Low incomes make poor more conservative, study finds

To be indiscriminately against the gov't out of fear during hard times is just, plain, stupid.

People with lower incomes have demonstrated higher moral values...

Fear that what you have will be taken away by someone else,

Virtually all violent crime in any society, from homicide to armed robbery, is committed by the poorest individuals of that society.

When we have an govt that literally puts their hands in your pants before boarding an airplane, the fear has turned into reality.

the fact that they are the ones committing most of the violent crime,

Fifty years ago, people thought FDR and his policies rescued the economy. In the eighties, people thought Reagan and his policies rescued the economy. Opinions change over time.

It is not just opinion. Data shows FDRs policies worsened the depression and Reagan's policies improved the economy.

The economy didn't begin to improve until after he was forced to raise the taxes he campaigned on cutting.

In a survey of economic historians ... Members were asked to either disagree, agree, or agree with provisos with the statement that read: "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." While only 6% of economic historians who worked in the history department of their universities agreed with the statement, 27% of those that work in the economics department agreed. Almost an identical percent of the two groups (21% and 22%) agreed with the statement "with provisos"(a conditional stipulation), while 74% of those who worked in the history department, and 51% in the economic department disagreed with the statement outright.

The job growth under the Reagan administration was an average of 2.1% per year, with unemployment averaging 7.5%. Comparing the recovery from the 1981-82 recession (1983–1990) with the years between 1971 (end of a recession) and 1980 shows that the rate of growth of real GDP per capita averaged 2.77 under Reagan and 2.50% under Nixon, Ford and Carter. However, the unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), while the average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%), and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%). Furthermore, real wages declined sharply during the Reagan Presidency.

And most of these individuals live in cities governed by liberals. Why do liberals like poverty and crime?

Should government increase spending on welfare, keep it the same or decrease it?

Look, sourced data.

The assumption that people act in their self interest is not flawed. The flaw is assuming that people believe govt redistribution of income is in their self interest.

The problem is most people are too ignorant to recognize a self outside of themselves.

Do you have facts to back this up?

I am all for equality and less for handouts unless needed.

It's not too surprising that you can find hack conservative economists that cook the books for hack conservative politicians.

It does not matter as long lying and stealing are not permitted

Observations, the first step in science. Did you account for the TX border in your 'observations'?

That has been the state of 'liberal education' for decades.

Same country borders California. It is a non-element in statistical studies of crime.

women were ignorant housewives

One major border town vs many is not significant?

It does not matter as long lying and stealing are not permitte

Palin should be a shining example of feminism to women.

hold politic office...

She is more of a man than most men in the US today.

It is no coincidence WY recognized women's voting rights long before the US did.

women were ignorant housewives

What a chauvinist!

Palin should be a shining example of feminism to women.

She hunts, fishes, likes being outdoors, cooks, raises children, hold politic office.

She is more of a man than most men in the US today.

But she is typical of the pioneer women who settled the US.

No she doesn't. That is another falsehood. Even YOU must know she isn't Governor anymore. SHE QUIT.

under educated housewife

a vice-presidential candidate interview.

TX: 511
VT: 137 (no state gun laws)

Reading from a teleprompter and looking good on TV is more important than accomplishments?

She defeated the incumbent Rep. governor in a primary and then beat the dem.

had more executive experience than either Obama or Biden, and it really shows today.

She has a degree from an accredited university. Are you condemning the US education system?

Reading from a teleprompter and looking good on TV is more important than accomplishments?

She has a degree from an accredited university. Are you condemning the US education system?

a vice-presidential candidate interview.

Reading from a teleprompter and looking good on TV is more important than accomplishments?

She has a university degree in journalism with a minor in politics.

Gore majored in govt, made an attempt at journalism and dropped out of law school. But he is an expert on world climate.
Oh, and Gore's father was a US senator and was wealthy from oil.

Violent crime stats, per 100,000; 2007 data:

CA: 523
TX: 511
VT: 137 (no state gun laws)
SD: 171
ND: 128
NH: 139
NM: 563
AZ: 501
DC: 1508
http://www.census...0297.pdf

Or better yet, perhaps we should heed the reasons why they say to not use this report for state to state ranking.
http://www2.fbi.g...ime.html

women were ignorant housewives

What a chauvinist!
Palin should be a shining example of feminism to women.
She hunts, fishes, likes being outdoors, cooks, raises children, hold politic office...
She is more of a man than most men in the US today. But she is typical of the pioneer women who settled the US. It is no coincidence WY recognized women's voting rights long before the US did.

I think it's time we started valuing education and honesty as traits of both men and women. Palin has neither.

If she's so pro-america why did she marry someone who advocated leaving it?

it's time we started valuing education[q/]
How do you want to reward education? Completion of a degree without any other accomplishments?
The USA used to value accomplishments. People were rewarded for what they did, not what they know.
What used to make the USA great was a Harvard dropout (Bill Gates) could become a billionaire. OR Andrew Carnegie or Henry Ford or ...
[/blockquote]

it's time we started valuing education

People who hunt and fish are some of the most honest and intelligent people I know.

My grandfather knew more as an 8th grade graduate than PhDs know today.

How do you want to reward education? Completion of a degree without any other accomplishments?
The USA used to value accomplishments. People were rewarded for what they did, not what they know.
What used to make the USA great was a Harvard dropout (Bill Gates) could become a billionaire. OR Andrew Carnegie or Henry Ford or ...

My grandfather knew more as an 8th grade graduate than PhDs know today.

Hey Ethel, you're just angry that most of the candidates Palin actively campaigned for around the country won.

As for 'quitting' the AK gov job, she left the state in good hands and had more important tasks to accomplish.

But, I guess a 'liberal' can't understand giving up power

Where is the outrage?

I think it's time we started valuing education and honesty as traits of both men and women. Palin has neither.

What an intolerant bigot!
People who hunt and fish are some of the most honest and intelligent people I know.
My grandfather knew more as an 8th grade graduate than PhDs know today. He knew FDRs New Deal was wrong because he lived through it.

What an intolerant bigot!
People who hunt and fish are some of the most honest and intelligent people I know

My grandfather knew more as an 8th grade graduate than PhDs know today

He knew FDRs New Deal was wrong because he lived through it

How many times have the 'liberals' elected him?

How many times did AMERICANS elect him? You got a problem with Americans?

Gore majored in govt, made an attempt at journalism and dropped out of law school. But he is an expert on world climate.
Oh, and Gore's father was a US senator and was wealthy from oil.

My grandfather knew more as an 8th grade graduate than PhDs know today.

He's a Libertarian and maybe they don't have to be rational.

See its even a .org site so money has nothing to with the results.

Wow, you will believe anything!

Of course it's hard for an Art History Grad to get a job. What are the career paths? Teaching, working in a museum or library... I'm sure there are more, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

The 'value' of a bachelors degree is actually quite relative to how many jobs there are in that field at the time of graduation. Some bachelors degrees are more valuable than others.

An Art History major would likely need a masters/PhD to do anything because it would require them specializing in a field and becoming an expert making them more valuable as a teacher/curator/etc.

An engineering grad for example (depending on their discipline) would not necessarily need a masters to get into industry. They may acquire one later to specialize or move up in a company or just because they'd rather do research.

Trade/technical education is extremely valuable as well by the way.

Marjon can do whatever he likes. He's a Libertarian and maybe they don't have to be rational.

Ethelred

It's not too surprising that you can find hack socialist economists that cook the books for hack socialist politicians.

his corporate overlords

Wow, you will believe anything!

To see why this government aid is so important to the higher education establishment, we need only stop to consider for a moment what academics would do in a purely free society.

Since the time of TR, 'progressives' have been supported by large corporate interests to limit competition

Quoting idiots doesn't help. The reason so many go to college is because EMPLOYERS insist on degrees.

I just need to state you are an idiot?

Second, employers in the USA ask for degrees because they are not allowed by the govt

Monopolies can only exist with govt protection, not in market competition.

As for Palin, I am sure she will not quit

That is a higher calling that will most certainly irritate 'liberals' and 'populists'

Interest in Hayek and his work increased after the 1974

I hear now the jobs that are and will be in high demand are technical/trade jobs like plumbers, electricians, auto-mechanics, etc.
Do you value a trade school eduction?

I am still waiting for Geeks answer as to how he wants us to 'value education'?

I am still waiting for Geeks answer as to how he wants us to 'value education'?

We're still waiting on your answer to the ideal government question. Perhaps you get a little when you give a little.

I answered. If you don't like the answer, too bad.

I answered. If you don't like the answer, too bad.

You never answer questions in a straight forward manner. You usually just respond with an unrelated question or say you already answered the question earlier.

It's a long thread. Feel free to remind us (we repeat things for you all the time).

No ethics except situational. Ends justify means.

This is the place to start:
http://www.uscons...nst.html
Populists don't like such standards because they are not popular.

...who QUIT when the going got tough.

No ethics except situational. Ends justify means.

I thought marjon already gave us his ideal government. I still don't like it.

Really, why do nation states care?

Most conflicts today are the result of top down creation of nation states forcing people with different languages and cultures into an artificial nation.

but after she had run up a $500,000 legal bill defending herself

Ethel the Red, you and the other leftists who keep spouting this "quitter" meme are disgusting, despicable human beings.

Why exactly did the "going get tough" anyway?

So you and your leftist creeps try to destroy he

slimeballs, you get to scream "Quitter!".

Does the "red" in your name stand for Marxist?

Does the "red" in your name stand for Marxist?

Idiot. It stands for advice or rule. Get a clue.

http://en.wikiped..._Unready

Sarah Palin is an airhead who's only in it for the money. I guess that makes her no different than any other Richpublican politician. As far as the hunting and outdoorswoman, that's just being in Alaska. She would however sell out that lifestyle by allowing Big Money to exploit her wilderness and ruin one of the last pristine places in America.

If they can't define something it makes them very uncomfortable.

Inequality makes people more defensive.

Inequality makes people more defensive.

In a nutshell I would say conservatives seem to be more motivated by fear (someone's gonna threaten me or what I have). That's why they have mastered using it in campaigns. On the other hand liberals are more logical and can't understand why people don't see voting republican is against their best interest unless they are rich or powerful.

It is not in the interest of the poor to give their money away to the government, so that the government could give some of it back to them.

Get it through your thick skulls... saying there is a problem with capitalism DOES NOT MEAN SUPPORT FOR COMMUNISM OR SOCIALISM.

capitalism means only the rich having all the power and the only rules are those made up by the powerful and the big man in the sky

and in turn power

I would say everyone should be a little concerned.

Sure it is. How else do you plan to 'fix' capitalism?
The only problem I see with capitalism is too much govt intervention. Oh, wait, that is called socialism. So the only problem with capitalism is too much socialism.

The Free market has brought us such lovely world wonders, like flammable rivers, SoCal Smog, Oil well disasters, and black markets.

The Free market has brought us such lovely world wonders, like flammable rivers, SoCal Smog, Oil well disasters, and black markets.

It did not.
What brought these was the failure of the state to protect private property rights.

like flammable rivers,

reasonable limits on the producers.

So you are for or against pollution controls, and cap and trade?

like flammable rivers,

Burn on big river

That's my favorite line in the movie Major League and it comes in a song during the opening credits.

Ethelred

SH wants MORE regulation!

I support private property rights. Do you?

without government intervention, the only reliable access to money comes from a job, and there's the rub.

Protection of property rights, especially from property owning polluters, requires regulation.

As things stand, businesses have more freedom to pick their preferred customers,

ignoring and even screwing over all the others,

while consumers have diminishing freedom to pick who they will purchase or even if they will be able to purchase.

So Ethel wants to protect the rights of power plants to pollute.

The industries were polluting the river.

Awwwww, poor Big Money, nobody wuvs em but Marjon.

Awwwww, poor Big Money, nobody wuvs em but Marjon.

The socialists love Big Money. See how much the 'liberals' have funneled to bail out the big banks and auto companies.
And the regulation they impose benefit the Big Money at the expense of real entrepreneurs.

As things stand, businesses have more freedom to pick their preferred customers,

How?

ignoring and even screwing over all the others,

examples?

while consumers have diminishing freedom to pick who they will purchase or even if they will be able to purchase.

Like what?

Comcast will shut off your service if you make too many complaint or if you go to the Better Business Bureau.

The choices the poor have for affordable, quality, healthy, unprocessed food dwindles

Clean, safe housing in good school districts i

I am still waiting for Geeks answer as to how he wants us to 'value education'?

We're still waiting on your answer to the ideal government question. Perhaps you get a little when you give a little.

Why did the govt allow that to happen?

So municipal authorities left the Cuyahoga River alone-allowing firms along its banks to discharge into it at will

In 1936, a paper manufacturer on Kingsbury Run, a tributary of the Cuyahoga, sued the city of Cleveland to stop it from dumping raw sewage into the stream.

CONSIDER A FORMAL EDUCATION AS VALUABLE AS YOU CONSIDER TECHNICAL TRADES.

Please note that the FIRE was from INDUSTRIAL pollution. Please note that now you are complaining that government did not step in.

What burned in the fire in the 60s was debris floating in the water.

And yes, the govt failed at all levels because the system was flawed.

You support the concept govts own the river.

I support the concept individual property owners on the river banks have the right to clean water

and can sue property owners upstream to stop the pollution.

You support allowing the polluters to pollute

Again, how do you value that? If I need a plumber, I won't value a MA English degree. That individual may be a good teacher, but not a good plumber.
Do you advocate govt mandated salaries by education level like most do in the K-12?
I value the ability if individuals to think, but that does not correlate with education degrees.

So far, all these companies are restricted by govt rules form really competing.

Where is the free market here?

That is the inevitable result of govt regulations, which SH so eagerly supports.

No, that is the inevitable result of market influence on government, otherwise known as corporatism, which you wholeheartedly support.

Another thread made unreadable by marjon and the people who reply to him. Please don't feed the trolls. I'm going to start giving bad ratings to people who fail to ignore him (even if they are correct -- and let's face it, if it's relative it's like shooting fish in a barrel) as well as just himself.

Another thread made unreadable by marjon and the people who reply to him. Please don't feed the trolls. I'm going to start giving bad ratings to people who fail to ignore him (even if they are correct -- and let's face it, if it's relative it's like shooting fish in a barrel) as well as just himself.

I note how so many 'tolerant liberals' resort to insults when they can't answer

I note how so many 'tolerant liberals' resort to insults when they can't answer.

Marjon likes to utilize poorly founded opinion and decry others who call him on it.

Poorly founded opinions are the norm from the statists here trying to justify their socialist solutions in spite of the continuing spectacular failures of those solutions.

How scientific and 'tolerant'!
Isn't science and 'liberalism' all for diversity of opinions and ideas?
I note how so many 'tolerant liberals' resort to insults when they can't answer.

I wouldn't even say science is about diversity of ideas. It is as much about excluding that which can be shown false. Strictly speaking, I would say that subjectivity is not even in the domain of science.

But scientists are far too human and fail at many levels to be objective.

If scientists don't have an imagination and think out of the box, how can they create wild and crazy theories to have falsified?

Also, how are scientists supposed to work with emergent systems like an economy or even something more technical like a air traffic control system?

Also, how are scientists supposed to work with emergent systems ... more technical like a air traffic control system?

basic rules of reality and expand scope

to remove subjective biases and to stick to the objective.

It was never stated that imagination and unconventional thinking should be abolished.

Through observation, theoretical formulation, testing/verification

That's the theory, not the practice I have observed.

It is not encouraged and new ideas are slapped down rather quickly.

So science KNOWS enough about earth's climate to predict 50 years into the future based upon this process?

It is not encouraged and new ideas are slapped down rather quickly. Kuhn said something similar.

Science doesn't KNOW anything.

New ideas are accepted all the time.

Governments role is to enforce regulations to keep those two opposing interests in balance, with regulations and laws (eg. anti-monopoly) which are evenly enforced for all.}

deftly exploited dominance of communications media to brainwash

Those who claim to practice science claim to know what will happen to the climate in the decades to come.

an obsessive focus on the production side of the economic equation and an almost complete negligence of the consumption side.

Even within climate science the majority do not claim to KNOW what's going to happen.

Why do they want to impose more taxes if they don't know? Are they just plain old socialists who use the 'science' as an excuse?

There are people (both scientists and not) who support carbon tarrifs are just people who believe in global warming

obsessive focus on the production side of the economic equation

but since industry representatives usually had a hand in crafting those regulations and drafting the paperwork, it can't be much of one

not producer's pockets

Here I thought you were in favor of letting businesses lobby government and fund campaigns.

