Anyone Feel a Draft? - Page 4

Kuciwalker · November 3, 2003, 22:18

Thorn... you realize MtG is a mod, right?

MichaeltheGreat · November 3, 2003, 22:18

Need a little time off?

Thorn · November 3, 2003, 22:19

No but really, how can you listen to his rediculous ranting?

MichaeltheGreat · November 3, 2003, 22:20

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Thorn... you realize MtG is a mod, right?

Oh yeah, he does. I've banned his ass a bunch of times. Looks like one more might be coming up.

Kuciwalker · November 3, 2003, 22:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Thorn
No but really, how can you listen to his rediculous ranting?

even I'm not this bad with people in authority...

MichaeltheGreat · November 3, 2003, 22:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Thorn
No but really, how can you listen to his rediculous ranting?

Who says I do listen to it? I just shut it down if it gets out of hand. Otherwise, it's in one ear and out the other, with as much impact and effect as if a gnat farted in Burkina Faso.

Thorn · November 3, 2003, 22:23

little time, last little time off was 5 months.... you're not really that mean are you MtG?

Kuciwalker · November 3, 2003, 22:24

Why does it say MtG had the last post?

MichaeltheGreat · November 3, 2003, 22:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Thorn
little time, last little time off was 5 months.... you're not really that mean are you MtG?

I just "forgot" about you. You didn't remind me until five months later.

As long as you chill though, you're fine.

Thorn · November 3, 2003, 22:27

I think Ming was the one that assured my extensive absence.... I think I'll depart this thread before he takes note of it.

MichaeltheGreat · November 3, 2003, 22:32

Nope, we just tend to forget people sometimes. I don't think Ming even knew you were banned.

MichaeltheGreat · November 3, 2003, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

even I'm not this bad with people in authority...

I think he was referring to Fez, replying to me. For his sake anyway, that's my chosen interpretation of the moment.

Kuciwalker · November 3, 2003, 22:34

Oh, that makes a bit more sense

Drake Tungsten · November 3, 2003, 22:35

Why can't you guys ever forget about me while I'm in the box? I could actually use a good five-month stretch to break my habit...

Kuciwalker · November 3, 2003, 22:37

I'm sure you can find ways to make them "forget" you...

David Floyd · November 3, 2003, 22:39

Ramo,

Quote:

The drug companies benefit immensely from the state enforced monopolies. They come out ahead in the end.

I fail to see your point. Yes, this may be true, and yes, I oppose state-enforced monopolies (although I certainly don't oppose laws against stealing), but this isn't the main point here. If you want to argue against state intervention in the economy WRT to monopolies, then by all means, start a thread, and I'll heartily agree with you.

By the way, though, if the state has no business enforcing monopolies, why should they have any business breaking one up?

MikeH,

Quote:

The idea of society isn't to allow the individual to prosper, it's to ensire that the society survives and prospers. Therefore there has to be a balance between the rights and needs of society and the rights and needs of the individual. Logically your argument ends in anarchy. If people are entirely responsible for themselves then, at best, we'd end up in a technologically advanced version of the Feudal system. Personally I think that'd suck more than some stuff that sucks a lot.

No, the point of society is to provide a means of mutual protection, in the form of a "common power" (to borrow Hobbes' terminology) to punish the initiation of force and/or violations of individual rights.

Rufus,

Quote:

Student loans? Why, isn't that another unfair government program, one that keeps banks from charging the rate they would like and doing so on their own terms?

You're quite right - poor wording on my part. By "student loans", I simply meant loans in general - I wasn't thinking about the interest aspect of it. But of course I oppose the government forcing banks to charge certain interest rates.

LoA,

Quote:

If you wanna argue against DF, just mention that he goes to a public university. He will then say that it is his right to recoup the money that was stolen from him. When he says that, you have him trapped, because then you say that unemployement benefits is not theft, because you are just recouping the money that was stolen from you.

Actually, up to a certain point, collecting "unemployment benefits" IS a way of recouping money that has been stolen from you. I just don't think that it's a very good idea to do so, because it perpetuates laziness, both on your part and that of others.

However, this problem is avoided all together by doing away with "unemployment insurance", publically funded universities, and things of that nature.

