701. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85261 by notsobad on November 5, 2007 at 11:31 am

Second, the historiography of religion employed by most of these authors, though admittedly not by Daniel Dennett, is one of bringing up only damning evidence. This does not seem to me to be an honest appraisal of religion's role in human history, but one that is emotionally parti pris and fundamentally intolerant. It would be possible to write a history of medicine using only the stupidity and ignorance of doctors, and the harm that they had done, as material; but that would not be the history of medicine in its entirety.

It's because the good things done by religious could and can be done without religion and faith, while the bad things could hardly be done without religion and faith (and that applies to any other totalitarian ideology).
The analogy with medicine fails too, of course. You wouldn't be able to do the medicine-related good things without medicine.

Third, the metaphysical difficulties of human existence are considerable, and I do not think the abandonment of religion would make things any easier.

If you have time to seriously think about something like "metaphysical difficulties of human existence" you got to be relatively well off and bored at the same time, you know, like a philosopher, theologian or such.

702. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85245 by notsobad on November 5, 2007 at 10:59 am

Although Flew still rejects Christianity, saying only that he now believes in "an intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world."

You must have no real problems and be really bored to take such a childish explanation (god did it) for something that is pointless (there is no mystic meaning of life, get over it).

703. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85240 by notsobad on November 5, 2007 at 10:51 am

Can't not think of survival of the fittest.

Are there gonna be precautions so that the kids won't follow the circle of idiocy?

704. AAI 07

Comment #85049 by notsobad on November 4, 2007 at 5:22 pm

bayareadude,
why? Can't he have a different opinion from others, especially the majority? Isn't that what atheism is - at least outside the EU - still about?

705. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84942 by notsobad on November 4, 2007 at 10:08 am

You can tell she is clueless by the use of the phrase "war on".

706. AAI 07

Comment #84762 by notsobad on November 3, 2007 at 1:14 pm

epeeist,
some self-criticism after all? Don't worry, the big bad free market would still prefer you to guard bridges.

707. AAI 07

Comment #84727 by notsobad on November 3, 2007 at 11:02 am

"free health care" must be one of the stupidest oxymorons around

708. AAI 07

Comment #84614 by notsobad on November 2, 2007 at 9:02 pm

NMcC,
at least you are honest about your inability to say anything relevant.

Diacanu,
I think you have to try some libertarian forums but do not forget that everybody speaks for himself, especially libertarian I assume :)

709. AAI 07

Comment #84562 by notsobad on November 2, 2007 at 1:19 pm

NMcC,
I mistaken those two again (now corrected) since they cooperated often but it still changes nothing about you being the one dodging questions with personal attacks and it changes nothing about other things I wrote.

So do you have anything relevant to say?

710. AAI 07

Comment #84561 by notsobad on November 2, 2007 at 1:17 pm

So do you?

711. AAI 07

Comment #84550 by notsobad on November 2, 2007 at 11:35 am

Marx was primarily a philosopher not a politician

Funny you should say this since Marx is the author of "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it," and he was very active in politics.

Marx was after a demographic group - the weak, gullible, oppressed, and easy to control. The same group religions were using.

Have you actually read any Marx?

Marx:
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed

--

Marx, of course, wasn't 'after' any group. His analysis of capitalism had nothing to do with 'groups'.

group = class
--

the British workers didn't say 'fuck off' to his ideas for the simple reason that they never heard of his ideas in the first place.

I said figuratively.
--

the Russian workers didn't welcome or embrace the ideas of Marx because the Bolshevik takeover in Russia was an undemocratic minority led Leninist coup in a backward, peasant country which had nothing whatever to do with Marx or his writings.

Lenin's coup had nothing to do with Marx or his writings? ...
--

Fourthly, and here's the gem rattling around notsobad's empty head, the British workers didn't get 'much better during the years since he (Marx) wrote The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844' for the simple reason that Marx didn't write that book, it was written by Frederick Engels.

You are correct, my bad. But the main point that they got better stands.
Of course, you couldn't write that without that 'empty head' remark, could you? That stress can kill you, mate.

712. AAI 07

Comment #84542 by notsobad on November 2, 2007 at 10:31 am

The strength of China IMO is overestimated. The GDP growth comes at a high price which may bring long term instability.

It is also built on very shaky foundation.

In the coastal regions a lot of "booms" are fueled by spin off industries of corruption, prostitution and scams in general.

Do you oppose sweatshops, too? And what is your alternative?
What do you think of the following? Can you analyze it?
"My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few."
--Jeffrey Sachs

thirdchimpanzee,
my views are quite obvious - or would be if there was a professional debate going on; however, you have to forget your vision of the world through labels. I don't subscribe unto any ideologies, labels or parties because (if) they tend to be absolutist and offer easy support for the 'us versus them' attitude.
Marx was after a demographic group - the weak, gullible, oppressed, and easy to control. The same group religions were using.
Do you know why the British workers said fuck off to his ideas (figuratively indeed) while the Russians did not? Because the British workers got much better during the years since he wrote The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 without his miraculous medicine called communism.

713. AAI 07

Comment #84532 by notsobad on November 2, 2007 at 9:25 am

NMcC,
I am genuinely interested why you have to put personal attacks in each of your posts? Does it make you feel better, or do you think it makes your arguments stronger? Perhaps both? Or is it just a habit from the past?
One might also ask why you keep resorting to tu quoque

This was a genuine independent question. Did I say his opinions were false because he is rude? Did I dismiss his opinions because he is rude? No. I really would like to know why so many people have problems to calmly debate something without pointless personal attacks.
Isn't it better to write "Here's the answer" instead of "Here's the answer, thicko"?
And if someone actually dismisses his opinions because he is rude, it's not a big surprise.

714. AAI 07

Comment #84522 by notsobad on November 2, 2007 at 8:54 am

The self-reliance and accountability model you tout is also a utopian fiction..

Actually, I said that a libertarian society is an utopia too so pay attention to the debate and don't just assume what I support or think, because so far all your guesses turned out to be false. You just want to turn this into a 'us versus them' debate. You should talk about ideas and not just particular people.

NMcC,
I am genuinely interested why you have to put personal attacks in each of your posts? Does it make you feel better, or do you think it makes your arguments stronger? Perhaps both? Or is it just a habit from the past?
examples:

I'm tempted to ignore both of you as you are... obviously a couple of clowns...
All I can say in relation to scooternyc's pathetic wriggling...
Here's the answer thicko

Marx was after religions because they were primary competition for his ideology and was after the same demographic group.

And yes, China is a mixture of a communist ideology and capitalist economy. It's a strange mixture but that happens if you try to build a state with a shitty manual and just update it instead of getting rid of it.

715. AAI 07

Comment #84495 by notsobad on November 2, 2007 at 7:07 am

I have already stated that wealth in the form of rent, interest and profits is legalised robbery.

Having seen it in action, can I add in those who try to make a profit by extrapolating on the second derivative of the "value" of shares and currencies.

So you don't mind sheltering me and my pals and lending us money at no interest, do ya?
You probably can't because your house is packed with strangers and all the possible money is lent, right? Otherwise your statements would be a hypocrisy of the highest order, which would such compassionate and moral people never do.

The results make a nonsense of your assertions...

Please remind me of those assertions of mine.
Also, your last sentence is laughable. I don't even live in the US, nice generalization there.

716. AAI 07

Comment #84484 by notsobad on November 2, 2007 at 6:33 am

NMcC,
luckily, I have to use North Korea because the stupid experiment called communism is more or less gone from other countries.

State capitalism was proposed and heavily endorsed by communists and socialists so maybe you should be careful what you speak against when with your comrades.

The communist experiment failed because it's faulty by design. It's an unnatural utopia that always ended with atrocities and bankrupt economies. It has been tried by many different nations with different background and it failed everywhere.

Who are the real parasites? The rich who live off the holy trinity of rent, interest and profits or those who need a helping hand in society who have themselves or their families created all the wealth that this holy trinity represents in the form of bits of paper and metal tokens?

This question does not deserve an answer because it's a loaded one - it assumes several things as a fact and is full of emotional drivel. Holy trinity? Marx would probably not use such a cheesy phrase.

717. AAI 07

Comment #84456 by notsobad on November 2, 2007 at 4:32 am

NMcC:

..live in a big house in a nice area, drive a BMW etc etc.

The difference between you and me, however, is that I'm the kind of unemotional realist that you only pretend to be.

So why did you buy a BMW and not a Honda instead? Surely a Honda would do you comparable service and cost (much) less. And the rest of the money could be used to show how 'emotional' you are.

As for the rest of that Marxist crap:
The utopia was tried and it failed badly. You can still make a trip to North Korea and some other countries to see how it worked out. Simply put, it cannot work because it's anti-evolution and anti-human nature, which wants to compete and wants to be rewarded accordingly, just like any other animal. /waiting for this argument to be interpreted as support of social Darwinism and such

718. AAI 07

Comment #84448 by notsobad on November 2, 2007 at 4:04 am

NOTSOBAD – "That's quite a 'cold-hearted' and technical interpretation there. Basically, you say that people should take care of people who cannot take care of themselves. I generally agree and have never said otherwise. However, we need to discuss who are these less fortunate, how much help they need and how to operate this system to be as effective - corruption free and such - as possible.

Right so we basically agree (not sure about the 'cold-hearted' comment) but otherwise good.

Your comment is quite similar to Ebenezer Scrooge, who is supposed to be the bad grim cold-hearted dude. At least you are not delusional about this.

NOTSOBAD – "Moreover, if we want to be honest with ourselves and follow the premise of 'clear thinking' we also need to discuss our motives."

Why? If people are helped what diffence do the motives make? If someone gives to charity because it makes them feel good, what's the problem? The charity is still getting the money.

NOTSOBAD – "Is welfare an act of genuine compassion or is this mostly a rational action (even if it's subconscious)?"

Again does it matter either way if ultimately it helps other people?

Obviously, for some people here it does make a difference because they want to pretend and show off how compassionate and kind they are.

NOTSOBAD – "Many people have an attitude to consider people born/living in the same country more worthy than other people when it comes to helping others. Of course, these people don't have to be racists or bigots, but their actions suggest that they do care more about their fellow citizens. Why? Because it is rather a rational act than genuine compassion. Taking care of others in the same country you live brings obvious benefits and is often an effect of the Golden Rule, 'You scratch my back and I scratch yours', and other principles. It's quite lame then to see some many people in a 'clear-thinking oasis' making so many fallacious, pretentious and hypocritical statements.
There is an obvious line in our brains that allows only as much compassion. Some people here brag about how moral, humane and compassionate they are, but I doubt they only eat minimum food and buy only things they really need and give everything else to the 'less-fortunate'. I bought a new HDTV recently and I don't really need it. I am not scared to admit that I could have given the money to an orphanage or UNICEF or whoever else but did not. I am not scared to admit that I eat and drink some expensive food I don't really need. Some people here undoubtedly buy things they don't really need but still ride their high horse preaching others about compassion and how moral and humane they are. I do a lot of things to help others but I don't need to brag about them (except for one post when directly asked) and don't need to pretend that I am better than others."

Oh come on! So you're saying that if you believe in a welfare state you should 'only eat the minimum food and buy only things you really need and give everything else to the 'less-fortunate'. Where on this thread has anybody said anything of the kind? No No No (takes a deep breath!). I'm saying that paying SOME tax to have universal healthcare, education etc. is worth paying. How the system delivers is another matter, but as a basic principle it seems sound and sensible to me.

Quite frankly your comments about 'people riding their high horse preaching to others about compassion and how moral and humane they are' is bollocks.

That's the point - nobody said that. However, that didn't stop them to tell us how compassionate, humane and moral they are while they described others who weren't so hypocritical and pretentious as cold hearted and such.

You also seem to think that if you contribute to a welfare state that must mean you don't give a damn for the rest of the world and especially the developing world. Again rubbish. Prove it. I don't follow your logic.

Their actions show that their obviously do less for others than for their country. Of course, they do more for their fellow citizens because it has obvious benefits (such as you want to be taken care of when something bad happens to you) and is not really an act of genuine compassion.

Maybe welfare state is a dirty word to you. You see it as a drain on your pocket to let lazy wasters lay around getting pissed at your expense. But surely a system funded by society as a whole which empowers people who have fallen through the cracks to take responsibility for themselves and helps, when needed, is a good thing. That's what a good well run welfare state can deliver.

My main point - how to achieve such a well run welfare state?
Simple mottoes like 'emulate Nordic states' won't do it.

This all comes down to the fact that you and Scooter don't want to pay tax, pure and simple. You can't bear the thought that some of you money is taken from your control by the big bad government and used to try and help improve other peoples lives. You can argue until you're blue in the face about having the moral high ground, but at the end of the day it's all just a justification to not contribute to society in any structured way. Only if you feel like it.

I always wonder why you guys with crystal balls never use it for lottery but for others' opinions and thoughts only.
I never said I didn't want to pay taxes (bad news - the ball is broken).

719. AAI 07

Comment #84219 by notsobad on November 1, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Sierra Leone will have vast reserves of oil in the future? Better not tell the neocons that.

More seriously though: if it only was that easy.

720. AAI 07

Comment #84190 by notsobad on November 1, 2007 at 11:58 am

Rtambree,
do you have something constructive to say too or is that slippery slope fallacy it?

So, what is your opinion and solution?

721. AAI 07

Comment #84171 by notsobad on November 1, 2007 at 11:06 am

As for how I interpret compassion. On a wide social level I think compassion is best expressed by people that can afford it putting something into the social 'pot' through their taxes to help the less fortunate. How would you interpret it?

That's quite a 'cold-hearted' and technical interpretation there. Basically, you say that people should take care of people who cannot take care of themselves. I generally agree and have never said otherwise. However, we need to discuss who are these less fortunate, how much help they need and how to operate this system to be as effective - corruption free and such - as possible. Moreover, if we want to be honest with ourselves and follow the premise of 'clear thinking' we also need to discuss our motives.

Is welfare an act of genuine compassion or is this mostly a rational action (even if it's subconscious)?
Many people have an attitude to consider people born/living in the same country more worthy than other people when it comes to helping others. Of course, these people don't have to be racists or bigots, but their actions suggest that they do care more about their fellow citizens. Why? Because it is rather a rational act than genuine compassion. Taking care of others in the same country you live brings obvious benefits and is often an effect of the Golden Rule, 'You scratch my back and I scratch yours', and other principles. It's quite lame then to see some many people in a 'clear-thinking oasis' making so many fallacious, pretentious and hypocritical statements.
There is an obvious line in our brains that allows only as much compassion. Some people here brag about how moral, humane and compassionate they are, but I doubt they only eat minimum food and buy only things they really need and give everything else to the 'less-fortunate'. I bought a new HDTV recently and I don't really need it. I am not scared to admit that I could have given the money to an orphanage or UNICEF or whoever else but did not. I am not scared to admit that I eat and drink some expensive food I don't really need. Some people here undoubtedly buy things they don't really need but still ride their high horse preaching others about compassion and how moral and humane they are. I do a lot of things to help others but I don't need to brag about them (except for one post when directly asked) and don't need to pretend that I am better than others.

Coming back to a more practical debate, the only thing that can really help the poor people in the 3rd world countries is free trade (yeah, regulated , before you jerk at that term).
Sending them a little food and money - usually stolen by local dictators - may make some of you feel compassionate and caring but it won't help anybody in the long run. Educational programs are far more effective but their economies will not get better without international trade.
It's rather interesting then that socialists that keep talking about helping the less-fortunate most loudly are also the biggest supporters of trade barriers and restrictions. While the trade barriers may help your neighbour John afford another TV set, free trade would help a lot of people in the third world. Also, we are back at what I already said - we tend to be 'compassionate' with our neighbours, about people living far away, not so much.

722. AAI 07

Comment #84142 by notsobad on November 1, 2007 at 9:26 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen,
your analysis has nothing to do with the point of my post.
We were not discussing what we want to do with kids of those parents or what the parents think and so on.
We can have that debate, but it'd be a new one.

723. AAI 07

Comment #84128 by notsobad on November 1, 2007 at 8:34 am

My post:
It's emotional to state examples like 'what is a poor guy supposed to do to feed his family.' Not having any family if he never could afford it is what he is supposed to do.
It's immoral to have kids if you know you can't and will not be able to take care of them. It's immoral to rely on others to take care of them if you knew you wouldn't be able. Using your children to get compassion from others is cold-blooded.

So are you seriously saying it's not immoral? Are you seriously saying it's OK to have kids when you know they may suffer and die because you won't be able to take care of them?

Regarding a lack of clear thinking, how about this:

That's not a rational capitalist act. Capitalism does not exist without respect for human and property rights.
Dealt with by epeeist

Respect for human and property rights is the very basis of capitalism. Disrespect is anarchy.
epeeist listed one example of a company that did not play by the rules and did not respect others' rights and freedom.

or this:

Compassion is a meaningless term

Dealt with by comets

First of all, this is a poor tactic called quote mining, which just shows that you are a dishonest debater.
Second, the whole quote is:
Compassion is a meaningless term since it's up to everybody to interpret it. Either explain what you mean by that or it's pointless to even mention it.
Comets added a dictionary entry, which, of course, does not include interpretation.
It's like saying 'justice' or 'you are not just' without explaining what you mean under justice and being just.
But like I said before, it's pointless to lead a debate with you since you like repeating logical fallacies and overall show very poor critical thinking. And if you can't respond you sink to a new low by saying something as pathetic as 'they are probably theists.'
--
windweaver,
I've already said there are many types of libertarians some time before so it's like you were quoting me. :)
It is ambiguous to use the term 'liberal' instead of 'socialist' or 'social liberal' because liberal should not automatically mean only the one type. Actually, in Europe when you say liberal you mean classic liberal, so it's better to be accurate here and not just use the word 'liberal' alone.
BTW, why do you see this debate as 'us vs them' with that 'your friend scooter' remark? I agree with some of his opinions and I disagree with some. I don't have to use labels and I don't have to divide people into groups during a debate. However, I can divide their ideas into the ones I agree with, the ones I don't and the ones between. Unless I have maximum information available, I won't come with such stupid hasty generalizations as calling him immoral, cold-hearted, dick head and so on. I may call some of his opinions and ideas cold-hearted, stupid or whatever but there is an obvious difference. That's how a 'clear-thinking' debate should be lead.
And certain people here showed very poor critical thinking skills. If they can't even debate politics in a calm, impersonal and professional manner, how can they debate something as controversial and sensitive as religious beliefs?

724. AAI 07

Comment #84071 by notsobad on November 1, 2007 at 5:39 am

windweaver,
learn at least the basics. Libertarianism is liberalism, classical liberalism.
Just because the Americans call socialism liberalism you don't have to be so ignorant.
--
steve99 and others,
no matter how much you caress your ego by saying how compassionate and better you are it means nothing if it's not supported by your behaviour and actions.
Stop preaching and stop pretending you figured what the right path is. If you want to have a professional discussion, try that. Otherwise your personal rants full of personal attacks are pointless.
---
and steve99,
show me a single post of mine where I promoted 'heartless and immoral' stances. Show me a single post of mine which had no 'clear thinking' and 'rational' basis. And remember, this is supposed to be a discussion of possibilities so stop taking it so personally.
If you are unable to do that, your post is just another empty personal attack.

725. AAI 07

Comment #83852 by notsobad on October 31, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I don't think the Swedish model can be applied in the US for several reasons. For example, the Swedish population is much more homogeneous than the US. Actually, Sweden has been altering its welfare model to adapt it to the increased immigration.
Higher education - the US model is working much better than the European one.
--
Ironically, the posted examples of Enron and Bhopal were supposed to be arguments against capitalism while, in fact, they are pro capitalism.
Both companies and their management cheated and didn't respect others' freedom and rights, which destroyed them and they didn't get away with it. If anything, that's a signal for everybody else to follow the rules.
--
epeeist,
I've already wrote several times that I do support certain regulations and I do support certain government investments (e.g. in 1st and 2nd level education).
BTW, I don't think virginity needs to be defended or even debated about since I could care less about that. You need a different example of a controversial issue.
--
JelloWasabi,
You showing off your "innate" empathy are not different from theists showing off their god-given empathy.
The line about shooting disabled was a joke. Maybe you would spot that if you get off that high horse.

726. AAI 07

Comment #83819 by notsobad on October 31, 2007 at 11:59 am

Weak comparison, epeeist. Capitalism does not advocate anarchism.

briancoughlanworldcitizen,
like I already posted, even Sweden made its policies less socialist when it faced fiscal crisis.

727. AAI 07

Comment #83807 by notsobad on October 31, 2007 at 10:55 am

epeeist,
that's not capitalism; that's a criminal act.

Your thinking seems to be that the best system is the one that will make you personally rich. It's got nothing to do with everybody being rich (How on earth can everybody be rich for goodness sake!), it's about a free and fare society where everybody has a good standard of living.

You obviously think that you are rich only if you are at least a millionaire. Some compassion and morals there.

briancoughlanworldcitizen,
they may have some things to learn, but certainly not higher taxes and more government influence in certain areas, such as higher learning, as already illustrated.

steve99,
Of course, this limitation is a matter of degree. Limiting how much someone else can earn in a private company is not different from various religious efforts.

Comets,
great, you found the definition. Now answer my question and tell me how you interpret it.

Lauregon,
smart-ass comments like that are rather pointless in a 'clear-thinking oasis'.

728. AAI 07

Comment #83796 by notsobad on October 31, 2007 at 10:03 am

Yes, there are laws and those people are in jail now. The scandal also destroyed an accounting company that cheated.
You think YOU would do better? You think YOUR laws would fix everything?
What evidence?
Your logic: EU is socialist. EU is rich. Socialism makes you rich is so faulty you should see it already.

It might have been better if Brian had said "individual shareholders". For most large companies this is true since the major shareholdings tend to be held by the likes of insurance companies.

And personally, though I work for a company by no means am I the property of that company.

If those individual shareholders feel weak, nobody forces them to own that stock. If you don't like your company's decisions you may try to change them or you can go work somewhere else.

Look, we all live on a planet with finite resources, we need some rules otherwise we've had it. As long as those rules are based on rational thinking AND compassion, I for one have no problem with that.

Compassion is a meaningless term since it's up to everybody to interpret it. Either explain what you mean by that or it's pointless to even mention it.

729. AAI 07

Comment #83791 by notsobad on October 31, 2007 at 9:42 am

Enron - corruption, poor management and theft of someone else's money. Those people had at least one thing in common with you it seems. Unlike them, you want to call this poor management and theft a humanitarian act and want to use laws for that.

Also, you are no different from theists trying to turn their beliefs and "morals" into laws limiting other people's lives.

730. AAI 07

Comment #83786 by notsobad on October 31, 2007 at 9:24 am

Are you really that jealous of someone else's money?

And if the "Shareholders are a fairly weak group and very narrowly focused" (hasty generalization there already) it's up to them, since it's their property.

You want to convince us that you know better? Please...

731. AAI 07

Comment #83778 by notsobad on October 31, 2007 at 8:47 am

That's not a rational capitalist act. Capitalism does not exist without respect for human and property rights.
It's just that certain people (ironically, both sides) mistake capitalism with anarchy in which you are free to do whatever you want in order to maximize your profit.

732. AAI 07

Comment #83760 by notsobad on October 31, 2007 at 6:46 am

Some of you guys are not very different from theists in your argumentation.
You state your opinions and immediately call them moral, civilized and other noble names without any evidence or logic. And when you try to explain them - or avoid explaining them - it turns out there are not moral, nor civilized (stupid word IMO).
You bitch about CEOs having huge salaries; however, when I say you have huge salaries compared to other people on this planet, it's suddenly something different. It's different only in the way that the difference in standard of living between people earning $50k and $1m/year is much smaller than the difference between $50k and $350/year. When we discuss equal opportunities, you divide people into losers and winners and you call low-skilled workers losers.

733. AAI 07

Comment #83742 by notsobad on October 31, 2007 at 5:41 am

Bill O'reilly is the most-viewed 'newsman' in America. He would take one look at us and laugh, "the Atheists can't decide if they're Anarchists or if they're Communists."

Do any of you honestly think I'm wrong? How many times have you all had to deal with the 'Hitler/Stalin was an atheist' meme? How many times has someone told you that you can't have morality without Jesus? In America, this is the norm.

This problem is not going to go away while you fight about economic models.

I don't care what Bill O'Reilly has to say or what his moronic viewers think. He is not gonna change and neither are they. The positive outcome of 'rationalizing' efforts would be if he gets no new viewers.
I would like to see more rationality in general so I try to oppose all stupid ideas that may have influence on my and others' life. And religions have so many of them. But atheism does not automatically make one a rational person. Many communists are an easy example of this.

734. AAI 07

Comment #83565 by notsobad on October 30, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Bonzai,
are you gonna answer the two questions challenging your pretentious morals and humanism or are you gonna continue to ignore them?

Here is some math for you:
CEOs earning $3 million/year in a society where most people earn $20,000-50,000 is according to you inhumane and immoral.

3 million/20,000-50,000=1:150-60

Applying this logic, how about people earning 20,000-50,000 on a planet where hundreds of millions people earn $1 a day (say $360 dollars/year)?

20,000-50,000/360=1:55-138.8

Who is pointing fingers now?

And yes, I know the real income ration would be a little different but then again, the rich CEOs also pay higher taxes and such.

==
As for Sweden:

When the Social Democrats returned to power in 1994, they responded to the fiscal crisis by stabilizing the currency and by reducing the welfare state and privatizing public services and goods, as governments did in many countries influenced by Milton Friedman, the Chicago Schools of political and economic thought, and the neoliberal movement.

Wikipedia

735. AAI 07

Comment #83554 by notsobad on October 30, 2007 at 12:10 pm

epeeist,
I already said I don't promote completely free market because it's an utopia with so many people who don't want to or cannot play a fair game.
But since Bonzai pretended to understood my positions...

Anyway, the answer to your question what the US does better than the EU is universities and colleges.
Higher education institutions in the EU are, except for few top ones, behind the US ones. Why? Because of their poor cooperation with private sector. Why? Because the US universities have always been forced and inspired to cooperate with it while the EU ones haven't.

Academic ranking (not perfect but says a lot):
http://www.arwu.org/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm

Interesting read:
'Business needs incentives to work with universities' at EurActiv.com

The private sector in the EU also lags in R&D:
http://titania.sourceoecd.org/vl=20459600/cl=18/nw=1/rpsv/figures_2007/en/page18.htm

736. AAI 07

Comment #83540 by notsobad on October 30, 2007 at 11:08 am

I think your blind veneration of the market is rather irrational and not very entertaining for those who suffer the consequences of your superstition.--Bonzai

Free trade is what the EU (and preceding organizations) were primarily about from the beginning. Since the end of WWII, there has not been a single armed conflict between members of the EU, which is unprecedented after centuries of wars and conflicts. Citizens of the EU "suffer the consequences of a superstition" in forms of widespread wealth, peace and ... easy access to entertainment.

And you still avoided two questions:
How dare you earn your wage if hundreds of millions people earn a few dollars a day?
How dare you accuse others of no empathy if you protest against free trade, which stops these people from earning more?

737. AAI 07

Comment #83519 by notsobad on October 30, 2007 at 10:00 am

'"losers" of the game are punished unduly harshly'
'free market theology'

Irrational thoughts always supply a great deal of entertainment.

738. AAI 07

Comment #83496 by notsobad on October 30, 2007 at 8:08 am

Some people just have to replace rational arguments with personal attacks,. Who does that remind me of...

739. AAI 07

Comment #83485 by notsobad on October 30, 2007 at 7:09 am

Stress can easily lead to illness, nothing fallacious there. Various illnesses can lead to cancer so...

740. AAI 07

Comment #83469 by notsobad on October 30, 2007 at 5:29 am

How can anyone justify a salary of one or three million a year? I ask you!! It is obscene. Where the majority of workers garner between $12,000 to $50,000, it is expected that they will understand these massively salaried CEOs??

Is this a joke? It sounds like some parody question of a typical communist with no economical education.

You know why they earned that much? Because their private employer pays them that much. Just like your employer pays you your salary.

And, Veronique, if you feel such a sympathy for your own species, how dare you earn $12,000 to $50,000 if hundreds of millions people earn a few dollars a day?
How dare you accuse others of no empathy if you protest against free trade, which stops these people from earning more?
And if you use phrases like 'poor specimen', why do you want to go against evolution and nature so much?

741. AAI 07

Comment #83383 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 9:50 pm

windweaver,
libertarians' core policy is to oppose government subsidies (or any other intervention for that matter).
Free market is by definition (free!) opposed to government subsidies.

742. AAI 07

Comment #83354 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Diacanu,
using others does not have to have a dirty meaning. Some may call it compassion or humanism, but technically speaking it is using others.

Also, libertarians are not some eugenics freaks or Spartan society supporters (some of them probably are, but it's not what the theory is about) like some people here seem to think.

mejdrich,
that is some anecdotal evidence you have there. Also, you don't understand the theory of minimum wage and why it lowers someone's buying power.
Minimum wage would increase their wages, but it would also increase everybody else's wages. And that would lead to higher prices, thus a lower buying power, especially because people earning minimum wage are very likely the same people who most often buy products and services from employers paying minimum wages.

Teratornis,
that's a nice post and I would argue that open source approach already exists in medicine (and other fields for that matter) through share of information between universities, labs and professionals.

743. AAI 07

Comment #83337 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Texas is libertarian? One of the states that has some of the worst punishments for victimless crimes? You gotta be kidding.

More importantly though, 'libertarian' is just another label that some of you are using without actually knowing much about it and ignore that there are various types of libertarians, just like there are people who like some of the libertarian ideas and reject others (like me).

Diacanu, I agree with a lot of things you write (in other debates too), but there was a lot of emotional material inserted and calling someone who wants people to take care of themselves instead of blaming and using others cold-blooded is a stretch too.

It's emotional to state examples like 'what is a poor guy supposed to do to feed his family.' Not having any family if he never could afford it is what he is supposed to do.
It's immoral to have kids if you know you can't and will not be able to take care of them. It's immoral to rely on others to take care of them if you knew you wouldn't be able. Using your children to get compassion from others is cold-blooded.

744. AAI 07

Comment #83278 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Actually, it's classic liberal vs social liberal stuff.
It's just that in the US liberal automatically means social liberal, and the word liberal is used because 'socialism' is considered a dirty word.

745. AAI 07

Comment #83269 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 1:25 pm

No, it's because I don't think that a relatively high-standard of living means 2 cars, latest technological gadgets, tens of clothes and other things so many people think they have to have no matter what.

steve99, this is pointless. You cannot/don't want to respond to what I say and shift the debate all the time.

746. AAI 07

Comment #83249 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 12:44 pm

steve99,
this is getting pointless

Again, you 'humanists with morals' are calling low-skilled workers losers in the first place.

Quite the reverse.

really?

Since most of the jobs are unskilled, there will always be more "losers" than "winers"
---Bonzai

We talk about low-skilled JOBS and when you have nothing to say, you start talking about 'mass UNEMPLOYMENT'.
Do I have to note that work is an opposite to unemployment?

Yes, moving to another county, state or country does build a character. Many people do it willingly and are glad for that so it does not have to be a struggle.
Why do you consider every person unable to take care of themselves?
Do you realize how close that is to religious (Christian) reasoning - only God and Jesus can save you.

747. AAI 07

Comment #83243 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Actually I meant something deeper than that - it amounts to asking why would someone be rummaging around in your garden shed for stuff to steal. If its for drugs, maybe you should work to legalize drugs and keep them out of your garden shed - I don't know.

Yes, but this is still just blackmail - legalize drugs or we will steal your money.
And even if heroin was cheaper if it was legal, it would not be cheap enough for these addicts since they have no legal income.

748. AAI 07

Comment #83239 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 11:52 am

Again, you 'humanists with morals' are calling low-skilled workers losers in the first place.

Low-skilled workers can easily achieve a relatively high-standard of living in the Western world. In many countries, engineers earn less than garbage men in the richest countries, and I mean in real value.

Do you think it is fair that for some that would mean moving away from their family, their friends, their neighbourhood and having to establish themselves in a new area. Actually, when it comes to schools, it might be an idea if they did this at age 4 or 5...

It's not only fair; it's absolutely crucial to a successful economy. Some people have to move to another country to achieve their goals. Imagine that horror! Not to mention, the US was founded on that principle.

749. AAI 07

Comment #83211 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 9:27 am

And while not everybody may have an equal opportunity to end up rich and successful 9and not everybody wants to in the first place), almost everybody has the opportunity to achieve a relatively high standard of living, which is what we are talking about here.

Not globally. There are still hundreds of millions of Africa and Asia that don't have the opportunities to attain any decent standard of living.

We were discussing the Western world and I specifically wrote that it may not apply to other countries.

Since you mentioned it, there are other socialist policy that shows how they can pretend to be humane but in fact they have the opposite effect - farm subsidies and trade barriers.
Farm subsidies and trade barriers make it almost impossible or at least very difficult for farmers from 3rd world countries to compete on the European market. And unlike the EU, 3rd world countries are dependent on farming. This does not give 3rd world countries chance to get richer and increases foodstuffs prices in the EU. Meanwhile, we send products (even the expensive subsidized foodstuffs!) and money to 3rd world countries and then act like we are helping them. We are also very proud that we help our farmers. Who cares that subsidized food is often destroyed because there is not enough demand. Some hypocrisy there.

750. AAI 07

Comment #83207 by notsobad on October 29, 2007 at 9:17 am

Aah - I see the glimmer of understanding here notsobad - you may not like it but people will respond to the way they're treated. If you don't give a shit about them - it will be returned. Reminds me of growing up in Latin America in one of those ex-pat communities with the grills on the windows, and dobermans on patrol for Ladrinos.
Is that what you want for America?

If by 'not giving a shit' you mean not giving me anything for free if I intentionally caused my misery, I am fine about that.