Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Pseudonymous]

But what qualifies as a factor outside of one's control? A parent would want to provide the best for their children, and in many cases this takes the form of trying to get them into as good a schoolas possible. This means that parents who can afford better education for their children give their children an unequal advantage. If you tried to stop parents from choosing which school their children went to, you'd have mass outrage.

You can have school choice, sure, as long as all the schools are at least adequate.  As in, they will give you a decent chance to do well.

Making sure all the schools are adequate would just even out the lower end of the spectrum, not the higher one. A brilliant school is still better than an adequate one.

If the basic requirements are radically worse than the best schools, then the basic requirements are too low. Really, the only way to fix the education problem would be to nationalize all schooling, sack the vast majority of the current teachers and administrators, replace them with professionals within the field they're supposed to teach at wages competitive to what they'd earn doing what they were trained to do, and set up the new system as boarding schools, with every child sent to one across the country from their home, in order to eliminate the harmful influences of family, community, and media, replaced with their peers and professional educators... Not that it would ever happen...

I'm confused. Do you mean that the situation where a house is an incredible luxury is a situation where workers are being screwed over?

Yes, if workers are forced to live in slums, they are probably being screwed over.

But what people consider to be slums is constantly changing. Not long ago to have a house with electricity was truly extravagant, but nowadays lots of people would consider housing as unacceptable if it didn't have electricity.

By "not long ago" you mean "when electricity was a rare and expensive thing (over a century ago), rather than the omnipresent, cheap as dirt piece of crucial infrastructure it is today"? Standards change, and society is no longer set up to cope with a lack of electricity, considering that everything runs on it, and most residences are simply unlivable without it, since they have no means of ventilation or access to water without powered equipment, nor any manner of climate control (of which non-electric devices exist, like fireplaces and... what are they called? "swamp coolers"? hanging containers of water to cool a room off) or means of cooking (since modern stoves are either electric or rely on electric mechanisms to deliver/ignite gas).

[Zrk2]

Ahh, finally we discuss issues instead of racing in circles debating philosophy. This is what intelligent debate looks like. It's a first for me.

As for schooling/Healthcare I believe that since humans are always shafting each other due to their lack of morals a two tiered system would likely be the best solution here. That is, peoplle may choose to pay for private srivces or, if unable to, use the public ones available to all. To those Canadians here looking for an example look at the premier of Newfoundland, Danny Williams. He is a millionaire and he paid a US hospital to preform open heart surgery upon him, despite there being free healthcare available in all Canadian provinces.

As per governmnet regulation in general I feel it should act to enable private enterprises to operate in the most efficient manner possible (with the fewest direct requirements). IE: Build roads, nuclear power plants and depreciate the value of your currency to make it less expensive to have a business in your area. Therefore businesses would comme and set up factories, leading to more jobs, leading to a more prosperous community, leading to more consumption. then more factories open near you to reduce shipping costs, etc. etc. hopefully causing ecxonomic prosperity.

And then there are unions. Contrary to what you may expect viewing the connotations surrounding objectivism, I support the right to be in a union. However you should also have the right not to be in a union if you do not wish to. Unions are the primary tool of the worker to ensure that corporations treat them with respect. That is the purpose of unions to ensure their members are protected from corporate assholery. However, I am very upset when unions delve into political matters. That is not why workers pay union dues, they pay them to ensure they are adequetly represented to their employer, not to fund blockade runners headed to Gaza.

[Leafsnail]

As per governmnet regulation in general I feel it should act to enable private enterprises to operate in the most efficient manner possible (with the fewest direct requirements). IE: Build roads, nuclear power plants and depreciate the value of your currency to make it less expensive to have a business in your area. Therefore businesses would comme and set up factories, leading to more jobs, leading to a more prosperous community, leading to more consumption. then more factories open near you to reduce shipping costs, etc. etc. hopefully causing ecxonomic prosperity.

If the world was this simple, we wouldn't need politics.  Most countries already build roads and infrastructure, while devaluing your currency is an act of isolationism (your neighbours are likely to hate you for it, and retaliate).

And then there are unions. Contrary to what you may expect viewing the connotations surrounding objectivism, I support the right to be in a union. However you should also have the right not to be in a union if you do not wish to. Unions are the primary tool of the worker to ensure that corporations treat them with respect. That is the purpose of unions to ensure their members are protected from corporate assholery. However, I am very upset when unions delve into political matters. That is not why workers pay union dues, they pay them to ensure they are adequetly represented to their employer, not to fund blockade runners headed to Gaza.

Why not?  They can get involved in politics if they think it will benefit their members, can't they?  Makes a good balance for all the corporate lobbyists, in fact.

[Fayrik]

And then there are unions. Contrary to what you may expect viewing the connotations surrounding objectivism, I support the right to be in a union. However you should also have the right not to be in a union if you do not wish to. Unions are the primary tool of the worker to ensure that corporations treat them with respect. That is the purpose of unions to ensure their members are protected from corporate assholery. However, I am very upset when unions delve into political matters. That is not why workers pay union dues, they pay them to ensure they are adequetly represented to their employer, not to fund blockade runners headed to Gaza.

Why not?  They can get involved in politics if they think it will benefit their members, can't they?  Makes a good balance for all the corporate lobbyists, in fact.

I think it's also the job of the unions to protect their members from govermental "assholery", too.

[Nikov]

And then there are unions. Contrary to what you may expect viewing the connotations surrounding objectivism, I support the right to be in a union. However you should also have the right not to be in a union if you do not wish to. Unions are the primary tool of the worker to ensure that corporations treat them with respect. That is the purpose of unions to ensure their members are protected from corporate assholery. However, I am very upset when unions delve into political matters. That is not why workers pay union dues, they pay them to ensure they are adequetly represented to their employer, not to fund blockade runners headed to Gaza.

Why not?  They can get involved in politics if they think it will benefit their members, can't they?  Makes a good balance for all the corporate lobbyists, in fact.

I think it's also the job of the unions to protect their members from govermental "assholery", too.

Or elect pro-union anti-business politicians who will raise minimum wage, control rent, pay unsecured union shareholders before secured bondholders in the event of a bankruptcy... etc.

[Fayrik]

And then there are unions. Contrary to what you may expect viewing the connotations surrounding objectivism, I support the right to be in a union. However you should also have the right not to be in a union if you do not wish to. Unions are the primary tool of the worker to ensure that corporations treat them with respect. That is the purpose of unions to ensure their members are protected from corporate assholery. However, I am very upset when unions delve into political matters. That is not why workers pay union dues, they pay them to ensure they are adequetly represented to their employer, not to fund blockade runners headed to Gaza.

Why not?  They can get involved in politics if they think it will benefit their members, can't they?  Makes a good balance for all the corporate lobbyists, in fact.

I think it's also the job of the unions to protect their members from govermental "assholery", too.

Or elect pro-union anti-business politicians who will raise minimum wage, control rent, pay unsecured union shareholders before secured bondholders in the event of a bankruptcy... etc.

What's wrong with both?
Unionism is basically just looking out for you and your union buddies, after all.

[Earthquake Damage]

Or elect pro-union anti-business politicians who will raise minimum wage, control rent, pay unsecured union shareholders before secured bondholders in the event of a bankruptcy... etc.

Price controls have their costs, though the minimum wage helps alleviate fears, real or imagined, of a race to the bottom in low-skill industries.  Surplus population and all that.

[Leafsnail]

So... in this context, "anti-business" means "not-necessarily-entirely-pro-people-at-top-of-businesses"?

[Fayrik]

I assumed that, too.

[Zrk2]

i think we just saw a surge of people basically repeating the same thing. yes, unions exist to counterbalance corporations.
Unions should not be involved in politics and neither should corporate lobbyists, they have the division of church and state but the separation of economy. I mean to say that in general government should not interfere in people's daily economic lives just as it generally does not in their daily social lives.

[PrimusRibbus]

I mean to say that in general government should not interfere in people's daily economic lives just as it generally does not in their daily social lives.

The government interferes in my daily social life far more than it interferes in my economic life.

[Realmfighter]

I wanna kill that man, and I wanna do it now

[SniHjen]

So.. Eh...

Seems someone must of have duplicated a creature entity...

Here in Denmark we have VERY strict immigration policies; and at some point a test is taken, and a movie of the "what is the country about" is shown.

The Danish Peoples party, considered a "to the right of right" wing party, is concerned about the LACK of boobies in said movie...

[Leafsnail]

Unions should not be involved in politics and neither should corporate lobbyists, they have the division of church and state but the separation of economy. I mean to say that in general government should not interfere in people's daily economic lives just as it generally does not in their daily social lives.

Because enforcing something like that would be completely possible?  I mean, corporations would stop giving money to their preferred candidates?

EDIT: Before Nikov comes here, I should point out I'm not saying the corporations would be evil for doing this, just that they will.

[Tsarwash]

We are running out of money thanks to our experiments with socialist policies, thank you for setting that one up.

I would say that many people would strongly disagree with you here. Could you please outline which experiments with socialist policies you are talking about, and maybe how much they have cost the country.

I'm going to ask you this again Nikov, as I don't think that people should use such emotive terms without being asked to clafify and justify what they actually mean. I don't agree with the trend of throwing such comments into the internet ether and then conveniently moving on to the next item. This is a thread for debate, not soundbites. So what experiments with socialist policies do you think have put the American economy into it's current state ?