• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Orius said:
It's not my fault that you lack the imagination to envision a situation where a woman might accidentally get pregnant. It's also not my job to explain it to you. Furthermore, even if a woman chooses to get pregnant, I support the state funding her child's birth in order to mitigate risk to the mother and child. Children are the future of America and mothers who cannot afford the large hospital bill of bringing into the world should be helped. "Should" means a normative statement, and those are my ethics. Take it or leave it.



In the world of Jerry logic, I'm sure that's how it works.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Here you're talking about the future, whereas before you ruled out any time other than the present.

Please make up your mind :lol:
 
Agnapostate said:
The fact that you aren't able to understand
Click to expand...

I already covered this with you. I understand it just fine, and it is a marvelous lie told by the envious. The real proof for your assertion was described to you and I doubt you can produce it, since you have not yet.

Agnapostate said:
I'm referring to my preferred variety of organization.
Click to expand...

Whats that, a mob headed to the rich guy's house ?

This passage is a dodge. When caught out thinking you own someone else, you just flip up your doublespeak.

You stated that the means of production are subject to collective management, but are proven wrong by the fact that I own my own means of production of labor, and your collective doesn't get any say in it. This same situation applies to the rest of my property, including the widget making machine in my basement. You can't get your jealous crowd big enough to negate my property rights.

Agnapostate said:
Actually, no, the only one promoting a fantasy is you, given your utopian conception of political economy.
Click to expand...

You are the one with the Utopian view, as evidenced by your own statements :

Agnapostate said:
measures the difference between actual wages and wages if perfect or costless information in the labor market existed.
Click to expand...

Agnapostate said:
We can refer back to utility issues again when considering the greater interest in promoting equality of opportunity among a living generation than honoring the "right" of a dying member of the financial class, inasmuch as very little utility would be provided to him one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Newspeak for "its ok to steal the property of the dead" Well, you are dead wrong, graverobber. Respecting contracts and property rights is more important than your unprovable utility.

Agnapostate said:
You've done absolutely nothing to disprove its existence.
Click to expand...

and what have you done to disprove the existance of the Abominable Snowman ?

Why would I bother trying to disprove a fairy tale ?

Agnapostate said:
I really hope you don't actually believe that supports the claim that the state has not created and upheld class structure.
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is that the founding documents make "class" illegal.

Classism, like you exhibit, remains completely legal, however . . .

Richest guy in the nation started in a garage, so you are proven wrong by a household name. Gates blows your false crap out of the water.

Agnapostate said:
Still no evidence from you!
Click to expand...

You are the one who cannot provide the real proof, and thus you have to resort to another paragraph of your doublespeak. I explained to you that real proof would be getting hired at the same job for a higher wage, and you failed to produce that. Your claim remains unproven, and your paragraph of doublespeak is not an acceptible substitute for the real proof.
 
Agnapostate said:
Hmmm.

:2wave:

It might...if I lived in the UK. :rofl

If you knew a bit more about the topic, you could at least drag this out a bit longer by citing Hoffman. The sacred art of the Google search doesn't seem to have worked out for you so far.
Click to expand...

So you really just read the two paragraph abstract and then tried to play it off like you're some brilliant scholar on the subject, dropping names like bombs in Nam?

Hilarious. I'll know not to waste my time actually looking things up when debating with you in the future.
 
RightinNYC said:
So you really just read the two paragraph abstract and then tried to play it off like you're some brilliant scholar on the subject, dropping names like bombs in Nam?

Hilarious. I'll know not to waste my time actually looking things up when debating with you in the future.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. I've read through several studies, including those of Geronimus and Korenman, as well as numerous articles regarding the matter. This literature was introduced to me by a sociologist colleague who studies youth issues.

My only point was that you could have dragged things out a bit longer had you cited Hoffman, as has been done by my opponents on two separate occasions, one of them here, courtesy of Courtesy. Instead, you chose to cite data from the UK...rather inexplicably.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
You sound like a Marxist:
Click to expand...

He is, he did quote Noam Chomsky.

Most Marxists are failures who could not make it in a success driven society.
 
bilbus said:
He is, he did quote Noam Chomsky.

Most Marxists are failures who could not make it in a success driven society.
Click to expand...

This is growing ever more simultaneously amusing and irritating. Noam Chomsky is also an anarchist, not a Marxist. I do understand that rightists have a very poor understanding of socialism, and would be unable to distinguish different schools of socialism from each other, however, so I do have sympathy for you. However, Marxism has authoritarian inclinations, while anarchism is necessarily libertarian in nature. Anarchists were essentially the first critics of Marxist social organization, and Bakunin essentially predicted the costs of authoritarian forms of Marxist social organization decades before the formation of the USSR.
 
Condoms Work!!!!!
 
Agnapostate said:
This is growing ever more simultaneously amusing and irritating. Noam Chomsky is also an anarchist, not a Marxist. I do understand that rightists have a very poor understanding of socialism, and would be unable to distinguish different schools of socialism from each other, however, so I do have sympathy for you. However, Marxism has authoritarian inclinations, while anarchism is necessarily libertarian in nature. Anarchists were essentially the first critics of Marxist social organization, and Bakunin essentially predicted the costs of authoritarian forms of Marxist social organization decades before the formation of the USSR.
Click to expand...

Earlier in this thread you betrayed your "anarchist" stance by embracing Marxist doctrine.

You can't have it both ways.

Then again, Marxists believe they can have it any way they want.
They are prevaricators.
Any lie to get what they want is justified.

.
 
Actually there is an anarchist version of socialism/communism. There are so many different schools of thought among the anarchist and minarchist tradition its hard to keep track of them all.

The fundamental of anarchism is no formal or official government. Sometimes this is construed as no gov't above community level, and communities run as democratic communes. Some anarchists or minarchists propose a government without any coercive power.

There are capitalist anarchists, who believe that in the absence of gov't authority most people will opt for peacful, mutually-beneficial trade, and compete in the free market.

Anarchists of socialist/communist inclination, believe most people would opt for non-competitive, cooperative interactions, rather than the competition of capitalism.

While I don't see anarchism actually working anywhere at any time in history, if anarchism ever did produce a society in absense of all formal gov't, I think the original North American colony provides the answer to capitalism vs communism.

The pilgrims first had a communal/communist/socialist setup, a "from all according to their abilities, to each according to his need" type of thing. They darn near starved to death, as the lack of incentives to work resulted in very little production.

They changed things after a year or two to a more capitalist setup, where each family had its own plot and was allowed to keep what it produced, or sell the surplus. Their production boomed, and this is the actual source of the US "Thanksgiving day" tradition.

The above info is available from the journals of that colony.

Personally I've long felt that this example puts the capitalism/communism argument to bed.

G.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Actually there is an anarchist version of socialism/communism. There are so many different schools of thought among the anarchist and minarchist tradition its hard to keep track of them all.
Click to expand...

The fundamental of anarchism is no formal or official government.
Click to expand...
Si.

Sometimes this is construed as no gov't above community level, and communities run as democratic communes. Some anarchists or minarchists propose a government without any coercive power.
Click to expand...
In bold... may work on paper... in reality... As the 'ol song goes... that'll be the day...

There are capitalist anarchists, who believe that in the absence of gov't authority most people will opt for peacful, mutually-beneficial trade, and compete in the free market.
Click to expand...
Sing it ag'in Sam... That'll be the day. Perhaps when we have a society of Angels.

Anarchists of socialist/communist inclination, believe most people would opt for non-competitive, cooperative interactions, rather than the competition of capitalism.
Click to expand...
Yes, those that don't want to do any work and live off the sweat of others.

The pilgrims first had a communal/communist/socialist setup, a "from all according to their abilities, to each according to his need" type of thing. They darn near starved to death, as the lack of incentives to work resulted in very little production.
Click to expand...
Yep, Of Plymouth Plantation, William Bradford.

They changed things after a year or two to a more capitalist setup, where each family had its own plot and was allowed to keep what it produced, or sell the surplus. Their production boomed, and this is the actual source of the US "Thanksgiving day" tradition.
Click to expand...
Yep. The first societal experiment by immigrants to the US was Socialism. It failed then, over the long haul it fails everywhere it is tried.

Personally I've long felt that this example puts the capitalism/communism argument to bed.
Click to expand...
Agree. And you can add The USSR and its slave states, Euro socialized medicine, Kanuckistani Kare... just the whole enchilada.

Socialism appeals to the heart, not the intellect. It sounds compassionate, but it really is the road to misery, at worst serfdom.

Solzhenitsyn wrote about how it destroyed the soul and turned men into barbarians.

I think we just had a glimpse of that on Capitol Hill this past week.

.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is probably the best opportunity I'll have to use this video in its proper context. :rofl


watch
 
Goshin said:
This is probably the best opportunity I'll have to use this video in its proper context. :rofl


watch
Click to expand...

They're brilliant, the lads are.
:rofl
 
Goshin said:
Actually there is an anarchist version of socialism/communism. There are so many different schools of thought among the anarchist and minarchist tradition its hard to keep track of them all.

The fundamental of anarchism is no formal or official government. Sometimes this is construed as no gov't above community level, and communities run as democratic communes. Some anarchists or minarchists propose a government without any coercive power.

There are capitalist anarchists, who believe that in the absence of gov't authority most people will opt for peacful, mutually-beneficial trade, and compete in the free market.

Anarchists of socialist/communist inclination, believe most people would opt for non-competitive, cooperative interactions, rather than the competition of capitalism.

While I don't see anarchism actually working anywhere at any time in history, if anarchism ever did produce a society in absense of all formal gov't, I think the original North American colony provides the answer to capitalism vs communism.

The pilgrims first had a communal/communist/socialist setup, a "from all according to their abilities, to each according to his need" type of thing. They darn near starved to death, as the lack of incentives to work resulted in very little production.

They changed things after a year or two to a more capitalist setup, where each family had its own plot and was allowed to keep what it produced, or sell the surplus. Their production boomed, and this is the actual source of the US "Thanksgiving day" tradition.

The above info is available from the journals of that colony.

Personally I've long felt that this example puts the capitalism/communism argument to bed.

G.
Click to expand...

In my personal belief I think that there must be an equal amount of competition and cooperation.

They are both present in everyone's lives as it is now.

And generally competition is an external structure while cooperation is an internal one. Although I would never support an anarchist style anything at this moment because human are naturally predatory and someone will topple it.
 
In discussing politics with an Anarchist, the problem I always have is that after about 20 minutes of "stochastic"-this and "anarcho-syndicalist"-that, I feel like someone has stirred my brain with a diesel-powered industrial-grade Roto Rooter.

Bit bogged down in the terminology and footnotes, maybe. :mrgreen:


Now on the other hand, I do think they have a bit of a point about how non-governmental organizations, such as large corporations, can become just as oppressive to the individual as governments if not kept in check somehow. I have some personal experience with that; I presently work for a company whose "employee handbook" really ought to come with a forklift for carrying it about, and whose surveillance methods make Big Brother look like a amateur. Given the current economy, looking for another job with a more reasonable employer isn't much of an option just now.

I don't agree that throwing capitalism out on its ear is the answer. Counterbalancing the power of corporations with unions, or requiring that they respect the Bill of Rights where their employees are concerned, or increasing competition for labor by breaking up super-corps with antitrust acts, perhaps. I'm still studying this one and haven't determined what the best answer is.

Throwing capitalism out entirely (to use a farming metaphor) is like burning your cornfield, because the weeds made you angry.

G.
 
Goshin said:
In discussing politics with an Anarchist, the problem I always have is that after about 20 minutes of "stochastic"-this and "anarcho-syndicalist"-that, I feel like someone has stirred my brain with a diesel-powered industrial-grade Roto Rooter.

Bit bogged down in the terminology and footnotes, maybe. :mrgreen:


Now on the other hand, I do think they have a bit of a point about how non-governmental organizations, such as large corporations, can become just as oppressive to the individual as governments if not kept in check somehow. I have some personal experience with that; I presently work for a company whose "employee handbook" really ought to come with a forklift for carrying it about, and whose surveillance methods make Big Brother look like a amateur. Given the current economy, looking for another job with a more reasonable employer isn't much of an option just now.

I don't agree that throwing capitalism out on its ear is the answer. Counterbalancing the power of corporations with unions, or requiring that they respect the Bill of Rights where their employees are concerned, or increasing competition for labor by breaking up super-corps with antitrust acts, perhaps. I'm still studying this one and haven't determined what the best answer is.

Throwing capitalism out entirely (to use a farming metaphor) is like burning your cornfield, because the weeds made you angry.

G.
Click to expand...

I respect that point of view, I work for a company that fluctuates between the mid cap-large cap line.

They are in some ways similar to an ESOP that anarchists define as the better corporations, however, they are like you describe just heavily laden with rules an in some ways rival the government as the next big brother.

I personally don't think any super corp can last any length of time because of the bloated inefficiency. Government is the only thing that usually keeps these behemoths alive.
 
Goshin said:
In discussing politics with an Anarchist, the problem I always have is that after about 20 minutes of "stochastic"-this and "anarcho-syndicalist"-that, I feel like someone has stirred my brain with a diesel-powered industrial-grade Roto Rooter.

Bit bogged down in the terminology and footnotes, maybe. :mrgreen:


Now on the other hand, I do think they have a bit of a point about how non-governmental organizations, such as large corporations, can become just as oppressive to the individual as governments if not kept in check somehow. I have some personal experience with that; I presently work for a company whose "employee handbook" really ought to come with a forklift for carrying it about, and whose surveillance methods make Big Brother look like a amateur. Given the current economy, looking for another job with a more reasonable employer isn't much of an option just now.

I don't agree that throwing capitalism out on its ear is the answer. Counterbalancing the power of corporations with unions, or requiring that they respect the Bill of Rights where their employees are concerned, or increasing competition for labor by breaking up super-corps with antitrust acts, perhaps. I'm still studying this one and haven't determined what the best answer is.

Throwing capitalism out entirely (to use a farming metaphor) is like burning your cornfield, because the weeds made you angry.

G.
Click to expand...


the worst is when punk anarchists use song lyrics as a source. I don't really care about anything that Bakunin wrote, and I really really don't care about anything Crass wrote.

otherwise, you get a great deal of props from me for being a libertarian that accepts that private corporations can be just as abusive and curtailing to private liberties as the government.
 
Last edited:
new coup for you said:
the worst is when punk anarchists use song lyrics as a source. I don't really care about anything that Bakunin wrote, and I really really don't care about anything Crass wrote.

otherwise, you get a great deal of props from me for being a libertarian that accepts that private corporations can be just as abusive and curtailing to private liberties as the government.
Click to expand...


I hope thread-drift isn't a capital offense here. :mrgreen:

It seems that this is a bit less of a problem when the economy is booming, employment is near the theoretical minimum, and companies are desperate to hire and retain good workers. More of a problem now that its a buyer's market in labor.

Still, the fact that when you backtrack the lines of cash flow and control, you so often come to a small number of corporate giants like AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, and so on, you can get in a situation where almost ALL companies engage in practices oppressive to their employees, at the behest of their (uber-giant-corporate/conglomorate/associated) insurers and lenders. At that point, the argument of "well, just find a more reasonable employer and change jobs" becomes meaningless. "Start a business of your own" is another neat soundbite answer, but doing so requires capital or loans or both; not easily accomplished for many people.

If I own a biz, and my insurer (who is ultimately beholden to AIG and some large banks, and their rules) tells me he won't ensure me unless I institute certain policies (like ICS 9001, ubiquitous surveillance cameras, forbidding employees to carry weapons even if their jobs involve relevant hazards, etc), I'm likely to cave if all potential insurers have the same requirements.

Harry Guerilla said:
I personally don't think any super corp can last any length of time because of the bloated inefficiency. Government is the only thing that usually keeps these behemoths alive.
Click to expand...

The more I learn about corporate structure and finance, the more I think you have a point there. I'm not at all sure that giant corporations are the natural end-product of capitalism, absent gov't meddling in the "free" market. When the gov't manipulates the market, imposes unrealistic regulation that only corporate giants can afford to comply with, and engages in "bailouts" of giants like AIG, Fannie and Freddie and GM because "they're too big to fail" (ha!), then you end up with our current situation, where Mom and Pop stores are all but squeezed out of existence.

Mom and Pop stores, and small corporations, tend to be more humane to their employees because the distance between "CEO" and Joe BoxLifter is far less removed. This makes it harder for the boss to see Joe as a number instead of a human being with human needs and dignity, imo. Seems self-evident: when the guy who makes policy at the company has his office 100' from where Joe works and sees him every day, Joe is a person. When the policy-maker is a corporate bigshot who works on the 100th floor of a steel tower, and almost never sees the guys and gals who do the actual work of the company, its easier to view them as plug-and-play spare parts.

my two bits, anyway.

G.
 
Goshin said:
The more I learn about corporate structure and finance, the more I think you have a point there. I'm not at all sure that giant corporations are the natural end-product of capitalism, absent gov't meddling in the "free" market. When the gov't manipulates the market, imposes unrealistic regulation that only corporate giants can afford to comply with, and engages in "bailouts" of giants like AIG, Fannie and Freddie and GM because "they're too big to fail" (ha!), then you end up with our current situation, where Mom and Pop stores are all but squeezed out of existence.

Mom and Pop stores, and small corporations, tend to be more humane to their employees because the distance between "CEO" and Joe BoxLifter is far less removed. This makes it harder for the boss to see Joe as a number instead of a human being with human needs and dignity, imo. Seems self-evident: when the guy who makes policy at the company has his office 100' from where Joe works and sees him every day, Joe is a person. When the policy-maker is a corporate bigshot who works on the 100th floor of a steel tower, and almost never sees the guys and gals who do the actual work of the company, its easier to view them as plug-and-play spare parts.

my two bits, anyway.

G.
Click to expand...

That is what my observations have reveled to me at least.

The large cap companies for the most part get to a point where they can no longer grow and have a large market share.

They have to switch from growth to maintenance, which I think is difficult to do.

The corporate structure at that point becomes more bureaucratic than necessary to sustain a competitive edge and much of what they have left is name recognition and present market share.

A smaller company can provide single products at more flexible rates and quicker because of the lack of bureaucracy.

There are a few large cap companies that can continue to exist for some time without a large amount of market share loss and that is Walmart and J&J.
 
Agnapostate said:
Actually, no. I've read through several studies, including those of Geronimus and Korenman, as well as numerous articles regarding the matter. This literature was introduced to me by a sociologist colleague who studies youth issues.
Click to expand...

So you admit you didn't read the article you've been citing over and over throughout this thread, but you totally did read some other articles by some other dudes, and you definitely have a friend who knows something about this so that obviously makes you an expert on the topic.

Did I miss anything there, or do you just want to list a few more author's names as if that proves your point?

My only point was that you could have dragged things out a bit longer had you cited Hoffman, as has been done by my opponents on two separate occasions, one of them here, courtesy of Courtesy. Instead, you chose to cite data from the UK...rather inexplicably.
Click to expand...

I cited that particular study because it in turn cited the study that you lied and said you had read.

I don't plan on "citing Hoffman" back at you, because I don't like to cite articles without reading them, and I don't plan on wasting any more time reading articles to respond to someone who can't be bothered to do it themselves.

Have a good one.
 
RightinNYC said:
So you admit you didn't read the article you've been citing over and over throughout this thread, but you totally did read some other articles by some other dudes, and you definitely have a friend who knows something about this so that obviously makes you an expert on the topic.

Did I miss anything there, or do you just want to list a few more author's names as if that proves your point?

I cited that particular study because it in turn cited the study that you lied and said you had read.

I don't plan on "citing Hoffman" back at you, because I don't like to cite articles without reading them, and I don't plan on wasting any more time reading articles to respond to someone who can't be bothered to do it themselves.

Have a good one.
Click to expand...

This is why I don't bother with him either.
 
RightinNYC said:
So you admit you didn't read the article you've been citing over and over throughout this thread, but you totally did read some other articles by some other dudes, and you definitely have a friend who knows something about this so that obviously makes you an expert on the topic.

Did I miss anything there, or do you just want to list a few more author's names as if that proves your point?
Click to expand...

Uh...no. I've read the entire study. So really, you seem to be missing a few things. I've extensively read Hotz and Co.'s work (as well as Hoffman's "rebuttals," including those of the National Campaign), and that of Geronimus and Korenman, Conrad, etc. I've devoted extensive study to this literature. It seems that you have not.

RightinNYC said:
I cited that particular study because it in turn cited the study that you lied and said you had read.
Click to expand...

"Lied" and said I read? Actually, come to think of it, I don't recommend that you read anything I cited. You seem to have some comprehension difficulties.

RightinNYC said:
I don't plan on "citing Hoffman" back at you, because I don't like to cite articles without reading them, and I don't plan on wasting any more time reading articles to respond to someone who can't be bothered to do it themselves.

Have a good one.
Click to expand...

You don't appear to have *read* the article you referenced inasmuch as it focuses on the UK.

Jerry said:
This is why I don't bother with him either.
Click to expand...

No, you don't bother with me because you lack the means to support your arguments, as evidenced by your unwillingness to have a one-on-one debate with me. (Where you would prove your superiority in debate to me once and for all and thus not have to deal with me ever again.)
 
Goshin said:
In discussing politics with an Anarchist, the problem I always have is that after about 20 minutes of "stochastic"-this and "anarcho-syndicalist"-that, I feel like someone has stirred my brain with a diesel-powered industrial-grade Roto Rooter.

Bit bogged down in the terminology and footnotes, maybe. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain I've never met a happy anarchist. Not sure why that is.

:confused:
 
Agnapostate said:
Uh...no. I've read the entire study. So really, you seem to be missing a few things. I've extensively read Hotz and Co.'s work (as well as Hoffman's "rebuttals," including those of the National Campaign), and that of Geronimus and Korenman, Conrad, etc. I've devoted extensive study to this literature. It seems that you have not.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Do you have a link to anything beyond the abstract?

Also, I'm having major lol's at the fact that you once again responding by dropping more names as if that were a substantive rebuttal. Nice work. :lol:

"Lied" and said I read? Actually, come to think of it, I don't recommend that you read anything I cited. You seem to have some comprehension difficulties.
Click to expand...

I asked you twice if you read the article. You dodged the question both times. I assumed (and do still assume) that that means you didn't and are now merely trying to cover it up.

You don't appear to have *read* the article you referenced inasmuch as it focuses on the UK.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think that fact leads to that conclusion, but alright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom