Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 119

Thread: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

  1. #41
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:18 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,452
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    I don't sound remotely like a Marxist, and any Marxist on here will be able to tell you that I am not one. The likely reason that I sound like a "Marxist" to you is because of a crude understanding of political philosophy and economics that prevails among capitalists. I am an anarchist.
    Yet want government to confiscate wealth from individuals to support children they did not father.

    Some anarchy you've got working.

    Time for a rethink I'd say.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Yet want government to confiscate wealth from individuals to support children they did not father.
    As was previously mentioned, capitalist talking points do not constitute empirical evidence regarding the actual nature of welfare programs. The aforementioned commentary from Christensen that you have dismissed without basis constitutes that.

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Some anarchy you've got working.

    Time for a rethink I'd say.
    You are evidently unfamiliar with the tenets of anarchism, which involve opposition to all unwarranted hierarchy, which would include capitalism.

  3. #43
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:18 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,452
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    As was previously mentioned, capitalist talking points do not constitute empirical evidence regarding the actual nature of welfare programs. The aforementioned commentary from Christensen that you have dismissed without basis constitutes that.
    What basis?
    Where in the Constitution does it say anything about social engineering?

    Where our labor and individual rights are subservient to the state welfare programs?

    You are evidently unfamiliar with the tenets of anarchism, which involve opposition to all unwarranted hierarchy, which would include capitalism.
    But for welfare to occur, you require structure, hierarchy, authority to forcibly confiscate wealth and redistribute it.

    You need not only law but mechanisms to forcibly steal wealth from individuals.

    * "No rulership or enforced authority." [1]
    * "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
    * "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]
    * "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
    * A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists).
    * Independent from rule or authority.
    I believe you need to go back to the drawing board and discover who you really are or want to be.

    Anarchist sounds cool... but looks silly if you contradict yourself with such panache.

    Perhaps you could start a new sect: Amarxists. Marxists who are confused and believe they are Anarchists.
    Last edited by zimmer; 03-19-09 at 09:58 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 02:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    I am not a Marxist, nor do I subscribe to Marxist ideology
    Well forgive me, but if you use phrases like "wealth confiscation" and "extraction of surplus value" I am not going to blame myself.

    The bald fact of the matter is that Marx was quite simply completely wrong, and there never was any such thing as "surplus value", nor was there this "coercion" you allege.

  5. #45
    Educator bilbus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Seen
    10-22-09 @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    629

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    And over here in Europe, birth rate is falling overall ... wanna give us some babies?
    for Europeans it is dwindling, for Muslims its booming.
    Last edited by bilbus; 03-19-09 at 10:13 AM.
    George W. Bush is a liberal.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    What basis?
    Where in the Constitution does it say anything about social engineering?

    Where our labor and individual rights are subservient to the state welfare programs?

    But for welfare to occur, you require structure, hierarchy, authority to forcibly confiscate wealth and redistribute it.

    You need not only law but mechanisms to forcibly steal wealth from individuals.
    You have committed the common fallacy of assuming that anarchism merely involves opposition to the state. This is not so. Anarchism involves opposition to all forms of unwarranted hierarchy, and the deleterious consequences created by capitalism are themselves greater impositions than the relatively benign function of the state in alleviating them, which thus makes state intervention acceptable according to my consequentialist perspective.

    As Noam Chomsky notes:

    Well, it's true that the anarchist vision in just about all its varieties looks forward to dismantling state power-and personally I share that vision. But right now it runs directly counter to my goals: my immediate goals have been, and now very much are, to defend and even strenghten certain elements of state authority that are now under severe attack. And I don't think there's any contradiction there-none at all, really.

    For example, take the so-called "welfare state." What's been called the "welfare state" is essentially a recognition that every child has a right to have food, and to have health care and so on-and as I've been saying, these programs were set up in the nation-state system after a century of very hard struggle, by the labor movement, and the socialist movement, and so on. Well, according to the new spirit of the age, in the case of a fourteen-year-old girl (sic) who got raped and has a child, her child has to learn "personal responsibility" by not accepting state welfare handouts, meaning, by not having enough to eat. Alright, I don't agree with that on any level. In fact, I think it's grotesque at any level. I think those children should be saved. And in today's world, that's going to have to involve working through the state system; it's not the only case.

    So despite the anarchist "vision," I think aspects of the state system, like the one that makes sure children eat, have to be defended-in fact, defended very vigorously. And given the accelerating effort that's being made these days to roll back the victories for justice and human rights in the West, in my opinion the immediate goal of even committed anarchists should be to defend some state institutions, while helping to pry them open to more meaningful public participation, and ultimately to dismantle them in a much more free society.
    So I'd advise you to correct the fallacy, and then move on to collecting empirical evidence to support your claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    I believe you need to go back to the drawing board and discover who you really are or want to be.

    Anarchist sounds cool... but looks silly if you contradict yourself with such panache.

    Perhaps you could start a new sect: Amarxists. Marxists who are confused and believe they are Anarchists.
    Perhaps you could start a sect devoted to those with crude and inaccurate understandings of political economy...oh wait, you're already a capitalist, so you've got that one down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Well forgive me, but if you use phrases like "wealth confiscation" and "extraction of surplus value" I am not going to blame myself.

    The bald fact of the matter is that Marx was quite simply completely wrong, and there never was any such thing as "surplus value", nor was there this "coercion" you allege.
    As I mentioned, my conception of surplus value is not explicitly Marxist and involves the difference between the value of the worker's marginal product and his/her wage. If we consider the adverse nature of asymmetric information in the capitalist economic framework, we can certainly determine that underpayment plays a role in fostering such unjust appropriation. For instance, we might examine Hofler and Murphy's Underpaid and Overworked: Measuring the Effect of Imperfect Information on Wages, which incorporates the stochastic frontier regression technique to reach its conclusions regarding mass underpayment of workers.

    As noted by the abstract:

    This paper investigates the degree of shortfall between the wages workers earn and what they could earn assuming perfect or costless information in the labor market. The authors use the stochastic frontier regression technique to estimate the degree of shortfall found in wages on an individual basis. The paper tests, in addition, a number of hypotheses supplied by search theory in this context. The results generally confirm the propositions from search theory and indicate that, on the average, worker wages fall short of worker potential wages by approximately 10 percent.
    As to the coercive nature of capitalism, it's simply a matter of the aforementioned utilization of wage labor. Since the means of production are privately owned, large components of the public have no alternative but to subordinate themselves under an employer. The best way to illustrate this form of authoritarianism is to use the "robbery analogy." If a person were to be violently tackled by an assailant and have his/her valuables torn out of his/her pockets, we would accurately call this a robbery. Now, if the assailant were to instead point a gun at the victim and demand that the valuables be surrendered, we would still call this a robbery, as coercion was used to gain the valuables, if not outright physical violence. The fact that the victim technically "consented" to surrender his/her valuables is not pertinent, since it was consent yielded while under duress.

    The former example represents the direct tyranny of statism, often blunt, direct, and brutal, whereas the latter represents the more subtle tyranny of capitalism, specifically wage labor, in which a person technically "consents" to work for an employer, but does this only because he/she has no other alternative for sustenance.

    Moreover, while laborers work for a capitalist employer, a significant component of value above their pay, or surplus value, is extracted from their labor during the production process, another unjust imposition of private ownership. That unjust extraction of surplus value is then followed by a "subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation," as was mentioned above.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 02:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    As I mentioned, my conception of surplus value is not explicitly Marxist and involves the difference between the value of the worker's marginal product and his/her wage.
    Fine N Dandy, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. The man's day of work is worth what he was paid for it, and as proof, I will quote you a market rate for his days labor that looks a lot like a paycheck.

    The worker is not peddling "information", he is peddling his day's work, so your attempted doublespeak about "information" is summarily rejected as off-topic. It is poppycock, new age, redefinitionist, mumbo jumbo, crap, and I'm not fooled for a second.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Since the means of production are privately owned,
    You mean like the worker privately owns his "labor factory" ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    large components of the public have no alternative but to subordinate themselves under an employer.
    If this silly little contention is in ANY way accurate, perhaps you can explain how the "employer" found this "unfindable" alternative ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Moreover, while laborers work for a capitalist employer, a significant component of value above their pay, or surplus value, is extracted from their labor during the production process, another unjust imposition of private ownership.
    Simply false. Surplus value does not exist. It is a bogeyman created by Marx.

    Further, if private ownership is unjust then what about that worker privately owning his "labor factory" ?

  8. #48
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:18 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,452
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    You sound like a Marxist:
    More and more...That is the value of free speech.

    People identify their true selves.

    Of course, in Obama's case... they attack those that get the Oaf to say what he really means.

    As Noam Chomsky notes:
    For example, take the so-called "welfare state."

    What's been called the "welfare state" is essentially a recognition that every child has a right to have food, and to have health care and so on-and as I've been saying, these programs were set up in the nation-state system after a century of very hard struggle, by the labor movement, and the socialist movement, and so on.
    No.
    There is no "right" to have food.
    That is a responsibility by parents.

    When they cannot fulfill this simple responsibility, others usually step in.
    It's compassion that triggers these responses.

    This is a pretty big concession for an Anarchist.


    Health care is not a right either.
    It's a service.
    You can try to make it a "right" through coercion.
    By forcing individuals, Doctors to provide care.

    Not quite the anarchists mode... perhaps the Amarxists.


    Well, according to the new spirit of the age, in the case of a fourteen-year-old girl (sic) who got raped and has a child, her child has to learn "personal responsibility" by not accepting state welfare handouts, meaning, by not having enough to eat.
    Like this is a common occurrence.
    This is the typical Marxist ploy; take a freak and use THAT as the baseline.
    Make the remainder of society pay for the rare occurrence.

    You know, there are a lot of charities that help such people.

    Of course ObaMarx wants to cut deductions for individuals supporting such organizations.
    Wonder why?

    I think those children should be saved. And in today's world, that's going to have to involve working through the state system; it's not the only case.
    Saved?
    No.
    Helped... yes, and private organizations are there if family is not.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  9. #49
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,611

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Well the question of health care fore children is a basic choice between who you want to "punish" for the mistake of the parents. Either the innocent child that don't get the health care it's need or the taxpayer that gets a bit higher taxes. Personally I choose to "punish" the taxpayer over the child. Also raising a child takes 18 years so it can be very hard to predict everything that can happen during all those years. That you can have a hard working tax payers that get a child, but after 12 years her partner dies and she loses her job at the same time. Then it could be good to have the security that the child at least get the healthcare it needs.

    Also I don't think health care will lead to a lot more children. Because even with payed health care it will be a lot of cost having children. Instead things like saying that after day pills are murder or that condoms are bad have a lot more responsibility for unwanted pregnancies.
    Last edited by Bergslagstroll; 03-19-09 at 12:16 PM.

  10. #50
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Health care is not a right either.
    It's a service.
    You can try to make it a "right" through coercion.
    By forcing individuals, Doctors to provide care.
    The argument that health care or food or a roof over one's head are 'human rights' certainly has a compassionate ring to it. But you're correct, it fails the simple common sense test.

    If I have a 'right' to health care, then by definition some other individual must be coerced to provide it. The same with food or shelter.

    On the other hand, I can exercise my 'right to free speech' by disgorging voluminous posts on message boards from sunup to sundown... and no one else need lift a finger.


Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •