Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

The first half megawatt - Page 24

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Bill Ward on April 15, 2011, 5:28 pm
 
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:20:23 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:


Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you.  Freedom is when people agree on
laws to be equally enforced.  Anarchy is when there are no laws except
who has the most force.  The distinguishing feature is the presence of a
functional legal and justice system.
 

Not from the government.  It never works, because eventually everyone
becomes a consumer, with no producers.  All takers, no makers.  That's
when force becomes necessary to compel people to provide the "rights"
others demand.  


Posted by Giga2 on April 16, 2011, 6:49 am
 


Good luck having a competitive economy with an uneducated work force in debt
to money-lenders every time someone in the family needs healthcare or is out
of work lol. Go and see how well such a social system works in Philippines.
Many social programmes can be seen not just as chritable enterprises but
also good investments in the society which means everyone benefits. What you
propose would lead to corruption, crime, desperation, underclass or a police
state which is even worse.



Posted by Bill Ward on April 16, 2011, 7:47 am
 On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 07:49:05 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:


Those problems are caused by government interference, not solved by it.  
People are not stupid.  They can run their own lives.  Redistributing
wealth from makers to takers doesn't help either side.  It discourages
the makers and leaves the takers dependent on the unearned value they get
from bureaucrats, which is taken from those who earned it.  The only
group it helps is the ruling class, until they run out of other peoples
money to be "charitable" with.  Mostly it's used to assure their re-
election, until elections become irrelevant.


Hong Kong seemed to do pretty well with a free market.  I'm not sure what
the Chinese will do with it, but it had a long, successful run.

Can you think of an example of a centrally planned (euphemism for
socialist) government that has been successful for more than a few
decades?  The USSR wasn't, Nazi Germany wasn't, North Korea isn't, Cuba
isn't, Chavez is in trouble in Venezuela, Europe isn't doing so hot, and
the jury's still out on China.  The recent video link indicates their
"economic growth" may be an unaffordable fantasy of vacant cities.



Posted by Giga2 on April 16, 2011, 10:21 am
 

Strange that they have existed long before organised modern style government
'interference'.


Actually some people are stupid and some are not capable of many things,
what should be done with them?


When you say makers who do you mean? Currency traders? Mortgage brokers?
Lawyers? Corporate executives? Or perhaps you mean the people who do the
actual work and get about 10% of the wealth created?


Nonsense, people have an inate need to make something of their lives if
given half a chance. It is a fantasy that people love living on food stamps
in a trailer with 17 kids.


Homg Kong was a British colony and AFAIK had quite a few sensible social
programmes like state education and healthcare.


The UK and Germany and France are all fairly socialist countries compared to
the extreme ideas you seem to have swallowed and are *very* successful.


Europe is a much bigger economy than the USA for instance, IOW the largest
in the world, by far.



Posted by Bill Ward on April 16, 2011, 4:31 pm
 On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:21:53 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:


Probably not as many as you think.  If they are genuinely disabled,
others are kind to them.  That's what churches and volunteer
organizations are for.  If they are able to tell right from wrong and
break the law, allow the justice department to do its job.

Beware of lefties telling you how stupid people are. Remember, they are
referring to you and me.  They think they are the only ones qualified to
make the right decisions for us.
 

Makers are anyone involved in creating wealth in the free market.  That
doesn't include parasites living off governmental over-regulation. Any of
the above might qualify, depending on whether their job is determined by
the free market or depends on lobbying to achieve government protection.
 

Right.  Freedom inspires greatness and abundance.  Socialism reduces them
to worrying about how to equally share the misery.


with 17 kids.  

Your fantasy, or one you've been told?
 

They had/have very low taxes and few regulations, AIUI.  Combined with
the British sense of fair play, that allowed them to flourish.


How long do you think that will last?  Those dependent on government
handouts are already rioting in the streets.  In the US, freedom hasn't
been an "extreme" idea until very recently.  I can remember being told
many times as a boy, "The world doesn't owe you a living".  Socialism
turns that on its head.

For a while, in Yellowstone National Park, visitors were allowed to feed
the bears.  It works OK, until you try to stop feeding them.
 

How's the debt thing going?  It's bad enough when you take wealth from
producers, but much worse when you simply print it.  We're working hard
here in the USA to avoid the debt crisis that has caused European
countries to institute unpopular "austerity" programs.

Giga2, I have great respect for your ability to see through the AGW scam,
but I'm puzzled by your failure to see the connection between socialism
and the AGWers.  Nearly all the AGWers are progressive/socialist, nearly
all the critics are free market supporters.  That ought to suggest
something.  


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread