|
Post by the sandman on Apr 12, 2009 21:20:11 GMT -5
If this guy really runs a cattle ranch...then he is suckling at the government teat even as we speak, even if he doesn't want to. Federal agriculture subsidies on feed and pastureage, Federal tax codes designed to support mass land ownership for commercial purposes. Federal trade policies designed to protect domestic sources of beef and dairy.
And you can build a road on your own land, but are you going to build the entire trade infrastructure that supports your industry? You going to build a road to Chicago?
Never taken government support? If you are in the cattle industry, yes, you have. A lot.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 12, 2009 21:24:43 GMT -5
You guys probably have a point. Who needs public roads, anyway? I can build my own damn roads. Good luck with that. While you're spending all your time building roads, your cattle will be untended and your business neglected, and with all the money you'll be spending on the tolls for using other people's private roads, you'll go bankrupt in no time.
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Apr 12, 2009 21:29:54 GMT -5
I am an independent and tend to vote with the Libertarian and Constitution parties. Ah, there's your problem. Dr Wilde diagnoses a chronic case of Libertarianism, and prescribes a good dose of Getting Out Into The Real World For A Bit.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 12, 2009 22:06:49 GMT -5
You guys probably have a point. Who needs public roads, anyway? I can build my own damn roads. And invent your own damn internet!
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 12, 2009 22:32:04 GMT -5
Since when is it the government's job to be "innovative?" That's what the private sector and the free market are for. The private sector is often not very innovative in the long term. Long-term investments are not good when they are risky and uncertain; it's far better to invest the money in shares or property which will make you more money, for less risk and in a shorter time. Also, inventing something is extremely difficult given the legal minefield of patents. If Thomas Edison were to invent the lightbulb today, he'd be sued, and derive no financial benifit from his years of work, since his invention was based off other people's inventions. That deters prospective inventors. However, it doesn't deter government agencies which are only interested in scientific discovery. That is why the internet was invented by the government.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 12, 2009 22:34:10 GMT -5
Nothing - in fact, voluntary humanitarian aid is a good thing. However, it's not the government's place to decide when, how, or if you will contribute to charitable causes. Humanitarian aid should be supplied by private initiatives that are genuinely moved to compassion for their fellow men, rather than by a governmental machine that attempts to "enforce" compassion on the population. Millions can die, so long as nobody is compelled to help by a democratic system like a government. That's the moral solution, right?
|
|
|
Post by mr blur on Apr 13, 2009 4:14:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Apr 13, 2009 5:50:57 GMT -5
Do you have any idea how hard my family works to support this cattle ranch, gizmo? I didn't "inherit" anything; I was busting my slacks on the range since the time I was old enough to walk. A laid-off factory worker can say the same thing, cowpie. That doesn't make the factory his, it's just a testament to hard work, except now, he or she doesn't own diddly squat. Hard work does not equate to property ownership. The ban on Canadian beef imports into the U.S. from a single BSE case in Canada certainly benifited cattle men in the U.S. The profitablitly of cattle farms rose significantly because of the GOVERNMENT ban on cattle imports from Canada. Also, explain this: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/07/02/GR2006070200024.html
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Apr 13, 2009 7:19:25 GMT -5
[quote author=theamericancowboy board=pg That would be weird considering that Obama has English in his own ancenstry and is half white. But I suppose you could be going for the whole "All Black People Hate Whites Because They Know Whites Are Better Than Them And Secretly Hate Themselves For That Reason, Too" thing. And yet, Obama writes in his memoirs about how he was ashamed of his white heritage as a boy and how he chose to identify with his black heritage and shun white culture. Go figure. Black-on-black slavery continues to exist today, long after white nations have moved on from the issue - in the Sudan, it is common for black Muslims to own black Christian slaves. Here's a good documentary to look up: www.pbs.org/wonders/Episodes/Epi3/slave_2.htmInteresting. And how many Western and developed predominantly white nations continue to use and exploit slaves? America included... usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061202a.htmsalt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2000/05/sh0005.htmlBut thats really rather irrelevent to the point. Perhaps you would care to explain how american colonial and pre-abolitionist slavery was "largely a negro institution" when African slaves were bought by English slave wholesalers from slavers, transported from Africa to the new world by predominantly English, Spanish and Portugese ships, ships protected by their national fleets, and regulated by their governments' laws? I mean sure, there were negro slavers, but its kind of hard to lay all the blame at their feet when the bulk of the infrastructure which slavery relied on (i.e. transport and retail) was conducted by white Europeans.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Apr 13, 2009 7:26:48 GMT -5
