Print

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

[Nadaka]

You also ought to remember that the government regularly seizes land either directly or indirectly

[citation needed]

That is what I needed a citation of. I have heard of a handful of cases, nationally, in my lifetime.

[GreatJustice]

He never did respond to all my facts on socialism in Singapore (since I was there)

When did I say Singapore was a free-market utopia, exactly? I recall saying it was less socialist in its healthcare system than most countries these days, but that hardly means much.

He never did respond to all my facts on socialism in Singapore (since I was there) and how WHO rated a bunch of socialist countries with best health care in the world.

All countries, with the exception of the US, have "socialized healthcare" in some way, shape, or form. This is an utterly meaningless statistic.

But besides that, and besides the fact that WHO is not an unbiased organization, that very ranking STILL puts the pseudo-free fascistic American system in first place as "most responsive to the needs and choices of the individual patient". In short, the rating actually relating to quality of service.

The US is quite a ways down in terms of cost, "equality", and other such things that the WHO also ranks, but those have little to no bearing on whether the health care ITSELF is the best.

Try again.

When presented with facts he either runs or threadshits a bunch of irrelevant or false information.

So I heard you like Socialism. The Soviet Union was Socialist and it had a brutal dictatorship with Gulags and bread lines. Why do you support Gulags and bread lines?

See what I just did there? I drew a conclusion from an argument you didn't make. Similarly, when you draw conclusions from arguments I didn't make, I effectively skip right over them.

You also ought to remember that the government regularly seizes land either directly or indirectly

[citation needed]

That is what I needed a citation of. I have heard of a handful of cases, nationally, in my lifetime.

Here you go (Warning: Somewhat long)

[Willfor]

The Keystone pipeline being blocked by Obama made a lot of waves up here. Dominated the radio news I was listening to when it happened. To listen to the Albertan rage over it was quite satisfying. Cry harder oil barons, cry harder.

There are a lot of advertisements in the newspapers in Scotland now for people to go and work in Alberta. Is it a land of milk and honey or will my brother get fucked over?

Basically, if he's willing to work long hours, and hard at whatever job he takes, he's going to get a large salary compared to working elsewhere in Canada. This is why a lot of people from around my area have gone out there to work. HOWEVER, it also has the highest cost of living of anywhere in the country -- except possibly the far north -- and like any goldrush-type place, there are a lot of easy ways to pick up a lot of illegal stuff out there.

I've heard some bad stories of people burning out, getting stuck on the slippery slope, and due to the highly conservative principles of the area, falling through the meager social safety net out there. I've also heard some very good stories about people who were able to get ahead and live the dream. I've got examples of both of these in my extended family.

If possible, I'd recommend getting a job where he works for X (19-20) amount of days and has Y (10-11) days off. Live on the company's dime as much as possible, fly back home where there's a low cost of living. It's very hard work, but you CAN build up quite a savings. Or at least that was the situation last time I checked.

[Owlbread]

The Keystone pipeline being blocked by Obama made a lot of waves up here. Dominated the radio news I was listening to when it happened. To listen to the Albertan rage over it was quite satisfying. Cry harder oil barons, cry harder.

There are a lot of advertisements in the newspapers in Scotland now for people to go and work in Alberta. Is it a land of milk and honey or will my brother get fucked over?

Basically, if he's willing to work long hours, and hard at whatever job he takes, he's going to get a large salary compared to working elsewhere in Canada. This is why a lot of people from around my area have gone out there to work. HOWEVER, it also has the highest cost of living of anywhere in the country -- except possibly the far north -- and like any goldrush-type place, there are a lot of easy ways to pick up a lot of illegal stuff out there.

I've heard some bad stories of people burning out, getting stuck on the slippery slope, and due to the highly conservative principles of the area, falling through the meager social safety net out there. I've also heard some very good stories about people who were able to get ahead and live the dream. I've got examples of both of these in my extended family.

If possible, I'd recommend getting a job where he works for X (19-20) amount of days and has Y (10-11) days off. Live on the company's dime as much as possible, fly back home where there's a low cost of living. It's very hard work, but you CAN build up quite a savings. Or at least that was the situation last time I checked.

That's very helpful advice. Thank you. I'll be sure to tell him.

[Willfor]

OH OH OH, one thing to be careful about. Make sure he's going out there to actually work with heavy-ish equipment. I just remembered that they are probably also advertising for service-industry work. That doesn't pay nearly as well. Jobs at McDonalds, for instance, will only barely pay for cost of living out there.

Trades, electronics, anything that requires skilled labour will be safe. Unskilled labour jobs are not going to pay well though.

[Owlbread]

OH OH OH, one thing to be careful about. Make sure he's going out there to actually work with heavy-ish equipment. I just remembered that they are probably also advertising for service-industry work. That doesn't pay nearly as well. Jobs at McDonalds, for instance, will only barely pay for cost of living out there.

Trades, electronics, anything that requires skilled labour will be safe. Unskilled labour jobs are not going to pay well though.

That may pose a problem for him then. He's able to work very hard for long hours but it's mostly been unskilled physical labour, which he is good at. He's also done a lot of stuff like tree planting en masse, landscape gardening and secure-van driving for an international company. I'll have a chat with him about it, maybe he can get an apprenticeship or something.

