h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Iluv???

how much money has been invested in you????

being raised, schooling, food, housing, taking your trash away building roads so you can get to school, laying pipes so you can have water in the desert....everything, every part of your existance

how much has that cost various people?????

"In the second scenario, things go very well for a small number of people. They live in luxurious gated compounds surrounded by armed guards. They own pretty much everything. They and their children will have the best of everything for ever, as their wealth means that they are a permanent oligarchy, and the quality of education they can buy for their children means no-one else can ever compete. There are others who aren't quite so rich, but who still do okay. But the great majority leave in terrible slums, being paid only enough to scratch the most basic of livings. There is no health and safety legislation, no minimum wage, no working time directive, and no practical recourse for grievances - no money = no lawyer = no justice. And anyone who complains at work can be fired and replace for any reason or for none, because there are no employment rights. Prostitution, alcoholism, crime, disease, and drug use are rife."

The problem here is this is not what I am advocating. There are super rich people. That much is true. No one else can compete? Why not? Be specific. My free society leaves people the freedom to compete. I am advocating a society in which competition would thrive. Why would the majority live in slums? If they get paid such lousy wages, they would go somewhere else where they are paid more. Unless of course they have no skills and truly aren't worth more. We don't need legislation governing employment, because by its very nature, it is a private agreement between the employee and employer. The employee may chose to work at a lousy firm. Most will not, and the firm will lose to the competition getting the better workers.

"And anyone who complains at work can be fired and replace for any reason or for none"
Quite true. Here now, when someone is fired they are usually not given any reason, because of the crazy legislation giving too many rules for firing. Why should I be forced to pay someone if I don't want their work?

"Prostitution, alcoholism, crime, disease, and drug use are rife."
Why? And what do you mean by crime?

"I'm happy to contribute to the upkeep of those who are unable to tend for themselves.
I'm not happy to do so for those who won't - but I cannot yet see a way to differentiate, without imposing drastic testing on nearly everybody."

This is completely fine for you, or anyone else who agrees. But what you are really implying is not that YOU are happy to contribute, but that you are happy to force EVERYONE to contribute. Sure many social programs are decent, and I might chose to contribute. But what if its something I don't believe in or want? It is truly a moral issue above all else. My morality states that every individual has equal rights. Yours states that equal rights should be balanced by equal wealth, and meet in the middle.

TRiG and anhaga

I was quite exasperated at this one here

"You neither understand nor want democracy. You want anarchy (and I'm not sure that you even understand that fact)."

I do understand democracy. But I can assure all, I have not once given reason to believe I want democracy. If I said I want democracy, you would be justified in saying I don't understand it. But what did you think the sheep and wolves post was for? I thought it quite obviously expressed my disagreement with democracy. Anarchy is a lot closer. But anarchy is an ideal, not a realistic goal. I am a libertarian, meaning I am a anarchist in ideal theory, but realize people will always need some form of society, so we should get as close as we can practically. I am for as much personal liberty as possible, and completely against anything encroaching on personal liberty.

This distinction is as near as I can figure it out. When anarchists and libertarians try to explain their beliefs to me, they usually have the same beliefs, with different definitions.

"being raised, schooling, food, housing, taking your trash away building roads so you can get to school, laying pipes so you can have water in the desert....everything, every part of your existance"

I don't know, is there a point to this question, other than your obvious point, which won't result in any answer justifying restriction of individual liberties?

Illuvatar, you've completely missed the point of my post, and not for the first time. Please re-read and try again.

To restate:

If things go well, it tends to monopoly or duopoly. Essentially mini-states, but no democratic control of these mighty providers of services.

If things go badly, how badly would you allow them to go before you'd do something about it?

so all this money has been spent on you and you feel as if you are being robbed to pay for it, yet if you do nt pay, it is you who are the thief, for taking and not paying

slightly

theft is to "permanently deprive"

How many athiests does it take to change a lightbulb?

Many hands make light ...work

depents on the strength of belief of the lightbulb and the strength of the atheists arguments

One to hold the stool, another to screw the bulb and 3 more to aks if hte light will come about by chance!

"Are you a product of the public-schooling movement?"

I am indeed a product of my country's publicly funded schools.

"Apparently you base "intelectual performance" not on rational logical thinking, but in agreeing with the majority and on the art of playing the part. "

No, in fact I do base my assessment of intellectual performance on rational, logical thinking. It was precisely the absence of evidence of such thinking that led me to the assessment I mentioned. I'm sorry that you misunderstood, but, since you seem to be unable to understand so many of your interlocutors on this thread, I am not surprised.

Waz's Left Arm



One to hold the stool, another to screw the bulb and either of them to switch it on to test it...Athiest-orientated joke punchlines can be sooooo rational....

I really liked anancygirl's answer. Sounded a bit pigeon and rather witty.

"If things go well, it tends to monopoly or duopoly. Essentially mini-states, but no democratic control of these mighty providers of services."

I am not against monopoly or duopoly, as long as we retain the right to compete. Mini-states which do not throw you in jail (or make you the secretary of the treasury) if you chose someone elses service instead.

"If things go badly, how badly would you allow them to go before you'd do something about it?"

I personally would do all I could to improve my situation. I might even feel like hiring an IRS agent to steal some money for me, but that doesn't make it any more a decent thing to do. Plus I think once people start getting poor they will start working for either someone who pays better, or themselves.

"since you seem to be unable to understand so many of your interlocutors on this thread, I am not surprised."

Perhaps I just have been brought up to think on my own rather than agreeing with the majority around me I just haven't figured out the logic of a societies people endlessly repeating each other in circular fashion, without reasoning to back it up.

No, Iluvatar. You are the one who is repeating tired libertarian twaddle. The others have been posting carefully reasoned argument and clear, legitimate definition of terms. The agreement that I've seen has been considered agreement on the definition of terms. The reasoned arguments have not simply been repetitions of the arguments of others (unlike yours). You have been waffling constantly about what your ideal system would involve, throwing out the "freedom" catchword and your odd and discounted definition of "theft". All you've offered is "government taxation is theft" and "we should be free to do what we want" and, as a strange socialist sop to humanity "those who can't help themselves should be helped" but, of course, no inhuman bastard who doesn't want to help the cripple should be forced to help those poor crippled sods.

Your reasoning is absolutely nothing more than:

taxation is theft.

theft is naughty.

governments shouldn't tax.


if that's worth a 4.0 then the rest of this lot deserves a perfect 10.

Thanks fers;
Iluvatar; Perhaps we could suggest a reading list for you. Let us start with....
"The Prince" for a social/ behavioralist point of view.
Smith "wealth of a nation" (sorry from memory)
or perhaps any post secondary course on critical thinking.

Didn't Anahga already recommend a return to some first principals? I think there was a suggestion of Plato's "Crito". It's refreshingly brief.

<>???????

is that about a dog that turns into a killer?????