Subject:
|
Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 15:44:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2467 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:55:15 GMT, Christopher Weeks
> <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote:
>
> > 5) Let peaceful people cross borders freely.
> > OK, I can see otherwise reasonable people disagreeing with this
> > due to outmoded notions of fealty and sovereignty. I agree with
> > the LP stance on this issue and am more extreme than this, but
> > this is the only one of the personal issues that I bet many
> > folks would disagree with.
>
> Yup. There are very good reasons not to let economic refugees cross
> into your country freely. Most especially if you are richer than your
> neighbours.
My stance on this is surely colored by the history of the US, but I feel
that the primary reason that I live in the greatest nation in the world
is the melting pot effect. I would be completely open to allowing
anyone who wanted a fair shake to come live and work in the US. Today,
that might not work because we have a minimum wage and welfare, but in
the ideal world, we'd have neither and it would be a good thing for our
country and the world.
> > Economic Issues:
> > 1) Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies.
> > OK, I guess this is obvious to me, but anyone who has no faith
> > in the market would disagree with this. In fact, I think this
>
> The problem isn't that the market wouldn't provide food. It's that the
> market would not provide enough home-grown food, instead preferring to
> import from somewhere cheaper. The problem with that in times of war
> is very obvious.
OK, I hadn't thought of that. There is a good reason to keep a farming
infrastructure up and running. I still rebel at the thought of
subsidies. I'll need to think on this.
> > question doesn't belong on the test since it's likely to get
> > negative answers. They should change it to "farmers and business
> > shouldn't be paid by the government to NOT produce."
>
> Corretc me if I'm wrong, but they're not. Generally subsidies hinge on
> the fact that they do produce, except that what they produce isn't
> _sold_. But it's still grown.
I beleive you are (at least in some cases) wrong. I have never been an
agrarian, but I did spend the past eight years living in an agricultural
region - attending the largest ag college within 300 miles and I know
people who were paid to leave corn fields fallow rather than grow. I
also know people who report having taken that pay and grown stuff (like
pot) anyway.
> > 2) People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.
> > You have to have some basic faith in the market, but I bet most
> > people answer this one with a yes.
>
> In some cases. This one isn't black and white no matter how you look
> at it.
I think 'people' in the aggregate are better off with free trade. I
think that is black and white. But, there are many who would be 'hurt'
changing from the current system to a free one.
> > 3) Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
> > I bet many people are negative to this as a gut reaction. I
> > once again agree, and I think it can clearly be demonstrated
> > that it's correct, but if you don't have time to explain the
> > how behind it, people might generally disagree.
>
> The first statement is marginally correct, but that is irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant? When I was 20, I worked at a mid-sized custom
photo lab as a dark-room technician. Minimum wage went up and two kids
got canned. I should have, but my work was too good - or so I was told.
[snip]
> Why does it need to be set up so that everyone is conned into
> believing they're libertarian? Very intellectually dishonest tactic.
Well, I just assume that the point of the quiz is to show people that
they aren't as fringe as they are generally perceived. The more people
they can get to fall in as Libertarian thinkers - or close to it - the
more validity they can muster in the political game field.
> > I don't know. In a global context, I think we're fairly conservative.
> > And fairly moderate. Both parties agree on more than they disagree. In
> > some places that's less true - as I understand it.
>
> More thasn fairly. Both your parties are extremely moderate by your
> own standards, and both are right-wing by global standards (by
> actions, not words, that is).
A little right wing. Not a whole lot. We might be fairly right wing by
European standards, but not the rest of the world - as I understand things.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
| (...) Maybe it'd be a good thing for the country or the world -- but not necessarily for the individual voter. Anyway, we currently get enough non-economic refugees here in .nl that it severely skews the population count -- and in some cases we're (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
| (...) Yup. There are very good reasons not to let economic refugees cross into your country freely. Most especially if you are richer than your neighbours. (...) The problem isn't that the market wouldn't provide food. It's that the market would not (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
