Read it again. My claim is that capitalism is a lot like anarchy. There are some important differences. If they're so similar that you didn't notice, well, that's kinda my point.

But really, my main thrust is that in a capitalistic society you have to simply hope that the players are playing fair, and that there are plenty of ways for powerful people screw over the masses for profit.

I think you mean:

There we go.

Anarchy is a system in which trade, industry, the means of production, as well as security, politics, and basic rights are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.

So what? We're talking about advocating education, and specifically about universal vocational education, ie the state paying for college, tech school, trade school, or such.

Yes, those ARE NOT minimum wage jobs. They are jobs that have more demand, and therefore have higher wages. We need more of these people. We should make more of these people. With education.

Is your goal to make as many people scrounge out a living on minimum wage as possible?

The hell? Remember when 80% of the workforce used to be farmers? Then they moved more towards factories. Do you not see that shift from the primary to secondary industry? There will always be some people in the primary industries (I don't think complete automation is really viable), but the bulk of the demand for workers has indeed shifted up the pipe. That might not have been the intended goal of industrialization, but it's a consequence of it. Regardless, you can't possibly argue that there HAS been a shift from the primary sector, to the secondary, to the tertiary. Knowledge workers is where the jobs are at. Don't be dense.

I think your "thousands of hours" have given you a bit of an ego. Because, no, it took you THREE promptings to refute my points, and then you wave away the points with "That's an anecdote" and "[universal education doesn't make minimum wage jobs]". Yeah, you're hearing 2+2=5, but that's not what I'm saying. You're going to win a lot of arguments that way, but lose all your debates.

And... really? You think getting an engineering degree is going to "fail" since other people want those engineering jobs? HA! Well this might just be an anecdote, but it worked pretty well for me. And every other engineer I know.

With time. Imagine you had an oil well which never ran dry. Or a farm with an infinitely sized plot. You could pump up as much oil or grow as much corn as you wanted, but you'd flood the market and see diminishing returns. Science and engineering has an unlimited amount of..... "advancement" that they can go work on. That's not the same as an infinite demand. Demand for science comes and goes, and it's mostly a matter of businesses or armies wanting to one-up their neighbor. But there's an infinite amount of work. And I'm not so sure there are diminishing returns.

Wow, corporate control over not only the wages of all their workers, but also the primary force of upward social mobility.... yeah, that paints a pleasant picture of the future.

Siiiiiigh, the saddest part about all this is that I agree with your main idea. A guaranteed income, or a citizen's dividend, sounds like a good idea. But GOD DAMN are you hard to talk to about it. Really, your views on everything else are kinda turning me off of the idea.

How about the fact that we need more and more knowledge workers in the tertiary sector? You know, as opposed to factory workers, menial labor, and uneducated workers.

Or the part where I threw out the idea that there is an infinite amount of work for scientists and engineers (and hence there are jobs there).

That's not an emotional appeal or just an ancedote that showcases the need to pick the right degree that has the ability to pay off college debt. Don't be a dick and wave away my input. If you're going to continue with that sort of disrespect, I don't think I'm emotionally invested enough to read the rest of that post.

You talk a lot but you don't listen too well.

I absolutely agree that's not what the supreme court ruled. And that this interpretation is a post-decision spin of the losing side. The talking point that PopeRatzo was using was stating that the far right does not hold this view. They believe it and want it to be true. As shown by their leadership. Neither you, I, or PopeRatzo believe that corporations are people, but I present you with the republican presidential candidate himself saying that corporations are people.... and you think this is some sort of democratic party lie? We most certainly don't want corporations to be treated like people. That's a horrible thing. Even PopeRatzo is claiming that only crazy right-wingers believe that.

Romney is responding to a heckler who called for taxes to be raised, not on people, but on corporations. Mitt's response is "corporations are people my friend", "Of course they are".

And sure, he goes on to try and point out that the money that goes to corporation goes into people's pockets and corporations are made of people, but none of that matters. Because the entire argument here is whether or not corporations can be treated as people. Sure, they're made of people, usually, but are they treated like people? Do they have right like people? And Romney in on the record buying into the belief that the supreme court ruled that corporations are people. Because he wants that to be true.

No it isn't. Did you see the part where I countered that I paid off my own student debt in 3 years as opposed to your hypothetical 30 year mortgage?

How about the fact that we need more and more knowledge workers in the tertiary sector? You know, as opposed to factory workers, menial labor, and uneducated workers.

Or the part where I threw out the idea that there is an infinite amount of work for scientists and engineers (and hence there are jobs there).

That's not an emotional appeal. Don't be a dick and wave away my input. If you're going to open up with that sort of disrespect, I don't think I'm emotionally invested enough to read the rest of that.

Let's see....

I also called out tech and trade schools, but I don't think the distinction is important here.

Pft. You crazy? Are you selectively looking at giant corporations that make widgets that have a 30 year shelf-life? There are startups that genesis, rise, fall, and get resurrected in the span of 5 years. No, "the business" can't predict it's needs and available revenue 5 years into the future. Knowing what their needs and revenue RIGHT NOW is difficult for most of them.
The bigger the company is, the more momentum they probably have, but also the more moving parts. The smaller, the more volatile they're going to be. And it's not like the little guys have an entire division to do market analysis.

That'd be lovely, but all too often we see them preferring to simply hire contractors who already have the skills. But hey, it DOES happen. I know a small firm that hired a smart english major and someone working towards their CS degree, and had the senior engineer train them up for years. Now, the english-major-now-experienced-programmer jumped ship for better pay and the college student can only put in 20hr/week due to classes, but it's a good idea in principle.

Yeah, I dunno dude. I'm not feeling like the rest of that rant is going to be worth the effort.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salar...

Yeah, $60K for a registered nurse doesn't sound like much with a high cost of living area like DC. That sucks.

Still, with the right degree, it's not an endless amount of debt. I had mine paid off in 3 years. I hear it's more expensive now though. Advocate In-State yo.
Really any welfare reform is going to have to address the shift from primary->secondary->Tertiary economies. There's an infinite amount of work for scientists and engineers. You should advocate education. In all it's forms.

Yeah, I dunno dude, automation keeps taking away more jobs. When they come for the paper pushers, I'm not sure I'm going to say anything. If your stated goal is to cut welfare money, then I don't think you're going to get a lot of believers. It's like how Nixon was caught bringing in the system of HMOs because he wanted it to reduce care and funnel money in the right direction.

Oh get off it dude. Any economic plan like this is tied to the hip of sociology. And sociology is the softest of sciences and everyone is just guessing. It might be better informed guesses than the average shmuck, and avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls, but I have little faith that any social plan will work as intended. And if you don't think economics have anything to do with human culture and social trends, then I have zero faith in any economic plan you have. Like you said, it's complex.

Still, it's probably a good plan. Might be better than the current welfare system we have. I doubt it will be any less complex, or at least won't become as complex in time. The part where everyone has it, and there's no issue with getting on or getting off of it is a good idea. It solves the problem with the one-rung-up people having it the hardest. And the stigma of taking a handout. Although some would argue there should be a stigma as an encouragement to get off the dole. The part where the social security admin has to directly process contracts between citizens and slum lords is probably a no-go.

And Mitt Romney, the republican presidential candidate who the republican party voted for over Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and beat out Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Richard Perry, and that Cain guy.
He was the figure head and leading member of the republican party. It's not just a talking point of the left. It's something the republican leadership wanted to be true. If that rubs you the wrong way, you really ought to take another look at your political party.

Because of course corporations aren't people. That's crazy talk that will make you unelectable.

oh geeze, strike that. I suck.

Hate to break this to you.... But....

I worry about how much of that would simply be funneled to the casinos and liqueur marts. Maybe they are acceptable parasites. I imagine it would help some people. But some of the homeless are down'n'outers are there because they can't get their act together, and handing them money isn't going to necessarily help them do so.

Efforts to control what the money is spent on, like foodstamps, just makes a secondary market for exchanging funneymoney to real cash.

Directly controlling the supply of the resource doesn't work so well. At least here. Jesus, half of Hong Kong lives in public housing.

What? If that was true, then there really wouldn't be any problems when factories had massive layoffs. And when they do eventually find work elsewhere, the extra competition drives down wages.

Except that there is work for people with real skills. Tech schools, trade schools, STEM degrees, and less so with philosophy or anthropology. We live in a different sort of soceity than the 70's. We don't need as much unskilled labor.

Well.... I highly doubt that it wouldn't be a contentious issue and be tweaked up and down on a regular basis at the whims of the politicians and the voting blocs.

Sorry for the length, but it's hard not to go piece by piece when everything is just so wrong. And you know we can't have people being wrong on the Internet.

Sure, it's not iron-clad, but there's a strong correlation with the truth. And they lost the appeal too. And typically when there are questionable legal shindigs, you don't have the uppity-ups double-down and lay their reputation on the line with such hard language like:

They pussyfoot around the call for plausible deniability.

I find it useful to keep track of the crazies. And this exchange hasn't been humorous. I've tried to give the anti-vaccers a legitimate chance to convince me that there was something to their argument and you've failed to present anything other than vague fear-mongering and the name of a bullshit documentary.

No, it's really not. This is a debate in an open forum. If you just accept that you look like an asshole crackpot and lack the ability or facts or reason to justify your position, then trying to participate in the conversation actively damages your sides claim. You're both stirring up controversy, and then damning your own side of the argument by failing to deliver.

Uh huh, "it's a conspiracy"? Is that what you want to say? "We can't trust any information we find out there and the whole system is decieving us. All the doctors and scientists must be in on it." If this isn't the groundwork for some epic baseless fear-mongering I don't know what is.

Listen, there probably is a conspiracy of some sort. All it takes is two guys with a plan they don't tell anyone. That's a conspiracy. And I'm positive that the pharmaceutical companies are getting paid WAY too much money. And a sizeable chunk of that is probably straight up corruption. But I don't think that they're poisoning kids with vaccines just to make a buck.

I was really looking more for examples of what these "big changes with dirty fingerprints" are, what the dangers of vaccines are, and what exactly you're trying to raise awareness of. Something concrete that would either be refutable, or give your argument some legs to stand on.

Geeze, are you 12? Come on, "I've said my piece". It's not that hard. You're doing this from a phone aren't you....
If this was your piece, then you've got nothing except shadows and boogieman.

pft, hey, you should be a pastafarian. There's a book out there about it. Start there. After you've read it, you can come back to talk to me. Until then, imagine this whole thread was me trying to convert you to the religion and failing because I didn't actually say anything about it. loveysnugglepuppies, heckruler

But oh hey, SURE, let's go that extra mile to show you how you're wrong.

Oh my god, it's an emotional gut-wrencher fluff piece about three specific individuals. First off, Gabi Swank's case derives from their Neurologist Dr. Lindholm claiming that her condition was caused by the vaccine. Hey, if he's got evidence that links the two, all the more power to him and getting that sort of thing published and the vaccine pulled. Shit happens yo, and we need to fix it. If it's real. But I can't find anything he's published about this. All I can find is a single quote and it's dropped like fart in the wind. Was this one stray comment from a doctor that the family picked up and ran with? Hey, the need to blame someone is strong. I get it. But choose your target with care.

Let's look at Jordan King of Portland and the autism omnibus proceedings:

And an infant died, which sucks. We've come a long way in lowering the infant mortality rate. There's still the edge cases.

You're working REALLY HARD at NOT pointing out anything.
If it's hiding in plain sight, I imagine it'd be pretty easy to point out.

Yes, there's the possibility that you're just trolling for shits'n'giggles, but that's unlikely. There's the chance that you're literally paid to promote this sort of drama by... geeze, I don't even know. That's even less likely. I think you're most likely deluded and have been sucked in by propaganda and have a natural inclination to look for the scam. The exact sort of thing you're rallying against.

Now, commentators like Vermonter, operagost, and photon317 are arguing against this idea because it sets a bad precedence for government control, while they recognize that vaccines are important and good. You should really take a second look at the way they're presenting their point. You, on the other hand, seem to straddle the fence on the benefit of vaccines in general.

But come on, you're ranting about how people need to be informed, I'm asking you to inform me, and then you complain about having to "spoonfeed"? Even if you're not a troll, you're certainly not worth listening to, because you're not saying anything. Imagine you had to routinely pass by this group of really annoying people that had a bad reputation.
One of them runs up to you "HEY, LISTEN TO ME!"
And you uncharacteristically stop, turn to them, and replay "Yeah, what do you want?"
And then they run off saying "LOL, not a troll. Best regards"