The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(05-23-2019 04:04 PM)ess Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 01:33 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 06:34 AM)Rasser Wrote:  With Corporations, Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue being so intertwined, I’d argue a majority of us are working to benefit others.

Of course we are. There is practically no argument to be made otherwise.

Nobody here is making that argument

Yes..."being so intertwined".

Yet somehow those yearning for socialism blame "capitalism" for that which they dislike.

What form of capitalism advocates the mixing of corporations, Wall Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue?

And...of those 3.

Which are you and I free to say "no" to?

Quote:Its all well and good to try to make this a moral argument but hardly anyone actually wants to see capitalism taken to its logical end.
Unless you are advocating for actual anarchy/minarchy with no forms of taxation and complete self autonomy (making this a philosophical and not practical discussion) then spare me the moral grandstanding.

In what world should a person have the right to stake a claim to the life, labor, and earnings of another without making a moral argument?

Exactly.

(05-23-2019 03:42 PM)Rasser Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 01:33 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 06:34 AM)Rasser Wrote:  With Corporations, Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue being so intertwined, I’d argue a majority of us are working to benefit others.

Of course we are. There is practically no argument to be made otherwise.

Its all well and good to try to make this a moral argument but hardly anyone actually wants to see capitalism taken to its logical end. Unless you are advocating for actual anarchy/minarchy with no forms of taxation and complete self autonomy (making this a philosophical and not practical discussion) then spare me the moral grandstanding.

Who's moral grandstanding?

You feel that business should have as much influence over our federal government as they currently do? With this dynamic in mind, there's not much difference in any of the definitions of social and economic theories you guys are trying to pigeon hole our current application into.

THAT would be my point.

Sorry, I should have separated my second paragraph. I was agreeing with you, the second part was directed at ess.

(05-23-2019 04:04 PM)ess Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 01:33 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 06:34 AM)Rasser Wrote:  With Corporations, Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue being so intertwined, I’d argue a majority of us are working to benefit others.

Of course we are. There is practically no argument to be made otherwise.

Nobody here is making that argument

Yes..."being so intertwined".

Yet somehow those yearning for socialism blame "capitalism" for that which they dislike.

What form of capitalism advocates the mixing of corporations, Wall Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue?

And...of those 3.

Which are you and I free to say "no" to?

Quote:Its all well and good to try to make this a moral argument but hardly anyone actually wants to see capitalism taken to its logical end.
Unless you are advocating for actual anarchy/minarchy with no forms of taxation and complete self autonomy (making this a philosophical and not practical discussion) then spare me the moral grandstanding.

In what world should a person have the right to stake a claim to the life, labor, and earnings of another without making a moral argument?

You tell me. Are you advocating a zero tax society? Essentially no services provided by the government? Because otherwise we are arguing over shades of gray. I am curious what you prioritize, what taxes are acceptable and what services they should be used to pay for.

I suspect we agree on one thing; the government has an obligation to use our tax money frugally and wisely which has certainly not been the case.

(05-23-2019 04:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  You tell me. Are you advocating a zero tax society? Essentially no services provided by the government? Because otherwise we are arguing over shades of gray. I am curious what you prioritize, what taxes are acceptable and what services they should be used to pay for.

I suspect we agree on one thing; the government has an obligation to use our tax money frugally and wisely which has certainly not been the case.

I haven't said anything about taxes.

I'm talking about something much more basic.

As a first principle, in a civilized society, I would propose the following (NAP):

It is (morally) wrong to initiate physical force, or the threat of physical force, against others.

This seems simple, and very defensible to me.

But nearly everyone disagrees with me about this.

Why?

(05-23-2019 05:30 PM)ess Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 04:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  You tell me. Are you advocating a zero tax society? Essentially no services provided by the government? Because otherwise we are arguing over shades of gray. I am curious what you prioritize, what taxes are acceptable and what services they should be used to pay for.

I suspect we agree on one thing; the government has an obligation to use our tax money frugally and wisely which has certainly not been the case.

I haven't said anything about taxes.

I'm talking about something much more basic.

As a first principle, in a civilized society, I would propose the following (NAP):

It is (morally) wrong to initiate physical force, or the threat of physical force, against others.

This seems simple, and very defensible to me.

But nearly everyone disagrees with me about this.

Why?

Because you think we should do away with public schools and everyone knows that's a terrible idea.

(05-23-2019 06:07 PM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote:  Because you think we should do away with public schools and everyone knows that's a terrible idea.

Though I said that previously, I don't believe it.

My position is that no individual should be forced to fund a public school if they don't (or their family doesn't) attend.

Having said that, it is philosophically unsound to adopt or reject a moral precept based on it's ease of application, or its practical outcome.

(05-23-2019 06:28 PM)ess Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 06:07 PM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote:  Because you think we should do away with public schools and everyone knows that's a terrible idea.

Though I said that previously, I don't believe it.

My position is that no individual should be forced to fund a public school if they don't (or their family doesn't) attend.

Having said that, it is philosophically unsound to adopt or reject a moral precept based on it's ease of application, or its practical outcome.

This is also a very bad idea.

(05-23-2019 10:01 PM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 06:28 PM)ess Wrote:  

(05-23-2019 06:07 PM)HaymondAtThe4 Wrote:  Because you think we should do away with public schools and everyone knows that's a terrible idea.

Though I said that previously, I don't believe it.

My position is that no individual should be forced to fund a public school if they don't (or their family doesn't) attend.

Having said that, it is philosophically unsound to adopt or reject a moral precept based on it's ease of application, or its practical outcome.

This is also a very bad idea.

After a two year consulting stint for one of the larger school districts out west and seeing them focus on getting federal dollars to meet their budget first, teaching and servicing the students second, not to mention the blatant corruption, I think it's more than time address our eduction model.

Having said that, I saw that the charter schools sure were quick to jump into the same fold, begging for federal dollars themselves.