GM was purchased rather than let go bankrupt,

Not very objective of the scientists to 'believe'.

If you want producers to produce, they need an incentive. The best incentive found to date is to make a profit. Taxing the profit of producers will either force the producer out of business, or the producer must pass on his tax burden to the consumer.

Companies enter bankruptcy to tell all those people thy owe money to to piss off.

If you hadn't noticed, the middle class IS devastated, and BHO has not even been in office 24 months.

There are points from both sides and believers on both sides.

Or he could just produce more.

decades of corporatist republican rule for the devastation.

I believe that tree leaves are green because of their chlorophyll

I believe that tree leaves are green because of their chlorophyll

If someone is colorblind, what does 'green' mean? What color do they believe leaves are?

How the heck does Marjon get to flood the thread with trolls and I'd limited to three rebuttals?

If the production capacity is maxed out, an influx of capital is required to hire more people, build more facilities (all subject to more taxes and regulations of course).

I recall Bill O'Rielly, a small businessman

, state if tax rates were increased, he would shut down a few of his enterprises forcing people out of work.

He is typical of all businesses who need to make a profit.

CRA was passed in the Carter era.

False, he was a teacher then he became a journalist. He has no business experience.

Personal income tax is not corporate tax.

You've never run a business if you believe that.

Not according to the AGWites. There are believers and deniers.

I believe that tree leaves are green because of their chlorophyll

If someone is colorblind, what does 'green' mean? What color do they believe leaves are?

A specific shade of gray that's different from the shade it would be if there weren't chlorophyll?... But more importantly what the hell are you talking about? That was like the king of unrelated questions.

You may believe your perceptions are based on objective reality, but everyone's objective reality is not the same.

All is heuristic as Billy Koen states.

All is heuristic as Billy Koen states.

Some people con themselves.

Now Dr. Feynman said

http://www.youtub...p;fmt=34

And that should be short enough for you at 56 seconds. Any engineer that has given up on objective reality is NOT an engineer.

Ethelred

The more different people who perform these experiments, the more objective the results become.

If you want to introduce a little math into your philosophical argument...

However, as the number of identical subjective observations (ie. evidence) approaches infinity, the more the objective an observation becomes.

But there once was a country where an effective majority of people had the same subjective opinion. And this common opinion led to the killing of millions of people.

Why? That would only demonstrate those people did the experiment the same way. That doesn't mean the results are any more valid.

More useful information can be obtained when different procedures, different equipment, etc. reach similar conclusions. Even then, the differences need to be characterized and explained.

But there once was a country where an effective majority of people had the same subjective opinion. And this common opinion led to the killing of millions of people.

" Imagine how unnerved an apprentice engineer becomes as he sees, both theoretically and computationally, the certainty of mathematics dissolve before his eyes. "
http://www.me.ute...ory.html

Arithmetic might only be an heuristic, but clearly it was a good and very necessary one.

Marjon, for example, does this frequently with his grouping of people as 'socialists', 'liberals', etc. Conculsions are made about these people based on his untested hypotheses.

Conclusions are based upon people's expressed desire to use the power of the state to control the property of individuals.

In the above statement, you're admitting your conslusions are based on assumptions.

However, as the number of identical subjective observations (ie. evidence) approaches infinity, the more the objective an observation becomes.

A bit dangerous, this formulation.

I'm not talking about the notion of an infinity of observations which is not possible, not even asymptotically, considering the finiteness of all involved variables.

But there once was a country where an effective majority of people had the same subjective opinion. And this common opinion led to the killing of millions of people.

The choices the poor have for affordable, quality, healthy, unprocessed food dwindles.

People on this bbs who I call socialist have documented their desire to have the state control people's property.

People on this bbs who I call socialist have documented their desire to have the state control people's property.

Show me where I've said that. Direct quote Marjon. Again, you're a liar and a moron.

So telling someone that they can't fire off their six shooter in downtown Dallas makes you a COMMIE that wants to control other people's property.

Anyone who drives drunk and kills or injures someone should be tried for first degree murder.

Enforcing laws that violate the rights of others is more effective, and enables liberty, compared with enumerable regulations to prevent the behavior.

Enforcing laws that violate the rights of others is more effective, and enables liberty, compared with enumerable regulations to prevent the behavior.

You're suggesting that drinking and driving should be legal so long as you haven't killed anyone/damaged their property yet.

But if someone does fire his weapon, he is responsible

That's where the govt fails, holding people accountable for their actions.

Anyone who drives drunk and kills or injures someone should be tried for first degree murder

As noted many times earlier, common law protection of property is quite effective

Too effective for govts that want to control property

What's wrong with this?

Common Law is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision on abortion

That's a stretch.

3. The common law. It is undisputed that, at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" -- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy [n20] -- was not an indictable offense. [n21] The absence [p133] of a common law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins.

SH: "If someone has a need, that they can't take care of, which will endanger their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, then there is a constitutional demand to make redress in the most efficient manner."
Sounds like 'from each according to his ability to each according to their need'.

That's is what govt regulation DO, control others property and you actively support wide ranging govt regulations.

Why not?

If you are not going to enforce distracted driving laws, (eating, drinking coffee, radio, cell, kids,,,) why pick on driving drunk?

marjon is an idiot. Why bother engaging this obvious paid troll?

Remember that people have to get caught breaking the law before that law can be enforced.

So you're trying to say that the government can't buy and sell in the market?

marjon is an idiot. Why bother engaging this obvious paid troll?

Thank you for bringing up a specific case to defend your point that no laws are ever enforced.

Enforcing laws that violate the rights of others

no rights except those we give ourselves through our government.

