You have never actually opened an economics book, have you?
People administering their own resources and living their lives free without the state or other arbitrary coercive power making demands of them at gunpoint?...... thats madness!
Global warming mod
- Thread starter Danwood
- Start date
You have never actually opened an economics book, have you?
People administering their own resources and living their lives free without the state or other arbitrary coercive power making demands of them at gunpoint?...... thats madness!
soup567
MANBEARPIG
I wasn't expecting this thread to get resurrected. Maybe it should just be an off topic thread now, because most of the posts have nothing to do with the original post.
Killtech
Discutator
it is off topic now and it seems it wasn't use on-topic before anyway...
so let's just throw in my view in:
a public health-care that is compulsory for all is nothing else than preventing gambling with health and live: if you don't get ill you win some money over time but if you do lose a lot which can even include your life.
privatizing (health) insurance companies is generally a bad idea since the concept of insurance is generally a rather social one that an economic. an optimal working insurance should have exactly neither profit nor loss. thus it is best managed in public hands because capitalizm and the free market optimize all according to economic-efficiency and profit.
so let's just throw in my view in:
You have never actually opened an economics book, have you?
People administering their own resources and living their lives free without the state or other arbitrary coercive power making demands of them at gunpoint?...... thats madness!
a public health-care that is compulsory for all is nothing else than preventing gambling with health and live: if you don't get ill you win some money over time but if you do lose a lot which can even include your life.
privatizing (health) insurance companies is generally a bad idea since the concept of insurance is generally a rather social one that an economic. an optimal working insurance should have exactly neither profit nor loss. thus it is best managed in public hands because capitalizm and the free market optimize all according to economic-efficiency and profit.
Afforess
The White Wizard
Wrong. You merely shifted the gambler from a company with a vast array of competition to a government, who has no domestic competition.
"A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have"
Killtech
Discutator
where is the sense in democracy if you mistrust your own government? it means either you distrust your own choices or it's not a democracy.
furthermore a public insurance can be organized on communal level (county level in america? not sure how to translate) and such is not so much in governmental hands if you really fear your and your fellow citizen choices. though it takes some civil engagement in that case.
furthermore a public insurance can be organized on communal level (county level in america? not sure how to translate) and such is not so much in governmental hands if you really fear your and your fellow citizen choices. though it takes some civil engagement in that case.
Afforess
The White Wizard
Where is the sense in democracy if you trust your government? If you trust them, why hold elections?
You assume your government is there to help you. I assume it is not. If I am wrong, I am pleasantly surprised. If you are wrong...
Killtech
Discutator
my government is not there to help me but rather to do it's job to administer the country. i'm here to judge if it's making a good job or if someone else can do it better. and if it comes so far that a government is mistrusted and suspected that it doesn't focus on it's job at all the people will simply tear it down long before an election.
in our country we do not fear the police. and the military is strictly forbidden to be used in home-country against citizen. the government has no authority to enforce anything agains the will of the voters. and it is to closely watched by the public to be really mistrusted.
in our country we do not fear the police. and the military is strictly forbidden to be used in home-country against citizen. the government has no authority to enforce anything agains the will of the voters. and it is to closely watched by the public to be really mistrusted.
Afforess
The White Wizard
A in a perfect world that would be true.
Try it the other way around:
If a government doesn't focus on it's job it is mistrusted and suspected.
Before you go further; remember I'm an American. There are only 2 political parties in America, and politics in America is structured to guarantee that there never will be more or less than 2 parties. In Germany, you have 5 different parties. We have the less evil party and the more evil party here.
Killtech
Discutator
well yeah. you are right. i think i'd be much more suspicious about my government if i'd be an american. from some voices here america is considered a weak democary.
here in Europa things look different. political parties rise and fall quickly in power. it's not even such surprising if a new party enters the ruling circle: not long ago the greens entered the bundestag (they are the german-hippies... it was funny that out foreign minister once threw stones against the police in the time where the goverment was more authoritarian) and now a 'pirat-party' may enter the bundestag soon (the internet generation).
europe and germany in specific is not perfect. but through history our contry leared a lot from it's failings form the past - as we did. and for me the is no better place to live than here.
here in Europa things look different. political parties rise and fall quickly in power. it's not even such surprising if a new party enters the ruling circle: not long ago the greens entered the bundestag (they are the german-hippies... it was funny that out foreign minister once threw stones against the police in the time where the goverment was more authoritarian) and now a 'pirat-party' may enter the bundestag soon (the internet generation).
europe and germany in specific is not perfect. but through history our contry leared a lot from it's failings form the past - as we did. and for me the is no better place to live than here.
fireclaw722
Imperial Guard
The Earth can be warming up(but the better question is 'Is the Earth Naturally supposed to be warming-up or is it at the fault of people?'[The answer is that there is supposed to be a global 'Heat', but not for some thosand years
]).And it is the choice of the American people to try to choose 'the lesser of the two evils'(although it's probably a good thing there is only two parties, because there are certian people who might just get confused if they went to vote
).
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
The Earth can be warming up(but the better question is 'Is the Earth Naturally supposed to be warming-up or is it at the fault of people?'[The answer is that there is supposed to be a global 'Heat', but not for some thosand years
Does it matter if it is natural or man made? If we can stop it!
We can't though.
Afforess
The White Wizard
soup567
MANBEARPIG
Though technically, there's more just all the 3rd parties have no chance of winning the presidency. Sorry I had to throw that out there.
We can't though.
Well technically you can it just eats away at the o-zone. When a major volcano erupts, one of the main chemicals in it (I forgot which) averagely cools down the earth by 1 degree F the year it happens. Just do that yearly and you could stop it. Except it would probably kill the o-zone and we'd be worse off than ever
soup567
MANBEARPIG
Invalid premise. You've assumed warming is bad.
But it is. It raises ocean levels (bad for the Netherlands, New York, etc.), kills coral and amphibians, and increase the frequency and power of hurricanes.
soup567
MANBEARPIG
What hurricanes?Really though, think how nice Canada will be.
Except for the polar bears, karibu, seals, and all the trees in the taiga that need all that water from the snow...
fireclaw722
Imperial Guard
What does water have to do with Global warming anyway(jk, I know what it has to do with it). It'll just be a(maybe not, but just) minor problem, where the Netherlands will be swallowed up by the Ocean(just makes Germany that much closer to France); California will no longer be in America(so many people have been waiting for someone to take away all of those genius celeberties
); New York will fall into the Atlantic(well that will suck, I mean America would lose just about everything at that point); England, Japan, and the Carribean Islands won't be Islands anymore(The Caribs would be happy about that[ESCAPE!], The Brits would just drink their tea as their Great Monarchy sunk[litterly,], and Japanese would call to it as blessing, 'Kamikaze Blessing'[Divine Wind,
]).
); California will no longer be in America(so many people have been waiting for someone to take away all of those genius celeberties); New York will fall into the Atlantic(well that will suck, I mean America would lose just about everything at that point); England, Japan, and the Carribean Islands won't be Islands anymore(The Caribs would be happy about that[ESCAPE!], The Brits would just drink their tea as their Great Monarchy sunk[litterly,], and Japanese would call to it as blessing, 'Kamikaze Blessing'[Divine Wind,]).
Killtech
Discutator
each change has it's pros and cons.
Afforess
The White Wizard
Those are the cons, yes. However, you have ignored the Pro's. Arctic areas will have more available farmland, farmers will have an increased demand for food, There will be a northwest passage, a boon for shipping, species that were hunted by the newly extincted species will have population increases... etc.. There is always a bright side.
That was never proven, that was just media hype
Similar threads
