Boeing has squat to do with making flying more economical for the masses. The AIRLINES do that. The passenger is NOT the customer of Boeing, the passenger is the customer of the airlines. It is the airlines that are the customer of Boeing.
Why advocate for big business aviation? Wouldn’t you prefer everyone get the proper training and license and do their own flying? I mean, why trust the airlines? Shouldn’t we all be self-reliant in transportation?
One of the reasons the Ancient Egyptian government engaged in large building projects was to keep people employed during the seasons when they weren’t engaged in agriculture. This provided a steady income for them during what would otherwise be slack time. Granted, it’s not the only possible solution to that problem but it worked well for thousands of years.
Second, one of the reasons Ancient Egyptians paid taxes (for them, it was taxes in kind) was to let the government stockpile food. Then during drought years, locust plagues, and crop failures the government would return these stocks to keep the people from starving. Again, not the only solution, but it worked well enough. I suppose everyone could have had their own private stockpiles but then everyone would have had to guard them privately which may have taken time and energy from other valuable pursuits.
I fail to see why the OP shouldn’t continue to seek work and wages more in line with what the OP thinks he is worth. Perhaps his skills are worth what he is asking but he simply hasn’t yet found someone who actually needs his services at this point in time.
You are basically the economic equivalent of a creationist. You defend pyramid building as a jobs program and think it increased the standard of living. You are too far gone to even engage at this point. Good luck to you.
That’s laughable. You believe utter childish nonsense. Arrogant drivel told to you by idiots.
Taxation isn’t theft. We live in a society, and as a society we’ve decided to do certain things and those things are not a crime committed upon you. If you don’t like the obligations that society has agreed to, work to change them or take your bitch ass to Somalia.
And whatever meager success a middling mind such as yours has been able to garner, is largely dependent on others. You’d most likely be a stinking dirt farmer, with a belly full of parasites, and a yard full of your children’s graves if not for the government. Your arrogance at thinking only the sweat of your brow is responsible for the good the government had done for you is pathetic.
Keep fuckin’ that chicken, you brave free citizen of the land, you.
Oh, and I just want to share a recent quote someone passed on to me last month:
Unless you live off the grid, raising, gathering, and hunting all your own food with tools you crafted with other tools you crafted and keep in your homemade home, YOU ARE NOT SELF-SUFFICIENT. Every one of your accomplishments is built on the back of someone else’s achievements, effort, and innovation. It’s called “civilization” and you should probably be thankful for it.
And even if you do live off the grid, all that knowledge you’re using to survive came out of somebody else’s head, so you’re still not self-sufficient. No human save a feral child ever was.
Here’s another one (from Heinlein’s Beyond This Horizon which hasn’t come up yet in Jonathan Chance’s long thread in Cafe Society yet and I rather wish it would):
The quote is part of a longer passage of a couple pages.
And then of course there’s also the dystopic counterpart of Star Trek with Damon Knight’s A for Anything when it comes to matter duplication. (Knight wrote the basic idea of his matter duplicator story most of a decade before Star Trek hit TV but apparently he thought that previous authors had handled the matter duplicator badly.) Not that I expect WillFarnaby to read Damon Knight, much less anything more complicated than a Ron Paul newsletter.
Because everyone should be required to purchase some sort of insurance in order to ensure that a helicopter will snatch them off their roof in the flood… Or else just be blown away in the storm because they didn’t purchase it. Or something.
I see something like that and I am horrified. A Libertarian sees something like that and will laugh. Or at best feel pity but still decide that was their choice and they deserved to have their belongings burnt to ashes because they made a bad choice.
When you’re done with that, read how this former Ron Paul delegate explains why he fled Libertarianism:
Compassionate Libertarianism is even more bullshit than the Compassionate Conservatism that was floated around a while back.
Fortunately, these people are ultimately harmless, pissing into the wind with a system which never has worked and never will work because it runs counter to human nature and even if it was implemented, they would be the first victims since they are not particularly wealthy or powerful.
Unfortunately, they could better ply their time not raising impotent fists and lazy arguments actually accomplishing something. If you’re so against the government supplying welfare and deem it a problem for charities, then a good Libertarian should consider - nay, it should be an obligation according to their own beliefs! - donating as much time and energy to charitable pursuits, clothing the needy, feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless so that the government doesn’t have to.
Oh, but that would require actually doing something more than sneering at people who are down on their luck, which we all can agree is way more satisfying to the Libertarian worldview.
I just thought I’d interject in the interest of fighting ignorance. “Objectivism”, which is the proper name for Ayn Rand’s economic and social philosophy, doesn’t realty care about whether “everyone” succeeds. It’s based off a belief that there is no “society” as a whole. Just lots of individuals exchanging goods and services with each other to maximize their own self interest. These interactions should be freely made, without the threat of force or other coercion. So in the case of the unfortunate OP, his misfortune does not give him the right to take money out of your pocket to feed his family, whether directly or using the government as a proxy.
And the airlines can only make greater profits by reducing their expenses (or raising fares to an extent). Namely fuel and maintenance for their fleet of airplanes. That is what drives Delta and United to purchases aircrafts from Boeing, Airbus or Bombardier.
I thought it was to make giant monuments to dead pharaohs.
Well, when he finds that person, he can quit his low-paying job and take the higher paying one. And what if that person doesn’t exist? Should the OP never have to work again because his particular set of skills may be obsolete?
So basically you are providing us with a textbook definition of “moral hazard”. With “a more humane unemployment system/safety net”, instead of planning contingencies for an unknown potential financial misfortune, you would buy houses, cars, clothes and other stuff.
As I pointed out earlier, it’s not about “self sufficiency”. It’s about freely entering into mutually beneficial agreements with other people. I spent a lot of time and money filling my head with the knowledge and expertise I have. People are willing to pay me for that knowledge and expertise. People don’t need to be “self sufficient”. They need to bring something to the table to trade with other people for the things they can’t or don’t want to do themselves.
So long as they aren’t a racial minority, or a woman, or gay, or any other demographic that bigots refuse to enter into contracts with. People in Libertopia starve to death because of bigotry.
That won’t work - without “threat of force or coercion” the first person who starts cheating is going to win. Agreements are useless without the implication that they will be enforced by some mechanism or other. If that’s what Ayn Rand was all about she was an idiot.
Why do you not understand that it is possible for a project to have multiple goals? Sure, the pharaohs could have simply have half the labor force dig holes and the other half fill them in but the way they did it at least they got some lasting structures out of it.
Likewise, in the Great Depression the government could have done the dig holes/fill them in routine but instead used the labor to build things like Hoover damn. Thus, it fulfilled two goals - employing people who needed jobs and constructing a power generating utility. Win/win if you ask me.
First thing, I’m going to be generous and assume that you mashed together a quote from WillFarnby with one of mine by accident. I’m still pissed off at you doing that because it misattributes to me something that is emphatically NOT my viewpoint and I really don’t want to spend the rest of this thread explaining over and over that I did not say what your post claims I said. Doing such a thing deliberately might qualify for action by a mod.
Second - by disregarding the OP’s present skill set and forcing him into unskilled labor we are throwing away an investment of time, education, and experience. I think it is wasteful to do so without reason. If it’s a matter of him being a buggywhip maker in a world where buggywhips are obsolete that’s one thing, but since we have zero information on the OP’s profession and/or training that’s a premature assumption. If it’s a matter of temporary difficulty in securing similar employment that’s another thing and it’s worth it to maintain him for a limited period of time while he attempts to locate another employer in the same line of work. Personally, I don’t have a problem with doing that for 99 weeks during a recession. After two years yes, he should start considering other options. Actually, after a year I’d say it’s time to look elsewhere but I don’t have an issue with providing limited assistance while he makes that transition. People who have a place to live, decent food to eat, and can afford soap and deodorant are going to be much more employable than people who lack such things.
Buying stuff is part of what makes the economy run these days. If everyone is squirreling their money away instead of spending it demand for a lot of stuff will drop, which will lead to unemployment as companies cut back, which will contribute to the very economic straits everyone is saving up to survive.
Of course, part of the problem here is people insisting on extremes. EITHER savings OR safety net… without considering encouraging both strategies. Savings for when the government is inadequate, the government safety net for when personal resources are inadequate. Why is a two-prong approach summarily rejected?
People also need a recourse for when the other party doesn’t want to play fair. That is also part of the role of government.
A fair enough, not-crazy thing to say. OTOH, I did better than 6 figures this year and yet I am living as if I am going to get squished any minute. The mutually beneficial agreements I’m entering into mostly amount to me agreeing with myself to stuff my cash into a mattress (figuratively speaking). I know that isn’t what makes this wonderful capitalist system hum, but I just don’t feel safe at. all.
My choice was to support my self, going with out food rather than asking others to feed me I also knew I would eat on Mondays etc. And If I needed I could always go back to being a maid where food part of my pay.
As i stated earlier that is your opinion and you have every right to disagree with me. I believed it was up to me to make my conditions better and I did, but not at the expense of other’s.
I never accused anyone of being Lazy, That is your idea, not mine. I just stated that I didn’t think a person should look a gift horse in the mouth. Nowhere did I accuse you of anything, I am speaking of the people I know who expect to live like a rich man on other’s money. Why that should bother you is another question.
Yes, we know that. You’ve stated it repeatedly. I absolutely believe you did that.
What you don’t seem to understand is that I really do think your actions were stupid and short-sighted. Every attempt you make to explain or justify the route you took just convinces me more and more you made a poor decision and acted stupidly. Asking for food when you’re hungry should never be shameful. There are people out there happy to assist the hungry and who feel shame and pain that anyone goes without food in this country. You’re insistence that starving yourself is somehow the moral high ground is an anathema to them. The fact you repeatedly humblebrag about it only makes it worse.
In other words, I see you deliberately going without food to be on par with refusing to treat a serious illness because you’re too proud to ask for help with medical care. It is a self-defeating attitude that I have seen keep people in poverty and distress longer than necessary. Going without food is damaging to your health and mental state, and impairs your ability to function at work. Starving yourself out of pride is counter-productive.
How would that be different from any other society?
Lions can talk in Narnia. Was that the point you were trying to make?
Ayn Rand was a little fuzzy on a lot of the details of how such a system would work. Much of her philosophy was clouded by her massive lady-boner for captains of industry.
She didn’t advocate anarchy. So that sort of begs the question. If it’s ok for the government to provide police services (presumably funded with taxes), then why not fire and emergency? Why not interstate highways and military? Or social safety nets? Or just guarantee everyone’s prosperity and happiness.
Then it’s just back to the same debate about how much government.
Because there are more economically beneficial make-work projects than piling rocks 400 feet high into a lasting structure that has no purpose other than as a giant grave marker.
Oh get over yourself.:rolleyes:
No one is “forcing” anything. If the OP is unable to find someone willing to pay for his time, education and experience, he may need to take some lower paying gig (hopefully temporarily) to make ends meet. Or he might have to move to where the jobs are.