The question is still out their, had the MA police enforced laws on the Kennedy's, do you think more people would have respect for the laws?

marjon is an idiot. Why bother engaging this obvious paid troll?

Drunks KNOW they shouldn't drive.

What does the govt own that it hasn't first taken?

Drunks KNOW they shouldn't drive.

If DUI laws were well enforced, they could not drive, they would be in prison, dead or executed.

What does the govt own that it hasn't first taken?

I seems to me the entire western hemisphere belonged to somebody else before the Europeans arrived. Would you like the government to give it back? Perhaps a refund is in order. Natives get their land back in exchange for some glass beads and some smallpox infected blankets.

How far back do you want to go?

How far back do you want to go?

I don't believe in going back. Progress is going forwards and learning from our mistakes. Learning from the successes of others is also desirable.

. I don't see how the death penalty would solve things.

If DUI laws were well enforced, they could not drive, they would be in prison, dead or executed.

No more drunk driving.

That's the fundamental issue is it not. If govt gives rights, it can take them away.

If rights are inherent, no govt can take them away

So far most here want the govt to give and take rights

I prefer the heuristic of inherent rights

They come from MEN

Declaring it to be true does not make it true.

democracy is the best form of government.

...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; ..."
Why do 'progressives' want a majority to take rights from the minority?

Slavery of others is a right the minority might agree to ,however the majority would disagree.

Slavery of others is a right the minority might agree to ,however the majority would disagree.

Why should the majority disagree?
In a democracy, the majority can agree to enslave a minority. What is stopping them?

How do property rights violate inherent rights? If you have an inherent right to yourself, you have an inherent right to the wealth you create.

What does the govt own that it hasn't first taken?

Natives get their land back in exchange for some glass beads and some smallpox infected blankets.

That's what happens when people don't believe in God.

Sure it does.

Mob rule is the best?51% controlling the 49% is the best?

If govts didn't make money off of alcohol, I wonder how DUI enforcement would change.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

This is the axiom upon which the US govt was created.

It has resulted in the most free and prosperous society the world has ever seen.

Why do 'progressives' want a majority to take rights from the minority?

This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance

There are two kinds of rights, inherent, and government-granted

. The right to perambulate, the right to live, the right to not be harmed, etc. are example of inherent rights.

Why should the majority disagree?

Jefferson was a Deist. He clearly didn't think a god gave men rights.

Natives get their land back in exchange for some glass beads and some smallpox infected blankets.

Most, obviously not all, Amerinds that died of European diseases did so without any intent from the Europeans.

Why should the majority disagree?

EVERYONE is a member of some minority. Perhaps that is why the creators of the US Constitution eventually agreed to pass a Bill of Rights. Not everyone is as selfish as you Marjon. Some people, such as the Founding Fathers could think of others AND could notice that without rights for a minority they too would eventually be ground under the majority.

Ethelred

There are two kinds of rights, inherent, and government-granted

Would you care to show how ANY rights are inherent. That is, that did not need humans to create. For millennia people thought they had an inherent right to own people.

Amerinds that died of European diseases did so without any intent from the Europeans.

Indeed the death rate was so bad there really weren't many people left in much of the US. Nearly the entire population of the Mississippi Missouri drainage was wiped out in as little as two years by ONE smallpox carrier that was with the De Soto expedition

Now Thrasymachus gave us just that: A crisp & clear definition of the term "inherent rights" which is suitable for all human beings. That's beautiful.

when Leaders can observe a culture whose behavior in the present will make war in the future inevitable

otto1932's basso continuo with non-falsifiable insights of not identifiable "leaders" that something be "inevitable" identifies him as being unescapably and therefore religiously entangled in his own CT.

The conclusion is that the Europeans were waging an aggressive, unprovoked war.

"Rights" talk is just a heuristic to help make the actions of a government more approachable within a system of morality for autonomous beings.

In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

When has this happened under capitalist system?

In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

When has this happened under capitalist system?

In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

When has this happened under capitalist system?

In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

When has this happened under capitalist system?

Great Depression, Weimar Germany, US soldiers pension strike after ww1, that's 3 in 10 seconds.

In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

When has this happened under capitalist system?

In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

When has this happened under capitalist system?

Afraid of data mining for this subject? Have a look here if you dare:
http://english.al...466.html

scientists call for rationing in developed world

In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

When has this happened under capitalist system?

Afraid of data mining for this subject? Have a look here if you dare:
http://english.al...466.html

If you look at the map the countries with the freest economies are white. The least free are not.
Oh, my bad, it is a map of undernourishment. Coincidence?

In truth, when the basic needs of survival cannot be met for a given population

When has this happened under capitalist system?

Afraid of data mining for this subject? Have a look here if you dare:
http://english.al...466.html

If you look at the map the countries with the freest economies are white. The least free are not.
Oh, my bad, it is a map of undernourishment. Coincidence?

As nearly always, you are evading your own question when you can't integrate an answer into your inflexible ideology.
This kind of indecency is the main reason you are downrated so many times.

""A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134 "

The question remains, why should the majority disagree.

Jefferson again:

1. Belief in God based on Reason, Experience and Nature

2. Belief that the nature of God is generally incomprehensible

3. Belief that man’s relationship with God is impersonal and abstract.

Deists view humans as equal to each other with inherent rights which is a philosophy called Natural Law.

That is disputable.

At what point was his contagion realized?

A right is inherent when its justification stems from the nature of humanness

individual has an inherent right insofar as it is consistent with every other individual having that same right.

The violations of these sorts of rights committed by historical governments does not speak to the fact of whether these rights exist

Insofar as it was morally wrong for the Mongol to test their swords on the peasantry, they violated their rights when they did so

"Rights" talk is just a heuristic to help make the actions of a government

There is no evidence that either Cortez or De Soto even knew they had a smallpox carrier.

I suppose that if De Soto knew what was going on it wouldn't have stopped him. He seems to have been one of the very worst. He was motivated purely by greed for gold.

Only by those that don't much about it.

There is no evidence that either Cortez or De Soto even knew they had a smallpox carrier.

A man that owned his own children. I already pointed out that he owned slaves and you ignored it. From that I have to assume the you are OK with owning slaves. The Bible is so I guess that shouldn't surprise me.

Rights are either inherent or not, not because of whether they are actually observed, but because of how they ought to be regarded.

In the 9th century the Persian physician, Rhazes

on June 24, 1763, William Trent,

-People were aware enough of it to use it against their enemies.

smallpox than you??

in fact did ensure, victory.

Many owned slaves at that time.

abolished BECAUSE of their Christian beliefs

was a crusading Christian

Ethel, I can't imagine that morality would bother you much. You support a govt led by all sorts of moral deviants

Given your support of a powerful state,

I suspect you would have supported the 3/5 compromise so the USA could have been created

Many here would not mind that.

What is the reason that you think Cortes or De Soto were aware of this? I don't know about Cortes but I do know that Pizarro was illiterate and learned about Cortez's success by word of mouth.

All rights need active protection to be practically meaningful,

Amerinds that died of European diseases did so without any intent from the Europeans.

No Otto. 200,000 allies assured Cortes of victory. Just because something could happen doesn't it did.

The natural urge to survive is not a right either, as it's all too often unsuccessful.

We simply cannot think of rights as things that any object observably possesses or lacks. That would be to equate a right with an ability, and not all of us have the same abilities, even when it comes to the desire to live.

Rights are the conceptual mirror of the obligations one owes to others. They are what others owe to the individual.

We simply cannot think of rights as things that any object observably possesses or lacks.

That would be to equate a right with an ability, and not all of us have the same abilities, even when it comes to the desire to live.

I disagree. The desire to live is not an ability, that's why it is referred to as an instinct, something considered inherent, rather than an ability, which may be typical, but variable to the point of being absent. I believe that the confounding between instinct and ability is also an error.

We simply cannot think of rights as things that any object observably possesses or lacks.

That would be to equate a right with an ability, and not all of us have the same abilities, even when it comes to the desire to live.

Inherent rights are those obligations that are deemed to be necessary in order for us to maintain a certain basic level of freedom compatible with a like freedom for everybody else.

I agree with you for the most part. I have no problem with the notion of "inherent rights" insofar as these are understood as rights granted to allow for the fulfilment of the irreducible needs required to achieve one's human potential (think Maslow). It's the only way I know how to reconcile the built-in (needs) with the freedoms/entitlements which can and unfortunately are often arbitrarily taken away (rights). Of course, you could always argue that inherent rights can never really be taken and only violated, but that would pretty irrelevant to the victim of the offense.
[/blockquote]

Inherent rights are those obligations that are deemed to be necessary in order for us to maintain a certain basic level of freedom compatible with a like freedom for everybody else.

Institutionally granted rights are those obligations that are not necessary, but granted on an argument of their contribution towards that freedom. They aren't thought to be necessary, but they are thought to be helpful.

The state is the only viable social institution capable of protecting rights.

The state is the only viable social institution capable of protecting rights.

Their proper role is to protect and enhance those rights. ...
The social progress of human society is a story of moving away from its original, subjective purpose, and towards its proper, objective purpose.

I think the error is in thinking that Nature is the source of any of our rights

The source of obligation is mankind itself

So T, you assert that people don't have the right to the wealth they create?

You have no inherent right to the product of your labor.

There is no coherent conception of the "product of one's labor" to begin with.

There is no coherent conception of the "product of one's labor" to begin with.

Let's keep it simple. If I chop down a few acres of trees, plow the ground, plant seed, harvest the grain, the grain is not my property?

I think the error is in thinking that Nature is the source of any of our rights

not just any "nature" but our human nature.

The source of obligation is mankind itself

I can't help but think that its source *within* humanity ("mankind") also stems, collectively, from our nature: as empathic beings.

empathy appears to be more a mental/emotional ability than an instinct, which may explain why this sense of obligation (or reciprocity, if you will) is very much more or less present depending on whom you are dealing with. I can think of a couple of examples on this very site, in fact.

Property is an agreement in peaceful settings and theft otherwise.

Ethel's opposition to inherent rights in favor of govt granted rights puts him on the side of the statists.

There is no coherent conception of the "product of one's labor" to begin with.

Let's keep it simple. If I chop down a few acres of trees, plow the ground, plant seed, harvest the grain, the grain is not my property?

Lots of slaves did exactly this kind of work. Did their human environment acknowledge their "property"?
Property is - as Thrasymachus very well said - not an inherent right. Property is an agreement in peaceful settings and theft otherwise.

While "nature" is understandable as biosphere plus assets, the term "human nature" irritates me.

Is there any difference between "human nature" and mankind's behaviour?

Empathy is a neurological/hormonal phenomenon found not only in (some) humans. There is no sharp boundary between humans and other animals.

Property is an agreement in peaceful settings and theft otherwise.

It is peaceful as long as the liberals don't gang up on me and take it. That's why the right to keep and bear arms is so important, to protect life and property from criminals in and out of the govt.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of the death of fascism have been greatly exaggerated. Fascist dictatorships may well be dead. But, thanks to the help of conservative fear-mongering and blatant corporatism, their favoring of capital over people, and we are well on track to an oligarchic fascism. If not already there.

What you do or produce cannot be separated from what others do and produce.

So you're saying you need guns to protect yourself from "whiny, little liberals" who "can't do anything for themselves".

The source of fascism is corporate political power. That's the very definition of fascism: government of by and for the corporation.

corporations have managed to steal trillions of dollars from American's pensions and retirement accounts.

Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.

Because the corporations are the ones that write the regulations.

Blaming the government is like blaming the handgun instead of the criminal who wields it.

it builds institutions that help the individual.

I want truly free markets. You want markets bought and controlled by the highest bidder.

You want markets bought and controlled by the highest bidder.

The whiny little liberals are like street gangs who need to gang up on people.

That's why they join unions and associate with organized crime to intimidate those who disagree with them.

Not according to its creator, Mussolini. Fascism is national socialism.

They are all regulated by multiple govt agencies?

Whose fault is that?

Is there no integrity in govt?

Here is a study of the actual workings of business

This is apparently what you want as this is exactly what has happened under the democrats the past four years.

Social Security is bankrupt and so is Medicare. Both will bankrupt the country. How dos that help the individual?

Why do lie like that? The REPUBLICANS ran the country until two years ago and have filibustered the last two.

Obviously Eth has a lot more practice at this than I do :^)

Physorg should do themselves and us a favor
Stop the Ranking Insanity

The DEMOCRATS controlled congress since 2006.

The democrats held a majority in the US Senate after the 2006 election.

Ethel, where did you learn civics?
The democrats controlled the Senate and House, aka Congress, from 2007 through 2010

Since Congress can override the president's veto, the power is in Congress.

The democrats controlled the Senate and House, aka Congress, from 2007 through 2010.

Since Congress can override the president's veto, the power is in Congress.

The 'liberals' own this economy.

Ethel, where did you learn civics?
The democrats controlled the Senate and House, aka Congress, from 2007 through 2010

One would ask you the same thing. How exactly did they get 3 year terms?

And where did you learn math, public school?

2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 = 4 years

They don't get seated until the January after the election, remember? Where did you learn your civics, Howard Zinn?

And where did you learn math, public school?

2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 = 4 years

They don't get seated until the January after the election, remember? Where did you learn your civics, Howard Zinn?

But in the Senate, there are many RINOs from the NE who vote with the Ds most of the time.

As for when they're seated, well and good, however, one might ask you why you're unable to properly quote when the forum tools do it for you.

But, hey, that's a great counter to my argument,

But, hey, that's a great counter to my argument,

I didn't have a counter, you were correct in stating my error. So I made fun of your inability to quote, do you take issue with this?

And yes, I take issue with making fun of that, for the same reason that I don't criticize people who may disagree with me but make spelling and grammar errors. Even people who can't spell, and yes, even those who don't know html, can still make good arguments. If their logic and/or facts are flawed, that's what I'll go after, not their style.

Would that be why you one ranked the fact sheet on Medicare solvency I posted?

The final fall-back of defeated conservative ideology is to claim that Democrats were responsible.

Religious Right still refuses to admit that 2000AD came and went. As did 1000AD and the entire generation that listened to a prophesy that their generation would not pass till the Second Coming.

Would that be why you one ranked the fact sheet on Medicare solvency I posted?

Please remind me - which comment would that that be? I don't recall it.

Marjon,

http://www.cms.go...ter=3823

Solvent until 2029 at a minimum. That would be the opposite of bankrupt.

HUGE pile of dormant cash

The only solutions that 'progressives' like T, or 'populists' like SH have to stem the 'evil' alliance of corporation and state is to increase the power of the state,

which will only result in more power to the 'evil' corporations.

Am I wrong?

I, and many others, want to limit the power of the state. If the state has less authority to loot and meddle, those 'evil' coporations will have fewer pathways to political power. They will have to rely on economic power.

When the people running the government believe that government cannot be anything but corrupt,

Would that be why you one ranked the fact sheet on Medicare solvency I posted?

Please remind me - which comment would that that be? I don't recall it.

It was this one:

Marjon,

http://www.cms.go...ter=3823

Solvent until 2029 at a minimum. That would be the opposite of bankrupt.

That whole "solvent or not" stupidity regarding US Med care, retirement funds is just a dirty underhanded attempt by Wall St. banksters to get the govt. to "fully fund" those systems

Yep, they call themselves conservative, but when you ask them specifically about policies, they always want to raise taxes on the rich and decrease spending on the military and increase spending on infrastructure and social programs. That's probably why most voters are so frustrated right now. Conservative politicians have made such a mishmash of the terminology, they don't know what to call what they want.

It's leftlings that believe in NewSpeak, not conservatives.

Imagine of young people could put money tax free in a medical savings account that rolled over every year and spent a bit on catastrophic health insurance. After a few years those cash accounts could be used to pay for higher medical costs as they age. Also, as consumers have more control over their health care dollar, providers would have to compete lowering cots. Win-win, except for the socialists who loose power over the medical and insurance industries.

Control over everyone, after all, is probably the main central dogma of the Religion of Leftism,

Socialist countries all over the world are facing a financial precipice,

And yes, I take issue

Would that be why you one ranked the fact sheet on Medicare solvency I posted?

Please remind me - which comment would that that be? I don't recall it.

It was this one:

Marjon,
http://www.cms.go...ter=3823
Solvent until 2029 at a minimum. That would be the opposite of bankrupt.

I guess that would mean you are wrong, incorrect, and in error.

I am NOT marjon.

Not only that, it was Skeptic that complained about the rating I didn't give him, not you.

That makes both of you wrong. So what else is new?

Frajo:
And it was you who gave him a "1" for his aforementioned comment.

Socialist countries all over the world are facing a financial precipice,

What a fine-tuned definition of "socialism" you have - every country is socialist except China?

Frajo:
And it was you who gave him a "1" for his aforementioned comment.

Please tell me how you know that I am the one who left a "1" on any given comment.

Insurance is by definition pooling everyone's contributions on a bet that you won't need it, but a promise that if you do, the pool will cover.

Socialist countries all over the world are facing a financial precipice

What a fine-tuned definition of "socialism" you have - every country is socialist except China?

Any Euro country (including Germany)

But keep your head in the sand. Deny that we are spending and promising ourselves into oblivion.

Frajo:
And it was you who gave him a "1" for his aforementioned comment.

Please tell me how you know that I am the one who left a "1" on any given comment.

But don't be surprised when most people don't agree with you and even might laugh at you.

Scandanavians actually have time and spare cash to actually attend a party occasionally

If the govt is going to confiscate progressively more income, why bother to try and earn more?

If the govt is going to confiscate progressively more income, why bother to try and earn more?

See, thats where I don't get you guys attitude. By the math they teach here, a 25% total tax on $50,000 would leave one with $37,500 whereas a 40% tax on $100,000 would leave one with $60,000. And you're saying you'd rather live on the net $37,500. Perhaps a remedial math course would help you.

As near as I can tell

that presumes that the higher-income person even actually works harder or produces more than the lower.

As near as I can tell

Walk a mile in their shoes.
So obviously you believe you can provide only so much value to a company, and you believe the same about everyone else and any extra income is not deserved (according to you) giving you a right to take it.

that presumes that the higher-income person even actually works harder or produces more than the lower.

That is for the manager or owner to decide. That is one reason why they make more money than you. They make decisions you don't know how to make.

I guess you don't understand 'progressive' tax rates.
So you would be happy working twice as hard for 60% more income?
Or say 3 times as hard for 30% more income? Where is the incentive to excel?

People also get paid for being accountable. Do well, paid well. Do poorly, fired.

Then again, we have no proof that you actually have ANY experience in the workplace do we? You clearly agrue from the position of an investor living from proceeds of inherited wealth.

It wouldn't be surprising if he were living off the investment of inherited wealth. Swenson Granite Works made the Swenson family millionaires in the early 1900's, largely by providing stone for public buildings. I'm not saying this joker is an heir to the profits made off government contracts before his father's father was born, but the hypocrisy, self-centeredness and mean spirit certainly fit the profile of a trust fund baby.

Would that be why the banks handed out record bonuses after tanking the economy?

Thought he was against liberals, but I guess the evidence lies.

Thought he was against liberals, but I guess the evidence lies.

When observations do not fit the hypothesis, maybe the hypothesis is incorrect. I think this is part of the scientific method.

SH, maybe you should look up the meaning of the word skeptic.

And nobody here has said that all laws are needed or perfect.

Look at your responses to my govt critique to limit state power. The 'populist/progressive/socialist' response is to rally the wagons and defend state power (laws).

Look at your responses to my govt critique to limit state power. The 'populist/progressive/socialist' response is to rally the wagons and defend state power (laws).

You wouldn't last long if there was no law Marjon.

You wouldn't last long if there was no law Marjon.

Is that a threat?

T, I think you should read up a bit of real history of the Old West. Not what you see in movies.

Sure you have.
Look at your responses to my govt critique to limit state power.

ruled by whoever was the most powerful.

ruled by whoever was the most powerful.

No, it was not.
Most people ruled themselves quite well. When someone tried to 'rule' he was dealt with. When everyone is armed, it is quite easy to have respect for individual rights without the almighty state.

You think everyone left each other alone in the Age of Piracy....

That was the exception, not the rule

Most people, most of the time got along just fine respecting each others business.

No, it was not. We see it today in cities and states that allow citizens to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

Organized crime, like the govt or the mafia or local gangs want to steal money so they can buy stuff and have more power.

Armed citizens make that a bit more of a challenge.

We hear about Tombstone and Northfield, MN because they were exceptions.

Most people, most of the time got along just fine respecting each others business.

People had to work together in order to survive.

Hardly the paragon of libertarian virtue.

our persistent refusal to recognize this is further evidence of your desire to be able to do dangerous, violent and unethical things in pursuit of money without legal repercussions.

Actually it was quite libertarian: a perpetual poker game, prostitution, all legal.

If you have been to Tombstone you understand how difficult it was to shoot someone with a pistol of the day. They used black powder handloads with horrible ballistics.

Again, it was not a wild as you presume. Maybe if you had sources other than a tourist trap cemetery?

People flocked to Tombstone in its day. If it were so dangerous, why would they do such a thing?

SH, you should try living up to your your nom de guerre and comment on how Sweden's conservative, limited govt polices have led to economic growth.

Steve Forbes is one of the few 'establishment' guys who recognizes the power of economic entrepreneurship instead of political entrepreneurship practiced by most of his peers in the 'establishment'.

Steve Forbes is one of the few 'establishment' guys who recognizes the power of economic entrepreneurship instead of political entrepreneurship practiced by most of his peers in the 'establishment'.

You know he ran for President a few times now, right?

So has Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, George McGovern... What's your point?

Steve Forbes is one of the few 'establishment' guys who recognizes the power of economic entrepreneurship instead of political entrepreneurship

he rather plainly practices power above all us especially through political entrepreneurship.

he rather plainly practices power above all us especially through political entrepreneurship.

How does he do that?

he rather plainly practices power above all us especially through political entrepreneurship.

How does he do that?

Did smoke come out of your ears when you tried to follow the conversation or were you just too lazy to even try?