[Obdigore]

Nicodimas, on 25 May 2010 - 08:05 PM, said:

Quote

Shouldn't private education be... private?

Consequences of actions--->

Yup Obdigore...you are correct let's seperate the have and have not's even more. I can think of some preety good privates where some kid's could use money to get into them. Now there parents are going to have cover the missing money they would have gotten. So the kid's no longer get to go on the big ones-<Harvard>. On the smallers ones, minorites go here four times more than any other school system<UoP>. Alternatively, those rich kids will have some more slots because minorites and the poor will have less axcess. The goverment just wants to support it's own product.

Instead of just disagreeing back it up. I have posted multiple times with factually information on how the goverment wormed it's way into the market through housing,this crash, and all the way back to 1913. There next goal is to take 401ks <15 trillion worth> and make sure treasures are invested in as a backstop for security of the economy. Granted it will be percentages, but still a different way of taxing people. There are several bills pending doing this. Ten pages is what they got rid of in 97 and helped cause this crash, they however are going introduce several thousands of bill..Have you been reading this stuff at all?

Healthcare bill. The effects of this will be known by 2016 to everyone. I think people will be ticked when it clicks what this really caused. This is a wait and see really. I could give you this point, but MASSIVE modifications have to made as it looks like a power grab to me from the private market. Another couple thousand page bill.

Quote

They simplified their control over where the money goes. And it certainly isnt 'all' the loan process, but just the government loans.

Your totally misinformed on the way this is working. Sorry go read some more on this. Private lenders are no longer allowed as the goverment took this over, yet FAILED to change the interest rate of 6.8%. You think if the cost issue was really there they would have lowered this with freaking ZIRP going on. We need some true fixes and granting more power to entity complicit may not work the way you think.

To me the goverment is here for security. Something they have failed at with the speculation of the stock market<nobody policing it-See SEC case>, response to the oil spill, resposne to Katrina, failure to protect small cities from industrialized waste after calling for fixes for a decade, etc. You can go on and on with the failures, yet you'd give them control of higher education, healthcare, and the market so willingly?

If they have failed so badly at these things why trust them? I would rather trust a corporation that has some accoutability and I could put out of business if needed. The the biggest business in America, the goverment, which has zero chance to sue and very little accoutability. You get arrested for shorting them there needed money, or they have the power to garnish your wages.

I Want to see change for the better, not worse.

Why should I debate this with you, when you say I am completely wrong, then just reinforce what I said?

College loans from the government are good. College grants for the not-wealthy are good, but they should be given to the student to then pay the university, not making universities meet a quota of poor/black/indian(feather, not dot)/mexican/whatever to then get tax breaks. Of course all the tax breaks for businesses for meeting their quotas of 'diversity' should be done away with, and the money should be funneled directly into public schools in the poor areas, as well as grants to exceptional but poor students.

Nationalized Healthcare is a change for the better.
Making fully automatic weapons illegal would be a change for the better.
Not basing government policy on your religious beliefs would be a change for the better.
Incomming legal immigration is a change for the better.

Corporations don't have accountability unless the government passes laws, and understands what the corps are doing, and is able to enforce its laws. You want less government? Lets get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley, and then we can have more Enrons. Sound good?

You are asking for the government to protect you, but not to be involved in anything in any way that could possibly position them to be able to protect you.

It is a childish and foolish sentiment, much like your gloom and doom prophesies.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Obdigore,

To refute the last point that you quoted from Nicodimas (or the usual internet economic Libertarian free market blather), you don't even need to say what you said. All you need to do is show the inherent contradiction in that argument--there's a reductio just waiting to be pointed out. Namely:

Premise 1: The only legitimate role of government (or its foremost mandate) is to provide security for X.
Premise 2: The market/healthcare/higher education all pertain to the security of X.
Conclusion: Therefore, the government should step in to regulate the market/healthcare/higher education.

Nicodimas actually makes it pretty easy, since he clearly declares that the market falls into the broad "security" category:

Nicodimas, on 25 May 2010 - 08:05 PM, said:

To me the goverment is here for security... Something they have failed at with the speculation of the stock market<nobody policing it-See SEC case>, response to the oil spill, resposne to Katrina, failure to protect small cities from industrialized waste after calling for fixes for a decade, etc.

Usually, it's trickier, since the Libertarian cashes things out in terms of "private property" instead, and you have to show that health and the like are privately owned properties--not that it's very hard to do. As for the second part of the argument, it's clearly fallacious, and just as easy to debunk as invalid:

Quote

You can go on and on with the failures, yet you'd give them control of higher education, healthcare, and the market so willingly? If they have failed so badly at these things why trust them?

This argument ignores government triumphs in those same areas, and thus casts too narrow a net for such a hasty generalization. The reductio route remains open, of course, by pointing out that the government does (and should, I'm sure they'd all agree) control the military--and yet, governments routinely bungle military operations (the losing side, 1812, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan, lack of genocide prevention in Rwanda, Sudan, and so on). And yet, we don't think that this means the government shouldn't be in control of the military. Hell, you (as a country) handed Bush another four years after his fantastic cock-up, legitimating a number of otherwise very Libertarian reforms.

Of course, the fact that it's fallacious doesn't mean the conclusion is false. It does, however, mean that it's not an acceptable argument. And, in this case, the conclusion ("the government is inept") is very probably false, especially since it's a general rather than a specific claim.



One last point, directed at Nicodimas personally:

Quote

I would rather trust a corporation that has some accoutability and I could put out of business if needed. The the biggest business in America, the goverment, which has zero chance to sue and very little accoutability. You get arrested for shorting them there needed money, or they have the power to garnish your wages.

I Want to see change for the better, not worse.

This is a misrepresentation of the situation. You cannot put a corporation out of business by yourself: you need the help of millions of likeminded individuals, or weapons of some sort, or friends in very high places. The best that you can do, on your own, is refuse to buy their products, and try to convince some few others to do so--but you're all just drops in the bucket, and entirely insignificant. Also, you can sue your government (or another country's), but not as a whole (since it's a sprawling entity): you can sue the police department, your local fire department, the IRS, the electoral board, any elected representatives individually, etc. And it makes more sense to sue arms of the government, rather than the entire thing. You might not stand much of a chance, unless it's clear you've been wronged--but then, you stand even less of a chance against a corporation, unless you're wealthy and can afford a costly legal team, because you can be sure that they'll have a team working against you, no matter how lowly the case seems. A small claims court here oversaw a $100 or so claim against Air Canada a few years ago. While the plaintiff prepared the case herself (he/she couldn't afford a lawyer for such a small case), Air Canada retained the services of a team of no fewer than five lawyers, and set them against the plaintiff. Although he/she won in the end, it was an arduous struggle and he/she was helped in no small measure by the judge. While you can win sometimes, these cases are the exceptions that prove the rule. Just like a casino. You actually have far more influence when it comes to your government than when it comes to any given corporation to which you aren't directly related.

[Nicodimas]

How to survive the coming economic mega-crash. I will try to post more of these to those that care: Cool info.

Protect your house
Comms
Free internet
Food storage
Creating bread with no power

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 04 June 2010 - 03:43 AM

[worry]

Creating chickens with no eggs

[Cold Iron]

Nicodimas, on 04 June 2010 - 03:38 AM, said:

How to survive the coming economic mega-crash. I will try to post more of these to those that care: Cool info.

Protect your house
Comms
Free internet
Food storage
Creating bread with no power

If you're so convinced the end is near how long is fucking canned food going to support your offspring? Go join a sustainable culture that doesn't rely on vast economic interdependency.

[Nicodimas]

I live in the city(and the best state in the union) obviously to make good money and I love the lifestyle. But all good things must come to a end..
This is a start for those that care..I am far beyond that as I garden/crops and can my own food at this stage. The only flaw I have in my survival scenario is that I don't slughter my own food, as I live in the city. I did find out I can have chickens recently and me and my brother and law are doing that soon. On a side note, he brew's his own beer all orginal, so hoping that to help us into other communities, if ours fails. My group of people have about every area covered and with some Very very good luck on our side we will make it out of the city alive. Actually a chemist would be helpful..

Oh my location is not ideal either, but we figure if we can survive in this location it will only be easier other places.

If you really want to read a good book that WILL give you a kick in the right direction read: One second after.5/5.It should sufficiently give you motivation and does explain the two groups of people.There's those who care and those who do not care<who will die>. Which one would you like to be? Prepping(survivlism,etc) is enlightment in everyday living as you go through life some much more happy and confident in yourself.

Be Enlightened. Remind yourself everyday nobody is here to save you, only yourself can do that.
One second is all it takes.

[teholbeddict]

Okay is this serious? I'm sorry, but I'm honestly asking here...because at the moment I'm stuck between being confused and thinking this is some sort of horrible joke.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

The book? Or the argument?

Because the book is a little premise-flawed. But there are tons of people who have these apocalyptic survivalist tendencies.

I would direct the survivalists to read The Postman (don't watch the movie, seriously). The people who ruin everything after the collapse of the Union? The survivalists.

[worry]

It's all Ted Nugent's fault.

[Tapper]

Cold Iron, on 10 June 2010 - 03:24 AM, said:

Nicodimas, on 04 June 2010 - 03:38 AM, said:

How to survive the coming economic mega-crash. I will try to post more of these to those that care: Cool info.

Protect your house
Comms
Free internet
Food storage
Creating bread with no power

If you're so convinced the end is near how long is fucking canned food going to support your offspring? Go join a sustainable culture that doesn't rely on vast economic interdependency.

Those are usually hippies, I doubt Nico would want to join them... or they welcome him, for that matter

[Adjutant Stormy~]

5 bucks (worthless at the time of redemption, but hey) says that come the apocalypse Nic would end up running a small group of banditos.

[Gothos]

He'd try to become a local warlord but he'd be killed by his competitors.

[Tapper]

Or maybe he will be succesful and survive, we will all be dead, and when the women in his shelter have given birth to a horde of children to repopulate the world with, someone will point out that they don't have the canned food, livestock or uncontaminated water to feed said horde with, and they'll end up eating one another, poor Nico's last sight being a couple of salivating cannibal kids.

[Nicodimas]

Quote

I would direct the survivalists to read The Postman (don't watch the movie, seriously). The people who ruin everything after the collapse of the Union? The survivalists

I would be the first one to join the anti-tech riots. /lol. I am kidding, or am I? No the Postman is really great and scary scary close to what is currently going on with the wars mentioned early in the book and written in 82, or something. I think it obviously comes down to the person, but i doubt it would fall like that, or the road. More like World made by hand. A long collapse and not a sudden collapse...

Well I pray it's not sudden one as that would be madness. To think it could take one second from a solar flare for instance.

All these books would spook you.

My group has offensive units, i have been pushing for astartes based styles to make this even more fun.



The goal should be to bring enlightment to the survivors.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 10 June 2010 - 11:55 PM

[worry]

So...have you read any of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, by chance?

[Nicodimas]

--->Me? Um yeah..I have read them all..only two times full times so far..so really need another re-read as it's intense.

It's my favorite books series, but I am on 40k:HH atm...

[McLovin]

Nicodimas, on 10 June 2010 - 11:42 PM, said:

The goal should be to bring enlightment to the survivors.

I can honestly say you are the one forum member I am actually afraid of.

Anyone care to lay odds that Nico's obituary will include the words "standoff with authorities ended violently when..."?

[worry]

One benefit of an unregulated, unfettered private sector, if we'd only embrace it, is that you can board certify yourself to practice medicine without all the pesky bureaucracy:

http://www.nydailyne...oardcertif.html

http://www.courier-j...+certification+

This post has been edited by worrywort: 16 June 2010 - 07:18 AM

[Nicodimas]

One of the best post on Zerohedge went up.I really suggest you all check it out:

http://www.zerohedge...tional-security

I think everyone here will enjoy the insights and points this articles gives.

[Cold Iron]

Nicodimas, on 18 June 2010 - 06:31 PM, said:

One of the best post on Zerohedge went up.I really suggest you all check it out:

http://www.zerohedge...tional-security

I think everyone here will enjoy the insights and points this articles gives.

Absolute rubbish. He starts out saying he has no political agenda. Then he says all parties are socialist, then he says these socialist parties are running the economy into the ground. Then he says buy actual gold coins and bars now before the government start taxing and confiscating gold.

How the fuck am i getting any insights from this rubbish? I can only see 2 points to this: right wing political agenda and a sad attempt to drive up gold price. I regret the waste of my time.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 21 June 2010 - 06:47 AM