Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 123 - 134 of 6,170
Posts 123 - 134 of 6,170
jbryanc, you're hilarious! lol!!! Do you play softball? I have a feeling I know you from somewhere...
Holland, Melborne... Have you also found the weather to be changing in the past 3 years?
Crab, fascist? That's a little extreme... I'm just suggesting a way to compensate for the aggressive advertising that seems to be spreading like wild flower lately. Speaking of which, anyone survive TV turn-off week?
I'm too drunk to get into a serious debate right now, but I still have a question... Crab, despite the fact that you find my unexplained utopian system unrealistic, don't you think there's gotta' be a better way to decide what our "individual" AND "social" best interests are? Right now, if we don't agree with whatever the 5% gang is up to, all we can do is go out and protest - that, I find childish!
So we do agree the government still has lots of room for improvement, that's good. But why would taxing high earnings (or spendings) necessarily be inappropriate? If you're playing with millions and billions, why would a higher tax stop you? It would just give the resht ush more elbow schpache to invest in new private and non-profit shectorsh... shorry I'm schlurrring....
*is found the next morning curled in the fetal position somewhere between here and Dogh'd's*
Holland, Melborne... Have you also found the weather to be changing in the past 3 years?
Crab, fascist? That's a little extreme... I'm just suggesting a way to compensate for the aggressive advertising that seems to be spreading like wild flower lately. Speaking of which, anyone survive TV turn-off week?
I'm too drunk to get into a serious debate right now, but I still have a question... Crab, despite the fact that you find my unexplained utopian system unrealistic, don't you think there's gotta' be a better way to decide what our "individual" AND "social" best interests are? Right now, if we don't agree with whatever the 5% gang is up to, all we can do is go out and protest - that, I find childish!
So we do agree the government still has lots of room for improvement, that's good. But why would taxing high earnings (or spendings) necessarily be inappropriate? If you're playing with millions and billions, why would a higher tax stop you? It would just give the resht ush more elbow schpache to invest in new private and non-profit shectorsh... shorry I'm schlurrring....
*is found the next morning curled in the fetal position somewhere between here and Dogh'd's*
lunar22: Actually the song I was thinking about is called All Four Seasons and is on Mercury Falling, although admittedly the song relates more to the changeable nature of women's temperaments than actual weather.
SirRahz: Yes, the weather has changed a lot in Australia in general over the last few years. Sydney in particular has experienced a lot of very severe rain storms and the like over the last few years. One in particular had hailstones so big that roofs and cars received extensive damage. The demand for builders and roofing tiles was so massive that it impacted worker availability and material supply across the entire country.
Extremes of weather are becoming more common across the entire planet. Some see it as the result of man's impact on the world. Others see it as the result of natural long term cycles, the kind that have an ice age at one end and extreme tropical conditions at the other. One theory also has to do with the fact that over the last few thousand years the moon has gotten further away and will eventually break orbit with us. It is the moon that regulates the position of our axis and keeps our rotation stable. As it gets further away it has less effect.
Of course, Australian weather changes every bunch of years anyway. South America and ourselves suffer from the cycle of El Nino/El Nina. One gives increased rainfall, the other causes drought and warmer conditions. Melbourne has had five years of reduced rainfall, which brought us close to restrictions last summer. However, the summer was not hot and was reasonably decent in terms of rainfall. It could be that the cycle is changing back again.
Hmm, that might have a little bit too in depth a discussion of the weather for some people's liking, but there you have it.
SirRahz: Yes, the weather has changed a lot in Australia in general over the last few years. Sydney in particular has experienced a lot of very severe rain storms and the like over the last few years. One in particular had hailstones so big that roofs and cars received extensive damage. The demand for builders and roofing tiles was so massive that it impacted worker availability and material supply across the entire country.
Extremes of weather are becoming more common across the entire planet. Some see it as the result of man's impact on the world. Others see it as the result of natural long term cycles, the kind that have an ice age at one end and extreme tropical conditions at the other. One theory also has to do with the fact that over the last few thousand years the moon has gotten further away and will eventually break orbit with us. It is the moon that regulates the position of our axis and keeps our rotation stable. As it gets further away it has less effect.
Of course, Australian weather changes every bunch of years anyway. South America and ourselves suffer from the cycle of El Nino/El Nina. One gives increased rainfall, the other causes drought and warmer conditions. Melbourne has had five years of reduced rainfall, which brought us close to restrictions last summer. However, the summer was not hot and was reasonably decent in terms of rainfall. It could be that the cycle is changing back again.
Hmm, that might have a little bit too in depth a discussion of the weather for some people's liking, but there you have it.
Rahz, I guess it might seem that capitalism coincides with the top 5%'s interests, although I'd suggest it coincides with those interests a little less well than an aristocracy would. But while not all that is in the top 5%'s interests is in all our interest, the system of capitalism is.
As for taxing the higher earners more, I understand your point that this does not necessarily serve as a disincentive for them to try to earn money or even to spend it (that last I have to disagree with though -- maybe it doesn't matter to the top 5%, but it definitely matters to the top 10%...). But once again, you're using governmental power in a preferential way that is outside the scope of fair government from my perspective. My disapproval of the heavy-weighted taxing scheme (in which to flip those earlier statistics around, the top 1% of earners earns 19.5% of the income but pays 36% of the nation's taxes -- yet, despite your contention they control the government, has only 1% of the vote) has nothing to do with fiscal policy and everything to do with a fair and free society. I don't like paying taxes (especially "Social Security") and I know they shouldn't be as high as they are, and I have better uses for the money. If I feel this way now, how much more will I feel it when I break into those higher tax brackets? (optimism is good!
)
"there's gotta' be a better way to decide what our "individual" AND "social" best interests"
Here's how I feel about it: regarding individual best interests, I'll stay out of yours if you'll stay out of mine. Though we should feel free to ask each other's advice or share opinions. As long as we don't seek to impose our wills on each other. My point being, it's none of society's business what my individual best interest is.
Which goes to the second part. Given the above, it's in society's best interest to maximize our individual freedom to determine (and pursue) our individual best interest. To me, that's the Fundamental Law of social policy. There is also a corollary, which pertains to progress, that is, if there is a policy that will trend over time to ensure we have more and more choices regarding our individual best interest (definition of progress, I suggest), this will also be in our social best interest as well. However, such a system had better be scientific, otherwise it's just going to be religion, the state imposition of which is a first-grade violation of the above Fundamental Law. We have one now, called Capitalism, and that's why I support expanding the government's lawful power to include measures that create the conditions for capitalism to take place (e.g., making monopolies and cartels illegal, enabling free trade, etc.).
It just seems to me that if you or I (or practically anyone else for that matter) were appointed to the Ministry of Social Best Interest, we would come up with radically different policies. That alone should be reason enough to make sure the government stays out of that particular arena.
Drunk posts are always welcome!
As for taxing the higher earners more, I understand your point that this does not necessarily serve as a disincentive for them to try to earn money or even to spend it (that last I have to disagree with though -- maybe it doesn't matter to the top 5%, but it definitely matters to the top 10%...). But once again, you're using governmental power in a preferential way that is outside the scope of fair government from my perspective. My disapproval of the heavy-weighted taxing scheme (in which to flip those earlier statistics around, the top 1% of earners earns 19.5% of the income but pays 36% of the nation's taxes -- yet, despite your contention they control the government, has only 1% of the vote) has nothing to do with fiscal policy and everything to do with a fair and free society. I don't like paying taxes (especially "Social Security") and I know they shouldn't be as high as they are, and I have better uses for the money. If I feel this way now, how much more will I feel it when I break into those higher tax brackets? (optimism is good!
)"there's gotta' be a better way to decide what our "individual" AND "social" best interests"
Here's how I feel about it: regarding individual best interests, I'll stay out of yours if you'll stay out of mine. Though we should feel free to ask each other's advice or share opinions. As long as we don't seek to impose our wills on each other. My point being, it's none of society's business what my individual best interest is.
Which goes to the second part. Given the above, it's in society's best interest to maximize our individual freedom to determine (and pursue) our individual best interest. To me, that's the Fundamental Law of social policy. There is also a corollary, which pertains to progress, that is, if there is a policy that will trend over time to ensure we have more and more choices regarding our individual best interest (definition of progress, I suggest), this will also be in our social best interest as well. However, such a system had better be scientific, otherwise it's just going to be religion, the state imposition of which is a first-grade violation of the above Fundamental Law. We have one now, called Capitalism, and that's why I support expanding the government's lawful power to include measures that create the conditions for capitalism to take place (e.g., making monopolies and cartels illegal, enabling free trade, etc.).
It just seems to me that if you or I (or practically anyone else for that matter) were appointed to the Ministry of Social Best Interest, we would come up with radically different policies. That alone should be reason enough to make sure the government stays out of that particular arena.
Drunk posts are always welcome!
I'm not sure brass plaques should be used for anti-insect purposes. Any thoughts jbryanc, holder of the brass plaque?
I have to get back to this one now that this is a regular week night...
Eugene, do you believe in the "concept" of infinity? Crab? How can the universe *not* be infinite? If it weren't infinite, what surrounds us? I can understand, scientifically, how some extremes are definite, like cold (nothing colder than zero kelvin), light (nothing brighter than white, nothing darker than... no light), mass (nothing lighter than zero grammes!) and a few others... even speed may have a limit, but still I doubt that we won't change our minds on that one someday - sorry Einstein! (no pun there, I mean the real Einstein). But I really don't understand how there could be a limit to how old something is, how heavy it is, how much energy it holds or how large it is. Do these things become clear with a mathematics major?
Eugene, you can't possibly be saying that the evolutionary theory is less valid than what the bible says because the bible has been around for some 1800 years longer... We *are* evolving right? Right now? We are, aren't we? I mean, pretty well everyone can write now... and with the Internet, we can keep a pretty close track on historical events and scientific advancements... I would go way out on a limb here and claim that we'll be even smarter in the future... and maybe then we'll want to replace *all* known theories with one that better suits our modern experiences and our new discoveries. I can't agree with the "it's been around longer" argument in this case.
Corwin, I went to school in Sydney - I think it was winter there then, cause I could hardly ever wear shorts... goes to show how mild the weather was down there. Montreal's covered in slush again now...
I'll just let you all assume what my thoughts are on the cause of our marvelous green-house effect.
And now back to our baby... capitalism! Once again, I agree with most of what you're saying Crab. I think freedom is one of the most important aspects of our lives and I don't see why anyone else should tell me how to act... but there are all kinds of ways of interpreting that. What if ones personal definition of freedom is having sex with whoever they want, no matter what age, sex, location or species! See how ambiguous that is? Not so long ago, same sex relationships were even more taboo than pedophelia. So who's to decide what our society permits and what our society doesn't permit in these cases? Surely there are situations where there's gotta' be a line drawn somewhere, right?
Now what get's on my nerves is the concept that we live in a democracy. If you still think the top 1% of the richest people in a country get only 1% of the vote, I'm afraid you haven't been listening to a word I've been typing!
I'll say it again, these people plain and simply *buy* the governments. They give them millions of dollars a year in campaign funding (this is no secret, btw) so that they'll pass laws in their favor! Is there something hard to understand about this? We (the population) only get a say in *who* will be receiving the funding and deciding the laws, we never get a say on *what* laws will be decided! Is there anything you can say to deny this???
With all this money, the government simply passes laws, without consulting the population. If the population does find out about some scandalous law being passed (through one of those gosh darn left-wing reporters) the government has tons of budget and resources to "create" a consensus amongst it's voters. When you have access to every news channel that every voter watches, there's no need to censor anything - you just flood the air waves with smart sounding financial reports describing how this is in each and every citizens best interest. And this is just to create an illusion that everything is ok, because if the government didn't take on this responsibility, people might get distracted by those left-wing reporters (dangerous).
With this kind of system running the show, I can see, Crab, why you'd be hesitant to let the government have a glimpse on ANY aspect of our lives!
Like I briefly mentioned earlier, I've thought of true democratic solution for our modern times. I'm probably not the first person to have thought of something like this, but I don't think I stole this idea from anywhere (perhaps the collective consciousness influenced me a bit, who knows?). It's basically "live voting". Instead of going out and voting once every four years, you can vote as often or as rarely as you like - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! This is sort of hard to explain at first, but hang on, I'll do my best.
Instead of having a select gang of people discussing things in congress, why not have virtual discussions on a newsgroup web site specifically dedicated to passing laws. After a period of discussion, the laws would be voted upon. Of course, every single citizen would be represented in each vote, but each citizen wouldn't necessarily have to vote individually; you could choose to vote yourself (if you feel the urge) or you can donate your vote to a political party that manages your votes for you. If for some reason, your current political party is no longer serving you the way you'd like to be, you could donate your votes to a new gang from that point on, decide to manage your votes yourself or, I don't care, cancel your voting for a while! NOW THAT'S A DEMOCRACY!!!
This would encourage any number of political parties to be truthful to their promises and to the people they represent. Each party would gain or lose power depending on how they stand on the laws that are being past. Campaign funding would be rather irrelevant, since it would really be the population that decides all those necessary laws that make our society more or less organized. And, the wonders it would do for public interest in politics!
What d'y'all think? I'm terribly curious.
I've thought about it for a while and, personally, I don't see any flaws in it, other than the people who are currently in power will do everything they can to avoid *this* kind of freedom.
Eugene, do you believe in the "concept" of infinity? Crab? How can the universe *not* be infinite? If it weren't infinite, what surrounds us? I can understand, scientifically, how some extremes are definite, like cold (nothing colder than zero kelvin), light (nothing brighter than white, nothing darker than... no light), mass (nothing lighter than zero grammes!) and a few others... even speed may have a limit, but still I doubt that we won't change our minds on that one someday - sorry Einstein! (no pun there, I mean the real Einstein). But I really don't understand how there could be a limit to how old something is, how heavy it is, how much energy it holds or how large it is. Do these things become clear with a mathematics major?
Eugene, you can't possibly be saying that the evolutionary theory is less valid than what the bible says because the bible has been around for some 1800 years longer... We *are* evolving right? Right now? We are, aren't we? I mean, pretty well everyone can write now... and with the Internet, we can keep a pretty close track on historical events and scientific advancements... I would go way out on a limb here and claim that we'll be even smarter in the future... and maybe then we'll want to replace *all* known theories with one that better suits our modern experiences and our new discoveries. I can't agree with the "it's been around longer" argument in this case.
Corwin, I went to school in Sydney - I think it was winter there then, cause I could hardly ever wear shorts... goes to show how mild the weather was down there. Montreal's covered in slush again now...
I'll just let you all assume what my thoughts are on the cause of our marvelous green-house effect.
And now back to our baby... capitalism! Once again, I agree with most of what you're saying Crab. I think freedom is one of the most important aspects of our lives and I don't see why anyone else should tell me how to act... but there are all kinds of ways of interpreting that. What if ones personal definition of freedom is having sex with whoever they want, no matter what age, sex, location or species! See how ambiguous that is? Not so long ago, same sex relationships were even more taboo than pedophelia. So who's to decide what our society permits and what our society doesn't permit in these cases? Surely there are situations where there's gotta' be a line drawn somewhere, right?
Now what get's on my nerves is the concept that we live in a democracy. If you still think the top 1% of the richest people in a country get only 1% of the vote, I'm afraid you haven't been listening to a word I've been typing!
I'll say it again, these people plain and simply *buy* the governments. They give them millions of dollars a year in campaign funding (this is no secret, btw) so that they'll pass laws in their favor! Is there something hard to understand about this? We (the population) only get a say in *who* will be receiving the funding and deciding the laws, we never get a say on *what* laws will be decided! Is there anything you can say to deny this???
With all this money, the government simply passes laws, without consulting the population. If the population does find out about some scandalous law being passed (through one of those gosh darn left-wing reporters) the government has tons of budget and resources to "create" a consensus amongst it's voters. When you have access to every news channel that every voter watches, there's no need to censor anything - you just flood the air waves with smart sounding financial reports describing how this is in each and every citizens best interest. And this is just to create an illusion that everything is ok, because if the government didn't take on this responsibility, people might get distracted by those left-wing reporters (dangerous).
With this kind of system running the show, I can see, Crab, why you'd be hesitant to let the government have a glimpse on ANY aspect of our lives!
Like I briefly mentioned earlier, I've thought of true democratic solution for our modern times. I'm probably not the first person to have thought of something like this, but I don't think I stole this idea from anywhere (perhaps the collective consciousness influenced me a bit, who knows?). It's basically "live voting". Instead of going out and voting once every four years, you can vote as often or as rarely as you like - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! This is sort of hard to explain at first, but hang on, I'll do my best.
Instead of having a select gang of people discussing things in congress, why not have virtual discussions on a newsgroup web site specifically dedicated to passing laws. After a period of discussion, the laws would be voted upon. Of course, every single citizen would be represented in each vote, but each citizen wouldn't necessarily have to vote individually; you could choose to vote yourself (if you feel the urge) or you can donate your vote to a political party that manages your votes for you. If for some reason, your current political party is no longer serving you the way you'd like to be, you could donate your votes to a new gang from that point on, decide to manage your votes yourself or, I don't care, cancel your voting for a while! NOW THAT'S A DEMOCRACY!!!
This would encourage any number of political parties to be truthful to their promises and to the people they represent. Each party would gain or lose power depending on how they stand on the laws that are being past. Campaign funding would be rather irrelevant, since it would really be the population that decides all those necessary laws that make our society more or less organized. And, the wonders it would do for public interest in politics!
What d'y'all think? I'm terribly curious.
I've thought about it for a while and, personally, I don't see any flaws in it, other than the people who are currently in power will do everything they can to avoid *this* kind of freedom.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar