How do you determine that so many are spam votes? And why are non registered members of a forum able to vote in a poll?
A leftist thing? No. Poverty is caused by not having money ... that's it.
The cure for poverty is, would you believe it, ensuring that everyone has wealth. Obviously poverty is then complicated and entrenched by how the lack of wealth causes instability in the affected communities and families; and how it likewise destabilizes individuals' lives (e.g. not being able to afford healthcare = higher susceptibility to disease / work disabilities ) which leads to the cyclical effect of poverty.
Regardless options in the poll like "personal liberty" or "freedom from coercion/association" or "free markets" while being vitally important for our freedoms, have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating poverty, because they don't address the root cause of poverty: the lack of wealth.
A leftist thing? No. Poverty is caused by not having money ... that's it.
The cure for poverty is, would you believe it, ensuring that everyone has wealth. Obviously poverty is then complicated and entrenched by how the lack of wealth causes instability in the affected communities and families; and how it likewise destabilizes individuals' lives (e.g. not being able to afford healthcare = higher susceptibility to disease / work disabilities ) which leads to the cyclical effect of poverty.
Regardless options in the poll like "personal liberty" or "freedom from coercion/association" or "free markets" while being vitally important for our freedoms, have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating poverty, because they don't address the root cause of poverty: the lack of wealth.
click on the numbers-you will see the names of those who voted all other votes are non members or dishonest members who logged out and voted more than once
A leftist thing? No. Poverty is caused by not having money ... that's it.
The cure for poverty is, would you believe it, ensuring that everyone has wealth. Obviously poverty is then complicated and entrenched by how the lack of wealth causes instability in the affected communities and families; and how it likewise destabilizes individuals' lives (e.g. not being able to afford healthcare = higher susceptibility to disease / work disabilities ) which leads to the cyclical effect of poverty.
Regardless options in the poll like "personal liberty" or "freedom from coercion/association" or "free markets" while being vitally important for our freedoms, have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating poverty, because they don't address the root cause of poverty: the lack of wealth.
That's a great story. However what is the actual evidence there? Such as, for example, a rigorous and systematic study to measure the quantified effectiveness of the colonies' different economic structures and its broader impact on each households’ behavior? Willy Bradford would have never in his dreams been able to produce such evidence-based arguments. So how can we actually trust his conclusions, when they very well could be based on faulty premises like tradition, anecdotes, conventional wisdom or confirmation biases?William Bradford wrote in "Of Plymouth Colony"--a not-all-that-popular account of history--stating how the first colonists were organized on a communal farm. Everybody would work for the colony and everybody would share and share alike in the produce. But for two and a half years there was massive starvation and want because even back then nobody was willing to work and be the sucker when others worked less and received as much. So before the entire colony was wiped out, Bradford saw the error of that plan and reorganized the colonists so that each family was given its own plot of land to work and would keep whatever they grew there. Within one season the farms were flourishing and each family produced more than it needed so that it had produce to trade with their neighbors and with the Indians and were able to celebrate their new prosperity in that iconic first Thanksgiving.
There is an important lesson to be learned from this story.
Pragmatism. As in, do you know how the extreme poverty Millennium Development Goal is being solved right now?as a libertarian, what is your solution
Pragmatism. As in, do you know how the extreme poverty Millennium Development Goal is being solved right now?
Countries are implementing safety net programs ("welfare") and putting in place directed programs like conditional cash transfers, where impoverished families are receiving money from the government or NGOs. These programs aren't a panacea for poverty, but they've been shown to be effective by both tackling the lack of wealth (giving money) and the conditions that prevent wealth accumulation (on the condition of regular school attendance).
Take a read: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCCT/Resources/5757608-1234228266004/PRR-CCT_web_noembargo.pdf
A leftist thing? No. Poverty is caused by not having money ... that's it.
The cure for poverty is, would you believe it, ensuring that everyone has wealth. Obviously poverty is then complicated and entrenched by how the lack of wealth causes instability in the affected communities and families; and how it likewise destabilizes individuals' lives (e.g. not being able to afford healthcare = higher susceptibility to disease / work disabilities ) which leads to the cyclical effect of poverty.
Regardless options in the poll like "personal liberty" or "freedom from coercion/association" or "free markets" while being vitally important for our freedoms, have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating poverty, because they don't address the root cause of poverty: the lack of wealth.
Some thoughts...What works best to eliminate poverty?
Money is a store of wealth and facilitates trade. Meaning that in a sense it is one in the same as food, clothing and shelter.Poverty is not necessarily a lack of money. Poverty, as it is generally understood, is the lack of food, clothing, shelter and necessities of life. If you have all the money in the world and have not sufficient food, clothing, or shelter to sustain your life and have no way to obtain these, you are poorer than the church mouse who has all that he needs.
Developed countries are already free and we still have poverty within them. So unless we can get to 120% freedom, I skeptical of believing that much more poverty will be eliminated by tooting lofty principles.When personal liberty, free markets, and freedom from coercion promotes the production of food, clothing, shelter--necessities of life--then much more poverty will be eliminated than can ever happen by taking from those who earned what they have and giving it to those who did not earn it.
Hi polgara. I'm not sure I've made a point on race yet.Greetings, brothern. :2wave: There are more whites living in poverty in this country than any other group, blacks included. To assume that it is a racial thing which only affects blacks is incorrect, since it is probably more accurate to state that since there are more whites than blacks in this country, it is statistically more likely that the percentage of whites living in poverty is greater than any other group, which happens to be true.
Encouraging a fairer distribution of wealth, while ensuring that economic incentives and personal liberties are not compromised. We're already heading in that direction: most countries have progressive income taxes, social safety net programs and other economic protections in place like labor laws. It's just unfortunate that the world has had a plethora of historical problems that have influenced today's standing.Secondly, how could anyone ensure that everyone has wealth? If that were possible, it would have been done long ago. There are only five ways that I can think of to have wealth 1) earn it by working and investing wisely; 2) inherit it; 3) steal it; 4) come up with a new product that everyone wants or needs, ie become an entrepreneur and/or an inventor, or 5) win the lottery. Of the five, the first choice is most likely for the majority of people, no matter what color you are, which means you do not drop out of school, and you go on to college to get a higher education - or you go to school to learn a trade like plumber, electrician, etc, or you are skilled enough to become sports star. It is being responsible for your own life choices - nothing more.
A leftist thing? No. Poverty is caused by not having money ... that's it.
The cure for poverty is, would you believe it, ensuring that everyone has wealth. Obviously poverty is then complicated and entrenched by how the lack of wealth causes instability in the affected communities and families; and how it likewise destabilizes individuals' lives (e.g. not being able to afford healthcare = higher susceptibility to disease / work disabilities ) which leads to the cyclical effect of poverty.
Regardless options in the poll like "personal liberty" or "freedom from coercion/association" or "free markets" while being vitally important for our freedoms, have absolutely nothing to do with eliminating poverty, because they don't address the root cause of poverty: the lack of wealth.
That's a great story. However what is the actual evidence there? Such as, for example, a rigorous and systematic study to measure the quantified effectiveness of the colonies' different economic structures and its broader impact on each households’ behavior? Willy Bradford would have never in his dreams been able to produce such evidence-based arguments. So how can we actually trust his conclusions, when they very well could be based on faulty premises like tradition, anecdotes, conventional wisdom or confirmation biases?
Obviously that's not an argument for communal agrarianism, but it is an argument for doing what is actually proven. Show the evidence. If communal agrarianism had produced the best results beyond whatever Bradford had against it, why not do it?
Second -- I'm not sure what communal farming has to do with eliminating poverty.
Pragmatism. As in, do you know how the extreme poverty Millennium Development Goal is being solved right now?
Countries are implementing safety net programs ("welfare") and putting in place directed programs like conditional cash transfers, where impoverished families are receiving money from the government or NGOs. These programs aren't a panacea for poverty, but they've been shown to be effective by both tackling the lack of wealth (giving money) and the conditions that prevent wealth accumulation (on the condition of regular school attendance).
Take a read: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCCT/Resources/5757608-1234228266004/PRR-CCT_web_noembargo.pdf
Seeing that people who want a job have a job.
And go with the Biblical principle of "He who will not work, let him not eat."
Actually it is not the job of government to provide a job for everybody who wants a job. The only way the government can do that is to draw resources from the economy in order to pay somebody for work that did not have to get done. It should be the role of government to oversee the infrastructure and oversee business-friendly policy and regulation that needs to be in place for all to effectively start up, grow, and prosper in their various private enterprises. That is how an energetic economy is created and that in turn produces jobs for those who want them. Full employment in the private sector prospers everybody, encourages entrepreneurship, increases wages and benefits, and benefits all.
Indeed. Just that so many seem to believe that government that is the be all and do all for jobs, when in fact it most certainly is not. The private sector.
And then they further don't seem to appreciate how much blood, sweat and tears goes into the business, and how uncertainty pretty much freezes business into a state of making no decisions, or at least very conservative decisions, neither of which typically grows the business.
As a small business owner, I, with a clear conscience, can say that I absolutely built that. As can every other entrepreneur who took a idea to fill a need and started up a business. Or those who borrowed or risked pretty much everything they had to buy and grow an existing business. A relatively small percentage of the population has the vision, temperament, skill sets, and/or comfort in risk taking to do that, and the rest are more comfortable with security in a steady pay check and benefits when they sell their labor, creativity, work ethic, and skill set to the highest bidder for those assets. Both are honorable and necessary in order for a vigorous economy to exist.
The government serves best who follows the growing economy and provides the laws and regulation necessary to help it grow. The government doesn't build the infrastructure--the people do that as it is needed and with the money they earn by their own efforts--the government is charged to oversee and coordinate the effort. So when our fearless leader presumes to tell us that 'we didn't build that' he is speaking as one who has never owned or managed a business and one who has never held a paying job in the private sector. We did build that--each and every one of us--by getting ourselves out of bed in the morning and going to work to provide for our own needs and wants and thereby benefitting the whole.
The only way for the poor to become unpoor is to make a place in the economy for them to join in and provide for their own needs. When government hand outs look more inviting than does getting themselves out of bed in the morning and working to provide for their own needs, the government encourages and advances what we call poverty much more than it alleviates it.
You built it...but not by yourself. The taxpayers helped you build it by paying for the education of your employees, by paying for the police and fire protection that are crucial to your business, by paying for the roads and sidewalks that provide access to your business, by paying for all the myriad pieces of infrastructure that your business couldn't do without.
When Obama said "you didn't build it", he meant "you didn't build it by yourself". And you didn't.
He meant the business owner can't take any credit for it and the business owner owes his success to government. He has made that crystal clear in all the history we have with him. And it is pure malarkey and evidence of how out of touch he is with reality in what makes an economy work.
Yes, the social contract allows us all to be more efficient, effective, and practical than we can do by each person providing all his own infrastructure. But each and every one of us who work in the private sector make those taxes possible, make those schools possible, who wanted those roads and sidewalks and street lights and VOTED for the bonds that made them possible. If we had not been willing to take the risks, to contribute our vision and abilities and skill sets to provide for ourselves, then there would have been far less resources for those schools or roads or sidewalks. We would exist and do what we have to do to survive without government. Government cannot exist without us.
He meant the business owner can't take any credit for it and the business owner owes his success to government. He has made that crystal clear in all the history we have with him. And it is pure malarkey and evidence of how out of touch he is with reality in what makes an economy work.
Yes, the social contract allows us all to be more efficient, effective, and practical than we can do by each person providing all his own infrastructure. But each and every one of us who work in the private sector make those taxes possible, make those schools possible, who wanted those roads and sidewalks and street lights and VOTED for the bonds that made them possible. If we had not been willing to take the risks, to contribute our vision and abilities and skill sets to provide for ourselves, then there would have been far less resources for those schools or roads or sidewalks. We would exist and do what we have to do to survive without government. Government cannot exist without us.
So yes, each of us can look to our parents, role models, great teachers, the guy who took a chance on us and gave us our first job, etc. etc. etc. as all part of who and what we are. And each and every one of us in some way has benefitted somebody else. To say that we are beholden to government for who and what we are is simply absurd. Government is and should be beholden to each and every one of us for its very existence.