Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You are used to the government taking a large part of your salary. The people are used to it, and all people resist change. That doesn't mean if offered the choice between low or high taxes and the government benefits implied by those choices, and they actually (impossibly) understand what that choice would mean in the long term, that they would still prefer a high taxes situation.
I know you find this hard to believe, Flaming, but some people actually do prefer the higher taxes thing.  They see it as reinvestment.

If your hypothesis was correct, then no one in America would want higher taxes ever, but some actually do.  Some people actually do advocate raising taxes (usually on the rich), in order to fund things like education more.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this mindset, but it does exist.  It just happens to be much more prevalent in Europe and in Australia than here.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

That's a pretty arrogant way of looking at it.
Yes, I didn't take the time to reword it. Despite your opinion of me I think you would be surprised how many posts would turn out like that if I didn't rephrase them lawl.

Turquoise wrote:

Ultimately, it's a balance.  In America, we're very individualistic and consumerist.  The benefits to this are that we have more freedoms than most people, and our freedoms are more explicitly protected by the Constitution than rights of other citizens are protected by their doctrines of government.  That's really the best thing about America.

A close second in terms of our advantages is that we have relatively low taxes for a First World country, so we can spend most of our income however we see fit.

In most of Europe, things are more collectivist.  The interests of society as a whole are given more of an emphasis, which results in better infrastructures regarding things like education (most of the time) and better access to basic healthcare (again, most of the time).  It's a different mindset, but it's not inferior or superior.  It's just different.

We can point to our own ability to spend things how we want to and boast, while they can point to their usually much lower crime rates and boast.

Either way though, it's ultimately just a dick measuring contest.
I didn't start out talking about government systems at all, and that's still not the focus of the thread. While my views are no secret, they really have nothing to do with my statement.

This should not be a surprise to anyone. People have money to buy gas for vehicles that use a lot of gas, and people like those vehicles, so people will now start buying those vehicles again. Anyone who thinks that true morality comes across the mind of anyone when buying a car or anything else, inside the U.S. or not, is supremely naive. In the U.S. these basic human traits are emphasized, so we get smacked over the head with words like greed all the time. It's true, but it's ironic that the people doing the smearing are no different from us.

Turquoise wrote:

I know you find this hard to believe, Flaming, but some people actually do prefer the higher taxes thing.  They see it as reinvestment.

If your hypothesis was correct, then no one in America would want higher taxes ever, but some actually do.  Some people actually do advocate raising taxes (usually on the rich), in order to fund things like education more.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this mindset, but it does exist.  It just happens to be much more prevalent in Europe and in Australia than here.
People are so absurdly deprived of the information to make a valid choice it doesn't really make a difference what they think. People try to vote for what they think will benefit them the most, but when it comes down to it they are voting in extreme ignorance. No one person can grasp the complexity of what has made economies do this or that over the centuries, and to have a solid stance on economics is just silly.

Who in America agrees with higher taxes in general? Who gets shafted when it comes to education? Who wouldn't be taxed any higher on the plans they champion?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6903|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

oug wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Could this be due to limitation on drilling in oil rich areas?
So let me get this straight. You wouldn't mind if they went on and fucked Alaska so you can drive your truck?
Well, here's the funny part.  Most Alaskans prefer more drilling in places like ANWR.  It's because they get a check every year from oil revenues (and because Alaska is mostly full of rednecks).
I've been to Alaska it full of  people who love their state and it's beauty. The spot area they wanted to drill in ANWR was 8% of 14 million acres (Section 1002). It's not the check Alaskans want, it's the jobs.

Wildlife has actually flourished around the places they are drilling now (like Prudhoe Bay). The Caribou population has increased dramatically since we started drilling in AK 20 years ago (from 3,000 to 23,400). This is partly due to the fact oil revenues have helped to fund environmental programs in the region. Bears, wolves, and moose, and muskoxen have also been increasing their populations in the Prudhoe Bay area.
https://i40.tinypic.com/p3ihk.jpg

I personally don't think ANWR is our energy solution. But the idea that ANWR is an environmental raping waiting to happen is BS.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

jord wrote:

All humans are not greedy, the majority are. And this greed can be amplified by how we grow up and our culture. Which is why the people around you are like what they are today, agree?
I am not greedy in the way you probably imagine me to be.

All humans are greedy. Please prove me wrong, I would be thrilled.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

That's a pretty arrogant way of looking at it.
Yes, I didn't take the time to reword it. Despite your opinion of me I think you would be surprised how many posts would turn out like that if I didn't rephrase them lawl.
Flaming, I don't mean to imply that I think lowly of you, but I do tend to call things out past a certain point.  I still greatly appreciate the "freethinking" comment you made about me a few months ago, and I enter a lot of debates with you specifically because of your ability to defend your points.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ultimately, it's a balance.  In America, we're very individualistic and consumerist.  The benefits to this are that we have more freedoms than most people, and our freedoms are more explicitly protected by the Constitution than rights of other citizens are protected by their doctrines of government.  That's really the best thing about America.

A close second in terms of our advantages is that we have relatively low taxes for a First World country, so we can spend most of our income however we see fit.

In most of Europe, things are more collectivist.  The interests of society as a whole are given more of an emphasis, which results in better infrastructures regarding things like education (most of the time) and better access to basic healthcare (again, most of the time).  It's a different mindset, but it's not inferior or superior.  It's just different.

We can point to our own ability to spend things how we want to and boast, while they can point to their usually much lower crime rates and boast.

Either way though, it's ultimately just a dick measuring contest.
I didn't start out talking about government systems at all, and that's still not the focus of the thread. While my views are no secret, they really have nothing to do with my statement.

This should not be a surprise to anyone. People have money to buy gas for vehicles that use a lot of gas, and people like those vehicles, so people will now start buying those vehicles again. Anyone who thinks that true morality comes across the mind of anyone when buying a car or anything else, inside the U.S. or not, is supremely naive. In the U.S. these basic human traits are emphasized, so we get smacked over the head with words like greed all the time. It's true, but it's ironic that the people doing the smearing are no different from us.
Your last sentence is very true, but probably not in the way you intended.  Yes, people are selfish by nature, but we all still have morals.

The difference is that our priorities are different from theirs because of differences in culture.  People living in places like the Netherlands are very concerned about global warming partially because they would be one of the first areas to really feel the consequences of rising sea levels.  So naturally, the environment is probably going to be higher on their list of priorities than it is for us.

That doesn't make them more moral than us, but it does tend to give them better foresight with regard to the environment because of their interest in it.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6903|132 and Bush

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

jord wrote:

All humans are not greedy, the majority are. And this greed can be amplified by how we grow up and our culture. Which is why the people around you are like what they are today, agree?
I am not greedy in the way you probably imagine me to be.

All humans are greedy. Please prove me wrong, I would be thrilled.
Your sin of greed is only exceeded by your sin of pride..

Sorry, the History channel has been running "SEVEN DEADLY SINS", all week.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
jord
Member
+2,382|6981|The North, beyond the wall.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

jord wrote:

All humans are not greedy, the majority are. And this greed can be amplified by how we grow up and our culture. Which is why the people around you are like what they are today, agree?
I am not greedy in the way you probably imagine me to be.

All humans are greedy. Please prove me wrong, I would be thrilled.
There are various people all throughout history that are not greedy. The monks that give up all their worldly possessions to pray for example. Or whatever they believe in.

People give 90% of their pay checks to charity.

It's not uncommon, you must have met one selfless person? If not, that's kinda sad.

I don't imagine you to be greedy. I am saying a large proportion of the American populace are heavily consumerist, more so than other countries.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I know you find this hard to believe, Flaming, but some people actually do prefer the higher taxes thing.  They see it as reinvestment.

