Is racism even an issue anymore (a personal story)

[Swordsman3003]

I give up on this discussion!!! THIS IS LIKE 6 ARGUMENTS AT ONCE!! MAKE SEPERATE THREADS!

[Kite-san]

Agreed, but having fewer desperate people doesn't come from handing them a check every month, amongst other benefits...the old saw about "give a man a fish, teach a man TO fish"

except that teaching someone to fish doesn't take as long as teaching them how to be self-sufficient in a dynamic consumerist economy. in an agrarian economy, learning to fish can probably keep you alive, if only barely, except only if you live near a body of water that you can catch big enough fish in to keep yourself and any dependants one might have alive on. but you'll likely barely manage alive, and won't manage that after you hook one that turns out to be a little over the weight tolerance of your line and you suddenly don't have the tools to go fishing anymore. damn, that sucks.

in an early industrial economy, it might make a functional supplement to cover the eating gaps that your measly pay cannot concieve of stretching all the way over, after all, mercury is good for you, it makes your teeth shiny.

in a modern economy, dealing with welfare issues, there is no land to live off for anyone over the age of about 8. No, that figure isn't from a study, it isn't from a statistician(well, i guess it is, since i am one ,but i didn't do any statistical analysis to get it), it's from that's when i needed more to eat in a day than i could scrounge out of grocery store dumpsters in the same time period.

ergo: you cannot simply 'teach a man to fish' in a modern system. it takes too long to teach someone the necessary skills to be in any way self sufficient, and they still have to eat in the meantime. your 'old saw' is nothing more and nothing less than a saw, in that if treated as an appropriate means and solution to the problem it is simply a torturous and agonizing way of cutting away the bits of human existance you seem to find 'offensive'

no, having fewer desperate people does not come JUST from handing them a check every month. but if there is no check (or equivalent support) your result is that an incredibly small proportion remain capable of pulling themselves up by their own strength.


the simplest way to put the fact of the matter is your proposed 'payback' system simply cannot be functional. make it 'untinkerable'.. wonderful, when economic structures change so that it no longer functions appropriately, it's untinkerable, can't change it. maybe there was a depression and the nubmers are too large, it collapses under its own weight. Maybe there was more inflation (almost unavoidable), and now the numbers are too small, and we're back to people not getting enough to live on, then not having enough to live on when the payments stop because they've got to payback as well.

hmm... i guess we have to make it subject to the same review and amendment and reform processes as everything else.. except that the legislators are generally rich, and paid for by the rich, and... gee, is the same sorts of system as in the current welfare programs.

paying into welfare is compulsory because, as the theory goes, as a member of society you're supposed to want society as a whole to do better. the fewer people there are whose economic circumstances have them teetering on starvation, the fewer people there are who're going to spend their last cents on drugs to forget the pain, or a weapon with which to try to threaten money out of someone who's got a bit more than they do. which might be you. the fewer people there are who can't afford medical care, the less likely it is that a disease outbreak will run out of control due to recurring carriers, and get you sicker.

get your head out of your ass, -you use the system-. just because you don't get a check, you still use the system. every person on it who would otherwise be wholly destitute and without support and is instead managing to get by, and thereby not infecting you with the diseases they cannot cure, is not stealing from you, is not threatening your life and limb. Every man, woman, child, pet, etc who lives in a human society in which htere is a form of welfare uses and benefits from the system. and THAT is why you pay for it.

[UgghTheCaveman]

kite-san, calm down, man.

I SAID my ideal of these type programs DOES support themn while they are studying. It just refuses to hand out a check in return for no effort on the recipiant's part...they have to be maintaining standards of performance, yes, but you have to maintain standards of performance in ANY job, and the "job" I'm suggesting we pay them for is learning to be a contributing and functional member of society, if they don't know how, and gaining the skills necessary to do so in current circumstances if they do, but aren't currently able to manage it for more than 60 days.


As for your contention that they aren't stealing froim me...how is it any less robbery to have a third party forcibly take MY property (in this case, my hard earned money, through enforced taxation) and hand it to you than it is if you stick the gun in my face yourself, when there is ANY other option...forced charity IS theft, and it's demeaning to everyone involved, OTOH, if I'm being forced to pay someone else for their WORK, it's just enforcement of the rules of trade, and that's what I'm suggesting, and ALL I'm suggesting we do. It covers all the bases, quite neatly.

I don't object to taxes, per se, but I do object to government subsidized charity for people or companies, just as much as I object to government subsidized art. If you're not good enough to be making a living at what you're doing, then do it as a damned hobby, and do somethign else for a living, like the rest of us have to. If you don't know HOW to make a living, or don't know that it's POSSIBLE to make one legitimately, I'm willing to contribute to your learning...as long as you're willing to contribute your work TO learning...otherwise, I figure we're all better off if we let you starve to death, or if we let you get hungry enough to get stupid, do something criminal, get caught, and get convicted, where you're FORCED into retraining programs as part of your imprisonment/punishment, and, if you keep insisting on criminal behavior, eventually executing you as a direct danger to the larger part of society.

Don't mistake this for social darwinism, as I'm not saying those who are somehow "better" will DO better, socio-economically, simply that, if the tools are available for someone to learn to support themselves, I'm willing to pay for them to access those tools, and to support them while they do, until they DO find a way to support themselves, while I'm NOT willing to support them while they sit on their asses, nor am I willing to support them without SOME effort on their part, nor am I willing to support them WHILE they engage in criminal activity, and if they insist on continuing to engage in criminal activity, I'm all for "liquidating" them, under the theory that IF all the above is true, and they STILL fail to behave acceptably, they're demonstrating that they are willfully acting as "cancerous cells" in the "body" of society.

the simplest way to put the fact of the matter is your proposed 'payback' system simply cannot be functional. make it 'untinkerable'.. wonderful, when economic structures change so that it no longer functions appropriately, it's untinkerable, can't change it. maybe there was a depression and the nubmers are too large, it collapses under its own weight. Maybe there was more inflation (almost unavoidable), and now the numbers are too small, and we're back to people not getting enough to live on, then not having enough to live on when the payments stop because they've got to payback as well.

The depression point is a good one, I hadn't considered it, because during a depression, ALL economic laws are temporarily suspended (the laws passed by governments, I mean, not the actual laws governing economics)...or sometimes not so temporarily.

As for the rest of your tirade here, it's not that hard, if you put percentages or standard of living equivalencies in hard figures, rather than dollar figures (wich are, as you mentioned, subject to inflation, deflation, recession, etcetera), for instance, word the laws so that they are entitled to X loaves of bread per person they are supporting er month, while engaged in such a program, X square feet of "qualkified housing" to be subsidized the same way, X gallons of milk, and X% of the total cost of all named supports in cash value to cover the "unnamed expenses" or "unsubsidized expenses" (such as electric bill, and so on), so long as they are metting performance standards...hell, we could even make cash bonuses available for superior performance in these programs, thus rewarding them for exceeding minimum standards, which would provide further encouragement.


Yes, such a system would be subjecvt to collapsing under its own weight, if allowed to get out of control, but the whole point of such a system is that it uses negative feedback in order to help stabilize and control local economies, in the form of retraining people for what jobs are available locally, or subsidizing their moving, if nothing is available where they are. And such a system, by its very nature, CANNOT oscillate far enough out of control to have this happen, UNLESS there IS a depression, which we already have safeguards in place to prevent happening. As a statistician, you should already be aware of BOTH those facts, since they figure heavily in how failure rate statistics are applied to systems analysis, and how statistical analysis of our economic situation is done.

[Kite-san]

okay, first off, i apologize for the tirade, but you hit one of my 'hot buttons' as it were. i cannot STAND the idocy that is attempting to put that sort of antiquated axiomatic tripe forward as funcitonal solutions, and i'll freely admit that the momentum that fueled my prior post was sheer blinding personal outrage.

now on to the other stuff.

i COULD argue that welfare deduction aren't similar thefts due to the fungibility of money, the fact that taxes are taxes, regardless of what sort of tax it is, from the fact that it's fairly endemic within governments for them to move around/spend welfare moneys on other things simply because there's supposed to be a sizeable chunk sitting there accruing interest to keep pace with inflation, but that's got more semantics in it than I like. Okay, discard theft. Oaybe it is theft. It's not theft that leaves you with loops of your entrails around your knees, as you heave out your last few breaths, or with a small piece of metal travelling through you at high velocities, which i'd say is a significant difference.

The problem with a system trying to cover figures in that manner is that you either cut off people for whatever reason under some mitigating factor that wasn't thought of, possibly even due to that particular factor not being known of at the time, which any number of mental and physical impairments known today would be in if a system such as yours had been implemented as little as 20 or 30 years ago; or, in struggling to cover all the contingencies, create a system so beurocracy heavy as to be entirely non-funcitonal, or a system so riddled with lexiconic loopholes that you in no way reduce the capacity of those who want to scam the system to do so.

Now, admittdely, one could theoretically overcome this by having some form of oversight comittee to make judgement calls on mitigating factors, but then you have the beurocratic lexicon of deciding how one qualifies for such a comittee, review process for members, etc. more cost on top, for what would clearly have to be moderately high-paying jobs since it would essentially be being a panel of small-claims judges for suits against the government as enshrined in the welfare system.

Even under the current payment systems, how are you going to ensure that people are taking part?

Methods I could think of: separate job training courses for the welfare people. This falls on its face right from the start from a sheer cost factor, not to mention the problems with if you get an instructor who's got a predjudice and a chip on his shoulder.

Placing them in normal vocational training classes, but with a 'note on the roll' of some sort for the instructors to make sure of specific people's attendance. The humiliation factor (because while it might be hidden, the people IN such a program would know about it) will lead to resentment far more than anything else, plus there's the issue of problem teachers again.

In the end overwatch measures come down to balancing the carrot and the stick, as it were. Too much stick, and all you get out of it is a shitload of angry people. There has to be some measure of good faith involved from the government (or whatever organizational body is put in charge of it) or you fail utterly to provide an incentive for people to get off the program, you only incite resentment against the people in charge.

I've known a lot of people on welfare. I've known a lot of people who never got welfare because the system never aknowledged their existance for one reason or another. Some of them have been little better than leeches, taking whatever they can and then lazing around. A very small proportion. Most just wanted to keep their head down and do their best to get to the point where they could make their own way. In a system that lacks a basic level of human trust, I have no doubt that the ratio would skew much further toward leeching.

And now: percentages. Lets talk about those. Wait, already did. I already talked about the distressing tendency of overcomplicated legistlative constructs to leave loopholes that are increasingly difficult to block, and about how the costs involved with policing the system skyrocket.

I suppose now would be the time to take into account regional pricing fluctuations, people with dietary restrictions, be they medical, spiritual, or otherwise, questions of metabolic rate, available transportation, locational relations between the subsidized housing and various markets... wow, thsoe numbers sure got messy real fast, didn't they? Yes, overall they're going to cancel each other out, law of averages, central limit theorem, etc, but that's only good for finding the overall amount of money needed for the whole system to pay out for food. Just food. If you want to individualize it to make a dynamic, and therefore externally unchangeable system, you need all of those factors, and probably another 2-3 dozen more that i'm just not thinking of just back from classes. Just food.

Utilities... well, clearly there's the issue of what companies are willing to provide it, likely the smoothest way would be to have them bid for a government contract for all subsidised housing and let that solve the problem.

Or, maybe not. housing itself is something of an issue, isn't it? I know I haven't heard of terribly many government housing projects that don't have a waiting list a mile long (in fact, I haven't heard of ANY, but I haven't heard about all of them) and would those contracts generalize to other housing paid for by welfare? oo... bit of a tricky issue there.

And what about the housing itself? what exactly -is- the balance that lets people keep enough self respect so as to have some motivation to continue trying while still being cheap enough to be affordable? Where do you put it? How do you decide who on the list to prioritize? Clearly, high-rises are the msot efficient landspace-wise, but then the issue of tenants with disabilities rears its head.

And again you tie it all to 'meeting performance standards'. What standard, who sets them, how is it monitored? How will it adress the necessary human factor to prevent psychological stagnation and the negation any positive incentives?

Sorry I'm answering things out of order, as i've probably said somewhere recently, thoughts come out in the order they get thought.

Anyhow, your "not social darwinism" bit leads me to think you've misunderstood me to a fair extent. the bulk of the criminal activity related to the system comes from where the system -fails-, frequently horriffically so. Yes, there are thsoe exploiting the system, but the nature of criminal activity throughout human history, and the cyclic swings of crime rates with the invention of different methods o flaw enforcement is proof enough of the fact that it simply is not possible to build a system, any kind of system of laws pertaining to any issue, which will not have a criminal element that goes unstopped.

To put it metaphorically, even Big Brother had his thought police. There wouldn't have been thoguht police if there weren't people who, despite the amazingly powerful arm of the law, still were sucessfully being criminals, and in sufficient numbers to justify the expense.

I suppose what's left is what you say that 'as a statistician' I should know.

point by point:

What I know is that claiming that a welfare system acts as a control on local economies is bullshit. If a sufficiently large proportion of the population of a given area is on welfare for the welfare system to be a primary driving force of that areas local economic microcosm, then to call that local economy anything other than royally fucked is no more and no less than purest dementia. Even with relocation parameters, at most such a system moves the individual people around, creating an internalized migrant labor class within a nation. I'll cite the farming industry of the American Southwest as the example of what an economy does with the average migrant worker.

Stating that a percentage based system cannot oscillate far enoguh to collapse without a depression: again, bullshit. The CoL index across any large nation contains in and of itself a large enough variance to create intense internal strife within the population of those recieving welfare, resulting in intense difficulties over deciding who gets relocated to where, as location will be a prime factor in determining the wquality of lifestyle choices available to recipients, and it will determine their specific CoL value, and thereby payment recieved. The only reason it cannot go out of control is because it cannot feasibly be brought INTO control without such massive expenditures as to make it wholly untenable.

Safeguards to prevent a depression: yes, such safeguards exist. To state that they ensure that there will not be a depression is equivalent to saying "because we have invented the umbrella, we will never get wet." The safeguards primarily consist of attempting to force a steady continual low rate of inflation, but, as a statistician, I'd say that economic history has been cyclic, as new controls have been invented and applied, the only change has been the steady increase in duration and intensity of the swings. I've yet to hear compelling evidence that the current measures are any different.

Lastly, as a raw maths, unspecialized statistician, I know that most branches of statistical specialty generally regard economists as the statistical equivalent of cave shamans dancing about in feathered underthings to pull numbers from the wise gods of the heavens. Economics is a religion with mathematical formulae instead of prayers.

I lie, that was not the last.

Again, I apologize for my reply that will likely come across as a personal attack. However, no, I will not calm down pertaining to this issue, this is an issue I am passionate about, because it has killed people, and continues to do so. In the continuing sense, it mostly kills that nebulous 'out there somwhere' sort of people, but in the past tense it killed people who I knew, who I have nightmares about, because I watched them die. I never knew most of their names. I just knew that I'd go hungry if they got to the food first.

[UgghTheCaveman]

It's not theft that leaves you with loops of your entrails around your knees, as you heave out your last few breaths, or with a small piece of metal travelling through you at high velocities, which i'd say is a significant difference.

Correct, it's theft that if you don't comply, leaves you with anywhere from 7 to 25 years of your life behind bars, huge "penalty payments" (additional theft) siezure or freezing of your other assets, etcetera...MUCH worse, IMO than the relatively small risk of death or injury if you comply with the smaller chance of out and out theft. It's almost a certainty that if you refuse to comply with this legalized theft, you will face the fulfillment of the "threats" of the ones actually "robbing" you, especially if the form your non-compliance takes is underpayment of "taxes" by the amount figured for your piece of the budget that goes into such forced charity programs, as it draws more attention to deliberately underpay than to not file at all.

The problem with a system trying to cover figures in that manner is that you either cut off people for whatever reason under some mitigating factor that wasn't thought of, possibly even due to that particular factor not being known of at the time, which any number of mental and physical impairments known today would be in if a system such as yours had been implemented as little as 20 or 30 years ago; or, in struggling to cover all the contingencies, create a system so beurocracy heavy as to be entirely non-funcitonal, or a system so riddled with lexiconic loopholes that you in no way reduce the capacity of those who want to scam the system to do so.

Such as? I see a simple way to get past the first part, and in doing so, to avoid the second part. Word the law so that recipients are "exempted from participation in the hand up programs, and eligible for the handicapped support programs if, and to the extent that, in the opinion of three or more acceptably liscensed medical practicioners, they are considered "disabled"", that puts it entirely in the hands of evaluating physicians, liscensed to practice in the state or country in question, depending on how worded, yet prevents it from being abused by allowing controls through the same oversight system that watches medical practicioners for medicare/medicaid fraud that is already in place, and already being paid for. This would allow us to enlarge and better equip that particular group, to some extent, as well, increasing its effectiveness and efficiency. I'd hazard a guess that any doc prejuduiced against, or willing to abuse THIS program would also be one of the ones abusing/cheating medicaid/medicare.

Even under the current payment systems, how are you going to ensure that people are taking part?

Methods I could think of: separate job training courses for the welfare people. This falls on its face right from the start from a sheer cost factor, not to mention the problems with if you get an instructor who's got a predjudice and a chip on his shoulder.

I can think of at least one more: Adjust state schools' policies so that all state funded schools and training programs must provide every student with a progress report (something like an unofficial report card) on a monthly basis, and people who are involved in the program(s) simply provide THAT to their case worker, to maintain eligibility. Such a progress report would be helpful to every student, for tracking where the prof. feels they are, it prevents any singling out, since all are being treated the same way, and provides the means of tracking for the program, while neatly avoiding the resentment factor you're concerned with (frankly, I'd resent having to take charity to survive for an extended period and NOT having training programs available to me to get me off it faster...or at least not available to me in a way I could afford while on welfare)

In the end overwatch measures come down to balancing the carrot and the stick, as it were. Too much stick, and all you get out of it is a shitload of angry people. There has to be some measure of good faith involved from the government (or whatever organizational body is put in charge of it) or you fail utterly to provide an incentive for people to get off the program, you only incite resentment against the people in charge.

I agree with you "in the end", but apparantly am a little more imaginative, or a little more insistent on proposing possible ways of dealing with what I see as a majorly unbalanced and unfair situation that is antithetical to the ideals of our way of government than you, sir. I've seen many of the same problems you have, but addressed them directly, both in the current system, and in my proposed one.

But, to be honest, I'd even accept a two-tiered system, where you could get "basic welfare" the current way, doing nothing, but could get PAID, and paid better, for participating in a training program, including having extra benefits available to you (such as subsidized child care, increased transportation benefits, etcetera), under a program that said you'd have to (eventually) make some effort at paying back a portion of the "extra benefits"...I just want to see SOMETHING done where the system encourages and rewards those who make a concentrated effort to learn and get off it, rather than treating the sponges and the motivated ones equally, even if it's more expensive that way.

[UgghTheCaveman]

I just realized that I'm seriously confused...how did we get from racism to welfare reform again?

Oh yeah...Max switched from racism to social darwinism, and I leapt from there...Jeeze, sorry, folks.

kite-san, let's take this to a seperate thread if we must continue.

[Kite-san]

small thing that's of significance to me: wrong gender on your pronouns, i'm female.

not so small thing: you refuse to take any notice of the repeated mention of the msot debilitating factors in your proposal is that you in no way make any change to directly adress what you see as the biggest problem. you propose increases in costs for measures that are unlikely to acutally have any significant impact in long-term reduction in the levels of fraud, only in the short term while the new system is given a once-over and the new loopholes found.

there's a reason school tend to at most give quarterly or semesterly reports, because doing endless repetetive pure asessment wastes too much of the avilaable class time and resources.

also you continue to persist in the delusion that most people on welfare are content to be there and aren't trying to get off it, which is purest fallacy.

you claim that you're willing to pay for a system that encourages people to get out of the poverty. you do pay for one, but like anything else, there's a criminal element that abuses the system, and you magnify it out of proportion to villify the entirety of recipients.

there's no real point to taking it to another thread, it's down to just you and me yelling at each other anyway. but considering that there's been no progression whatsoever on any of the core portions of the issue, there's not much point to continuing this one, either.

[UgghTheCaveman]

small thing that's of significance to me: wrong gender on your pronouns, i'm female.

My apologies, your gender hadn't been specifically addressed on any thread visible since I started lurking, but your relationship with RantinAN had been, so I used male pronouns. Typical reaction to pre-programmed pattern response thought.

you propose increases in costs for measures that are unlikely to acutally have any significant impact in long-term reduction in the levels of fraud, only in the short term while the new system is given a once-over and the new loopholes found.

You have no data to prove this, so this is entirely a matter of opinion. I happen to think it WOULD have impact, fewer loopholes, allow for easier punishment of abusers who DID find loopholes, and have the bonus of providing alot of encouragement and reward for those who were willing to put signifigant effort into the system.

there's a reason school tend to at most give quarterly or semesterly reports, because doing endless repetetive pure asessment wastes too much of the avilaable class time and resources.

There is that, though almost every school I have attended made an unofficial report available mid-semester, which is putting them every 5-6 weeks for "unofficial" and every 10-12 weeks for a "quarter". This being the case, it's not THAT much more to ask that they provide an "unofficial update" every calendar month, instead.

also you continue to persist in the delusion that most people on welfare are content to be there and aren't trying to get off it, which is purest fallacy.

Another assumption on your part. No, I do NOT believe it's MOST, but I DO believe a signifigant number are too lazy, too content, or too ignorant of oppertunities to learn applicable skills to successfully get off the current program. This is the part I wish to address with reforms, as these are the ones I have issues with to begin with, and, IMO, the ones tryign to get off it would LOVE the oppertunity to take something that was less demeaning to the pride, which coincidentally opened more doors for them in the future.

you claim that you're willing to pay for a system that encourages people to get out of the poverty. you do pay for one, but like anything else, there's a criminal element that abuses the system, and you magnify it out of proportion to villify the entirety of recipients.

Again, your own perception of what I'm saying. What I HAVE been saying is that the system we have has nothing in place to encourage effort put in (which it doesn't), or to prevent certain types of abuse (it doesn't), it doesn't adequately provide for training and education (it doesn't), it doesn't require any input of effort on the recipiant's part once they're enrolled (it doesn't), and that a signifigant number ARE "riding the system" (they are, and this is admitted by the system administrators, AND recipiants), though *I* gave no reason for this until this post, and you assumed that I was villifying and assuming welfare abuse. By FAR I think the numbers riding the system are larger on the side of "don't know about the oppertunities, don't see the point in making the effort when they're already living in a poor neighborhood with few or no oppertunities present" than they are on the side of those knowingly and willingly abusing the system.

Hell, even the three abusers I know don't see what they're doing as abusing the system, though there is no doubt in my mind all three are abusing it. When I lived in the cheap ass apartment I had when I was working construction and going to DeVry for that useless degree, most of my building was recieving some form of government aid, and most of them were trying to find a way off it, but just couldn't see a way to manage it, so I KNOW we're both right in what we're saying, you in saying the majority are willing to make the effort, me in saying that despite that, a HUGE porion don't, won't, or can't, and we need to change that.

I'm not necessarily looking for a way to stop the abusers, just to prevent them from being quite so lazy while being parasites, what I AM looking for, like I said, is a way to make it easier for those willing to put the effort in to get off the system and STAY off it, plus incorperating a method to encourage this, and make it IMPOSSIBLE to miss seeing the oppertunities to do so.

[Honor]

I can't read all this... I just don't have the time, yet. But there are a few obvious points to touch on.

Ugg... You're BS bit about taxation being robbery is jr. high school libertarianism. And libertarians are just republicans who are actuallty ignorant or crazy enough to say "I should have everything I need, and everyone else should go fuck themselves!" out loud.

Taxation differs from robbery in that robbers very rarely give you billions and billions of dollars of very real benefit for your money... And that benefit is benefit, even if you don't understand it, or refuse to admit exists.

Speaking of robbery, how much of it would there be if you had to go to a private security company and pay cash for protection against it? But, really, robbery should be the least of your worries, with so many other savory crimes on the menu, and no public law enforcement agency to deter them.

How about a house on fire... Sure, we'll bring out the fire trucks. Small three bedroom house five miles from the station? That'll be $10,000. Will that be cash or credit card? I'll need to get that before we roll, of course.

How about you only get to eat whatever food is grown within fifty miles of your house, because you couldn't afford that tomato after the fees for moving it from california on privately owned toll roads were applied.

Want to send a letter to your grandma for her birthday? One page, on airmail paper? Ok... Fifteen dollars please. Or maybe you should call instead... If, you know, she's rich enough to have a phone. If not, maybe she can get down to her general store and pay the fifty dollars or so to use theirs... Supposing you can get down to your general store and pay the fifty or so to call her.

Oh, and your water, which nobody will guarantee the cleanliness of, is going up to five or six dollars a gallon. Electricity... Hope you weren't too attached to that... Because -IF- you're in one of the few places that has it, it's going to be ass-achingly expensive.

And $10,000 a year for each child in elementary education, $25,000 a year per child for high school. College of course, is substantially more.

"No problem," you say... "I'm smart and educated (which you got from government armed robbery... you're welcome.) I'll educate my kids myself, at home." Great.

And what will they do for a living? Well, with no real government regulation, they can be doctors, lawyers, whatever they choose to write on their shingles, right?

And how many eggs and chickens will they get paid for it? Because our economy won't be producing near as many jobs that are near as good, or near as much wealth in general, once only ten or fifteen percent of it's population are getting a sixth grade education.

Come to think of it... While you're home-educating, I think you better teach them Chinese, Japanese, German, French, Hindu, Korean... Hell, any languages you can think of... Because, honestly, it won't be long before this wasteland is overrun by someone who was smart enough to keep taxation and meaningful government.

And about your three fortunate grifters... I gotta call bullshit on, at least, the students. First, since I exist to a large degree on financial aid and student loans while I'm in college, I can tell you from absolute experience, it's not really enough to "live" on. I get my rent and internet and cable free from my room-mate, in return for taking care of the house and the horses while she's out of town every week, working.

Sure... A lot of students blow their budget for the quarter in the first few weeks, but to be living as large as you're talking about, year in and year out, those people are getting money somewhere else, in addition to any they are getting from school. It varies a bit, based on financial situation, etc, but in my case, the lordly sum student aid and loans gives you to live on, after books and tuition, comes to about $500 a month. And the vast majority of that is loans that I'll rightly have to pay back.

Furthermore... If they never "seem" to go to a class, that's one thing... But if they're actually not attending, that's not just them abusing the system. In order to receive financial aid, or guaranteed student loans, attended credits cannot fall below a given threshold, and GPA can't fall below a given level. Teachers are required to take attendance and drop students who don't attend, and, obviously, nobody who doesn't attend should be getting decent grades. It's tight... You're allowed like two absences before you're eligible for ejection.

There are safeguards and policies to make it more difficult to abuse the system, and it takes more than just people trying to get over to make the graft work.


All that being completely aside, though... It's the attitude you're displaying that's disturbing. I expect some dingbat to jump up and down and scream about that dickhead's law that says "z0mgZ0r!!! you can't say 'nazi' on teh intarwebs!!!ONE" but this is the same kind of intellectual frailty that was so effectively used by Hitler during the thirties (amoung others, throughout history)... Taking small problems that are going to be inescapable in any given workable system and blowing them out of any semblance of realistic proportion.

"OMG!!! You don't have a job!?! You're not making enough monies!?! Your national penis is suffering shrinkage!?! You know what...? It's NOT because your country tried a bonehead maneuver fourty years ago and got their collective ass kicked.... It's because of them joozors!!!one!"

"OMG!!! You don't have a job!?! You're not making enough monies!?! Your economic penis is suffering shrinkage!?! You know what...? It's NOT because you've ignored trends in technology, education, and economics and tried to cling to bulk-labor style employment while demanding white-collar, management style wages.... It's because of the two or three percent of your income that goes to furthering education and social programs, and all those bazillions of lazy grifters who want nothing more than to live off the governments!!!one! In reality, only seven of the eight-hundred and fourty eight million people on welfare and educational assistance are even doing anything to get off the dole!!! And there are only fourty-three thousand people working and paying taxes in this country... All of them belonging to the most down-trodden, enslaved class of people in the planet, the white, christian male."

[Toawa]

I can't read all this... I just don't have the time, yet. But there are a few obvious points to touch on.

Ugg... You're BS bit about taxation being robbery is jr. high school libertarianism. And libertarians are just republicans who are actuallty ignorant or crazy enough to say "I should have everything I need, and everyone else should go fuck themselves!" out loud.

I rather prefer to think of them as the republicans who aren't actively trying to force their morality down everyone's throat. I think you have confused libertarians with anarchists, which is not the case.

Taxation differs from robbery in that robbers very rarely give you billions and billions of dollars of very real benefit for your money... And that benefit is benefit, even if you don't understand it, or refuse to admit exists.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not against taxes in principle, as you would assign to me by my libertarian leanings (which I freely admit to). However, the I don't think you can extend the argument that because one may ultimately benefit from the "robbery", that such benefits alone justify the act.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that the centralization of activity by certain areas of government does lead to an increase in fairness, or efficiency, or some other good effect that justify the cost of their operation in that area, but that does not extend to all areas. Which areas work, and which don't, unfortunately, are not always clear. For those areas where it does, then the government may extend into them, and it will need taxes to do so. I am not advocating the elimination of all government programs, only the realization that the government is not always the best way to run such programs, and in such cases, it should not run such programs.

Speaking of robbery, how much of it would there be if you had to go to a private security company and pay cash for protection against it? But, really, robbery should be the least of your worries, with so many other savory crimes on the menu, and no public law enforcement agency to deter them.

How about a house on fire... Sure, we'll bring out the fire trucks. Small three bedroom house five miles from the station? That'll be $10,000. Will that be cash or credit card? I'll need to get that before we roll, of course.

How about you only get to eat whatever food is grown within fifty miles of your house, because you couldn't afford that tomato after the fees for moving it from california on privately owned toll roads were applied.

Want to send a letter to your grandma for her birthday? One page, on airmail paper? Ok... Fifteen dollars please. Or maybe you should call instead... If, you know, she's rich enough to have a phone. If not, maybe she can get down to her general store and pay the fifty dollars or so to use theirs... Supposing you can get down to your general store and pay the fifty or so to call her.

::snip about 5 other Misleadingly Vivid examples::

And that's the great thing about competition. The above examples would not last long in the real world, because someone else will say, "Hey, I can do the exact same thing, for less money, which will attract more customers, which will ultimately net me more money." Seriously, Honor, I know you know enough about economics to know that that is how our system works, at least 99% of the time.

(I know you were being facetious, but the fire truck example has in fact occured before. There are private firefighting companies in certain areas which, for whatever reason, be it tax base or sparse population, do not have municiple or city fire departments, and they will let buildings burn down (as long as they know there's no one inside) if you don't hire their services.)

All that being completely aside, though... It's the attitude you're displaying that's disturbing. I expect some dingbat to jump up and down and scream about that dickhead's law that says "z0mgZ0r!!! you can't say 'nazi' on teh intarwebs!!!ONE" but this is the same kind of intellectual frailty that was so effectively used by Hitler during the thirties (amoung others, throughout history)... Taking small problems that are going to be inescapable in any given workable system and blowing them out of any semblance of realistic proportion.

"OMG!!! You don't have a job!?! You're not making enough monies!?! Your national penis is suffering shrinkage!?! You know what...? It's NOT because your country tried a bonehead maneuver fourty years ago and got their collective ass kicked.... It's because of them joozors!!!one!"

"OMG!!! You don't have a job!?! You're not making enough monies!?! Your economic penis is suffering shrinkage!?! You know what...? It's NOT because you've ignored trends in technology, education, and economics and tried to cling to bulk-labor style employment while demanding white-collar, management style wages.... It's because of the two or three percent of your income that goes to furthering education and social programs, and all those bazillions of lazy grifters who want nothing more than to live off the governments!!!one! In reality, only seven of the eight-hundred and fourty eight million people on welfare and educational assistance are even doing anything to get off the dole!!! And there are only fourty-three thousand people working and paying taxes in this country... All of them belonging to the most down-trodden, enslaved class of people in the planet, the white, christian male."

It's called Godwin's Law.

And seriously, one of your calibur in debating should not have to continually rely on overgeneralizations and misleading vividness. You are better than that! And don't fall back on the "It's just a joke!" or "I was just kidding!" or "You know I wasn't serious!" They say humor is funny because it's true; I doubt you would make such jokes, if that is what they are, unless at least some part of you really believed that to be the case.

Taxes are not "two or three percent of your income", unless you're very, very low on the pay scale, not paying social security, or are hiding a lot of income. (Do not think that I am saying taxes are too high; I expressly do not express any opinion in that reguard. I'm just saying that taxes are higher, by several times, than "two or three percent".) I don't even know how to interpret "ignored trends in technology, education, and economics and tried to cling to bulk-labor style employment while demanding white-collar, management style wages." And believe it or not, the power base of "the most down-trodden, enslaved class of people in the planet, the white, christian male." has shrunk considerably over the last two hundred years. You do yourself and others a disservice by clinging to that particular persecution complex.


As for welfare, I can think of a few fixes that I believe would go a long way to helping:

1. Eliminate all welfare checks. Seriously, we live in an age that it should all be direct deposit. I have to wonder what percentage of welfare ultimately goes to check cashing/payday loan type places. (Maybe they already did this.)

2. Direct deposit implies bank accounts; everyone on welfare should have a bank account, by which their financial transactions may be monitored. And I know this may sound very odd coming from a libertarian, and believe me, I'd be supremely pissed if the government was watching everyone's accounts in the way that I have just suggested, but by virtue of accepting welfare, they have invited the government into their financial house. (Furthermore, it eliminates the money lost from check cashing.)

3. Whatever education that may be forthcoming should probably have an economics course...

4. Under no circumstances should a person on welfare today, who gets a job tomorrow, be making less money tomorrow by virtue of having a job. (This is another reason for the account. I figure reducing welfare by, say, 50 cents for every dollar earned on the job.

Of course, I have no hard data on the potential savings or costs associated with this system, but I think it's interesting to contemplate.

As is the idea by one, who's name I can't remember (but in all fairness, I thought of it before he published it), who's idea was simply to write a $10,000 check to everyone in the country, every year. It might sound nuts, and it certainly is very unlikely to happen, but it still makes for some interesting consideration of the economic ramifications.

[UgghTheCaveman]

Honor, I didn't say "taxation is robbery", I said forced charity is robbery, which is what welfare is, currently. If the recipiants were required to put some effort into the system themselves, then it would no longer be "charity" but would be another government program, where they were paying out for serices rendered, even if those services were basically unnecessary to the greater public, and only benefitted the recipiant directly.

I gotta call bullshit on, at least, the students. First, since I exist to a large degree on financial aid and student loans while I'm in college, I can tell you from absolute experience, it's not really enough to "live" on. I get my rent and internet and cable free from my room-mate, in return for taking care of the house and the horses while she's out of town every week, working.

Sorry, dear, just because YOU didn't manage to milk the system doesn't mean othjers aren't managing it. One recieves three or four different grants each semester, is on welfare, medicaid, recieves SSI (she's a C.P. case), food stamps, and gets HUD subsidy for housing...owns a modified 2004 van that she makes payments on off her subsidy checks, is currently chasing a M.Sci. in CIS, has NEVER had to live off of earned income since turning 18. I'll admit she's a "special" case, being legally handicapped, even if her handicap is so "slight" it only impacts her physically, and she managed to maintain a 3.2 GPA through her undergrad work (which would have qualified her to continue benefits under the type program I've been suggesting for three pages now). The other one is a "double minority", being Latino/Amerind, and between grants available to everyone, grants available only to hispanics or amerindians, the "First Nation money" he recieves, welfare, and such, he brings in about $2700 a month in liquid form, while attending school, and STILL qualifies for grants and food stamps, because about half of that is undeclarable money (federal payments to recognized tribal members under an old, OLD settlement), and about 1/3 of the remaining is grant money that doesn't go directly to the school, but goes to him, as supposed "reimbursement". Of course, if he stops going to school, his income and eligibility would change drastically, which is why he's changed majors something like 8 times in the last 10 years, by his own admission. I heard all this because he had the nerve to be bitching that they are graduating him this year with a liberal arts degree because he MORE than meets all the requirements for several undergrad degrees, but not in his (current) major, and if he's not accepted to post grad school, his money situation is going to decline, and that will likely require he move, since jobs available to a L.A. degree in this area are pretty scarce, and mostly held onto for dear life (it's basically a two-company, three college town not within reasonable commuting distance of any larger town). The single mom is self-explanatory.


