What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Economic Liberalism Discussion

So pointing out you and Mr. "The Trail of Tears wasn't a genocide." Vyor's ignorance is shiting up the thread now?

My word.
/s

Well since it doesn't fit the definition of genocide it isn't genocide. Saying it wasn't a genocide is akin to saying that 3 people being murdered isn't a mass killing.
 
Well since it doesn't fit the definition of genocide it isn't genocide. Saying it wasn't a genocide is akin to saying that 3 people being murdered isn't a mass killing.
According to what the United Nations provides, the term "genocide," as coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943, was defined in 1948. The criteria is as follows:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The trail of tears is C vyor.

Or you're going to argue that the 19th century US government gave a fuck about dying native americans?
 
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Was not intended by its designers to do so, so it doesn't fit that.

A list that half the links don't work, or aren't lies lol.

And the other half is actual lies.

So the statement "CNN doesn't lie" is...
 
Was not intended by its designers to do so, so it doesn't fit that.
So you're telling me the US government, that has by this point lost thousands of people due to them dying while moving out west in caravans, didn't think that picking up and moving 18'000 Native Americans in a fuck huge mob on foot with inadequate resources wouldn't kill a good portion of them?

Wow, I thought you were ignorant before but holy shit.
 
You guys are literally quibbling about the definition of genocide.

It shouldn't be hard to stay on those particulars.

This is such a stupid argument to begin with.
 
Okay. Clearly, my advisory before to get back on topic didn't work. So any further derails will get you an infraction and if you choose to persist you get another infraction and a thread ban.
EDIT: Relaying a message from your feline overlord, make new threads for the offtopic stuff if you want to keep talking about it.
 
Last edited:
Okay. Clearly, my advisory before to get back on topic didn't work. So any further derails will get you an infraction and if you choose to persist you get another infraction and a thread ban.
Thank you. And I'm glad this forum has a quick comment loading (I saw the post 2 minutes after it was made), otherwise I'd have continued it with a multi-paragraph rant. Per topic. With a large amount of citation. Sure, it's an hour's typing up in smoke, but I'd get myself another three hour's typing from responding to the responses.

...So, how about we move back on topic by talking about how far regulation can go as a good thing? I generally go with the idea that the freest possible market is the best for the largest number of people, with a number of caveats regarding anti-monopoly and anti-poverty measures that guarantee market freedom from obscene entry costs to compete and a decent standard of living (not a good standard of living. Think Soviet Union, not Sweden, only with less nightmarish housing and waiting lines for food) to ensure that entrepreneurial action can occur from as close to the bottom economic strata as can be done without enabling welfare leaches to have a good standard of living. Again, think Soviet Union living standards, with good food security and passable welfare, but without the incompetence making it really obtrusive. Because apparently the Soviet Union actually did a decent job at handling base needs, outside of housing, they just sucked at prompt distribution. I only ever heard about the food lines until recently.

Welfare enough to survive means that you don't need to dig for raises to avoid severe instability, which is good. It means the working poor have food and housing security, albeit of low quality, so their income can be risked on getting out of near-poverty without risking their lives by doing so. By regulating strongly against monopolisitc behavior, and various pure exploitation practices like MLMs, the issues with Capitalism are covered fairly well, and the needs-meeting welfare solves the problems of the "poor get poorer" state of affairs Capitalism is currently dangerously close to returning to. It's not quite there, as the wealth gap in the developed world is, mostly, the rich wildly outpacing the poor in growth for now. 2008 mostly hit the upper-middle-class, rich and old, though the way the economy works and the exact cause made it hit a lot lower down because of how much higher ups got hit. Trickle down economics does hold true for market crashes, more often than not, though that may just be a symptom of rampant investment-based economics.

The thought is essentially that all work-based income can then be treated as spare income, allowing for creature comforts to easily be purchased and accelerating the flow of wealth that is the blood of Capitalism while also meaning there's a much larger pool of potential entrepreneurs, researchers and artists who can all add to the odds of breakthroughs in science or engineering, or throw in some new spin on entertainment or art, or just make a good company that consolidates the talent for the previous two. With needs covered by the state, but comforts requiring personal effort, you're unlikely to see a large population of uninterested unemployed because their standards of living will be considerably behind those who work, and those used to the higher standard are going to need to work to keep it. But if everything goes wrong in their life and they do lose all work-based income, they're not going to die from not being able to afford medical treatments or food, clean water and housing. They'll also likely be interested in trying to get that standard of living back, meaning they'll try to get working again.
 
Something like the FDA is needed to keep people from selling poison.
...You know, I'm so used to safety regulations that I barely even consider them. I did mention MLMs, which are literally one step away from a Ponzi scheme by having a physical product instead of just mailing money around. As such, they dodge US laws against pyramid schemes.

But yeah. Regulations to make sure Capitalism doesn't kill and keep it from bludgeoning the little guy out of the market entirely.
 
...You know, I'm so used to safety regulations that I barely even consider them. I did mention MLMs, which are literally one step away from a Ponzi scheme by having a physical product instead of just mailing money around. As such, they dodge US laws against pyramid schemes.

But yeah. Regulations to make sure Capitalism doesn't kill and keep it from bludgeoning the little guy out of the market entirely.

I don't forget because I've seen shit from before the USA had said organization.

It was not pretty.
 
I don't forget because I've seen shit from before the USA had said organization.

It was not pretty.
Need something to keep water/air quality at accepable levels too. Oh, and soil, since if stuff leeches into that you can be poisoned by eating stuff grown in it, so an EPA style organization is a must for the same reasons.

That's one of the biggest problems I have with Libertarian ideas of "do whatever you want on your private property". What you (not you personally) do there affects everyone around you.
 
Need something to keep water/air quality at accepable levels too. Oh, and soil, since if stuff leeches into that you can be poisoned by eating stuff grown in it, so an EPA style organization is a must for the same reasons.

That's one of the biggest problems I have with Libertarian ideas of "do whatever you want on your private property". What you (not you personally) do there affects everyone around you.

That's kinda part of libertarianism. "You can do whatever you want on your property so long as it doesn't infringe on other people's freedoms."
 
That's kinda part of libertarianism. "You can do whatever you want on your property so long as it doesn't infringe on other people's freedoms."
The problem is that pretty much everything you can do beyond "sit quietly and play video games" does exactly that.
 
Sex, weed, lsd(most times), what you eat, what you post on forums...
Yeah, but I mean things like farms, businesses, outdoor shooting ranges, etc... or messing with a stream that flows through.
 
Some of those don't count as "your backyard" but I'll give you that.
Say you own a piece of land. You sell the mineral rights to a mining company. Well, what they do ruins the value and possibly the health of everyone living around them.

Essentially industry is impossible in a libertarian society that actually lives up to the nonaggression principles. As is farming. That's why people make all those "spherical cow" jokes about it.

So, everything needs to be regulated to keep that harm at a minimum. And because people don't want to be regulated, they try and hide things, so you need investigators for the regulators. But they might bribe or arrange friendly investigators, so you need...

And that's how we get the current situation. Basically, "small government" doesn't work. Government needs to keep growing to fill all the needs of the growing population and diversifying ways for that population to fuck each other over.
 
Say you own a piece of land. You sell the mineral rights to a mining company. Well, what they do ruins the value and possibly the health of everyone living around them.

Essentially industry is impossible in a libertarian society that actually lives up to the nonaggression principles. As is farming. That's why people make all those "spherical cow" jokes about it.

So, everything needs to be regulated to keep that harm at a minimum. And because people don't want to be regulated, they try and hide things, so you need investigators for the regulators. But they might bribe or arrange friendly investigators, so you need...

And that's how we get the current situation. Basically, "small government" doesn't work. Government needs to keep growing to fill all the needs of the growing population and diversifying ways for that population to fuck each other over.

Government should be as small as possible. "as possible" in this case meaning that it needs to be large enough to insure a certain standard of living and safety.
 
Government should be as small as possible. "as possible" in this case meaning that it needs to be large enough to insure a certain standard of living and safety.
And there we have the big question: who decides that? Currently, all the people appointed to determine that have vested interests in making things smaller than they need to be to maintain our current standard of health. And the ones appointed to make sure that ISPs don't cheat their customers have a vested interest in letting them cheat their customers. Etc... Literally every "small government" politician in the US seems to be "too small to protect anyone, but big enough to control their sex habits and drug consumption"
 
Jesus, I left this thread alone for several days and weird stuff started happening. Damn.

The Effects of Universal Preschool in Washington, D.C.
Introduction and summary

Over the past 15 years, the share of 4-year-olds who are U.S. residents attending public preschool has more than doubled to 33 percent.1 A growing number of cities and states have dedicated resources to establish or expand preschool programs, with policymakers frequently citing the impact that preschool participation has on school readiness.2 Preschool attendance has been shown to improve children's academic and socio-emotional skills, preparing them for kindergarten and beyond.3 Research also shows that effective preschool programs benefit children from disadvantaged families the most, providing those children with a nurturing environment for healthy development.4

Moreover, along with these important educational benefits, public preschool also allows some parents to re-enter the labor force or increase the number of hours they work, providing a decided boon to families' economic well-being. That has been the experience in Washington, D.C., where parents—specifically mothers—have returned to or entered the workforce in significant numbers since the city expanded to universal preschool.

Unfortunately, that is not the case for millions of parents throughout the United States, who report cutting back on hours or making career sacrifices due to challenges related to child care.5 Since private tuition for high-quality, full-day preschool can cost many thousands of dollars per year, free public preschool has the potential to significantly increase take-home pay for parents.
According to the Center for American Progress, establishing universal preschool could allow a mother to participate in the labor force and moving up on the economic ladder. This could help the development of children by providing a safe and generally positive environment and learn to communicate with those who are not a part of their family at an early age.
 
Last edited:
According to the Center for American Progress, establishing universal preschool could allow a mother to participate in the labor force and moving up on the economic ladder. This could help the development of children by providing a safe and generally positive environment and learn to communicate with those who are not a part of their family at an early age.
Well, I went to preschool and I was better-ish... but that is skewed with decent teachers.
Government should be as small as possible. "as possible" in this case meaning that it needs to be large enough to insure a certain standard of living and safety.
Problem, to do that you'll need a vastly larger government than what we have now. Probably at least twice as large minimum, probably three or more with the national guard ready and on call 24/7 in some cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kol
Back
Top Bottom