Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
In english i cant explain myself properly :(
It's understandable ;-)
Public tv is public good because the consumition of the good is consumition no rival
Non-rivalry is only one of the two conditions to be a public good. Public tv is excludable and therefore is not a public good.
they would, but making treatments absolutly expensive( because they´re expensive in fact), like if you are middle class you can sell your house to the bank while you expect your wife/mother/sun to be safed, sad but true
The point of insurance is that you don't have to pay when something like that happens. You pay your monthly contributions and when something bad happens to you, the insurance covers it (depends on what insurance you have and what it covers of course).
It's understandable ;-)
Public tv is public good because the consumition of the good is consumition no rival
Non-rivalry is only one of the two conditions to be a public good. Public tv is excludable and therefore is not a public good.
they would, but making treatments absolutly expensive( because they´re expensive in fact), like if you are middle class you can sell your house to the bank while you expect your wife/mother/sun to be safed, sad but true
The point of insurance is that you don't have to pay when something like that happens. You pay your monthly contributions and when something bad happens to you, the insurance covers it (depends on what insurance you have and what it covers of course).
Wrong?
you can say wrong if you can say right.
But nobody can say it.
Theft is wrong. That's something every single society has (unless you'd make a libertine (note the difference with liberal or libertarian) society, which is no society at all). Therefore, we can say that this is a universal principle. So yes, theft is wrong. Unless you're a libertine.
It's what state permit you to have.
The state confirms what you already got before but what was not enforceable before.
you can say wrong if you can say right.
But nobody can say it.
Theft is wrong. That's something every single society has (unless you'd make a libertine (note the difference with liberal or libertarian) society, which is no society at all). Therefore, we can say that this is a universal principle. So yes, theft is wrong. Unless you're a libertine.
It's what state permit you to have.
The state confirms what you already got before but what was not enforceable before.
guys, we have a lot of theme topics, this we should left for news around the world :-)
Theft is wrong. That's something every single society has
this is not true.
theft were allowed in a lot of societies.
The state confirms what you already got before but what was not enforceable before.
WHAT?
Property is a right, and right is something only a state can CREATE.
Before state you maybe have possession.. you have something in your hand, but you can't claim that' it is your if someone else steal it.
Liberistic theories always forget that property is a creation of state.
Just start reading some from there: social contract
this is not true.
theft were allowed in a lot of societies.
The state confirms what you already got before but what was not enforceable before.
WHAT?
Property is a right, and right is something only a state can CREATE.
Before state you maybe have possession.. you have something in your hand, but you can't claim that' it is your if someone else steal it.
Liberistic theories always forget that property is a creation of state.
Just start reading some from there: social contract
The question should be 'what is best for humanity' and not 'what is best for businesses'.
ideally the politicans should think like that
buuuut currently the influence of lobbies is that big that the 2nd question is too dominant
i can't tell if the influence was lower 10 years ago, but at least the number of cases that got public is now much higher than in former times (in Austria)...maybe because of www
ideally the politicans should think like that
buuuut currently the influence of lobbies is that big that the 2nd question is too dominant
i can't tell if the influence was lower 10 years ago, but at least the number of cases that got public is now much higher than in former times (in Austria)...maybe because of www
I know the social contract, don't worry. Do you know Locke and his law of nature?
And even if so (if the state permits what you have) - and to be clear, I disagree on this - is it fair to give the money (taxes) to people who didn't do a thing to earn it? If I work for my money, why should I pay X% to people who had nothing to do with my work? It's basic logic to 'give' the money to people who were actually involved.
And even if so (if the state permits what you have) - and to be clear, I disagree on this - is it fair to give the money (taxes) to people who didn't do a thing to earn it? If I work for my money, why should I pay X% to people who had nothing to do with my work? It's basic logic to 'give' the money to people who were actually involved.
The question should be 'what is best for humanity' and not 'what is best for businesses'.
The question shouldn't be either of those two. There should be no question. If it is best for humanity to kill a certain group of people, should we kill them? No. Not everything that is best (you cannot determine what is the best for humanity btw) for humanity should happen.
The question shouldn't be either of those two. There should be no question. If it is best for humanity to kill a certain group of people, should we kill them? No. Not everything that is best (you cannot determine what is the best for humanity btw) for humanity should happen.
Do you know Locke and his law of nature?
yes I do, but do you really believe in such things..???
better to discuss of the realism of Fairyland..
Law of nature, LOL, just try to tell a rule rispected everywhere (there's none, even homicide somewhere sometimes is allowed..)
And even if so (if the state permits what you have) - and to be clear, I disagree on this - is it fair to give the money (taxes) to people who didn't do a thing to earn it? If I work for my money, why should I pay X% to people who had nothing to do with my work? It's basic logic to 'give' the money to people who were actually involved.
because the state decides about what % of rights to give to you.
I find that talking about fairness of taxation is always a sensless thing.
It's always a subjective thing.
The rules we make are a product of the strenght the different parts have. It'a balance of power.
If the blue people have the strenght to do it, they will be allowed to paint of blue even your face.
If the green ones have the power to stop them they'll find a compromise and you'll have your face green and blue.
there's nothing FAIR about rules..
yes I do, but do you really believe in such things..???
better to discuss of the realism of Fairyland..
Law of nature, LOL, just try to tell a rule rispected everywhere (there's none, even homicide somewhere sometimes is allowed..)
And even if so (if the state permits what you have) - and to be clear, I disagree on this - is it fair to give the money (taxes) to people who didn't do a thing to earn it? If I work for my money, why should I pay X% to people who had nothing to do with my work? It's basic logic to 'give' the money to people who were actually involved.
because the state decides about what % of rights to give to you.
I find that talking about fairness of taxation is always a sensless thing.
It's always a subjective thing.
The rules we make are a product of the strenght the different parts have. It'a balance of power.
If the blue people have the strenght to do it, they will be allowed to paint of blue even your face.
If the green ones have the power to stop them they'll find a compromise and you'll have your face green and blue.
there's nothing FAIR about rules..
The point of insurance is that you don't have to pay when something like that happens. You pay your monthly contributions and when something bad happens to you, the insurance covers it (depends on what insurance you have and what it covers of course).
that inssurances ( the man as a car ) are really expensive if you want to cover cancer, and if you have weak wealth the inssurance will be higher even, so middle and working class can not afford some illness on a neo liberal system
about public tv, well is excludable...unless we think 100% of population has a tv at home ( i´ve pressupossed so )
that inssurances ( the man as a car ) are really expensive if you want to cover cancer, and if you have weak wealth the inssurance will be higher even, so middle and working class can not afford some illness on a neo liberal system
about public tv, well is excludable...unless we think 100% of population has a tv at home ( i´ve pressupossed so )
that inssurances ( the man as a car ) are really expensive if you want to cover cancer, and if you have weak wealth the inssurance will be higher even, so middle and working class can not afford some illness on a neo liberal system
Let them die in the beautiful world of Levitate :-)... That's the best for his humanity ;-)
Let them die in the beautiful world of Levitate :-)... That's the best for his humanity ;-)
light and also Brent oil dramatically drop down. Who know why ?
I dont have time watch news last month :-(
I dont have time watch news last month :-(
If i'm not wrong, i may have heard that the consumption of oil has decreased last year thus reserves are still high and Venezuela ha found new oil to be now the N°1 in oil reserves.
The question shouldn't be either of those two. There should be no question. If it is best for humanity to kill a certain group of people, should we kill them? No. Not everything that is best (you cannot determine what is the best for humanity btw) for humanity should happen.
Ofcourse the question should be 'what is best for humanity', but this doesn't mean we have to ditch morals and values like you wrongly suggest. At the moment, in this world run by making profits and money all morals and values are ditched .. example: enough food is produced to feed 12 billion people, but because making profits is so important only 3 billion people have enough food for 3 (or more) meals a day, most don't have this and many millions are even dying because they have no food at all. This is what a free market is already doing to this world at this moment and can only get worse with an even more free market ...
Besides, we are already killing a group of people for the best of humanity or is the war against terrorism not happing?
Ofcourse the question should be 'what is best for humanity', but this doesn't mean we have to ditch morals and values like you wrongly suggest. At the moment, in this world run by making profits and money all morals and values are ditched .. example: enough food is produced to feed 12 billion people, but because making profits is so important only 3 billion people have enough food for 3 (or more) meals a day, most don't have this and many millions are even dying because they have no food at all. This is what a free market is already doing to this world at this moment and can only get worse with an even more free market ...
Besides, we are already killing a group of people for the best of humanity or is the war against terrorism not happing?
At the moment, in this world run by making profits and money all morals and values are ditched ..
Not all morals are thrown away. You know that.
enough food is produced to feed 12 billion people, but because making profits is so important only 3 billion people have enough food for 3 (or more) meals a day
This is what a free market is already doing to this world at this moment and can only get worse with an even more free market ...
You are mistaken, the problem of overproduction in the Western world is not due to the free market. On the contrary, the overproduction of food in Europe and the States is due to government interventions (subsidies). If those subsidies of EU and US government wouldn't exist, the overproduction would be less severe. So yes, the government should stop all subsidies given to farmers. I agree on that one ;-)
(I know this is not the point you were trying to make. It's true though.)
Your solution (give the food to the poor) seems right. However, if you do that, they'll stay poor forever. Their economy will never be able to develop itself. The supply (free supply!) would be that high, that there would be almost no demand for products of local farmers (which is necessary to develop).
Besides, we are already killing a group of people for the best of humanity or is the war against terrorism not happing?
First of all, what is important in killing is who initiated the violence. It wasn't us. (Libya for instance.)
Besides that, who says I agree on this war on terrorism?
Not all morals are thrown away. You know that.
enough food is produced to feed 12 billion people, but because making profits is so important only 3 billion people have enough food for 3 (or more) meals a day
This is what a free market is already doing to this world at this moment and can only get worse with an even more free market ...
You are mistaken, the problem of overproduction in the Western world is not due to the free market. On the contrary, the overproduction of food in Europe and the States is due to government interventions (subsidies). If those subsidies of EU and US government wouldn't exist, the overproduction would be less severe. So yes, the government should stop all subsidies given to farmers. I agree on that one ;-)
(I know this is not the point you were trying to make. It's true though.)
Your solution (give the food to the poor) seems right. However, if you do that, they'll stay poor forever. Their economy will never be able to develop itself. The supply (free supply!) would be that high, that there would be almost no demand for products of local farmers (which is necessary to develop).
Besides, we are already killing a group of people for the best of humanity or is the war against terrorism not happing?
First of all, what is important in killing is who initiated the violence. It wasn't us. (Libya for instance.)
Besides that, who says I agree on this war on terrorism?
that inssurances ( the man as a car ) are really expensive if you want to cover cancer, and if you have weak wealth the inssurance will be higher even, so middle and working class can not afford some illness on a neo liberal system
They could afford it. Remember that in the liberal system (neoliberalism is only invented by leftists to make liberalism look like a bad ideology), net wages would be a lot higher.
about public tv, well is excludable...unless we think 100% of population has a tv at home ( i´ve pressupossed so )
Even if 100% has TV at home (which is not the case), public TV is excludable.
They could afford it. Remember that in the liberal system (neoliberalism is only invented by leftists to make liberalism look like a bad ideology), net wages would be a lot higher.
about public tv, well is excludable...unless we think 100% of population has a tv at home ( i´ve pressupossed so )
Even if 100% has TV at home (which is not the case), public TV is excludable.
yes I do, but do you really believe in such things..?
Law of nature is as real as the social contract. Both are interesting concepts.
just try to tell a rule rispected everywhere
It's not because it isn't respected everywhere that it wouldn't be a law of nature.
because the state decides about what % of rights to give to you.
No. The state should just make sure that only those who were involved get money (and a small percent goes to taxes to pay the public goods).
If the blue people have the strenght to do it, they will be allowed to paint of blue even your face.
That's why we need a government who make sure no man or group gets this kind of power. That's why the government itself shouldn't have a lot of power (though they should get the monopoly on using violence).
Law of nature is as real as the social contract. Both are interesting concepts.
just try to tell a rule rispected everywhere
It's not because it isn't respected everywhere that it wouldn't be a law of nature.
because the state decides about what % of rights to give to you.
No. The state should just make sure that only those who were involved get money (and a small percent goes to taxes to pay the public goods).
If the blue people have the strenght to do it, they will be allowed to paint of blue even your face.
That's why we need a government who make sure no man or group gets this kind of power. That's why the government itself shouldn't have a lot of power (though they should get the monopoly on using violence).