DoubtingThomas

I would like for you to define this term as I can't find any reference to it.

It doesn't take much time to eliminate low-level positions; I don't think that payroll tax revenue the year following a minimum wage increase would be higher than previous unless there was a significant bubble somewhere in the economy being inflated. I did note that you appeared to be making this point at the start of your second post; however, as I further went on to indicate: the rest of your post really did not back this. I think you should look up the relavent labor laws concerning this. If it were as simple as you make it out to be, rational employers everywhere would have 100% of their employ as contractors. Of course it's loosely enforced; however, that doesn't mean the hammer of the state cannot come crashing down on a business who violates it. Even if the odds of being caught are low, if the punishment is draconian enough, there's very little reason to build something as demanding as a business upon such a foundation.

If one defines something as impossible, then it is impossible. Therefore god, defined as in defiance of all detection ever, is impossible. If we can detect something like god, it not longer fits that definition. Therefor there can be no "god." Of course, one can change the definitions for god(s) in order to fit just outside the current realm of empiricism and not in the realm of contradiction, but then the conversation is pointless.

Full immersion in a language, the pinnacle of wich is living at the epicenter of the culture itself, is the best way to become fluent.

Ironic the GOP here in GA harp on how much liberals want to control their lives. There's essentially no diffirence between a liberal and a southern neocon christian except who they want to direct their violent urges at.

The fact millions work under the table is a testament to how ineffective the minimum wage is at its stated goal. I suppose if you are looking at it from the angle: the more opportunities go under the table, the better, then you have a strong point. That said, I don't think you were at all clear about following this logic. I adimit to the literal fauxpa of using the loaded term "worker;" however I did not miss pointing out that the few do benefit at the expense of everyone else. The people who benefit will be those with a political connection, probably organized labor, family ties to the state, and special interest who are deeply imbedded in the growth of the state. The unaffiliated, and necessarily the least skilled, will loose. I do understand your meaning; however, I don't think your figures add up. An increase in minimum wage translates into fewer jobs. Absent the inflation rate, that would mean fewer payroll taxes. Furthermore, as you mentioned, immigrants and children work under the table regardless. If you were to argue, as you did before, that driving more of the population into the grey market is desireable; even at the cost of increasing government power and influence, then this paragaph not supporting that thesis.

Since a swimming pool full of water will drown me rather than cure my thirst, all water must be bad? Alternatively, since a glass of water will cure my thirst, a swimming pool full might cure cancer? I think that logic sinks all ideas. Except we have a pretty good idea of how ineffective the minimum wage has been and it's nothing like the trumped up hyperbolic example you've invented as a straw-man argument. The two proposals here are quite simple. a. Minimum wage helps workers b. Minimum wage does not help workers Since we know that the minmum wage eliminates jobs at the wages below the arbitrary minimum and since we know that unemployment figures indicate that there are FAR more workers (or potential) workers below that threshold than above it; we can comfortably state that nothing like a minimum wage (essentially price fixing in reverse) can be good for workers. It can certainly, as with all state programs, benefit those lucky few who happen to land on fresh federal spending; however, their number will be a small fraction of those unemployed due to the state action. If you want to argue that ~some~ minimum wage helps, by some fluke, more than the absence of one. I would strongly urge you to evidence that claim with some economic data.

I concur with most of that. My, rather unfortunate, observation has been that the sociopathic make up the bulk of the playerbase who play the game with any kind of depth.

Can you identify some pro-gun propaganda for me? I think you set up a bit of a false dichotomy. AFAIK, the propaganda is entirely anti-gun and even the pro-gun statists are willing to cave for more state regulation and control, just so long as they get to keep their guns. As far as why the rational disconnect between the statististically compelling data that private gun ownership reduces crime and the chance that someone will be victimized; your guess is as good as anyone else's. I think most of us would assume the state simply wants the general public disarmed before economic problems come to a head. They'll trot out any and all people willing to be their star-victims in order to further that goal without spelling it out.

I've sworn off MMOs due to my predelction for becoming addicted; however, I did spend (far too much of) my young adulthood on WoW so I can dish on that subject. What attracted me to the genre? A massively cooperative role-playing environment. Subliminally, I can only assume this was because the real world was full of uncooperative family and my role was unfulfilling. Secondly, a desire to defeat "the content," because it was a weighty accomplishment in the game community. I had no such avenues for accomplishment in life, therefor the game offered a compelling substitute. I could go into more detail, but I think the bulk of it hinges on those two points.

Precisely. If they're going to ask you where YOUR morality comes from, then they must have some rational answer themselves. By definition, as theists, they do not; therefor the question is ironic at best and much more likely just a loaded question they were fed by church affiliates. I generally operate under the assumption that the closer you get to having them consider the unreasonable position they hold, the more disgusted they become at the fact they've been decieved, and thus the more they cling to the illusion that they are not being decieved. Most theist deconversions, as mentioned above, hinge on how they feel about their religious leadership (be that a parent, minister, or peer) at a personal level rather than how reasoned their arguments are. Therefor, in the case of a well-liked pastor without a wrap sheet, you're going to have a very hard time getting anyone to admit they've been fleeced.

And in my experience, the answer for most people has been their caloric intake far exceeding their limited exercise regemine. I fully grant that it is a complex subject; however, my point was that if one is to be general, one should be talking about calories, rather than just a certain type of food. In either case, you're going to have a less than perfect picture, but the latter is going to be much more misleading.

Yes, the government used thugs and threats and pro-statist propaganda to get their needs. To the extent that 19th century industrialists also did this, is to the extent that they also purchsed government thuggery. In both cases it is government power causing violence against the average person, with very little effect on the businessmen themeselves. Rockafeller died as one of the richest men in history.

As above, there is no way to use reason and evidence to make someone appreciate reason and evidence. At a certain point you simply have to point out the immense double-standard between how they evidence god and how they evidence everything else in their life, then just hope that bomb in their brain ticks off before they die.

I don't think it's terribly suprising. RP is touted here and elsewhere as some kind of all-but-voluntarist; however, he is not a voluntarist. He is closer to the constiution party candidate than he is to Stef.

The answer to the first (compound) question is "no," because SA was not a "dangerous cartel, " and in-fact had competiton who went and used the government as a means to become competetive again. Second "no," due to the fact this was an example of unscrupuous politically connected people using violence to solve their problems, not the tale of a benevolent state defending the public from a tyrant business. SA was great for consumers, terrible for it's competition, and yes, it had competition.

The answer to both of your questions is "no."

Doubting Thomas, I will regard you as a message board troll, as your posts provide plenty of evidence. You slap the clichés on anyone with an opinion outside of your comfort zone and it is getting tired. Take that tinfoil hat shit Facebook or CNN.com. We like to have discussions here. We try to engage others in a way that we would prefer to be engaged ourselves. If you have nothing to add, step away from the keyboard. Sorry, but as others have since mentioned, this is one of those conspiracy theories that is so illogical and unlikely it boggles the mind to see people laboring the point. Perhaps I was unjustifiably glib; however there is nothing to engage with here aside from hearsay and conjecture.

I know that's what you're proposing here; however the second sentence does not substantiate the proposition that it is not "about the calories," which every nutrition text I have ever read suggests it is. Fact is, cultures across the globe have a tremendous variety of diets that range from almost 100% fat/protien to almost 100% carbohydrate/dietary fiber. The reason that the US is obese isn't because it flipped the script on the balance of carbs to protien. The obesity problem stems from abject inactivity in combination with tremendous caloric intake. Just to be clear; we're not talking about a young man who eats one big-mac and has 45mins of activity a day. We're talking about a population that consumes many big-macs worth of calories per day and have close to zero minutes of regular exercise. Of course, that doesn't entirely rule out the premise that an avoidance of carbs is not helpful when dieting. You could make a compelling case to dieters that they are not getting enough carbs for their exercise routine. But again, in the most gerneral terms, and we have been speaking in the most general terms here, it is almost entirely about calories and exercise.

The tinfoil is strong with this one.

Doctors...who enjoy a state-run license system. Who have the most powerful state-affiliated union. Who have all their competition jailed. Don't believe the hype. Doctors are more involved with the state than welfare moms. I didnt' mean to imply the doctor is a model of voluntarism, but rather a doctor in a free society would still be well compensated for their work if they were good at the job and it would certainly be possible for someone to be "rich," in the absence of a political class siphoning money to their associates.

Fair enough; however, I don't see a pratical barrier between that which supposedly ought to be socialized and that which simply will be due to the inertia of the state. They define their enemy as the rich, among other things. I can understand resentment of a rich person in the political class; however, I can't understand making an enemy of someone who became wealthy through voluntary interaction. I mean, if a doctor is good at saving people's lives, he's going to be well compensated one way or another. What sense does it make to define that doctor as the enemy, simply because he is good at what he does and many people want his service? That seems to be the polar opposite of anything ado of "merit."

1. 45mins a day is a good amount of cardio, assuming 30 of those mins are within your target heart-rate. A pro cyclist or sprinter might do a lot more than that; however, they're also consuming a porportionally larger amount of calories (and likely a steroid cocktail or two) relative to their exercise regime and their metabolic rate. They undergo regular diagnostics exams to maintain this. It is perfectly possible to loose weight doing 20-30 mins of fast walking a day, assuming one's diet reflects that low level of activity. 2. There's a world within the term "carbs," and it makes no sense to be that general. Sweet potatoes and rice are among the most healthy within that category. What passes for "carbs," in most American diets: french fries and sugary baked goods, are at the opposite end of the spectrum. 3. I agree that a sustainible diet is key and that a healthy diet contains *healthy* carbs, perferably those rich in dietary fiber. That said, carbs aren't the primary factor in anyone's weight loss or weight gain. Most Americans are simply inactive and eat too many calories, regardless of what those calories are from.

Fair enough; however, I don't see a pratical barrier between that which supposedly ought to be socialized and that which simply will be due to the inertia of the state.

The primary issue here is that there's no such thing as a commonwealth or collective good. There is only wealth accrued by individuals and there are only things which are good for given individuals. The moment one suggests that anything, wealth or otherwise, be distributed or redistributed by a collective means or measure; you've entered wonderland. The results of such systems are always the same: a political class emerges to control the distribution. Graft, greed, corruption, and all the other vices associated with "free markets," follow from the power of that political class. They may not always be carried out directly by that political class, as in the case of corporations today; however, those corporations are virtually liability-free only because a political class official gave them that status or flatly refused to prosecute them. I don't think that's any shame on the point of "merit," and in-fact I would propose that a free society would be the most rewarding to those who merit their rewards; however, if that is the definition of "meritocracy," then it is a new title for socialism.