You said you preferred feudalism. If you assume you would be a noble then I understand. I don't agree but I understand.
If you have a 90% chance of being a peasant would you still prefer feudalism?
If yes then you are going to have to explain this to me in baby steps. That is so far beyond me.
If I can not be made to understand why we disagree on 15th century politics, then I'll bow out of the rest of the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by david man45
Everyone *isn't* a special snowflake.
|
That's my point! Everyone is the same and therefore no one deserves to be born with a trust fund and everyone deserves Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Quote:
|
No king who starts bullshit wars and wastes and impoverishes his kingdom will be a king for long, you know?
|
Never took a European history class or at least watched Game of Thrones?
Quote:
|
You're alone on an island what do you do? Work. Handicapped or mentally ill? You die.
|
100% agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by david man45
People acting inside their rational self interest helps everyone.
|
Read up on game theory. This is very very often not true. Google "Tragedy of the Commons", "Prisoners Dilemma", "Dictator Game".
Quote:
|
Just watch as this unsustainable socialist hell hole starts to crumble and turn into mexico or w/e.
|
Most countries with the socialist policies we are discussing - education, health care, food, shelter - beat America in nearly any non-military contest, except noble prizes. Far from hell holes.
Quote:
|
Most people shouldn't be able to afford cars
|
Agreed. But if most people have good free public transportation then they wont have to have cars, so roads will be less congested, the environment less polluted and they can make it to work and stores improving the economy. Detroit shut down public transit in the outer city. Result people didn't show up for work and the economy collapsed further.
Quote:
|
most people shouldn't be able to afford cell phones
|
Obama phones is what Fox News calls free cell phones for the poor. They were created by Regan though because if someone can answer a phone they have a better chance of getting a job, thus improving the economy.
Arizona gave free homes to all homeless. Arizona is a strong red, republican state. They didn't do it for the warm fuzzies. They did it to save money. Homeless people spend a lot of time in jails and hospitals. They cost an average of $30K-$50K per year. Rent is less than $10K per year. Give someone shelter and they have a chance of getting their life together and contributing to society. Or you can let them stay on the street, annoy you and cost you 3-5 times more in taxes. It's possible to be both selfish and selfless at the same time.
Nearly every city in America will give the homeless a free greyhound bus ticket to anywhere they want for the same reason. It's a good business decision.
Quote:
|
Those who should be in power will be
|
Rupert Murdoch has power over the media, should he? How is your life better because he is in control of nearly all news?
Quote:
|
And at least with a bad king, you can chop his head off.
|
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by david man45
the best possible outcome is to have a 'benign dictatorship' where one person has absolute rule, but is somehow in the best interest for everyone.
|
Maybe. Brazil sorta pulled this off. Very risky game though. Let's replay history and place a bet on each dictator. I'll take selfish prick, you take benign good guy. I'll bet any amount you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by david man45
You should not have a vote in how your country runs simply by existing. You aren't owed anything.
|
You know those guess how many jelly beans are in the jar contests. Nearly everyone guesses way wrong but the average vote is always nearly exact. Countries with 100% compulsory voting spend less time dealing with extremist issues and more time discussing issues that matter to the majority middle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by david man45
It is impossible to act outside of one's own self interest.
|
Tim Berners-Lee
Clair Cameron Patterson
Galileo Galilei
Aaron Swartz
Norman Borlaug
Jimmy Wales
Brewster Kahle
Retro Uprising
If there was no consequence then you would always make the most selfish choice? Rape, steal, lie, look out only for yourself and damn everyone else? I hope, at some point, there is a line you wouldn't cross. If so, then even you sometimes act outside your own self interest.
Do you think most billionaires earned their money though merit?
Do you think one day a law affecting multi-billionaire might also affect you?
Can you imagine the difference in being a billionaire vs being a multi-billionaire?
Can you imagine the difference of having rotting teeth and no money for a smoothie vs having dental insurance and a hamburger?