respect this is his forum so he deserves respect), but I feel you sir are spot on in your post's. although unemployment benefits are in theory good, people abuse it. When you have a safety net you are not afraid to fall, in this case you are not afraid of loosing your job. Therefore the people that don't work hard have no incentive TOO work hard. This inflates unemployment, taking money out of the pockets of people who may have paid a person with that money. Now I'm not bashing anyone "in a bind" closing the knot with welfare, but let be realistic, a lot of people don't want to do poo and let everyone else take care of them. Like the McDonald's workers on strike because they want $14 an hour, do what the rest of us did, obtain a skill set worth a good wage and then get paid. Sorry, I'm done.

I can't believe I just read this in the twenty-first century. You sound like Trevelyan or a British liberal...

Let's cut to the chase shall we. There is a number that I like to trot out whenever people like to start talking about the evils of welfare. 91 percent. What's that you say? That would be the percentage of households who receive government support who are elderly, disabled, or working. 84 percent of households living below the poverty line have a working member. So this idea that all the poor are lazy or just soaking up benefits is ludicrous, a fairy tale the rich like to tell themselves in order to not feel bad as they drive by hobos.

As for the charity argument, that's a load of hogwash. Just look at liberal England with the potatoe famine or the artificial famines of India to know that the cognitive dissonance of the rich keep them for knowing the cycle of poverty. This goes hand on hand with the point above, the rich like to think they got where they are because they're worked harder than the poor people. Yet the people who didn't have the advantages they had wont get as much out of the same hard work. As a result, the poor are kept poor, the rich stay rich and without social safety nets the poor will never have any class mobility. The minimum wage should go up and we need to get out of our bubble worlds and stop thinking "oh the poor love being poor." Yes, sweating over whether your next paycheck will keep your family clothes and fed is a decision every person cherishes.

On a side note, I hate this notion of welfare as "stealing." Yes, you're successful through hardwork, but somewhere along the line you or your family received benefits or privelege and behind every success story you better believe there is a lot of luck. Welfare isn't stealing, it's helping those who lost the genetic and birth lottery and didn't have the good fortune to cash in on a right place right time idea

You sound like a moron who cannot understand that potato famine existed 200 years ago and the likes of it now only exists in North Korea, a socialist country? Do you even know what green revolution was and when it happened? Do you define powerty as 'not having the latest video console connected to a plasma screen'? Do you understand that no amount of luck I'm having gives you right to forcefully extort wealth from me? Do you understand that if you have no right to extort money from me yet you do, it is stealing? Do you understand that putting words in other people mouths is grounds to be banned from this place? Can you point out who and when said that all poor people are lazy? Do you understand that you are not allowed to lie on this forum, especially not in this board?

Where is your 91 number coming from?

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 26, 2013, 11:46:19 AM
America should be putting more into education, make the completion of high school mandatory (or a technical school) and provide more youth job programs. They would make our citizens more employable (because they would know more and have more experience) and would teach work ethic. Before anyone starts arguing about the effectiveness of youth work programs, trust me, I know they work I have taken place in them the last two years. They give non-for-profits free employees, supply young workers with a paycheck and work experience and in many cases (like me!) the workers who go to these programs get hired by the businesses or non-for-profits they were placed at.

And hopefully this will clear up the whole "welfare recipients are lazy" dispute. I hope we all know that there are many people who receive welfare and unemployment and need it to sustain themselves and their families. That being said there are multiple people (and I know a few) who scam the system, trying to collect the most they can, as long as they can because they would rather sit around. Its true, you can't deny it. But is that a reason to take food out of the mouths of those who need it? No, it isn't. This is a complex problem and it requires a complex and elegant answer that would be able to force those who are being lazy to participate in society and those who are trying their best to supply for their family, the help they need.

You are missing the point and ignoring the history.

We have had countries which implemented all the ideas you are proposing, and inevitably in all cases in the long run these countries were destroyed by socialism. I was born in one of these countries and seen it, you prefer to shut your eyes and brain and ignore history.

Is the fact that some people need wealth created by me the reason to extort it from me and give it to them? No, it isn't. Goal does not justify the means.

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 05:07:50 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 26, 2013, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: Wingnut on August 11, 2013, 07:48:04 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 11, 2013, 04:36:18 AM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 10, 2013, 10:42:02 PMNow to the reason welfare programs are so broken. Welfare programs started in the mid 1900's and were going fine...until the Vietnam conflict broke out. After John F. Kennedy died, the new president Lyndon B. Johnson instead of pulling out, decided to go in full force, diverting money away from social welfare programs and because the programs never really got full funding, they never did their full job.

Welfare programs are broken by design. They assume people are not greedy, which is not true. If people were not greedy and just take from the welfare programs what they need, as in theory, all would be fine. The problem is, people are greedy and when they see opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of others, they will do so. The other problem is, welfare programs are designed to help people who are needy. It is not possible to verify whether their needs are true or whether they come from greed and laziness. That is why all welfare programs and all forms of socialism and communism fail in the long run. They never go fine.

On top of that we have a little bit of a moral problem here. To pay for welfare programs you have to extort money from someone first. The goal is to help the needy people, which is noble and glorious, but the means to reach this goal is extortion of money at gunpoint. This is a nono under iMtG law, and any compatible ethics.

Now I don't always agree with Piotr (although always respect this is his forum so he deserves respect), but I feel you sir are spot on in your post's. although unemployment benefits are in theory good, people abuse it. When you have a safety net you are not afraid to fall, in this case you are not afraid of loosing your job. Therefore the people that don't work hard have no incentive TOO work hard. This inflates unemployment, taking money out of the pockets of people who may have paid a person with that money. Now I'm not bashing anyone "in a bind" closing the knot with welfare, but let be realistic, a lot of people don't want to do poo and let everyone else take care of them. Like the McDonald's workers on strike because they want $14 an hour, do what the rest of us did, obtain a skill set worth a good wage and then get paid. Sorry, I'm done.

I can't believe I just read this in the twenty-first century. You sound like Trevelyan or a British liberal...

Let's cut to the chase shall we. There is a number that I like to trot out whenever people like to start talking about the evils of welfare. 91 percent. What's that you say? That would be the percentage of households who receive government support who are elderly, disabled, or working. 84 percent of households living below the poverty line have a working member. So this idea that all the poor are lazy or just soaking up benefits is ludicrous, a fairy tale the rich like to tell themselves in order to not feel bad as they drive by hobos.

As for the charity argument, that's a load of hogwash. Just look at liberal England with the potatoe famine or the artificial famines of India to know that the cognitive dissonance of the rich keep them for knowing the cycle of poverty. This goes hand on hand with the point above, the rich like to think they got where they are because they're worked harder than the poor people. Yet the people who didn't have the advantages they had wont get as much out of the same hard work. As a result, the poor are kept poor, the rich stay rich and without social safety nets the poor will never have any class mobility. The minimum wage should go up and we need to get out of our bubble worlds and stop thinking "oh the poor love being poor." Yes, sweating over whether your next paycheck will keep your family clothes and fed is a decision every person cherishes.

On a side note, I hate this notion of welfare as "stealing." Yes, you're successful through hardwork, but somewhere along the line you or your family received benefits or privelege and behind every success story you better believe there is a lot of luck. Welfare isn't stealing, it's helping those who lost the genetic and birth lottery and didn't have the good fortune to cash in on a right place right time idea

You sound like a moron who cannot understand that potato famine existed 200 years ago and the likes of it now only exists in North Korea, a socialist country? Do you even know what green revolution was and when it happened? Do you define powerty as 'not having the latest video console connected to a plasma screen'? Do you understand that no amount of luck I'm having gives you right to forcefully extort wealth from me? Do you understand that if you have no right to extort money from me yet you do, it is stealing? Do you understand that putting words in other people mouths is grounds to be banned from this place? Can you point out who and when said that all poor people are lazy? Do you understand that you are not allowed to lie on this forum, especially not in this board?

Where is your 91 number coming from?

The 91 percent is based on 2010 us census data. The potatoe famine and other artificial famines were the result of policy, my point being that anyone with that horrid mindset can cause the same problems. Also, NK is to socialism as creationism is to science. Both are bastardized versions of the things they claim to be with very little actual common ground.

I define poverty as the U census does: families of four makin less than 23,000 a year and individuals makin 11,500 or less. As for the accusations of lying...well, considering the word lazy showed up it's not exactly lying. Perhaps lay off the leading questions? And lastly, you get your money from society, its value is determined by society, and you keep it at the behest of society. Taxation is not extortion, it is asking you to contribute to the society that made your wealth possible. Said society needs crap done, and complaining about the rich being taxed is like a tall person complaining about the short person asking him to reach a high shelf. The rich have the most to give and have benefitted the most from society, it's only reasonable to ask the them to give back,

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 07:33:53 AM
I define poverty as the U census does: families of four makin less than 23,000 a year and individuals makin 11,500 or less. As for the accusations of lying...well, considering the word lazy showed up it's not exactly lying. Perhaps lay off the leading questions? And lastly, you get your money from society, its value is determined by society, and you keep it at the behest of society. Taxation is not extortion, it is asking you to contribute to the society that made your wealth possible. Said society needs crap done, and complaining about the rich being taxed is like a tall person complaining about the short person asking him to reach a high shelf. The rich have the most to give and have benefitted the most from society, it's only reasonable to ask the them to give back,

Well said

Personally I think we are at a loss for jobs.
Due to large companies putting small businesses out of business. Also when companies will only hire part time!! Along with people coming from high school and only adding to the job market. Each year will become more competative.. And it sucks!

There is no society, there are only individuals. Wealth are not created by society, but by individuals, solitary and organised. The right way to distribute wealth is by voluntary trade, not by forceful extortion. Do not steal. In socialism one group of individuals exploit the other group forcefully, under false pretences. This is stealing. Mandatory insurance proposed by socialists is illegal under iMtG law, as a kind of stealing.

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 05:43:57 PM
There is no society, there are only individuals. Wealth are not created by society, but by individuals, solitary and organised. The right way to distribute wealth is by voluntary trade, not by forceful extortion. Do not steal. In socialism one group of individuals exploit the other group forcefully, under false pretences. This is stealing. Mandatory insurance proposed by socialists is illegal under iMtG law, as a kind of stealing.

Well again, we are talking about real laws like the U.S. Constitution. And requiring individuals to contribute to services that help the society is not stealing, exploiting or extortion.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 05:43:57 PM
There is no society, there are only individuals. Wealth are not created by society, but by individuals, solitary and organised. The right way to distribute wealth is by voluntary trade, not by forceful extortion. Do not steal. In socialism one group of individuals exploit the other group forcefully, under false pretences. This is stealing. Mandatory insurance proposed by socialists is illegal under iMtG law, as a kind of stealing.

Well again, we are talking about real laws like the U.S. Constitution. And requiring individuals to contribute to services that help the society is not stealing, exploiting or extortion.

