• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The problem with consumerism

Radio Frequency X

World Leader Pretend
Quoth_The _Raven said:
Oh, I'm all for freedom, we just differ on what constitutes it.

How do regulation and taxation equate to freeom? How does a corrupt US House of Representative that minipulates the Tax Code in order to reward their friends and punish their enemies preserve economic liberty? It is only because of the Income Tax that our Government in empowered to minipulate the public and reward their financial backers. So long as the public is protected against force and fraud in all economic sectors, I don't see how a free market restricts freedom.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Radio Frequency X said:
So long as the public is protected against force and fraud in all economic sectors, I don't see how a free market restricts freedom.

How will they be protected?
 

Radio Frequency X

World Leader Pretend
doppelgänger said:
How will they be protected?

Through laws. However, there is a difference between the entitlement laws liberals love so much, and laws that protect individuals from force and fraud. For example, the minimum wage does not protect anyone from force or fraud. It is itself a fraud.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Radio Frequency X said:
Through laws. However, there is a difference between the entitlement laws liberals love so much, and laws that protect individuals from force and fraud. For example, the minimum wage does not protect anyone from force or fraud. It is itself a fraud.

Who will enforce those laws?
 

Dr. Nosophoros

Active Member
We all have computers or are using one, which are mostly made of plastic, purchase the services from companies that use plastic coated wires that criss cross this world and paid the guy that drove the gas consuming van/truck to install our service- not to mention the space junk- all for what? So half- butt literohacks like ourselves can discuss opinions concerns etc. back and forth, listen to music etc. and thats just the beginning!

I'd say that overall, we are too far gone, we are never going to get it back and that we have doomed not only ourselves but the world (and every living thing on it) to eventual extermination, the world IS dying, it won't be long now.
 

krashlocke

Member
As always, you will find a necessary balance between freedom (free-market) and security. The answer lies between absolute free market (which does not exist, not even in the US) and absolute security (which also does not exist, not even under totalitarian communist regimes). The question as to which proportion of each is what remains. I personally prefer to lean towards the freedom end of the spectrum, but - I recognize fully the dangers of absolute freedom and the anarchy that's packaged with it. Radio X, I understand what you're trying to say, but it's also important to understand the contradictory nature of what you're articulating. A truly free market without regulation will include in it force and fraud - as these are common to even heavily regulated markets.

While I agree the tax code requires modification, we do still have a country to run, and what's good for the prolitariate isn't necessarily what's good for the country. The tax code has still been better than any sort of other legislation at manipulating the actions of the people - look at the housing market and how the way the taxes around it are structured to create our broad and empowered middle class.

No market is ever truly free. Absolute freedom would be dangerous and reckless.
 

Radio Frequency X

World Leader Pretend
doppelgänger said:
Who will enforce those laws?

The US Government via the authority of the Constitution. I am not an anarchist and anarchists are not capitalists. I believe in government. I believe in a strong military, environmental protection, and am resigned to the reality that the government is never going to get out of education or infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.). I am not talking about wild idealism here. Getting rid of the IRS does not get rid of taxes. We simply move to either a Constitutional Tax or a Consumption Tax. Either would be fine as far as I'm concerned. A Constitutional Tax will never pass because it would place a majority of the Tax burdon on Texas, California, and New York, while leaving North Dakota relatively untaxed. But, taxing the states (not citizens) is how we used to do it. A flat Consumption Tax is even better. Citizens choose how much they pay in taxes by how much they choose to spend. It is fair and beneifical to everyone. It also encourages savings.

Getting rid of the minimum wage would increase employment to near 100%. Families would have to be larger (more people per household) but its about time families began taking care of each other,instead of depending on corrupt federal and state governments.

There is no reason that we would have to reduce spending on education or environment protection. I'm quite certain we could get the federal government out of the roads and bridges business all together, and there are hundreds of federal departments that could be closed for good. These are simply steps to take to reduce government and increase freedom.

Furthermore, it is about time we began demanding more civil liberties, getting rid of all these entitlement programs created to establish equity. It's about time that our government begins treating all Americans the same.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Radio Frequency X said:
The US Government via the authority of the Constitution.
Not what, but who enforces the law?

Radio Frequency X said:
Citizens choose how much they pay in taxes by how much they choose to spend. It is fair and beneifical to everyone. It also encourages savings.
That's not a bad idea, except that rich people control the law and therefore won't be paying a proportionate share of these taxes either. The end result will be the same. Revenues must eventually balance expenditures so the tax burden isn't going to change unless the spending decreases and the proporiton isn't going to to change except to further reduce the proportionate share of taxes paid by those in the highest income brackets through their influense via legislators and lawers. That's Economics 101.

Radio Frequency X said:
Getting rid of the minimum wage would increase employment to near 100%.
Even if that were true (and there's no reason to believe it is, since there was unemployment long before there were minimum wage laws), what would such employment look like? The whole family would be working full time at $0.42/hr. under horrible working conditions and with no protections or benefits, while the kids raised themselves (presuming they aren't working also). You'd have an even more widespread wage serfdom in which an ever smaller share of people would have a real stake.

Radio Frequency X said:
Families would have to be larger (more people per household) but its about time families began taking care of each other,instead of depending on a corrupt federal and state governments.
So we could have larger populations to work more hours for lower pay to create the beautiful harmony of capitalist utopia? Nice. Now that's some freedom for ya'.

Radio Frequency X said:
There is no reason that we would have to reduce spending on government, education, or environment protection. I'm quite certain we could get the federal government out of the roads and bridges business all together, and there are hundreds of federal departments that could be closed for good. These are simply steps to take to reduce government and increase freedom.
Who's going to build the roads and bridges? Make all of them private pay services? Have you ever studied the economics and historical significance of public infrastructure?

What are the hundres of federal departments we could eliminate?

Radio Frequency X said:
Furthermore, it is about time we began demanding more civil liberties,
Such as?

Radio Frequency X said:
getting rid of all these entitlement programs created to establish equity.
Such as?

Radio Frequency X said:
It's about time that our government begins treating all Americans the same.
Too true. "Slavery" is just a label invented by the have nots to justify trying to steal from the rich who all earned their money by hard, honest work.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Knocking down this Rush Limbaugh-inspired, objectivist nonsense is boring me, so I'll be checking out of this discussion.
 

sparc872

Active Member
There are more issues at stake here than just the global temperature of the earth. If you look at the average american household, you will see hundreds of chemicals that are toxic to our own health as well as the health of the environment we live in. We are polluting the world and polluting our bodies all in the name of a world shaped by humans. We have this mindset of domination over nature that is ruining us. We produce plastics because what can be found in nature isn't good enough, only those plastics are permanent additions to an environment that isn't permanent. They don't breakdown. They stay there for hundreds of years, choking birds and ruining the landscape. They give off poisonous vapors that cause us cancer so we have to go into hospitals and be treated with synthesized drugs in a synthesized and sterilized environment.

We use cars because our legs just don't cut it anymore. And in the process, we develop roads the limit the natural migration of animals and cause massive floads due to their imperveous surfaces. The oils and lubricants and fuels that go into each vehicle have to be produced at factories and refineries that pollute the air we breathe. The metal for the vehicles come from land that must be destroyed in order for the ore to be extracted. And then, we trap ourselves in our cars everyday in our commute to work to pay for it. We get stuck in traffic, breathing in the toxic fumes of that "new car smell" and the pollution being pumped out of tailpipes.

We get stressed out at our jobs, get angry at our families and friends because we are frustrated, and then pop some prozac when our lives go down the drain and we turn depressed.

We have created a cycle of pollution and destruction all in the name of consumerism. If we didn't have to buy that car, we wouldn't work so hard, we wouldn't be stressed out and angry, we wouldn't feel the need to lock ourselves away in that car when the world gets to overwhelming. We wouldn't be polluting our water and soil with oil and antifreeze, we wouldn't be polluting our bodies with toxins, we wouldn't be destroying the world as fast as we are. Hell, maybe if we stopped using cars, we would have time and money to invest into growing a garden, eliminating the need to drive to the supermarket to buy mass produced, pesticide-laden, pieces of organic matter with no nutritional value. We wouldn't need to use synthetic fertilizers that ruin our soil and contribute even more to the problems we face.

It is so frustrating to hear people say that we should just "screw it" and keep on destroying the world because it is inevitable. IT'S NOT INEVITABLE. We can do things to prevent the worlds ecosystems from crashing. We can do things to revitalize the environment. The people who say screw it are simply cowards who are afraid of change. The don't want to sacrifice their video games and cars to ensure a future for our children.
 

Radio Frequency X

World Leader Pretend
doppelgänger said:
Not what, but who enforces the law?

Who do you think the government is? Are you confused on this issue?

doppelgänger said:
That's not a bad idea, except that rich people control the law and therefore won't be paying a proportionate share of these taxes either. The end result will be the same. Revenues must eventually balance expenditures so the tax burden isn't going to change unless the spending decreases and the proporiton isn't going to to change except to further reduce the proportionate share of taxes paid by those in the highest income brackets through their influense via legislators and lawers. That's Economics 101.

That is only half of it. The other half is that Tax Code is where most of our governments power lies. A change in the tax code and your industries prices drop. Another slight change and they increase. How much are you willing to spend in order to keep the government from taxing your products and services into the stone age? Yeah, its really working well right now. You offer no alternative, no solution, but more big government, nothing but envy from the poor who hate the rich and want to punish them for succeeding where they have failed - each by their own efforts.

doppelgänger said:
Even if that were true (and there's no reason to believe it is, since there was unemployment long before there were minimum wage laws), what would such employment look like? The whole family would be working full time at $0.42/hr. under horrible working conditions and with no protections or benefits, while the kids raised themselves (presuming they aren't working also). You'd have an even more widespread wage serfdom in which an ever smaller share of people would have a real stake.

You need to read more about what this country looked like during the 1850s compared with the 1950s. Working conditions aren't going to get worse if you get rid of the minimum wage. I find it hysterical how all these big government Marxists fail to show even the slightest hint of an education. More people will have to work per household. That will happen, but I'm arguing that this isn't a bad thing. Just ask African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. They tend to have much larger households than Euro-Americans who have driven themselves into debt buying houses they can't afford with money they don't have.

doppelgänger said:
So we could have larger populations to work more hours for lower pay to create the beautiful harmony of capitalist utopia? Nice. Now that's some freedom for ya'.

How does this increase population? Where are your statistics? Any reasons? Any anything? All you have is sarcasm, which while looking pretty on a forum, doesn't hold any weight in the real world.

doppelgänger said:
Who's going to build the roads and bridges? Make all of them private pay services?

Mostly placing them solely in the hands of the States. It's almost like that for the most part. We just have a little way to go.

doppelgänger said:
Have you ever studied the economics and historical significance of public infrastructure?

Yes.

doppelgänger said:
What are the hundres of federal departments we could eliminate?

Just get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare... that will take care of it.

doppelgänger said:
Too true. "Slavery" is just a label invented by the have nots to justify trying to steal from the rich who all earned their money by hard, honest work.

Quite right. There is more greed amongst the poor, than the rich, in my experience.
 

Kay

Towards the Sun
sparc872 said:
It is so frustrating to hear people say that we should just "screw it" and keep on destroying the world because it is inevitable.

I'm hoping that it was clear from my post that I (who used the "screw it" term) was not advocating that attitude at all. :(
 

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse
Radio Frequency X said:
Quite right. There is more greed amongst the poor, than the rich, in my experience.
I would suggest that most people's experience in many areas is severely limited by lack of exposure, and this would be the same. My personal experience on this is that there is less education and mentoring in relevent areas amongst the poor than there is amongst the rich. That's my experience. I've known rich (and we're talking tens of millions rich) and dirt poor, and almost all have been extremely giving people. The only difference I found was that the rich had the ability to give more by way of cash, while the less affluent gave more of their time. The people that weren't giving could have had a house made of gold and they still wouldn't have given tuppence to anyone.It just wasn't their nature.
Wealth doesn't define the quality of person you are, it just gives you freer reign to be that person. Perhaps we might remember that when we're saying the poor have it all wrong for saying that the wealthy are all greedy ********. If one generalisation is incorrect, then the other one can't be correct.
 

Buttercup

Veteran Member
Dopppppp said:
What are the hundreds of federal departments we could eliminate?
As an aside.....I know the FAA is busy downsizing rapidly and is on target to privatise the air traffic system. My guess is that within 15 years the entire national air traffic system will be run through private contracts. The government wants out of the air traffic control business.
 
Top