Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdduuuude
Participant[quote=pri_dk]At face value, prostitution is an independent transaction between consenting adults – we should all have the ‘freedom’ to participate, right?[/quote]
I agree w/ you 100% ! I view virtually all business transactions and most personal ones in exactly the same way.
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=sdduuuude][quote=pri_dk][quote=walterwhite]im not sure why prostitution is actually illegal anymore.[/quote]
Because we are still clinging to the notion that some activities can be stopped by making laws against them.[/quote]
I don’t even know who you are anymore.[/quote]
I’m someone who understands that nuance can make a huge difference.[/quote]
Sounds to me like you are talking crazy libertarian talk.
Participant[quote=flu]Note to self…..
1. Make daughter independently wealthy so she doesn’t need to depend on a stupid guy..
2. Train daughter with lots of guns, knives, martial arts…so that if she runs into someone like NeetaT, she can slice off his penis…literally.[/quote]
FLU – I didn’t know your daughter was from South America.
ParticipantI’ve heard it said that you don’t pay prostitutes because of the “services” they provide. You pay them because they leave without a fuss.
I have heard the same about contractors.
(by contractors, I mean engineering/software contract employees, not builders).
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=walterwhite]im not sure why prostitution is actually illegal anymore.[/quote]
Because we are still clinging to the notion that some activities can be stopped by making laws against them.[/quote]
I don’t even know who you are anymore.
Participant[quote=davelj]… it’s pretty clear to me (at least) that our system is rigged to perpetuate the ultra-wealthy and, as we saw during the financial crisis, to “protect” these folks from the actual downside risks associated with the risky assets from which much of this group’s wealth is derived (think of much of Big Finance).
If these folks are going to have a permanent put related to their wealth – as it appears they do – I think they should pay for it in the form of redistribution that reduces the level of inequality that we see today.
I’m not saying this is a perfect model (far from it, in fact) – to be clear – I’m just saying the model we have now is completely screwed where the middle class is concerned vis-a-vis the 1%.[/quote]
Well said. You have my attention here. Not sure how that fits in with all the talk about “luck”. Did the powers that be luck into the rigged system or did they make it that way? I’d say they made it that way.
To me, when the system is such that it is “rigged to perpetuate the ultra-wealthy” you can do two things.
You can 1) undo the rigging or 2) you can try to live with the current rigging and add bunch of other rigging to make the current rigging have less effect.
Either way, you are fighting the powers that be to implement the change that is needed.
The way I see it is this – a whole lot of money gets funneled through the government and through that government system, it is guided by very few hands. Those hands are the rigged system.
Let 350 million people each guide a small amount of the money and it will get distributed more evenly.
I think Ron Paul is represents path #1 – undo the rigging. I, personally, like that approach. Low likelihood of success but if it happens, then the rigged system falls apart and few decision-makers are replaced by many. The Revolutionary War also exemplifies path 1.
Path 2 is “politics as usual” that leads to regulations and redistribution schemes piled on top of regulations to undo regulations that were once put into place to deal with one problem but created another. Take a simple home loan, for example. It should be pretty simple. One dude loans another dude some money. If the second dude doesn’t pay him back, the first dude gets the house.
Well. Something went wrong and the small number of decision-makers decided that the taxpayers would bailing out the first dude. So, to protect the taxpayers there comes an army of acronymns to make this simple loan process a complete mess. Isn’t it better to just not bail out the first dude in the first place. Or, to at least avoid doing it again in the future ?
So, why don’t we just go back to the simple situation where one dude loans the other dude money and the taxpayers have nothing to do with it ?
Because we choose path 2, which puts puts band-aids and non-voluntary redistribution schemes into place to try and make up for the prior horrible decision, which tricks the public into thinking some progress has been made, when in-fact, the whole system that bails out the 1% is still there and, as you say, creates the wrong incentive.
Reducing the flow of money through the small number of government hands would be better than continuing to run that money through their hands and trying to control their hands.
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=sdduuuude]Not with tax money, no.
I would rather they play the role of encouraging people to donate voluntarily and managing the distribution of those funds.
If no funds come in, then the society has chosen not to do this. If lots of funds come in, then society has chosen to support it.[/quote]
Um, we pretty much do that already.
It’s called paying taxes.
Now you seem to be advocating more of a pure democracy, “line item” approach to budgeting, where people vote for specific polices and programs with their wallet. Which is would be interesting, complicated, and an absolutely infeasible mess.
I’d like to hear how that would work…but not really. Because I doubt you’ve thought this through yet.[/quote]
I have thought it through – more than you’ll ever know.
Since you would not really want to know, I’m done with you. You really are a dick, you know. Discussions between you and several people always seem to take a turn that results in you being a jerk. Starting to realize it isn’t them.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]Not with tax money, no.
I would rather they play the role of encouraging people to donate voluntarily and managing the distribution of those funds.
If no funds come in, then the society has chosen not to do this. If lots of funds come in, then society has chosen to support it.[/quote]
Sorry. You asked “do they” I answered “do I think they should”
They do provide student aid. But I don’t think they should with taxpayers’ money.
ParticipantNot with tax money, no.
I would rather they play the role of encouraging people to donate voluntarily and managing the distribution of those funds.
If no funds come in, then the society has chosen not to do this. If lots of funds come in, then society has chosen to support it.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]So let’s try a real-world example, one that I already mentioned:
Should the government support the education of poor kids with a strong aptitude for science?
Of do we limit our pool of doctors, computer scientists, aeronautical engineers, etc. to children of the rich?[/quote]
These are not mutually exclusive choices.
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=sdduuuude]Great. The government is regulating luck now.[/quote]
So do you have any actual examples or support for your arguments, or just are you just going to fill the thread with simple-minded libertarian platitudes?[/quote]
And, by the way, you don’t have to be a dick about it.
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=sdduuuude]Great. The government is regulating luck now.[/quote]
So do you have any actual examples or support for your arguments, or just are you just going to fill the thread with simple-minded libertarian platitudes?[/quote]
Wasn’t saying it has actually happened. Was saying that you seem to have suggested it:
[quote=pri_dk]The challenge when adopting these ideas to government policy is to eliminate the imbalances that are due to “luck” without removing the incentives that drive success.[/quote]
And again:
[quote=pri_dk]First, the goal is not to “reduce the effect of personal choice.” It’s to reduce the negative effect of circumstances that are not a result of choice.[/quote]Apparently, without even realizing it.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]First, the goal is not to “reduce the effect of personal choice.” It’s to reduce the negative effect of circumstances that are not a result of choice.[/quote]
Great. The government is regulating luck now.
[quote=pri_dk]And the idea that the government must “further” intervene isn’t part of the argument at all. You seem to be implying that it’s being “piled on.”[/quote]
It is, without a doubt, being piled on. Since about 1920, I’d say.
The logical fact remains – when the government starts making decisions for people, it removes choices from every-day people, increasing their reliance on luck.
There’s no two ways about it from my perspective.
And I’m quite certain that the government shouldn’t be in control of luck.
Is it even possible to control luck?
Isn’t that the definition of luck?Somebody writes a book saying luck plays a part in people’s success and all of the sudden, we need the government to get involved to fix the whole problem.
True insanity.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]The OP article asserts that everyone obtains their wealth as a result, at least in some part, of government policy and institutions.[/quote]
But not by their own choice, ironically.
When you force someone into a position such that they have no choice it increases the effect of luck, not personal choice, on their life.
The logic seems to be as such:
Because the government intervenes and reduces the effect of personal choice in people’s success, the government must further intervene to ensure luck does not play a part.It’s insanity.
[quote=pri_dk]Who decides what is justified and/or what criteria do we use[/quote]
Exactly.
-
AuthorPosts