Forcing individuals to give up their wealth for services they don't want nor need is sealing, exploiting and extortion under any kind of honest logic. Unfortunately you do not seem to follow honest logic.

Socialism enforced on federal level is illegal under U.S. Constitution too. Government don't give a flying .love. anyway, they are crooks after all. There are only two kinds of socialists: naive and crooks. You seem to be of the naive kind, that's why we're still talking.

In any case I live my life by iMtG law so it is important for me to know what and what not is illegal for me. After all, if the government doesn't give a damn about their own laws, why would I? I simply do not harm others and use self defense when others try to harm me.

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 05:43:57 PM
There is no society, there are only individuals. Wealth are not created by society, but by individuals, solitary and organised. The right way to distribute wealth is by voluntary trade, not by forceful extortion. Do not steal. In socialism one group of individuals exploit the other group forcefully, under false pretences. This is stealing. Mandatory insurance proposed by socialists is illegal under iMtG law, as a kind of stealing.

The Ayn Rand is strong with this one.

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 06:12:55 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 05:43:57 PM
There is no society, there are only individuals. Wealth are not created by society, but by individuals, solitary and organised. The right way to distribute wealth is by voluntary trade, not by forceful extortion. Do not steal. In socialism one group of individuals exploit the other group forcefully, under false pretences. This is stealing. Mandatory insurance proposed by socialists is illegal under iMtG law, as a kind of stealing.

The Ayn Rand is strong with this one.

She figured some things quite right. The Marx and Engels seems to be strong with you, and they are clearly on the dark side.

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 06:15:40 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 06:12:55 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 05:43:57 PM
There is no society, there are only individuals. Wealth are not created by society, but by individuals, solitary and organised. The right way to distribute wealth is by voluntary trade, not by forceful extortion. Do not steal. In socialism one group of individuals exploit the other group forcefully, under false pretences. This is stealing. Mandatory insurance proposed by socialists is illegal under iMtG law, as a kind of stealing.

The Ayn Rand is strong with this one.

She figured some things quite right. The Marx and Engels seems to be strong with you, and they are clearly on the dark side.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6LYP2SRhe3U/TrYlirpRLuI/AAAAAAAAaF8/WJxY-0iUa60/s1600/comic%2Batlas_shrugged.gif

Those who think of themselves as individuals and society simply as a collection individuals seem to ignore the fact that people found working together helped ideas an technology evolve quicker for a reason.

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 06:22:32 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 06:15:40 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 06:12:55 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 05:43:57 PM
There is no society, there are only individuals. Wealth are not created by society, but by individuals, solitary and organised. The right way to distribute wealth is by voluntary trade, not by forceful extortion. Do not steal. In socialism one group of individuals exploit the other group forcefully, under false pretences. This is stealing. Mandatory insurance proposed by socialists is illegal under iMtG law, as a kind of stealing.

The Ayn Rand is strong with this one.

She figured some things quite right. The Marx and Engels seems to be strong with you, and they are clearly on the dark side.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6LYP2SRhe3U/TrYlirpRLuI/AAAAAAAAaF8/WJxY-0iUa60/s1600/comic%2Batlas_shrugged.gif

Those who think of themselves as individuals and society simply as a collection individuals seem to ignore the fact that people found working together helped ideas an technology evolve quicker for a reason.

Did you read the book?

We acknowledge scientifically proven fact that people are better working together voluntarily, not under force. Socialists believe otherwise and they are wrong.

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 06:01:53 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 05:43:57 PM
There is no society, there are only individuals. Wealth are not created by society, but by individuals, solitary and organised. The right way to distribute wealth is by voluntary trade, not by forceful extortion. Do not steal. In socialism one group of individuals exploit the other group forcefully, under false pretences. This is stealing. Mandatory insurance proposed by socialists is illegal under iMtG law, as a kind of stealing.

Well again, we are talking about real laws like the U.S. Constitution. And requiring individuals to contribute to services that help the society is not stealing, exploiting or extortion.

Forcing individuals to give up their wealth for services they don't want nor need is sealing, exploiting and extortion under any kind of honest logic. Unfortunately you do not seem to follow honest logic.

There are only two kinds of socialists: naive and crooks. You seem to be of the naive kind, that's why we're still talking.

I am not naive, I just think that the well being and survival of humans is worth the small amount of money taken out of my check each week. Sorry for being a decent human being. If you think your money is more important than humans lives, dig a hole, bring your money with you and bury yourself there.

Do you know why socialism and communism don't work? It's because greedy individuals like yourself believe you are better than your fellow man and deserve more than everyone else does.

Lastly, I know that the unemployment and welfare systems are broken, if you look at previous posts you will see that, but I don't believe we should make millions die from starvation because a few thousand are taking advantage of the system.

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 06:35:35 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 06:22:32 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 06:15:40 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 06:12:55 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 05:43:57 PM
There is no society, there are only individuals. Wealth are not created by society, but by individuals, solitary and organised. The right way to distribute wealth is by voluntary trade, not by forceful extortion. Do not steal. In socialism one group of individuals exploit the other group forcefully, under false pretences. This is stealing. Mandatory insurance proposed by socialists is illegal under iMtG law, as a kind of stealing.

The Ayn Rand is strong with this one.

She figured some things quite right. The Marx and Engels seems to be strong with you, and they are clearly on the dark side.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6LYP2SRhe3U/TrYlirpRLuI/AAAAAAAAaF8/WJxY-0iUa60/s1600/comic%2Batlas_shrugged.gif

Those who think of themselves as individuals and society simply as a collection individuals seem to ignore the fact that people found working together helped ideas an technology evolve quicker for a reason.

Did you read the book?

We acknowledge scientifically proven fact that people are better working together voluntarily, not under force. Socialists believe otherwise and they are wrong.

You're misrepresentation of science, society, and socialism is noted.

Millions die? You re mad.

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 08:00:52 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 06:52:03 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 06:01:53 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 05:43:57 PM
There is no society, there are only individuals. Wealth are not created by society, but by individuals, solitary and organised. The right way to distribute wealth is by voluntary trade, not by forceful extortion. Do not steal. In socialism one group of individuals exploit the other group forcefully, under false pretences. This is stealing. Mandatory insurance proposed by socialists is illegal under iMtG law, as a kind of stealing.

Well again, we are talking about real laws like the U.S. Constitution. And requiring individuals to contribute to services that help the society is not stealing, exploiting or extortion.

Forcing individuals to give up their wealth for services they don't want nor need is sealing, exploiting and extortion under any kind of honest logic. Unfortunately you do not seem to follow honest logic.

There are only two kinds of socialists: naive and crooks. You seem to be of the naive kind, that's why we're still talking.

I am not naive, I just think that the well being and survival of humans is worth the small amount of money taken out of my check each week. Sorry for being a decent human being. If you think your money is more important than humans lives, dig a hole, bring your money with you and bury yourself there.

Do you know why socialism and communism don't work? It's because greedy individuals like yourself believe you are better than your fellow man and deserve more than everyone else does.

Lastly, I know that the unemployment and welfare systems are broken, if you look at previous posts you will see that, but I don't believe we should make millions die from starvation because a few thousand are taking advantage of the system.

You want to give money to better society so go ahead.  It's stealing from the rest of us who don't want it taken from us.

Why would millions die from starvation if we got rid of welfare.  It would make people get jobs.  And there are kind people who would take care of the people who can't work.

IMO Giving money to make a better society won't exactly work because some money given that way could and might be used in a corrupt manner.


Some people who are on welfare are lazy and/or a disability, and some people arent kind enough to take care of those people. And if welfare were to be taken away those people wouldn't be able to take care of themselves and probably won't want too.

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 08:00:52 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 06:52:03 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 06:01:53 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 05:43:57 PM
There is no society, there are only individuals. Wealth are not created by society, but by individuals, solitary and organised. The right way to distribute wealth is by voluntary trade, not by forceful extortion. Do not steal. In socialism one group of individuals exploit the other group forcefully, under false pretences. This is stealing. Mandatory insurance proposed by socialists is illegal under iMtG law, as a kind of stealing.

Well again, we are talking about real laws like the U.S. Constitution. And requiring individuals to contribute to services that help the society is not stealing, exploiting or extortion.

Forcing individuals to give up their wealth for services they don't want nor need is sealing, exploiting and extortion under any kind of honest logic. Unfortunately you do not seem to follow honest logic.

There are only two kinds of socialists: naive and crooks. You seem to be of the naive kind, that's why we're still talking.

I am not naive, I just think that the well being and survival of humans is worth the small amount of money taken out of my check each week. Sorry for being a decent human being. If you think your money is more important than humans lives, dig a hole, bring your money with you and bury yourself there.

Do you know why socialism and communism don't work? It's because greedy individuals like yourself believe you are better than your fellow man and deserve more than everyone else does.

Lastly, I know that the unemployment and welfare systems are broken, if you look at previous posts you will see that, but I don't believe we should make millions die from starvation because a few thousand are taking advantage of the system.

You want to give money to better society so go ahead.  It's stealing from the rest of us who don't want it taken from us.

Why would millions die from starvation if we got rid of welfare.  It would make people get jobs.  And there are kind people who would take care of the people who can't work.

Yeah they tried that, it's called Victorian Britain. Maybe you saw it in Oliver Twist. Again, see 91 percent of people on welfare having jobs, having disabilities, or being too old to work. 84 percent of households under the poverty line have at least one family member working. This fairy tale about the poor not working is getting old, the welfare queen in your head is a tiny minority.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 06:52:03 PM
Do you know why socialism and communism don't work? It's because greedy individuals like yourself believe you are better than your fellow man and deserve more than everyone else does.

Lastly, I know that the unemployment and welfare systems are broken, if you look at previous posts you will see that, but I don't believe we should make millions die from starvation because a few thousand are taking advantage of the system.

Is it greedy for him to want to keep more of what he WORKED for? Instead of having it taken away before he even gets his share and given to other people? Is that really greed? He simply wants what he has earned. Why should he earn it if its going to be taken away? Where is the incentive to work hard and support yourself if you also have to support other people who do not?

On the second point, if you genuinely think that millions of people are going to starve if if welfare is cut, than I have a bridge I want to sell you. You REALLY think a few thousand people are raping the system? Seriously? I would lean way more towards it being dangerously close to 50% of the "million" who would starve.

Again, please no one think I'm "against" welfare, and completely realize that there are people who simply need the help getting by, but I feel that there are just as many that abuse it because they can. They believe it is ok and right that the government take other people's money and give it to them. The logic they use to make it ok in there mind, I have no idea, but they do. Never mind the fact that the government takes our money and gives it to other countries that want to kill us........ Makes sense. My gripe is with the government and the small percentage if people who refuse to contribute to society and instead take advantage of it.

Quote from: Piotr on August 27, 2013, 07:40:01 PM
Millions die? You re mad.

You see, people need these things called necessities. Necessities are necessary. Without the necessary necessities people can't live and when you can't live, you die. Now to avoid that death, you need necessities including food, clothing and shelter. To get those things you need money. If you are unable to work you don't get the money and as I have demonstrated, without the money, you don't get the necessities and you die. There are over 313.9 million people in America alone. If even twenty percent of them get government aid (which is a low estimate compare to a lot of other numbers thrown around) that's 62.78 million people. Even if only 2% of those people require the aid to survive and you take that aid away, millions die. Witness the insanity of logic and math.

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 08:11:20 PM
Yeah they tried that, it's called Victorian Britain. Maybe you saw it in Oliver Twist. Again, see 91 percent of people on welfare having jobs, having disabilities, or being too old to work. 84 percent of households under the poverty line have at least one family member working. This fairy tale about the poor not working is getting old, the welfare queen in your head is a tiny minority.

....and if the numbers you give are factual (as in real life and not simply what the government posts or "what is put on the application"), than I am wrong and I own that. But I don't believe it.

...And it all comes back to what I said earlier...

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 26, 2013, 11:46:19 AM
I hope we all know that there are many people who receive welfare and unemployment and need it to sustain themselves and their families. That being said there are multiple people (and I know a few) who scam the system, trying to collect the most they can, as long as they can because they would rather sit around. Its true, you can't deny it. But is that a reason to take food out of the mouths of those who need it? No, it isn't. This is a complex problem and it requires a complex and elegant answer that would be able to force those who are being lazy to participate in society and those who are trying their best to supply for their family, the help they need.

As much as we talk about revolution and governmental shut down, its not going to happen so instead of complaining about the government lets try to think of the complex solutions that are required to answer the complex problems we are facing.

Quote from: Wingnut on August 27, 2013, 08:36:33 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 08:11:20 PM
Yeah they tried that, it's called Victorian Britain. Maybe you saw it in Oliver Twist. Again, see 91 percent of people on welfare having jobs, having disabilities, or being too old to work. 84 percent of households under the poverty line have at least one family member working. This fairy tale about the poor not working is getting old, the welfare queen in your head is a tiny minority.

....and if the numbers you give are factual (as in real life and not simply what the government posts or "what is put on the application"), than I am wrong and I own that. But I don't believe it.

So it's either a rigorously reviewed survey that is accepted by demographic experts the world over or your gut. Hmm...tough choice >.>

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 08:48:53 PM
...And it all comes back to what I said earlier...

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 26, 2013, 11:46:19 AM
As much as we talk about revolution and governmental shut down, its not going to happen so instead of complaining about the government lets try to think of the complex solutions that are required to answer the complex problems we are facing.

Completely agree, but taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor isn't the solution. You take ALL the money in the world, divide it evenly among every individual and what will happen? Within 10 years the rich will be rich again and the poor will be poor again. It breaks down to drive and ability to manage money to make you more money.

I understand there will always be rich and poor. I am not saying "hey let's attack Bill Gates, steal his money and throw it in the streets." I am saying "hey, can't we all contribute a little so that the poor can afford to survive."

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 08:51:47 PM

Quote from: Wingnut on August 27, 2013, 08:36:33 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 08:11:20 PM
Yeah they tried that, it's called Victorian Britain. Maybe you saw it in Oliver Twist. Again, see 91 percent of people on welfare having jobs, having disabilities, or being too old to work. 84 percent of households under the poverty line have at least one family member working. This fairy tale about the poor not working is getting old, the welfare queen in your head is a tiny minority.

....and if the numbers you give are factual (as in real life and not simply what the government posts or "what is put on the application"), than I am wrong and I own that. But I don't believe it.

So it's either a rigorously reviewed survey that is accepted by demographic experts the world over or your gut. Hmm...tough choice >.>

And in the end it's information is compiled and provided by government organizations that want the control of the money. The more people that need the government to survive, the more control they have. I simply do not believe and/trust the government. They lied about tracking our phone calls and emails, they lied about the whole Benghazi mess, they control almost all the the media that is fed to us, they have create racial tension (and by the way lying is against imtg law, I say they are banned from it). Our government is not for us, they are against us and our rights as U.S. citizens. Like I said, if these numbers are factual and real world, then I apologize to everyone.

And I want to state way off topic that I'm incredibly impressed that this hasn't turned into a karma war. I'm glad a group of people can disagree, have an argument, probably be heated, not be childish and just agree that they don't agree.

Quote from: Wingnut on August 27, 2013, 09:11:23 PM
And in the end it's information is compiled and provided by government organizations that want the control of the money. The more people that need the government to survive, the more control they have. I simply do not believe and/trust the government. They lied about tracking our phone calls and emails, they lied about the whole Benghazi mess, they control almost all the the media that is fed to us, they have create racial tension (and by the way lying is against imtg law, I say they are banned from it). Our government is not for us, they are against us and our rights as U.S. citizens. Like I said, if these numbers are factual and real world, then I apologize to everyone.

I hate when people say "the government is against us". The government is full of elected officials who are supposed to represent us. Is that how it works...no, but the reason it doesn't work that way is that there are too many stupid people who vote blindly without even knowing who either candidate is or what the stand for. "Why did you vote for that person" "Oh, his slogan rhymed". That's how 80% of America votes and it is ridiculous. You could be the worst politician in the world and steal trillions from the government but still get elected because you spent money on commercials and you are a handsome person.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 09:26:58 PM

Quote from: Wingnut on August 27, 2013, 09:11:23 PM
And in the end it's information is compiled and provided by government organizations that want the control of the money. The more people that need the government to survive, the more control they have. I simply do not believe and/trust the government. They lied about tracking our phone calls and emails, they lied about the whole Benghazi mess, they control almost all the the media that is fed to us, they have create racial tension (and by the way lying is against imtg law, I say they are banned from it). Our government is not for us, they are against us and our rights as U.S. citizens. Like I said, if these numbers are factual and real world, then I apologize to everyone.

I hate when people say "the government is against us". The government is full of elected officials who are supposed to represent us. Is that how it works...no, but the reason it doesn't work that way is that there are too many stupid people who vote blindly without even knowing who either candidate is or what the stand for. "Why did you vote for that person" "Oh, his slogan rhymed". That's how 80% of America votes and it is ridiculous. You could be the worst politician in the world and steal trillions from the government but still get elected because you spent money on commercials and you are a handsome person.

Voting is an inherently irrational decision, this has been studied to death. 9 times out of ten an election will be decided by two factors: voter choice in previous elections (dems vote dem, no surprise) and economic performance.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 09:26:58 PM
I hate when people say "the government is against us". The government is full of elected officials who are supposed to represent us. Is that how it works...no, but the reason it doesn't work that way is that there are too many stupid people who vote blindly without even knowing who either candidate is or what the stand for. "Why did you vote for that person" "Oh, his slogan rhymed". That's how 80% of America votes and it is ridiculous. You could be the worst politician in the world and steal trillions from the government but still get elected because you spent money on commercials and you are a handsome person.

Partially agree with this statement. Candidates are pushed by political groups and funded by corporations that have agendas. Therefore, we have the ability to vote for the ones they want us to, the ones that either have their agenda, or can be controlled enough. Never mind the "donations" that are made all over the place (especially by oil companies). I just think someone needs to get in there and change the governments policies and procedures. Never gonna happen, but its a nice thought.

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 09:41:23 PM
There are ways for the poor to find high earning jobs.  I was trying to find a job and couldn't find one.  One of my friends told me their boss needed a computer person (she wasn't advertising the opening). I went in and applied.  Nothing.  Went in to check.  Nothing.  Repeated that 5 times, then got hired maki bank considering my lack of a college degree.

They can find ways to make money.

Yup that's why all my friends with initiative, drive, and intelligence have jobs...oh wait

You are hopefully trolling...

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 09:34:25 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 09:26:58 PM

Quote from: Wingnut on August 27, 2013, 09:11:23 PM
And in the end it's information is compiled and provided by government organizations that want the control of the money. The more people that need the government to survive, the more control they have. I simply do not believe and/trust the government. They lied about tracking our phone calls and emails, they lied about the whole Benghazi mess, they control almost all the the media that is fed to us, they have create racial tension (and by the way lying is against imtg law, I say they are banned from it). Our government is not for us, they are against us and our rights as U.S. citizens. Like I said, if these numbers are factual and real world, then I apologize to everyone.

I hate when people say "the government is against us". The government is full of elected officials who are supposed to represent us. Is that how it works...no, but the reason it doesn't work that way is that there are too many stupid people who vote blindly without even knowing who either candidate is or what the stand for. "Why did you vote for that person" "Oh, his slogan rhymed". That's how 80% of America votes and it is ridiculous. You could be the worst politician in the world and steal trillions from the government but still get elected because you spent money on commercials and you are a handsome person.

Voting is an inherently irrational decision, this has been studied to death. 9 times out of ten an election will be decided by two factors: voter choice in previous elections (dems vote dem, no surprise) and economic performance.

Do you watch Brain Games? They actually did an experiment where they showed people two candidates from elections (small ones from a different area) and found that something like 85% of the time the people could choose the winner just from like 5 seconds of looking at the picture. Yes, voting is flawed but that is because humans are flawed and why all forms of government (even Nomocracy) are flawed. If people were to actually act like they cared, payed attention to .politics., economics and the news and used their head sometime the world would be a better place but there is no way to enforce it so we are left with the world we have. The only way we can try to make the world better is to make what we think is the best choice and hope that the politicians we put their trust in help and if they don't vote for a new one next time. It not a great system but its the best one so far.

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 09:39:05 PM
If we got rid of welfare, the people who rely on it to live will find ways to survive.  Such as relatives, begging (not the best option), churches (churches help a lot with the poor) etc.  very few would die, if any, just because we killed welfare

I don't disagree, but I don't say kill welfare, I say make it tougher. Have to work unless ACTUALLY disabled. If your not a citizen, get a damn job or go home. What, don't pass a drug test? Here's rehab. Can't find a job, ok, here's help, but you get to do community service. Working 2 jobs but need help with food and heat, than here you go. Just simply harder, make people that can work, work. Simple as that.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 26, 2013, 11:46:19 AM
I hope we all know that there are many people who receive welfare and unemployment and need it to sustain themselves and their families. That being said there are multiple people (and I know a few) who scam the system, trying to collect the most they can, as long as they can because they would rather sit around. Its true, you can't deny it. But is that a reason to take food out of the mouths of those who need it? No, it isn't. This is a complex problem and it requires a complex and elegant answer that would be able to force those who are being lazy to participate in society and those who are trying their best to supply for their family, the help they need.

And again it comes back to this....

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 09:49:51 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 09:44:41 PM

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 09:41:23 PM
There are ways for the poor to find high earning jobs.  I was trying to find a job and couldn't find one.  One of my friends told me their boss needed a computer person (she wasn't advertising the opening). I went in and applied.  Nothing.  Went in to check.  Nothing.  Repeated that 5 times, then got hired maki bank considering my lack of a college degree.

They can find ways to make money.

Yup that's why all my friends with initiative, drive, and intelligence have jobs...oh wait

You are hopefully trolling...

You can have drive and not know where to look.  My high school career I took lots of computer classes, and I found someone who needed a computer person.  D those friends of yours constantly ask everyone they know if they know someone who needs someone with their skills?

And they have to be willing to do things they don't want to.  Fast food places are always hiring.  There is a start while they look for something better.

Your patronizing is noted...

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 09:49:51 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 27, 2013, 09:44:41 PM

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 09:41:23 PM
There are ways for the poor to find high earning jobs.  I was trying to find a job and couldn't find one.  One of my friends told me their boss needed a computer person (she wasn't advertising the opening). I went in and applied.  Nothing.  Went in to check.  Nothing.  Repeated that 5 times, then got hired maki bank considering my lack of a college degree.

They can find ways to make money.

Yup that's why all my friends with initiative, drive, and intelligence have jobs...oh wait

You are hopefully trolling...

You can have drive and not know where to look.  My high school career I took lots of computer classes, and I found someone who needed a computer person.  D those friends of yours constantly ask everyone they know if they know someone who needs someone with their skills?

And they have to be willing to do things they don't want to.  Fast food places are always hiring.  There is a start while they look for something better.

If you haven't seen the news in the last month or so, there is a huge dispute right now where people are debating if fast food jobs are enough to support people and whether or not to raise the minimum wage. Do you want the answer: no, fast food jobs don't pay enough. My father went to high school and even to college to become an accountant. He worked but when the global slump hit in 2008 my father, who was working at a construction company as an accountant, got laid off. From there he went to a factory that makes food (especially sauces) and after almost a year as a temp he was about to be hired when...the company was sold to another company and the factory was closed. After that he went on unemployment for a month or so before going to work at USPS. The problem was USPS only hires temps and you can't be hired until after a year. He worked there for a few months but the pay was too sporadic one week he would get 34 hours or so but the next he got like 11 and he couldn't support me, my brother and my stepmom so he had no choice to go on unemployment. If he were to take a minimum wage job (at McDonalds) he would only get a part time position ending up making less than what he needs to support his family. I he lazy? No, he tried to work but no one is hiring full time right now, at least not in my area. Even now I am lending him money I make from my part time job so that he can support himself. I think we should realize that not everyone on unemployment is a lazy drug user and maybe look at the truth.

The state is an aggressive entity which steals property (through taxation and expropriation), initiates aggression, has a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, uses its coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, creates monopolies, restricts trade, and restricts personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality. They do what no good person would ever do in their wildest dreams.

They've got to go. An informed, intelligent public will donate to charity. Other humans successes and failures are as much our own. If the government did not seize money from us, charitable organizations can do everything you wish of them - from dispensing money to folks that deserve it, ignoring those who do not. People don't understand that if you had 30%-40% more money in your pocket - you can do much more. Taxes are taken from you forcefully, and withheld from each pay check to give the illusion of how little it is. Want to see a revolution in this country? Think of what it would be like if they took taxes in one lump sum. Who's going to fork up $14k in one shot?

But that's assuming that people aren't greedy assholes....also I have never heard of a charity that builds roads or regulates the economy.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 10:10:52 PM
But that's assuming that people aren't greedy assholes....also I have never heard of a charity that builds roads or regulates the economy.

People can be as greedy as they feel necessary, if I am not forced to work with them or trade with them - they are none of my concern. Communities can build roads because they need them, and they're now owned by the people who used their labor. Economies don't need regulation, if they're not coercive and do not use aggression to seize private property or harm people then they're within their rights to do what it is they'd do.

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 10:31:47 PM
Part time low paying jobs can hold a family together.  Do you need to eat better than beans and rice to survive?  No.  (I don't mean to be mean to you because of your situation). Is your father turning down all part time/sporadic pay jobs because it isn't consistent.  Tell me if I'm wrong and I will apologize, but if he's sitting on his butt not working because he doesn't have something consistent, he is taking advantage of the system.

I don't mean to be mean to you, don't think I am.

There are better options than government for welfare.  (See above post about church)

And when job searching, did your dad ask people if they would hire him for something he was good at even if they weren't advertising it (honest question)

You're not mean, merely a victim of cognitive dissonance. When other people depend on your paycheck, you'll understand why sporadic doesn't work, why minimum wage doesn't work, and why trying to simply beg at the church isn't good enough. Then comes the painful decisions and quick fixes that lead to debt because you can't pay for the long term. Then comes the slide as you can't find work and can't afford to fix so you try to scrape by. Meanwhile, you take government support and are labeled "lazy" for "stealing" because, I don't know, you didn't look hard enough for pots of gold at the end of rainbows and your kids are wasting their time with "education" when they could be using their time constructively to beg.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 27, 2013, 10:10:52 PM
But that's assuming that people aren't greedy assholes....also I have never heard of a charity that builds roads or regulates the economy.

Socialists ignore the fact that people are greedy, because only a small number of greedy people is able to corrupt socialism. It is extremely easy to steal money in socialism, all you need to do is pretend you cannot work. Opportunity makes a thief, as we say in Poland. Your friend who's about to get banned for repeated lying is quoting some false numbers, why don't you go and google some real numbers for us: how many people are on government benefits because 'their back hurts' or are 'depressed'?

Free market assumes that people are greedy and it turns their greed into the benefit of others. If I were not a greedy bastard, would you have this forum to spread your lies on, would you have your app to fiddle with? No, it was me the greedy bastard entrepreneur who created it for you, because I'm greedy. Not at all because I care for you or your needs, I don't give a flying .love.. Yet, in free market, you get nice things because I'm greedy. And what's best, I cannot force you to buy my product, you can walk away with your money and buy from some other greedy bastard.

In socialism you don't have that choice, you are stuck with government monopoly. In socialism people lose things when other people are greedy.

If I ever again hear from you or anyone else the lie that if we got rid of welfare millions would die, you are out of here. We are not in victorian England 200 years ago, we are past green revolution and we live in a world of plenty. I can get better food from garbage cans back at my local Tesco, than a working man could buy 200 years ago, due to progress of technology. These days charities in western countries work to provide people with education, computers and stuff which is way beyond basic needs of people, as the basic needs of people are so cheaply covered it takes the enormous effort of government propaganda to convince naive people that we actually need government to satisfy the basics. We don't.

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 11:21:51 PM
When you are working sporadically, people see that you are working hard and might give you a full time job, or make that job more steady for you.

Piece of advice, never quit your job until you have another lined up.  Getting paid somewhat is better than not getting paid at all.

The problem is, a lot of companies aren't hiring right now so the ones who are hiring can take advantage of the work force. If you had twenty people applying for three jobs wouldn't you rather hire five people part time? If you did you wouldn't have to give them higher wages or the benefits associated with being a full time worker. Being part time means you don't get an type of insurance from your company, which is just another expense to take out of your already reduced paycheck. You are right, hard work will get you a job....but only if the company is willing to pay you more and in many cases you can't be hired until after a year as a temp/part time (ex. Factories, USPS). Is some money better than no money? Yes, but that is not the situation. The situation is "Is a year of not having enough money to pay the bills and hoping you get hired better than getting the money you need to pay the bills and support your family?" Also, don't worry, I know your not being mean but we live in a rural area without a lot of food banks or churches eager to give out money because they are struggling too.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 28, 2013, 07:31:11 AM

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 11:21:51 PM
When you are working sporadically, people see that you are working hard and might give you a full time job, or make that job more steady for you.

Piece of advice, never quit your job until you have another lined up.  Getting paid somewhat is better than not getting paid at all.

The problem is, a lot of companies aren't hiring right now so the ones who are hiring can take advantage of the work force. If you had twenty people applying for three jobs wouldn't you rather hire five people part time? If you did you wouldn't have to give them higher wages or the benefits associated with being a full time worker. Being part time means you don't get an type of insurance from your company, which is just another expense to take out of your already reduced paycheck. You are right, hard work will get you a job....but only if the company is willing to pay you more and in many cases you can't be hired until after a year as a temp/part time (ex. Factories, USPS). Is some money better than no money? Yes, but that is not the situation. The situation is "Is a year of not having enough money to pay the bills and hoping you get hired better than getting the money you need to pay the bills and support your family?" Also, don't worry, I know your not being mean but we live in a rural area without a lot of food banks or churches eager to give out money because they are struggling too.

Your naivety is so cute. As a .loving. greedy bastard entrepreneur I'll give you a pro tip: 5 workers is 5 times the problems of 1 worker ;)

The problem we have with the economy was caused by reduction of freedom in the market. Your solution to the problem? More regulation. That is either naive, or malicious.

Quote from: Piotr on August 28, 2013, 09:19:32 AM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 28, 2013, 07:31:11 AM

Quote from: Taysby on August 27, 2013, 11:21:51 PM
When you are working sporadically, people see that you are working hard and might give you a full time job, or make that job more steady for you.

Piece of advice, never quit your job until you have another lined up.  Getting paid somewhat is better than not getting paid at all.

The problem is, a lot of companies aren't hiring right now so the ones who are hiring can take advantage of the work force. If you had twenty people applying for three jobs wouldn't you rather hire five people part time? If you did you wouldn't have to give them higher wages or the benefits associated with being a full time worker. Being part time means you don't get an type of insurance from your company, which is just another expense to take out of your already reduced paycheck. You are right, hard work will get you a job....but only if the company is willing to pay you more and in many cases you can't be hired until after a year as a temp/part time (ex. Factories, USPS). Is some money better than no money? Yes, but that is not the situation. The situation is "Is a year of not having enough money to pay the bills and hoping you get hired better than getting the money you need to pay the bills and support your family?" Also, don't worry, I know your not being mean but we live in a rural area without a lot of food banks or churches eager to give out money because they are struggling too.

Your naivety is so cute. As a .loving. greedy bastard entrepreneur I'll give you a pro tip: 5 workers is 5 times the problems of 1 worker ;)

The problem we have with the economy was caused by reduction of freedom in the market. Your solution to the problem? More regulation. That is either naive, or malicious.

That's right because there was so much regulation leading up to the crisis...wait.

Quote from: Piotr on August 28, 2013, 09:19:32 AM
Your naivety is so cute. As a .loving. greedy bastard entrepreneur I'll give you a pro tip: 5 workers is 5 times the problems of 1 worker ;)

The problem we have with the economy was caused by reduction of freedom in the market. Your solution to the problem? More regulation. That is either naive, or malicious.

Ummm...regulation not being able to keep up with information age trading has caused how many microcrashes? To quote my college economics textbook "The problem in recent years is that financial technology has outpaced financial regulation."

Also "5 workers is 5 times the problems of 1 worker" may be true but I said 5 as opposed to 3 (reading helps). Also it makes a lot of sense to hire temps:

3 Full time X 40 hours X whatever the union has agreed on like say $8+insurance and all other benefits=$960+the cost of the benefits
5 temps X 24 hours X minimum wage 7.25=$870

Quote from: Taysby on August 28, 2013, 03:41:21 PM
@piotor.  Us you are greedy.  Charging $10 to unlock all of this app.  (Whatever, I don't care) and you are a bastard.  This evil malicious app has tAken over my life.  I'm addicted to it.  I spend all of my free time on it.  ;)

You also have to keep in mind the cost to train those employees, the extra work to pay them, keep track of their hours, that they are slacking off, taking money out of their paycheck for fica and social security, etc.  I would say it comes out to be about even. So 1 person would be better. 

If you can't qualify for welfare if you are trying to work yourself, this system is even more broken than I realized and needs to go. 

If you go to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, they will help you because their donations go to a massive fund that any other one of their divisions can pull from if needed.

All of the costs you listed for part-timers are automated, one time, or negligible.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 28, 2013, 12:01:30 PMTo quote my college economics textbook "The problem in recent years is that financial technology has outpaced financial regulation."

Also "5 workers is 5 times the problems of 1 worker" may be true but I said 5 as opposed to 3 (reading helps). Also it makes a lot of sense to hire temps:

3 Full time X 40 hours X whatever the union has agreed on like say $8+insurance and all other benefits=$960+the cost of the benefits
5 temps X 24 hours X minimum wage 7.25=$870

Your college book is not worth the paper it is printed on, if it contains such lies. Read something by Hayek (https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the-road-to-serfdom/id568084117?mt=11&uo=4&at=10l74t) or Friedman (https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/why-government-is-the-problem/id580552322?mt=11&uo=4&at=10l74t) instead. Both Nobel prize winners, if it matters to you.

The data you provided proves the point that the current high unemployment is partially caused by government enforced insurance monopoly and government enforcing the minimum wage. Well done.

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 28, 2013, 09:55:07 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 28, 2013, 09:19:32 AM
The problem we have with the economy was caused by reduction of freedom in the market. Your solution to the problem? More regulation. That is either naive, or malicious.

That's right because there was so much regulation leading up to the crisis...wait.

Are you saying that the financial sector prior to 2007 mortgage crisis was unregulated and free? Do you also claim that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac) did not exist and did not have government guarantees, and that the financial institutions were not subsequently bailed out by taxpayers money?

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 28, 2013, 04:16:30 PM

Quote from: Taysby on August 28, 2013, 03:41:21 PM
You also have to keep in mind the cost to train those employees, the extra work to pay them, keep track of their hours, that they are slacking off, taking money out of their paycheck for fica and social security, etc.  I would say it comes out to be about even. So 1 person would be better. 

All of the costs you listed for part-timers are automated, one time, or negligible.

If you want to discuss here, provide data. If you claim that the above costs are negligible, you are either lying outright or are clueless and still taking part in the discussion. This is your last warning before you spread any more socialist propaganda on my forum. (http://imtgapp.com/forum/index.php?topic=20308.0)

Wow, threatening people who have the audacity to disagree with. This is surely the best reponse to the situation.

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 29, 2013, 12:19:05 PM
Wow, threatening people who have the audacity to disagree with. This is surely the best reponse to the situation.

Cut out your socialist propaganda! :P

Quote from: Piotr on August 29, 2013, 08:04:30 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 28, 2013, 09:55:07 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 28, 2013, 09:19:32 AM
The problem we have with the economy was caused by reduction of freedom in the market. Your solution to the problem? More regulation. That is either naive, or malicious.

That's right because there was so much regulation leading up to the crisis...wait.

Are you saying that the financial sector prior to 2007 mortgage crisis was unregulated and free? Do you also claim that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac) did not exist and did not have government guarantees, and that the financial institutions were not subsequently bailed out by taxpayers money?

Never claimed they did not exist, but a lack of regulation exacerbated the situation. There is an excellent documentary called Inside Jobnif you are interested.

Quote from: Taysby on August 29, 2013, 05:27:21 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 29, 2013, 08:15:07 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 28, 2013, 04:16:30 PM

Quote from: Taysby on August 28, 2013, 03:41:21 PM
You also have to keep in mind the cost to train those employees, the extra work to pay them, keep track of their hours, that they are slacking off, taking money out of their paycheck for fica and social security, etc.  I would say it comes out to be about even. So 1 person would be better. 

All of the costs you listed for part-timers are automated, one time, or negligible.

If you want to discuss here, provide data. If you claim that the above costs are negligible, you are either lying outright or are clueless and still taking part in the discussion. This is your last warning before you spread any more socialist propaganda on my forum. (http://imtgapp.com/forum/index.php?topic=20308.0)

Piotr, I'm against socialism as much as you are, but he does have the freedom of speech.  He can say what he wants.

True. Also, Piort, I am GREATLY against you forcing your views on others as it seems you are doing.

Had no idea what was going on at first, then figured out it was Piotr again. I have him on my block list because NOTHING you say will get through his bull-head, and I'd just recommend doing the same if you're having issues to save yourself trouble. Best of luck.

Quote from: Mlerner12 on August 29, 2013, 05:42:18 PM

Quote from: Taysby on August 29, 2013, 05:27:21 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 29, 2013, 08:15:07 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 28, 2013, 04:16:30 PM

Quote from: Taysby on August 28, 2013, 03:41:21 PM
You also have to keep in mind the cost to train those employees, the extra work to pay them, keep track of their hours, that they are slacking off, taking money out of their paycheck for fica and social security, etc.  I would say it comes out to be about even. So 1 person would be better. 

All of the costs you listed for part-timers are automated, one time, or negligible.

If you want to discuss here, provide data. If you claim that the above costs are negligible, you are either lying outright or are clueless and still taking part in the discussion. This is your last warning before you spread any more socialist propaganda on my forum. (http://imtgapp.com/forum/index.php?topic=20308.0)

Piotr, I'm against socialism as much as you are, but he does have the freedom of speech.  He can say what he wants.

True. Also, Piort, I am GREATLY against you forcing your views on others as it seems you are doing.

I don't always agree with him, but in the end this is his house and I respect him. He provides this app to us and TONS of information we may not have otherwise, for free. We have to respect his right to post and rule as he chooses, otherwise we must find somewhere else to collect free information and spend time on forums. But that's my opinion, others may choose to piss him off and look for other respurces.

Quote from: Wingnut on August 29, 2013, 10:04:43 PM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on August 29, 2013, 05:42:18 PM

Quote from: Taysby on August 29, 2013, 05:27:21 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 29, 2013, 08:15:07 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 28, 2013, 04:16:30 PM

Quote from: Taysby on August 28, 2013, 03:41:21 PM
You also have to keep in mind the cost to train those employees, the extra work to pay them, keep track of their hours, that they are slacking off, taking money out of their paycheck for fica and social security, etc.  I would say it comes out to be about even. So 1 person would be better. 

All of the costs you listed for part-timers are automated, one time, or negligible.

If you want to discuss here, provide data. If you claim that the above costs are negligible, you are either lying outright or are clueless and still taking part in the discussion. This is your last warning before you spread any more socialist propaganda on my forum. (http://imtgapp.com/forum/index.php?topic=20308.0)

Piotr, I'm against socialism as much as you are, but he does have the freedom of speech.  He can say what he wants.

True. Also, Piort, I am GREATLY against you forcing your views on others as it seems you are doing.

I don't always agree with him, but in the end this is his house and I respect him. He provides this app to us and TONS of information we may not have otherwise, for free. We have to respect his right to post and rule as he chooses, otherwise we must find somewhere else to collect free information and spend time on forums. But that's my opinion, others may choose to piss him off and look for other respurces.

I would think being able to express a fairly common viewpoint in a non political viewpoint would be a reasonable enough action.

Quote from: Taysby on August 29, 2013, 11:21:41 PM
Regardless, lets go back to the debate.  I was enjoying it.

I enjoy a good debate too but I have to say I think this one is a stalemate. Let's move on to a new argument.

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 29, 2013, 12:30:27 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 29, 2013, 08:04:30 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 28, 2013, 09:55:07 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 28, 2013, 09:19:32 AM
The problem we have with the economy was caused by reduction of freedom in the market. Your solution to the problem? More regulation. That is either naive, or malicious.

That's right because there was so much regulation leading up to the crisis...wait.

Are you saying that the financial sector prior to 2007 mortgage crisis was unregulated and free? Do you also claim that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac) did not exist and did not have government guarantees, and that the financial institutions were not subsequently bailed out by taxpayers money?

Never claimed they did not exist, but a lack of regulation exacerbated the situation. There is an excellent documentary called Inside Jobnif you are interested.

Mac and Mae are government created and regulated financial entities without which the financial crash of 2007 wouldn't happen. The government regulation of financial sector created the problem in the first place. I nor anyone else were not able to start our own bank nor financial institution without going through the hoops of government enforced bureaucracy and regulation. This is true and enough to prove that you lie about the lack of regulation, you are out of here for a week. Get back to us when you learn to behave.

Quote from: Taysby on August 29, 2013, 05:27:21 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 29, 2013, 08:15:07 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 28, 2013, 04:16:30 PM

Quote from: Taysby on August 28, 2013, 03:41:21 PM
You also have to keep in mind the cost to train those employees, the extra work to pay them, keep track of their hours, that they are slacking off, taking money out of their paycheck for fica and social security, etc.  I would say it comes out to be about even. So 1 person would be better. 

All of the costs you listed for part-timers are automated, one time, or negligible.

If you want to discuss here, provide data. If you claim that the above costs are negligible, you are either lying outright or are clueless and still taking part in the discussion. This is your last warning before you spread any more socialist propaganda on my forum. (http://imtgapp.com/forum/index.php?topic=20308.0)

Piotr, I'm against socialism as much as you are, but he does have the freedom of speech.  He can say what he wants.

Sure he can, and I can punish him for lying according to our law.

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 07:38:47 AM

Quote from: Taysby on August 29, 2013, 05:27:21 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 29, 2013, 08:15:07 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 28, 2013, 04:16:30 PM

Quote from: Taysby on August 28, 2013, 03:41:21 PM
You also have to keep in mind the cost to train those employees, the extra work to pay them, keep track of their hours, that they are slacking off, taking money out of their paycheck for fica and social security, etc.  I would say it comes out to be about even. So 1 person would be better. 

All of the costs you listed for part-timers are automated, one time, or negligible.

If you want to discuss here, provide data. If you claim that the above costs are negligible, you are either lying outright or are clueless and still taking part in the discussion. This is your last warning before you spread any more socialist propaganda on my forum. (http://imtgapp.com/forum/index.php?topic=20308.0)

Piotr, I'm against socialism as much as you are, but he does have the freedom of speech.  He can say what he wants.

Sure he can, and I can punish him for lying according to our law.

Is it lying if he THINKS he speaks the truth?

Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

"...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We aren't lying, we are debating with what is to the best of our knowledge completely correct information. I realize that you survived socialism but as I said I support Social Democracy which isn't that different from America has right now.

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 07:44:53 AM
Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

"Do not do to others what they would not want to be done to them" How would you feel if we said you were lying because you were expressing your opinions?

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 07:44:53 AM
Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

I agree with most of this, except I still think he should be punished less if he BELIEVES he speaks the truth, for then it is no lie.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 30, 2013, 07:50:28 AM
"...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We aren't lying, we are debating with what is to the best of our knowledge completely correct information. I realize that you survived socialism but as I said I support Social Democracy which isn't that different from America has right now.

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to lie. It does not give you the right to invade my property and tell me what I don't want to hear.

He lied that the financial crisis was caused by the lack of regulation, while the truth is that financial crisis was caused by over regulated financial sector, by direct government intervention into the mortgage markets using regulations such as Mac and Mae.

He had his chance to back off but he chose to continue spreading the lies. I decided to ban him from my property for a week. That is his punishment, he is not guilty.

Regarless of the fact that he was actually spreading lies, I can ban anyone else from here at my whim. I choose not to do so, but it is my right as the property owner, this is not a public place this is a server paid by me. I stop paying the hosting, the server disappears from the Internet. I own this place in a natural way by natural law.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 30, 2013, 07:55:44 AM
"Do not do to others what they would not want to be done to them" How would you feel if we said you were lying because you were expressing your opinions?

Give me an example ;)

Quote from: Mlerner12 on August 30, 2013, 07:57:10 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 07:44:53 AM
Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

I agree with most of this, except I still think he should be punished less if he BELIEVES he speaks the truth, for then it is no lie.

For the purpose of the law, lie is statement which is not true. You can read 'do not lie' as 'do not claim false statements to be true'.

It does seem logical to reduce the punishment if there are no clear malicious intent, thus only 7 days in our particular example.

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 08:09:40 AM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on August 30, 2013, 07:57:10 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 07:44:53 AM
Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

I agree with most of this, except I still think he should be punished less if he BELIEVES he speaks the truth, for then it is no lie.

For the purpose of the law, lie is statement which is not true. You can read 'do not lie' as 'do not claim false statements to be true'.

It does seem logical to reduce the punishment if there are no clear malicious intent, thus only 7 days in our particular example.

Piotr. This keeps happening on here.

You need to work on your definition of the word lie. There is a fine line between a lie and a falsehood but there IS a difference.  A lie is an intentional deception. A falsehood is simply a statement which is not true.

Your belief that something is not true is just as valid as somebody else believing it is true. The punishment should be based on intent. Was the individual expressing an opinion they truly believe? Or were they intentionally proliferating misinformation?

To punish someone for expressing their opinion is morally wrong and I must strongly condemn this action on principle alone.

Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on August 30, 2013, 09:41:55 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 08:09:40 AM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on August 30, 2013, 07:57:10 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 07:44:53 AM
Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

I agree with most of this, except I still think he should be punished less if he BELIEVES he speaks the truth, for then it is no lie.

For the purpose of the law, lie is statement which is not true. You can read 'do not lie' as 'do not claim false statements to be true'.

It does seem logical to reduce the punishment if there are no clear malicious intent, thus only 7 days in our particular example.

Piotr. This keeps happening on here.

You need to work on your definition of the word lie. There is a fine line between a lie and a falsehood but there IS a difference.  A lie is an intentional deception. A falsehood is simply a statement which is not true.

Your belief that something is not true is just as valid as somebody else believing it is true. The punishment should be based on intent. Was the individual expressing an opinion they truly believe? Or were they intentionally proliferating misinformation?

To punish someone for expressing their opinion is morally wrong and I must strongly condemn this action on principle alone.

Its funny because this incident is proving exactly why nomocracy doesn't work. All rules are open to interpretation, especially vague rules like the Ultimate Law, and it eventually comes down to whoever is allowed to interpret the law is the ruler.

Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on August 30, 2013, 09:41:55 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 08:09:40 AM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on August 30, 2013, 07:57:10 AM

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 07:44:53 AM
Our law does not look into motives. It's impossible. Instead, it focuses on the victim. I'm the victim of the lies he spreads, whether the lie teller believes the lies to be true is irrelevant. As a victim I may choose to forgive or reduce the punishment if I believe the lie teller is dumb rather than malicious.

I agree with most of this, except I still think he should be punished less if he BELIEVES he speaks the truth, for then it is no lie.

For the purpose of the law, lie is statement which is not true. You can read 'do not lie' as 'do not claim false statements to be true'.

It does seem logical to reduce the punishment if there are no clear malicious intent, thus only 7 days in our particular example.

Piotr. This keeps happening on here.

You need to work on your definition of the word lie. There is a fine line between a lie and a falsehood but there IS a difference.  A lie is an intentional deception. A falsehood is simply a statement which is not true.

Your belief that something is not true is just as valid as somebody else believing it is true. The punishment should be based on intent. Was the individual expressing an opinion they truly believe? Or were they intentionally proliferating misinformation?

To punish someone for expressing their opinion is morally wrong and I must strongly condemn this action on principle alone.

The purpose of the law is to solve conflicts between two or more live specimens of Homo Sapiens. If there's no conflict, the law is irrelevant and it doesn't apply.

Do not do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to them by telling them lies, do not claim false statements to be true. Do not mislead people into believing falsehoods are truths. Simple enough.

1 + 1 = 2 is true, 1 + 1 = 3 is a not true. You may be of an opinion that it is true, so what. You may not understand what you're saying, you may say it in good intentions. So what, you still spread or repeat a lie, regardless of whether you created it or not. We've been through this, I was hoping I got my point across.

When using the law, you first check whether there is a victim who had something done to them, etc. This obviously applies here: I asked politely, many times, not to spread lies on my forum, specifically lies about the origin of financial crisis of 2007. My request was consistently ignored by the guy and that makes him guilty of breaking iMtG law.

The next step is to deal logical punishment. Capital punishment is not appropriate for spreading lies on some obscure internet forum, 7 days ban from the forum is logical enough. Get over it, punishment was dealt and the guy is not guilty any more. If he decides to come back, he needs to play by the house rules. He is free to start his own blog or forum and spread any lies he wants there.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 30, 2013, 09:49:28 AM
Its funny because this incident is proving exactly why nomocracy doesn't work. All rules are open to interpretation, especially vague rules like the Ultimate Law, and it eventually comes down to whoever is allowed to interpret the law is the ruler.

Do you even know what a proof is? The law just solved a conflict for us. You are claiming that nomocracy doesn't work after seeing it work, this is super dumb :D

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 12:20:06 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 30, 2013, 09:49:28 AM
Its funny because this incident is proving exactly why nomocracy doesn't work. All rules are open to interpretation, especially vague rules like the Ultimate Law, and it eventually comes down to whoever is allowed to interpret the law is the ruler.

Do you even know what a proof is? The law just solved a conflict for us. You are claiming that nomocracy doesn't work after seeing it work, this is super dumb :D

No, I saw a ruling from a monarch that many people disagreed with. ;)

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 30, 2013, 12:22:58 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 12:20:06 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 30, 2013, 09:49:28 AM
Its funny because this incident is proving exactly why nomocracy doesn't work. All rules are open to interpretation, especially vague rules like the Ultimate Law, and it eventually comes down to whoever is allowed to interpret the law is the ruler.

Do you even know what a proof is? The law just solved a conflict for us. You are claiming that nomocracy doesn't work after seeing it work, this is super dumb :D

No, I saw a ruling from a monarch that many people disagreed with. ;)

And why did they disagree? Was the ruling not in line with the law? Every ruling is an outcome of a conflict and thus has at least one party disagreeing with it, as the ruling is not in their interest. What did you expect, everyone lives happily ever after?

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 12:34:49 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 30, 2013, 12:22:58 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 30, 2013, 12:20:06 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 30, 2013, 09:49:28 AM
Its funny because this incident is proving exactly why nomocracy doesn't work. All rules are open to interpretation, especially vague rules like the Ultimate Law, and it eventually comes down to whoever is allowed to interpret the law is the ruler.

Do you even know what a proof is? The law just solved a conflict for us. You are claiming that nomocracy doesn't work after seeing it work, this is super dumb :D

No, I saw a ruling from a monarch that many people disagreed with. ;)

And why did they disagree? Was the ruling not in line with the law? Every ruling is an outcome of a conflict and thus has at least one party disagreeing with it, as the ruling is not in their interest. What did you expect, everyone lives happily ever after?

I expected everyone to be able to express their opinions without the fear of being punished for their beliefs by someone who doesn't agree.

BAM!!!

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 30, 2013, 01:23:21 PM
I expected everyone to be able to express their opinions without the fear of being punished for their beliefs by someone who doesn't agree.

You expected wrong, 'opinion' is not a valid defense for people who spread lies.

Please note how you still need to prove a statement to be false for it to be considered a lie.

Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 11:05:37 AM
Until America tries both extremes, you cannot call your opinion a truth Piotr.  Once America ran totally your way, and totally socialist, you can't decree for sure that one will work better than the other.  The reason being is that other country's failed with socialism, but. America's culture is different.  It might work with us.

I agree with your opinion on the subject, but you are completely ignoring the freedom of speech.  He can express his opinion.  And with the law, how are you a victim?  How is he hurting you?  No victim, no crime.

Wow! Why can't can't American .politics. be like this? Two people with totally different opinions standing up for what's right against extremists. Thank you Taysby, +1.

Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 11:05:37 AM
Until America tries both extremes, you cannot call your opinion a truth Piotr.  Until America ran totally your way, and totally socialist, you can't decree for sure that one will work better than the other.  The reason being is that other country's failed with socialism, but. America's culture is different.  It might work with us.

I agree with your opinion on the subject, but you are completely ignoring the freedom of speech.  He can express his opinion.  And with the law, how are you a victim?  How is he hurting you?  No victim, no crime.

You are more greedy than the rest of the world  ;), that's why your economy is failing relatively quickly, socialism doesn't work for you. It takes a little greed and a bit of wits, both of which you have plenty in the US, to break the system. And people do, at the expense of honest people.

Freedom of speech is your natural law when we are both on equal ground. On private property it can be overruled by house rules, on this forum one of the house rules is that when you want to discuss .politics., you must provide facts and logic to back up your claims. If you lie in political discussion, I will strike down upon thee, etc. because it hurts me when seemingly intelligent people spread the lies of socialism. It really does, and this is my ground, so play by my rules. You signed them when applying for the account.

So why don't you ban people for "spreading lies" in the rules section? This is a MtG app after all. It's the primary function of this app. The ability to chat .politics. is an additional feature. So how can you ban someone for making a political statement, but when someone makes a bad ruling in the rules, they are left alone? I despise double standards. Go one way or the other but you shouldnt ban someone just for expressing an opinion you passionately disagree with...

Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on August 31, 2013, 12:34:41 PM
So why don't you ban people for "spreading lies" in the rules section? This is a MtG app after all. It's the primary function of this app. The ability to chat .politics. is an additional feature. So how can you ban someone for making a political statement, but when someone makes a bad ruling in the rules, they are left alone? I despise double standards. Go one way or the other but you shouldnt ban someone just for expressing an opinion you passionately disagree with...

Our law is a practical tool, I have no double standards, I simply don't frequent the Rules section so it doesn't hurt me in the slightest when people tell things which are false there. I'm not a victim, how can I be?

I don't ban people for making political statements. I ban people when they say something which is not true in a political discussion, and I always do my best to prove the particular statement to be false. I banned no people in Rules and a couple in Discussion because I happen to love political discussions, I always try to take part and I get hurt in them by lies about socialism. I'm a victim, I don't want people to lie in political discussions here (if only because i want to stop them from spreading socialist propaganda).

If you are a victim of people who consistently lie in the Rules section, please point me at the case and we will ban them as required.

Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 01:27:46 PM
also, some people are geniuses that keep up on all of the latest debates and have bar graphs sitting in their filing cabinet for information.

I haven't supplied ANY data at all on this debate.  I just said my opinion.  Are you going to ban me for not providing data?  Im sure it hurts whoever is debating socialism (i can't even remember who it was anymore), so someone is getting hurt, and im providing no data.  Just like the person you just banned for a week.

Wait, can you prove that you haven't provided any data?

Noooooo....😉

Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 01:27:46 PM
also, some people are geniuses that keep up on all of the latest debates and have bar graphs sitting in their filing cabinet for information.

I haven't supplied ANY data at all on this debate.  I just said my opinion.  Are you going to ban me for not providing data?  Im sure it hurts whoever is debating socialism (i can't even remember who it was anymore), so someone is getting hurt, and im providing no data.  Just like the person you just banned for a week.

You're just babbling here, so I'm not hurt. Amused is more correct word to describe my feelings right now ;) I seriously suspect that you didn't hurt anyone else either.

Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 01:16:43 PM
So law and ammendment rights changes on private property?  K, I'm just gonna murder my ex next time she steps onto my property.  Its my property, I can do whatever I want on it, right?  Nope.  You can't change laws just because it tis your property.

And how do you call this app private property?  You made it available to the public.  its like you put a sign on your property that says "Everyone is welcome, no one refused"

Concept of property is required for the law to function properly. You cannot kill me on your property because I'm the property of myself, and you can only destroy me if you are dealing punishment, for example in self defense when I'm trespassing. No human being can be fully owned by other human being. You can have limited property rights to other human beings, in case of parent and child. This is common sense.

No I do not welcome everyone on this forum. People who break our law are not welcome at all. FYI, it is perfectly legal under US law to ban people from an internet forum if they break terms and conditions of service they signed. Our law is our terms and conditions.

Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 05:41:33 PM

Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 01:27:46 PM
also, some people are geniuses that keep up on all of the latest debates and have bar graphs sitting in their filing cabinet for information.

I haven't supplied ANY data at all on this debate.  I just said my opinion.  Are you going to ban me for not providing data?  Im sure it hurts whoever is debating socialism (i can't even remember who it was anymore), so someone is getting hurt, and im providing no data.  Just like the person you just banned for a week.

oops, that should say "not all people are geniuses"  My bad.

Then why won't they stop pretending to be knowing alls? I stop them when I know better than them, and in case of .politics., which has been my lifelong hobby of over 20 years, I know a lot.

Our law is not ideal, it's merely the best.

Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:13:28 PM
Our law is not ideal, it's merely the best.

To Piotr-True but it is too vague to be used practically in the real world (IMO).

To Taysby-Piotr is right, you have to agree to the Terms and Conditions when you make an account.

Lastly I don't mind if you ban people for lies ("a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive") but please don't ban people for their opinions or accidentally being misinformed. In the end, its your call but it wouldn't hurt to listen.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 31, 2013, 07:35:53 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:13:28 PM
Our law is not ideal, it's merely the best.

True but it is too vague to be used practically in the real world (IMO).

Strongly disagree. All you need to do to kick it off is to apply it as top level law and let the courts do the rest. Bad law will be struck down, good law compatible with the new constitution will hold. Most of the current constitution can be kept as the main commentary. You have to have a plan of what to do with the current enormous bureaucracy, of course. Can be done.

Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 07:41:34 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 31, 2013, 07:35:53 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:13:28 PM
Our law is not ideal, it's merely the best.

True but it is too vague to be used practically in the real world (IMO).

Strongly disagree. All you need to do to kick it off is to apply it as top level law and let the courts do the rest. Bad law will be struck down, good law compatible with the new constitution will hold. Most of the current constitution can be kept as the main commentary. You have to have a plan of what to do with the current enormous bureaucracy, of course. Can be done.

I agree, I was talking about if the Ultimate Law were the only law. If you were to apply it as an international standard (like a UN action) and have it filter all other laws it would work well.

Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 07:39:17 PM
Oh, ok.  I didn't remember making an account so I forgot about that.  So yes, you can do it, but you shouldn't for people sayin their opinion in an opinion discussion thread.

The guy was banned for spreading quite obvious lie about origins of 2007 financial crisis, not for sayin' their opinion.

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 31, 2013, 07:44:20 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 07:41:34 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 31, 2013, 07:35:53 PM

Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:13:28 PM
Our law is not ideal, it's merely the best.

True but it is too vague to be used practically in the real world (IMO).

Strongly disagree. All you need to do to kick it off is to apply it as top level law and let the courts do the rest. Bad law will be struck down, good law compatible with the new constitution will hold. Most of the current constitution can be kept as the main commentary. You have to have a plan of what to do with the current enormous bureaucracy, of course. Can be done.

I agree, I was talking about if the Ultimate Law were the only law. If you were to apply it as an international standard (like a UN action) and have it filter all other laws it would work well.

That's the idea.

Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 07:45:32 PM
I thought he was saying that would be the law.  All other laws would be commentary, b ultimately it is up to the judge.  If I'm wrong, I apologize.

The relationship between our little iMtG law and its commentary is pretty much the same as between US Constitution and the rest of the law.

The same way as current laws are illegal if they are proven to be breaking the constitution, commentary of iMtG Law must be compatible with it.

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 29, 2013, 12:30:27 PM
Never claimed they did not exist, but a lack of regulation exacerbated the situation. There is an excellent documentary called Inside Jobnif you are interested.

He was banned after saying the above quote. The economic collapse was very complex and involved the entire world (called the world's first global slump). It would be impossible to prove or disprove whether "a lack of regulation exacerbated the situation" unless you literally spent decades researching policies and looking at files that many companies already shredded. In the end though, what's done is done. I may have disagreed with you and I still think that in the future you should avoid banning others without a trial where his fate would be decided by a randomly selected jury but its not my call, its yours. Boringanarchy2 will hopefully be back in few days but I think we should put this behind us now, so we can get on with our lives instead of worrying about what has already happened and we can't change.

Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 07:53:11 PM
Well if there was more regulation (like regulating every tiny little thing) I doubt the crisis would have happened.  There would have been very little growth, America wouldn't be as prosperous (by a lot) but it wouldn't have happened.  The government would have taken over banks, etc. 

We would be like Canada or something.  No economic growth or decay.  And the economy wouldn't be very good in the first place, but there would have been no crash.

Interesting, but I don't think you can say that 'total disaster crisis of communism implemented' is equal to 'crisis would not happened' :D

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 31, 2013, 07:57:30 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on August 29, 2013, 12:30:27 PM
Never claimed they did not exist, but a lack of regulation exacerbated the situation. There is an excellent documentary called Inside Jobnif you are interested.

He was banned after saying the above quote.

And a few others. I've been debating on the internet for a while now and I find it quite easy to recognise certain patterns.

Quote from: Taysby on August 31, 2013, 08:09:42 PM
Hey!  Just switching to communism isn't the same as no financial crash happening. ;). Regardless if its a better option or not, most likely it would have prevented a crash.

That's like saying 'let's kill him so he is not hungry anymore' ;)

Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 08:28:56 PM
That's like saying 'let's kill him so he is not hungry anymore' ;)

/\ Lol, +1.

What in the actual .love. happened in this thread?!  That really puts me off, Piotr.  This is also the reason I avoid this part of the forum 😒

I feel like the admin punishes those who oppose his own personal views. You wouldn't see this on the wizards magic forum, or mtg salvation, or tcg player forums. It's sad that it gets to the point people are banned, but thankfully we have many more sites to turn to.

Quote from: Silent1236 on August 31, 2013, 09:10:05 PM
What in the actual .love. happened in this thread?!  That really puts me off, Piotr.  This is also the reason I avoid this part of the forum 😒

I used the law to stop a person spreading certain lies on my forum. Did that put you off?

He was expressing his opinion, you didn't like it, so he ate the ban hammer. That's over stepping it a bit, IMO.

Yeah, Silent's right, I think. If these threads are created for discussion and opinions. if you don't agree with something, that's fine. But banning someone because you disagree is a tad overboard, and maybe a bit controlling and socialistic itself!!! (I say that last part jokingly 😋)

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 01, 2013, 10:50:43 AM
Yeah, Silent's right, I think. If these threads are created for discussion and opinions. if you don't agree with something, that's fine. But banning someone because you disagree is a tad overboard, and maybe a bit controlling and socialistic itself!!! (I say that last part jokingly 😋)

Read the disclaimer on the Discussion forum. Does it say do not lie? EOT.

Just want to toss this out is he banned from the entire site or just this section. Because it would suck if he was in the progress of trades

Quote from: Rass on September 01, 2013, 06:07:20 PM
Just want to toss this out is he banned from the entire site or just this section. Because it would suck if he was in the progress of trades

Which he was.

Quote from: Silent1236 on September 01, 2013, 06:24:47 PM

Quote from: Rass on September 01, 2013, 06:07:20 PM
Just want to toss this out is he banned from the entire site or just this section. Because it would suck if he was in the progress of trades

Which he was.

Which part? Banned from just this section or banned from all. Or in the middle of a trade.

Can someone quickly run me by who got banned and why???  I stopped following this, and I really don't want to go back to read all of that crap.

Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on September 01, 2013, 06:27:34 PM
Can someone quickly run me by who got banned and why???  I stopped following this, and I really don't want to go back to read all of that crap.

Boringanarchy2 was banned for spreading socialist propaganda and 'lying' about a lack of regulation making the economic collapse worse.

Dang, that's TWO accounts now!!!!!

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 01, 2013, 08:41:25 PM

Quote from: FlickerYourOwnIdentity on September 01, 2013, 06:27:34 PM
Can someone quickly run me by who got banned and why???  I stopped following this, and I really don't want to go back to read all of that crap.

Boringanarchy2 was banned for spreading socialist propaganda and 'lying' about a lack of regulation making the economic collapse worse.

I believe it was/is only for a week. Not a life time ban.

Quote from: Rass on September 01, 2013, 06:27:02 PM

Quote from: Silent1236 on September 01, 2013, 06:24:47 PM

Quote from: Rass on September 01, 2013, 06:07:20 PM
Just want to toss this out is he banned from the entire site or just this section. Because it would suck if he was in the progress of trades

Which he was.

Which part? Banned from just this section or banned from all. Or in the middle of a trade.

In the middle of a trade. I think he was just banned in general, though

Quote from: Silent1236 on September 01, 2013, 10:39:41 PM

Quote from: Rass on September 01, 2013, 06:27:02 PM

Quote from: Silent1236 on September 01, 2013, 06:24:47 PM

Quote from: Rass on September 01, 2013, 06:07:20 PM
Just want to toss this out is he banned from the entire site or just this section. Because it would suck if he was in the progress of trades

Which he was.

Which part? Banned from just this section or banned from all. Or in the middle of a trade.

In the middle of a trade. I think he was just banned in general, though

That sucks.

If I banned Kuberr for being a liar, he wouldn't steal from people, would he? Socialists have funny ideas about what property is and to whom it belongs. I prefer to keep them at bay. Not for being socialists, for being liars.

My theory is this: most socialists belong to one of two groups: clueless or thieves. If true, you don't wanna do business with neither, trust me ;)

For clarification was BoringAnarchy2 banned for a week or forever?

7 days.

Quote from: Piotr on September 03, 2013, 12:30:17 PM
7 days.

That's what I though, thanks

Amazing to read what people have to say about your belief system and not being able to respond >.>

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 06, 2013, 11:13:07 AM
Amazing to read what people have to say about your belief system and not being able to respond >.>

Yay! He's back from exile!

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 06, 2013, 11:13:07 AM
Amazing to read what people have to say about your belief system and not being able to respond >.>

XD Glad you're back. Don't induce socialism on Imtg anymore. 😉

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 07, 2013, 09:47:15 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 06, 2013, 11:13:07 AM
Amazing to read what people have to say about your belief system and not being able to respond >.>

XD Glad you're back. Don't induce socialism on Imtg anymore. 😉

Quite right, I shall stick to only talking about indisputable truth. Btw, Mlerner12, have you ever felt alone, depressed, and confused? I can get you a free e meter reading.

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 07, 2013, 10:53:41 PM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 07, 2013, 09:47:15 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 06, 2013, 11:13:07 AM
Amazing to read what people have to say about your belief system and not being able to respond >.>

XD Glad you're back. Don't induce socialism on Imtg anymore. 😉

Quite right, I shall stick to only talking about indisputable truth. Btw, Mlerner12, have you ever felt alone, depressed, and confused? I can get you a free e meter reading.

E meter?

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 08, 2013, 12:14:17 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 07, 2013, 10:53:41 PM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 07, 2013, 09:47:15 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 06, 2013, 11:13:07 AM
Amazing to read what people have to say about your belief system and not being able to respond >.>

XD Glad you're back. Don't induce socialism on Imtg anymore. 😉

Quite right, I shall stick to only talking about indisputable truth. Btw, Mlerner12, have you ever felt alone, depressed, and confused? I can get you a free e meter reading.

E meter?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 08, 2013, 12:37:47 AM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 08, 2013, 12:14:17 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 07, 2013, 10:53:41 PM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 07, 2013, 09:47:15 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 06, 2013, 11:13:07 AM
Amazing to read what people have to say about your belief system and not being able to respond >.>

XD Glad you're back. Don't induce socialism on Imtg anymore. 😉

Quite right, I shall stick to only talking about indisputable truth. Btw, Mlerner12, have you ever felt alone, depressed, and confused? I can get you a free e meter reading.

E meter?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter

So it's a religious thing?

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 08, 2013, 12:41:06 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 08, 2013, 12:37:47 AM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 08, 2013, 12:14:17 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 07, 2013, 10:53:41 PM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 07, 2013, 09:47:15 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 06, 2013, 11:13:07 AM
Amazing to read what people have to say about your belief system and not being able to respond >.>

XD Glad you're back. Don't induce socialism on Imtg anymore. 😉

Quite right, I shall stick to only talking about indisputable truth. Btw, Mlerner12, have you ever felt alone, depressed, and confused? I can get you a free e meter reading.

E meter?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter

So it's a religious thing?

If by religion, you mean the inspired word of our lord L Ron Hubbard, them yes.

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 07, 2013, 10:53:41 PMI can get you a free e meter reading.

How come?

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 08, 2013, 01:10:19 AM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 08, 2013, 12:41:06 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 08, 2013, 12:37:47 AM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 08, 2013, 12:14:17 AM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 07, 2013, 10:53:41 PM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 07, 2013, 09:47:15 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 06, 2013, 11:13:07 AM
Amazing to read what people have to say about your belief system and not being able to respond >.>

XD Glad you're back. Don't induce socialism on Imtg anymore. 😉

Quite right, I shall stick to only talking about indisputable truth. Btw, Mlerner12, have you ever felt alone, depressed, and confused? I can get you a free e meter reading.

E meter?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter

So it's a religious thing?

If by religion, you mean the inspired word of our lord L Ron Hubbard, them yes.

No thanks, I'm too lazy.

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 07, 2013, 10:53:41 PM

Quote from: Mlerner12 on September 07, 2013, 09:47:15 PM

Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 06, 2013, 11:13:07 AM
Amazing to read what people have to say about your belief system and not being able to respond >.>

XD Glad you're back. Don't induce socialism on Imtg anymore. 😉

Quite right, I shall stick to only talking about indisputable truth. Btw, Mlerner12, have you ever felt alone, depressed, and confused? I can get you a free e meter reading.

I see what you're doing there...

I'd like to point out that every time a people have been conquered, they were forced to integrate into the conqueror's culture or enslaved, with the exception of the Native Americans. Why is it that they get to have reservations while everyone else in history has just had to deal with losing their land?

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 23, 2013, 07:31:59 AM
I'd like to point out that every time a people have been conquered, they were forced to integrate into the conqueror's culture or enslaved, with the exception of the Native Americans. Why is it that they get to have 'eservations while everyone else in history has just had to deal with losing their land?

have you read a history book? Millions of them were enslaved and worked to death or killed.

Quote from: IceScythe on September 23, 2013, 01:30:01 PM

Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 23, 2013, 07:31:59 AM
I'd like to point out that every time a people have been conquered, they were forced to integrate into the conqueror's culture or enslaved, with the exception of the Native Americans. Why is it that they get to have reservations while everyone else in history has just had to deal with losing their land?

have you read a history book? Millions of them were enslaved and worked to death or killed.

Yes, and many others were put on the Trail of Tears and forced to move west, I'm familiar with history. What I am saying is why is it when anyone else does it "that's war, its unfair" but when we do it we have to give millions of dollars to them, give them their own 'nations' and in some places (like where I live in WNY) even give them sole rights to gambling which leads them to taking in even more billions. What we did to the Native Americans was wrong but here we are almost 200 years later and we are still making reparations? Rome didn't give anyone reservations, the British Empire didn't give away millions to their conquered peoples, Alexander the Great didn't give out 'nations' to people, neither did the other thousand or more nations or peoples that have conquered lands so how come when we do it we have to give billions of dollars, land and apologize? Again, what we did to the Native Americans WAS WRONG but the people living on the reservations aren't two-hundred years old, they don't remember or know anyone who faced those hardships. In addition they live just like Americans, its time they put their big boy pants on and join the real world. America could use the millions of dollars that taxing them would bring in and seeing as to how they share the benefits (roads, mail and other public services) they should share in the cost (taxes).

Well they did steal their land, and give it to their buddies in corporations. I'm certain the government is getting off easy by giving them ghettos to live in and paying welfare. If the government had to buy the land which they built the transcontinental railroad on (with more Slave labor) they would still be paying twice as much.

That being said, war sounds like a decent idea when you're on the winning side. The native Americans were institutially erradicated by a government that had absolutely no right to do so.

For the record, Rome did pay severely for conquering other countries and integrate the people. As for paying reperations - they did in the form of giving those people citizenship and protection under the republic. Americans killed native Americans under the constitution of this country - a moment were ashamed. Forcing them to live in squalor. The government has no right to use force to harm anyone. They have just found a way to make you pay for it - by force. It's a cycle of stupidity and misplaced outrage.

If you were to be upset about anything, it's the fact that Native Americans don't have to pay taxes like YOU do. But the government has no right to take your taxes, so be angry at them. Not a group of people who were murdered for the benefit of private businesses. It strikes me as plenty silly to be angry at the folks who benefitted from the fact the a tyrannical government doesn't have a say in what they do.

Quote from: Dudecore on September 23, 2013, 02:41:03 PM
Well they did steal their land, and give it to their buddies in corporations. I'm certain the government is getting off easy by giving them ghettos to live in and paying welfare. If the government had to buy the land which they built the transcontinental railroad on (with more Slave labor) they would still be paying twice as much.

That being said, war sounds like a decent idea when you're on the winning side. The native Americans were institutially erradicated by a government that had absolutely no right to do so.

For the record, Rome did pay severely for conquering other countries and integrate the people. As for paying reperations - they did in the form of giving those people citizenship and protection under the republic. Americans killed native Americans under the constitution of this country - a moment were ashamed. Forcing them to live in squalor. The government has no right to use force to harm anyone. They have just found a way to make you pay for it - by force. It's a cycle of stupidity and misplaced outrage.

If any country were to attack a reservation, the United States would take it as an attack on itself and defend it but that (just like Rome's actions) aren't reparations, they are defending their territory. Also, you act like Native Americans are living in slums when in fact they have their own land to live and build houses on: not quite a ghetto. I'm not saying that it was okay for the government to kill them and force them to relocate, I am saying we should treat them like citizens (what you claim as reparations above by saying "reperations - they did in the form of giving those people citizenship") but part of citizenship is paying taxes and contributing to society, not simply blocking the thruway every time we ask them to pay their fair share. In the end, I'm just asking for equality-everyone being treated equally regardless of your race and/or parentage-and giving Native Americans special treatment is an example of both inequality and discrimination.

Well then America should give them their land back, then purchase it from the Native Americans (if they're willing to sell). Any such laws would prohibit what The US Government did to them. This is not Roman times, and as a matter of principle we have a constitution - if the constitution does not grant protections for minorities then it is a useless piece of paper. The Native Americans should not "pitch in" and help an illegitimate, imperialist government.

You have not convinced me they should be made to pay taxes. Because everyone else does? Why? They're double-slaves in my opinion, and that does not cancel out.

Most of the highest crime areas in this entire country are on Indian reservations, look that up. And the fact that regular business would love to open up casinos and cannot is another example of stupid government interference. If all people aspire to in life is free land, a place to build a house and not paying taxes - it is easy to see how one could be envious of the Native Americans.