Print

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

[Nadaka]

Wait, I thought telling someone to shut up was already an infringement on her freedom of speech? As in, you're attempting to prevent someone from exercising a human right?

Telling someone to shut up is ALSO free speech and can not be restricted by the government.

Besides that, telling someone to shut up has no force behind it, and if it does it isn't protected by the first and the government can prosecute for threat or assault.

Bauglir: I would point out that the first amendment protects ALL people (not just citizens) from censor by ALL governments in the US (federal, state and local).

[ECrownofFire]

Wait, I thought telling someone to shut up was already an infringement on her freedom of speech? As in, you're attempting to prevent someone from exercising a human right?

They can tell her to shut up, but she can tell them to fuck off and then keep talking anyway because they have no power over her. All citizens are equal. You can't do that to the government, hence why they aren't allowed to tell people to shut up except under very specific circumstances that almost never come up.

Also this. The government basically has absolute control over you, whether you like it or not. What's REALLY preventing the government from, say, torturing you? Nothing. (See also: PATRIOT Act)

A regular citizen ideally has no control over you, so they can yell at you as much as they like, they're not preventing you from doing anything.

[Phmcw]

First amendment shouldn't be absolute btw (and is not, in fact, absolute anywhere. For instance, sexual harassement in the US, that and hate speech in Belgium, ....).

Now the thing you said about separation of commerce and state bugger me : if I cut your ability to access your bank account, will it prevent me to bribe you? No.
Take any other financial analogy you may like, the conclusion stay the same : if the state can't regulate finance, it will stay at the mercy of financial market. For me finance is a weird game, like go only more difficult, that is supposed to regulate resources allocation. It should never infringe on your human right : you must be able to access education, housing and food even if the system fail you. And you should be able to stay the system to stick it where the sun doesn't shine and still live (for instance , being an artist, or and educator, or even a school teacher... you get the idea). That allow for a peaceful society and a stronger economy without taking a toll on economy : basically, an homeless person is very expensive, but a meth dealer or a gangster is a black hole for tax money. An forever jobless guy cost you 1000$ a month, and with a bit of luck you can manage to educate his children and have them be productive citizen. An artist that is unsuccessful can become appreciated later, or take ten years to be recognized... for your own sake, everything is better than someone who drop completely from society. The second point is simply Keynesian : you give money to the bottom of society, they pay their bill, it's a bit annoying but that make money circulate, even in the middle of a recession.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/guardian-editor-phone-hacking-people-were-scared-rupert-160911192.html

[Zrk2]

First amendment shouldn't be absolute btw (and is not, in fact, absolute anywhere. For instance, sexual harassement in the US, that and hate speech in Belgium, ....).

Now the thing you said about separation of commerce and state bugger me : if I cut your ability to access your bank account, will it prevent me to bribe you? No.
Take any other financial analogy you may like, the conclusion stay the same : if the state can't regulate finance, it will stay at the mercy of financial market. For me finance is a weird game, like go only more difficult, that is supposed to regulate resources allocation. It should never infringe on your human right : you must be able to access education, housing and food even if the system fail you. And you should be able to stay the system to stick it where the sun doesn't shine and still live (for instance , being an artist, or and educator, or even a school teacher... you get the idea). That allow for a peaceful society and a stronger economy without taking a toll on economy : basically, an homeless person is very expensive, but a meth dealer or a gangster is a black hole for tax money. An forever jobless guy cost you 1000$ a month, and with a bit of luck you can manage to educate his children and have them be productive citizen. An artist that is unsuccessful can become appreciated later, or take ten years to be recognized... for your own sake, everything is better than someone who drop completely from society. The second point is simply Keynesian : you give money to the bottom of society, they pay their bill, it's a bit annoying but that make money circulate, even in the middle of a recession.

>Implying housing is a right.

We all know I'm a crazy libertarian and I may be half-asleep so bear with me here. Actually, I don't have that much to say, but just some questions:
Is it a bad thing to tie the economy to the market? It's supposed to work that way anyway, and therefore any change from that is just a perversion of it.
Do you have the right to housing? Really? Why do you consider it a right?
Should people be obligated to support those artists? Why? Have they earned support, or do you consider it intrinsic?
Why should people just be given money? To escpae debt? What if they racked up that debt through their own foolishness? Is one obligated to support others if they ruin themselves through their own free will?

Discuss.

[Andir]

All I'm gonna say is if I had my medical bills paid for, my housing taken care of and my food provided... I'd do jack shit all day long and screw around.  I'd lose all productivity.

[ChairmanPoo]

For a self-procclaimed champion of the free market you seem to be sorely lacking in the ambition department...

[ECrownofFire]

All I'm gonna say is if I had my medical bills paid for, my housing taken care of and my food provided... I'd do jack shit all day long and screw around.  I'd lose all productivity.

See: Roman empire, actually. They gave out free food and entertainment (in the form of gladiator matches and such).

[ChairmanPoo]

And you don't have to resort to those, either. Pretty much any western nation does the same. Even the US has resources for the dispossessed to pay their medical bills.

[Andir]

For a self-procclaimed champion of the free market you seem to be sorely lacking in the ambition department...

The free market gives motivation by forcing me to provide services in order to continue my life.

I'm pretty much sure of the fact that I'd do a whole lot of nothing if my basic needs were met.  Without a motivation to actually go to work in the morning, I'd find all kinds of stuff to do to entertain myself.  When that was all boring, I'm not sure what I'd do, but I can pretty much guarantee that it's not going to be making anything productive for other people's gain.

[GlyphGryph]

Zrk
The problem is, of course, that the financial market is only really a market in the loosest sense of the term. It's certainly not a free market. It's not nearly as bad as the insurance "market" or the utilities markets, but it can get pretty damn bad.

I think the best sort of government regulation is one that doesn't limit the market, but merely realigns the incentives so as to create a freer, more effective market than would exist without government interference.

Unlike most near-liberterians, I don't see the market as an end in and of itself, or a market left to its own devices as inherently free, efficient, or effective at anything anyone values in a society. And Regulation does not equal a corruption or perversion of the free market. Such perversions can rise on their own where-ever power accumulates and quality information is scarce, or where natural boundaries limit its effectiveness, and regulation, sometimes heavy regulation, can actually serve to smooth those flaws in the market.

Why should people just be given money? To escpae debt? What if they racked up that debt through their own foolishness? Is one obligated to support others if they ruin themselves through their own free will?

Most studies I've seen say that you best line up incentives by simply giving everyone a basic stipend to use as they see fit. This doesn't actually distort the effects of the market at all, you know - it changes the weights, but not the machine, if you understand what I'm trying to say. Everyone takes risks, and right now we only subsidize the wealthy risk-takers, believing we as a society need to support their failures. However, it would be much more efficient to give EVERYONE a base to work to become entrepenuers in their own right, able to risk something without committing themselves and their families to a life of absolute poverty.

Markets require people willing to take risks to function. And by giving everyone a basic guaranteed state to work from, we can create markets that thrive more than they would otherwise.

All I'm gonna say is if I had my medical bills paid for, my housing taken care of and my food provided... I'd do jack shit all day long and screw around.  I'd lose all productivity.

Different people are different. There are other ways to structure incentives, too, you know. Culture is far more of a driving force here than anything else, since you CAN live a happy life in the US with no income at all, assuming you go at it with the right mindset. Essentially, your basic needs ARE all met - and will be, even if you stop working. But luckily, those aren't the only incentives in play.

[Andir]

All I'm gonna say is if I had my medical bills paid for, my housing taken care of and my food provided... I'd do jack shit all day long and screw around.  I'd lose all productivity.

See: Roman empire, actually. They gave out free food and entertainment (in the form of gladiator matches and such).

Did they provide housing for everyone that entered the gates of Rome?  Cause that would be sweet... until of course Rome falls from lack of income from freeloaders.

[Willfor]

All I'm gonna say is if I had my medical bills paid for, my housing taken care of and my food provided... I'd do jack shit all day long and screw around.  I'd lose all productivity.

See: Roman empire, actually. They gave out free food and entertainment (in the form of gladiator matches and such).

Did they provide housing for everyone that entered the gates of Rome?  Cause that would be sweet... until of course Rome falls from lack of income from freeloaders.

Anyone who went flat broke could sell themselves into slavery. If they got a decent master, that master could provide them with some form of shelter. Most societies today now frown on this as a viable option, even though it continues on in ever increasing numbers today.

[Andir]

All I'm gonna say is if I had my medical bills paid for, my housing taken care of and my food provided... I'd do jack shit all day long and screw around.  I'd lose all productivity.

See: Roman empire, actually. They gave out free food and entertainment (in the form of gladiator matches and such).

Did they provide housing for everyone that entered the gates of Rome?  Cause that would be sweet... until of course Rome falls from lack of income from freeloaders.

Anyone who went flat broke could sell themselves into slavery. If they got a decent master, that master could provide them with some form of shelter. Most societies today now frown on this as a viable option, even though it continues on in ever increasing numbers today.

Yeah, I ruled out slavery since it was abolished.  But in today's world, you can't really own land/house without having to work (taxes) so you end up in homeless shelters and they may feed you.  You can drag yourself to a hospital as well, but I don't think anyone here would agree that that's a "life."  Also, I suppose you could do some heinous crime and be put away for life... but again, there's that whole "meaningful life" aspect.  From that point forward you're kind of considered sub-human by those in charge.

[SalmonGod]

All I'm gonna say is if I had my medical bills paid for, my housing taken care of and my food provided... I'd do jack shit all day long and screw around.  I'd lose all productivity.

And what did you do when you were a kid, and your parents (I assume) provided these things for you?

I explored the world around me, read books, asked questions, experimented... I grew.  I may not have done much practical from an adult perspective, but I was far from lazy.  I was energetically curious.  I sought knowledge and wisdom and would work hard for things I wanted.  Maybe not everyone is self-motivated, but some people are.

And I sincerely doubt that even the most apathetic person would simply let the world go to shit without a gun held to their heads daily, anyway.  People today go to work, because other people deny them what they need to survive otherwise.  So it's established that people are willing to work for survival and probably a certain expectation of life quality beyond that.  If people didn't force each other to work in this manner, then the reality of the natural world would do it for them.  Life requires work.  Good quality of life requires a functioning society.  Functioning society requires contribution.  The major difference is that in the former case, the expectations a person is burdened with may end up far removed from what is realistically needed, and denies them opportunities for self-determination.

Why is it assumed by so many that people must artificially and by virtue of greed force burdens on each other, in order to motivate them to desire to live?  What does this say about the way people perceive themselves and others?

Come to think of it, it's very circular logic at its core.  People will not work to support their lives unless we make them work by threatening to take away their lives.  Seriously?