101. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190154 by FightingFalcon on June 8, 2008 at 1:05 pm

The points are: he promised to appoint religious judges, and if he wants to be re-elected he cannot be a moderate in office. It does not matter how he voted in the Senate. The only thing that will stop him is Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

Yea, I highly doubt he's looking at re-election. He'd be 76 if he ran for re-election. Ronald Reagan got to 76 but that was in his last year in office and I can't see McCain's age not getting in the way.

On the issue of judges, McCain has a fairly moderate voting policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain#Judicial_appointments

Not to mention that he is an old-school Federalist (a rarity in America these days) who believes strongly in state's rights and the ability of states to make their own laws, rather than having the federal government mandate them.

102. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190153 by FightingFalcon on June 8, 2008 at 1:03 pm

He may not this year. But next year when the seed he kept aside doesn't grow or the man from Monsanto turns up demanding large amounts cash he might.

BUT, you have to realize that that's hardly the only complaint offered by the anti-GMO crowd. There's also the legal mess about a company patenting a naturally self-replicating thing and claiming they own your plants when their plants from a neighbor's farm cross-breed with them through pollenation (as has happened in court - Monsanto won on this stupid claim). The solution they use is to try to make GMO plants sterile, but when they do that, it doesn't do much to solve world hunger since people on subsistence farming need to be able to replant their seeds. They can't be buying them again each year from the company. There's also the fact that doing this sterile - must -buy -seeds -from -company approach tends to make GMO foods be genetically homogeneous which is a problem in the long run.

To both of you - I honestly haven't heard of the court case you're referring to so I can't comment. I had assumed (I suppose wrongly) that opposition to GMOs came from sentiments earlier about that food being "creepy" and therefore inedible for humans.

I don't know too much about GMOs and intellectual property cases. Looks like I have some reading to do.

103. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190149 by FightingFalcon on June 8, 2008 at 12:59 pm

He could waffle on about feelings and spirituality and shit, but I take GREAT offence at fucking up our Founders' vision.

Well said. It's the twisting of their vision of a government free from theocracy that gets up my butt.

Agreed. I take offense at either side trying to tell me that the Founding Fathers were either hard-core Christians or Atheists opposed to religion.

We're talking about a group of roughly 100 individuals (if you include all signers of the DoI and Constitution) who had varying philosophies. Just one example is Thomas Jefferson vs. Patrick Henry. Jefferson was somewhere between Deist and Agnostic who frequently criticized organized religion and the Bible. Patrick Henry was a staunch defender of traditional religion. That's just examining two of the many Founding Fathers. I can't stand hyperboles and generalizations, regardless of who makes them.

104. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190148 by FightingFalcon on June 8, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Mordacious - I'm waiting for a point here. How does that prove McCain has a socially conservative voting record?

105. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190144 by FightingFalcon on June 8, 2008 at 12:51 pm

McCain is a grade 1, class A MORON! He doesn't know his own country's history and he doesn't realize that the founding fathers of his country were NOT christian and many despised christianity.

That statement is just as ignorant as McCains.

Surely a group as diverse as the Founding Fathers cannot be grouped together. There were Deists, Agnostics (Jefferson/Paine), probably no out-and-out Atheists but certainly many Christians, George Washington among them. While many of them were vocal in their criticism of some aspects of Christianity, it would certainly be wrong to say that all of our Founding Fathers weren't Christian.

I hate when people try to re-write history to suit their political agenda. No need for hyperboles here.

106. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190141 by FightingFalcon on June 8, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Blah, blah blah....

When Obama addresses the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee he's suddenly Israel's best friend. When Hillary speaks in Pennsylvania she supports gun rights. When McCain panders for the evangelical vote, he finds Jesus Christ.

I'm honestly surprised when people get so riled up at the words of politicians. Don't you know that they'll say ANYTHING to get elected?

What I'm concerned with is voting record and how these people act when given a choice. McCain has a fairly moderate social policy - certainly better than any of the other Republican nominees. I'm not defending him or what he's saying but let's accept the fact that he's probably vote pandering here. Nothing in his voting record suggests that he's a Christian evangelical.

That being said, just wait until the general election campaigns kick into full-gear, now that the primaries are over. With the Democrats trying to capture the evangelical vote for the first time in decades, both candidates will be falling all over themselves to prove who is more religious. It's gonna get ugly...

107. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190106 by FightingFalcon on June 8, 2008 at 11:40 am

The result is a plant with the ability to withstand getting doused with toxic chemicals that kill everything except the plant itself. Again, creepy.

I'm sure the person dying of starvation really doesn't care how "creepy" the food is.

I really didn't mean to thread jack and pull this thread off-course onto GMOs but since we are there now...

My opposition to GMOs is the fact they seem to be used as quick fix solutions. Rather than actually addressing the problems that lead to famine and food shortages, some people throw GMOs out there as the answer to problems like

I'm not saying stop at GMOs - at some point humans are going to have to learn to stop being parasites and live in equilibrium with our planet. But why turn down technology that can here and now save lives? I'm not talking about years down the road - I'm talking about right now.

I find it odd that some European liberals can deride Theists for rejecting science in favor of superstition but that is exactly what's going on with GMOs. Environmentalists have this rabid superstition that humans cannot alter the environment in any way or we will destroy life on Earth as we know it. So while they eat drink and be merry, millions die of preventable famines worldwide. How these people can sleep at night is beyond me...

108. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190037 by FightingFalcon on June 8, 2008 at 9:07 am

Over-population is one of the main causes of food shortages.

Another is the unholy alliance of conservative Christians and European liberals in their opposition to genetically modified foods.

I just don't understand it. We have the technology to prevent famines from ever occurring again but we can't because certain well-fed Westerners oppose it. Simply outrageous.

109. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #190011 by FightingFalcon on June 8, 2008 at 6:37 am

We might dream of a future without religion, but being vocal about it to the people we have to work with while tackling "1" and "2" may make those more difficult.

Barry - I couldn't agree more. My problem with many posters on this site is that they want religion destroyed and they want it destroyed now. They oppose minor issues (America's Pledge of Allegiance, for example) because it goes toward the overall goal of creating a totally secular society.

These people have no idea how many prospective allies they antagonize by such efforts. We are on the right path and most Americans (to say nothing of Europeans, Aussies, etc.) I believe are sympathetic with the cause of a more secular society. No matter how much we may wish a completely secular society, we can't impose that idea all at once. The Moral Zeitgeist (thank you RD) of America - and Europe - is simply not ready for a wholly secular society.

We will probably never live to see a wholly secular society. But we've made tremendous strides in the past century alone and we continue to win the demographics battle. Patience is a virtue that many fellow Atheists need to learn. Don't ruin the goal of a secular society simply because you want it here and now.

/rant

110. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #190010 by FightingFalcon on June 8, 2008 at 6:31 am

Re: Comment #189996 by rod-the-farmer on June 8, 2008 at 5:19 am

I tend to disagree that the cure here would be worse than the disease. The current influence the religious sector has upon the U.S. Government is not controlled by any laws. If, after taxation, they decided to continue to influence the government, would they not be subject to all the rules applied to other PACs (Political Action Committees ?). There would be increased scrutiny/transparency, I would suggest. And is there not a small movement in the U.S. to tighten controls on PACs ? Are there not funding limits now ? Is the the source of PAC funding visible ? Would all of this not make it quite clear which church groups are espousing which positions ?

There actually are laws against religious clergy espousing political opinions due to their tax exempt status:

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/churchpolitics.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/Tax_Exempt_Churches_Religious_Freedom_vs_Tax_Exemptions.htm

Clergy members can espouse certain political viewpoints (as that is their 1st Amendment right) but they cannot endorse or deny specific political candidates. They cannot literally be involved in the political process or directly influence government, aside from their rights as a regular US citizen. Should they attempt to influence government policy/elections as a member of the clergy (rather than as a citizen) then they can risk losing their tax exempt status.

Certainly there are pros and cons to each side. If we deny churches tax exempt status then they will be able to freely participate in government but the government could also regulate their political campaigns just as they do with any other PAC. On the other hand, if we give them tax-exempt status they are forbidden from participating (directly) in the political process. Knowing this, though, I'm surprised why certain clergy members haven't been denied tax-exempt status after supporting specific political candidates, e.g. mainly Barack Obama.

Considering how woefully inadequate the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law has been and how incompetent the government is at regulating PACs, I don't think the benefit outweighs the cost. Let churches keep their tax-exempt status if it means that they cannot be involved in government. I don't think regulation outweighs the horror of watching well-financed evangelical organizations directly influence government policy.

111. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #189980 by FightingFalcon on June 8, 2008 at 3:09 am

FF, I have never heard anyone say that removing churches' tax exemptions would make them *more* of a problem! That strikes me as unconvincing, to say the least. Tax exemptions allow these undeserving schmucks a free ride at everyone else's expense and gives them more influence than they would have otherwise. With no tax exemptions half the churches would go out of business in short order, and good riddance to the lot of them.

Sure, a good deal of the smaller churches that seem to pop up every day may go out of business without the benefit of tax-exempt status. But the Catholic Church, Protestant mega-churches, Baptist churches, etc. aren't going anywhere. They don't need or rely on tax-exempt status to keep them afloat. They have plenty of brain washed followers to do that for them.

If we remove tax-exempt status from churches, they will rightfully demand a direct voice in the government. Everyone (or every group) that is taxed has the right to participate in government. That is the principle that established America. The government could never get away with taxing churches and then bar them completely from participating in government. If you think religious influence in government is bad today, remove tax-exempt status and see what happens.

You honestly think that you can tax churches and then keep them out of government? You truly don't understand the American Constitution (or our history) if you think so.

112. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #189889 by FightingFalcon on June 7, 2008 at 1:16 pm

It's the end of days- Satan and his army aren't going out without a fight...Send us your money to help us combat this problem!"

"[God] loves you and he needs MONEY! He always needs money! He's all powerful, all perfect, all knowing and all wise - somehow, just can't handle money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

1:20

I love that sketch =)

113. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #189875 by FightingFalcon on June 7, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Huzon -

I used to agree with tolerating the private practice of religion, but I got over it. A person's beliefs don't leave him when he walks out of church: they influence everything s/he does in all walks of life.

Yes, which is why I try (although not very hard) to convince people to abandon religion. I am most concerned about religion influencing the public sector. I have friends, however, who are religious but you wouldn't know it unless you were very close to them. They keep to themselves and practice as they see fit. I have no problem with this. I think we antagonize more people than we convert when we attempt to literally regulate their thoughts.

We have such a long way to go in the US to counteract religious foolishness that we still legally allow believers to commit crimes in the name of their religion - the ones who withhold medical treatment from their own children being the worst example.

This is really the only example I see. I will never, not in a million years, agree to altering in any way the 1st Amendment. As much as I disdain religion, it is the right of everyone to worship as he or she sees fit. Yes, denying child care because of religion should be a crime. Denying child care for any other reason is a crime so why not religion? On this point I agree with you because it affects the health and safety of another person. Normally, private religious beliefs do not and therefore we have no right to challenge them. Keep in mind, I'm talking about private beliefs. When Theists stick their heads into the public sector (e.g. ID in schools, banning stem cell research, abstinence-only sex ed, etc.) then we should go after them with great fury.

I'm firmly in Dawkins' corner, the part where he states that religion must be challenged at every turn, with the eventual goal of still allowing it to exist (sigh) but reducing its status to just another bit of brainless nonsense like astrology and other newage excreta.

My goal is to remove it from society and (I doubt I'll live to see this one) get rid of its preferential treatment in society. It annoys me that Atheists are the most distrusted group in the country when Theists commit all types of crimes. This is more of a societal problem, however, and it may never change.

I sometimes wonder if tax exemption is the price you pay for the church/state separation. I hope we tax them one day, surely. I'm just afraid it will let them say they are now tax payers and should be able to get their crap elsewhere.

This is precisely why I don't get too upset over tax exempt status, although it does annoy me that it seems to be given out to any religion, regardless of merit.

If we deny religious organizations tax-exempt status, they technically could challenge our separation of church and state on the grounds that they are giving the government money. Now, we all know that religious organizations indirectly (and directly sometimes) influence government but if that tax-exempt status is removed, they may be able to legally challenge the wall between church and state.

114. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #189833 by FightingFalcon on June 7, 2008 at 10:47 am

Who says atheists don't want to eradicate religion? Of course we do, just not by mass murder or other coercive means. Removing tax advantages for churches is one, non-coercive step that is long overdue (and after that, perhaps the imposition of an "ignorance tax" to compensate society for the effects of religious "education" and indoctrination).

I don't. I would be perfectly content with a society that has religion completely removed from it publicly but continues to have members that believe privately, go to church, etc.

My only problem with religion is when it sticks its head into the public sector. Other than that, what do I care what people believe in their own homes? Worship Mithras for all I care...

115. Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief

Comment #189828 by FightingFalcon on June 7, 2008 at 10:39 am

It's a commonly held misbelief that us atheists want to eradicate religion.

Careful - a significant population of RD.net wants to do just that.

I personally do not, because I believe religion goes much deeper than many people will admit and it does a necessary role in keeping society together.

But there most certainly are Atheists (some on this very site) who want nothing more than the complete eradication of religion.

116. The Great Evangelical Decline

Comment #188784 by FightingFalcon on June 4, 2008 at 2:27 pm

6) If trends continue, by 2050, there will only be half the number of Christians in America that there are at present

What concerns me the most is what will be there to replace it (Christianity). New Age garbage? Islam? Buddhism?

Or will Atheists committed to a society of tolerance, respect, the US Constitution and most of all the freedom of individuals to be secure in their personal privacy be there to greet the new America?

That's all I care about. Replacing one superstitious belief (Christianity) with another (New Age self-help bullshit) is not progress in my book.

117. The Great Evangelical Decline

Comment #188736 by FightingFalcon on June 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Lucas said it perfectly - thank you.

118. The Great Evangelical Decline

Comment #188707 by FightingFalcon on June 4, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Like I've been trying to say, the growth in evangelicalism in America over the past 8 years is an exception to the rule. It's an anomaly that can be largely explained by the fact that Christian evangelicals have patronage in the government in the form of the radical wing of the Republican party (shocking I know but not all Republicans are Christian evangelicals). If you don't believe that a small group can have a tremendous influence in the government, just look at what the Jewish Israeli lobby has been able to accomplish...

119. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #188222 by FightingFalcon on June 3, 2008 at 11:41 am

What's going to keep some new statism from emerging? Like buying the favor of politicians or hiring goons to bully rivals into submission. Look at the Mafia, and look at Somalia -- according to libertarian ideology, those societies ought to be utopias.

How are Mafia and Somalia libertarian utopias? One of our central beliefs is that the government must uphold the rule of law in an objective and unbiased fashion. But because of government's inherent disposition toward corruption and tyranny, it's power must be kept to a bare minimum while still having enough power to defend the market and the rule of law.

Also, it's fun to use libertarian rhetoric against military and police protection -- if governments are so irredeemably evil, then why put them in charge of military and police forces? Why not form one's own volunteer militias and mercenary armies and vigilante posses?

When did a libertarian ever suggest vigilantism? We aren't opposed the idea of government (that would be an Anarchist), rather we oppose the government doing anything outside of what we consider to be its primary and proper functions. For example, the military, police and the courts.

Libertarians believe very strongly in the rule of law and a civilized society that rejects the initiation of the use of force. While all human beings have the right to arm themselves in self-defense and to prevent against government tyranny, they do not have the right to police their own neighborhood. This is a "right" that we grant to the government to exercise.

And to continue with libertarian rhetoric, if you want to be protected, then do it with your own money. And don't do it by having the government steal from other people to protect you just because you are too lazy to protect yourself.

You've clearly either never met a libertarian (big or little L) and/or have never taken 10 minutes to understand what we stand for. Protection of its citizens is one of the few proper functions of government. I've never said anything to the contrary.

120. Karma comedians

Comment #186720 by FightingFalcon on May 31, 2008 at 8:03 am

If there's one phrase I hate most in this world, it's "everything happens for a reason." I can't think of a more ridiculous crutch for the weak minded than that.

The fact that supposedly educated people can buy and believe a book like "The Secret" in the 21st Century is highly disturbing. We may be changing from organized religion to new-age bullshit but it's all the same. I doubt humans can ever learn to live without the mental crutch of religion.

edit: I guess some people just need to believe that there is a purpose to their live and that, no matter what happens, a higher power has set forth a plan to keep the universe in line. How these people can believe that in the face of tragedies like World War II, natural disasters, etc. I don't know.

O and Sharon Stone/John Hagee can go straight to Hell. Is god/karma really that evil to punish people completely uninvolved with the so-called causes of punishment, e.g. the rape of Tibet and homosexual parades? Wouldn't a just god simply punish the offenders and not random ass people? Either god isn't just (a very real possibility) or these natural disasters were just that...natural.

121. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186713 by FightingFalcon on May 31, 2008 at 7:27 am

No doubt there are missionaries champing at the bit at the chance to convert fresh prey.

And undoubtedly they will die from disease just as the American Indians did on first contact with Columbus and others.

It's not racism to keep these people isolated, as some are claiming. I guarantee you that any contact with the outside world will result in a death rate of 90% among these people - if not 100%. The only people that should come even close to them are doctors first to immunize (if possible) these people from disease.

122. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186677 by FightingFalcon on May 31, 2008 at 1:52 am

A cadre of hardcore atheists that see every headline posted on their favourite biologist's website as an excuse to shit on the religious?

Haha exactly! I may have to use this line in the future =)

123. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186557 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Post #248.

Do I trust corporations? Not really, but at least I have some leverage over them.

Do I trust governments? Not in any way, shape or form. They are a necessary evil whose power should be kept at an absolute minimum, which should then be used simply to provide an environment for the free market to operate.

edit: I guess I didn't address his post fully. I was writing a response to his post and I had to re-write it so I think I left that part out.

Corporations offer products that you can choose to voluntarily purchase or not. Corporations have very little power to coerce you into doing something that you do not want to do.

Governments can arrest/kill you, steal your money and spy on you all under the guise of "public safety". That's why I trust corporations more than I trust governments. Still, that's not saying a lot.

124. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186555 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Why the hell is everyone so concerned about the private lives of two French people?

OK so the man wanted an annulment because his wife lied to him. Sounds fine to me. None of our business (or the government's) really...

125. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186550 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 3:06 pm

However any person who infringes on the liberty of another or seeks to implement some deceitful plan to trample the liberty of others should be punished.

You don't believe that. I know you don't believe that because then you would be punishing yourself. Please explain how forcefully stealing my money and giving it to a welfare scheme is not infringing upon my liberty. I don't care what your morals tell you. They aren't mine. Isn't this entire site built around the idea that one person's religion shouldn't dictate the private lives of other individuals? I honestly don't care what your morals tell you, Al. My morals tell me that no human being should be coerced into supporting any form of charity - rather it should be a voluntary decision. Maybe that makes me a cruel and evil son of a bitch. I don't care. It doesn't give you the right to steal my money and use it on a cause that you deem worthy.

You have yet to say "Corporate greed is bad", despite the fact that it is a recurring theme and common salvo against your argument.

I won't say it because the term "corporate greed" is moronic and used only by enemies of Capitalism.

Things that aren't acceptable... letting people die in the damn streets because they don't have money. A minimum safety net must be in place for those who through mental or physical defect cannot compete in the market.

You can feel free to provide that safety net with your own money. Do not use mine to provide it.

Moral compulsion is enforced by the government, for instance murder is prosecuted and any number of other things are enforced, I don't see why helping the few in society who are truly unable to compete is a bad thing, even from a standpoint of government administration of the system.

Murder directly affects the rights of another human being. Why is this concept so hard to understand?

Poverty affects no one but the person who suffers from it. Certainly any human suffering is regrettable and that is why most human beings feel a compulsion to take care of others. It's why I *voluntarily* donate time and money to charities. But no cause is so worthy that it trumps my fundamental right to be secure in my property. No social welfare scheme can ever be justified through the theft of private property.

Did you also want to privatize defense?

Why would I? I already addressed the issue of the military. Of course national defense is one of the proper functions of government. It is one of the few proper functions.

126. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186513 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Well that tells me why I shouldn't trust the government. What it doesn't tell me is why I should trust a company.

You don't have to trust anyone really. But if you want to be a functioning member of society you might want to start.

At least with corporations we have leverage over them - the Almighty Dollar. Or Quid. Or whatever the case may be. What leverage do we have over the government? The right to vote? Spare me...

Al-Rawandi

Where are my manners? This entire time I've been sitting here defending my views and I haven't given you a chance to present yours. Let me take this opportunity to here and now invite you to present your take on what you believe to be the the correct course of action.

There is no perfect system. Even in the free market there will be oddities like Enron and Worldcom thanks to the greed and unethical nature of some human beings. That being said, the failure of a few companies to uphold the virtues of Capitalism does not outweigh the millions of companies world-wide that do not conspire against it's share holders and lie behind the scenes.

Not to mention that there is little to no evidence to prove that government regulation would solve this problem. Is it fair that an entire industry should be punished because of the actions of a few? Because a few companies supposedly took advantage of people vis-a-vis sub-prime mortgages the entire mortgage-lending industry is about to be punished by intrusive government intervention. What guarantee do we have that this new government regulation will put an end to such "crises"? What we do have a guarantee of is a larger government that gets involved in our personal affairs for absolutely no benefit whatsoever. Not to mention that increased government regulation makes companies less likely to invest and operate in a country.

But don't worry - continue to think that government regulation is the answer to all of our problems...

127. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186462 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 10:05 am

First you completely (and dishonestly) ignored what I said about "INSIDER TRADING", which is trading on non-public information. Let's say my friend works at Company "A" and tells me in secret that the company had a terrible quarter, while at the same time the company was saying that this quarter's guidance was "In line" (which companies do). So someone hears the company's positive note, and I sell him the stock, knowing for certain that poor earnings will drive the stock down. I have just cheated this person.

Do you know how absolutely impossible it would be to send someone to jail for that? A random employee at Company X knows that eventually the Qtr earnings/losses have to be made public and that the company will have a bad Qtr. So he sells his stock weeks prior to the announcement. When the announcement is made, he can go to jail because he technically knew about it? Come on Al - that's freaking ridiculous. Good luck finding any lawyer that would prosecute that case when absolutely no evidence exists other than the defendant's thoughts.

