251. Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

Comment #165624 by FightingFalcon on April 22, 2008 at 12:00 am

Comment #165539 by Phadrus

As sad as it is, most of the U.S. population does not think critically. Most people in the U.S. does not know what we mean by "thinking critically.

Just a suggestion, but perhaps before ridiculing Americans you should get a handle on basic grammar yourself.

Sorry, I'm just tired of the constant insinuations on this board that Americans are ignorant religious morons.

252. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165083 by FightingFalcon on April 21, 2008 at 3:41 am

If there is no God, but only a planetary lab waiting for scientists to perfect the human race, where can Darwinism lead?

Ignoring, for a second, the idiocy of that comment, I'm still waiting for how that proves the existence of the Abrahamic god or any other deity.

Let's suspend all logic for a second and for the sake of argument accept the fact that an Atheistic society is more prone to violence than a Theistic one. Well bloody hell - how does that in any way, shape or form prove the existence of anything supernatural?

253. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #162694 by FightingFalcon on April 17, 2008 at 9:21 am

Hang on, he only said 'police, courts, military and education.
You don't get no 'welfare', just charity, they used to call it 'the poor house' on this side of the pond when we last tried Lessez-faire.

That's precisely right. The amount of government waste in social welfare programs is astounding and criminal. Social welfare programs are approaching 50% of our national budget, leaving room for little else when you factor in defense and interest payments on our national debt. Furthermore, considering the fact that social welfare programs will start to go insolvent in 2017 (the latest projection for Medicare), this is an issue that needs to be tackled now. A slow process of weaning ourselves off of social welfare programs (especially Social Security) can begin now. Or we can wait while continuing to raise taxes and just hope that the problem will go away.

And that makes sense when you consider two aspects; the proportion of income that is expended in normal (non-capital) ways and inheritance. By this I mean that the richest one or two percent of the American population have inherited wealth, established infrastructure (homes, trusts etc) and employ the best tax advice thus minimising their tax burden. Even though they pay more actual amounts of tax the effect of them is lower as a proportion of their income than the rest of the population who do not have these benefits.

This is why I believe a national sales tax would level the playing field for everyone. The so-called "super rich" have armies of lawyers who help them find loop-holes in the law to escape from paying Income Taxes, of which there are many ways. A national sales tax, on the other hand, is not escapable. If you purchase a product, you pay the tax. Period. I must continue to emphasize the added benefit of being able to release thousands of employees on federal payrolls that are involved in the agonizing Income Tax process. Or the untold benefits of having the lowest corporate taxes (e.g. zero) in the entire world.

The other point above is that the lower eighty percent of the population who have effectively zero savings rates therefore expend the vast bulk of any disposable income and data shows (and common sense confirms) that they are not spending it preponderantly on capital goods. The net actual effect therefore is that the PROPORTIONAL taxation effect is skewed downwards. These proportions of the population pay RELATIVELY higher portions of their income in taxation than the rich segment.

As I said above, certain considerations would have to be made for necessary products, such as food and lower-end clothing. Beyond that - well, perhaps people should start learning to save more money and spend less on vacations, TVs, etc. It's not my fault that people have no fiscal discipline in this country.

The whole conversation about the Gold standard is for me an exercise in misty-eyed nostalgia :) Sorry guys but even the terms you use (capitalising the word 'Founders' etc) reveals a quaint but essentially retrograde and conservative approach that ignores the way that world conditions have moved on since big buckles on shoes were fashionable.

What can I say? I love the Founding Fathers :-)

Honestly though, I cannot understand this reaction when I advocate a return to the Gold Standard. People look at me as if I were advocating a return to horse-and-buggy or gas lamps. Again I ask the question - what has changed so dramatically since 1971? Is there something that I'm missing? We're really that far beyond the breaking point?

Yet I very much agree with the core concept that the value (always a difficult concept to grapple with in practical terms) of a currency (a surrogate for the economy) should have some basis in material items. It used to be gold. I may have to do a bit more digging for discussion about this but I would initially warm to some basket of commodities that moved over time both in composition and weighting that reflected where the truer value to our society rested. For example silicon would be weighted more heavily in the basket of commodities now than it would have a hundred years ago, the same with uranium.

A basket of commodities is trickier because the government can simply substitute one commodity for another, should one begin to fail thereby creating yet another artificial currency. Something would be better than nothing though. Knowing that our currency is absolutely worthless is a scary thought and should concern every American citizen.

254. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #162390 by FightingFalcon on April 16, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Alright Falcon here's the problem, sales taxes even vat are regressive taxes

And Income Taxes are incredibly progressive, which I am opposed to. I am against any form of taxes without apportionment, which was provided for by the hated 16th Amendment.

A national sales tax would be much fairer, more efficient and allow us to shrink the size of the government by a considerable amount. Exemptions for necessary goods would of course be considered (food and poorer clothing, for example) so that it doesn't harm the lower class too much. All other goods would face the same flat national sales tax rate across the country.

The poor just slog along from welfare to dead end job, etc...until they can make the right business connection, get enough college credits to move up in the job market, or otherwise get some lucky break that moves them into the middle class (the taxpaying class).

Something that no one ever wants to talk about is the fact that America (and every country) needs a lower class. Someone has to do certain jobs that the middle-class and certainly the upper-class will never do. Not to mention the incredible strain that would be placed on our country if everyone started living like the middle-class or above.

The well to do in America are dependent on America for the freedom to make their money -- they should pay the most freight.

And they will, because they also spend the most amount of money. But I don't see why the "rich" have to pay higher rates of taxes than anyone else. Not only do they pay more in taxes, but they also pay at a higher rate, which to me is incredibly unfair. Especially when no one has (or will) determined what exactly it means to be "rich" these days.

I'm willing to listen to cutting deductions, flattening the brackets some if possible, and by all means lowering the brackets further if possible. How that money gets spent is another matter...you and I would probably have more in common in our views on waste fraud and abuse in government spending (just not on who is responsible and how to fix it).

O Jupiter - give me 10 days and I'll balance the US budget :-). Seriously though, the amount of waste and abuse that I see is absolutely disgusting. Working for the government has only made me more cynical against it. When I question why the base gym needs flat-screen plasma TVs as opposed to regular TVs, people look at me like I don't care about the troops. No, what I care about is spending every single dollar of tax-payer money on what really matters. But that's not how the government works. It's disgusting.

FF on the gold standard I don't disagree with your wish that it would in some ways be a nice thing to not have a baseless currency that can be inflated on a whim. This is again Dreamertarianism -- that ship has sailed, that horse is out of the barn, the genie is out of the lamp/bottle -- you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube, etc...ad infinitum.

Yea, this is typically the reaction that I get although I'm not sure why. Human society has, since the formation of towns and villages, relied on a commodity currency. A purely fiat currency is a brand-new experiment that has only existed since 1971. We really can't reverse the process? 37 years is really that long to refuse to change course?

Lastly private schools are competition for the public schools. There needs to be a robust public (free to poor people -- yes I know nothing's free we all pay property taxes for other peoples children blah, blah, blah)school system. The alternative is worse and will cost us all more dearly in the long run.

Private schools are not a viable alternative right now because they are out of the price range for most Americans. Obviously if all public schools were done away with there would be some private schools that catered to poorer families, especially those with gifted children who have the benefit of school vouchers. We do so much for mentally/physically retarded children these days that it would be nice to see something done for gifted children now and then.

I'd just hate to be satisfied with the current state of affairs where I could be spirited away to some detention facility without a word or a lawyer or a judge that could set me free until the NeoCons get bounced from office.

On this issue I'm sure that you and I share many similar viewpoints. Being socially liberal and very conscience of our personal freedoms, the rape of Justice in America over the past 8 years has definitely disturbed me. Especially what's come out over the past few days of top White House officials sitting in a room discussing what torture methods to use on certain terrorists. I can't remember a time that I've been so ashamed of my government.

255. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #162206 by FightingFalcon on April 16, 2008 at 10:39 am

OK I have a few minutes here on lunch so I'll try my best.

Nice parting shot...drop a couple moabs like abolish the income tax and go back to the gold standard -- yawn, off to bed... I'll expect you to defend those wild eyed ideals upon your return.

There is nothing wild-eyed about abolishing the Income Tax and returning to a commodity-based currency. To begin with, our Founders recognized the evils of an Income Tax and specifically prohibited it in the original Constitution. Only when the government realized that it was missing out on a tremendous source of revenue did they overturn that decision and pass the 16th Amendment. America has existed for longer without an income tax than we have with one. Plenty of countries in Eastern Europe are now experimenting with replacing their Income Taxes with a nation-wide sales tax of anywhere between 20-30%. American economists have suggested this as well, both as a way to incredibly simplify the tax code but also to make taxes more fair and enable us to abolish the hated IRS.

Moving back to the gold standard is an absolute must IMHO. Since 1971, America and the world have experienced tremendous booms and busts created by worthless and artificial currencies. Our currency has absolutely no meaning anymore - it's only worthy what the government tells us its worth. Manipulation of currency has been the downfall of many proud societies and it will strike ours as well if we don't act soon. Backing up your currency with a commodity places restraints on the government because money can't simply be invented out of thin air. Just check out reports from the General Accounting Office to see how incredibly screwed the American government is. We have $3.1 TRILLION budgets with absolutely no way to pay for them. Hell, the only reason our currency hasn't collapsed yet is because its in the best interest of oil-producing nations and others (South Korea, Japan, China, etc.) to have a stable dollar. That's why these countries horde tremendous amounts of dollars in their central reserves, which provide stability to their own economy. Should these countries begin a currency readjustment (as Kuwait recently announced), then it will officially be the end of America. If oil-producing nations ever switched to Euros, I can guarantee you the collapse of our country. We have to act now to stop the over-circulation of dollars in print and get back in line with a commodity-based currency. Fiat currencies have been an experiment since only 1971 and IMHO they have failed miserably. Ron Paul was the only candidate to understand the hidden taxes that we pay and the crumbling facade through which the American economy operates. Few others understand (or wish to talk about) just how precarious our economic situation truly is.

police, courts and military.. and the education of our kids.

Shall we try for Redistribution of wealth rather than 'trickle down', or would that be pushing it??

There are two issues that I'm undecided about and that I might end up disagreeing with Libertarians on - education and child abuse. I'll address the latter quickly. We've had several stories on this board of parents who refuse medical attention for children because of religion reasons. Most people wanted the parents arrested but I am opposed to the idea of government interfering in domestic matters. Perhaps the most well known case is Terri Schiavo, which absolutely disgusted me. Age of consent laws and the rights of children have always given me pause because it goes back to the issue of when children can decide for themselves and if age, which is such a random determinant, can legitimately be used.

But I'll expand more on education because you brought up that one specifically. I support the privatization of schools but only lukewarmly. On the surface, I think it's a great idea because that's basically how colleges operate today anyway. The flip-side that gives me pause is what will happen to education in the Bible Belt when the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction to keep IDiocy out of science classes. My counter-argument to that would of course be that we already have private religious universities and colleges that do the exact same thing, e.g. Liberty University. So what would be the difference if we have religiously-driven lower, middle and high schools as well? Who cares if we have a nation-wide curriculum for pre-college schools if students can then voluntarily go to a brain-washing university like Liberty?

That's the only true negative that I see for private schools. The benefits are of course competition among schools, which is the only thing that can help raise standards. Monopolies are the absolute worst form of economics, which I'd like to point out can only occur with government help. Why do students have one choice of where to go, unless they pay for a private education? When there is no incentive to raise standards, why should schools care? No Child Left Behind has failed to do anything in the fight to raise school standards. Money certainly doesn't help either - Washington DC gets more money per student than any other area yet consistently is at the bottom of the barrel in results. Competition brings out the best in the private sector because organizations are competing for revenue. Private schools that compete against each other will be on their toes constantly in an effort to raise their standards. It will also give all children a choice, rather than them simply going to a school because of where they were born. At the very least, school vouchers need to be approved nation-wide ASAP.

And now my lunch is over. Cheers.

256. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #162053 by FightingFalcon on April 16, 2008 at 4:31 am

Nice parting shot...drop a couple moabs like abolish the income tax and go back to the gold standard -- yawn, off to bed... I'll expect you to defend those wild eyed ideals upon your return.

I do get tired you know. As Kramer from Seinfeld once said, I don't argue with the body - that's an argument you can't win =)

Today is a long day so if I don't get to these tonight, I'll reply tomorrow. Trust me, I don't run away from arguments.

257. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161851 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 7:35 pm

About the only thing I trust less than the government is a large corporation created to amass wealth and practically speaking unaccountable to the public. Too many Enrons, Tycos, Adelphias, etc... Government often screws the public out of incompetence or indifference -- corporations that reach the bureaucratic size of governments seem to screw people on purpose. Pick your poison. Capitalism like Democratic Republicanism is a flawed system - it is just better than anything else that has been tried.

There's the difference between us - I trust nothing less than I trust our leaders in government :-). I follow them because I have to but they're all fake to me. Not to mention that they steal my money illegally and then give it to welfare programs that I have no interest in supporting. I'd be willing to abandon some of my ideals for the pendulum at least swinging back a little bit, e.g. the abolition of the Income Tax, a return to the gold standard and the end of corporate taxes. I think I can live with regulation if those conditions are at least achieved.

Enron et al are constant examples that corporate leaders fail to live up to the standards that I expect of them. I hate to use the "no true Scotsman" argument here but that's exactly how I feel. No true businessman should (should being the operative word) engage in shady business practices. I guess it's easy for me to assume that people will always act with Integrity when I belong to an organization that lives by the word.

Still, I believe in the fundamental principle that governments exist only in the capacity that we allow it to. We're going down a road (and are already there in many respects) where the government tells us what to do and not vice versa. The very thought is disturbing.

And.. making sure that science classes are for science.

Ramen to that one...

And now its bedtime. Take care, both of you.

258. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161835 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 6:57 pm

FF: You're right a greedy and incompetent government is not a good answer. Still, a marketplace is a competitive place. Like most competitive activities -- in order to have an organized competition you have to have rules. If you are going to have rules -- you'll need a referee to ensure that the rules are followed and that the competition is fair. That is the government's role. Poor referees can interfere too much or too little. If you don't like the government -- vote -- if you can't find anybody to vote for -- stand (run) for election yourself. If your party (Libertarian - although I recall you are not an actual member)can't win single member district elections lobby for multi-party elections. Holding contempt for the government (which sounds like a trait you and I share though I speak for myself)and wishing it would go away doesn't make it any better - quite the contrary.

Would this conversation be more interesting if I admitted that I actually work for the government? The US Air Force specifically - a means to an end.

I participate in elections despite my contempt for most people in government. Trust me, I have every intention of running for office but I already know that I have 0 chance of winning, being an Atheist and all. Even in America, a (soon to be) combat military veteran has no chance of winning if he or she is an Atheist. Something about us being untrustworthy....

I'm not opposed to the idea of government but I do believe that outside of those three functions (police, courts and military) there is a private corporation who can do things more effectively and efficiently. I look at the Constitution as our Founders did - whatever powers weren't granted to the government are reserved for the states and the people. They felt so strongly about that point that they made an Amendment in the Bill of Rights for it. That seems to be one Amendment that everyone just conveniently forgets, although I'll admit that it's not as sexy as the 1st or 2nd Amendment.

259. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161826 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 6:36 pm

I wish you could see me have to pick my jaw off the floor with your misreading of me - you think I'm an admirer?

I used to be in the Air force and am quite proud of my little bit-part played in bringing down that hateful system with (relatively) little bloodshed. They'd have been horrified if they'd thought they were letting a COMMIE atheist onto Mildenhall & Lakenheath back in the eighties, wouldn't they?!!

Haha, I'm sorry. I guess I just misread what you had written there.

BTW - I'm stationed at RAF Mildenhall myself :-)

Game, set, and match. ;)

You didn't quote the part where I said that I fail to see how greedy and incompetent governments are the answer.

260. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161809 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Having moved you to accept 'I believe in only three proper functions of government.' from none at all I'll not press you further. Yet I was very interested in your comment;

I should have made that point clearer - I didn't mean to say that the government has no purpose. I'm not an Anarchist by any stretch of the imagination, more like a Mini-anarchist.

as it is exactly the problem I have with Libertarian ideas as currently expressed; they (like economic theory) rely on assumptions that just do not exist in the real world. They are both idealistic ideologies in the sense that they aspire to maximal or perfect objectives; I like the ideas they contain (I'm attracted to them) because they are idealistic but I refrain from embracing them because I pragmatically recognise that they cannot come about at the moment.

Ayn Rand hinted at this as well in one of her essays in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. She recognized that the heroes of Atlas Shrugged are very rare in this world. Both Rand and myself take for granted that people will act honestly, openly and with integrity. Since all human relations should be voluntary in nature, with no coercion or force behind them, they therefore need to be carried out openly and honestly. I'll always oppose corporations that don't act with the aforementioned principles but the difference between you and me is that I don't think government is the answer. I think that only compounds the problem of dishonest businessmen with corrupt, greedy and incompetent politicians and bureaucrats.

I'm sorry that the articles I listed pissed you of so much :). I suspected they would as they were a selection from the left wing blogs but I have to say that a few (only a few, most right wing economics blogs are still desperately trying to distance themselves from any taint that they supported the policies that caused the current market disfunctions; fruitlessly in all honesty because you just have to go back over the last ten years to their commentaries to prove their deceit) even of those are beginning to realise that 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. Interesting times, huh?

No need to apologize, you weren't the one who wrote them. I just get angry to see government intervention in the marketplace cause economic disasters and then watch as people honestly believe that more government intervention is the answer. Just the other day I read an article in the Wall Street Journal (normally a reliable source of laissez-faire economic ideas) with quotes from the Treasury Dept. suggested that more money simply be created out of thin air to cover the losses of major banks, in an effort to prevent their nationalization by the government. Are those really our two options? Hyperinflation and nationalization? Why does no one stop and wonder if a worthless fiat currency is the problem? Or a central bank (e.g. The Fed) that allows for wild speculation through uncontrolled monetary borrowing? My patience wears thin these days with people who want the fruits of Capitalism while enjoying the laziness of Socialism.

Feel free to PM me anytime.

FF

261. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161731 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm

It's just not the foreign economies,it's the corporations that make trillions of dollars off this liquid crack. If you don't think power and money which the oil industry has plenty don't write the rules of the game then we need stop this debate. You are are, judging from your rants a right winger and seem to follow the "rush Libaugh" school of thought.

I don't know where to start. With the fact that you can't spell Rush Limbaugh correctly, your horrible grammar or the fact that I'm not a Republican - something that I've stated many times on this very thread.

Go play with your tin hat. I have no use for conspiracy theories.

Why hasn't any of the major car manufactures built and sold or mass produced a technology as the one from tesla motors? This is a very miniscule company , surely companies with billion dollar budgets and all that comes with it have the engineers to develope and mass produce quality electric cars.

Why do car companies HAVE to offer this product to you? What obligation do they have to give you an affordable car? I'm so sick and tired of the fucking whining that I see on this board against companies that have absolutely no obligation to you whatsoever. Car companies produce cars and offer them to consumers. What right do you have to go into their factory and demand that they produce a certain vehicle for you? You sound like a little kid who never grew up and tattles to his mommy that the other kids aren't being nice to him and sharing their toys...

That's just what Marx & Engels said!
..'course they also warned people to let it play out, not force the issue - untold millions have had to die because people ignored their advice.

Are you honestly defending Marx and Engels? I'm seriously asking because, if so, then this conversation is over. I can't even fathom how an idea that has failed so miserably in so many situations (e.g. Communism) still has admirers today. It's almost as if the more it fails, the more adherents it receives.

262. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161453 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 10:02 am

Didn't I see this exact situation played out in the sarcastic-parody movie "Saved"?

At least in the movie it was a joke...

263. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161278 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 5:31 am

Go see "who killed the electric car" genius.

The same people who staged the Moon landing, I suppose...

Certain coutries economies would cease to exist if oil was no longer being used.

So those greedy and heartless car companies rejected the electric car because it would hurt foreign economies? Do you even listen to what you're saying?

BTW, over 50,000 electric cars exist in America, with an average growth of 30% per year. I guess no one "killed the electric car."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#In_the_United_States

All I know, is every time I've tried to hold onto a political ism, it took too much denial and compartmentalization to be able to ignore the fucking horror.

All humans have a desire to be in a group that shares their traits, opinions, etc. I don't consider myself a member of the Libertarian Party but I defend them because they are the closest thing to my political beliefs. Still, I'd never defend one of their policices or politicians that I don't agree with. No one should ever be called upon to defend something that they disagree with, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of human beings do this through political or religious affiliation.

How did we stop CFC manufacturers destroying the Ozone layer?

I've already addressed the issue of corporate pollution of the environment and won't do it again. I'm tired of that argument.

264. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161108 by FightingFalcon on April 14, 2008 at 8:14 pm

I'm not even sure how to respond to that meaningless drivel that Diacanu called a post.

It is clearly written by someone who has never experienced a country that doesn't believe in Capitalism. Go to Africa, as I have, and tell me if the people care about cooked books and corrupt CEOs. Tell them that Capitalism is evil while they dream of having just a fraction of the prosperity that Capitalism has granted the Western world.

265. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160689 by FightingFalcon on April 14, 2008 at 9:29 am

I only said "your" Militiamen because you first mentioned them. Best of luck to you FF, I won't be able to get any sleep if Mike Timlin continues to give up damn homeruns and loses this game for Dice K.

Fair enough - but a Red Sox fan? I used to be a very strong Yankees fan, right up until they let go my favorite player, Andy Pettitte. I still watch baseball regularly but don't really follow. Although I still hate the Sox :D

No stationary power should be coming from fossil fuels there are enough alternatives for that out there. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, water, nuclear, landfill gases higher efficiency superconducting transmission wires or "heaven" help us microwave transmission of energy...

I couldn't agree more. Absolutely no stationary energy should be coming from fossil fuels - there is no reason for it. I personally am a huge advocate of nuclear energy.

Forgive me for being pedantic, but technically that's wrong. Between them, Microsoft, Apple (Mac is just a trade name) and Linux control nearly 100% of the market for personal computer operating systems, not processors. [The processor oligopoly is mostly Intel and AMD, now that IBM has stopped selling PowerPC chips for personal computer applications.] The presence of Linux in that list is a bit of a misnomer, in that it's open source and not controlled by any corporate entity.

I knew that someone was going to take me to task on my use of processing units. I wasn't sure what term exactly to use, although I was tempted to go with operating system.

Unlike Marx, I still have great respect for Rand as a person though. In fact just recently I was thrilled to discover a trove of old video interviews of her on YouTube. One in particular stands out in my memory: she was appearing on the Phil Donahue Show--probably not long before her death in the early 1980s--defending her atheism in front of an openly hostile studio audience (and an always incredulous Donahue). Great vintage TV!

I've watched that interview many times mainly because its one of the view video interviews with her. It's unfortunate that Phil Donahue asks completely moronic questions and fails to understand even basic tenets of Objectivism. There's an interview with Mike Wallace back in the 60s where her Atheism is even more shocking.

Then what is OPEC for?

At least for America, the influence of OPEC is completely overblown. The #s fluctuate but the last time I checked, we get a significant amount of oil from our own country, Mexico and Canada. I believe Saudi Arabia was #2. OPEC faces the same rules that all other major corporations must face. Even if all OPEC nations charge $100 a barrel, there are non-OPEC members with a significant amount of oil production that countries can turn to.

Just seen a Nigerian politician on the news state that Biofuels is a crime against humanity.

The UN announced its opposition to biofuels (especially Ethanol) not too long ago. The idea was idiotic to begin with and now its causing famine in some African countries, not to mention increased prices for animals that feed on corn meal, e.g. pigs, cows, chickens, etc. Ethanol is not the answer and American and European governments need to stop subsidizing its production.

I think your comments in the succeeding paragraph contain the nub of the issue; it is politically expedient at the moment for both parties to SAY that they will be more protectionist of American jobs. It's an electoral pose

I certainly hope that you're right. The chances of a Democrat winning office in November are very high (assuming that the party can heal itself) and I'm deadly afraid of the economic consequences of their election. I'm afraid to see America revert to failed Protectionist policies that will cause an even greater recession.

You will have to move away from the first stance towards the second more overtly in my opinion (and as you accept implicitly) if America is to remain a power on the world stage. Modern conditions demand it. The problem is that the vast majority of citizens feel disenfranchised with the political processes that currently pertain. How this plays out will determine how successful America is in halting the headlong slide into third-rate nation that it is currently on.

You're right - I should clarify. I try to avoid speaking in absolutes but when it comes to issues like personal freedom and economics, I sometimes revert back to them. As I stated above, I believe in only three proper functions of government. The private sector has shown unwilling and/or unable to sufficiently provide these services, something that even Ayn Rand admitted. You simply cannot entrust the defense of Justice to private companies, although our courts today seem to be doing just as poor a job as a company would do. Beyond those three functions, I fail to see a reason for government intervention.

The problem is that the assumptions they make (perfect knowledge, market conditions, rationality etc) do not exist anywhere in real life so we must try to bring them about through interventions and regulation in whatever form is necessary.

The difference is that my ideas have never been tried, yet everyone is convinced of their failure. I'll admit that there is a chance that they could fail. I don't think humanity is ready for the type of Capitalism that I believe in. Too many people are susceptible to corruption, dishonesty, unfaithfulness, etc. A lot of American businessmen love Ayn Rand and consider Atlas Shrugged to be their personal Bible while at the same time behaving nothing like the businessmen in the novel. Open and honest dealings are a central tenet to Objectivism.

I'll read those articles but I loathe both Krugman and the Huffington Post. Krugman is literally as far away from me as you can get on the economic spectrum.

I read the articles - as I suspected, I disagree with Krugman completely. Pro-labor policies is not what this country needs.

The last article was the most disturbing though. I literally wanted to throw my computer out the window reading that garbage. How could anyone honestly look at the current crisis in the market and think that more government intervention is the answer when government intervention is the PROBLEM! We have an artificial currency backed up by artificial reserves with artificial banks printing money to cover our losses. Since the institution of the Federal Reserve and centralized government banking, the US economy has faced tremendous boom and bust cycles. This will continue for as long as the Fed is in existence. A 5 year old should be able to understand that simply printing new money to cover up for losses will result in disaster. Not to mention that the recent decision by the government to hand out stimulus packages is a completely worthless idea. Poor people do not stimulate the economy. If stimulus packages are to go to anyone, they need to go to the upper-middle class and major corporations, who have the ability to buy goods and employ people, respectively. The stimulus package given to poor people will be spent on credit card debt, which is precisely where we don't want it to go. All of that money will be completely wasted on people who have no sense of financial responsibility. Now we need government oversight to make sure that people understand the mortgages that they sign? Since when the hell did the US government become everyone's parent/guardian?

That last article royally pissed me off. I am completely opposed to Keynes and anything that even reeks of government manipulation of the market place.

266. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160218 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Apology accepted Captain Needer...

Just don't force choke me....

What about GOP protectionist like Pat Buchanan or Lou Dobbs? I believe the theory that free trade is good for growth -- in practice it is pretty worrisome though especially in the short term. I am generally supportive of immigration being of positive impact on the economy -- again there are short term problems in that arena as well.

Ugh - two of my absolutely most hated political commentators. Lou Dobbs especially takes the cake. The man absolutely reeks of xenophobia that I'm surprised he didn't campaign for Tom Tancredo in the Republican nomination process.

The argument over free trade isn't on its economic benefits (which even xenophobic morons like Dobbs should agree with) but over stupid things like where our products are made. If companies are being patriotic enough. Or who makes products for a corporation. People like Dobbs and Buchanan would have us pay 10x more for a t-shirt just so that it can have a "Made in America by Americans" sticker on it. Ugh - who cares?!

My point is that the free market is never really free in the real world -- your classroom absolutist theories just do not work as a practical matter. There will be winners and there will be losers but the government does have to manage this so that your Montana and NH Militiamen can still afford to buy their bullets and there way too large reflective sunglasses when the black helicopters arrive.

Whoa there buddy - they aren't "my" Militiamen. I sympathize with some of their causes but I am definitely not one of them.

Perhaps my ideas are too Idealistic and could never be used practically. But someone has to be the counter to idiotic Communists who would have the state control everything :-)

And now time for sleep...

267. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160214 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 8:08 pm

There, was that so hard?
:)

The only reason why I'm hesitant to mention her in public is because one of two things happens: 1) people freak out and say something along the lines of "How can you possibly believe that?!?!" or 2) you're a Randian! As if simply agreeing with someone's opinions makes me their mindless follower. I guess in that case I'm a Rothbarian, von Misesian, George Washingtonian, Thomas Jeffersonian, Cato the Youngerian, etc.

268. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160209 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Oh please, this shit...


...is almost cut-and-pasted out of her writings.

Is it wrong?

I won't lie - her works have influenced me but she isn't the only person who shares my economic philosophy.

269. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160206 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Falcon read the post next time before you comment. It is because corporations clearly behave as you say that regulation is neccesary. Jesus Maria Olazabal! Pay attention when I am agreeing with you - it won't happen often so you have to be on the look out for it. Once again Libertarians take good idea to their logical extremes where they become nonsense. and you wonder why everyone thinks your ilk are kooks!

Sorry - I'm in a defensive mood tonight :-)

270. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160200 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:49 pm

A Randroid with a sense of humor?
I don't bump into them often.
Maybe twice, or thrice.

A Randroid who can't help but brag about something?
That I find in abundance.
:P

Ayn Rand is not even a member of the Austrian School, although she typically associated herself with them.

Nice try though.

271. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160198 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:48 pm

When you have a product that everyone wants, that is hard to substitute, in a market that is collusive and barren of real competition -- you no longer have a fair bargained exchange for value. You have a US economy that has been snake bitten and corporations with the only available antivenom.

edit: I wouldn't expect corporations as you describe them or their officers to act differently (in terms of some unwritten social contract to offer their product at some "fair" price other than the maximum they could get). That is precisely why government regulation of the market place is both necessary and desirable in many cases.

Whoever said that companies have to offer products at fair prices? Companies don't offer a product at a price that will give them a break-even point. They set their prices at a point where they will be able to maximize efficiency - that is, make the most money.

The whining against oil companies in particular is my favorite. Oil companies could probably sell gasoline at $20 a gallon and people would still buy it. People will always need to get to work (as you pointed out) and will only give up personal convenience at a tremendous cost.

Opinions like yours truly crack me up. You want corporations to provide at quantities and prices that you set for them. You continue to curse them when they go under, never realizing that you are the reason for their collapse.

If a Shell and Exxon station are across the street from each other and one sells its product for less than the other, who do you think will get 100% of the profit? I know everyone is convinced of some massive oil conspiracy but market collusion has never worked. Even if all oil companies decided to raise and set prices at $3.50 a gallon (for example), there would reach a point where one company would go down to $3.40 and undercut everyone else in the market. A drastic fall in prices would follow, whereby the artificial nature of the market would disappear and companies would settle upon the correct market price.

Welcome to Economics 101. Pretty basic stuff here.

272. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160191 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Yeah, the rhetoric all sounds so lofty.

Yet every single fucking time, it mutates into "I am the Ubermensch, now stand aside as I urinate on this homeless person".

I really find comments like these pretty hysterical, especially considering that just last month I volunteered for Habitat for Humanity. Ironic that you'd mention a homeless person...

Just because I believe that I shouldn't be forced into charity, that doesn't mean that I don't continue to donate time and money to charity. Why people can't wrap the idea of volunteer vs. coercion around their heads, I have no idea.

273. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160183 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:34 pm

AllanW

OK, let's try this again. This time, starting in Word…

Not true; the vast majority of Americans share the free market views you espouse. They have elected free-market, non-interventionist, no universal health-care etc parties since the early Sixties. As a measure of this look at the policies you mention by the current Democratic nominee-aspirants; you disparage them as being interventionist and I guess left wing. And in America they may seem so but the political spectrum over there is skewed heavily to the right. As a marker for you, both parties would be seen as at best centre-right if not extreme right wing in most European countries.

That trend is quickly changing and will probably have significant ramifications for the current election. With the exception of WWII, America has typically experienced a period of Isolationism following our involvement in wars. The Democrats and Republicans have combined to form an unholy alliance against free trade and illegal immigration, respectively.

A recent poll in The Economist is proof of this. 55% of Americans think that free trade is often harmful. 50% think that globalization has been bad for the domestic economy. 50% disagree that immigration has helped the economy grow. The same questions/responses were 30%, 30% and 50% in Great Britain. The poll was part of an article on Anglo-American attitudes and the article went on to explain how Great Britain is more in favor of globalization than America is. Republicans are only mildly in favor of globalization while Democrats are completely against it. They have reverted to the failed Protectionist policies of Isolationist America in the 1920s and want to reward American companies who keep jobs here. Both Democratic candidates have come out against NAFTA, although Senator Clinton in less certain terms since her husband authored the bill. Never mind the economic disaster that would result in the abolition of NAFTA and the reinstitution of tariffs. I can't believe that there are honestly people in the world who think that tariffs and government protection will actually result in a prosperous economy. Libertarians are the only force (if we can call ourselves that) left in America who vocally and vehemently support free trade. Republicans know that globalization is political suicide right now so they don't touch it. John McCain has mentioned it a little bit but I think tries to avoid the subject. It certainly isn't his strong point.

Of course the 'American way' meme is strong, of course the history and popular culture of the wild west and the pioneers is a strong one and of course there are elements in these memes and stories that pull powerfully at certain entirely human parts of our psyches so I can understand your point while being absolutely convinced that it represents the worst options for how to organise human societies in modern times. Every man for himself until someone stops you at the point of a gun is a crude, unnecessary and uncivilised way to live a life in my opinion.

You hit the nail on the head - America has a tradition of being a frontier country with a strong sense of individualism. This country was founded upon the idea that the government exists solely to do what we tell it to. When we were founded, Americans believed that the government only had the right to do what we allowed it do. Now, many Americans argue that the government can do anything that it isn't prohibited from doing in the Constitution. 9th and 10th Amendments be damned! We in America are moving from a nation where the individual tells the government what it can do to a nation where the government tells the individual what he or she can do. The end of this road is inevitably tyrannical rule of government. Governments simply do not give up powers that they obtain.

Many of us in America have a strong opposition to government imbedded in our psyche. States like Montana, New Hampshire and Vermont are home to violently anti-government militias, which is a phenomenon that you'll probably never find in Europe. We are strongly defensive over our civil liberties and typically don't give them up for anything.

So to start from a point that any government cannot deliver any service or good or be of any use whatsoever is to ignore the benefits that higher-level social organisations can and do deliver; it is a reversion to roving-band idealism.

I am not opposed to the idea of charity, but it must be voluntary in nature. I would certainly be opposed to any form of charity that requires taking my money and spending it on projects that I do not approve of. I am entirely convinced of the fact that everything the government touches will inevitably become corrupt, inefficient and worthless. Government-provided charity is horribly inefficient and could be much more easily provided through private charities and private donations. I don't understand why the idea of completely voluntary relationships is so anathema to so many people on this board.

Maybe I was unclear in my choice of words. The basis for existence of any corporation is currently within the powers of government to bestow, withhold or withdraw. Why would you have it any other way? Do you seriously want me to accept that the creation of any form of organisation endows it with an existence and power that from that moment on is untouchable by government? I'm sure that a moments' reflection will tell you that this would lead to anarchy.

As I said earlier, the $$ is the Ultimate Arbiter. Free and unregulated markets will not lead to anarchy. Corporations that fail to provide a product in a sufficient manner will quickly find themselves out of business. For consumers who continue to use companies that deliver insufficient products (e.g. Southwest Airlines not inspecting their planes) then the company cannot be blamed. It's akin to blaming a drug dealer for ruining your life. It's not the company's fault if you want to use a failed company simply to save some money.

'I will never agree to a company ever having a societal responsibility'. Why?

Because they are in existence for one reason - to make money. Should society object to the way that a company conducts its business, then they are perfectly able to boycott a company.

I would expect regulation in whatever form, as I said in my original post, to work towards moving actual market conditions towards those at which our economic models tell us the maximisation of utility occurs. The models work; I believe in the theory but the real world differs and can be made, through regulation, to approach ideal conditions.

And what if the point of this maximum utility is not the point of maximum efficiency for the company? What if they begin to operate at a loss? Or what if they operate at a level that causes them to experience less economic growth than they would experience if they followed supply and demand? Who will make up the loss - the government with taxpayer dollars? Certainly not with my money!

An illustration; how much would your personal economic productivity and growth be hampered if there were no police force, national defence force, fire service, healthcare system or public service organisation for roads, utilities etc?

I didn't mean to give the impression that I oppose the police, national defense force or the courts. As it is, those are the only three proper forms of government that I believe in. Beyond that, I do not believe in a purpose for government. The responsibility of the government is to establish a society in which Individuals can prosper. Guarantee property rights and let Individuals take it from there. All other functions of government are illegitimate and will only serve to hinder the economic growth and personal freedom of a nation while providing intrusive "benefits".

I'm enjoying our chat. I have wanted to discuss these issues (and others besides) on this site for awhile now as not only are they my own area of expertise (not being a scientist and all) but I believe they are the back-drop, the framing references for the issues we spend most of our time discussing here and are important therefore. Please don't think for a second that I'm aiming these notes at you. As I explained before, I'm not and I welcome a frank exchange of our varied viewpoints.

Again, I have to admit that my personal opinions are not (and never will be) the majority belief in America or anywhere else. I believe in a philosophy that is reprehensible to most people. I believe in true Capitalism - the only objectively moral philosophy in the world. People reject Capitalism because it represents personal responsibility and hard work; two ideas that many people are anathema to. It's the only system that doesn't discriminate, where you get out whatever you put in. Far too many people would trade safety and security for the meat grinder that is Capitalism.

So take my comments for whatever you consider them worth. But my kind is a dying breed - true personal freedom is a concept that few believe in anymore.

Take care,
FF

274. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160159 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Yeah, yeah, heard it all before.
For YEARS.
I know it stem to stern.
Spare me, please.

This coming from a person who objects to everything German and Austrian simply because of a 13-year part of their history...

Ironically, I had some Bratwurst and Shiner Bock at a German restaurant today. It was delicious.

275. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160144 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Stephen - Yet another argument in favor of less government intervention. Honestly, I don't know how Brits put up with the price of petrol. I currently live in the UK but can buy petrol on American military installations. I would only buy British petrol if my car was in desperate need of it.

If there truly is a car that runs on something other than oil (or consumes a lot less of it), then there has to be some other force besides oil companies keeping the technology suppressed. There is simply too much money to be made in that industry for the car companies to refuse to make it. Greed ultimately wins out over any form of market collusion.

Allan - I wrote a rather lengthy post in response but it seemed to have disappeared before being entered. I guess next time I'll write my responses in Word first....

I'll post again later.

276. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160131 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Sorry, I'm not into many Austrian/German things.
Something in the water over there, I dunno, they had a propensity for militaristic cookie cutter robots in a row stuff long before it went too far and became Nazis.

Diacanu - You know, this isn't the first time that I've seen someone object to the Austrian School of Economics simply based on the fact that its from Austria. I honestly am at a loss of words at how to respond to such ignorance. Never mind the fact that everything that the Austrian School stands for (e.g. individual freedom, peace, free trade, minimal government, etc.) is a complete contradiction to everything that the NDSAP/Nazi party stood for. Do you really object to anything German or Austrian? Such a shame - I've been to both countries and I absolutely love them.

Only idiots would believe in the Austrian school. When Hayek was sick, I suppose he would have gone to a doctor instead of waiting for nature to take its course because he didn't know all the possible side effects of medical interventions.

But then only idiots would think a hack and a tenth rate writer like Ayn Rand was a genius.

Bonzai:Indeed - your completely unbiased and objective evidence has caused me to reject Hayek and Rand, among others. Excellent post.

Sweatshops, pollution, health, the suppression of studies that show products to be unhealthy e.g smoking, countless medicines, the creation of diseases so drugs can be marketed. Healthcare in general. The privatisation of natural resources google privatisation of rainwater in Bolivia for example, or take villages in Africa that can't get access to water because they have to pay to use the well, so they die. Marketing Campaigns that manipulate children. In the US, the Supreme Court ruled that anything alive can be patented except a human being. The media is censored. American corporations role in Nazi Germany (IBM and the holocaust). I can go on and on.

Toad: Yet you fail to tell me where at any time the corporation "guilty" of such things is forcing you to buy their product. Do people really care that Nike clothes are made in sweat shops? Or that Starbucks destroys indigenous coffee farmers in South America? They might - but certainly not enough to stop buying their product. In all situations, the consumer and the Almighty Dollar are the ultimate arbiter.

As for government, when you start with the philosophy that government can do nothing but evil, government is never going to work.

Diacanu: Hey - you're catching on! Government is evil, albeit a necessary one. It's sole reason for existence is to provide for the collective defense of its citizens and nothing more. We are approaching a stage in human history where the government tells the individual what s/he can or cannot do, rather than the individual telling the government what it can or cannot do. This is the most dangerous stage in all of human history. Tyrannical rule of government is the inevitable end of this road.

I can go on and on about technoligies that are easily feasible for the 5 major car companies to create but they don't.

IP4: I've heard this argument a million times too. That car companies can build a car that doesn't run on oil but they keep the technology suppressed. Yea....sure. Never mind the fact that a car that doesn't run on oil (or consumes a lot less) would be a modern-day gold mine for the manufacturing companies. But you go ahead and keep believing that there is a massive conspiracy in the works to suppress technology...

277. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159856 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 9:04 am

FYI to anyone considering going to Mecca or on the Hajj - you do realize that Mecca is off limits to all non-Muslims, right?

I suspect that everyone was being sarcastic, or at least I hope they were. Non-Muslims are forbidden from entering the city.

Of course, I'd love to see the reaction if Vatican City closed itself off to just Catholics. The double standard is incredible.

278. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159854 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 9:02 am

FightingFalcon I shall give you another well thought out objection. Global Warming. There are issues that are too big, too important to allow Ayn Randian self interest to rule.
You only have to open your eyes to see the destruction and devastation that chasing profits has caused throughout the world, throughout history.

You know what the #1 polluter in the world is? Personal vehicle emissions. So how about you get off your high horse and tell me what you're doing to personally lower your own emissions.

Corporations don't force people to pollute, nor do they have any responsibility to curb people of their destructive habits. America being addicted to oil has what to do with Exxon? I love this passing on of the responsibility from the user (e.g. you) to another company that is simply providing you with your addiction.

Just check out your Human Footprint and see how much you are destroying the environment. Global warming will be ended when people make individual choices to minimize their footprint. Government legislation against corporations will stop absolutely nothing. Destroy ExxonMobile and tomorrow a new oil company will come to take its place, so long as the people demand it.

If corporate destruction of the world is so self-evident, you would have no problem coming up with other examples, would you?

279. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159841 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 8:26 am

And here we depart. Please don't take any of these comments personally as I've enjoyed your contributions over many threads here recently but you exhibit the typical American views on free markets so I'll use you as an opponent if you don't mind :)

I didn't know I had any fans on here :-)

I won't take them personally, but keep in mind that my views are not shared by nearly half of America. Republicans and Libertarians are largely in favor of free trade, open markets, etc. while Democrats have reverted to the Protectionism of the 1920s and early 30s. Just listen to Obama/Clinton rail against FTAs.

Corporations exist as part of society not apart from it. Their existence is formed by a grant from whatever organisation is empowered to govern society. As such, even after they have been created, they remain within the reach of those powers. This point has been lost by many, typically free market, supporters.

Corporate charters exist for no other reason than for government to reach its greedy paws into areas that it doesn't belong. What right does the government have to be involved in the private practices of corporations? It's only there to ensure its interests, e.g. taxes. Corporate charters are an old relic of the initial Joint Stock Companies and have no place in our current economy.

I will never agree to a company ever having a societal responsibility. Like I said earlier, it has one purpose only - provide a product in demand by consumers and make money. Should the masses object to the manner in which the company provides the product, then they have every right to stop buying it. What the consumer doesn't have the right to is objecting to the price of a product and demanding that the corporation be regulated, produce more of the product and at a lower price. That idea is complete lunacy. It only exists in fairy-land economic theories that have no practical application.

To be even clearer; the corporations' objectives (even though they may be changed from time to time and embody purposes other than to make profits) remain subservient to societies wishes and corporations can be amended, closed or reformed in any manner the government chooses should they produce results in any form which that society deems to be unwelcome.

The prices, quantity of output, etc. of a given corporation are set by invisible forces. It's a trial-and-error method of supply vs. demand that is constantly changing and fluctuating. A corporation doesn't just arbitrarily set prices, it chooses the price based on supply and demand. Legislation that makes oil sell for $1.00 a gallon (for example) won't magically make-up for the extreme gap between what oil companies pay for oil and then what they sell it for. You can legislate all you want but when companies start to go out of business because they can't operate at the artificial levels that you demand them to work at, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

To make any market approach these conditions requires regulation in a wide variety of forms. Taxation, regulatory bodies, legislative actions etc all attempt to move actual real world conditions towards those in which economic models and their theories would apply. And this is done because market capitalism is the best, most productive model that humanity has developed so far to increase the welfare of society as a whole. You see, I believe in market theory :) the difference between us is one of purpose and pragmatism.

Personally, I would argue that government intervention in the market place has never helped - only hindered - economic growth. The government bailout of BearStearns is a perfect example. Certain companies are going to need to collapse in this period of market adjustment. Instead, the government spends billions of dollars to artificially keep companies alive that should have gone under. The market will continue to suffer as its readjusts and the government will try desperately to throw all of our hard-earned tax payer dollars at failed companies. Had the government just let those companies go under, we'd be able to recover more quickly. Instead, we will be faced with a long and drawn out process as companies use government-provided money to cover some of their losses yet still go under. What a complete waste.

I could go on, of course, how the entire housing crisis was made by the government to begin with but I won't. Every example I've seen of government intervention in the market-place has been a complete failure. Even the rise of the "robber baron" railroad tycoons is due to the government handing out vast tracks of land to its personal friends. The simple fact is that monopolies can never rise in a truly free market. There will always be a company out there to offer a product at a lower price or in an alternative manner. Furthermore, should the consumer be willing to pay high prices for a product (e.g. oil/gas) then what business does the government have to interfere? The company is simply offering what the public wants. Why is it the fault of the company that the public is willing to pay such a high price for it? Not to mention the extremely high operating costs that an oil company must face?

I'll try giving those links a read a bit later.

280. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159830 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 8:06 am

Common Toad,

The freedom fallacy of unrestrained capitalism. Please you actually believe this?

Yes, I do. Not even your well thought out and reasoned objection to my post can make me think otherwise.

Radesq,

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has played the board game Monopoly can think that government intervention isn't absolutely necessary for a stable market place. As for ExxonMobil, it is the biggest player in today's Oiligopoly -- they might as well change their name to Standard Oil. But until the government breaks them up or Teratornis gets a sidecar for his bicycle that he can cart me around in...I guess I'll have to put up with the invisible hand of the market lifting all the money out of my wallet every time I roll into the filling station.

GLX answered this post very well. You admit yourself that the oil industry is an Oligopoly and not a Monopoly. Therefore the government has no right to break them up. Is there not competition in the market-place?

GLX I buy gasoline so that I can drive to work. (don't you dare give me a bunch of BS suggestions on how I should solve that dilemma) There is not enough competition in the gasoline production industry and that is a problem. It leads to collusion and artificial supply line problems to inflate prices. I don't want government price fixing I want oversight. I want the oligopoly broken up to increase competition (the barriers to entry in that business are too high). I want the government to require additional refining capacity to be built so there isn't a supply/demand problem with every change of the seasons or when there is a fire or flood at one facility. The market is not the masses speaking if it was the price of gas would not have dropped dramatically prior to Bush's last reelection bid.

So now oligopolies are illegal? Since when did that become law? Technically, Linux, Mac and Microsoft have an oligopoly on computer processing units - are we going to break them up too?

How do you artificially create prices and/or competitors? You would tie one hand behind the oil companies backs and then demand that they create more oil at lower prices. Do you realize the insanity of your position? You want the free market to work a certain way but that isn't what makes it free.

Not to mention that you would take what ExxonMobile has taken years to create and destroy it with the signing of a pen for no other reason than to make the masses happy. Hard work means nothing to you - just give me cheap gas. Never mind the ethical implications of taking a product that is the result of years of hard work and dedication and give it to people (e.g. Exxon's successors) who have done NOTHING but earned government favor, which will inevitably be handing out the spoils to its friends.

As for oil refiners - you can blame Eco-Nazis for that one. They refuse to allow the construction of new oil refineries (at least in America), not to mention new nuclear power plants. I agree completely that new oil refineries need to be constructed but you can tell that to Greenpeace.

281. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159688 by FightingFalcon on April 12, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Diacanu,

I like the "get the government off my back", part of libertarianism, but I hate the blind faith in corporations.

I don't trust corporations any more than I do the government.

Both are out to scarf up all the money, and both want to control your mind.

We don't have blind faith in corporations. We believe that human beings have the fundamental right to keep whatever money that they make through honest and legal dealings. I have no particular love for Exxon but I recognize the fact that they have the right to keep their profits. They have no responsibility toward anyone or anything other than to make money. That's why they exist - for no other reason do they operate. Corporations exist solely to provide a product that the general population wants. Should a company provide that product in an unsatisfactory manner or the product is no longer required, the customer moves on.

The Austrian School of Economics makes so much sense to me that I find it hard to believe that there are actually people out there who continue to advocate government intervention in the market place.

282. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159402 by FightingFalcon on April 12, 2008 at 5:26 am

I highly suggest everyone watches the New Rules segment of last night's show, which was posted by MPhil. Bill Maher is completely spot-on when he says that the only difference between a religion and a cult is volume (e.g. # of believers). Recently in Texas a polygamist ranch was raided under the justification that polygamy is illegal in Texas and that it was guilty of child abuse. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church gets away with child abuse daily and never faces punishment.

I don't share all of Bill Maher's views but since we're both Libertarians, I agree with him more often than I disagree. I love watching his show.

My favorite line: "One reason I think yourself and so many others are beginning to speak out against organized religion is, uh, because it's ridiculous!! It's ridiculous!"

I just hope Dawkins didn't give the audience the wrong impression by talking about fairies and pink unicorns :-)

283. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #158816 by FightingFalcon on April 11, 2008 at 4:26 am

Jon,

"The Fuehrer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay."

Adolf Hitler, as quoted by Joseph Goebbels in The Holy Reich

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Adolf Hitler, as quoted by Albert Speer in The Holy Reich

"I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this..."

Adolf Hitler, as quoted in Ibsen and Hitler. Hitler was talking about the pagan Roman Emperor Julian's criticisms of Christianity.

You can go ahead and believe that Hitler was a Christian all you want. The overwhelming evidence points to the opposite.

I thought that Theists were the ones who rejected evidence because they wanted their beliefs to be right? I know we all "want" Hitler to be a Christian to make our arguments easier but the simple fact is that he wasn't. Certainly no Atheist but definitely no Christian.

284. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #158548 by FightingFalcon on April 10, 2008 at 5:46 pm

I'm watching Keith Olbermann right now and he will be addressing this story again tonight on his Countdown. All he said is that the "story has changed".

EDIT: Representative Davis apologized. She called Rob and said that she exploded because of the shooting of two children earlier that day.

Double Edit: Pat Robertson is today's Worst Person in the World for criticizing Islam as a political system simply masquerading behind religion in an attempt to exert control over human beings.

The irony of such a statement was not lost on Olbermann :D

285. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #158446 by FightingFalcon on April 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Black Wolf,

The Viking funeral followed. There were no words spoken; the only sound was the roar of Russian shells exploding in the garden of the Chancellery and on the shattered walls around it. Hitler's valet, S.S. Sturmbannfuehrer Heinz Linge, and an orderly carried out the Fuehrer's body, wrapped in an Army field-gray blanket...the corpses were carried up to the garden and during a lull in the bombardment placed in a shell hole and ignited with gasoline. The mourners, headed by Goebbels and Bormann, withdrew to the sheleter of the emergency exit and as the flames mounted stood at attention and raised their right hands in a farewell Nazi salute.

Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

Perhaps Shirer and I are reading too much into it. That's the second time that Shirer mentions a Viking funeral (the first time after Hitler ordered 200 gallons of gasoline to be burned with) although I suppose you could argue that he simply wanted to be burned so that his body would never be found. Either way, that's where I read it.

286. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158300 by FightingFalcon on April 10, 2008 at 9:52 am

As long as someone had a high school degree and willingly followed Nazi ideology, he was in basically. They let this kind of person write an essay or two, and he was a scientist. The Nazis didn't care if their scientists produced bogus papers, just as long as they supported them. They re-wrote German history, distorted paleontology and archaeology, and they followed the same path in almost all areas of science. That's what happens when the education system gets subordinated to an unscientific and irrational ideology.

Exactly - even Himmler was a damned chicken farmer before becoming one of the most powerful men in th Reich. Hitler didn't care where you came from or what you did, so long as you carried out his policies. Probably why so many societal rejects ended up in his inner circle.

The scientific experiments carried out by the Nazis were wholly unscientific and completely insane. What kind of test is necessary to measure what happens to the human head when you add too much pressure or completely de-pressurize the room? Take a wild guess as to what will happen. Or what happens to men when you leave them outside naked in the freezing temperatures overnight.

Nazi doctors and scientists (including Hitler's personal physician) were complete quacks. Please don't associate them with the legitimate scientific community.

287. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158295 by FightingFalcon on April 10, 2008 at 9:48 am

Ugh - I'm so sick and tired of hearing that Social Darwinism caused Adolf Hitler's racist beliefs.

No, it didn't. Neither Hitler nor Alfred Rosenberg mention Social Darwinism in their writings. Their views on the supremacy of the Aryan race predate the idea of Social Darwinism by hundreds of years.

I'm really fed up with having to counter the same arguments over and over again. Such ignorance pisses me off.

288. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #158286 by FightingFalcon on April 10, 2008 at 9:37 am

Er, apart from his repeated declarations of his Christianity?

Falcon, if what a person SAYS is their religion cannot be taken as, uh, 'gospel', then how on earth DO you determine a person's religion? Two people who believe themselves Christian can have wildly different views on (for instance) God's take on homosexuality.

My point is that there's no consensus benchmark of values that you could use to check if a person's deeds correlated with a particular religion. So surely if Hitler says he's a Christian, he's a Christian? If that's not so, then what criteria DO you use?

We're dealing with Adolf Hitler here - the man said many things in public that he did not truly believe. Why would anyone take what Hitler and Goebbels said publicly at face value? The only thing that matters is what they said/wrote in private and their actions.

With most people, public declarations are enough to ascertain their mindset. But we're dealing with a master propagandist here. Nothing he says in public can be taken at face value - all of it has to be measured by what he says in private and his actions. His actions cannot lie, no matter how much he wants them to. His choice of religious symbolism, distance from Christianity, introduction of Positive Christianity and even his Viking Norse funeral show that Hitler was very far from being a Christian. He's even quoted (privately) as saying that he hates Christianity and wished that Germany had a religion like Imperial Japan. His love of Wagner, Ariosophy and Germanic paganism is very well documented.

Falcon, the moral, ethically correct position of the catholic church should have been to oppose what the government was doing. Regardless of personal consequences. That is what being ethical is all about, specially when one is religious it should be easier, with the afterlife and all.

Whether or not this would have stopped the war, saved any number of people in germany or otherwise improved the lives of anybody is totally irrelevant. If you are a committed member of the church, all of that amounts to nothing, for it is to be compared with infinite divine reward in the afterlife.

But the Church did indeed intervene in Germany to save the lives of Jews, German refugees and discontented non-Nazi German officials.

I see this criticism ultimately as unfair because no one in Germany raised opposition. OK - the Church is to blame. But so were the German people, the Army, the intellectuals, universities, other religious denominations, etc. Basically anyone living in Germany from 1933-1945 could be seen as complicit in the aid of Nazis. Their control over the country was total and complete.

What exactly did you want the Church to do? Have priests oppose the Army? Like I said earlier, no organized opposition was allowed. Nor did the German people (or anyone outside of the government) know the true nature of the Holocaust.

I guess I'm confused as to what everyone expected the Church to do here. Organize armies of priests? Vocally oppose Hitler? Given the existence of the SS/SD, both options are ludicrous.

289. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #158106 by FightingFalcon on April 10, 2008 at 4:29 am

Don't you think if the church (not an individual) stood up and said this is wrong, that maybe, just maybe, millions of Jews and thousands of soldiers would not have had to die in the 1940's?

Here's my reasoning, feel free to shoot me down please...

If the church stood up then, maybe, the UK, France, the US etc would not have waited so long before acting against Hitler.

Would the US been able to say out of the WWII until a Pearl Harbour if their people back home knew what was going on - told by their church it was wrong?

Nothing was going to stop the outbreak of WWII - certainly not opposition from the Catholic Church. Chamberlain and Petain were completely opposed to the idea of using force against Hitler before the invasion of Poland. Petain even attempted to get out of his obligations to Poland after Hitler invaded but ultimately had his hand forced by the British.

I would need to look at my dates again but I don't know how much earlier the United States would have entered the war. The Einsatzgruppen weren't organized until the invasion of the USSR in June 1941 and the execution camps followed shortly after. Concentration camps had existed since the rise of Hitler but these were mainly holding areas for political dissidents. There was quite a difference between an execution camp and a concentration camp.

My point being that even had the Church told the rest of the world what was going on (and I question how much it truly knew about the Holocaust), then it wouldn't have really affected the entrance of the US into the war. Wide-spread killing of untermensch didn't start until the invasion of the USSR anyway.

EDIT:

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

Adolf Hitler

Hitler said a lot of things in public that he obviously had no belief in. By no stretch of the imagination was Hitler a Catholic or a Christian. His personal brand of Positive Christianity, which he tried to force upon the German people, had almost nothing in common with Christianity. Hitler knew the benefit of religion keeping the people content and therefore did not make the same mistake that Bismarck made in the Kulturkampf.

Hitler was an avowed Occultist and Ariosophist. There is no reason to believe that he was a Catholic or even a Christian.

290. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #157932 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Goldy - nothing wrong with being from New Zealand! I'm dying to get over there one of these days. But I'm living in the UK right now so its kinda far away!

Tulsa, OK and Memphis, TN? Wow - not the best examples of America! There are plenty of sane and very nice people in the South but I belong in the North East of America, which is where I spent 20 years of my life.

As much as I want our Republic to be perfect, we're not. I'm still waiting for the day that we can fulfill our quest to be that "shining city on a hill" for the rest of the world. I am definitely interested to see what happens in the next administration, regardless of who wins. I really think (and hope) that this religious revival in America is tied directly to the fortunes of our president.

Carto - you don't only write about your sexuality - you have mentioned a crossbow too at times. but yes, sexuality, gender, colour, race, creed - these are all irrelevancies in the running of a country. I'm told of African-Americans, Irish-Americans (and they're all Irish, aren't they. Even the English derived ones...), Spanish-Americans, Chinese-Americans. Where are the just Americans in the media? Apart from the soldiers sweating in Iraq and being killed - they're just Americans. Why aren't the others?

Not to inject myself into this discussion but the issue of hyphenated Americans pisses me off. I refuse to use African-American, Latino-American, etc. I'm not a racist - I simply refuse to acknowledge any distinct groups of Americans. We are all from the same country. We are all Americans. I don't care where your parents came from. Unless you were born in Ireland, you're not an Irish-American...

291. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #157910 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Goldy - you're exactly right about us not being complacent. Ever since landing on the Moon, NASA has taken a rather back-seat position in America. The Mars rovers have really been our most ambitious project since the Moon landing and to all of our benefit, it has been a resounding success.

The problem in America is that most people don't understand spending money on space. The race to the Moon as at least justified because we had to get there before the Communists did. It was a matter of national security, following the launch of Sputnik. Now, most of us know that modern technology has greatly benefited from space exploration. The laptop that I'm writing this post on would not exist without space exploration. Considering the parasitic nature of human beings, I personally am convinced that space exploration is the only hope for our species. I am completely devoted to NASA as well as private exploration of space. Many Americans don't see it that way though - why spend money on far away planets when we have problems here at home? That's their line of reasoning. Never mind that space exploration could bring about untold benefits. Just looking at space gets me excited. But many don't see it that way.

Can I ask if you live in America? I ask because I'm afraid that non-Americans don't really get the whole story outside of our country. Yes, we have quite a large number of religious fanatics. I'd be willing to say that we are the one exception to the rule of a country's prosperity generally equating to a decline in religious influence. At the same time, we continue to make tremendous achievements in all fields of science and math.

Yes, we occasionally have to deal with evolution being threatened and replaced with ID. But every time that Theists have attempted this, the Supreme Court has blocked them and the respective school board has been voted out. I am personally convinced that religious influence has reached a peak in America only because of its patronage in the White House. Once that leaves, I fully expect a return to normalcy in this country. I do not remember Christian fanatics being this vocal in the Clinton years. I'm not ready to give up on my beloved Republic just yet.

292. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #157900 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 5:43 pm

There won't be any Stars and Stripes on Mars, will there?

My favorite quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson, who also happens to be one of my favorite scientists:

"I don't want students who could make the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space travel to have been taught that anything they don't understand, and that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their intellectual capacity. The day that happens, Americans will just sit in awe of what we don't understand, while we watch the rest of the world boldly go where no mortal has gone before."

Ironically enough, NASA and JPL have fared rather well under the current administration. President Bush even wanted to go back to the Moon and Americans have easily taken the lead in the exploration of Mars.

I don't see anyone supplanting America in the field of space exploration anytime soon - so long as our education system continues to provide qualified scientists.

I'm not too worried about China making the next great space accomplishment. They're still trying to get a man on the Moon - something we accomplished decades ago.

293. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #157843 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Hmmm! You're right, of course....I didn't think it through. I'd delete it but I think my shame should stand for all to see....

It represents just what Theism represents - that your life belongs to others. While Theists would have you believe that it belongs to god, that phrase would have you believe that it belongs to Society.

My life belongs to me and me alone. You have no right to take my money, property, freedom or life. I am not my brother's keeper - I have no obligation toward him.

Feel free to do what you feel is right to help out your "fellow man". But leave me out of it.

294. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #157834 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm

We are our brothers keeper

Good god, how I hate that phrase with a passion.

295. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #157832 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 3:28 pm

In other words, ignore the churchgoing folks and you don't stand a prayer of winning.

And here I thought that after the past 8 years, Christian evangelicals would lose their White House patronage.

Jupiter help us all....

296. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #157831 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 3:25 pm

I know you wouldn't die for that, I probably wouldn't either....


But what about these people who believe in an afterlife?

Again, its a hard position to put yourself in. No organized opposition was allowed in Nazi Germany and you can be sure that Heydrich and his SD would have found out if even the slightest opposition was being formed against the NSDAP. A few priests here or there may have been able to give up their lives but once it became a real issue, Hitler would have put an end to the existence of the church. This is the same man, after all, who wiped Lidice off the face of the Earth.

I fully support putting your life in danger to support a worthy cause but I think here it would have been pointless. Then again, like you point out, they do indeed believe in an afterlife. But they were probably more concerned with their church being kicked out of Germany than the preservation of human life.

At best, the Church can be seen as not actively opposing Hitler. At worst, I'm sure there were quite a few people in the hierarchy who were pleased to see Hitler oppose certain untermensch. Then again, the Church was actively involved in the effort to save the lives of many Jews in Europe.

Meh - this is why I dislike debating the actions of an entire organization. I hate generalizations like this.

297. The Atheist Next Door

Comment #157823 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Zeke,

It's not that I mind being the odd man out, honest, but since I seem to have had such a different reaction from everyone else, I offer some perspectives from last year.

I thought our friends in the American media had evolved nicely in the past year :-)

I just watched the video that you linked to from CNN

Linky

I've been very vocal on this board about how foolish it is for Atheists to go after "In God We Trust" and "Under God" on US currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, respectively. Part 1 of that story mentioned both cases and Part 2 (the debate) brought up the Pledge numerous times, as well as Michael Newdow. I can't express enough how opposed I am to going after the Pledge. I keep trying to tell people that it only hurts our cause but everyone thinks that its a target worth going after.

That whole debate just pissed me off though. Why is the ESPN sports commentator the only remote voice of reason there? Not to mention a black woman telling Atheists to shut up is ironic, given the history of blacks in America. Prayer in schools? UGH - I thought we settled that issue already?!

I'm too angry from watching that video. I need to go calm down....

298. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #157812 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Don't you think it would be Christ-like to lay down your life in opposition to evil, as opposed to aiding it?

But then again there isn't much the Catholics do that is all that "Christ-like".

Eh, I guess. But this sounds like the same argument that occurred when people found out that Pope Benedict XVI was a Hitler Youth. It's impossible to know exactly how anyone would act in that situation. I would probably have a hard time giving up my life for a cause that had no chance.

Had the Church shown any opposition, they probably would have just been destroyed by the SS/SD like everyone else was. I'm not giving them a pass by any means but criticizing them for participating in a mandatory program of the Nazi government isn't very fair, either.

299. Anti-evolution bill clears another hurdle

Comment #157803 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Hobbit,

This time I'm heading to Miami.

Enjoy! Miami Beach is definitely one of the best places to be in America. At least, it is for a single 22 year old like myself :D

Haven't been to Dallas yet - I'm actually in San Antonio right now before going back to the UK. Texas is such a ridiculous state - I definitely do not belong here but the people are all very nice.

One of these days I'll get to Australia and NZ. Hopefully sometime soon.

300. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #157799 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Not much of a story here, IMHO. Anyone who has actually studied Nazi Germany would know that there was nothing anyone could do to oppose Adolf Hitler internally.