400 Americans

[JoeNormal]

The answer was in the part of my post that you edited out.

Because "There's no honor or any of the restraint of standard military discipline:?
I dismissed this as your actual reasons because there's absolutely nothing necessary about those conditions.
That is, there's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor restraint or discipline.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

What happened in the case of Blackwater then?

You understand that because a particular private paramilitary company may or may have operated without honor, restraint or discipline in no way means that all private paramilitary company will so operate -- right?
There's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor, restraint, or discipline, negating your argument.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

Because the 'employees' of a paramilitary company are nothing more than mercenaries. Do you believe that there is nothing wrong with being a mercenary?

Good to see you dropped the "cannot operate with honor, restraint, or discipline" argument.

If mercenaries operate with honor, restraint, or discipline, what's wrong with them?

Remember that you're arguing against "the whole concept" here - that the concept itself is inherently flawed.

When soldiers act in the interest of the military, there's a chain of command, a tradition of honor and the idea that what they're fighting for is greater than themselves. I don't see how that can exist when a soldier is hired to provide potentially deadly force to protect the interests of a paying client. They are taking orders from an entity that might have no real values at all.

 

[kaz]

You know this because?
Oh yeah, you dont. It just sounds good so you say it.

The signs are there for all to see. I would be interested in knowing where you draw the line - or if there's even a line to be drawn. Hiring a hit man conforms to the rules of capitalism. There's demand and there's someone to meet that demand with supply. Do you find anything wrong with that type of transaction?

So in your scenario, government is the "hit man." And according to you, you want the hit man to make our choices for us. Because you don't trust the guy who hired the hit man, you trust the man who kills for the highest bidder. And it will be fine if you make the hit man stronger.

You really didn't think this one through. You never do.

Maybe you'd like to take a crack at answering the question I posed in post 219. Rabbi seemed to think it would be too incriminating.

Again, you don't understand what capitalism is. It's an economic system. You are asking about a crime where one person kills another. Who is arguing that murder should be legal? Stop being an idiot, it's just a stupid question that has nothing to do with anything that anyone is arguing. And you actually think it's clever? What's funny is that you think it's clever, but the laughter is at your expense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When soldiers act in the interest of the military, there's a chain of command, a tradition of honor and the idea that what they're fighting for is greater than themselves. I don't see how that can exist when a soldier is hired to provide potentially deadly force to protect the interests of a paying client. They are taking orders from an entity that might have no real values at all.

I am not sure why you do not understand there's nothing inherent about a private paramilitary company that necessarily precludes or necessarily excludes any or all of the things you deem necessary for the proper/legitimate use of force; your inability to imagine these things in a private company in no way disproves the validity of "the whole concept".

For whatever reason, you apparently believe that only the state has the legitimate ability to apply deadly force - which is, of course, nonsense..

 

[JoeNormal]

You know this because?
Oh yeah, you dont. It just sounds good so you say it.

The signs are there for all to see. I would be interested in knowing where you draw the line - or if there's even a line to be drawn. Hiring a hit man conforms to the rules of capitalism. There's demand and there's someone to meet that demand with supply. Do you find anything wrong with that type of transaction?

So in your scenario, government is the "hit man." And according to you, you want the hit man to make our choices for us. Because you don't trust the guy who hired the hit man, you trust the man who kills for the highest bidder. And it will be fine if you make the hit man stronger.

You really didn't think this one through. You never do.

Maybe you'd like to take a crack at answering the question I posed in post 219. Rabbi seemed to think it would be too incriminating.

Again, you don't understand what capitalism is. It's an economic system. You are asking about a crime where one person kills another. Who is arguing that murder should be legal? Stop being an idiot, it's just a stupid question that has nothing to do with anything that anyone is arguing. And you actually think it's clever? What's funny is that you think it's clever, but the laughter is at your expense.

Well, at least you seem to have some sort of conscience. I wish I could say the same about Rabbi. I posed this question because it's not a whole lot different than what happens on a much larger scale at least in the name of capitalism. Perhaps you're right about capitalism in the sense that if everybody played by the rules, there was no cronyism and there were no military intervention, it would be a system in which the best man would win. But thinking that there won't be people gaming the system is a bit naive.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Facts are inconvenient things, so they just ignore them.

Are you ignoring this fact?

The wedges between productivity and median compensation growth Economic Policy Institute

Simply explained by the fact that technological advances have allowed less skilled laborers to produce more.

You cannot think that a guy who runs an automatized machine is worth the same as a skilled craftsman who can make by hand what the machine makes

He might be.
The issue is unit labor cost. The skilled craftsman might be able to make only 5 widgets a day while the machine operator can crank out 1000. If they're comparable then the machine operator might be worth more money.

No the guys who make, program and keep the machine running are more important than the moron pushing a button.

You just moved the goalpost by saying "more important." That isnt the issue. You're comparing apples and orangutangs.
The issue is how much value the employee creates. Part of that calculus is how skilled he is. But not necessarily.

More important in this context means worth more money.

When any moron off the street can run a machine they aren't worth much.

 

[orogenicman]

The Buffet family is one of the wealthiest families in the country, and yet they can't pay their people a living wage. You tell me why that is.

Who is the Buffet family? Are they the people who own all those buffets? Of course they dont pay much. How much skill does it take to manage a buffet? Hell, you dont even need waiters.

They own Walmart, among other holdings, dude.

Dude, you dont have the slightest ******* clue what you aer talking about. Not a shred. Why should someone take you seriously?

Erm, Warren Buffet does not own Walmart? Gee, when did that happen?

Geezus. Buddy, you are way too ******* stupid to engage. Sorry, dude. That's just how it is.

Reading your respoinses - I just have to laugh. And you call me stupid. ROFLMAO.

 

[kaz]

You know this because?
Oh yeah, you dont. It just sounds good so you say it.

The signs are there for all to see. I would be interested in knowing where you draw the line - or if there's even a line to be drawn. Hiring a hit man conforms to the rules of capitalism. There's demand and there's someone to meet that demand with supply. Do you find anything wrong with that type of transaction?

So in your scenario, government is the "hit man." And according to you, you want the hit man to make our choices for us. Because you don't trust the guy who hired the hit man, you trust the man who kills for the highest bidder. And it will be fine if you make the hit man stronger.

You really didn't think this one through. You never do.

Maybe you'd like to take a crack at answering the question I posed in post 219. Rabbi seemed to think it would be too incriminating.

Again, you don't understand what capitalism is. It's an economic system. You are asking about a crime where one person kills another. Who is arguing that murder should be legal? Stop being an idiot, it's just a stupid question that has nothing to do with anything that anyone is arguing. And you actually think it's clever? What's funny is that you think it's clever, but the laughter is at your expense.

Well, at least you seem to have some sort of conscience. I wish I could say the same about Rabbi. I posed this question because it's not a whole lot different than what happens on a much larger scale at least in the name of capitalism. Perhaps you're right about capitalism in the sense that if everybody played by the rules, there was no cronyism and there were no military intervention, it would be a system in which the best man would win. But thinking that there won't be people gaming the system is a bit naive.

You are full of shit and you have no idea what you are talking about.

And LOL, so many more people have been killed in your name. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and so many others who killed milliions to maintain the ubiquitous control over the people in socialist governments.

 

[JoeNormal]

The signs are there for all to see. I would be interested in knowing where you draw the line - or if there's even a line to be drawn. Hiring a hit man conforms to the rules of capitalism. There's demand and there's someone to meet that demand with supply. Do you find anything wrong with that type of transaction?

So in your scenario, government is the "hit man." And according to you, you want the hit man to make our choices for us. Because you don't trust the guy who hired the hit man, you trust the man who kills for the highest bidder. And it will be fine if you make the hit man stronger.

You really didn't think this one through. You never do.

Maybe you'd like to take a crack at answering the question I posed in post 219. Rabbi seemed to think it would be too incriminating.

Again, you don't understand what capitalism is. It's an economic system. You are asking about a crime where one person kills another. Who is arguing that murder should be legal? Stop being an idiot, it's just a stupid question that has nothing to do with anything that anyone is arguing. And you actually think it's clever? What's funny is that you think it's clever, but the laughter is at your expense.

Well, at least you seem to have some sort of conscience. I wish I could say the same about Rabbi. I posed this question because it's not a whole lot different than what happens on a much larger scale at least in the name of capitalism. Perhaps you're right about capitalism in the sense that if everybody played by the rules, there was no cronyism and there were no military intervention, it would be a system in which the best man would win. But thinking that there won't be people gaming the system is a bit naive.

You are full of shit and you have no idea what you are talking about.

And LOL, so many more people have been killed in your name. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and so many others who killed milliions to maintain the ubiquitous control over the people in socialist governments.

Pot meet kettle. I know it's next to impossible for libertarian ideologues like you to think in terms other than black and white so just continue to bask in your simpleminded splendor. You'll be happier for it.

 

[kaz]

So in your scenario, government is the "hit man." And according to you, you want the hit man to make our choices for us. Because you don't trust the guy who hired the hit man, you trust the man who kills for the highest bidder. And it will be fine if you make the hit man stronger.

You really didn't think this one through. You never do.

Maybe you'd like to take a crack at answering the question I posed in post 219. Rabbi seemed to think it would be too incriminating.

Again, you don't understand what capitalism is. It's an economic system. You are asking about a crime where one person kills another. Who is arguing that murder should be legal? Stop being an idiot, it's just a stupid question that has nothing to do with anything that anyone is arguing. And you actually think it's clever? What's funny is that you think it's clever, but the laughter is at your expense.

Well, at least you seem to have some sort of conscience. I wish I could say the same about Rabbi. I posed this question because it's not a whole lot different than what happens on a much larger scale at least in the name of capitalism. Perhaps you're right about capitalism in the sense that if everybody played by the rules, there was no cronyism and there were no military intervention, it would be a system in which the best man would win. But thinking that there won't be people gaming the system is a bit naive.

You are full of shit and you have no idea what you are talking about.

And LOL, so many more people have been killed in your name. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and so many others who killed milliions to maintain the ubiquitous control over the people in socialist governments.

Pot meet kettle. I know it's next to impossible for libertarian ideologues like you to think in terms other than black and white so just continue to bask in your simpleminded splendor. You'll be happier for it.

Yes, other than being an ideologue I'd be OK with government making my decisions for me over my own life and implementing them with force. I'm completely dogmatic. You on the other hand wanting government to make your decisions for you and trusting them to do that, no ideology or dogma at all, just practical common sense it is. You are clueless.

 

[georgephillip]

Not a definition of the term.

True.
"Fairness does not mean everyone gets the same. Fairness means everyone gets what they need.”
― Rick Riordan, The Red Pyramid
tags: equity, fairness, inspirational
67 likes
like

“Equality of opportunity is not enough. Unless we create an environment where everyone is guaranteed some minimum capabilities through some guarantee of minimum income, education, and healthcare, we cannot say that we have fair competition. When some people have to run a 100 metre race with sandbags on their legs, the fact that no one is allowed to have a head start does not make the race fair. Equality of opportunity is absolutely necessary but not sufficient in building a genuinely fair and efficient society.”
― Ha-Joon Chang, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism
Quotes About Equity 24 quotes

I would argue capitalism is designed to knee-cap competition in order to ensure a greedy few continue to amass more and more wealth with each passing generation.

 

[JoeNormal]

Maybe you'd like to take a crack at answering the question I posed in post 219. Rabbi seemed to think it would be too incriminating.

Again, you don't understand what capitalism is. It's an economic system. You are asking about a crime where one person kills another. Who is arguing that murder should be legal? Stop being an idiot, it's just a stupid question that has nothing to do with anything that anyone is arguing. And you actually think it's clever? What's funny is that you think it's clever, but the laughter is at your expense.

Well, at least you seem to have some sort of conscience. I wish I could say the same about Rabbi. I posed this question because it's not a whole lot different than what happens on a much larger scale at least in the name of capitalism. Perhaps you're right about capitalism in the sense that if everybody played by the rules, there was no cronyism and there were no military intervention, it would be a system in which the best man would win. But thinking that there won't be people gaming the system is a bit naive.

You are full of shit and you have no idea what you are talking about.

And LOL, so many more people have been killed in your name. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and so many others who killed milliions to maintain the ubiquitous control over the people in socialist governments.

Pot meet kettle. I know it's next to impossible for libertarian ideologues like you to think in terms other than black and white so just continue to bask in your simpleminded splendor. You'll be happier for it.

Yes, other than being an ideologue I'd be OK with government making my decisions for me over my own life and implementing them with force. I'm completely dogmatic. You on the other hand wanting government to make your decisions for you and trusting them to do that, no ideology or dogma at all, just practical common sense it is. You are clueless.

Nothing black-and-white about your thinking. Nope. No way.

 

[kaz]

[I would argue capitalism is designed to knee-cap competition in order to ensure a greedy few continue to amass more and more wealth with each passing generation.

What a sad little victim you are. Here's a hug.



So companies having to compete for your dollar scares the shit out of you. But government removing choice and giving politicians and bureaucrats ubiquitous power, that sounds just about right. They will only care for you and take care of you.

Wow.

 

[kaz]

Again, you don't understand what capitalism is. It's an economic system. You are asking about a crime where one person kills another. Who is arguing that murder should be legal? Stop being an idiot, it's just a stupid question that has nothing to do with anything that anyone is arguing. And you actually think it's clever? What's funny is that you think it's clever, but the laughter is at your expense.

Well, at least you seem to have some sort of conscience. I wish I could say the same about Rabbi. I posed this question because it's not a whole lot different than what happens on a much larger scale at least in the name of capitalism. Perhaps you're right about capitalism in the sense that if everybody played by the rules, there was no cronyism and there were no military intervention, it would be a system in which the best man would win. But thinking that there won't be people gaming the system is a bit naive.

You are full of shit and you have no idea what you are talking about.

And LOL, so many more people have been killed in your name. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and so many others who killed milliions to maintain the ubiquitous control over the people in socialist governments.

Pot meet kettle. I know it's next to impossible for libertarian ideologues like you to think in terms other than black and white so just continue to bask in your simpleminded splendor. You'll be happier for it.

Yes, other than being an ideologue I'd be OK with government making my decisions for me over my own life and implementing them with force. I'm completely dogmatic. You on the other hand wanting government to make your decisions for you and trusting them to do that, no ideology or dogma at all, just practical common sense it is. You are clueless.

Nothing black-and-white about your thinking. Nope. No way.

My wanting to make my own choices over my own life is just me being "black and white." I need to be reasonable, I can't expect to make all my own decisions over my own life with my money and my family. Government needs to make some of those choices and use guns to force me to do it their way? What's the matter with me, obviously. I need to be reasonable.

 

[SwimExpert]

Wait just a minute....You people are bitching and moaning about the wealthy being too wealthy. Now you've come up for air and now you're playing the "Obama the greatest job creator in history" card.
Which is it?

The Buffet family is one of the wealthiest families in the country, and yet they can't pay their people a living wage. You tell me why that is.

Who is the Buffet family? Are they the people who own all those buffets? Of course they dont pay much. How much skill does it take to manage a buffet? Hell, you dont even need waiters.

They own Walmart, among other holdings, dude.

Dude, you dont have the slightest ******* clue what you aer talking about. Not a shred. Why should someone take you seriously?

Erm, Warren Buffet does not own Walmart? Gee, when did that happen?

Buffett has never owned Walmart. Walmart is primarily owned by the Walton family. Buffett is the primary shareholder for his company Berkshire Hathaway.

 

[Votto]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

You idiot, Obama voted to extend those tax cuts.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not a definition of the term.

