576

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

Worn,

If a state is not bound by contract to protect someone, as in the case of foreign citizens or its own, a person is in a state of nature. The state can therefore do whatever it pleases with them. That doesn't mean the state has particular reason to hunt them down, but it will if the state's own citizens are targeted or become collateral damage.

I'm speaking philosophically, of course. The UN has made decisions regarding stateless people, but it doesn't concern me because, as you know, I don't consider the UN a legitimate authority.

577

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

Libertarians don't believe in abolishing the state. You have to be an anarchist to want that. And personally, I think it would be funny to strip anarchists of their citizenship, and deny them all services (including police protection) unless they paid for it. Meaning, the state would ignore any crimes committed against them, unless they paid for protection. Of course, purchasing the right to protection and economic participation would ultimately cost less than the taxes paid to the government, and I can see the appeal to libertarians, but no.

Unless, of course, the libertarian wanted to be stateless and forfeit all rights to political participation and welfare. Not sure why they would want to do that though, unless economic freedom was worth sacrificing their political rights.

578

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

Since there are Anarchists in the US, I think it would be funny to strip them of their citizenship, make them stateless, and deny them all public services. However, they would be allowed to purchase basic legal protections, and the rights to participate in economic activity. However, they would forfeit all political rights and the right to welfare etc.

Heck, I think this idea could be extended further. Foreign businesses could purchase said rights, allowing us to basically tax them (although at a lower rate).

Edit: Oh, and we can make the Europeans pay us to protect them! Alternatively, we could leave, which would probably happen. Then again, it might be cheaper for them to pay us than militarize.

579

(124 replies, posted in Politics)

Mand,

I am calling bs. Never in my experience have teachers in primary/secondary schooling held Ph.Ds. Seriously, wtf?

Altruist,

Actually, it would improve conditions, not worsen them. And there would be no military shootings on strikers. Striking would be legal, but the company ofc would be allowed to hire new employees.

580

(124 replies, posted in Politics)

$50k is pretty good for someone with a bachelor degree. Most can expect to earn something closer to $35k after they graduate.

At least the EU understands that sex is a cheaper deterrent to violence than increased police presence.

Yell,

The only people who get caught are idiots who don't do their online homework, are indiscreet, or they make a scene.

However, honesty embodies power, so I would be honest to maintain my dignity if I were unfortunately victimized.
"I'm not wrong, I'm not sorry, and it will probably happen again. So give me your worst, if you see fit."

I like the Norwegian system. It sounds more flexible. You have the maximum sentence that your crime warrants, but you can also be confined further if you are deemed dangerous to society. Personally, I would take that concept further, but anyway, that guy is probably just a psychopath.

584

(124 replies, posted in Politics)

Hence why some Unions should be prosecuted for violating aspects of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Anti-competitive behavior in the market should be punished both ways smile.

585

(124 replies, posted in Politics)

Big,

Although at-will employment is nominally popular in the US, there are too many exceptions that need to be disposed of. For one, the union agreements need to be thrown out.

586

(124 replies, posted in Politics)

More like, the system perpetuates dependency.

587

(124 replies, posted in Politics)

FireWing,

1. Unions would not have to be banned. Companies would merely be allowed to fire them and hire new workers. It's the free market at work!

2. Maximum workday hours are evil. I am happy to work 50+ hours a week without overtime pay, but employers will avoid the extra cost of letting employees work overtime if they can avoid it. This creates a perverse incentive to work... less. For real, wtf? I want to freely sell my labor and undercut the lazy idiots, yet I'm not allowed to because of the government. On a similar notion, I could easily get a job at $5.00 an hour, but I can't negotiate below minimum wage. WTF !?!

Unions are cartels, little different from guilds.
Minimum wage laws increase unemployment.

They are EVIL !

Politics as usual. Next.

589

(16 replies, posted in Politics)

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Justinian I, a "war on women" presumes women are too stupid to manage to afford really cheap birth control. Anyone arguing there's a war on women is waging one, claiming they're dumber than men.>

We first need to clarify two things:

1. Social conservatives have attacked the legality of abortion, and to a lesser extent birth control.
2. Social conservatives have challenged government efforts to reduce the price of condoms or other forms of birth control.

On 1, the social conservatives are out in crazy land. However, I am sympathetic with 2. I don't like government interference in the free-market, and generally understand such efforts as resulting in negative consequences. On the other hand, I am not going to accuse Liberals of thinking women are dumber than men. I think they are more likely naive, thinking impoverished women are incapable of affording it.

590

(124 replies, posted in Politics)

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> How about everyone who's throwing out their generalized methods of fixing the economy actually justify their arguments and dispute other people's arguments, rather than just constructing giant economic wish lists?>

Can I quote from my Economics textbook?

591

(16 replies, posted in Politics)

Worn,

LOL

Flint,

Except, market pressures mean that few men can afford a wife until their mid 30s.

592

(16 replies, posted in Politics)

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> 1: Fair enough.  That being said, it's incomparable to a scenario where an action clearly has the intent of an anti-women agenda.
2: Explain.>

1. True enough. I think the slogan "war on women" is an exaggeration, although I'm sympathetic to the knee-jerk reaction made by some Liberals.

2. Reproductive rights are essential to women's freedom. Without it, women face the trade-off of career or family, and few women are willing to be celibate in pursuit of a career. Facing this trade-off, women have a tendency to choose a domestic lifestyle, a lifestyle that perpetuates a power imbalance between men and women.

When women enjoy reproductive rights, men benefit from cheap and available sex. More importantly, men who are sexually repressed are more violent. Look no further than Islamic societies to see my point.

593

(16 replies, posted in Politics)

Zarf,

1. Intention, maybe not. Effect, yes.
2. Opportunity cost.

594

(16 replies, posted in Politics)

Stop kidding yourself. Wherever social conservatives have dominated the Republican party in a legislature over the past decade, they have proposed legislation that frustrates women's exercise of reproductive freedom.

595

(124 replies, posted in Politics)

1. Privatize Social Security, and cancel all government pension payments except to police and military.
2. Privatize Higher Education.
3. Base student financial aid on merit only.
4. Private Health Care.
5. Eliminate unemployment benefits.
6. Declare obesity as not a protected class.
7. Permit employers to hire/fire at will.
8. Eliminate the minimum wage.
9. Legalize "soft" drugs and prostitution to expand the number of taxable people.
10. Tax only wage and asset (not capital gains) income, and set taxes to 10-15% for all income above ~$10,000.
11. Undo the perverse incentives for banks to lend to risky demographics.
12. Cut the bank reserve rate to 5%.
13. Depreciate the dollar to increase exports.
14. Increase oil drilling.
15. End the war on terror, downsize the military to $400 billion, terminate our alliances with Europe, and return all troops stationed in Europe.

Then the economy would grow! Problems solved.

596

(23 replies, posted in Politics)

Every country on earth should accept the US dollar.

Then we wouldn't have currency manipulation (China).

597

(19 replies, posted in Politics)

Who cares if they are finite? It creates pressure to innovate.

598

(9 replies, posted in Politics)

Obama-lite is still better than... John Calvin?

599

(9 replies, posted in Politics)

Phew. The social conservative is gone.

600

(9 replies, posted in Politics)

Nonsense. Kemp's personality and opinions differ from Flint's too greatly.