Grade redistribution in college

[Xenon14]

Being alive is not having the 'right' to live. And being killed is not having the 'right' to live taken away. I was pointing out that this is not a right at all, and that life can be arbitrarily ended for any reason, with no opportunity for recompense.

Actually there are a number of naitons which secure property rights more absolutely than the USA; many are marked by massive rich-poor gaps, rampant poverty, and a fundamental inability of the lower class to pursue life, liberty, or happiness. Therefore it is at best 'unclear' whether increased protection of property rights leads to a higher standard of living and better economic growth.

Arguing about why, exactly, the natives were less technologically advanced than Europeans is pretty hard to do; maybe it had something to do with thousands of years of practice in the science of warfare througout Europe, and before that in Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia... The situation in North America seemed to, for the most part, foster a human population in relative equilibrium with the environment, and not one constantly competing for resources. It's way beyond my trianing to speculate anthropologically why this might have been, and I want to make it clear I'm not calling one group of people better than the other ethically, or anything of the sort. I just think 'property rights' are a poor explanation for what happened.

Life can be ended for any reason, yes, no one is Superman/impervious to death. However, if you say that people don't have an inherent right to life, then what you're actually saying is that everyone else has more right to your life than you.

In what sense do the countries you speak of secure property rights more than the U.S. and what are those countries? I can't respond to your point until I know what specifically we are talking about.

As far as the Natives, yes there may have been other outside reasons for their inferior technological development. However, the reason the 'white man' had guns, and the reason our society is advanced is directly B/C of competition. So while Lack of progress may, for whatever reason, be attributed to something other than competition (which is doubtful but not impossible). Progress on the other hand, in and of itself, is the result of comeptition. It follows then, that without property rights competition cannot exist, since anyone's property by anyone's decree can be yours - which would eliminate competition, and therefore progress.

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Good point. Do you think we've gone betond the point of just securing the 'right to life and liberty and the pursuit for happiness'.

I feel that the government has taken more and given less. Essentially, if government is restructured in a such a way that Federal government is heavily decreased in size and most of the fedral programs are eliminated and/or privatized, and leaving the rest to the states to take care of, then not only will people have more money and better life styles, but those that are worse off (poor, needy, etc) will actually have a better system to increase their quality of life.

A reasonable arguement, but the apart about leaving the rest to the states is a cop out. So now the states become the bloated government.

Indeed, state governments can also become bloated. But States handling issues on their own is a great way of ensuring 'checks & balances' against what our Fed gov. is doing. If a certain state gets too powerful or too controlling, people and/or businesses will be forced to move to a different state... one that they feel isn't oppressive on their rights, sanctity, and qualiyt of life. Eventually either the state will have to change its policies to accomodate its citizens, or it will collapse under its own oppressive rules. It's essentially capatilistic competition for government. This is what the drafters of the constituion intended, but our current government has disregarded that completely.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Good point. Do you think we've gone betond the point of just securing the 'right to life and liberty and the pursuit for happiness'.

I feel that the government has taken more and given less. Essentially, if government is restructured in a such a way that Federal government is heavily decreased in size and most of the fedral programs are eliminated and/or privatized, and leaving the rest to the states to take care of, then not only will people have more money and better life styles, but those that are worse off (poor, needy, etc) will actually have a better system to increase their quality of life.

A reasonable arguement, but the apart about leaving the rest to the states is a cop out. So now the states become the bloated government.

Indeed, state governments can also become bloated. But States handling issues on their own is a great way of ensuring 'checks & balances' against what our Fed gov. is doing. If a certain state gets too powerful or too controlling, people and/or businesses will be forced to move to a different state... one that they feel isn't oppressive on their rights, sanctity, and qualiyt of life. Eventually either the state will have to change its policies to accomodate its citizens, or it will collapse under its own oppressive rules. It's essentially capatilistic competition for government. This is what the drafters of the constituion intended, but our current government has disregarded that completely.

You're wrong on two points. First, by your logic, Europe with its many small state sized countries should be a utopia. Its not. Secondly, The drafters of the consitution wrote it deliberately to strengthen the federal government after the Articles of Confederation turned out to be such a disaster.

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Good point. Do you think we've gone betond the point of just securing the 'right to life and liberty and the pursuit for happiness'.

I feel that the government has taken more and given less. Essentially, if government is restructured in a such a way that Federal government is heavily decreased in size and most of the fedral programs are eliminated and/or privatized, and leaving the rest to the states to take care of, then not only will people have more money and better life styles, but those that are worse off (poor, needy, etc) will actually have a better system to increase their quality of life.

A reasonable arguement, but the apart about leaving the rest to the states is a cop out. So now the states become the bloated government.

Indeed, state governments can also become bloated. But States handling issues on their own is a great way of ensuring 'checks & balances' against what our Fed gov. is doing. If a certain state gets too powerful or too controlling, people and/or businesses will be forced to move to a different state... one that they feel isn't oppressive on their rights, sanctity, and qualiyt of life. Eventually either the state will have to change its policies to accomodate its citizens, or it will collapse under its own oppressive rules. It's essentially capatilistic competition for government. This is what the drafters of the constituion intended, but our current government has disregarded that completely.

You're wrong on two points. First, by your logic, Europe with its many small state sized countries should be a utopia. Its not. Secondly, The drafters of the consitution wrote it deliberately to strengthen the federal government after the Articles of Confederation turned out to be such a disaster.

First of all I'm not talking about countries, I'm talking about states... they function under the same constitution.

Secondly, the united states constitution/government layout is different from European countries, which very heavily employ socialist standards.

Thirdly, the Constitution that is the backbone of our country, not the articles of confedration, specifically gives the Centralized government authority to do only what is in the Constitution... everything else is left to the states. EDIT: Amongst other things, tHe articles of confederation didn't have a centralized defense or monetary system, which I think are necessary and the Constitution provides for.

And finally, what I described actually happens (although to a much smaller degree since the Fed gov. regulates most policies and not states). But, if you look at business, a lot of businesses started to move out of California when Gov Davis was in office, and a lot of business are 'stationed' in Delaware b/c of Delware's very lenient taxes on businesses.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Good point. Do you think we've gone betond the point of just securing the 'right to life and liberty and the pursuit for happiness'.

I feel that the government has taken more and given less. Essentially, if government is restructured in a such a way that Federal government is heavily decreased in size and most of the fedral programs are eliminated and/or privatized, and leaving the rest to the states to take care of, then not only will people have more money and better life styles, but those that are worse off (poor, needy, etc) will actually have a better system to increase their quality of life.

A reasonable arguement, but the apart about leaving the rest to the states is a cop out. So now the states become the bloated government.

Indeed, state governments can also become bloated. But States handling issues on their own is a great way of ensuring 'checks & balances' against what our Fed gov. is doing. If a certain state gets too powerful or too controlling, people and/or businesses will be forced to move to a different state... one that they feel isn't oppressive on their rights, sanctity, and qualiyt of life. Eventually either the state will have to change its policies to accomodate its citizens, or it will collapse under its own oppressive rules. It's essentially capatilistic competition for government. This is what the drafters of the constituion intended, but our current government has disregarded that completely.

You're wrong on two points. First, by your logic, Europe with its many small state sized countries should be a utopia. Its not. Secondly, The drafters of the consitution wrote it deliberately to strengthen the federal government after the Articles of Confederation turned out to be such a disaster.

First of all I'm not talking about countries, I'm talking about states... they function under the same constitution.

Secondly, the united states constitution/government layout is different from European countries, which very heavily employ socialist standards.

Thirdly, the Constitution that is the backbone of our country, not the articles of confedration, specifically gives the Centralized government authority to do only what is in the Constitution... everything else is left to the states.

And finally, what I described actually happens (although to a much smaller degree since the Fed gov. regulates most policies and not states). But, if you look at business, a lot of businesses started to move out of California when Gov Davis was in office, and a lot of business are 'stationed' in Delaware b/c of Delware's very lenient taxes on businesses.

Actually, if you read this constitution its very vague. It pretty much gives the Federal government all powers neccsary to carry out its funtion (which is very vaguely defined) and then gives the states all the left over powers. Not exactly clear there. It was done that way as a checks and balances.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
that is not accurate either. even if someone can get elected because of the vast political connections they have...doesnt mean that everyone with money is automatically set for life...and visa versa...weve had presidents who were quite literally lower middle class. Clinton came from a very modest family..and so did Truman. In either case the ends dont justify the means. your saying that we should just live with it...well i say I dont want to be a passifist and watch the government rape me. Look America is no doubt the greatest country in the world, but why not make it better. If you want strong growth and economic expansion then cut the taxes and CUT THE GOVT SPENDING PLEASE.

Not a single point you've made correctly addresses what I said:

Originally posted by: illustri
Love it no, live with it yes.

Because the fact is whatever your grade - taxed or welfared - the amount of money your household has is still as good an indicator of your future turnout.

A student with a undergrad gpa of 2.35 got to be president.

If your family is in a bracket thats "progressively" taxed 40-50%, you ARE more often than not, set for life since any initiative you undertake will be comfortably buffered with money, influence, and nepotic privilege. Your hard earned grades may get you a job at a top firm, but the fruit of wealth and power's loins gets to be your boss.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Xenon14
Life can be ended for any reason, yes, no one is Superman/impervious to death. However, if you say that people don't have an inherent right to life, then what you're actually saying is that everyone else has more right to your life than you.

No, I'm not saying anything remotely like that. I'm saying there is no inalienable 'right' involved in being or not being alive. And outside the bounds of constitutions and the rule of human law, *you* have just as much right to take my life away as *I* have to keep it. When two animals fight, and one is killed, the other's life isn't forfeited as a result of having violated a 'right to live'. Absent the rule of artificial laws, the same holds true for people. I'm not suggesting the abandonment of the rule of law; I'm merely showing that there can't possibly be an 'inalienable' right to life in nature.

In what sense do the countries you speak of secure property rights more than the U.S. and what are those countries? I can't respond to your point until I know what specifically we are talking about.

I would start with Chad. It seems like the pure-capitalist paradise that some seem to want

As far as the Natives, yes there may have been other outside reasons for their inferior technological development. However, the reason the 'white man' had guns, and the reason our society is advanced is directly B/C of competition. So while Lack of progress may, for whatever reason, be attributed to something other than competition (which is doubtful but not impossible). Progress on the other hand, in and of itself, is the result of comeptition. It follows then, that without property rights competition cannot exist, since anyone's property by anyone's decree can be yours - which would eliminate competition, and therefore progress.

Your definition of property rights is highly suspect; absent protection of property rights, I could no more create a defensible claim to 'your' property than you could, by decree or by any other method. IF there were competition, each would be limited to what they could defend. This sounds strangely like medieval politics, which was the real driving force behind 500 years of military advancement

 

[Dimkaumd]

TSS where did u get that the US has 2nd lowest income taxes in the world. The charts that im seeing on the internet shows otherwise.

 

[Dimkaumd]

illustri..even if your arguement was true, so what? lets assume your daddy is a multimillionare and you are set for life, even though ur a completely worthless idiot. And your entire life u wont have to work because you will have ur daddys assets. Does that give me a right to take away your money. If your dad worked hard for his money and decided to give it to you at the end of his life, why should anyone be allowed to stop him. Its his money and his property he should be able to do with it what he likes. and I assure you that its just as easy to lose money as it is to make money.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
TSS where did u get that the US has 2nd lowest income taxes in the world. The charts that im seeing on the internet shows otherwise.

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

That's a good link, you can see from it that ours is low compared to other industrialzed nations. Allthough, this link has us with a lower tax rate than japan which I'm not sure is intirely accurate. I said 2nd lowest of industrialized nations, not in the world.

I'm sorry, I can't find the original source that I got my data from.

 

[Xenon14]

Your definition of property rights is highly suspect; absent protection of property rights, I could no more create a defensible claim to 'your' property than you could, by decree or by any other method. IF there were competition, each would be limited to what they could defend. This sounds strangely like medieval politics, which was the real driving force behind 500 years of military advancement

I'm not sure I understand fully to what you're saying, so if I'm misunderstanding something, let me know.

It is precisely b/c in the state of nature (a place absent from government) that mob rule would supercede property 'rights' (which is what I think you're saying). Since a person with a gun, for instance, would be able to take away your property by force or involuntary coercion. However, him having the gun or possessing other means to overpower you (more money, or strength, or intellect), ought not have any influence on whether or not their being stronger than you equates to them being able to make your property theirs'. That's where government comes in, in order to protect each individual from everyone else, regardless of their predispositions. And you're right, if no protection exists, then we would all be limited to how much we can defend, and comeptition would suffer b/c we would constantly be looking out for ourselves as opposed to promoting our wellbeing. Government protection allows individuals to progress/prosper.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Your definition of property rights is highly suspect; absent protection of property rights, I could no more create a defensible claim to 'your' property than you could, by decree or by any other method. IF there were competition, each would be limited to what they could defend. This sounds strangely like medieval politics, which was the real driving force behind 500 years of military advancement

I'm not sure I understand fully to what you're saying, so if I'm misunderstanding something, let me know.

It is precisely b/c in the state of nature (a place absent from government) that mob rule would supercede property 'rights' (which is what I think you're saying). Since a person with a gun, for instance, would be able to take away your property by force or involuntary coercion. However, him having the gun or possessing other means to overpower you (more money, or strength, or intellect), ought not have any influence on whether or not their being stronger than you equates to them being able to make your property theirs'. That's where government comes in, in order to protect each individual from everyone else, regardless of their predispositions. And you're right, if no protection exists, then we would all be limited to how much we can defend, and comeptition would suffer b/c we would constantly be looking out for ourselves as opposed to promoting our wellbeing. Government protection allows individuals to progress/prosper.

My point was that competition doesn't depend on publicly defended property rights; warfare was advanced for jundreds and maybe thousands of years under the system that what you could take and keep was yours. That sounds like competition to me, and it certainly drove advancements. At one time a sword, or a suit of armour could be worth more than an ordinary madn made in a year - the investments made were enourmous! And this was pre-capitalism.

I'm not attacking the defence of property rights as a way to make the system run more smoothly. I'm not saying they are a bad idea either; they probably prevent a lot of unpleasant violence, at least wihtin nations, if not always between them. I'm saying it's a bad explanation for advancements through competitive pressures because it actually reduces some of those pressures (the threat of having what is 'yours' taken from you). Without passing moral or ethical judgement, I would suggest that the constant whittling of personal fortunes through taxation and inflation probably have a net positive effect on ambition to succeed as well. Without these effects, once one reached a high level of comfort they could effectively 'quit the game', while as it stands now, this requires a very high level of success (to live perpetually in comfort without lifting a finger).

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
barney what r u talking about? I am paying my own way through college..i dont recieve any financial aid....how am I a hypocrite?? ur just stupid

OK, I do understand that you have loans (which you will have to eventually pay off). However, you must also understand that unless you are paying cash out of your pocket, with no assistance whatsoever from anyone, you ARE INDEED recieving financial aid. In your case, since it sounds like your parents aren't picking up the tab, I am going to assume that you have student loans that are more likely than not partially (if not wholly) subsidized by the government...

So, it seems that Mr. Barney is perfectly justified in calling you a hypocrite.

Also, seeing as you're still in college, you may want to take an introductory grammar and vocabulary class, because right now it sounds as if you are well on your way to being just as eloquent as our president. Your arguments might sound infinitessimally more convincing if they were properly worded.
*CLARITY NOTE FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT WAS IN NO WAY MEANT TO RESEMBLE A COMPLIMENT*