True.
"Fairness does not mean everyone gets the same. Fairness means everyone gets what they need.”
― Rick Riordan, The Red Pyramid
tags: equity, fairness, inspirational
67 likes
like

“Equality of opportunity is not enough. Unless we create an environment where everyone is guaranteed some minimum capabilities through some guarantee of minimum income, education, and healthcare, we cannot say that we have fair competition. When some people have to run a 100 metre race with sandbags on their legs, the fact that no one is allowed to have a head start does not make the race fair. Equality of opportunity is absolutely necessary but not sufficient in building a genuinely fair and efficient society.”
― Ha-Joon Chang, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism
Quotes About Equity 24 quotes

I would argue capitalism is designed to knee-cap competition in order to ensure a greedy few continue to amass more and more wealth with each passing generation.

And who decides what people "need"

I can give you a list a mile long of what people need and don't need but would that make it any more true than any other opinion?

And you cannot guarantee anyone will be capable of anything never mind making everyone minimally capable of everything.

It is possible for any family to build generational wealth even today but no one wants to be the first to sacrifice for the benefit of their descendants.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because "There's no honor or any of the restraint of standard military discipline:?
I dismissed this as your actual reasons because there's absolutely nothing necessary about those conditions.
That is, there's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor restraint or discipline.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

What happened in the case of Blackwater then?

You understand that because a particular private paramilitary company may or may have operated without honor, restraint or discipline in no way means that all private paramilitary company will so operate -- right?

There's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor, restraint, or discipline, negating your argument.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

Because the 'employees' of a paramilitary company are nothing more than mercenaries. Do you believe that there is nothing wrong with being a mercenary?

Can you define mercenary?
Can you describe what is wrong with it?

Soldier for hire. Basically a hit man.

OK here is the problem. This comes up over and over on this site in arguments.
Smart people look at two similar things and see differences.
Stupid people look at two similar things and see similarities.

So soldiers are basically hit men. What does that make Obama, the godfather?

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you ignoring this fact?

The wedges between productivity and median compensation growth Economic Policy Institute

Simply explained by the fact that technological advances have allowed less skilled laborers to produce more.

You cannot think that a guy who runs an automatized machine is worth the same as a skilled craftsman who can make by hand what the machine makes

He might be.
The issue is unit labor cost. The skilled craftsman might be able to make only 5 widgets a day while the machine operator can crank out 1000. If they're comparable then the machine operator might be worth more money.

No the guys who make, program and keep the machine running are more important than the moron pushing a button.

You just moved the goalpost by saying "more important." That isnt the issue. You're comparing apples and orangutangs.
The issue is how much value the employee creates. Part of that calculus is how skilled he is. But not necessarily.

More important in this context means worth more money.

When any moron off the street can run a machine they aren't worth much.

It's not true that any moron off the street can run a machine. It takes an ability to show up on time, sober and ready to work It takes an ability to follow instructions. It takes an ability to work at a very boring task for 8 hours or more without giving up.
Those dont sound like difficult skills but you'd be surprised how many people cannot do them. This is why factory workers even jus machine operators tend to make pretty good money given their education levels etc.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who is the Buffet family? Are they the people who own all those buffets? Of course they dont pay much. How much skill does it take to manage a buffet? Hell, you dont even need waiters.

They own Walmart, among other holdings, dude.

Dude, you dont have the slightest ******* clue what you aer talking about. Not a shred. Why should someone take you seriously?

Erm, Warren Buffet does not own Walmart? Gee, when did that happen?

Geezus. Buddy, you are way too ******* stupid to engage. Sorry, dude. That's just how it is.

Reading your respoinses - I just have to laugh. And you call me stupid. ROFLMAO.

You think "the Buffet family" (whoever the hell that is) owns WalMart. And yes, that makes you stupid.

 

[kaz]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

You idiot, Obama voted to extend those tax cuts.

You idiot, the only part of the tax cuts he didn't extend were the ones to job creators.