Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   

Your Ad Here

Gas Prices
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conservative Corner
Author Message
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:

exton wrote:
Do we let them die?
I wouldn't be opposed to it, personally.

I'm not suggesting that we do nothing to help those who are truly in need, I'm stating that (A) the constitution does not empower the federal government to do it for us, (B) I do not think they should force anyone to help others by taking the money one person earns and giving it to someone else, and (c) I do not believe the government is the best actor in this space.


So, you think some *other* group of people should do the helping?

Quote:

Lastly, whether we're talking about people who are actively avoiding work or people who aren't willing to overcome the hurdles they perceive between themselves and gainful employment only matters insofar as we may want to take reasonable actions to help them overcome said hurdles. If it helps you to think of them as situationally rather than inherently lazy, fine.


What do you think a reasonable social program entails? That's exactly what i'm suggesting: help them overcome their hurdles.

And you should keep in mind that psychological barriers are every bit as debilitating as physical ones.

Quote:

exton wrote:

Those who would let them die of poverty. Live homeless. Taht sort of thing.

That presumes that nothing they did, no choice they made, was instrumental in putting them in the situation in which they live. I don't buy that, and I doubt you do either.


It presumes no such thing.

I'm not a social darwinist - i don't think we are required to ignore people's needs merely on account of the fact that their hardships are, to one degree or another, self-inflicted.

Whether or not someone deserves help is not a matter of whether or not their problems derive from their own behavior; it's a matter of whether or not they are able and willing to fix the problem when given help, and learn from it.

It's people who commit the same mistake many times that are a problem.

Quote:

exton wrote:

No. The market determines what other people are willing to give you for your services. It does not measure how much your services actually contribute to the well-being of society.

News flash: Other people are society.


Yes. And?

Read what i said: The market determines what other people are willing to give you for your services. It does not measure how much your services actually contribute to the well-being of society.

There is a substantial difference between those two things.

Quote:

Sorry, I can't let that slide. You can't get to where progressives want to take society without doing serious damage to liberty. Period. That's why I'm a libertarian. I'd love to live in a world where nobody loses, but this isn't that world, and the reality is that when you play God with safety nets for people who make bad choices you merely enable those bad choices; you get more of what caused the problems by removing the negative consequences for those making those choices. In the end, you have to be willing to let life be life; warts and all. You have to be willing to let people fail, in order to challenge the maximum number to succeed.


You've never actually asked how i would have us accomplish these ends.

You're assuming that a society composed of needless people must necessarily keep people needless by redistributing large amounts of wealth.

That's only true if there isn't enough wealth to go around.

The idea (or, my idea) isn't to force a solution into existence using the resources we already have; the idea is to reduce the scarcity of resources to the point that no one needs to go without.

The solution is both technological and sociological in nature; we need a society less tolerant of waste, and the technology to recycle our resources better. A lot better.

It's basically a matter of lowering the cost of living.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 524
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
TrespassersW wrote:

exton wrote:
Do we let them die?
I wouldn't be opposed to it, personally.

I'm not suggesting that we do nothing to help those who are truly in need, I'm stating that (A) the constitution does not empower the federal government to do it for us, (B) I do not think they should force anyone to help others by taking the money one person earns and giving it to someone else, and (c) I do not believe the government is the best actor in this space.

So, you think some *other* group of people should do the helping?

Clever, but hopefully you're smart enough to recognize that that is not what I wrote. It isn't about whether I personally would help; it's about whether or not the government should confiscate my wages and do it for me. But yes, if I want to choose to be Ebenezer Scrooge, that should be my choice.

exton wrote:
Quote:
Lastly, whether we're talking about people who are actively avoiding work or people who aren't willing to overcome the hurdles they perceive between themselves and gainful employment only matters insofar as we may want to take reasonable actions to help them overcome said hurdles. If it helps you to think of them as situationally rather than inherently lazy, fine.

What do you think a reasonable social program entails? That's exactly what i'm suggesting: help them overcome their hurdles.

If we were talking about a state program here where I live (and not a federal one, because I don't believe they should be involved, know they lack authority to be involve, and am convinced they can't do it right) I would start from day one in school evaluating children to ascertain their aptitudes and then target programs to each to help them maximize the level to which they realize their personal potential. I would combine this with an ongoing focus on civics, personal responsibility and the real-world consequences of failing to make good choices and work hard. Then I'd let the chips fall where they may.

exton wrote:
Whether or not someone deserves help is not a matter of whether or not their problems derive from their own behavior...

You're arguing about whether they deserve help. I'm not. I'm arguing as to what actually constitutes meaningful help. Welfare programs that simply mask the consequences from which these people would learn do not help them; such programs simply perpetuate the bad situation these people are in. That isn't help. That's harming them in the name of helping them, and I'm dead set against it.

exton wrote:
Read what i said: The market determines what other people are willing to give you for your services. It does not measure how much your services actually contribute to the well-being of society.
There is a substantial difference between those two things.

Yes, I read that the first time. I disagreed with it then, and still do. I submit that a fundamental flaw in your view of society is tied to your belief that these are substantially different.

exton wrote:
You're assuming that a society composed of needless people must necessarily keep people needless by redistributing large amounts of wealth.

No, I'm stating that current government efforts to help the poor are not the best we can do for these people.

exton wrote:
That's only true if there isn't enough wealth to go around.

The idea (or, my idea) isn't to force a solution into existence using the resources we already have; the idea is to reduce the scarcity of resources to the point that no one needs to go without.

The solution is both technological and sociological in nature; we need a society less tolerant of waste, and the technology to recycle our resources better. A lot better.

It's basically a matter of lowering the cost of living.

If that's your goal, then you should support reducing taxes and freeing people and business to thrive. A rising tide lifts all boats. It seems to me that progressives want the government to drain the ocean and then disburse the salt water to each according to his or her needs. That may not be what you want, but if you think more government, or more government redistribution of income is the answer, you're just wrong.

The more government confiscates the results of effort, the less incentive their is for effort. The less effort; the less resources for the government to confiscate. France seems to have learned this lesson. (We'll have to watch for the next few years and see.) I'd hate to wait until the US has double-digit unemployment for progressives here to learn it. (But in my experience, the one thing progressives don't do well is learn.)
Back to top
joeyjock
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 554
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So I'm assuming you're all for the oil companies making more money since the history of the world for two consecutive s while you're likely to pay over 4 dollars a gallon by the end of the summer...... ?????
Back to top
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2071

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
joeyjock wrote:
So I'm assuming you're all for the oil companies making more money since the history of the world for two consecutive s while you're likely to pay over 4 dollars a gallon by the end of the summer...... ?????


the end of summer...haha you mean the middle of june. it is 3.45 right now.

the refineries are making $.70 a gallon.
Back to top
brandal
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 548
Location: NC

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jusdeadphunky wrote:
joeyjock wrote:
So I'm assuming you're all for the oil companies making more money since the history of the world for two consecutive s while you're likely to pay over 4 dollars a gallon by the end of the summer...... ?????


the end of summer...haha you mean the middle of june. it is 3.45 right now.

the refineries are making $.70 a gallon.


the gov is making more than that.

lester would be proud
Back to top
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2071

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
brandal wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
joeyjock wrote:
So I'm assuming you're all for the oil companies making more money since the history of the world for two consecutive s while you're likely to pay over 4 dollars a gallon by the end of the summer...... ?????


the end of summer...haha you mean the middle of june. it is 3.45 right now.

the refineries are making $.70 a gallon.


the gov is making more than that.

lester would be proud


at this point i want the government to make all of it. fuck the oil companies, if i were president i would issue a presidential decree that if the oil companies did not stop making record profits with in 1 quarter, i was nationalizing, and i would put a stipulation in there that they can not disguise profit, as they are doing now, by buying up their own shares instead of building refineries. capitalism and corporate ownership of our government has crossed way beyond the line in regards to the oil companies.
Back to top
brandal
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 548
Location: NC

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jusdeadphunky wrote:
brandal wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
joeyjock wrote:
So I'm assuming you're all for the oil companies making more money since the history of the world for two consecutive s while you're likely to pay over 4 dollars a gallon by the end of the summer...... ?????


the end of summer...haha you mean the middle of june. it is 3.45 right now.

the refineries are making $.70 a gallon.


the gov is making more than that.

lester would be proud


at this point i want the government to make all of it. fuck the oil companies, if i were president i would issue a presidential decree that if the oil companies did not stop making record profits with in 1 quarter, i was nationalizing, and i would put a stipulation in there that they can not disguise profit, as they are doing now, by buying up their own shares instead of building refineries. capitalism and corporate ownership of our government has crossed way beyond the line in regards to the oil companies.


my (a few balloons shy of a full C02 tank) friend. you do realize that what you are calling for is socialism, even if you just held it to this one industry your soul is still sold even if just a portion.
Back to top
fellfire
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 470
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
brandal wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
brandal wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
joeyjock wrote:
So I'm assuming you're all for the oil companies making more money since the history of the world for two consecutive s while you're likely to pay over 4 dollars a gallon by the end of the summer...... ?????


the end of summer...haha you mean the middle of june. it is 3.45 right now.

the refineries are making $.70 a gallon.


the gov is making more than that.

lester would be proud


at this point i want the government to make all of it. fuck the oil companies, if i were president i would issue a presidential decree that if the oil companies did not stop making record profits with in 1 quarter, i was nationalizing, and i would put a stipulation in there that they can not disguise profit, as they are doing now, by buying up their own shares instead of building refineries. capitalism and corporate ownership of our government has crossed way beyond the line in regards to the oil companies.


my (a few balloons shy of a full C02 tank) friend. you do realize that what you are calling for is socialism, even if you just held it to this one industry your soul is still sold even if just a portion.


Let capitalism do the job instead. The goverment should plan on building a publically funded oil refinery. Big Oil is claiming the gas price fluctuations are not because of oil prices, but due to gasoline refinery capacity; so the government offers to publically fund the refinery, thus being able to impact the supply/demand issues.

Once this gets going, Big Oil will step up quickly to build their own refineries because the last thing they want is the governemnt in their pond impact fuel prices.
Back to top
brandal
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 548
Location: NC

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:
brandal wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
brandal wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
joeyjock wrote:
So I'm assuming you're all for the oil companies making more money since the history of the world for two consecutive s while you're likely to pay over 4 dollars a gallon by the end of the summer...... ?????


the end of summer...haha you mean the middle of june. it is 3.45 right now.

the refineries are making $.70 a gallon.


the gov is making more than that.

lester would be proud


at this point i want the government to make all of it. fuck the oil companies, if i were president i would issue a presidential decree that if the oil companies did not stop making record profits with in 1 quarter, i was nationalizing, and i would put a stipulation in there that they can not disguise profit, as they are doing now, by buying up their own shares instead of building refineries. capitalism and corporate ownership of our government has crossed way beyond the line in regards to the oil companies.


my (a few balloons shy of a full C02 tank) friend. you do realize that what you are calling for is socialism, even if you just held it to this one industry your soul is still sold even if just a portion.


Let capitalism do the job instead. The goverment should plan on building a publically funded oil refinery. Big Oil is claiming the gas price fluctuations are not because of oil prices, but due to gasoline refinery capacity; so the government offers to publically fund the refinery, thus being able to impact the supply/demand issues.

Once this gets going, Big Oil will step up quickly to build their own refineries because the last thing they want is the governemnt in their pond impact fuel prices.


IF what your saying the cause is..is, then i like your effect.
Back to top
Turk
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 331

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
As a progressive, i can tell you unequivically that progressivism has nothing to do with scrapping freedoms.
Sure it does
Back to top
Turk
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 331

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Uhm...no. That's not what it means.

Progressivism is exactly what it sounds like: progress. Bettering society, and humankind as a whole. The idea is that living conditions aren't as good as they could be, and so we should improve things.

That's what progressivism is.
Bettering society by changing the sets of government limits of power, individual rights and freedoms.
How is that bettering society?
Back to top
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2071

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
brandal wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
brandal wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
joeyjock wrote:
So I'm assuming you're all for the oil companies making more money since the history of the world for two consecutive s while you're likely to pay over 4 dollars a gallon by the end of the summer...... ?????


the end of summer...haha you mean the middle of june. it is 3.45 right now.

the refineries are making $.70 a gallon.


the gov is making more than that.

lester would be proud


at this point i want the government to make all of it. fuck the oil companies, if i were president i would issue a presidential decree that if the oil companies did not stop making record profits with in 1 quarter, i was nationalizing, and i would put a stipulation in there that they can not disguise profit, as they are doing now, by buying up their own shares instead of building refineries. capitalism and corporate ownership of our government has crossed way beyond the line in regards to the oil companies.


my (a few balloons shy of a full C02 tank) friend. you do realize that what you are calling for is socialism, even if you just held it to this one industry your soul is still sold even if just a portion.


well yea...i do not adhere to believing a single ideology. i do not agree with socialism as a sole governing philosophy, but i do think that certain socialist elements should balance capitalism. i think that there are a lot of corporations that are out of control and it is not doing this country or the world any good.

the thing with oil is that right now with these record prices we are paying, there are several countries who are benefiting. in the u.s. it is a handful of people benefiting. russia is the shining example of this. nationalize the oil for both the benefit of every citizen in the country but also for the benefit of this government's economic prosperity.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3796

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
brandal wrote:
fellfire wrote:
brandal wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
brandal wrote:
jusdeadphunky wrote:
joeyjock wrote:
So I'm assuming you're all for the oil companies making more money since the history of the world for two consecutive s while you're likely to pay over 4 dollars a gallon by the end of the summer...... ?????


the end of summer...haha you mean the middle of june. it is 3.45 right now.

the refineries are making $.70 a gallon.


the gov is making more than that.

lester would be proud


at this point i want the government to make all of it. fuck the oil companies, if i were president i would issue a presidential decree that if the oil companies did not stop making record profits with in 1 quarter, i was nationalizing, and i would put a stipulation in there that they can not disguise profit, as they are doing now, by buying up their own shares instead of building refineries. capitalism and corporate ownership of our government has crossed way beyond the line in regards to the oil companies.


my (a few balloons shy of a full C02 tank) friend. you do realize that what you are calling for is socialism, even if you just held it to this one industry your soul is still sold even if just a portion.


Let capitalism do the job instead. The goverment should plan on building a publically funded oil refinery. Big Oil is claiming the gas price fluctuations are not because of oil prices, but due to gasoline refinery capacity; so the government offers to publically fund the refinery, thus being able to impact the supply/demand issues.

Once this gets going, Big Oil will step up quickly to build their own refineries because the last thing they want is the governemnt in their pond impact fuel prices.


IF what your saying the cause is..is, then i like your effect.


Thats whats called a horizontal monopoly, and is illegal, in the U.S.A. if not other places.

Basically a company controls all four tiers of production.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 524
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2007 6:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
joeyjock wrote:
So I'm assuming you're all for the oil companies making more money since the history of the world for two consecutive s while you're likely to pay over 4 dollars a gallon by the end of the summer...... ?????

If you're asking me whether I prefer to let the market set the price of gas or have the government do it, I'll go with the market.
Back to top
Turk
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 331

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
joeyjock wrote:
So I'm assuming you're all for the oil companies making more money since the history of the world for two consecutive s while you're likely to pay over 4 dollars a gallon by the end of the summer...... ?????

If you're asking me whether I prefer to let the market set the price of gas or have the government do it, I'll go with the market.

Why so the market can keep sodomizing the people over a gallon for gas ?
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Conservative Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics