|
Post by Supreme Marvel on Sept 19, 2011 16:22:57 GMT -5
Again, with you being the "enlightened divine ruler" you would have showcased abilities to prove your power. Now they truly see your power and enlightenment. They would accept what you say on face value. Therefore making it easy to make these decisions.
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Sept 19, 2011 16:30:10 GMT -5
Sure everyone has a right to a fair trial, unless they are seen murdering someone in broad daylight in the middle of a bunch of random witnesses. I also completely agree that lawyers for defendants of crimes like this shouldn't be able to use loopholes to get their clients off easier. That's a big problem right there.
It is true they have positive uses for society, an example being highway work and cleanup. The donors is a good one I haven't thought of before. But I should have mentioned I'm not talking about your average criminal, just the extreme cases for the death sentence.
Too much reading I don't want to do. Like I said, I'm assuming you won't lie to me so I trust what you say.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 19, 2011 16:43:42 GMT -5
Sure everyone has a right to a fair trial, unless they are seen murdering someone in broad daylight in the middle of a bunch of random witnesses. I also completely agree that lawyers for defendants of crimes like this shouldn't be able to use loopholes to get their clients off easier. That's a big problem right there. Murdering people in broad daylight in front of a bunch random witnesses is not exactly the most common crime around. In fact I'd wager that it is so goddamn rare that any alterations to the law to address that specifically would involve more hassle than the gain would be worth.
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Sept 19, 2011 16:49:41 GMT -5
I'm just saying that to emphasize my point that there are some crimes that don't even deserve a trial.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 19, 2011 16:58:48 GMT -5
Any crime so obvious that it doesn't need a trial is a crime which will pass through a trial like a breeze, so you might as well have it. You really can't exempt some crimes from due process like that because it undermines the whole nature of a criminal justice system. Remove trial and you're giving the power of judge, jury and executioner to whomever is supposed to carry out the sentence for that crime, which leaves room for far more power abuse than if you had just let the trial go through.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 16:58:48 GMT -5
Agreed. But I most certainly do not think it is right that the government will reach into my shirt pocket and squeeze my nipple until it turns purple just to provide for others. You want to improve a standard of living, there are options available other than taking from individuals. You could lower the cost of living. That would seem more logical anyway given the runaway cost of living as it is, at least in the states. That way, these so-called underpaid workers (not as many categories fit into this as you might think in America) would actually be able to comfortably survive.
I do not think you will make everything even. I think you are going to take more from the rich than you would from the not-so-rich. A stance I do not necessarily agree with. I agree in your position of a ban on human exploitation. To me, it is wrong in every sense of the term. In short, I am against slavery or endentured servitude.
I agree with this as well. But not at the expense of other individuals. This is Robin Hood on a global scale. I believe that a rich person who earned their wealth is entitled to it no matter how well beyond their basic needs they may live. But even those that did not earn it, say a lottery winner. That individual does not deserve to have their money taken back from them just because they did not work their asses off for it. I still believe if you want to improve standards of living, it starts be lowering the cost of living, not taking away from Mr. Dotcom millionaire or Dr. Decadesofeducationandhardwork. Bringing those costs down will negate the need to take from individuals as it would be viable to live on and support a family on actual minimum wage again.
Sounds good. What about countries that have little to nothing to export? Some countries currently export fossil fuels and that is just about it. Since under your government system, the need to fossil fuels would be obsolete (and I fully support that), how would these such countries become productive?
Skipping the commie part since it had nothing to do with my post.
Interesting idea. One that I look at in a positive light.
What would be your take on vigilantism?
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 17:00:50 GMT -5
I agree with your stance on the death-penalty and the reasons behind it. You said before that alcohol and smoking would be regulated. How exactly would this be done? And why would you allow the sale of lethal product?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2011 17:02:06 GMT -5
You should ask him about fattening foods
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 19, 2011 17:04:03 GMT -5
Agreed. But I most certainly do not think it is right that the government will reach into my shirt pocket and squeeze my nipple until it turns purple just to provide for others. You want to improve a standard of living, there are options available other than taking from individuals. You could lower the cost of living. That would seem more logical anyway given the runaway cost of living as it is, at least in the states. That way, these so-called underpaid workers (not as many categories fit into this as you might think in America) would actually be able to comfortably survive. Costs of living are dictated by the market. Trying to regulate them would be a fool's errand.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 17:05:13 GMT -5
Agreed. But I most certainly do not think it is right that the government will reach into my shirt pocket and squeeze my nipple until it turns purple just to provide for others. You want to improve a standard of living, there are options available other than taking from individuals. You could lower the cost of living. That would seem more logical anyway given the runaway cost of living as it is, at least in the states. That way, these so-called underpaid workers (not as many categories fit into this as you might think in America) would actually be able to comfortably survive. Costs of living are dictated by the market. Trying to regulate them would be a fool's errand. The market is tits up right now and it is still inflated so I disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 17:07:42 GMT -5
You should ask him about fattening foods People can have their cake but by god, I will become a fast food terrorist if those companies do not stop packing people's arteries and bellies with fat.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 19, 2011 17:25:02 GMT -5
The market is tits up right now and it is still inflated so I disagree. The cost of living is inflated because the market is tits up. That's how crises work. The purchasing power cannot keep up with the inflation of prices.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 17:32:03 GMT -5
The market is tits up right now and it is still inflated so I disagree. The cost of living is inflated because the market is tits up. That's how crises work. The purchasing power cannot keep up with the inflation of prices. Again I disagree. The reason the market went up in the first place is because there was an abundance of overspending and high risk loaning going on completely across the board. Then when the party was over and everyone had to actually start paying money, the market had a heart attack and spending has all but stopped. People are not investing, buying or otherwise spending. They are putting their money back under their mattresses. In other words, the prices remain at the spot they were at when spending was high because there is a refusal to adjust to the current market. Because companies believe if they will not budge, people will somehow forget that the prices are over-inflated and start buying again.
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Sept 19, 2011 17:42:42 GMT -5
You should ask him about fattening foods People can have their cake but by god, I will become a fast food terrorist if those companies do not stop packing people's arteries and bellies with fat. It's not the companies who are at fault, it is people. People eat it. Nobody is forcing them to, as you are such a great example of that (not eating fast food). And I'm sure when people go into KFC you don't yell at them and forcibly make them eat it, they choose to do so on their own. If you go on your anti-fast food crusade, you mine as well go on an anti-fair and festival crusade as well.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 19, 2011 17:56:14 GMT -5
Again I disagree. The reason the market went up in the first place is because there was an abundance of overspending and high risk loaning going on completely across the board. Then when the party was over and everyone had to actually start paying money, the market had a heart attack and spending has all but stopped. People are not investing, buying or otherwise spending. They are putting their money back under their mattresses. In other words, the prices remain at the spot they were at when spending was high because there is a refusal to adjust to the current market. Because companies believe if they will not budge, people will somehow forget that the prices are over-inflated and start buying again. Except the prices haven't been staying at the spot. There has been an observed major inflation as a direct result of the crisis as well as the global economy's attempts to recover from it, as observed here and here
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 19, 2011 18:06:56 GMT -5
Again I disagree. The reason the market went up in the first place is because there was an abundance of overspending and high risk loaning going on completely across the board. Then when the party was over and everyone had to actually start paying money, the market had a heart attack and spending has all but stopped. People are not investing, buying or otherwise spending. They are putting their money back under their mattresses. In other words, the prices remain at the spot they were at when spending was high because there is a refusal to adjust to the current market. Because companies believe if they will not budge, people will somehow forget that the prices are over-inflated and start buying again. Except the prices haven't been staying at the spot. There has been an observed major inflation as a direct result of the crisis as well as the global economy's attempts to recover from it, as observed here and hereWhy are you showing me two articles that are 3 years old? 3 years ago is when everyone was fucking around. I know, I worked for American Express at the time and you could see everyone's out of control spending habits then. AMEX was shitting its pants about the inevitable end. I was even one of the 5,000 employees AMEX laid off when the bubble finally burst. The point is that if spending has stopped, prices should come back down to encourage spending and economic growth, not inflate when people already refuse to spend.
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Sept 19, 2011 18:09:21 GMT -5
The point is that if spending has stopped, prices should come back down to encourage spending and economic growth, not inflate when people already refuse to spend. Herein lies the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2011 18:13:11 GMT -5
On the subject of spending, it's nice to see the US President finally grow a pair instead of trying too hard to please a crowd that refuses to give him squat.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2011 18:13:48 GMT -5
People can have their cake but by god, I will become a fast food terrorist if those companies do not stop packing people's arteries and bellies with fat. It's not the companies who are at fault, it is people. People eat it. Nobody is forcing them to, as you are such a great example of that (not eating fast food). And I'm sure when people go into KFC you don't yell at them and forcibly make them eat it, they choose to do so on their own. If you go on your anti-fast food crusade, you mine as well go on an anti-fair and festival crusade as well. DEATH TO FESTIVALS. Totally agreed. The issue, imho, is health education.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 19, 2011 18:41:16 GMT -5
Why are you showing me two articles that are 3 years old? 3 years ago is when everyone was fucking around. I know, I worked for American Express at the time and you could see everyone's out of control spending habits then. AMEX was shitting its pants about the inevitable end. I was even one of the 5,000 employees AMEX laid off when the bubble finally burst. The point is that if spending has stopped, prices should come back down to encourage spending and economic growth, not inflate when people already refuse to spend. Actually that was my bad. I was looking for articles and didn't notice that they were written before the actual recession.
|
|