taks

you missed the joke... zoloft is also heavily prescribed for generalized anxiety disorder which is, in my case, the result of stress (i've posted on this often, btw). and yes, i know exactly what any drug does before it goes into my body. i don't like it, either. i suffer from all of the 2% side effects, none of the real common ones. not depressed at all, actually. however, if you read about anxiety or depression, they tend to go hand in hand. at least, someone with GAD has some level of depression and vice versa. hard to actually look at yourself and diagnose mild depression i suppose. taks

it is, IMO, unconstitutional, and probably the biggest problem with our system. the fed is not a government institution, btw. booms and cycles are ultimately the result of the fed's control of the money supply. contrary to the socialist position that such regulation saves us from these extreme events, it actually causes them. taks

hehe... hehe 2... oh, relevant link, btw: http://www.edge-online.com/features/ten-mo...ing-drm-methods taks

not a flaw at all. and no, we don't have the opportunity to remove that meddling, we're simply going to pile on more regulations. spend more money. take away more power from the people. taks

hehe, you're funny. ok, read this statement aloud and think about it for a second: government regulation created the problem in the first place. every example you could ever provide of "government regulation working" was caused, at least in part, by the very regulations themselves. man. if it were a snake biting you in the ass... taks

cortisol is probably the reason i take sertraline (zoloft). taks

my philosophy: the best philosophical discussions devolve (yes, de) from other topics. taks

i wasn't hating on you at all! i misread the first time (i realized it was "plan" when i posted, however), and just thought it was a good funny. because we're ultimately using the taxpayer to pay for a plan that was created by government meddling in the first place. it is not so much "smoothing out the cycles," it is redistributing wealth. let 'em fail. stop the handouts. get the government out of the system. taks

no, nick, i already stated it quite clearly, his version of "telling" involves government force. c'mon man... well said, noob. a chilean phlan? is that like a custard, or more like a pudding? taks

oh, i should add, maybe you should read 1984. hehe, you're free to think as you like, as long as you do as we say. man... taks

oh my god... i laughed almost hysterically at that. you can't see the inconsistency in your argument? 1. No one forces you to believe something or think something 2. it is merely forcing certain way of behaviour news flash, those two concepts are completely at odds with each other. actually, it is "democratically legalized," just not implemented as such. when you ask what are these rights? how can you not know? a right to own one's property is one of the most powerful. no matter where you go, you're still going to have the problem of consistency with your argument. your argument makes claims of morality, humanity and freedom, but you still advocate forcibly taking from one person to give to another. you advocate forcing certain behaviors. you advocate a system in which one person has more rights than another. yours is a position of hypocrisy. you cannot avoid this in spite of your attempts to dance around it. ultimately, the concept of inalienable rights is written down to protect everyone from people like you. people that are self-righteously telling us how we should behave. taks

yes and no. good for the public at large, bad for the moms and pops. anyway, i was mostly just posting what the common arguments are, trying to to inject as little opinion of my own as possible. i personally have no problem with walmart. depends upon what they are doing. the problem here is that given our rigged system, and their vast resources, it is not hard for them to steer politics towards legislation that is favorable to their position, but not necessarily in the best interests of the communities they are steering. i don't buy much there, except stuff that i'll pay more for at other places. children's clothes are good examples. i want something cheap since it won't fit long anyway, hehe. taks

and as i have noted, the two things existing simultaneously are at best controversial, at worst simply not true. your opinion, while it may be shared by chomsky, isn't really valid in any of the realms you mentioned that i don't understand. maybe there is some new movement i haven't heard of. maybe it's just something that spreads among you third way folks. at this point, who knows. trade does (bartering, actually), which ultimately results in the market. children instinctively trade with one another. you should sit and watch a room full of 2-year olds once. no, it looked strikingly similar to something i read somewhere today. of course, i'm supposed to be thinking about advanced radar topics. sheesh. taks

i'm not sure i understand what you're getting at here. rights are those things that are inalienable. rights are immutable, as well. rights of one cannot infringe upon rights of another. if they do, then they are not rights, but privileges granted by someone else. wow, you completely missed that point. it has nothing to do with "legality" or "legitimate actions" of a democratic government. go back and read what nick said. he accused me, tongue in cheek of course, of being ironic for attempting you to bend to my view. in other words, he said i was being hypocritical because i expected you to believe my viewpoint, while refusing to believe yours. my viewpoint accepts that you can have whatever viewpoint you want. yours accepts that i can have whatever viewpoint i want, but i have to obey yours regardless. mine is consistent with rights, yours is not. when one is forced to believe a certain way, no matter how you may spin it, he is not free, nor does he have rights. only privileges granted by the state. taks

in other words "oh, you're right, i did claim you didn't understand." gotcha. at least i admitted when i misstated something in one of these threads, ahem... anyway, that doesn't address the point i made that you don't really have support for these two things simultaneously and globally. as i noted, your concept is at best controversial, at worst not accepted at all. good for you. never was my way except for my family and friends, but i get something in return for that. i decided probably before you were born there was no god. sorry. disingenuous again. you can be empathetic (i think empathic would be like that chick on star trek) without favoring collectivism. collectivism is forced. empathy is not. charity is empathetic, but not in anyway collectivist. not really. capitalism is actually just an observation of free markets, which exist naturally. it's not a system per se, as much as it is an observation of a system (with an expectation of protected rights). i saw the 75% thing mentioned somewhere on wiki... taks

extremely weak. because it's an illusionary "tyranny," made out out of thin air because socialists need to paint a bleaker picture of capitalism knowing full well that their view requires real tyranny to implement (or at least, results in real tyranny). taks

hypocrisy much? srsly i think i did a good job of pointing out your hypocrisy, and my consistency. sorry, but there ain't much around your view: obey my will or else. Nope as I still put greatest value on rights and democratic process so, again, explain to me how one person can have rights that are greater than another's? how are they rights at that point? and, you need to look it up, but your definition of "democratic process," one in which the many can vote away the rights of the few, is also collectivist. taks

that is 100% disingenuous. the role of government is to protect rights, and it is a requirement that government exist in order for capitalism to work. that has nothing to do with you advocating, through threat of force, that i believe in your ideology. that's the point, nick, that i explicitly made. must have missed it. he's got a right to his opinion, and i have a right to mine. i want him to believe as i do, but it is not a requirement. he wants me to believe as he does, but he thinks the government should make it a requirement that i at least do as he believes. there was no inconsistency, nor irony in my statement at all. i was completely consistent. xard's viewpoint is NOT consistent, though that doesn't mean he can't express it. taks

no, i advocate capitalism, pure and simple. reagan was the milton friedman style as i recall, which is certainly better than keynes, but still not austrian. i think your understanding of trickle down is a bit confused, btw. when he increased defense spending, that money went into US companies, for the most part at least. i.e., being in favor of trickle down economics and increasing defense spending aren't really contrary positions. economically, yes, and i think i mentioned that somewhere. "liberal" as it pertains to US politics means "left-wing." taks

um, no. i know people like to make that connection, but it just ain't true. in the former, you have a choice, no matter how you want to label it, the choice is an individual choice. in the latter, you are forced to the will of the tyranny. you have no choice, and you are required to comply through threat of violence (imprisonment, etc.). that's the standard socialist argument, btw, and a pretty weak one at that. taks

uh... your words: k? at best your ideas of humans being collectivist by nature are controversial in any one of these areas. being "social" and being "collectivist" are a bit different. we like to associate with each other (well, most do, my wife doesn't), but we need to deal with each other, and we have no built-in need to help each other except in that it benefits us individually. don't get me wrong, i don't fully prescribe to ayn rand's beliefs in this area completely. selfless acts are quite common, and almost a given throughout society, but not at a societal level. we care for our friends and family (certainly some extend it to the societal level, and they also participate heavily in charitable activities, which is something that has not even been mentioned...) okie... i don't really think it's an example of the flimsy nature of individual thinking, just fear of the unknown maybe. it is hard for me to say because i do not follow authority figures at all (though i do follow my friends... very odd). taks

no, i don't think they should be able to. note that free education already exists in all states, though it is mostly funded at the state/local level (which is at least primarily based on sales taxes, which are voluntary). one of the problems with the "majority rules" viewpoint is that it results in collectivism as well. once the majority realizes it can vote itself the keys to the kingdom, it will, under the guise of the "benefit for all," which in the end, benefits none. taks

while i have read that as well, probably in the same location you derive your information from (wiki's great, eh), that's not collectivism. not even close. taks

indeed, should he actually read up on the very things we are accused of not understanding, he might see the light. socialism, too, must be taught. yeah, nash got a nobel for work in this area. taks

oh, and btw, for all of bush's faults, he did try to stop it. greenspan was warning us, too. freddie and fannie lobbied against efforts to curb the situation. no, visceris, that is not true. let's go over the facts: the government heavily regulates the lending industry, right there, it is no longer capitalist. then, they passed regulation requiring freddie and fannie to take on (back) high-risk loans. lenders were intimidated into taking subprimes out of fear of being labeled discriminatory. freddie and fannie absorbed them all, which created an illusion of reduced risk. none of this, not one bit, is capitalist. none, visceris. get over it and try to understand the basics here. taks