But you're right, I was exaggerating about them "never" attending class, and it IS just a "seem" that they're both always out of class to be seen on campus. Obviously, they both have just had similar scheduels to mine for the time I've been aware of their existence. Nonetheless, they ARE examples of what I'm talkign about "abusing" the system, instead of working...a B.Sci in CIS is plenty for the working public to have paid for, and she should have been required to go out and work after recieving one, even if, because of insurance laws, we still carried her medical coverage because of the handicap, and he...well, he's just conciously abusing the system because it's the simplest way for him to get money (and yes, it's quite possible to live comfortably on under $30K a year up here when your rent is under $200, and you don't have to buy food, and don't HAVE utilities bills to pay...his situation, as his subsidized apartment includes water and electric in the rent, being originally housing for Coast Guard permenants)

[Honor]

Honor, I didn't say "taxation is robbery", I said forced charity is robbery, which is what welfare is, currently.

And there's the problem I was talking about... Welfare is absolutely -not- forced charity, and it's the "oh, woe is me, I'm not getting any personal benefit from this!" mindset that keeps people not only blinded to the real purposes and benefits of social programs, but also irrationally and inappropriately militant against them.

Social services are social investment, just like education and technology grants are social investment. They're social protection, just like fire and police protection are social protection. By assisting those members of society that need it most, they benefit our economy as a whole, our standard of living as a whole, and every single human being in our society, bar none.

And the fact that there will always be a little bit of waste and graft in -any- human endeavor where money and / or other assets change hands, be it business, government, or private, is absolutely no logical argument against pursuing those endeavors anyway... Stores will always lose money to shoplifting and employee theft, but we keep right on having stores, as well we should. Social services will always lose a tiny fraction of their output to those would would rather put more effort into cheating the system than working within it... But the benefit they afford to society as a whole is well worth that loss, and, perhaps more importantly, I'd rather have those people figuring out how to scam social security out of a few thousand dollars than turning thier minds to figuring out how to run Ponzi scams on their fellow citizens in person.



As to the education cases... I think you're doing a better job of proving my point than yours... First, both instances are such wildly rare exceptions as to almost singlehandedly prove the validity of the rule, and second, you mention yourself that they bring a great deal of their income from grants and such... those aren't generally funded by your tax dollars. The vast majority of grants come from private sources.

And Toawa... I'll get to you next.

with love, of course... always with love.

[Nithos]

I rather prefer to think of them as the republicans who aren't actively trying to force their morality down everyone's throat.

Except they are trying to force their morality down other's throats.. Libertarian morality may have more to do with finances than behavior, but putting up a huge fucking stink about social services because in someone's mind it's robbery is as much forcing morality down other's throats as objecting to legal abortion.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that the centralization of activity by certain areas of government does lead to an increase in fairness, or efficiency... but that does not extend to all areas. Which areas work, and which don't, unfortunately, are not always clear. For those areas where it does, then the government may extend into them, and it will need taxes to do so. I am not advocating the elimination of all government programs, only the realization that the government is not always the best way to run such programs, and in such cases, it should not run such programs.

Going from the general to the specific: When did efficiency replace basic humanity in your mind? In the case of the justice system, fire departments, basic utilities, and health care, why should effeciency be the scale by which success is measured? If it can be done more effeciently at the expense of other human's health, quality of life, or safety, why the fuck is money more important than people? I presume that's the alternative being offered, as if the government's not running those programs, that leaves private business, and charity. Both are absolutly dependant on the bottom line, they're not going to expend money in any but the most effecient matter, if that means not offering their service when not profitable/affordable, then they won't. Government can make those ineffecient, but humane decisions to save a burning house, insure the impoverished family, or offer running water to the rural city. What in any of the subjects being discussed can't be run by the government more successfully (and in the case of welfare, definatly more effeciently - there's no financial gain to be had, or possibly in very selective cases by offering loans to people with no collateral to better themselves. However, it is a universally profitable policy because those who better themselves through the help of the government add their services as laborers and consumers to the economy, and are less likely to be a drain on other systems [assuming there are any, if not, they're just less likely to be dieing in the gutter outside your apartment, which I suspect most people would agree to a tax hike for], amoung other benefits). I think the gilded-age offers a great recalcitrant datum for the theory that private charity can replace government services.

While I realize you added the caviate that government is not always the best solution, I don't see what's relavent to this discussion that government's not argueably the most effective (once again, by my definition of best for society in general, I'm entirely rejecting what I've been lead to believe is the libertarian perspective - financial effeciency over humanity, usually in the misguided assumption that what's economical is always moral).

And that's the great thing about competition. The above examples would not last long in the real world, because someone else will say, "Hey, I can do the exact same thing, for less money, which will attract more customers, which will ultimately net me more money." Seriously, Honor, I know you know enough about economics to know that that is how our system works, at least 99% of the time.

No, that's how our system is intended to work by many. It's not a homogenous system, though. It's been influenced by many different thinkers, a substantial number of whom would wholeheartedly disagree. That's not ment to disprove any of what you said, other than "that's how it works," it's mearly an observation of the ever changing reality. As to the assertion that if there's a chance to make more money by undercutting the compitition, it will be done, I'd like to offer the counter example of diamonds, and Wal-Mart. Diamonds is an obvious one - they're highly overpriced because of marketing, and a cartell of diamond mine owners keeping the price high by stomping the fuck out of the compitition (which they can do because of libertarian-esque economic policies which refuse to bust up the cartels, or stop them from leveraging the market with their superior finances). Wal-Mart works the other way around. Because they have enough large scale business, they can sustain stores that lose money by selling things at less than profitable prices to eliminate all possible compitition in an area. Then, having the entire market cornered, they can do whatever they like. It doesn't matter what it is they do, I would think you'd object to any one business having that degree of control over everyone's options. No one can undersell them without accepting huge losses for a long period of time, and Wal-Mart can play the waiting game longer than just about anyone due to their wide economic base. These sorts of abuses happen because they can. In short, the idea that the system will self regulate is economic anarchy, and it doesn't work any better than social anarchy. If people confuse your positions with anarchists... there's a reason.

Taxes are not "two or three percent of your income"

It's because of the two or three percent of your income that goes to furthering education and social programs

Read the bolded text - clearly Honor didn't say taxes are two or three percent. As to what percent of those taxes goes to education and social programs, however, two or three isn't an unreasonable estimate.

And believe it or not, the power base of "the most down-trodden, enslaved class of people in the planet, the white, christian male." has shrunk considerably over the last two hundred years. You do yourself and others a disservice by clinging to that particular persecution complex.

I think two hundred may be an overly large sampling, but regardless... no shit. For any progress to be made by any other group (without it being at the express expense of other under represented/privilaged groups), the power base of the dominant class - white, christian males, has to deminish. Power's a zero sum game. The ending of slavery undercut the white, christian male powerbase... so fucking what? I don't see how that's in any way in question, or how it's a bad thing from any perspective outside of that very limited group's. By way of analogy, overthrowing an oppressive tyrant isn't wrong because you'd be infringing on an already established power base. It's neccissary for the progress of the underclasses, whose needs clearly outweigh the privilidges of entrenched power.

[Squidflakes]

And that's the great thing about competition.

Yep, competition in the market place is the backbone of any Libertarian economy model, and let me tell you, large businesses just love competition.

Isn't that right TimeWarnerAOL, AT&T-SBC, ConAgra Foods, Glaxo-Smith-Klien-Welcome, Standard Oil.

Libertarianism is a great idea on paper, just like Communism, but have humans start acting it out, and it suddely falls apart. Libertarianism specifically is the politics of greed and selfishness disguised as self-reliance. That fact that so many middle-class and blue-collar Republicans believe the farietale just goes to prove how the common folk and middle-class allow themselves to be duped and don't really understand the point of having a society.

And that is the crux of the argument, society. We live in one, and in order to reap the benefits, we have to make some sacrifices. The chief sacrifice is a bit if disposable income. Boo fucking hoo. I gladly give up a bit of purchacing power for the ability to travel on well-maintained roads, drink clean water, and have a system by which I am able to address personal grievences and be protected from those who seek to exploit or destroy what I've worked so hard to achieve.

What I'd prefer to change is the efficency of my tax dollars. In some cases, the government does a hell of a job. Take Medicade and Medicare for example, the overhead costs for these programs are 1-2%, versus the 5-10% overhead costs for privately managed health insurance. In other cases, the government isn't nearly as efficent, and thats what I think should be worked on.

I don't scrap a computer just because the RAM or a hard drive stops working, I replace the defective part. Government should be handled the same way, you don't scrap the system just because one part isn't working to full capacity.

[Toawa]

And that's the great thing about competition.

Yep, competition in the market place is the backbone of any Libertarian economy model, and let me tell you, large businesses just love competition.

Isn't that right TimeWarnerAOL, AT&T-SBC, ConAgra Foods, Glaxo-Smith-Klien-Welcome, Standard Oil.

And when those become abusive, as Standard Oil and Bell did, then we should take steps, as we have. Not before. I believe the problem is more a matter of power that such groups might hold to prevent the abuses from being stopped, not the potential for abuses to exist.

As for when regulation is appropriate, I'd respond thusly:

Monopolies gain a lot of power, due to their position. The best method of preventing a monopoly from forming is through competion. There exists two basic types of monopolies: natural and artificial. Natural ones are such that the nature of their purpose makes competition inefficient, whether it be due to very high capital costs and avoiding unnecessary redundancy (power grid, telephone, cable) or due to relatively fixed demand over a given area, in which case too much competition would result in too much overhead relative to revenue, or, in the case of law enforcement, the fact that private companies do not have the authority to enact laws (thus, one branch of the government must be law enforcement, as they are the ones elected to pass laws). All other monopolies are artificial. Natural monopolies, due to their nature, generally stay monopolies and must be regulated for the public good, lest they become abusive. (However, it is not unknown for a previously natural monopoly to lose monopoly status; see cable companies vs. satellite companies.) In the case of artificial monopolies, they generally collapse on their own, as long as there are no outside forces propping them up. (You might complain about Standard Oil, but the government was helping them, if only indirectly by turning a blind eye to broken laws. The same could be said of our current patent system trouble, which is not so much a case of malice, but a few poor judicial rulings and a vastly overworked, underfunded patent office.)

Libertarianism is a great idea on paper, just like Communism, but have humans start acting it out, and it suddely falls apart. Libertarianism specifically is the politics of greed and selfishness disguised as self-reliance. That fact that so many middle-class and blue-collar Republicans believe the farietale just goes to prove how the common folk and middle-class allow themselves to be duped and don't really understand the point of having a society.

The same can be said for democracies, republics, benevolent dictatorships, etc. (BTW, Communism is an economic system, not a social system. Trying to compare it to Libertarianism, which is a social system, is comparing apples and oranges. It's true that the systems must interact, but they are still two fundamentally different realms.) No system is perfect; dismissing a system solely due to the existence of any imperfection is foolish.

And that is the crux of the argument, society. We live in one, and in order to reap the benefits, we have to make some sacrifices. The chief sacrifice is a bit if disposable income. Boo fucking hoo. I gladly give up a bit of purchacing power for the ability to travel on well-maintained roads, drink clean water, and have a system by which I am able to address personal grievences and be protected from those who seek to exploit or destroy what I've worked so hard to achieve.

I explicitly said, in my post above, that I do not think taxes are wrong in principle. I am not calling for an end to all taxation; nor am I calling for an end to all government programs. I'm just trying to say that the government should, as a general rule, not be the first place to go for a particular program. It may ultimately be the best choice, but we should consider other possibilities first. Furthermore, we do need a major revamp of the tax system.

What I'd prefer to change is the efficency of my tax dollars. In some cases, the government does a hell of a job. Take Medicade and Medicare for example, the overhead costs for these programs are 1-2%, versus the 5-10% overhead costs for privately managed health insurance. In other cases, the government isn't nearly as efficent, and thats what I think should be worked on.

Indeed; I find the concept of single-payer/universal health insurance to be intriguing, despite some on the right's describing it as "socialism" (a term, like Communism, Liberalism, Conservativism, Nazism, Libertarianism, etc. that all too often is used as a thought-stopper). I see how the current insurance system works, and I am not impressed. However, we tried private first, and we can see the flaws.

I don't scrap a computer just because the RAM or a hard drive stops working, I replace the defective part. Government should be handled the same way, you don't scrap the system just because one part isn't working to full capacity.

Again I say, I do not advocate "scrapping the Government," just that non-governmental solutions should be examined before governmental ones.

[Honor]

One of the best things I've ever seen written, on the Internet, or elsewhere.

That was incredibly good. I could blow you right now. Seriously.

Nithos - You already got your compliment. ;-)

And when those become abusive, as Standard Oil and Bell did, then we should take steps, as we have. Not before.

So... The same theoretical libertarian-castrated government from which has been forcibly exorcised both the teeth to stop these monopolies, and the compassion & brains to want to do so, and the balls to make it a realistic possibility as a course of action is suddenly going to do a radical 180, strap on a red cape, step up to the plate, and say "Oh, no you don't, Big Business!"?? I don't effing think so.

The best method of preventing a monopoly from forming is through competion.

This is a logically enticing theoretical fantasy with no practical foundation... What two hundred plus years of actual practice show us, is that contrary to this idea, competition without government regulation always leads to an artificial monopoly, with the strength to crush all competition.

in the case of law enforcement, the fact that private companies do not have the authority to enact laws (thus, one branch of the government must be law enforcement, as they are the ones elected to pass laws).

Two points... First, in this country, we're very careful (and legally required) to ensure that the branch of government that is charged with enforcing laws is -never- the same as the branch of government elected to pass laws. (Of course, King George, in the act of tripling the amount of existing presidential signing statements, and making radical changes in their form and function, is trying to change that.)

Second, imagine the fun that would ensue if law enforcement was privatized... Imagine the individual rights and liberties that would be shattered as individual companies driven by profit alone strove to have the highest customer satisfaction record...
Mmmm... Imagine: Innocent people shot in the street as two competing security companies struggled to be the first to bring in a "reported" criminal who's only crime was actually pissing off someone with money to hire said companies... Yummy, yummy Libertarianism.

(BTW, Communism is an economic system, not a social system. Trying to compare it to Libertarianism, which is a social system, is comparing apples and oranges. It's true that the systems must interact, but they are still two fundamentally different realms.)

To quote my favorite cookie commercial in history, "Wrong, Keebler... Wrong-o!" Communism is 'a theory or system of social organization in which all property is vested in the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.' ~emphasis added. Like all social systems, it realizes that economic forces are key in social control, and makes certain economic mandates... But Communism is a socio-political system first and foremost.

No system is perfect; dismissing a system solely due to the existence of any imperfection is foolish.

Obviously we're not doing that... As proof, I submit that, if our procedure was to dismiss a system as soon as it evidenced 'the existence of any imperfection' we'd have to scrap them all, as you said.

When we dismiss Libertarianism, it's because of the existence of so many howlingly obvious flaws in theory, structure, form, and function that the resulting ramshackle construct cannot possibly stand in any acceptable manner.

As to your previous posts...

Continued reference to Fallacy by Misleading Vividness

Dude... Really. You just need to understand this fallacy better. What I'm doing just isn't it.

First, (and I should hope, most obvious) in order for it to be so, some kind of fallacy would have to be involved, somewhere.

Second, there is the matter of function... The 'purpose', so to speak, of a Fallacy by Misleading Vividness is to convince or argue one side of a subject by using that vividness to make it seem that the result or reality portrayed in a specific case is the 'norm' or more common result or reality.

My illustrations don't argue that the types of people or idea I'm lampooning are the norm or the majority... Rather, these illustrations serve only to lampoon a given segment of the population, or set of ideas, making their flaws more obvious by parody, caricature, and exaggeration...

And seriously, one of your calibur in debating should not have to continually rely on overgeneralizations and misleading vividness. You are better than that!

Umm... Get over it. I don't "continuously" "rely" on that particular style, I "frequently" "indulge" in it, and, incidentally, the use of the words "continuously" and "rely" in the above quote come dangerously close to a 'hasty generalization', which is another fallacious construct you might mistake my illustrations for.

Try to keep in mind... I am neither a dry statistician nor a sterile logician, by background nor by interest. My interest, experience, and argument style are better suited to (and designed for, and brought from) litigation, political argument, and advertising. I have no interest in abandoning more persuasive forms & styles of argument.

And don't fall back on the "It's just a joke!" or "I was just kidding!" or "You know I wasn't serious!" They say humor is funny because it's true; I doubt you would make such jokes, if that is what they are, unless at least some part of you really believed that to be the case.

See above. No, it's not "just a joke"... It's a perfectly and wholly valid and very valuable form of political & philosophical persuasive argument.

It's called Godwin's Law.

I know. And if it wasn't typically used in such childish, boneheaded ways, I might sometimes refer to it as such, instead of "goober's law", or my preferred "some idiot/dingbat/dickhead/dildo/asshat's law bleating 'Zomg! you can't say nazi on teh intarwebs!!! you looze!!!'."

It's never appropriate to call someone a shit because you don't like what they're saying, but sometimes, when you're talking about little brown lumps of fecal matter lying in the grass, it's most efficient and even most accurate to reference Turds, and screw anyone who tries to invoke gondork's law because they can't tell the difference.

[RantinAn]

Amazing. you;ve reinvented how the Australian welfare system works. Guess what. It fails. Big time.

Yeah, but something works there that wouldn't work here (and isn't working that well in CAN or the U.K., from what I've been reading)....Nationalized Health Care...changing the environment CAN change the result, and I beleieve it would, in this case...two countries set up under totally different base governmental and economic realities.

AMoF, my econ prof once claimed the U.S. has been a "unique economic profile and environment pretty much since the start of the"Big Beef" days, and steeadily became more so up until about its bicentennial, since which, it's been homoginizing into the world economy, as all economic giants eventually must"

....we have FAR too many looking for the easiest way possible to get as much as they can with the least effort, and least hit to whatever pride they may have. So, to me, it seems we must make our "hand up" programs require alot of effort, or hit heavily and universally in the pride...since I don't like demeaning people, especially for things that often were outside their ability to control, I prefer the "make it take alot of extra effort" route.

Kerist. Yes we kick people in their pride. as a net result mental illness diagnosis (espicaly for depression) amongst welfare recipiants has trippled, and the social stigmatat of being kicked inthe pride has had the effect of ensuring less people hire those on welfare, becasue if hte government says tey are all cheating bastards im not going to employ them. IT socaly dosnt work ok? Shore, your over monopolisation and controll of government by businiess interests makes the us pritty unique economicaly speeking, (and squiddy mentioned those companies precisely BECAUSE of their abuses of monopoly power) but ther is not a lot of psychological difference.
Nope you wont do it better because its not an exercise in economics its an exercise in group psychology. If you dont understand even this, its hardly worth debating the matter with ouy.

[WangyJohn]

Back here in Fort Europa, there's a certain homogenity, as we never had so large a slave rush like the US, but lately, expecially North Africans and Somallis etc. have come here in search of a better life (also large groups are Vietnamese and Kurds). When I was a kid, i noticed that many other kids were very racist (they were taught that at home) towrads especially african immigrants. I wasn't, because I was raised in a bi-cultural house (though both were European cultures with little differences), but all in all, I was taught not to judge people by nothing but how they act.

Need I say I was a bit of a loner at school? Anyway, years went, and Rap landed here too, and suddenly everyone were best buddies (with everyone but me ). I guess that's good too, but still.

[Lowky]

What I'd prefer to change is the efficency of my tax dollars. In some cases, the government does a hell of a job. Take Medicade and Medicare for example, the overhead costs for these programs are 1-2%, versus the 5-10% overhead costs for privately managed health insurance. In other cases, the government isn't nearly as efficent, and thats what I think should be worked on.

Part of the reason for the low overhead is a refusal of benefits. I work in mental health... The main medicaid plan we see in our office allows for 20 visits a year, but it's managed care. they usually authorize like 4 sessions or so to start. And you have four days to obtain authorization. So if you see them on a friday, you best call same day for authorization. Otherwise you might not get it in time, and therefor won't get paid for the first session. They don't cover any sort of psychological testing. once you hit 10 sessions they tell you, your client is in danger of using up their sessions for the year, so we aren't going to tell you you can't see them, but we are going to only cover like one session a month for the rest of the year. If they are diagnosed with ADHD, you can't see them any more, and they will have to go to their PCP for medication, even if you don't feel that medication is waranted based on severity, or that they could benefit from therapy to learn coping skills, to minimize things associated with ADHD, like anger outbursts.

[/rant]

[Squidflakes]

Part of the reason for the low overhead is a refusal of benefits. [/rant]

Overhead in this case doesn't have to do with benefits, it has to do with administrative and infrastructure costs. A la, if a dollar is going to something thats not patient related, such as paying people to do paperwork, process claims, ect.. THAT is overhead.