Political Compass test
You know, at times I swear I just come to this forum to read Joe's posts. Informative, entertaining, and educational. I wish I could give you more than just 1 prop for that post Joe.
Reply
0
0
I mean that's cool an all, but the standard of living is rediculous:
The audit is the latest finding against the city's Department of Human Services, which has been under scrutiny for chronic mismanagement of federal funds. Many of the department's leaders have departed since an internal investigation was launched last year, including an inquiry into the purchase of $182,000 worth of high-end furniture for a department office. In 2009, the department received more than $11 million in stimulus funding and created a service center.
The center, at 1970 Larned, included the Customer Choice Pantry, the New Beginnings Clothing Boutique and a call center that had the capacity to service 60,000 families in need. The boutique was to provide business attire for low-income residents for job interviews.
To receive clothing, residents were required to have a job interview scheduled. According to the audit, the DHS was supposed to help 400 people between October 2010 and September 2011 but instead served only two.
The center, at 1970 Larned, included the Customer Choice Pantry, the New Beginnings Clothing Boutique and a call center that had the capacity to service 60,000 families in need. The boutique was to provide business attire for low-income residents for job interviews.
To receive clothing, residents were required to have a job interview scheduled. According to the audit, the DHS was supposed to help 400 people between October 2010 and September 2011 but instead served only two.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
1. If your house caught on fire, and your family were trapped inside, would you expect the fire department to show up and save you?
1b. Would you pay the fire department for their services?
1c. If you could not pay (hypothetically), would you be OK with the fire department letting your house burn with your family inside?
2. Do you honestly think that the government should not be held hostage by its citizens? I mean this in a figurative sense - i.e. "the government should not be held accountable by its citizens" - since I assume you meant it figuratively and not literally
3. You can probably see where I'm going with this - at what point do you decide that the government should step in and intervene in times of need? This is a sliding scale between anarchy (the government should provide nothing and essentially should not exist) and communism (the government provides everything).
Reply
0
0
I have a couple of questions for you:
1. If your house caught on fire, and your family were trapped inside, would you expect the fire department to show up and save you?
Yes, I would
1b. Would you pay the fire department for their services?
I already do
1c. If you could not pay (hypothetically), would you be OK with the fire department letting your house burn with your family inside?
See 1b. If I didn't pay, I wouldn't expect the fire department to exist. I am more concerned with the fire department being able to put out a fire in my neighbors house. If they are coming to put out a fire in my house, my house is already destroyed. If they are coming to put out a fire in my neighbors house, they are potentially saving my house. Therefore, I pay for the fire department so that my house might survive if my neighbors burn down their house.
2. Do you honestly think that the government should not be held hostage by its citizens? I mean this in a figurative sense - i.e. "the government should not be held accountable by its citizens" - since I assume you meant it figuratively and not literally
The government should be held "accountable" by it's citizens, instead, the government is held "hostage" by it's citizens, and since the government is supposedly "by, of, and for the people", it's really "the people" that are being held hostage by it's citizens -> I am being held hostage by someone whose personal standard of living is below the government's standard of living, for a ransom of (insert value of government assistance here) because I'm not willing to force them to earn their keep. If you had a friend who was living with you, didn't have a job, didn't pay any bills, ate food that you bought, drove your cars, drank your beer, and refused to assist you with any household chores, would you suffer though it because "i can't bear to see him out on the street", or would you grow a pair and tell him to GTFO? If you can tell him to GTFO, no only will your own disposable income increase, but he'll be forced to fend for himself, which means he'll suddenly be motivated beg, borrow, and steal until he can find a way to feed himself, probably by first getting a job at McDonalds, and then a night job at a gas station. If you're not willing to kick him out, and he knows you're not willing to kick him out, then your household is held hostage by him at a monthly ransom of however much his life costs you.
3. You can probably see where I'm going with this - at what point do you decide that the government should step in and intervene in times of need? This is a sliding scale between anarchy (the government should provide nothing and essentially should not exist) and communism (the government provides everything).
Government should provide for all things which individuals cannot afford, but groups can afford, and where individuals within the group each derive a net benefit from the good or service. Examples of course are roads, security (police), fire protection, public schools, and defense. Government should not mandate group purchases for goods/services which do not benefit members of the purchasing group. An example of course is a welfare program, where the "purchasers" are the higher income earners who derive no benefit from purchasing the service.
A correctly administered "Unemployment insurance" is not welfare because "unemployment insurance" is purchased by the wage earner (at the cost of reduced wage rates), though such "insurance" needs to be correctly indexed to the likelihood of losing the job. The current "obamasurance" is indeed welfare, people who are currently in their 28th tier of unemployment insurance did not pay for 28 tiers of insurance, and as such, current wage earners *and* employers are paying for beneficiaries to not work.
1. If your house caught on fire, and your family were trapped inside, would you expect the fire department to show up and save you?
Yes, I would
1b. Would you pay the fire department for their services?
I already do
1c. If you could not pay (hypothetically), would you be OK with the fire department letting your house burn with your family inside?
See 1b. If I didn't pay, I wouldn't expect the fire department to exist. I am more concerned with the fire department being able to put out a fire in my neighbors house. If they are coming to put out a fire in my house, my house is already destroyed. If they are coming to put out a fire in my neighbors house, they are potentially saving my house. Therefore, I pay for the fire department so that my house might survive if my neighbors burn down their house.
2. Do you honestly think that the government should not be held hostage by its citizens? I mean this in a figurative sense - i.e. "the government should not be held accountable by its citizens" - since I assume you meant it figuratively and not literally
The government should be held "accountable" by it's citizens, instead, the government is held "hostage" by it's citizens, and since the government is supposedly "by, of, and for the people", it's really "the people" that are being held hostage by it's citizens -> I am being held hostage by someone whose personal standard of living is below the government's standard of living, for a ransom of (insert value of government assistance here) because I'm not willing to force them to earn their keep. If you had a friend who was living with you, didn't have a job, didn't pay any bills, ate food that you bought, drove your cars, drank your beer, and refused to assist you with any household chores, would you suffer though it because "i can't bear to see him out on the street", or would you grow a pair and tell him to GTFO? If you can tell him to GTFO, no only will your own disposable income increase, but he'll be forced to fend for himself, which means he'll suddenly be motivated beg, borrow, and steal until he can find a way to feed himself, probably by first getting a job at McDonalds, and then a night job at a gas station. If you're not willing to kick him out, and he knows you're not willing to kick him out, then your household is held hostage by him at a monthly ransom of however much his life costs you.
3. You can probably see where I'm going with this - at what point do you decide that the government should step in and intervene in times of need? This is a sliding scale between anarchy (the government should provide nothing and essentially should not exist) and communism (the government provides everything).
Government should provide for all things which individuals cannot afford, but groups can afford, and where individuals within the group each derive a net benefit from the good or service. Examples of course are roads, security (police), fire protection, public schools, and defense. Government should not mandate group purchases for goods/services which do not benefit members of the purchasing group. An example of course is a welfare program, where the "purchasers" are the higher income earners who derive no benefit from purchasing the service.
A correctly administered "Unemployment insurance" is not welfare because "unemployment insurance" is purchased by the wage earner (at the cost of reduced wage rates), though such "insurance" needs to be correctly indexed to the likelihood of losing the job. The current "obamasurance" is indeed welfare, people who are currently in their 28th tier of unemployment insurance did not pay for 28 tiers of insurance, and as such, current wage earners *and* employers are paying for beneficiaries to not work.
Reply
1
1
Reply
0
0
Elite Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
...
I'm still having trouble deciding whether you believe that it is actually possible for
......
...
And that's how the Dark Ages began.
I'm still having trouble deciding whether you believe that it is actually possible for
- The central government of a large and "economically mature" nation such as the US to be, in essence, dismantled and have most of its powers distributed amongst its constituent states,
- In a manner which does not severely disrupt the economy and degrade the well-being of its citizens,
- Or lead to civil war between the states,
- Or result in an end-state configuration which resembles feudalism, or tribal warlord-ism, ..
- Results in a stable collection of local governments which are able to enjoy trade and commerce, both intra-nationally and inter-nationally, at a level no less satisfactory than before.
......
...
And that's how the Dark Ages began.
Does your list describe how the USA was supposed to be?
Or like Switzerland today?
They are far more de-centralized than today's monstrosity.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
That's it?
I spend a huge amount of time responding to your abstract hypotheticals, asking a number of extremely specific questions, and all you can come up with is another abstract hypothetical which completely evades every issue which I raised?
Jason, I am actually just a little bit hurt and offended by this. I thought you cared more about genuine discourse. It's obvious that you didn't even bother reading my last post, or you'd immediately see why asking "what about Switzerland" makes exactly as much sense as "what about a bacon and cheese sandwich" in this context.
Reply
1
1
Indexed billions of dollars
Percent change from a year ago
Unfortunately, the Federal Debt Held by Foreign & International Investors series ends at 3Q2011 so I can't show it versus the more recent yields.
Reply
0
0
Elite Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
My fantasy scenario was a transition to AnarchoCapitalism. Its proponents describe how a stable society would look. Basically it is a system of priate law where agencies compete to sell you protection and insurance. (This is akin to how various insurance companies today sell you insurance.) The Nation-State (monopoly gov't defined by geographical borders) ceases to exist. Such a society is described in the following books:
- Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age
- N Neil Smith's Probability Broach
- David Barker's Welcome to Free America
- David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom
- Murray Rothman's For a New Liberty
Nature abhors a power vacuum"
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
