Dr. Nick

Ahh yes, but its 2 thumbs way up when a hot chickie rides her thong above her jeans. I'm not saying I don't love it, but its a mega double standard.

levnubhin

iTrader: (30)

A lot better than this I guess. I don't get it though, weather they stick out a little bit or a lot, it just does not look cool.




Who the **** want's to see that ****?
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

levnubhin

iTrader: (30)

That's just as trashy, but how often do you really see that compared to some fake gangster with his boxers hanging out?
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

Vashthestampede

iTrader: (17)

I usually find that its the thicker bunch that tend to wear their pants like ------s. I don't care what the excuse, pull your ******* pants up and put on a belt you fat ****.

pdexta

iTrader: (17)

I always thought it would be a good idea to force a vasectomy/hysterectomy to anyone with children that receives welfare benefits. Obviously if you can't pay for 1, you don't need any more.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Yup. I'm not sure what percentage qualifies as "vast majority" per se, but you're probably right. And as to the remaining (and aforementioned) "bottom 10%", those are the ones you have to send to the camps.


You seem to be presupposing that fascism is entirely without redeeming qualities. One of the core tenets of pure fascism is social Darwinism, which I don't entirely disagree with.


Godwin's Law!

But seriously, there's a difference between striving for a homogeneous, conformist society (Borg, *****, Canada, etc) and merely placing limits on the right to procreate based upon one's ability (financial and mental/social) to raise and support a child. We already place limitations upon a person's right to be alive (capital punishment) so I really don't see how placing limitations on a person's right to create additional life is any different.

JasonC SBB

You are only saying that because you feel your are way above the bottom 10%. Again you are talking about violating individual rights. If the system allows 51% to violate the rights of the bottom 10%, then you have a slippery slope. Again I say that a system of freedom is not perfect and will not produce utopia, but it is a damn sight better than a system where government has the power to violate my individual rights arbitrarily.

It is probably a human tendency to want to control those they feel are "beneath them". However it means that those "above" you will do the same to you. Imagine what the top .01% think...

This country became wealthy in no small part due to the philosophy of freedom put in by the Founders. When people are free, they flourish. Alas it is continually under attack.

I still say the incorrigibly lazy / scummy will be far less than 10%. Most of the bottom 10% will quickly shape up if they are not given handouts. In a system where the economy is productive, the basic necessities of life will be cheap even for the bottom 10%. For the <<1% who turn to criminality, that's what the justice system is for.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Depends on your point of view.

We (the people) deprive a small segment of the population of their individual liberties every day. We convict criminals of crimes, incarcerate them, and strip them of freedoms and rights that are guaranteed to every man in the founding documents of the republic. Some we eventually forgive, some we deprive for life (which is really no different than depriving of life, IMO) and others we outright kill.

It's really just a more complex version of Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

There's no such thing as liberty and justice for all, sadly. And I don't mean that ironically or metaphorically, it is in fact a true paradox. By definition, justice for all means liberty for only some.




Again, it's a matter of degrees. I'm proposing (again, as the Devil's advocate) that we kill the bottom 10% of our population, or at least send them to a work camp. That would have little to no negative impact on society, the economy etc., since those folks weren't contributing to begin with.


By contrast, it would be impractical for the "upper 0.01%" to kill the "bottom 99.99%", since there'd be nobody left to grow the food, build the houses, generate the electrical power, mow the lawns, drive the limos, dance around the brass poles, etc.

Now, if you're merely talking about the top 0.01% seizing absolute power, then I don't see this as a bad thing so long as they were sufficiently self-regulating as to cleanse their own ranks of the occasional bad egg as well. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what I was proposing in the first place when I condoned aristocratic governance. I grant you, a truly benevolent oligarchical government has never been known to survive in the past. But then, neither has a democracy, at least in the long-term.


Perhaps, but why take chances? Surgeons always excise some healthy tissue around the tumor. Sucks for the healthy tissue, but best for the body as a whole.


Now that's just uncharacteristically naive for you. In every civilized society with a free-market economy there have always been the poor- those folks who are simply too damn lazy/stupid/retarded to provide for their own sustenance, regardless of whether or not social welfare programs exist for their benefit. It was the case in the US in the late 1700s, it is the case today, and it will always be the case so long as free will (and sufficient genetic diversity) exist in the absence of a centrally planned economy. Anyone who believes otherwise need only visit some of my relatives in the Appalachian Mountains region.

JasonC SBB

Correct, but you missed the latter part of the sentence "Individuals are free, provided they don't violate any other individual's rights". Criminals violate others' individual rights and thus the justice system can violate theirs, in order to keep them from repeating their crimes. There is a school of thought that criminals should first be made to repay the victims ("make them whole again"), as opposed to being punished (e.g. incarcerated). But that's a different topic.

That is collectivism and the idea goes back to Plato. It is flawed. Here is a neat video about collectivism and its problems:
YouTube - DVD Version INTRO Individualism vs Collectivism
And if you're truly interested I can send you a 100 page book that goes into more detail, with analysis of historical events to support the thesis.

I have also been studying the philosophies of many of the great thinkers, and the philosophies behind fascism, Socialism, and liberty. I can tell you unequivocally, that all forms of collectivism are rooted in elitism. The exception was Marx - but his understanding of Capitalism was fundamentally flawed, and he spawned Fabian Socialism, which teaches that the elite must spread Socialism among the masses in order to control them, so that they can keep their wealth and their power... again back to elitism. It is ironic that the practical system that actually creates the most common good is Individual Liberty, which doesn't put "the common good" ahead of individual liberty. For as individuals are allowed to better themselves as they see fit, society improves.

I think you have a different definition of justice than I have, which makes you say this.

And again, that is collectivism, which is a slippery slope that leads to totalitarianism and inimical to liberty. I'm convinced liberty is the best practical system.


It is a bad thing IF the way they maintain power is to strip our liberty just so they can maintain their power. And, given the nature of the human race, this .01% are NOT interested in the welfare of the human race, but only interested in maintaining their power. (I'm talking again about the book I linked, Snakes in Suits. I am convinced that liberty allows humans to flourish, so that if the .01% stifles liberty they are stifling human progress.

No, I think it's that a benevolent oligarchy cannot exist. It's simply because power-hungry people will tend to be evil. (see book again). The more power you allow government, the more it will be a magnet for the worst, most immoral members of society, which is what a Kakistocracy is.

Here's an important concept: Democracy is the god that failed. The Founders of this country hated democracy because it meant the majority can abuse the minority. And then a government that can take on more and more power "in the name of the majority" will devolve into an oligarchy. A hidden oligarchy can take it over and grow its power in the name of "the common good", misleading the public to get its way.

See above about collectivism. It's not "taking chances" to simply phase out gov't handouts. It's not like the world is gonna end if this experiment is performed. And we are all individuals, each with powers of reason and with emotions. We are not merely cells, and we are not the Borg.

What's your definition of "poor"? The "poor" in this country are fat and own TV's. The poor in many other countries eat once a day and **** in a hole in the ground. Should we subsidize the bottom 10% in this country so they may have a cellphone and a better car? Now tell me, why should the bottom 10% of the "working poor" in this country pay income taxes? Wouldn't it make more sense to get rid of both their income tax and welfare? That is but one example of the schizophrenic approach of government.

Again <<1% cannot work to sustain themselves. Not 10%. That <<1% can easily be handled by a 1% tax or even by private charity. Note that it is when times are good, that private donations are up.

False, technology has made it much more affordable for the bottom 10% of earners to feed themselves. Technology has made food and clothing much cheaper in terms of wages of the botom 10%. A burger flipper can buy a meal with < 1 hr of his wages. In 1960, one farmer in the US could produce enough people to feed 25 people. Today it's 130.

Free will, freedom, and free trade makes everyone better off. Specialization and division of labor means that all individuals become more efficient at what they do or produce. Economic freedom means that people are rewarded for being productive, and it's a win-win for the individual and society. It makes everything cheaper. Central planning will never outproduce a free market. Even one of the heroes of Socialism, Robert Heilbroner, has admitted this in 1990. Central planning was an abject failure in the USSR and Communist China. The reason is simple. In a free market, the individuals whose money is on the line will each make a decision that is best for themselves. A bureaucrat who doesn't have his own money on the line cannot outsmart that decision making prowess of millions of minds.