Many of those people that would lose jobs due to "Green" legislation against the oil and coal industry are older people who wouldn't be considered for jobs in alternative energy fields because they aren't as "tech savy" as younger college educated applicants.
That's capitalism
HAHA No it is NOT! If jobs are lost due to the Government taking those jobs and companies away, that is NOT a true Capitalist Free Maket at all.
If we keep enticing people by lowering their taxes, how are we going to pay for anything any more? That money has to come from somewhere. That was one of the central arguments about S-CHIP.
we dont NEED S-CHIP. healthcare is not a right. a right does not need to be funded by anyone else. when i speak freely it does not take away money (or anything) from you. government healthcare does take away from others.
if you read my last post at all you would see they were not permanent cuts.
and why would i want to continue to fund a wasteful, continuely more socialist, controlling government anyway?
If we keep enticing people by lowering their taxes, how are we going to pay for anything any more? That money has to come from somewhere. That was one of the central arguments about S-CHIP.
we dont NEED S-CHIP. healthcare is not a right. a right does not need to be funded by anyone else. when i speak freely it does not take away money (or anything) from you. government healthcare does take away from others.
if you read my last post at all you would see they were not permanent cuts.
and why would i want to continue to fund a wasteful, continuely more socialist, controlling government anyway?
Stop funding it... but you'll have to forego all the protections provided to you by that government.... and our society has progressed to the point that access to healthcare should be a fundamental right.
Many of those people that would lose jobs due to "Green" legislation against the oil and coal industry are older people who wouldn't be considered for jobs in alternative energy fields because they aren't as "tech savy" as younger college educated applicants.
That's capitalism
HAHA No it is NOT! If jobs are lost due to the Government taking those jobs and companies away, that is NOT a true Capitalist Free Maket at all.
Sure it is.. you're now confusing capitalism with anarchy.
If we keep enticing people by lowering their taxes, how are we going to pay for anything any more? That money has to come from somewhere. That was one of the central arguments about S-CHIP.
we dont NEED S-CHIP. healthcare is not a right. a right does not need to be funded by anyone else. when i speak freely it does not take away money (or anything) from you. government healthcare does take away from others.
if you read my last post at all you would see they were not permanent cuts.
and why would i want to continue to fund a wasteful, continuely more socialist, controlling government anyway?
Stop funding it... but you'll have to forego all the protections provided to you by that government.... and our society has progressed to the point that access to healthcare should be a fundamental right.
it is clear to me that you have no Idea what a "fundamental right" is. you infringe on my right to keep what i earn by taking that money from me. then you give it to someone who is not as productive as me and is now a drain on the system and tell me it is their right to mooch off of MY success? that is the biggest crock i have ever heard, not to mention flat out communist. " from each according to their ability, to each according to their need " IS communist. how do you not see that?
Many of those people that would lose jobs due to "Green" legislation against the oil and coal industry are older people who wouldn't be considered for jobs in alternative energy fields because they aren't as "tech savy" as younger college educated applicants.
That's capitalism
HAHA No it is NOT! If jobs are lost due to the Government taking those jobs and companies away, that is NOT a true Capitalist Free Maket at all.
Sure it is.. you're now confusing capitalism with anarchy.
you are confusing capitalism with government control. anarchy has no system. Capitalism does. you just want the government to tell everyone how to live. I dont.
If we keep enticing people by lowering their taxes, how are we going to pay for anything any more? That money has to come from somewhere. That was one of the central arguments about S-CHIP.
we dont NEED S-CHIP. healthcare is not a right. a right does not need to be funded by anyone else. when i speak freely it does not take away money (or anything) from you. government healthcare does take away from others.
if you read my last post at all you would see they were not permanent cuts.
and why would i want to continue to fund a wasteful, continuely more socialist, controlling government anyway?
Stop funding it... but you'll have to forego all the protections provided to you by that government.... and our society has progressed to the point that access to healthcare should be a fundamental right.
it is clear to me that you have no Idea what a "fundamental right" is. you infringe on my right to keep what i earn by taking that money from me. then you give it to someone who is not as productive as me and is now a drain on the system and tell me it is their right to mooch off of MY success? that is the biggest crock i have ever heard, not to mention flat out communist. " from each according to their ability, to each according to their need " IS communist. how do you not see that?
no... it is your right to participate in this society as a productive community that will protect its citizens... and it is your right to leave it
Many of those people that would lose jobs due to "Green" legislation against the oil and coal industry are older people who wouldn't be considered for jobs in alternative energy fields because they aren't as "tech savy" as younger college educated applicants.
That's capitalism
HAHA No it is NOT! If jobs are lost due to the Government taking those jobs and companies away, that is NOT a true Capitalist Free Maket at all.
Sure it is.. you're now confusing capitalism with anarchy.
you are confusing capitalism with government control. anarchy has no system. Capitalism does. you just want the government to tell everyone how to live. I dont.
I never said government control was inherently capitalist.. However, I am saying that capitalism is a system for running a market within the constraints of its government, and as a contributing (funding) member of that system
If we keep enticing people by lowering their taxes, how are we going to pay for anything any more? That money has to come from somewhere. That was one of the central arguments about S-CHIP.
we dont NEED S-CHIP. healthcare is not a right. a right does not need to be funded by anyone else. when i speak freely it does not take away money (or anything) from you. government healthcare does take away from others.
if you read my last post at all you would see they were not permanent cuts.
and why would i want to continue to fund a wasteful, continuely more socialist, controlling government anyway?
Stop funding it... but you'll have to forego all the protections provided to you by that government.... and our society has progressed to the point that access to healthcare should be a fundamental right.
it is clear to me that you have no Idea what a "fundamental right" is. you infringe on my right to keep what i earn by taking that money from me. then you give it to someone who is not as productive as me and is now a drain on the system and tell me it is their right to mooch off of MY success? that is the biggest crock i have ever heard, not to mention flat out communist. " from each according to their ability, to each according to their need " IS communist. how do you not see that?
no... it is your right to participate in this society as a productive community that will protect its citizens... and it is your right to leave it
Now our only rights are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rightsand only these.
Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you wantnot to be given it without effort by somebody else.
The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
Many of those people that would lose jobs due to "Green" legislation against the oil and coal industry are older people who wouldn't be considered for jobs in alternative energy fields because they aren't as "tech savy" as younger college educated applicants.
That's capitalism
HAHA No it is NOT! If jobs are lost due to the Government taking those jobs and companies away, that is NOT a true Capitalist Free Maket at all.
Sure it is.. you're now confusing capitalism with anarchy.
No, the government taking jobs away is NOT an aspect of a capitalist society. If you think it is you need to revisit the definition of Capitalism.
cap·i·tal·ism (kap'i-tl-iz'?m) Pronunciation Key
n. An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Capitalism
Many of those people that would lose jobs due to "Green" legislation against the oil and coal industry are older people who wouldn't be considered for jobs in alternative energy fields because they aren't as "tech savy" as younger college educated applicants.
That's capitalism
HAHA No it is NOT! If jobs are lost due to the Government taking those jobs and companies away, that is NOT a true Capitalist Free Maket at all.
Sure it is.. you're now confusing capitalism with anarchy.
No, the government taking jobs away is NOT an aspect of a capitalist society. If you think it is you need to revisit the definition of Capitalism.
cap·i·tal·ism (kap'i-tl-iz'?m) Pronunciation Key
n. An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Capitalism
the government isn't taking jobs away. Those private enterprises see that conditions have changed, and choose to lay off those workers, or to stop doing that business.
If we keep enticing people by lowering their taxes, how are we going to pay for anything any more? That money has to come from somewhere. That was one of the central arguments about S-CHIP.
we dont NEED S-CHIP. healthcare is not a right. a right does not need to be funded by anyone else. when i speak freely it does not take away money (or anything) from you. government healthcare does take away from others.
if you read my last post at all you would see they were not permanent cuts.
and why would i want to continue to fund a wasteful, continuely more socialist, controlling government anyway?
Stop funding it... but you'll have to forego all the protections provided to you by that government.... and our society has progressed to the point that access to healthcare should be a fundamental right.
it is clear to me that you have no Idea what a "fundamental right" is. you infringe on my right to keep what i earn by taking that money from me. then you give it to someone who is not as productive as me and is now a drain on the system and tell me it is their right to mooch off of MY success? that is the biggest crock i have ever heard, not to mention flat out communist. " from each according to their ability, to each according to their need " IS communist. how do you not see that?
no... it is your right to participate in this society as a productive community that will protect its citizens... and it is your right to leave it
Now our only rights are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rightsand only these.
Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you wantnot to be given it without effort by somebody else.
The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
golly, I thought all the legal drivers in the United States had the right to use our freeway system. I thought all our citizens were entitled to the protections of our law enforcement system. I thought everybody had the right to use the postal system.
Many of those people that would lose jobs due to "Green" legislation against the oil and coal industry are older people who wouldn't be considered for jobs in alternative energy fields because they aren't as "tech savy" as younger college educated applicants.
That's capitalism
HAHA No it is NOT! If jobs are lost due to the Government taking those jobs and companies away, that is NOT a true Capitalist Free Maket at all.
Sure it is.. you're now confusing capitalism with anarchy.
No, the government taking jobs away is NOT an aspect of a capitalist society. If you think it is you need to revisit the definition of Capitalism.
cap·i·tal·ism (kap'i-tl-iz'?m) Pronunciation Key
n. An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Capitalism
the government isn't taking jobs away. Those private enterprises see that conditions have changed, and choose to lay off those workers, or to stop doing that business.
No, they can't afford to stay in business because the government is taxing the until they are broke.... The "conditions" that changed are 100% due to Government interference... That is a "government-controlled economy." That is NOT a capitalist society. You are basically admiting that this is true but you are omitting the fact that the government is the reason for the changes in conditions.
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
Franklen (im almost 100% sure it was him) made a statement to the effect of "once people figure out that they can vote themselves more money it is the beginning of the end"
and what ever happened to "think globally act locally" ?
individuals make up the entire bucket. without them there is nothing in the bucket. not one drop.
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
But by definition, it is not a true capitalist market if that takes place. Those lost jobs are because of the government. No matter who puts that government in power.
i really am gunna stop posting on this thread today.
Kuzi said he was going to stop posting to this thread... and then he has gone on posting. Just like a politician.
you just lived up to politician status as well. taking cheap shots at you opponent.
Just a joke, Kuzi.. settle down... it was also to point out, really in response to the "Hypocrite" thread, that circumstances constantly change and warrant deviation from plans which have previously been laid.
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
But by definition, it is not a true capitalist market if that takes place. Those lost jobs are because of the government. No matter who puts that government in power.
again.. your version of "capitalism" would necessitate anarchy
If we keep enticing people by lowering their taxes, how are we going to pay for anything any more? That money has to come from somewhere. That was one of the central arguments about S-CHIP.
we dont NEED S-CHIP. healthcare is not a right. a right does not need to be funded by anyone else. when i speak freely it does not take away money (or anything) from you. government healthcare does take away from others.
if you read my last post at all you would see they were not permanent cuts.
and why would i want to continue to fund a wasteful, continuely more socialist, controlling government anyway?
Stop funding it... but you'll have to forego all the protections provided to you by that government.... and our society has progressed to the point that access to healthcare should be a fundamental right.
it is clear to me that you have no Idea what a "fundamental right" is. you infringe on my right to keep what i earn by taking that money from me. then you give it to someone who is not as productive as me and is now a drain on the system and tell me it is their right to mooch off of MY success? that is the biggest crock i have ever heard, not to mention flat out communist. " from each according to their ability, to each according to their need " IS communist. how do you not see that?
no... it is your right to participate in this society as a productive community that will protect its citizens... and it is your right to leave it
Now our only rights are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rightsand only these.
Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you wantnot to be given it without effort by somebody else.
The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
golly, I thought all the legal drivers in the United States had the right to use our freeway system. I thought all our citizens were entitled to the protections of our law enforcement system. I thought everybody had the right to use the postal system.
Actually the Postal System is not a right. Go to the post office and tell them you want to mail a letter, (or better yet tell them you want to send me all your cigars! hehe) but then tell them you don't want to pay postage... That is not a right, it is a privlage to be able to pay for their service.
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
But by definition, it is not a true capitalist market if that takes place. Those lost jobs are because of the government. No matter who puts that government in power.
again.. your version of "capitalism" would necessitate anarchy
No sir, I believe in rules and laws, as you know that is kind of key in my profession, but I don't believe in Government taking legal jobs from law abiding citizens under bogus banner of "Saving our Planet." My version of capitalism is not anywhere near anarchy. You are just using that word to make me sound like an extremist.
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
Franklen (im almost 100% sure it was him) made a statement to the effect of "once people figure out that they can vote themselves more money it is the beginning of the end"
and what ever happened to "think globally act locally" ?
individuals make up the entire bucket. without them there is nothing in the bucket. not one drop.
yes... but countless examples on a large and small scale have shown that people will act in their individual best interests at the current time, even consciously against what they recognize as their own best interests in the future. If even one person acts in this manner, it sets of a chain reaction thwarting all progress.
If we keep enticing people by lowering their taxes, how are we going to pay for anything any more? That money has to come from somewhere. That was one of the central arguments about S-CHIP.
we dont NEED S-CHIP. healthcare is not a right. a right does not need to be funded by anyone else. when i speak freely it does not take away money (or anything) from you. government healthcare does take away from others.
if you read my last post at all you would see they were not permanent cuts.
and why would i want to continue to fund a wasteful, continuely more socialist, controlling government anyway?
Stop funding it... but you'll have to forego all the protections provided to you by that government.... and our society has progressed to the point that access to healthcare should be a fundamental right.
it is clear to me that you have no Idea what a "fundamental right" is. you infringe on my right to keep what i earn by taking that money from me. then you give it to someone who is not as productive as me and is now a drain on the system and tell me it is their right to mooch off of MY success? that is the biggest crock i have ever heard, not to mention flat out communist. " from each according to their ability, to each according to their need " IS communist. how do you not see that?
no... it is your right to participate in this society as a productive community that will protect its citizens... and it is your right to leave it
Now our only rights are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rightsand only these.
Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you wantnot to be given it without effort by somebody else.
The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
golly, I thought all the legal drivers in the United States had the right to use our freeway system. I thought all our citizens were entitled to the protections of our law enforcement system. I thought everybody had the right to use the postal system.
Actually the Postal System is not a right. Go to the post office and tell them you want to mail a letter, (or better yet tell them you want to send me all your cigars! hehe) but then tell them you don't want to pay postage... That is not a right, it is a privlage to be able to pay for their service.
where did I say healthcare, as a fundamental right, would be free?
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
But by definition, it is not a true capitalist market if that takes place. Those lost jobs are because of the government. No matter who puts that government in power.
again.. your version of "capitalism" would necessitate anarchy
No sir, I believe in rules and laws, as you know that is kind of key in my profession, but I don't believe in Government taking legal jobs from law abiding citizens under bogus banner of "Saving our Planet." My version of capitalism is not anywhere near anarchy. You are just using that word to make me sound like an extremist.
almost like you've been throwing around the world "socialism" to make me sound like an extremist
I said that the government wouldn't fire anybody. They are only passing and enforcing laws. If those entities choose to exit the business, that is their own independent choice.
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
But by definition, it is not a true capitalist market if that takes place. Those lost jobs are because of the government. No matter who puts that government in power.
again.. your version of "capitalism" would necessitate anarchy
No sir, I believe in rules and laws, as you know that is kind of key in my profession, but I don't believe in Government taking legal jobs from law abiding citizens under bogus banner of "Saving our Planet." My version of capitalism is not anywhere near anarchy. You are just using that word to make me sound like an extremist.
almost like you've been throwing around the world "socialism" to make me sound like an extremist
I said that the government wouldn't fire anybody. They are only passing and enforcing laws. If those entities choose to exit the business, that is their own independent choice.
but what you proposing IS socialist in nature. take from those who can and give to those who cannot and say it is their right to have that stuff. that IS Socialism. capitalism still has rules, but it isnt any part og taking over business or taking increasingly more from the people.
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
But by definition, it is not a true capitalist market if that takes place. Those lost jobs are because of the government. No matter who puts that government in power.
again.. your version of "capitalism" would necessitate anarchy
No sir, I believe in rules and laws, as you know that is kind of key in my profession, but I don't believe in Government taking legal jobs from law abiding citizens under bogus banner of "Saving our Planet." My version of capitalism is not anywhere near anarchy. You are just using that word to make me sound like an extremist.
almost like you've been throwing around the world "socialism" to make me sound like an extremist
I said that the government wouldn't fire anybody. They are only passing and enforcing laws. If those entities choose to exit the business, that is their own independent choice.
Those laws would be based on what many believe is a hoax. Also, socialism isn't used as an extremist term, if I wanted to sound extremist I would use "Communist" or "Facist." Socialism is a world wide form of government. Anarchy is a totally different thing and in no way represents my view of capitalism.
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
But by definition, it is not a true capitalist market if that takes place. Those lost jobs are because of the government. No matter who puts that government in power.
again.. your version of "capitalism" would necessitate anarchy
No sir, I believe in rules and laws, as you know that is kind of key in my profession, but I don't believe in Government taking legal jobs from law abiding citizens under bogus banner of "Saving our Planet." My version of capitalism is not anywhere near anarchy. You are just using that word to make me sound like an extremist.
almost like you've been throwing around the world "socialism" to make me sound like an extremist
I said that the government wouldn't fire anybody. They are only passing and enforcing laws. If those entities choose to exit the business, that is their own independent choice.
but what you proposing IS socialist in nature. take from those who can and give to those who cannot and say it is their right to have that stuff. that IS Socialism. capitalism still has rules, but it isnt any part og taking over business or taking increasingly more from the people.
just like all those people who don't pay taxes still being protected by our law enforcement agencies?
and that government was put in place by the people that participate in that free market. Through their vote, they have made clear their intention to improve the environment, and put people in office who will make this happen. Relying on individuals to do this always fails, because people think that their drop in the bucket won't make a difference one way or the other. That's where the government comes in. We elect a government which makes and enforces rules. If we don't like the rules, we install a new government. We, the people, have decided it will be so.
But by definition, it is not a true capitalist market if that takes place. Those lost jobs are because of the government. No matter who puts that government in power.
again.. your version of "capitalism" would necessitate anarchy
No sir, I believe in rules and laws, as you know that is kind of key in my profession, but I don't believe in Government taking legal jobs from law abiding citizens under bogus banner of "Saving our Planet." My version of capitalism is not anywhere near anarchy. You are just using that word to make me sound like an extremist.
almost like you've been throwing around the world "socialism" to make me sound like an extremist
I said that the government wouldn't fire anybody. They are only passing and enforcing laws. If those entities choose to exit the business, that is their own independent choice.
Those laws would be based on what many believe is a hoax. Also, socialism isn't used as an extremist term, if I wanted to sound extremist I would use "Communist" or "Facist." Socialism is a world wide form of government. Anarchy is a totally different thing and in no way represents my view of capitalism.
"what many believe is a hoax" -- but not the majority of qualified scientists.
Comments
if you read my last post at all you would see they were not permanent cuts.
and why would i want to continue to fund a wasteful, continuely more socialist, controlling government anyway?
till another day
Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you wantnot to be given it without effort by somebody else.
The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.
I dont voluntarily agree http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5123
cap·i·tal·ism (kap'i-tl-iz'?m) Pronunciation Key n. An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Capitalism
and what ever happened to "think globally act locally" ?
individuals make up the entire bucket. without them there is nothing in the bucket. not one drop.
I said that the government wouldn't fire anybody. They are only passing and enforcing laws. If those entities choose to exit the business, that is their own independent choice.