I've never had to rely on the government for any kind of support. Says the guy over publicly funded telephone lines through the DARPA product the internet. Not to mention in his country that has remained independant of other hegemonies by at least 7 (by my reckoning) examples of government provided military actions... i.e. if the government had never provided anyone with any help, America would either still be a colony of Great Britain, a re-captured colony of Great Britain, a province of Canada, a colony of Spain, a colony of France, a province of Mexico, or missing a huge chunk called "The CSA". Thats without even considering the possibility of it loosing terrain to Germany, Japan, Mexico or Russia during the First or Second World Wars, or the Cold War... anyone claiming no government dependence needs to explain why he isn't speaking Spanish today to be even remotely considered serious.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 13, 2009 11:53:34 GMT -5
Again, cowboy:
in⋅her⋅it 1. to take or receive (property, a right, a title, etc.) by succession or will, as an heir: to inherit the family business. 2. to receive as if by succession from predecessors: the problems the new government inherited from its predecessors. 3. to receive (a genetic character) by the transmission of hereditary factors. 4. to succeed (a person) as heir. 5. to receive as one's portion; come into possession of: to inherit his brother's old clothes.
Definitions are fun!
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 13, 2009 11:58:16 GMT -5
Interesting. And how many Western and developed predominantly white nations continue to use and exploit slaves? America included... usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061202a.htmsalt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2000/05/sh0005.htmlBut thats really rather irrelevent to the point. Perhaps you would care to explain how american colonial and pre-abolitionist slavery was "largely a negro institution" when African slaves were bought by English slave wholesalers from slavers, transported from Africa to the new world by predominantly English, Spanish and Portugese ships, ships protected by their national fleets, and regulated by their governments' laws? I mean sure, there were negro slavers, but its kind of hard to lay all the blame at their feet when the bulk of the infrastructure which slavery relied on (i.e. transport and retail) was conducted by white Europeans. And your links only talk of actual slaves. Not illegal immigrants that are in slave-like conditions (Why do you think the government hasn't cracked down on this). Or what is commonly known as the wage-slave.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 13, 2009 17:48:21 GMT -5
Interesting. And how many Western and developed predominantly white nations continue to use and exploit slaves? America included... usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061202a.htmsalt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2000/05/sh0005.htmlBut thats really rather irrelevent to the point. Perhaps you would care to explain how american colonial and pre-abolitionist slavery was "largely a negro institution" when African slaves were bought by English slave wholesalers from slavers, transported from Africa to the new world by predominantly English, Spanish and Portugese ships, ships protected by their national fleets, and regulated by their governments' laws? I mean sure, there were negro slavers, but its kind of hard to lay all the blame at their feet when the bulk of the infrastructure which slavery relied on (i.e. transport and retail) was conducted by white Europeans. And your links only talk of actual slaves. Not illegal immigrants that are in slave-like conditions (Why do you think the government hasn't cracked down on this). Or what is commonly known as the wage-slave. And he also didnn't mention the use of slaves to construct the American embassy in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Apr 13, 2009 19:17:30 GMT -5
Wage slavery and immigrants in defacto slavery are anoter issue that needs to be addressed, but rather than bog down in a "if they don't like it they should go back where they came from" type quagmire (which you just know he'd present) I felt it best to limit my point strictly to "genuine" slaves, i.e. people in involuntary unpaid servitude maintained in said state through violence or other forms of coercion.
Such slaves exist. And right in your own country. Right now.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 13, 2009 19:33:31 GMT -5
Yep. And there are more actual slaves on earth today than at any other time in history.
|
|