|
|
#81
10-22-2007, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Concentration of Power in the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And yet sadly this goes ignored: [ QUOTE ] No, it doesn't run inefficiently under anyone. Efficiency isn't even the point. Fairness is. Anything without a profit motive is going to be less efficient than something with a profit motive but that doesn't make it necessarily worse. [/ QUOTE ] Which is 100% true. [/ QUOTE ] Who gets to decide when an operation run without a profit motive is less efficient but "not necessarily worse" than something with a profit motive? [/ QUOTE ] Me, you and everyone we know. 
|
|
#82
10-22-2007, 12:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Concentration of Power in the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And yet sadly this goes ignored: [ QUOTE ] No, it doesn't run inefficiently under anyone. Efficiency isn't even the point. Fairness is. Anything without a profit motive is going to be less efficient than something with a profit motive but that doesn't make it necessarily worse. [/ QUOTE ] Which is 100% true. [/ QUOTE ] Who gets to decide when an operation run without a profit motive is less efficient but "not necessarily worse" than something with a profit motive? [/ QUOTE ] 50.0000000000000000000000000000001% of the population (although actually not since we don't have direct democracy, which would be even worse than what we have now, since people are retarded).
|
|
#83
10-22-2007, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Concentration of Power in the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And yet sadly this goes ignored: [ QUOTE ] No, it doesn't run inefficiently under anyone. Efficiency isn't even the point. Fairness is. Anything without a profit motive is going to be less efficient than something with a profit motive but that doesn't make it necessarily worse. [/ QUOTE ] Which is 100% true. [/ QUOTE ] Who gets to decide when an operation run without a profit motive is less efficient but "not necessarily worse" than something with a profit motive? [/ QUOTE ] Me, you and everyone we know. [/ QUOTE ] If you honestly believe that, PM me. I have an amazing staking deal to discuss with you! You can't lose!
|
|
#84
10-22-2007, 12:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Concentration of Power in the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The power is not concentrated in this two families. The power is concentrated in the two parties and the fact that there may be a cute little coincidence that the last names have matched up for the past couple of decades is just that. The parties run everything and I don't believe these two families run those parties. [/ QUOTE ] Recently had a buddy from college try to convince me of this family control idea, but I certainly side with you Case. What would be even better is if the constituents had a little more power. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] There is no question that the Clintons run the Democratic party. I dont think "control" is the right word, because they could lose their power which indicates less than full control. However, strategy, tactics and the hand picking of candidate down to the state level definitely is influenced by the Clinton machine. [/ QUOTE ] And you know this how?
|
|
#85
10-22-2007, 12:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Concentration of Power in the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Its funny seeing this same discussion and arguments almost every week or 2, with the same exact results. I think socialists are batting 0/100 at this point. [/ QUOTE ] I like this line of thought. You never agree with socialists so they can never win an argument. [/ QUOTE ] Well since every thread ends with either the socialist making personal insults against the ACists, conceding the point, or death star scenarios, then yea I'd say they lose the argument. [/ QUOTE ] Again, from your perspective ACist don't insult people and the socialists concede. No one really "wins" these discussions.
|
|
#86
10-22-2007, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Concentration of Power in the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The power is not concentrated in this two families. The power is concentrated in the two parties and the fact that there may be a cute little coincidence that the last names have matched up for the past couple of decades is just that. The parties run everything and I don't believe these two families run those parties. [/ QUOTE ] Recently had a buddy from college try to convince me of this family control idea, but I certainly side with you Case. What would be even better is if the constituents had a little more power. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] There is no question that the Clintons run the Democratic party. I dont think "control" is the right word, because they could lose their power which indicates less than full control. However, strategy, tactics and the hand picking of candidate down to the state level definitely is influenced by the Clinton machine. [/ QUOTE ] "influenced by the Clinton machine" is vastly different than running the party that your assertion borders on laughable.
|
|
#87
10-22-2007, 12:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Concentration of Power in the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And yet sadly this goes ignored: [ QUOTE ] No, it doesn't run inefficiently under anyone. Efficiency isn't even the point. Fairness is. Anything without a profit motive is going to be less efficient than something with a profit motive but that doesn't make it necessarily worse. [/ QUOTE ] Which is 100% true. [/ QUOTE ] Who gets to decide when an operation run without a profit motive is less efficient but "not necessarily worse" than something with a profit motive? [/ QUOTE ] Me, you and everyone we know. [/ QUOTE ] If you honestly believe that, PM me. I have an amazing staking deal to discuss with you! You can't lose! [/ QUOTE ] Since you have nothing to say but snide insults, am I to take it that the socialists are now 1/101?
|
|
#88
10-22-2007, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Concentration of Power in the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No, it doesn't run inefficiently under anyone. Efficiency isn't even the point. Fairness is. Anything without a profit motive is going to be less efficient than something with a profit motive but that doesn't make it necessarily worse. [/ QUOTE ] Which is 100% true. [/ QUOTE ] Really? Because I know of literally hundreds of private not-for-profit charities that have a pass-through efficiency of over 90%; that is, of every dollar contributed, 90 cents or greater is spent directly on the people or causes involved, with 10 cents or less retained for administrative and overhead costs. Furthermore, if I don't like the cost-benefit ratio or the performance of a charity I support, I can always stop supporting them and instead find another charity in the same or very similar line of work to which I can direct my dollars. Please show me a government program - especially at the federal level - that gets more than 90% of its allocated dollars to the intended recipients, and/or that I am free to opt out of if they can't account for, or I don't like, the way my dollars are being spent. 'Fairness' and 'efficiency' aren't antonyms. It's possible to achieve both, quite without the need for any government involvement whatsoever. Mook
|
|
#89
10-22-2007, 12:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Concentration of Power in the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Its funny seeing this same discussion and arguments almost every week or 2, with the same exact results. I think socialists are batting 0/100 at this point. [/ QUOTE ] I like this line of thought. You never agree with socialists so they can never win an argument. [/ QUOTE ] Well since every thread ends with either the socialist making personal insults against the ACists, conceding the point, or death star scenarios, then yea I'd say they lose the argument. [/ QUOTE ] Again, from your perspective ACist don't insult people and the socialists concede. No one really "wins" these discussions. [/ QUOTE ] This isn't necessarily the same thing as winning an argument but the AC posters on this forum have definitely persuaded way more people towards their ideas than any other group, by a really large margin.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