Odin,

Quote:

The draft is morally repugnant when a large chunk of the population is not behind a war, aka Vietnam. Conscription should only be used in World War-sized conflicts.

That isn't consistent. Why should the draft be morally repugnant in an unpopular war? Don't you really mean that unpopular wars themselves are morally repugnant?

If all that makes conscription wrong is public opinion, then that means that conscription is OK if 51% of the people agree to it. That is just another form of tyranny of the majority - and what if, by the way, all the people who are out of the draft age vote FOR it, and all of those in the draft age vote AGAINST it? Even if the majority have voted in favor of the draft, does that make it moral?

Drake Tungsten · November 3, 2003, 22:39

I don't think I can get any more forgettable than I already am. This must just be some grand conspiracy on the part of the mods to get back at me.

St Leo · November 3, 2003, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

Oh, because the tyrants in the Canadian government don't allow people to contract freely with others, and to dispose of their own property as they see fit?

0. One human VS a pharmaceutical oligopoly.
1. 30 million humans with exactly the same common interest VS a pharmaceutical oligopoly.

Wow, I wonder which one's a better idea.

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Universities aren't free, but they charge a pittance (2000-3000 $US per annum, depending on the province).

Actually, we charge foreigners like David Floyd a bit more.

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What would we do with them?

War on Canuckistan, the second largest country on Earth?:P

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
By the way, though, if the state has no business enforcing monopolies, why should they have any business breaking one up?

Because having an existing country-wide organization break up a monopoly is easier than trying to get everyone to join your anti-monopoly organization and hoping that people don't just pretend to boycott. In Canada, our government is democratically elected.

Berzerker · November 3, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

Anyone Feel a Draft?

Yes, close your mouth please

Drake Tungsten · November 3, 2003, 23:00

Ohhh, sassy.

Adam Smith · November 3, 2003, 23:10

A couple possible solutions to the pharmaceutical problem:

1. Amend anti-trust laws to allow groups of states to negotiate with drug companies.

2. Institute variable lenght patents. Larger markets can get shorter patents and still cover R&D costs.

Sikander · November 4, 2003, 00:43

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
I remember watching the draft lottery the year I was eligible. praying that my birthday wouldn't be drawn in the first 50. Fortunately it was pulled in the 150s and we were safe. It was the last year they had a lottery. I can honestly say that I don't know what I would have done if it had been drawn early. They didn't get far that year, but some were called.

You probably would have been sent to Germany wondering if you were going to survive the antics of the Vietnam Vets in your outfit who were finishing out their terms of service. That at least is the story of two of my friends who got drafted in the last go-round.

Sikander · November 4, 2003, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Yeah, but since things like health care and education cost much less or are free, they don't mind paying higher taxes.

It's the old Bush bait and switch concept. $400 dollar tax cut... thousands of dollars of other increased costs due to federal programs being gutted.

Yea boy, I must have lost thousands in government benefits since Bush took office. Now if I could only figure out what they were.

Sikander · November 4, 2003, 01:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Spec, what's really ironic here is that, if memory serves, Floyd is at the University of Texas -- a school with low tuition (by US standards) precisely because it's subsidized by taxes. Without those subsidies, UT would probably cost him $10-15k more per year than it does now. One wonders what he would do then.

Well perhaps he or his family would be a good deal better off if Texas didn't subsidize higher education, enough so to pay for their own education.

Sikander · November 4, 2003, 01:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident

you see this is where I agree with David.

I don't give 2 shits about health care (as I never get sick), I don't give 2 shits about education (never helped me any), and I don't give 2 shits about social services- totally unnecessary. These services are designed for women and pussies who are afraid to take care of themselves and want big daddy goverment to do it for them.

A crude post, but I found myself agreeing with it nonetheless.

notyoueither · November 4, 2003, 01:22

Welcome to the coal mines.

MichaeltheGreat · November 4, 2003, 02:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander

Well perhaps he or his family would be a good deal better off if Texas didn't subsidize higher education, enough so to pay for their own education.

Not at all likely in any taxing scheme in any state in the US. There is a much larger pool of taxpayers who don't use higher education (especially when you consider organizational and institutional taxpayers) than there are consumers of public higher education services.

Just look at average private college tuitions in the US, and figure he and his family would have to pay at least that much in the portion of state and local taxes allocated to higher education to be at parity.