Who is being screwed by Mario Williams (whoever that is)?

4/20/2006 5:04:32 PM

opposing quarterbacks


next question?

4/20/2006 5:27:58 PM

lol. But seriously, freely working for someone doesn't involve getting screwed. The only legitimate complaint Marx had was that some people have a greater means of production due to who they were born to.

4/20/2006 6:35:58 PM

another idea i had today was that the government could figure out what tree uses the most carbon dioxide and make everyone plant only those kinda trees...that way there wont be as many greenhouse gases

4/20/2006 6:59:43 PM

Quote :

"I think people deserve what they do more than what they inherit, yes."

This is what you fail to understand. People inherit what they do just as much as they inherit anything else.

Quote :

"Almost. They are able to use greater ability to deserve more of this Earth's resources."

They only use their greater ability because they were born to.

Quote :

"I don't care how, as long as they're not screwing anyone else."

This is one problem with ownership. When you own something, you prevent someone else from owning it.

Quote :

"The only legitimate complaint Marx had was that some people have a greater means of production due to who they were born to."

I don't know that marx ever made that complaint. What we're talking about is a concept that wasn't really around when marx was, thanks to developments in psychology and such it now presents itself and it backs up much of what marx wrote.

4/20/2006 10:37:53 PM

Quote :

"They only use their greater ability because they were born to."

Since I believe in determinism, I agree. I don't see how that implies they owe something to others though.

Quote :

"When you own something, you prevent someone else from owning it."

Does someone else deserve it?

Quote :

"I don't know that marx ever made that complaint."

Probably not. But when he was complaining about some people having a greater means of production, people born rich were the only ones he had the right to complain about.

4/20/2006 11:46:50 PM

4/21/2006 12:00:56 AM

Quote :

"But when he was complaining about some people having a greater means of production, people born rich were the only ones he had the right to complain about."

yeah. im gonna have to disagree with you there.

just a quick example, because im too tired to come up with a real one, what about a guy who steals your tv?

4/21/2006 12:21:57 AM

Hope you have a better example when you wake up.

4/21/2006 12:31:35 AM

Quote :

"Since I believe in determinism, I agree. I don't see how that implies they owe something to others though."

So you believe people deserve more of the earth's resources simply by birthright? That's similar racism.

Quote :

"Does someone else deserve it?"

Not any more or any less than you, so the only rational answer is to give you both what you need.

Quote :

"But when he was complaining about some people having a greater means of production, people born rich were the only ones he had the right to complain about."

The other ones obtained it simply by the situation they were born into as well.

4/21/2006 12:40:36 AM

i dont have a problem with saying everyone should have an oppurtunity to achieve whatever their god given abilities allow them to achieve. but the fact of the matter is that within this country, and the world at large, there are barriers constructed with the express purpose of keeping others from realizing their potential. libertarians like to argue for erasing all of these barriers that exist because the state puts them there and end up ignoring systematic barriers.
to be able to become a member of the super rich you have to have a reasonable starting point. bill gates was not born rich (or not very anyway, im not sure), but became rich. BUT, if he had not been given a quality education he would not have gotten anywhere. what right do we have to exclude some poor kid from a quality education just because he was born to parents who lived at the poverty level in an inner city instead of being born to parents of moderate income in the suburbs? education, public safety, and a whole lot of other things are heavily dependent upon a parents income and education level. that means we are excluding those who could do better if given an equal oppurtunity.

4/21/2006 1:26:47 AM

Quote :

"So you believe people deserve more of the earth's resources simply by birthright? That's similar racism."

Response 1: The fact that today's world was determined by a causal process from the state of the universe billions of years ago does not imply that I owe something to others. Determinism really isn't very applicable in everyday life.

Response 2: So you believe peoplehumans deserve more of the earth's resources than animals simply by birthright? That's similar racismspeciesism.

Quote :

"what right do we have to exclude some poor kid from a quality education just because he was born to parents who lived at the poverty level in an inner city instead of being born to parents of moderate income in the suburbs?"

That's what I've been saying...

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 10:28 AM. Reason : ]

4/21/2006 10:27:32 AM

but we do. and i would say that any educational system that is based upon a free market ideal with local control will always deprive the poor of a proper education.

4/21/2006 11:29:37 AM

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 11:29 AM. Reason : i hate this mouse]

4/21/2006 11:29:38 AM

Quote :

"but we do. and i would say that any educational system that is based upon a free market ideal with local control will always deprive the poor of a proper education."

Well, since the current system is already depriving the poor of a proper education then we already know what that worse-case scenario world would look like.

That said, who is advocating an education system based upon free market ideals? Last I heard everyone was advocating vouchers which would send the poor to the same schools as the middle class.
My favorite system is where vouchers are given based upon income need. Rich don't get a voucher, middle-class get $6000 vouchers, the poor get $8000 vouchers, etc.

We would have to do it this way for two big reasons: if the poor don't get a free ride then they may opt out (suboptimal). Conversely, if those that can afford it do get a free ride then there is no price concious behavior in the market (everybody charges whatever the voucher is worth, no competition for efficiency).

4/21/2006 11:52:42 AM

the voucher system is a free market system. it requires schools competing for dollars to ensure quality education. thats not me making something up, thats practically a quote from voucher advocates.

4/21/2006 11:56:03 AM

Quote :

"the voucher system is a free market system"

In so far as the Social Security System and the US Tax System are free market systems, sure, I guess so.

It is a matter of degrees. I suspect my voucher system is far more free-market oriented than the current public system, but only by degrees. A true free market system would simply close the public schools, lower taxes, and let everyone educate their own kids. As nice as that sounds, I prefer my system of income-gradient vouchers which take money out of the public treasury, an invariably anti-free market source of revenue, but I digress.

4/21/2006 12:17:20 PM

Quote :

" As nice as that sounds"

as horrible as that sounds....


my point was that ultimately our education system now was set up and is controlled by those who believe that free markets should be applied to everything. this is the problem. i think vouchers would make the problem worse. instead, we should try and find a way to completely reform the school systems so that your parents income has ZERO effect upon your education within a classroom.

4/21/2006 12:59:32 PM

Quote :

"but we do. and i would say that any educational system that is based upon a free market ideal with local control will always deprive the poor of a proper education."

I don't know why I keep getting this kind of reply from you. I've never said that children born to poor parents should be left out in terms of education or anything.

4/21/2006 1:02:27 PM

Quote :

"instead, we should try and find a way to completely reform the school systems so that your parents income has ZERO effect upon your education within a classroom."

That's easy, the Nazis and Communists invented that, most abandoned it later, but I digress. What you do is after birth you remove the child from the parents care and place him entirely under the care of some government institution. Otherwise, just being around parents that speak english poorly is enough to effect the child.

That said, why try to make the system even worse? Why not look at whatever countries have better education systems than us, such as some European countries, and then copy them. Some of them do vouchers, some just have really good public schools that minimize administration.

Quote :

"my point was that ultimately our education system now was set up and is controlled by those who believe that free markets should be applied to everything"

What have you been smoking? In today's system there is no competition, the educated have no choice but to take whatever the government offers, everyone pays for it whether or not they ever use it, Teachers Unions have more power than parents, etc. etc. Our current education system is the exact oppose of a free-market system.

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 1:37 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/21/2006 1:28:35 PM

the Nazis and Communists invented that?

that's a fucking retarded thing to say

4/21/2006 3:13:51 PM

Quote :

"The fact that today's world was determined by a causal process from the state of the universe billions of years ago does not imply that I owe something to others. Determinism really isn't very applicable in everyday life."

Determinism is very practical. You do what you do, there's no more to it than that.

Quote :

"So you believe peoplehumans deserve more of the earth's resources than animals simply by birthright? That's similar racismspeciesism."

That's an extremely silly analogy. Do you truely think that poor people are the same as animals?

Quote :

"Well, since the current system is already depriving the poor of a proper education then we already know what that worse-case scenario world would look like."

Shit it could be way worse, we've got it reasonably good right now compared to other countries. If we pulled the government out of it poor people wouldn't get any education, they'd be forced to immediately enter the workforce.

4/21/2006 4:12:47 PM

Quote :

"You do what you do, there's no more to it than that."

"does not imply that I owe something to others"

Quote :

"That's an extremely silly analogy. Do you truely think that poor people are the same as animals?"

No, but what's the difference to you? People and animals are just what they are born into, so no creature deserves anything more or less than any other, and the only rational answer is to give all what they need.

4/21/2006 8:25:55 PM

Quote :

"Not any more or any less than you, so the only rational answer is to give you both what you need. "

That is horribly inefficient though. If person A can produce more with a given resource than person B it only makes sense to give person A more of the resource if you want maximum efficiency.

Quote :

"libertarians like to argue for erasing all of these barriers that exist because the state puts them there and end up ignoring systematic barriers. to be able to become a member of the super rich you have to have a reasonable starting point. bill gates was not born rich (or not very anyway, im not sure), but became rich. BUT, if he had not been given a quality education he would not have gotten anywhere. what right do we have to exclude some poor kid from a quality education just because he was born to parents who lived at the poverty level in an inner city instead of being born to parents of moderate income in the suburbs?"

Yet on the other hand, history is filled with examples of people who came from nothing and became quite rich and wealthy.

Quote :

"That's an extremely silly analogy. Do you truely think that poor people are the same as animals?"

Do you truely think that all people are the same?

4/21/2006 10:42:55 PM

your question is extremely difficult to answer

"are all people the same?" is very vague

the obvious answer is NO

however, all people should be afforded the same human rights due to the intrinsic value of the human life

4/23/2006 6:54:03 PM

This intrinsic value being what? If we are all mere products of our programing, then any one person is easily replaceable by another. If this is not the case, then it leads to the question of do all people have the same intrinsic value.

4/23/2006 9:23:22 PM

Quote :

"does not imply that I owe something to others"

No it doesn't, but knowing that everyone functions in a pattern-like manner shows that certain aspects causes people to function in a more productive manner.

Quote :

"No, but what's the difference to you?"

Poor people can be much more productive than animals, and as such their value rises correspondily.

Quote :

"That is horribly inefficient though. If person A can produce more with a given resource than person B it only makes sense to give person A more of the resource if you want maximum efficiency."

That's far to simplified to be accurate, in reality there is a great deal of diminishing returns involved. You are not likely to get the same rate from all people for all amounts, and as such, giving everyone what they need and investing the excess in ourselves collectively results in larger returns due to increased cooperation and decreased competition.

Quote :

"Yet on the other hand, history is filled with examples of people who came from nothing and became quite rich and wealthy."

I wouldn't say filled, maybe extremely sparsely populated with well advertized cases of people going from nothing to being wealthy. But for every one of them that succeded there were exponentially more who didn't, you just don't hear about them.

4/23/2006 10:15:50 PM

Quote :

"Poor people can be much more productive than animals, and as such their value rises correspondily."

Of value to who?

4/23/2006 10:34:20 PM

Quote :

"But for every one of them that succeded there were exponentially more who didn't, you just don't hear about them."

Yes you do. They are us. As most Americans at the end of the 19th century were several magnitudes more wealthy than most Americans at the beginning of the 19th century, we can suspect that there were a lot of success stories to go around. Sure, few ended up as captains of industry; but they built their house, fed their families, and built a little wealth for themselves.

4/23/2006 10:41:09 PM

Quote :

"Of value to who?"

Society.

Quote :

"As most Americans at the end of the 19th century were several magnitudes more wealthy than most Americans at the beginning of the 19th century, we can suspect that there were a lot of success stories to go around."

Not nearly of the same magnitude as you were describing. It was mostly an overal rise in wealth for everyone, just like how we are more wealthy now than we were thousands of years ago. That kind of progress is going to happen in any system.

4/23/2006 11:28:28 PM

Quote :

"Society"

Why should we act according to the values of society?

4/24/2006 12:12:47 AM

^ because if you dont, you get diagnosed as BPD, locked up, and medicated.

4/24/2006 12:14:27 AM

Quote :

"Why should we act according to the values of society?"

Because antisocial behavior is counterproductive.

4/24/2006 1:12:59 AM

What's so great about productivity again?

4/24/2006 2:13:57 AM

because when you're the producer, you produce things.

4/24/2006 2:15:27 AM

Quote :

"What's so great about productivity again?"

We're going in circles, I've already explained that.

4/24/2006 2:33:04 AM

^ he's the explainer. he explains things.

4/24/2006 2:41:56 AM

it aint easy bein sleazy

4/24/2006 9:34:39 AM

Yeah, we're going in circles. Productivity is good for society and not going with society isn't productive.

4/24/2006 9:50:03 AM

Quote :

"This intrinsic value being what? If we are all mere products of our programing, then any one person is easily replaceable by another. If this is not the case, then it leads to the question of do all people have the same intrinsic value."

I guess I just believe in justice and "moral" behavior

however, if you want to look at it selfishly
the more you disenfranchise and undervalue groups of people the more likely they are to want to cut your fucking head off put it on a stick

I like my head on my neck where it belongs

4/24/2006 1:22:15 PM

Quote :

"I guess I just believe in justice and "moral" behavior"

But if we go by what Kris says, there is no justice and moral or injustice and imoral because we are all just products of our environment and we were conditioned as such.

Quote :

"however, if you want to look at it selfishly the more you disenfranchise and undervalue groups of people the more likely they are to want to cut your fucking head off put it on a stick I like my head on my neck where it belongs"

True, but if I am efficient enough at disenfranchising and undervalueing (by the way, did I mention value is relative) people, I can prevent losing my head.

4/24/2006 2:15:45 PM

bttt

4/26/2006 11:47:52 PM

^ Yea, get me some free market.

4/26/2006 11:48:44 PM

Quote :

"But if we go by what Kris says, there is no justice and moral or injustice and imoral because we are all just products of our environment and we were conditioned as such."

Correct, but both justice and morality, although human inventions, have a relationship with ensuring productivity. They are a means of conditioning. For example killing someone generally results in decreased productivity, thus it is incorportated into justice and morality as being generally considered wrong.

Quote :

"True, but if I am efficient enough at disenfranchising and undervalueing (by the way, did I mention value is relative) people, I can prevent losing my head."

Obviously, but you are being very counterproductive, now instead of focusing on doing useful things, you've created a problem that simply continuingly creates another problem.

Killing people generally isn't productive.

4/27/2006 12:12:38 AM

Quote :

"Correct, but both justice and morality, although human inventions, have a relationship with ensuring productivity. They are a means of conditioning. For example killing someone generally results in decreased productivity, thus it is incorportated into justice and morality as being generally considered wrong."

so are you saying people think its wrong to kill others cause it lowers productivity?

4/27/2006 2:56:06 AM

Quote :

"Killing people generally isn't productive."

Only if killing people is not your definition of productivity. To put it another way (and not to intentionaly invoke Godwin, just that it makes a decent example) Hitler seemed to believe that killing certain groups of people was prudctive for society as it would help the other people advance. He saw certain people as problems and hinderances to productivity and progress.

4/27/2006 12:08:25 PM

4/28/2006 4:23:21 AM

i really like that article - thanks for the link

4/30/2006 10:30:34 PM

there needs to be a tremendous revision of all current laws, legal code, and tax code.

5/2/2006 1:16:09 AM