PJW wrote:
Who pays for the shipbuilder, and shipbuilding in highly skilled work, you need to understand engineering, architecture, molding, metallurgy, and any number of other skills, when you shut down the shipbuilding industry for private modality? It might be an excess, but it is still highly economically valued and endows the country with more intellectual property. Which, as you highlight Reardon, is the point of productivity.
You're right, to those who say you don't eat steel. But, I ask you, how much steel goes into the modern-day farming techniques and transport infrastructure that allows us to feed seven billion people? Well? I will concede that more needs to be done to help the third world, with food and basics, but might I remind you that one-third of the agricultural output of both Europe and America, enough overall food production in the world to feed twelve billion people daily, is lost, rotting because it was grown to meet a quota for Leftist Agricultural subsidy, not to be eaten. I ask you, under Objectivism, where this food would go where people want to eat it, not where it wants to be grown, where is the conflict?
Just because Objectivism stands for value-adding doesn't make it non-socially advantageous. To whomever it was that asked for axioms based on logic, swallow that one and then defend starving people so small farms that produce nothing that is eaten, only left to rot on piles for subsidies to grow and produce the food in the first place. Defend that.
I ask once more.
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELVES?
It's not the shipbuilding industry that I have objection to, but luxury yachts. Surely all of those professionals can find work in other areas if yacht-building was decreased? Engineers, architects, moulders, metallurgists...these are all useful professions outside yachtbuilding, and surely in demand, even within the greater shipbuilding industry. Your reasoning is broken.
I don't understand enough about agricultural subsidies to counter your argument there, but if we are talking about shipping it to regions of the world where there is famine, there also may be political problems or corruption that may prevent the food from reaching those in need. I am sure that those ruling in Zimbabwe, for example, would pretty much cream off most, if not all, of what would be brought in.
As I said, I can hear myself, and know myself, very well, thank you. But I think that you're deaf to the true meaning of what excrement you are spouting. This is not standing on the shoulders of giants but stamping on the face of everyone not fortunate or able enough.
PJW wrote:
And, to Quartermass, one more thing. I too am currently looking for work. I will never pay one more cent of tax in my life than necessary. You have to realise that there is no way to voluntarily pay more tax. The absurdity of it is what prohibits it. Governments, and I hope this holds for the rest of my life, deliberately structure tax systems so you pay the least. Although, here in Australia with the Lefter-than-thous holding a minority government to ransom it is being increasingly well-received in increased government appropriation.
I always find it funny that Lefter-than-thou politicians on well in excess of one-hundred-thousand dollars a year never stand for cutting their own, only everyone elses. And, then there's the question of their living standards. They won't cut their own, but expect everyone else to do so. Which is what this all boils down to. Do you want to cut your living standard for no better reason than you feel as if you should? If you don't want a boat, don't buy one. That doesn't mean that someone who does, who has paid his taxes and fed his family, if he wants one, and paid his workers might I add, then why should he not have a boat?
The Left always seem to forget this, but freedom goes both ways.
Hey, I hate politicians of all stripes. I even complained during last year's election of 'election problems' (ha, ha). I only vote left-wing because they are the lesser of two evils, IMO, and last year was because Tony Abbot had policies that made me think, nope, don't want him in office (or else I would not have voted for Labour at all). Should they be paid as much? Of course not! A few thou less each year from all pollies, and there'd be a little less trouble. Would the Democrats have been in favour of such a decrease, d'you reckon?
As for cutting my living standard, I would have no intention of doing so. But if I had enough money so that my living standard would not be affected, I would find a way to put my excess money to somewhere where it would do good. If I can't do it through the tax system, then I will have to find another way. I like to live a comfortable existence, but I try not to live a wasteful one.
And I have no objection to someone having one boat or yacht, if you actually read my words. It is having more (particularly far more) than you need, just because you can, not to help keep the workers of the shipbuilding or car making industry in check, which I am sure very few purchasers think of. This is not spending money to keep workers in their jobs. It's basically Freudian compensation, showing off excess, amongst other things. In other words,
Raffke.
I intend to spend my life making people's lives easier. Whether that be as a writer who entertains, or in the health sciences sector (and frankly, I'm looking to do both if possible), I don't think that there should be any objection to that.
One last thing: my name is spelt Q-U-A-T-E-R-M-A-S-S. No 'quarter' in Quatermass. I get peeved when people mispell it, so please spell it correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Quatermass
_________________
(No longer a mod)
On sabbatical...
20 Feb 2011, 8:28 pm