See, our Uncle Norry went out to Canada away back (1950s I think?) to do hard physical labour on the oil rigs, but he made his fortune out there. He absolutely raked in the cash. Maybe there's something similar for my brother nowadays.

[Willfor]

If he can get a job on a construction crew or something like that, that would be safe. My cousin didn't even have a driving license, and he did some work driving big construction machines around. Made some pretty good money.

[mainiac]

I love how when people complain about GreatJustice incessantly changing the topic and presenting anecdotes when people disagree with Libertarianism RAWKS he responds... by changing the subject and bringing up anecdotes.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Here you go (Warning: Somewhat long)

The issue is you're confusing a corporation performing 'eminent domain' seizures like they are in relation to the pipeline, and government land seizures.

He's a good example of how fucked up eminent domain laws are

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed a bill Saturday authorizing Utah to file eminent domain proceedings against federally owned land, primarily to gain access to state-owned parcels to be able to drill where trucks and pipelines now can't reach.

Yes, that's a state trying to get land from the federal government simply for oil tapping, in the favor of about 1,000 people. Mostly the well owners, the roughnecks wouldn't get payed anything in Utah.

These things happen all the time, it's because our eminent domain laws are so confusing and overwritten [in favor of horseshit like calling any sort of project that increases value a 'public work' aka replacing a poor neighborhood with a WalMart].

I feel like you're confounding the issue to simply try and say whatever you want, when the link you showed is a long list of corporate-backed eminent domain seizures. And states that these seizures are not in the public good, only private. Which is what I've already known. You should too, unless you're so woefully ignorant that you're arguing that the government is taking land while at the same time linking a cute .pdf that says exactly the opposite.

You probably didn't even read the first few pages. Change to existing law [Eminent domain] in favor of corporations doesn't mean it's the government taking said land. The corporations are forcing it and causing it for the most part. The government has vast tracts of lands, and has no need to condemn and evict poor people from their homes. That's not how the world works. We don't live in a conspiracy theory.

[Leafsnail]

"I don't like your argument, so I'm just going to stereotype what I think you're saying!"

You aren't even making arguments, that's the problem.  You are selectively throwing small scale anecdotes (eg a slave revolt that involved a grand total of 5 slaves/ex-slaves) around and not explaining what you mean by them (and then you accuse people of strawmanning when they don't read your mind to work out what you meant).  Again, if I wanted poorly argued Libertarian talking points I'd just listen to the RON PAUL song since that is at least entertaining.  I suggest everyone else does the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKh9Ko3mw4

[Owlbread]

"I don't like your argument, so I'm just going to stereotype what I think you're saying!"

You aren't even making arguments, that's the problem.  You are selectively throwing small scale anecdotes (eg a slave revolt that involved a grand total of 5 slaves/ex-slaves) around and not explaining what you mean by them (and then you accuse people of strawmanning when they don't read your mind to work out what you meant).  Again, if I wanted poorly argued Libertarian talking points I'd just listen to the RON PAUL song since that is at least entertaining.  I suggest everyone else does the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKh9Ko3mw4

It's just a rock/pop (can't tell anymore) song. It's not like it's the word of Mr. Paul himself. Are we treating civil war songs as being actual arguments in favour of the confederacy or the north?

[mainiac]

(and then you accuse people of strawmanning when they don't read your mind to work out what you meant)

God yes this.

[Leafsnail]

It's just a rock/pop (can't tell anymore) song. It's not like it's the word of Mr. Paul himself. Are we treating civil war songs as being actual arguments in favour of the confederacy or the north?

That... doesn't contradict anything I said?

[Lord Shonus]

You probably didn't even read the first few pages. Change to existing law [Eminent domain] in favor of corporations doesn't mean it's the government taking said land. The corporations are forcing it and causing it for the most part. The government has vast tracts of lands, and has no need to condemn and evict poor people from their homes. That's not how the world works. We don't live in a conspiracy theory.

Eminent domain is a government power. Seizures of land done under that power are done by the government, no matter in whose interest it was done or who winds p with the land afterward. Thus, a list of eminent domain seizures is a valid example of abuses of government power.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Eminent domain is a government power. Seizures of land done under that power are done by the government, no matter in whose interest it was done or who winds p with the land afterward. Thus, a list of eminent domain seizures is a valid example of abuses of government power.

Are you dense or just not understanding that the changes to the eminent domain laws are what causes these conflicts of interest and the people getting removed from their property? It's not government workers going out and evicting people.

U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision
In 2005, in what has become a landmark debate about urban redevelopment, the U.S. Supreme Court reset the boundaries for governments to seize private land for commercial use, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development. In a controversial 5-to-4 decision, the high court ruled that the benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This case was the first major eminent domain case heard by the Supreme Court since 1984...

According to Justice John Paul Stevens, “The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue.”

Conservative justices dissented. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the principal dissent, suggesting that the use of this taking power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion — take from the poor give to the rich — would become the norm, not the exception. According to Day O’Connor, “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

Read. Thank you. The issue is eminent domain has been so entangled by corporate interests that it's not an issue of the government grabbing land. It's corporations that do it in 99% of cases.