Last active
3 years, 9 months ago
  • @ reader: Read the link for once.

    Paul, a libertarian and tea party favorite, opposes the Patriot Act and objects to renewal of the expiring provisions on the grounds that they violate constitutional rights to privacy. Negotiations with Reid failed to meet Paul’s demands that he be able to offer amendments to the legislation, including one amendment that would have excluded some gun records from Patriot Act investigations.

    Paul opposes the PATRIOT act completely. He was the only guy fighting against it with such vigor. He held the floor for hours, but of course he was eventually going to cut a deal, nobody can hold the floor forever.

    Why should we vote the only person fighting for our rights out?

  • Nothing wrong with the Kochs.

    - Anti-war
    - Protective of minority rights
    - Intelligent
    - Philanthropic

    The fact that you guys are upset at these upstanding individuals instead of the warmonger in the white house is telling.

  • State single-payer is not a bad idea at all, especially in less-populated states who don’t have incompetent legislators.

    Federal single-payer would be a disaster.

  • “In a poor country like ours, the alternative to low-paid jobs isn’t well-paid ones, it’s no jobs at all”
    - Jesús Federico Reyes Heroles

    “The question is why all of a sudden, when third world labour has proved to be competitive, why do industrial countries start feeling concerned about our workers? When all of a sudden there is a concern about the welfare of our workers, it is suspicious.”
    - Yousuf-Boutros Ghali, Egyptian ambassador to the UN

    The anti-outsourcing sentiment is fundamentally based on economic nativism, to me it is not very different from the Tea Party anti-immigrant sentiment. Basically, you tell developing countries to raise wages in order to trade with them, but if their wages were raised, no trade would occur because they have no advantage. As conditions improve in those countries, working conditions will also improve, but demanding that working conditions improve prior to trade guarantees that those nations are well and truly screwed.

  • This is the reality of trying to outlaw child labor via government mandate:

    Concerns have often been raised over the buying public’s moral complicity in purchasing products assembled or otherwise manufactured in developing countries with child labour. However, others have raised concerns that boycotting products manufactured through child labour may force these children to turn to more dangerous or strenuous professions, such as prostitution or agriculture. For example, a UNICEF study found that after the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs in Bangladesh, leaving many to resort to jobs such as “stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution”, jobs that are “more hazardous and exploitative than garment production”. The study suggests that boycotts are “blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved.

  • Of course the rich benefit, but so do the children. Be serious for a second and tell me what you think these kids would take up if formal jobs weren’t an option?

    The way child labor will be eradicated is through the introduction of more relatively high-paying jobs (which are also coming through via outsourcing, by the way) that develop a middle-class. Parents then will have enough money and resources to send their kids to school instead of forcing them into work, or worse.

  • I perceive forward as improving the lives of people. A $2/day job is a lot better than a $1/day job. For you it seems like little. For the poor workers, it means the difference between being able to send their children to school or sending them into forced labor.

    That company employing little Malaysian children in a (relatively) safe environment may have saved them from going into prostitution or child slavery. You are passing judgement on countries you know very little about.

    I didn’t sell it as altruistic, I sold it as beneficial. Two different things. You may think that the US is doing poorly, but for most people in the world even the average American’s lifestyle is a luxury they can only dream of.

  • Who said they were altruists? Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

    They are not altruists, but at the same time a lot of people have gotten out of poverty due to the jobs they offer, which are significantly better than what was available to them prior to the arrival of those corporations. So while their intentions are simply to save costs, the end result is a massive net benefit.

    Humanity moves forward in baby steps.

  • And what happens to the money that is left over? Does it not go back into the economy in the form of investments and purchases?

  • Why is creating jobs in poor countries a bad thing? Is poverty not a human condition that affects people from all nations?

  • No, I believe you should pay for the services you use, it is you who are advocating the opposite.

  • Not only do they criticize volunteer departments, they are also insisting that we must contribute an increasing amount of money to a system that even they believe does too much for the corporations and imperialists and much less for local communities. Talk about funding your own enemies.

  • I support paying full time firefighter in my community, yes. I have already said this over and over, that you cannot fund firefighting on a fee-for-use basis, and because of that, they should be funded locally. For some reason you don’t seem to get it.

  • Can you guarantee that none of the taxes I pay will go towards lining the pockets of an Afghan warlord, a corrupt Pakistani general, an Egyptian dictator, or a Blackwater executive?

    If you cannot, then surely you can understand why I would much rather services like education, fire and police be funded locally, or even voluntarily. If people really have to think about where they are giving their money, we’d have a lot less wars, and a lot more money to spend on our own communities.

  • No it does not, because just because everyone benefits, doesn’t mean you can bill everyone without their consent. Apple invented the personal computer. Almost everyone has benefited from that. Does that mean Apple can now send everyone a bill? No.

    People who want to use a service pay for it. Those who may or may not benefit at a future date are not required to do so.

    That said, if you really want to force people to pay for public schooling, at least do it at the local level, and allow school choice.

    As for roads I already mentioned a fee-for-use model would work, and people below the poverty line can get waivers. Much fairer than taxation.

    The strange thing is that you present yourself as some kind of fighter for the underclass, yet you propose ideas that have a track record of increasing inflation and de-localizing economies, which hurt the underclass the most.

  • Of course everyone benefits from an educated workforce. Just as everyone benefits from various inventions made by Pfizer or Novartis.

    We are not going with the idea of people paying for what benefits them, we are going with the idea of people paying for what they use. So if you hire a chemical engineer, you pay the chemical engineer. If you buy a drug, you pay for the drug. If you want your child to do well and become successful, you pay for the school.

    People benefit from a wide variety of human actions, but they cannot be involuntarily forced to pay for them. As an example, if I donate money to a homeless shelter, they all benefit from it, but that doesn’t mean I can send a bill to them later.

  • I said that not all services would work with a fee-for-use model, and you made the assumption that fire and police services would be abolished.

  • Fraud is a criminal action and should be punished. I don’t see what this has to do with taxation.

  • How do businesses get a free ride? They pay the wages of their employees.

  • I am a taxpayer, so why should I not reap the benefits of taxation?

    However, if we gradually phase out unnecessary taxation, and introduce fee-for-use models where applicable, then I will be paying fees for the services I use. So in any case I intend to pay for the advancements of society.

    The only change I advocate is that we move to a model where we bear the costs up-front instead of having them hidden, where we stop indulging in unnecessary warfare, and where we provide charity willingly in an effort to help our fellow man instead of being coerced by the threat of force.

    When I give money to a charity, I know that it will be used for charity. When I am compelled to pay taxes, I know now whether that money will be used for books, bombs, or to line the pockets of a government bureaucrat. Why is this so difficult to understand?

  • Load More