happiest countries in the world

[Dead Rabbit]

1. No, I just didn't want to argue with you. It doesn't make sense to argue, because no system of government is perfect for everybody. I have Swedish and Norwegian blood in my veins. If you spent some time there you might see things differently. I see your ideas as idiotic, you see mine as idiotic. How can we have a proper debate? It would be like two football teams sitting in the middle of the field and "working it out." The game needs to continue, although in this one there will be no winners or losers, just players.

2. Yours doesn't scare me so much as it resembles a bachelor pad with duct tape on the La-Z-Boy, bong water stains on the carpet, the latest issue of Gunz 'n' Ammo on the rented table, a telemarketer on the phone, and a reality show repeat on satellite TV. Which means we could be great friends, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Your 2nd point cracked me up. I really don't smoke weed any more though...I was just kind of kidding about that. Plus, my wife would never stand for house looking like that.

As for point number 1, I lived in Scandinavia for 2 years. Iceland to be exact. I still think about that place every day. It was great living there and sometimes a little rough. Those winters can grind on you a bit.

Its your philosophy that most people are little children and need a parent to guide them. You must be a fan of Hobbs' Leviathan or something. That thinking scares the hell out of me. God help us if more people thought that way.

[Dead Rabbit]

Dude, you kill me by the way. You make a sweeping generalization on the human condition, and then feel almost indignant when someone challenges you on it.

I'll say it again, if what you're saying is true (hell, maybe you're right) what your proposing makes no sense.

This isn't an argument of who's government is better. This is direct challenge to your way of thinking.

I'll also say this again. I defy you to point out my "poor argumentation".

I think I'm asking a valid question. If most people are dumb little children who need government to take care of them and those same people make up government, how in the hell will more government be a good thing?


These are your premises and your conclusion, not mine.

I can only infer from your consistent ad hominem responses (my bong, "I'm angry", "I'm tipsy") you fear the Dead Rabbit's logic.

As for me possibly annoying you, I agree. I'm annoying myself right now. I'm even starting to talk in the 3rd person. I blame Zero. He gets me wound up.

[holnrew]

..........JERRY... JERRY... JERRY... JERRY............

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sorry overkill with the smilies there, but that was HILARIOUS.

[Slydel]

I continue to believe that those that are the "haves" should not be coerced-forced by the strong and almighty hand of the government to give to the "have-nots". That is why there are charities, so people can give willingly to the "have-nots". Socialism has many built in inefficiencies because it makes a class of entitled people that tend to abuse the system. It could be a simple abuse like not working very much-why work if 65% of your money is going to be taken from you? God forbid you work overtime, than the taxes would be even higher. There is another important aspects that should also be taken into account-big government. When a society depends so much on the government for everything, it is impossible to keep it from meddling and controlling almost every aspect of one's life. The fear, and rightly so, is that the government might become big brother. The larger and more control the government has over you, the more likely your freedoms will continually erode. That brings us to the The Second Amendment: "Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents." The Founding Fathers believed that it was extremely important to allow citizens to have firearms to protect themselves from their own government because "history has shown" the ramifications. They knew that our government could possibly become the millstone around the populous neck. The larger the government is, the more power it has, the more freedoms that will be taken from you, and the more likely someday that stone will get too damn heavy for anyone to carry. There has been a dramatic reduction of our rights since 9/11. The Patriot Act, which is anything but patriotic, destroyed many of our rights in the U.S. This was done in the name of anti-terrorism. Yet we allow millions of illegals to cross our border every year. We then take care of millions of illegals every year, but somehow they are not a threat? Sounds like a bull-shit act to me. In summary: going down the road of big government is definitely a slippery slope to excessive governmental controls, loss of privacy, and possibly to tyranny. This will not necessarily happen, but socialism is a move towards big government. If the people want a socialist state, than the main populous must vote on the legislation because the senate and congress truly do not have the constitutional authority to vote on 99% of the bills that come before it. They have already given themselves too much power during King "FDR"s reign when he placed all of his justices in the supreme court.

[Starcadia]

Your 2nd point cracked me up. I really don't smoke weed any more though...I was just kind of kidding about that. Plus, my wife would never stand for house looking like that.

As for point number 1, I lived in Scandinavia for 2 years. Iceland to be exact. I still think about that place every day. It was great living there and sometimes a little rough. Those winters can grind on you a bit.

Its your philosophy that most people are little children and need a parent to guide them. You must be a fan of Hobbs' Leviathan or something. That thinking scares the hell out of me. God help us if more people thought that way.

Dammit, man, I wasn't talking about your actual home. I was being metaphorical.

Yeah, I actually think weather tends to have a big impact on how nations manage themselves. But it was nice there, wasn't it? Clean? Sophisticated? Humane? Did you feel nannied?

Anyway, again, I think there are positives and negatives on both sides. To give one example, I'm a big proponent of space exploration and space tourism, and I think the future in space should be privatized. But you can't have a thriving private space program without individuals whose goal it is to make billions, and you can't have those individuals with socialism. What you can have instead are a bunch of ultra-smart individuals who work with the government space program. So that's a huge trade-off.

Now, let me just make it clear again that I'm not pushing for pure socialism. That's simply out of the scope of American politics. What I think we should try is to inherit some of its more functional aspects so that we can have a system that is more like controlled greed rather than uncontrolled greed (given the reality that humans are inherently greedy). We are right now experiencing the consequences of uncontrolled greed, and it's not good for anyone.

Slydel is right. Too much socialism strips away the incentive to work, because the more you make the more is taken away. That's not good.

But I don't like the idea of a system that rewards greed and punishes those who are not greedy, either.

There must be a middle road. That's what I'm in favor of. A road where people can get rich, but a quality kind of rich, not just rich for riches' sake, which is just simple-minded, and there's far too much room for corruption. And then also where people whose goals are more humble (real Christians, for instance) can work an honest day and live comfortably, get good, guaranteed health care and education.

I'm not taking a "side" on this. Don't lump me in with a "side". I want moderation. Moderation is always the right answer. Pure capitalism equals quantity. Pure socialism equals quality. I want quantity and quality to walk hand in hand.

[Dead Rabbit]

my personal opinion - that the vast majority of people do not have the self control required to moderate themselves with their consumption, and therefore a system of governance is required to do it for them. Parenting, in other words, because most people in a free market are effectively children...

wow....you've become such a moderate since I called you out on your abvove quote.

[Starcadia]

my personal opinion - that the vast majority of people do not have the self control required to moderate themselves with their consumption, and therefore a system of governance is required to do it for them. Parenting, in other words, because most people in a free market are effectively children...

wow....you've become such a moderate since I called you out on your abvove quote.

:roll: Not really. The greedy need controlling. Greedy people are children in adult bodies. The greedier they are, the more childlike they are. Call it regulation, call it parenting, whatever. Same thing. Everyone is inherently greedy, but do not necessarily act on their greed. If they do, there should be a switch in place to moderate them when they get out of hand. Greed is another word for theft. Greed doesn't make money, it steals money. Our system is based on organized theft, and a certain amount is fine. Too much is not.

[Dead Rabbit]

my personal opinion - that the vast majority of people do not have the self control required to moderate themselves with their consumption, and therefore a system of governance is required to do it for them. Parenting, in other words, because most people in a free market are effectively children...

wow....you've become such a moderate since I called you out on your abvove quote.

:roll: Not really. The greedy need controlling. Greedy people are children in adult bodies. The greedier they are, the more childlike they are. Call it regulation, call it parenting, whatever. Same thing. Everyone is inherently greedy, but do not necessarily act on their greed. If they do, there should be a switch in place to moderate them when they get out of hand. Greed is another word for theft. Greed doesn't make money, it steals money. Our system is based on organized theft, and a certain amount is fine. Too much is not.

Off topic, but I just want to let you know I read your posts with a talking sock puppet.

[Starcadia]

LOL. That's one way to do it, I guess. Just curious, is it a white sock, a black sock, a yellow sock, or a red sock? Is it dirty or clean?

I'd bet money it was a white tube sock.

[Zero]

^ You guys all need to read "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises. I think it would radically alter your ideas about the nature of greed, humanity, freedom, "social parenting", and all of these other ideas and assumptions you work from. I found it to be quite interesting, anyway.

http://mises.org/humanaction/pdf/humanaction.pdf

As for me possibly annoying you, I agree. I'm annoying myself right now. I'm even starting to talk in the 3rd person. I blame Zero. He gets me wound up.

:lol: Consider it a favour - I'm thickening your hide.

[Slydel]

I suppose I could have shortened my previous post with a short quote

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

Thomas Jefferson


Zero, the book seems interesting but 900+ pages! Maybe you could enlighten us by giving us a brief summary. I trust you to give us an accurate one. Anyone object? Right now I am too busy reading The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

[Zero]

Here's probably a better synopsis than I could give :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

If you can handle Dostoyevsky, you can handle Mises :lol:

[Slydel]

Zero,

I suppose you are offering up reading material because you want us to come to our own conclusions. Nothing wrong with that. I see that Mises' follow up book was called Liberalism, his retort to his critics. It is interesting that the classical meaning of liberalism has become destorted in the U.S. So, Mises is an advocate of a free market society where the governments role is to protect its citizens freedoms. He believes that this allows for the greatest probability that one will have a job, provide for his family, save for retirement, amass wealth, well so many things that the positive list may be too long for me to compile. One thing that is missing is your opinion about his works. Have you read his book Liberalism? What do you think with regards to the most logical form of government? You are from Canada are you not? What do you think of your government? What do you hear about their form of socialized health care?

[Zero]

I'm generally what you would call a classical liberal, or libertarian. I definitely embrace Austrian School economics. Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State is another great read if you're into that stuff.

As for Canada's situation - don't get me started. We do a lot of dumb shit. Health care, though, is a very special case and a very complex argument to get into. By observation one can say at least that the present system is not dysfunctional. On the other hand, I certainly don't think doctors should be threatened by the law for putting a sign in their window and charging patients entirely as a private sector exchange, for example. Anyway, that's a whole different argument.

[Slydel]

Well,

I may have to put down the Asimov, Dostoevsky, and cheap beer in order to read what you have suggested. I suppose this would not be hard if I become inspired by Mises works along with others. Oh, how I hate to read non-fiction, though I am now intrigued and maybe just a little bit inspired. Maybe this could be a turning point for me?