Should Schools Teach "Intelligent Falling"?

Private companies funded by donation is a possibility if people had those extra dollars to donate.

 

I'm all for small government, but the free market already provides for demand. The taxes go to free market contractors and they pave streets, erect lighting, and do the myriad of other services your taxes pay for.

In your system would you hire a contractor to walk in front of you laying paving slabs beneath your feet as you walk and then lift them again when you move on so that no other scrounger can use what you have paid for? Think about how it would work in the REAL WORLD. not just how you wish it could work in your head.

so what system would ensure you only pay for what you use?

I'm sure people said to him as i am saying to you how does it work?

They charge each person who purchases a product or service for that product or service. How would that work for paving, roads, bridges, libraries and street lighting?

No, But i have an obligation, Both morally and by the fact that i have chosen to live in a society, To pay in to a kitty that goes towards funding public amenities that we all use.

By the rich, for the rich. That what you want?

yes, So you keep saying. And i keep asking you to explain how that works for public amenities.
Of course a lot of what we use should be through choice and purchased on the free market, But not things like roads, paving, street lights, pedestrian crossings, schools. What happens when you go on holiday? Do you have to pay for someone else's paving and street lighting while you are using it? What if someone is disabled and has no money? Should they be legally prevented from using any of your precious pavement , street lights or pedestrian crossings? Should they not have access to a police force if they are being mugged? Should they be denied a fire engine if their house catches fire.

There are some things and some services that we need a public kitty to fund. it is simply impossible to buy these things like you buy a dell. What about national defence? what about the space program? Your utopia is something absolutely horrific and based on nothing but selfish greed on your part.

 

basic research cannot rely on "IF". companies would only fund the research they consider will result in a future profit. Nobody will put billions on basic research for charity.

 

Read my post again stOx and stop being a prick. I was showing how adaptation is a process of evolution, as favorable mutations are passed on, and unfavorable are not. I was also showing that humans can influence how things adapt and evolve.

 

I may be wrong, Jackuul, but I believe Stox meant to say "Kalvin," not you.

 

yeah sorry i meant kalvin. I copy and pasted the name and copied yours by accident because it was in the quote.

 

Okay. When I saw that I was like "Whaaaaaat!?". Soz.

 

The word for "day" in Greek is an undefined period of time. As is the English word "day." "Day" only has meaning because of night and daylight. And as we see in the Bible the word is defined by "the evening and the morning." Now we can define a "second" by the spins of an atom and 3600 of those make up an hour and 24 hours make up a day.

So unless you argue that evening and morning took a really really long time (billions of times longer than it takes now), you've got no case for God doing it anything but in a 24 hour period since "evening and morning" are the Jewish definition of a 24 hour day. God rested on the 7th day and that's why the Jews rested on the Sabbath.

Also the Horizon problem, in order to avoid fudging the laws of entropy, would require the universe was created in approximately it's current state instantaniously. Not over billions of years. Kind of like God spoke and BANG it was. Not BANG, the laws of entropy don't apply for billions of years, and here we are.

Why would you reject the power of God for someone else's religion that has no proof? If you're going on faith, I'd rather error on the side of God's omnipotence. Evolution also demands that you believe on faith that everything came from a single living cell. The Bible says plants, animals and man were created seperately. So we have a contradiction that cannot be resolved.

That's like trying to make Islam and Christianity fit together. It's just not going to happen and there's no need to try. Islam teaches Jesus didn't die on the cross. Christianity says he did. Would you feel a need to try to recitify that problem? He did or he didn't. There is no compromise. One religion is wrong on that issue.

Evolution is a religion. It was invented in the same period as a lot of religions. The only difference between Darwin and every other religion founder is that he went with the premis that God doesn't exist. And he set out to prove it. "Science" has soundly failed to observe anything that would make the Bible's account false.

 

Yes, but it's also a process of supply and demand.

In (sic) "my" system, we'd have the lowest possible taxes, and as many free market opportunities as possible.

The government would not compete with free enterprise, or hold any monopoly power.

If you want to see models, look to the internet. 15 years ago, no one could have predicted a market for Google to fill, or how they would fill it. Based on demand, Google filled a market need. Open Office. L.A.M.P. phpBB. Scuttle. Wordpress & Blogger. YouTube.

I've tried and tried to explain free markets, and the philosophy behind personal liberty. But maybe I've done a bad job of it, because when you understand the fundamentals, the answers to different situations are fairly obvious.

 

If I understand where you are coming from by "basic scientific research", I would suggest that it happen just as it happened 100, 300 or 1,000 years ago. And not unlike how Linux, Apache, phpBB etc develop now.

 

I say let those who want to abandon science, go abandon it and live in the trees.

 

Eh, if we abandon science and evolution, we'd be living in the garden of eden.

 

A fate worse than death.

 

Thanks, that does make a lot of sense, but for me it gets tricky on either side trying to argue something through logic and science that happened before or while the laws of logic and science were being created.

Either way, why can't science just focus on teaching about what is here now and possible to experiment on with controls. Does believing in evolution or creationism change how we would figure out a way to prevent cancer?

 

guerilla you keep using personal services catering to the individual to explain how things will be paid for.
Again..... How will roads, sidewalks, lighting, bridges, traffic lights and pedestrian crossing be paid for?

These are things we all use all of the time, They aren't suitable for the system you propose where if you want something, you buy it. I'm all for being able to buy things on a personal level and i am all for free markets and small governments. But i also realise that living in a civilised society means we have to chip in to pay for the stuff that we all use and sometimes we have to help out people who can't afford it for the greater good. Because the only alternatives are to either not have street lighting because .5% of people haven't paid for it or legally prevent anyone who hasn't paid from taking advantage of it.

as you seem to be unwilling, After being asked countless times, To explain how these things will be paid for perhaps it will be easier if you explain what the government pay for now through taxation that you want to pay for on a personal level.

As for carrying out scientific research like they did 100, 300 or 1,000 years ago... Well, Lets just say it's the most un-thought through statement i have ever heard. Is there anything about this system of yours that isn't comparable to the dark ages?

 

How were they paid for in the US before the Federal Gov't took control of the highways?

Actually, you have not posted anything in this thread that would indicate you are for free markets or small government. On the contrary, you have endorsed the state as father, mother and teacher numerous times.

In a civilized society, people should pay for what they use, and not pay for what they don't. Helping out people is a moral responsibility we all have. I just don't believe the state is more efficient than charity.

If the state wanted to build 10 new schools, and on completion, there were only enough students for 5 of those schools, should we continue to pay for the extra 5 schools? And if I have no children, should I have to pay for schools at all?

It's not much different than subsidizing health care for smokers. They choose to smoke, they chose to start smoking, why should I have to bear the increased cost of communal health care to support their bad decisions? Isn't this a tax on me for making good choices? Much like the welfare recipient gets more for less than a worker, a smoker gets the same or more care than someone who doesn't smoke, for essentially the same cost.

Those aren't the only alternatives. You're selecting extremes.

40% of people could choose to pay for street lamps for the use and enjoyment of 100% of the people. But that would be voluntary. The extra 60% do not have a right, to take the money without the consent of the 40%, even if they possess a majority.

A fundamental right, is the right to property. This includes money, the fruit of your labor, your deferred consumption (savings). If you grow 10 apples, you should be able to eat all 10 apples, not have me come along and tell you that you can only have 5 because that's all I think you need, and the remaining 5 must be given to Kalvin, who spends all of his time reading the Bible and not growing any food.

The government cannot pay for anything because it owns nothing. It all comes from taxpayers. True or false?

When you can answer that honestly, you will automatically have the answer to your question.

During the dark ages, there was feudalism. I am opposed to feudalism.

So you're saying that the development of the radio, telephone, automobile, and electric light bulb are comparable to the Dark Ages?

 

When i say "pay for" i obviously meant allocate funds to. but i guess when you have failed at every attempt to answer the questions i have repeatedly asked being a pedantic prig is the only thing left for you to do.

I give up guerrilla, You obviously have absolutely no reasonable answers to perfectly reasonable questions which makes me believe that this "fight the man" crap is a combination of you wanting to be a bit of a rebel and at the same time being incapable of thinking things through. I can only ask the same question so many time before giving up on my attempt to get a satisfactory, reasonable answer.

Put on some rage against the machine, have a cup of tea and think about how much of an anti-establishment chiché you are.

 

our unemployment rate is similar to UK's yet we probably get 3-4-5 (maybe even more) times less for the same job. Supply and demand probably do influence salaries. But you can't deny the society you live in has a very big influence on the reward you get for your work. That's what gives society the right to claim part of what you earn to spend it for the greater good

 

So is that a yes or a no to my question?

Oh man, please don't give up. I really feel like you are on the verge of a breakthrough. I can feel it.

Don't confuse being pro-liberty with being anti-establishment. Che Guevara was a communist, I am definitely not a Marxist.

I'm interested in having a serious debate about why the state is a tool for the majority, and why it is a total for corporations. Why enhanced state power means less personal and individual liberty, which (in my mind at least) should be our highest goal.

You're welcome to continue the discussion anytime.

 

I'm talking about aggregate supply and demand. And yeah, I'm not saying it is the only factor, but I believe it is a significant contributor.

I know we don't agree on the "society" bit, but really, who is society? Me and StOx? What if we decide we want 50% of your earnings for lodging and food because we don't work and want to watch TV all day?

You ok with that?