If your hypothesis was correct, then no one in America would want higher taxes ever, but some actually do.  Some people actually do advocate raising taxes (usually on the rich), in order to fund things like education more.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this mindset, but it does exist.  It just happens to be much more prevalent in Europe and in Australia than here.
People are so absurdly deprived of the information to make a valid choice it doesn't really make a difference what they think. People try to vote for what they think will benefit them the most, but when it comes down to it they are voting in extreme ignorance. No one person can grasp the complexity of what has made economies do this or that over the centuries, and to have a solid stance on economics is just silly.

Who in America agrees with higher taxes in general? Who gets shafted when it comes to education? Who wouldn't be taxed any higher on the plans they champion?
I think you're trying too hard to generalize here.  Your logic is very reductionist and almost nihilistic in this response.  Yes, there are a lot of stupid people, and many of them mistakenly think they are educated.  The point is...  over time, we slowly figure out what really is going on around us and what really works better in terms of policy.  Sure, it's not perfect, and it never will be, but that doesn't render trying to do the right thing irrelevant.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-01-06 18:29:15)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

Flaming_Maniac(who may or may not be a fish) wrote:

You are used to the government taking a large part of your salary. The people are used to it, and all people resist change. That doesn't mean if offered the choice between low or high taxes and the government benefits implied by those choices, and they actually (impossibly) understand what that choice would mean in the long term, that they would still prefer a high taxes situation.
Correct, I would rather see a high tax on petrol -> Forces people to buy efficient car - and the money spent on something useful instread of cheap petrol and fuckwits tooling around in 8mpg behemoths just because they can.
You have to protect fuckwits from themselves, and protect the majority of the population from the fuckwits too. We Europeans are comfortable with it, even if it means giving up the freedom to be a fuckwit now and then.
Fuck Israel
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

oug wrote:


So let me get this straight. You wouldn't mind if they went on and fucked Alaska so you can drive your truck?
Well, here's the funny part.  Most Alaskans prefer more drilling in places like ANWR.  It's because they get a check every year from oil revenues (and because Alaska is mostly full of rednecks).
I've been to Alaska it full of  people who love their state and it's beauty. The spot area they wanted to drill in ANWR was 8% of 14 million acres (Section 1002). It's not the check Alaskans want, it's the jobs.

Wildlife has actually flourished around the places they are drilling now (like Prudhoe Bay). The Caribou population has increased dramatically since we started drilling in AK 20 years ago (from 3,000 to 23,400). This is partly due to the fact oil revenues have helped to fund environmental programs in the region. Bears, wolves, and moose, and muskoxen have also been increasing their populations in the Prudhoe Bay area.
http://i40.tinypic.com/p3ihk.jpg

I personally don't think ANWR is our energy solution. But the idea that ANWR is an environmental raping waiting to happen is BS.
Good points...  I'm not saying I'm specifically against drilling in ANWR, although I can see how it probably looked that way.  I'm just saying that my impression of Alaskans is not very positive.  It's typical for people who live isolated from a lot of the outside world to be rather ignorant or shortsighted about bigger issues.

Again, if your experiences contradict my assumptions, then I will concede to them.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Your last sentence is very true, but probably not in the way you intended.  Yes, people are selfish by nature, but we all still have morals.

The difference is that our priorities are different from theirs because of differences in culture.  People living in places like the Netherlands are very concerned about global warming partially because they would be one of the first areas to really feel the consequences of rising sea levels.  So naturally, the environment is probably going to be higher on their list of priorities than it is for us.

That doesn't make them more moral than us, but it does tend to give them better foresight with regard to the environment because of their interest in it.
I like.

Morals are a product of society. They are not ideal for this reason, they only exist so that a cohesive whole can be formed at the cost of some level of personal happiness, because that personal happiness can be recouped through a moral system. For example, people can give up some of their wealth to the poor, because they feel good about doing it. Does that make them a better person, as they are just being compensated in a different form? Yes, because us (society) making them a better person is their compensation. Our definition of good and evil is inextricably linked to our societal upbringing.

For that reason, yes, they have better environmental foresight as you call it. My point though was not that Americans are shortsighted consumerists, but that everyone is equally greedy in various manners.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

jord wrote:

It's not uncommon, you must have met one selfless person? If not, that's kinda sad.

I don't imagine you to be greedy. I am saying a large proportion of the American populace are heavily consumerist, more so than other countries.
I find it kind of sad you haven't either, but don't recognize it.

I know.

For everything else see reply to Turq.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6903|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, here's the funny part.  Most Alaskans prefer more drilling in places like ANWR.  It's because they get a check every year from oil revenues (and because Alaska is mostly full of rednecks).
I've been to Alaska it full of  people who love their state and it's beauty. The spot area they wanted to drill in ANWR was 8% of 14 million acres (Section 1002). It's not the check Alaskans want, it's the jobs.

Wildlife has actually flourished around the places they are drilling now (like Prudhoe Bay). The Caribou population has increased dramatically since we started drilling in AK 20 years ago (from 3,000 to 23,400). This is partly due to the fact oil revenues have helped to fund environmental programs in the region. Bears, wolves, and moose, and muskoxen have also been increasing their populations in the Prudhoe Bay area.
http://i40.tinypic.com/p3ihk.jpg

I personally don't think ANWR is our energy solution. But the idea that ANWR is an environmental raping waiting to happen is BS.
Good points...  I'm not saying I'm specifically against drilling in ANWR, although I can see how it probably looked that way.  I'm just saying that my impression of Alaskans is not very positive.  It's typical for people who live isolated from a lot of the outside world to be rather ignorant or shortsighted about bigger issues.

Again, if your experiences contradict my assumptions, then I will concede to them.
They just live simpler lives Turq. They might have hillbilly characteristics in the fact they like to hunt their food and such.. but really other than that they are nothing like the redneckville that is just north of me.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Your last sentence is very true, but probably not in the way you intended.  Yes, people are selfish by nature, but we all still have morals.

The difference is that our priorities are different from theirs because of differences in culture.  People living in places like the Netherlands are very concerned about global warming partially because they would be one of the first areas to really feel the consequences of rising sea levels.  So naturally, the environment is probably going to be higher on their list of priorities than it is for us.

That doesn't make them more moral than us, but it does tend to give them better foresight with regard to the environment because of their interest in it.
I like.

Morals are a product of society. They are not ideal for this reason, they only exist so that a cohesive whole can be formed at the cost of some level of personal happiness, because that personal happiness can be recouped through a moral system. For example, people can give up some of their wealth to the poor, because they feel good about doing it. Does that make them a better person, as they are just being compensated in a different form? Yes, because us (society) making them a better person is their compensation. Our definition of good and evil is inextricably linked to our societal upbringing.

For that reason, yes, they have better environmental foresight as you call it. My point though was not that Americans are shortsighted consumerists, but that everyone is equally greedy in various manners.
Agreed...   but for the purpose of this discussion, Americans aren't terribly "progressive" about handling environmental issues as compared to many European nations -- if we define progressive as being able to minimize damage to the environment while engaging in various industrial applications.

To further your line of thinking, yes, I'm sure the Netherlands is less progressive about certain other issues than we are.  Lately, it would seem they lack the ability to coherently defend their own freedom of speech from being censored as a result of threats made by extremist Muslims.

So yeah, we all have our strengths and weaknesses.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

that doesn't render trying to do the right thing irrelevant.
No it doesn't, that's the really inspiring/funny/sad thing, to see people struggling to do what is right against such insurmountable odds.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac(who has clearly proven to be a fish) wrote:

You are used to the government taking a large part of your salary. The people are used to it, and all people resist change. That doesn't mean if offered the choice between low or high taxes and the government benefits implied by those choices, and they actually (impossibly) understand what that choice would mean in the long term, that they would still prefer a high taxes situation.
Correct, I would rather see a high tax on petrol -> Forces people to buy efficient car - and the money spent on something useful instread of cheap petrol and fuckwits tooling around in 8mpg behemoths just because they can.
You have to protect fuckwits from themselves, and protect the majority of the population from the fuckwits too. We Europeans are comfortable with it, even if it means giving up the freedom to be a fuckwit now and then.
I'm surprised about how much I agree with this post. I agree in all cases that have to do with the safety of the human race as a whole - such as the environmental issue. Taxing gas would be a good idea, particularly because gas has gone so low. Not as high as it was, but high enough so that people remember it's still a problem.

When it comes to individuals though, that's where people need to have the ability to succeed or screw up in grand proportions.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


I've been to Alaska it full of  people who love their state and it's beauty. The spot area they wanted to drill in ANWR was 8% of 14 million acres (Section 1002). It's not the check Alaskans want, it's the jobs.

Wildlife has actually flourished around the places they are drilling now (like Prudhoe Bay). The Caribou population has increased dramatically since we started drilling in AK 20 years ago (from 3,000 to 23,400). This is partly due to the fact oil revenues have helped to fund environmental programs in the region. Bears, wolves, and moose, and muskoxen have also been increasing their populations in the Prudhoe Bay area.
http://i40.tinypic.com/p3ihk.jpg

I personally don't think ANWR is our energy solution. But the idea that ANWR is an environmental raping waiting to happen is BS.
Good points...  I'm not saying I'm specifically against drilling in ANWR, although I can see how it probably looked that way.  I'm just saying that my impression of Alaskans is not very positive.  It's typical for people who live isolated from a lot of the outside world to be rather ignorant or shortsighted about bigger issues.

Again, if your experiences contradict my assumptions, then I will concede to them.
They just live simpler lives Turq. They might have hillbilly characteristics in the fact they like to hunt their food and such.. but really other than that they are nothing like the redneckville that is just north of me.
...or the redneckvilles surrounding my city...
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Agreed...   but for the purpose of this discussion, Americans aren't terribly "progressive" about handling environmental issues as compared to many European nations -- if we define progressive as being able to minimize damage to the environment while engaging in various industrial applications.
So long as the necessary economic incentive is not provided. That is the beauty of the system - if fuckwits aren't running it, you make the private sector do all your innovating for you.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I'm surprised about how much I agree with this post. I agree in all cases that have to do with the safety of the human race as a whole - such as the environmental issue. Taxing gas would be a good idea, particularly because gas has gone so low. Not as high as it was, but high enough so that people remember it's still a problem.
Tax can can be an advantage, tax can be adjusted as the oil price rises and falls, or even used as a subsidy, so the consumer sees the same (med-high) price long term and is encouraged to use it efficiently, rather than having fuckwits buying behemoths when the price is low and then clogging the discussion boards wailing like nonces when the price spikes a bit.
Fuck Israel
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6455|what

Taxing petrol though will raise the cost of living. You'd more than likely have to also raise wages to compensate somehow. The tax is good, but would have to be balanced by lower taxes elsewhere.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
jord
Member
+2,382|6981|The North, beyond the wall.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

jord wrote:

It's not uncommon, you must have met one selfless person? If not, that's kinda sad.

I don't imagine you to be greedy. I am saying a large proportion of the American populace are heavily consumerist, more so than other countries.
I find it kind of sad you haven't either, but don't recognize it.

I know.

For everything else see reply to Turq.
Actually I had my own personal experiance with a selfless man. Which is why I'm trying to tell you that not everybody is greedy and only thinks of themselves. The 2 examples I give you should suffice, without my own experiance.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Agreed...   but for the purpose of this discussion, Americans aren't terribly "progressive" about handling environmental issues as compared to many European nations -- if we define progressive as being able to minimize damage to the environment while engaging in various industrial applications.
So long as the necessary economic incentive is not provided. That is the beauty of the system - if fuckwits aren't running it, you make the private sector do all your innovating for you.
To a degree, but...  when it comes to the environment, regulation is key.

A lot of the business world is amazingly shortsighted.  Witness the utter disaster that banking seems to have become lately.  Look at how ridiculous speculation activity turned real estate into a rollercoaster clusterfuck in some areas.  Even the speculation on oil crashed lately.

The point is...  as you implied, governmental leadership needs to be very good in order to properly protect the environment just the same way that keeping the economy stable requires.

I know regulation itself was partially to blame for the banking disaster, but the other half of the blame should go to the people running these banks and the individuals that were stupid enough to accept loans they couldn't afford.

With the environment, we have had pollution permit systems that are all too easy to abuse and fines that are much cheaper than spending what's necessary to comply with standards.   So the politicians that made these standards and systems are partially to blame for pollution problems, but so are the greedy shortsighted leaders of industry that pollute without any thought of what they might be doing to the world in the long run.

Ultimately, shortsightedness is what causes most of the world's problems.

But yes, competence often depends on how well you make something appeal to someone else's shortsighted self-interest.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

Aussiereaper wrote:

Taxing petrol though will raise the cost of living. You'd more than likely have to also raise wages to compensate somehow. The tax is good, but would have to be balanced by lower taxes elsewhere.
Easy enough, raise petrol tax, cut income tax, people can spend on petrol if they want, but are discouraged and encouraged to spend on something else.
Fuck Israel
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I'm surprised about how much I agree with this post. I agree in all cases that have to do with the safety of the human race as a whole - such as the environmental issue. Taxing gas would be a good idea, particularly because gas has gone so low. Not as high as it was, but high enough so that people remember it's still a problem.
Tax can can be an advantage, tax can be adjusted as the oil price rises and falls, or even used as a subsidy, so the consumer sees the same (med-high) price long term and is encouraged to use it efficiently, rather than having fuckwits buying behemoths when the price is low and then clogging the discussion boards wailing like nonces when the price spikes a bit.
Of course it would be problematic trying to keep the tax at ideal levels, seeing as how long it takes to get anything through Congress. One can dream though.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Taxing petrol though will raise the cost of living. You'd more than likely have to also raise wages to compensate somehow. The tax is good, but would have to be balanced by lower taxes elsewhere.
It was well over $4 a gallon here not too terribly long ago, and I got the premium stuff for I think $1.92 two days ago. People will whine, but people will survive a price increase.

jord wrote:

Actually I had my own personal experiance with a selfless man. Which is why I'm trying to tell you that not everybody is greedy and only thinks of themselves. The 2 examples I give you should suffice, without my own experiance.
Monks are literally brainwashed to devote their life to the service of others. It's not admirable, they're little more than vegetables.

People that donate to charity are being compensated by society, because they are now considered good people by others (such as yourself) and that in turn leads to a higher opinion of themselves, as they so shallowly base their opinion of themselves by what others think. They are not selfless, they are acting in a way deemed by society as "good" due to its beneficial nature, and that is the affirmation they crave.

Personal experience?
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85
I don't believe it's short-sightedness, just single-mindedness towards one's bottom line. A horse with blinders on doesn't see the lion coming to broadside it and can't know to get in the car.

Turquoise wrote:

The point is...  as you implied, governmental leadership needs to be very good in order to properly protect the environment just the same way that keeping the economy stable requires.
This is ultimately the root of all problems. I think you can make any political policy work if you have competent people in office. That's why I generally enjoy talking about people more than I enjoy talking about policy. Nobody here is truly informed enough to talk about policy, and even the best policy can be royally screwed by the incompetent monkeys meant to implement it.

Turquoise wrote:

But yes, competence often depends on how well you make something appeal to someone else's shortsighted self-interest.
awsm
jord
Member
+2,382|6981|The North, beyond the wall.
You can chose to be a monk, why, the very option is available to you now. And since you won't meet anyone there, you can't brag about how good you are to people. You could go from nought to selfless in 30 days!

Not everyone that donates to charity brags about it, or mentions it to anyone. Obviously I cannot prove this, you'll have to take my word for it...?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard