Libertarianism

1161719212237

Comments

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Try again. This is about religion, not political beliefs.



    WHat are you talking about?
  • brbr Posts: 8,252member
    I would only count the percentage of money donated to churches that actually goes to no-strings-attached charity-work. Giving money to build bigger churches, pay pastors, and market their religious teachings does not qualify as charity.



    If you cared about the truth, you'd analyze the data and only count what truly went to the needy without any proselytizing.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    WHat are you talking about?



    Take a liberal church. Take a conservative church. Which gives more to charity?



    It just so happens that most churches are attributed to conservatives.



    The reason the "red" states gave (slightly) more is because the "red" states are more religious, NOT because they are more conservative.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    I would only count the percentage of money donated to churches that actually goes to no-strings-attached charity-work. Giving money to build bigger churches, pay pastors, and market their religious teachings does not qualify as charity.



    If you cared about the truth, you'd analyze the data and only count what truly went to the needy without any proselytizing.



    You forgot building castles and sending tens of thousands overseas to show the "truth" to the heathens.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Take a liberal church. Take a conservative church. Which gives more to charity?



    Don't know. You tell me.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    It just so happens that most churches are attributed to conservatives.



    The reason the "red" states gave (slightly) more is because the "red" states are more religious, NOT because they are more conservative.



    So they're using a proxy and you claim the proxy is wrong?



    But the red states also voted more conservatively.



    Do you want to show some evidence that charitable giving is even or slanted the other direction?



    You asked if there was evidence of the one statement. It took me all of a couple minutes to find some evidence that suggest this claim to be true. I'm sure there's more also.



    But you are free to present counter-evidence also.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Don't know. You tell me.









    So they're using a proxy and you claim the proxy is wrong?



    But the red states also voted more conservatively.



    Do you want to show some evidence that charitable giving is even or slanted the other direction?



    You asked if there was evidence of the one statement. It took me all of a couple minutes to find some evidence that suggest this claim to be true. I'm sure there's more also.



    But you are free to present counter-evidence also.



    Anyway, it was a very small point in your graphic, which is generally Informative and not wrong. I refudiate. I just have a problem with the implication that Liberals don't believe in charitable giving to those in need.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Anyway, it was a very small point in your graphic, which is generally Informative and not wrong. I refudiate. I just have a problem with the implication that Liberals don't believe in charitable giving to those in need.



    Wasn't my graphic. Try to keep up.



    I don't actually believe that about all liberals, but I do believe that many liberals think that their taxes do their giving for them.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    A great, thought-provoking essay:



    How Property Rights Solve Problems



    Quote:

    Should restaurants allow smoking or not? Should schools teach evolution or intelligent design or both? Should insurance companies cover contraception? Should I be able to take off my shoes in your living room?



    You might think that that last question doesn't belong with the first three. After all, the first three questions are momentous ones about "public policy." The last one is only about the rules you have for my behavior in your living room?a "private-policy" question. And your answer to that question will depend on how you want to use your property.



  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    And another. Some excerpts (while thing is worth reading):



    Quote:

    Compared with 50 years ago, when I was just four years old, the average human now earns nearly three times as much money (corrected for inflation), eats one third more calories, buries two thirds fewer children, and can expect to live one third longer. In fact, it's hard to find any region of the world that's worse off now than it was then, even though the global population has more than doubled over that period.



    Quote:

    The rich get richer, but the poor do even better. Between 1980 and 2000, the poor doubled their consumption. The Chinese are ten times richer and live about 25 years longer than they did 50 years ago. Nigerians are twice as rich and live nine more years. The percentage of the world's people living in absolute poverty has dropped by over half. The United Nations estimates that poverty was reduced more in the past 50 years than in the previous 500.



    Quote:

    One reason we are richer, healthier, taller, cleverer, longer-lived, and freer than ever before is that the four most basic human needs-food, clothing, fuel, and shelter-have grown markedly cheaper. Take one example: In 1800, a candle providing one hour's light cost six hours' work. In the 1880s, the same light from a kerosene lamp took 15 minutes' work to pay for. In 1950, it was eight seconds. Today, it's half a second. In these terms, we are 43,200 times better off than in 1800.



    Quote:

    In the United States, rivers, lakes, seas, and air are getting cleaner all the time. A car today emits less pollution traveling at full speed than a parked car did from leaks in 1970.



    Quote:

    By 9 a.m., I have shaved with an American razor, eaten bread made with French wheat and spread with New Zealand butter and Spanish marmalade, brewed tea from Sri Lanka, dressed in clothes made from Indian cotton and Australian wool, put on shoes of Chinese leather and Malaysian rubber, and read a newspaper printed on Finnish paper with Chinese ink. I have consumed minuscule fractions of the productive labor of hundreds of people. This is the magic of trade and specialization. Self-sufficiency is poverty.



    Quote:

    In 1970, there were 550 billion barrels of oil reserves in the world, and in the 20 years that followed, the world used 600 billion. So by 1990, reserves should have been overdrawn by 50 billion barrels. Instead, they amounted to 900 billion-not counting tar sands and oil shale that between them contain about 20 times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Oil, coal, and gas are finite, but they will last for decades, perhaps centuries, and people will find alternatives long before they run out.



  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    A great, thought-provoking essay:



    How Property Rights Solve Problems



    This is a fantastic piece. Shared on my blog and will share with family and friends. Thanks for the link!



    Of particular relevance to many of the discussions we've had in PO:



    Quote:

    Should schools teach evolution or intelligent design or both? Many people might be tempted to say that the answer depends on which is true: evolution or intelligent design. But what if what one person thinks is true another person thinks is false? Some people are absolutely sure that evolution is true, while others are absolutely sure that intelligent design explains why we we're here on planet Earth.



    But the only reason this appears to be a public-policy problem is that with a prior intervention, governments have made it one. How so? By taxing people, some of whom believe in intelligent design, some of whom believe in evolution, and some of whom don't know what they believe, to pay for other people's schooling. In other words, it appears to be a public-policy problem because of a prior violation of people's right to keep their own property. That's why there is conflict. People who argue that they shouldn't be forced to subsidize the teaching of intelligent design have a point. So do those who argue that they shouldn't be forced to subsidize the teaching of evolution. Thomas Jefferson put it best: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."



    If the government got out of schooling and let people choose how and where to spend their money on their children's schools and on other children's schools (I'm assuming that, consistent with history, many more-affluent people who are free to choose how to spend their money would willingly subsidize the schooling of those who are less affluent5), the problem would go away. Those who want to finance the teaching of evolution would do so; those who want to finance the teaching of intelligent design would do so. The conflict would disappear.



    Of course there would still be people who are upset that a school teaches something they disapprove of, but that doesn't mean that there would be conflict. If everyone's property rights were respected, there would be no conflict. There would simply be people who are upset by others' choices.



  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    And another. Some excerpts (while thing is worth reading):



    I posted this on my Tumblog (Tumblr blog) as well and I actually had someone reblog it who said it was "the worst thing they'd ever seen this side of societal justice" whatever that means.



    It's amazing to me that people can actually deny or try to refute the fact that mankind is better off now than it was 50 years ago.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    "the worst thing they'd ever seen this side of societal justice" whatever that means.



    I have no idea what that statement means either.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Just look at this newspaper ad from 1905:







    100 years ago this is how you dealt with a hernia.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Just look at this newspaper ad from 1905:







    100 years ago this is how you dealt with a hernia.



    Heck just in the last 40 years dealing with them has improved significantly. Forty years ago surgery for this was a rather invasive in-patient procedure involving a day or two in the hospital plus several days (couple of weeks of recuperation). Now it is practically an outpatient arthroscopic procedure that probably has most people back to work and normal activity within a week.



    Additionally many, many medical procedures including many cancer treatments have improved greatly (though I think the way its done today will seem like bleeding people with leeches a hundred years from now.)
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    And still another:



    Quote:

    My first deployment was to Baghdad, that ancient Mesopotamian city positioned on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. It was there I discovered how, even during the most violent and unstable times, markets can adapt to the needs of consumers and peacefully provide essential services to humanity.



    The focus of this article will be on economic provision, rather than the war itself. However, it's important to note that the following free-market solutions have blossomed in spite of being in the heart of a country ravaged by economic sanctions and all but total war. Not only was the US-led war destructive of the physical means to provide such services; it also destroyed the institutions that delivered them, adding to the difficulty in restoring them.



  • brbr Posts: 8,252member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Heck just in the last 40 years dealing with them has improved significantly. Forty years ago surgery for this was a rather invasive in-patient procedure involving a day or two in the hospital plus several days (couple of weeks of recuperation). Now it is practically an outpatient arthroscopic procedure that probably has most people back to work and normal activity within a week.



    Additionally many, many medical procedures including many cancer treatments have improved greatly (though I think the way its done today will seem like bleeding people with leeches a hundred years from now.)



    You can thank science (that you deny) for those advancements.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    You can thank science (that you deny) for those advancements.



    I don't deny science. Please stop lying.
  • brbr Posts: 8,252member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    I don't deny science. Please stop lying.



    Cancer research is done in the context of biological science, of which evolution is a key scientific theory explaining that field. You deny evolution, you deny science. I'm not lying. You are.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Cancer research is done in the context of biological science, of which evolution is a key scientific theory explaining that field. You deny evolution, you deny science. I'm not lying. You are.



    Wow.
  • brbr Posts: 8,252member
    There's zero controversy about evolution amongst the scientifically literate. There's only manufactured controversy from the ignorant pushing their Iron Age agendum. Wow is right.
Sign In or Register to comment.