BF2S Forums Glen Beck `Restoring Honor` rally on MLK `I have a Dream` speech annv.

Turquoise wrote:

It's not that simple.  One of the most capitalistic countries in the world is Somalia, but I don't think you'd want to live there.

Stop using this retarded example. Capitalism requires the rule of law and respect for property rights. Somalia has neither. Somalia is anarchy.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's not that simple.  One of the most capitalistic countries in the world is Somalia, but I don't think you'd want to live there.

Stop using this retarded example. Capitalism requires the rule of law and respect for property rights. Somalia has neither. Somalia is anarchy.

A good portion of Africa has weak governments and corporations that essentially act as their own governments.  Isn't that what you small government types prefer?

You can't have it both ways.

No. When have I ever stated that I wish to live in a country with a weak justice system? If anything, I want it stronger. What you are referring to isn't capitalism, it's organized looting. It's theft. As I said, capitalism requires respect for property rights above all else.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

A good portion of Africa has weak governments and corporations that essentially act as their own governments.  Isn't that what you small government types prefer?

You can't have it both ways.

No. When have I ever stated that I wish to live in a country with a weak justice system? If anything, I want it stronger. What you are referring to isn't capitalism, it's organized looting. It's theft. As I said, capitalism requires respect for property rights above all else.

Fair enough, but a strong justice system in a society without much in the way of public amenities is still a recipe for widespread poverty.

When people can live without fear of having their land confiscated and can instead ask for a fair price? Hardly.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Fair enough, but a strong justice system in a society without much in the way of public amenities is still a recipe for widespread poverty.

When people can live without fear of having their land confiscated and can instead ask for a fair price? Hardly.

Well, selling my children to pay for rent doesn't appeal to me.

More hyperbole.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, selling my children to pay for rent doesn't appeal to me.

More hyperbole.

Seriously man...  do you honestly believe returning to 1920s in terms of public amenities would be a good idea?  This is a serious question.

I think FDR has been a blight upon American history, yes. His legacy has wrought far more harm than good.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Seriously man...  do you honestly believe returning to 1920s in terms of public amenities would be a good idea?  This is a serious question.

I think FDR has been a blight upon American history, yes. His legacy has wrought far more harm than good.

I don't really hold FDR responsible for that.  Believe it or not, SS was intended to be a temporary program initially.  When Congress decided to extend it, that's when the problems began.

Wasn't just SS. It was the jobs programs, the strengthening of unions to the point of idiocy, the misguided monkeying with the economy and all the rest. He set the path for every economic fuckup that the Democrats have pushed for the past century. I'm not saying the Republicans are any better, but the economic idiocy of the Democrats truly knows no bounds because of him.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I don't really hold FDR responsible for that.  Believe it or not, SS was intended to be a temporary program initially.  When Congress decided to extend it, that's when the problems began.

Wasn't just SS. It was the jobs programs, the strengthening of unions to the point of idiocy, the misguided monkeying with the economy and all the rest. He set the path for every economic fuckup that the Democrats have pushed for the past century. I'm not saying the Republicans are any better, but the economic idiocy of the Democrats truly knows no bounds because of him.

Similar things seemed to have worked out well for other countries like Canada.

Yawn.

Turquoise wrote:

Perspective is a good thing, you know. 

Using Canada as an example is completely irrelevant. None of it has worked here. None of it will work here. We have 330 million residents and 330 million opinions. Using a small homogenous society as an example doesn't work. We are a collection of sovereign states held together by a Federal government with a Constitution that grants large autonomous powers to these States. We have a unique dynamic and this is why most Federal programs fail. The one size fits all approach doesn't work.

The biggest issue with ever forming a coherent and rational body of legislators at the national level is the two year election cycle for the House. This is by design. This keeps the Federal Government weak. The flip side is that it makes our Representatives beholden to the whims of the mob. Any real change, any really well thought out program must be developed at the state level, not the federal.

I guess that's kind of sad then considering that a UHC has worked for most of the developed world.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I guess that's kind of sad then considering that a UHC has worked for most of the developed world.

Captive citizenship and every country that has implemented it has consigned itself to decreased innovation and much lower economic growth. It is the ultimate capitulation to mediocrity and maintenance of the status quo. Every country that has implemented socialist programs has decided that it likes where it is economically, doesn't desire much growth beyond what is necessary to maintain its current position, and would rather rest on its laurels rather than subject itself to the instability of real growth. This path is a slow death following a long decline.

...and much lower prices for care.

Speaking of hyperbole...  "slow death"  nice

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-09-05 11:07:43)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Captive citizenship and every country that has implemented it has consigned itself to decreased innovation and much lower economic growth. It is the ultimate capitulation to mediocrity and maintenance of the status quo. Every country that has implemented socialist programs has decided that it likes where it is economically, doesn't desire much growth beyond what is necessary to maintain its current position, and would rather rest on its laurels rather than subject itself to the instability of real growth. This path is a slow death following a long decline.

...and much lower prices for care.

I'm more than willing to trade higher prices for higher innovation. Canada's system is dependent on American development and their piggybacking with cheap generic versions of drugs created here.

Well, given that logic, doesn't that mean that they will simply continue to get cheap drugs from our innovation?  I'm assuming if our system is sustainable, there's no reason to believe that our innovations will stop.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I'm more than willing to trade higher prices for higher innovation. Canada's system is dependent on American development and their piggybacking with cheap generic versions of drugs created here.

Well, given that logic, doesn't that mean that they will simply continue to get cheap drugs from our innovation?  I'm assuming if our system is sustainable, there's no reason to believe that our innovations will stop.

The high prices charged by American pharmaceutical companies funds their innovation and research.

And yes, just like Canada benefits from our military spending, they benefit tremendously from our R&D as well without paying in a dime for the service. If Mexico were their neighbor instead of the US, Canada would look more like Greece.

Fair enough, but that sounds like a pretty sweet deal.  They pay less for care but still reap the benefits of our research.  The same goes for military protection.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The high prices charged by American pharmaceutical companies funds their innovation and research.

And yes, just like Canada benefits from our military spending, they benefit tremendously from our R&D as well without paying in a dime for the service. If Mexico were their neighbor instead of the US, Canada would look more like Greece.

Fair enough, but that sounds like a pretty sweet deal.  They pay less for care but still reap the benefits of our research.  The same goes for military protection.

Point is, their system is unsustainable without the individualist, capitalist, 'unfair', system we have here that you seem to despise so much. Reaping benefits without expending any effort is the cowards way to go through life. It's parasitic. It's also silly because the Western world has built a house of cards entirely dependent on our continued existence. If we collapse, or cave in to the demands of our own left, they're all going down with us.

No, no...  I think I understand it now.  Basically, as long as you continue to consume as much of the rest of the world's goods as possible and do as much research as possible, the rest of the world benefits.  It doesn't really matter in the long run how the average American fares in this -- it only matters that you stay afloat and keep doing your thing.  I can relate to that.

The only catch is...  that means that things are going to suck for the average American in the long run, as your system essentially just focuses on overall consumption and research without much consideration of cost of living.

Ideally, this means that the average person is best off in a country like Canada, where they can pay less for American advances and thrive off of the consumption of Americans for their businesses.  Also, America gets to do the heavy lifting of being the world's police.