Actually it does, and it is why the SEC instituted the "Up tick" rule, which stated that one can only short a stock after the price had increased. What short selling entails is borrowing a security, selling it at a price, waiting for it to decline in price, buying it back at a lower price and returning it. Look at what happened to Bear Stearns, its balance sheet was fine, but people went crazy on shorting it and it created a wave of needless panic and destroyed a healthy bank. A large enough group can artificially place downward pressure on a stock.

Thank you, I know what shorting a stock means. Again, this is a completely legitimate investment practice that happens all the time.

This is so patently ridiculous. Companies hide information all the time.

If companies can fool share holders who have actual life savings invested in the company, what makes you think that completely inept and incompetent bureaucrats will do any better?

There is no way for anyone in the open market to know this information in real time, and is only discovered later.

So you admit that it can't be stopped?

Wait what entity could have a massive amount of money to manipulate the market... there is a name for this kind of thing..... a co....corp.....comp..... oh ya a large company with billions in assets. A Hedge Fund, a Private Equity group. Geeze man, off with the blinders already.

Still waiting to hear how incompetent governments can beat investment firms at their own game.

And now it's dinner time. I'll check back later.

edit: One last point before eating. Government regulation failed to stop Enron et al and recently it failed to stop airlines from inspections. The solution to both problems, ironically, is MORE government regulation! Why people think that the government is at all competent enough to regulate the market I have no idea.

So regulation failed to stop the collapse of a few corporations and what we got in return was Sarbanes-Oxley, perhaps one of the worst laws ever passed by Congress that only hurts smaller businesses that can't get around it. Ask yourself if that is the type of economy that you wish to see take over in America.

128. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186455 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 9:58 am

Look back over your history. Apple nearly went bust a few years back. They had to be bailed out. A company called Microsoft did this for some reason.

And Linux?

There is enough competition in the market of computer operating systems to debunk any idea that Microsoft operates solely.

129. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186449 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 9:50 am

Al, granting monopolies is in the commerce clause of the Constitution. An example is patents.

Thank you for bringing that up - I had actually forgotten completely about patents.

130. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186447 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 9:47 am

But these monopolies are negotiated are they not? Between the government and the company setting up the services. You say this is acceptable, I say where does the constitution allow it? You dodge this.

What you want me to admit to is that there are powers granted to the government beyond what the Constitution gives them. I won't fall into this trap. I'm not going to because natural monopolies are such common sense that the Constitution doesn't need to address them. We either allow one company to provide all of the utilities in a given area or everyone gets fucked without any electricity, water, gas, etc. Take your pick.

Now I want to ask you about the SEC, should there be laws against insider trading? How about getting a bunch of brokers together to trade stocks well below their value back and forth to drive the price of the stock down overall? What about hiding material information from shareholders? What about short selling to drive down (artificially) the price of a stock?

Firstly, short selling a stock does not artificially drive down its price. It's a legitimate transaction when you believe that the price of a stock will go down, rather than up. This happens all the time.


As for hiding information - that would take some significant ignorance on the part of a shareholders board. If it became public that a company was withholding information, the company would most likely end up destroyed. Secondly, financial information is so widely available on Wall Street that you typically cannot hide your true performance. Investors are able to tell roughly how well (or poor) a company should perform in a given quarter based on the information available.

As for brokers getting together to trade stocks below thier value - how would government regulation stop this?

Someone with massive amounts of money and investment savvy could probably get away with manipulating the market to his or her benefit. I fail to see how an inept bureaucracy that is constantly tripping all over itself would help.

131. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186437 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 9:37 am

And anyway - why should I trust a company any more than I trust a government?

Because the government is the only organization that can "legally" take your house, money, property and life (not to mention spy on you) all in the guise of protecting society. Corporations don't have nearly as much arbitrary power as you think they do....

The company I would nominate is Microsoft. Surely a company with some of the most loathsome business practices.

I'm writing this post on a Macbook. I wouldn't be able to do that if Microsoft had a monopoly.

We all do understand what the word MONOpoly entails, right?

132. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186431 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 9:29 am

You aren't being honest, Pacific Gas and Electric, here in the Bay Area they have the monopoly on, well... gas and electric. I wouldn't say California has a "small population" like you said. The government guarantees the monopoly.

Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that the government can guarantee a monopoly. Can you number the article or amendment so I can better look it up as well.

I honestly don't know about your unique situation so no, I won't comment on it.

I can guarantee you though that one of two things is happening:

1) There is room for another competitor but one hasn't entered the markets for unknown reasons. Given that it's California, I would guess government regulation.

2) There simply isn't room for another competitor to turn a profit based on the barriers to entry.

I'm not going to play your childish games on the Constitution and guaranteeing monopolies. Natural monopolies are a rare phenomenon in the market and something that economists have recognized as presenting a unique case where sometimes government must acknowledge a monopoly.

It's not my fault if you can't understand the simple and basic principles behind natural monopolies.

133. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186428 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 9:21 am

I hope USA will crumble economically and have the worst depression ever.

Never mind the ripple effect that would be created world-wide from the collapse of the world's largest economy.

Asshole.

134. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186425 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 9:19 am

Look up Standard Oil

Ugh...do you really think I would have made that comment without knowing about Standard Oil and the so-called "robber barons" of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries?

Friedman, among others, has already covered this in many of his literary works. I am not going to write the essay that it would require to debunk the myth about Standard Oil, ALCOA, et al being free-market monopolies when the research is already out there.

135. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186422 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 9:17 am

So in the case of utilities it is ok for the government to guarantee a monopoly... doesn't sound very free to me. Let's just call this argument of yours what it is...

In certain highly unique and rare situations, the population is so small but barriers to entry so high that only one company can legitimately supply the requested utility and turn a profit. There is no escaping this peculiarity of the free market. Whether it's fair or not, it is reality and it's something that we have to deal with.

The government isn't guaranteeing anything. It's simply recognizing the fact that with a small town isolated in the middle of no where, only one company can provide the necessary capital and costs while still eventually posting a profit from the very small rate of return that it earns from each individual customer.

What I said was, companies could get together and decide to lower their wages collectively? You refuse to answer this, because you seem to be a lackey for corporate power. Centralization of abusive power is wrong, and should be defended against. Can you at least agree to this?

Of all the anti-Capitalist arguments, market collusion is my favorite. "But corporations will get together and introduce artificial market conditions!" Really? There are people in the world who believe this nonsense? As if EVERY company in a given industry get together and hold highly secretive meetings to destroy the free market and no one knows about it? Give me a break.

In markets with no minimum wage, workers will always be paid what their true market value is. If one company doesn't pay them their market value, he or she moves onto another company. If every company in an entire industry somehow get together and set wages (a ridiculous scenario) eventually a company will crack and entice skilled workers to come join their company. That's why market collusion can never work. It's simply idiotic.

I feel a lot of Libertarians are actually corporate authoritarians in disguise.

No, we abhor the arbitrary power of government and feel that private corporations can carry out most of the functions of modern government. We believe that the government has usurped many powers that do not legitimately belong to it.

136. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186413 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 9:07 am

How does that work then? Drive a mile, pay company A, drive a mile pay company B, drive a mile...

In certain highly unique situations, there are extremely high barriers to entry and very low rates of return unless you accumulate a massive consumption population. Utilities are typically an example of this, which is why most governments tolerate Oligopolies or even (in even more rare situations) Monopolies. In a given area with a small population, a water or electric company simply has to have access to every constituent or they will never be able turn a profit. Barriers to entry are so high and rate of return so low that no company would compete against the dominant company because then both would lose money. In highly unique situations like this, one company needs access to the entire population.

A program for the privatization of roads would need to follow similar rules. Barriers to entry would be so high and rates of return so low that one (maybe two) companies would have to be given huge swaths of territory from the government in order to turn a profit. By having one or perhaps two companies in a large area, you wouldn't have the completely illogical situation that you described (and is frequently brought up by opponents of private roads).

Some utility companies exist in conditions that would describe a Monopoly yet you do not see any price gouging or extortion of any kind. This is due to the fact that technology has reached a point where, regardless if a natural monopoly takes over, an alternative inevitably presents itself. Even in these highly unique situations, companies cannot escape from the rules of the free market. Competition will always lead to a lowering of prices - government-assisted monopolies will always lead to an increase in prices. There can be no escape from this simple rule.

If company A has a trunk road but company B reckons it can provide a cheaper route that just happens to go through a town neighbourhood or an environmentally sensitive area then what bit of the market could actually prevent company B building the road?

Well obviously a company has no right to force people out of their homes to build a road through it. Only the government has illegally seized that power and has used it before and will continue to use it.

As for environmentally sensitive areas - if the people feel strongly enough about it then they can boycott the company.

137. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186401 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 8:51 am

Tax breaks, I shall elaborate. For instance, the dumb ass morons who thought up affirmative action, should have instead given tax breaks to people who agree to teach in primary and elementary schools in historically underpriveleged areas of the nation. That would return capital to people who were working hard to fix a historical inequality and would also help stimulate the areas economy because the teacher would live in the area and spend the extra money at local businesses.

A nice idea but I don't support an Income Tax. Instead I would like to see the Income Tax abolished (along with the IRS and any other function of the government involved in its collection) and instead replaced with a flat tax system of some sort. I'm not sure of the particulars (what the tax rate should be, what should be exempt, etc.) but I definitely support switching from an Income Tax, which the original Constitution forbid, to a flat tax system of some sort.

And for your "No Monopolies" comment. How ridiculous... would you have a minimum wage in your free market, in such a case companies could get together and mutually decide to lower wages to cut their costs and raise their margins. This can happen (may have happened) and is an illegitimate centralization of power to abuse people and should be stopped.

You do realize that the minimum wage is the biggest reason for the retardation of wages, right? There is plenty of literature out there explaining how a minimum wage works AGAINST employees rather than for them. By setting a benchmark of what an employer *has* to pay someone, you then create a level that an employer can pay and get away with it rather than paying them what their true market value is. Minimum wages destroy true market values because it allows a corporation to do exactly what you're talking about - set artificial wages that do not reflect true market conditions.

Besides, minimum wages do not at all effect someone's true market value. In a free market, a worker will get whatever he or she is truly worth. A minimum wage has nothing to do with it other than to impose artificiality in the marketplace.

138. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186391 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 8:34 am

Here was my post to him about "Liberty"

I answered this post already. I asked if you knew what Libertarians stood for.

If you did, you would know my answer/position to all of your questions already.

139. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186387 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 8:31 am

Welcome to Burma

Myanmar is blocking legitimate aid organizations from carrying out rescue and relief operations. The lack of government help isn't as big a factor as the denial of outside aid is. Welcome to common sense.

FF, that's why there's no right to not be offended. It requires others to not take offence at your taking offence and vice versa.

The right to not be offended is the biggest joke in the world. It never has existed and never will exist. Well, at least it doesn't exist in societies that still appreciate freedom.

And here we shall part ways. If an insurance company denies someone care to save money, that is wrong, and yes it does happen. Michael Moore, although a propagandist at times, does a good job pointing this out.

If an insurance company consistently and regularly denied patients their claims, they would go out of business very quickly. No, I will not watch Michael Moore's videos. His videos are many things but truthful is not one of them.

If a company manages to manipulate a market through monopoly it is the duty of the government to protect the people.

The only problem with this assertion is that a company has never gained monopoly status without government assistance. It'll never happen because competition will always offer a better, cheaper or alternative product to the one that is offered by a larger corporation. Without government help, monopolies cannot form. Truly free markets will never experience monopolies.

And when I talk about allocating of resources I am talking about tax rebates to people who are making sacrifices for the betterment of their nation.

Can you explain this? I honestly don't know what you're talking about here.

FF - how's your piece of road? You know, the bit you paid for with your taxes that belongs to you and that nobody else is allowed to drive over. Do you have to put in a lot of effort to keep it drained and the surface in good order? How often do you have to renew the notices, the ones that state "Trespassers will be prosecuted"?

Well, you could make the argument that transportation is necessary for the health of the market and therefore a necessary function of government but I won't. Rather, I'll remain committed to privatization of the road system.

Otherwise, we're all screwed. If I'm at liberty to shit all over someone, and to stop me is an invasion of my liberty. Then we've taken away the liberty of the person I'm shittin' on.....

You don't have that right. You don't have the right to "shit all over someone" because you are directly impacting the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of another individual. You have entered upon a relationship using coercive force (I'd assume that the receiver didn't voluntarily want your shit) and therefore it's illegitimate.

140. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186368 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 8:15 am

You are saying that it is the right of every citizen of the US to be protected against preventable illness. This means that health care must be provided by the government and that any treatment that is backed by good scientific evidence or epistemic probability should be funded and supported by the government

This response is directed more to Al...like I said earlier, a right cannot be dependent upon another person's private property. A person cannot have a "right" to adequate health care if that right requires the coercive and forceful theft of another person's property. Rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) are inherent to all human beings and cannot be taken away, no matter how legitimate the government tries to make it appear through popular referendums, laws, court cases, etc. If your "right" requires the private property of others, then you aren't entitled to that right in the first place.

141. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186364 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 8:10 am

The purpose of government in the free market is to make sure the market operates in a just fashion.

The purpose of government in a free market is to ensure the operation of the market in two ways: 1) defend the market from violence and 2) uphold contracts that are entered into between two voluntary parties without coercion.

1) This is accomplished through the police and military. The government has every right to tax the population in its efforts to defend the market and people from any domestic or foreign threats to peace. Warfare for purely aggrandizing reasons are never legitimate.

2) Contracts that are entered into freely must be upheld by a nation of courts, which the government has every right to establish. Legitimate contracts may be entered into only in the absence of coercion and in a completely voluntary nature. Once entered into, a contract can only be broken when both parties agree or when one party dishonors the terms. In other words, the morons who signed mortgages that they knew they couldn't afford have only themselves to blame and no one else. I have no responsibility to financially cover that idiotic contract.

I am willing to allow the government to assist in the allocation of capital to a degree. That is precisely why the government exists, to manage the money of the citizens that is entrusted to them by the taxpayers.

The government has no right to allocate, redistribute or do anything else with capital that isn't involved in the protection of the market as stated above. Any scheme that coercively takes money from one individual and gives it to another (regardless of reason) is illegitimate and beyond the power of government.

But in the effort to cut cost, they cut care, and Michael Moore made a good point in his movie "Sicko", people are being murdered by medical insurance companies, and this is unacceptable.

If you want to cut health care costs, stop awarding multi-billion dollar lawsuits to patients simply because a doctor had an accident during surgery or treatment. Not to mention that people who bring frivolous lawsuits to court should end up paying all court fees.

I really don't know what we should do. The government's duty is to protect its citizens, from terrorists, natural disasters, rogue corporations, and yes.... death from preventable illness.

The government has a duty to defend its citizens from domestic and foreign threats. It has no obligation to defend anyone from natural disasters, rogue corporations (whatever they may be) and/or death from preventable illness. It's a complete misnomer to keep saying that the government should defend its citizens. The government has no power or money of its own. Everything it has comes from us. The Founder's never meant for us to be our brother's keeper and for one person to lay claim upon another man's property. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" has no place in a free society.

142. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186346 by FightingFalcon on May 30, 2008 at 7:44 am

What is this constant garbage about American law being based on the 10 Commandments?

OK so stealing and committing murder are both illegal but they are illegal in every society. Honoring your mother and father? Having no other gods but God? Not coveting thy neighbor's wife? Man, I sure hope I won't get arrested for fantasizing about my neighbor's wife!

Complete rubbish. The 10 Commandments are not the basis of any law in any society. Like George Carlin said, most of the commandments are just bullshit but 10 were chosen because its a psychologically satisfying number.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU

"11 Commandments?! Get the fuck outta here!!"

143. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186086 by FightingFalcon on May 29, 2008 at 1:56 pm

So what if the Taliban returns, then we can see the damn training camps on satellite photos. And we have a target for bombing and cruise missiles. Who cares if they make women wear bee keeper outfits, is that our problem? You can't honestly think it is after telling everyone health care for Americans isn't YOUR problem. Why is it MY problem to fix governments in the Middle East and Central and South Asia? If they want Shariah...go for it, that should effectively prevent them from gaining any serious technological advances. They will be banging stones together trying to make an iPod.

Whoa, whoa, whoa - I never anywhere justified staying in Afghanistan in defense of democracy. I have never bought into that argument and never will. Using force to impose democracy upon a people that have never wanted it or understood it can never work.

As for your comment on seeing the training camps in pictures - that's exactly what happened during the Clinton years. We knew where they were training and we tried bombing them. How well did that work out for us?

No, we cannot leave Afghanistan only to allow our enemies to regain their only true stronghold in the world.

I'm all for peaceful democracy promotion but democracy can only follow from free markets. It is not our responsibility to fix oppressive governments but we can use our tremendous economic leverage to try and ensure that countries adopt more democratic stances. Ultimately though, countries that open up their markets freely to the outside world will have to deal with a representative form of government and a populace that loves freedom. After all, blue jeans brought down the Soviet Union...

144. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186080 by FightingFalcon on May 29, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Why do you care what government gets installed in Iraq. That is the concern of Iraqis not you. Same for Afghanistan. Let them fight it out, vote, hug, or whatever they want. If the fundamentalists come to power GREAT! Then we have a state to fight instead of some band of goat humpers up in a cave running around hiding amongst civilians. Once there is a state to fight, we can kick some serious ass.

I care because the previous government in Afghanistan harbored and aided terrorists that directly assaulted the United States. No sense in fighting this war only to turn around and have the Taliban come back again.

Iraq I think we have less a chance of a theocracy coming to power simply because the Sunni and Shia will kill each other before they ever allow one or the other to get too much power.

Get some alternative fuels and tell the Middle East to fuck off. I am over having my tax money spent giving them governments they don't really want. We can leave a force in the region. A carrier battle group. 120 aircraft ready to level Baghdad once they declare a Caliphate, otherwise, get our military on other projects.

Iraq I think we're beyond helping. They have a functional government and a military/police force that, combined with pro-government paramilitary forces such as the Sunni Awakening tribes, can hold their own against AQI. What's left now is just political bickering (e.g. al-Sadr) that we have no business being involved in.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, requires some serious help. If we leave, I think the return of the Taliban would be inevitable.

145. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186075 by FightingFalcon on May 29, 2008 at 1:24 pm

You might call me naive and very optimistic (I confess it might be true) but hey I at least acknowledge that these muzzies have really made a great leap from burning, beheading and stoning people to death when their fluffy feelings get offended.

The ones who live in the West have (mostly). But they're still assassinating politicians/film makers in the Netherlands and executing people for Apostasy in the Middle East.

O yea, not to mention killing nuns in Africa (or was it Lebanon? Can't remember) following the Danish cartoon story.

146. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186074 by FightingFalcon on May 29, 2008 at 1:19 pm

I realize what Libertarians stand for. That is why I say end funding to Israel and Egypt. And recently I have decided that getting our troops the hell out of harms way in the Middle East is a good idea too. Let them kill each other, they seem desperate to do it.

I agree on ending aid to Israel and Egypt. I agree mostly on the Middle East except I would favor keeping a force in place just to make sure things don't go completely to shit. That region is too important to let it implode, as much as I would like to see it. However, I would not be adverse to the return of a not-so-democratic leader who could rule the religious nut jobs with an iron fist.

I read that story. It is the usual stuff: "We have the right to tell the majority how to live. Why you ask? Because a pedophile 1,400 years ago said so, what more proof do you need?"

A pedophile who raped children - don't forget the raping.

147. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186072 by FightingFalcon on May 29, 2008 at 1:16 pm

As humans we generally tend to optimize matters for our own needs, in other words we take decisions that effect us locally: we take local decisions. In some situations (let's say game theoretic situations) if you leave everybody to optimize for their own local benefit you might get to a situation where everybody is worst off. This is very abstract and very difficult to explain (although I can give some concrete examples*) and it doesn't really prove anything; it just disproves the notion that letting everyone take local decisions for themselves is the best strategy at all times. And this is my whole point.

But you think that the decision of individuals must benefit society as a whole - I don't. I don't see any obligation that individuals have toward society other than to respect the rights of others and allow them to live a peaceful, happy and free life while expecting the same treatment in return.

I'm not concerned with how the actions of individuals might leave society worse off, which I refuse to believe. Free and open societies that operate on the foundation of the aforementioned philosophy simply cannot end up worse off for everyone. I'd like to see examples of any failed society that was "too free" while still respecting the rule of law. I fail to see how any country could suffer economically as a result of too much freedom in the market and society.

148. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186070 by FightingFalcon on May 29, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Pretty soon there will be dress codes on university campuses... just modest clothes mind you, nothing serious, but we don't want to offend our Muslim brothers here in Canada. And then it goes from there.

You mentioned Muslims and dress codes so I thought about this news story that I read today:

http://www.startribune.com/business/19303124.html?page=1&c=y

I was thinking about submitting it to this site for comment but I'm too lazy.

149. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186068 by FightingFalcon on May 29, 2008 at 1:08 pm

We are doing all that now. Your money goes to foreign aid, to military adventures that don't help you at all. It goes to roads you may never drive on. Maybe YOU should donate to a fund YOU feel will repair the roads YOU use. We elect a government to get together, do a little research and allocate funds that would best beneift the society as a whole. I am not saying this actually happens like this, but I am saying that is the point.

You do realize what Libertarians stand for, right?

150. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186064 by FightingFalcon on May 29, 2008 at 12:49 pm

One cheap example: If you share a house with two other humans beings who are cleaner than you,

Definitely not possible with someone as obsessively clean and neurotic as me but I'll entertain this example for now...

I really don't to make a lot out of this cheap example but it clearly shoots down the argument that in a society everybody can be the way they want and should be able to spend their resources as they want.

Honestly I don't understand your example at all. How does that relate to me having to pay money to complete strangers that I'll never meet or know?

If someone is being dirty in a house shared by others, the others can either make the extra effort to pick up the slack of the dirty member or they can move out and get their own house. Similarly, people can either choose to voluntarily go out of their way to help out those "less fortunate" than them or they can concentrate on their own lives, as "selfish" as that might sound. I don't see the problem.