How to put an end to poverty

Or you could get out of their lives, not to mention the taxpayer's wallet.

 

It is not counter-intuitive, but I also don't think that particular dynamic is true in the US. That is more an Ethiopia type deal.

 

It is wrong of course. Birth rates boomed after WW2 because people thought the future was bright. In America today a responsible person has to go to college and save and pay a mountain of taxes every year. So they have less kids at later ages. Meanwhile welfare recipients who get paid per child are having far more children.

 

Blatant question begging. And in fact, alphabets -- i.e., fonts -- ARE copyright protected.

How would that make a difference to the fact that you are using things other people created, and not paying them for permission? Stop being a parasite and create your own words and alphabet! That was YOUR "argument," remember?

See how IDIOTIC your IDIOTIC, DISHONEST GARBAGE is when taken literally?

Once I released it, you wouldn't be able to get anything for it, because everyone would be equally at liberty to copy it, just as when a copyright expires. Duh. Do a bunch of copycats rush to sell copies of everything that returns to the public domain when its IP monopoly expires, hoping to strike it rich?

See how ABSURD your ABSURD, DISHONEST GARBAGE is when taken literally?

I.e., the US's unfair IP rent seeking privilege would disappear in a free market system, just as its unfair reserve currency issuance privilege would disappear in a free global monetary system. Right.

No, such claims are just FALSE, ABSURD and DISHONEST, as lots of companies make generic pharmaceuticals NOW, just as they publish public-domain books NOW, and millions of people upload free movies they have made NOW. I have already explained to you how big-budget movies could be produced and shown to paying audiences without releasing them to the public domain. You appear to be unaware that PC game makers are able to prevent copying of their products despite millions of people being eager to ignore their copyrights.

You continue to be unable to offer an argument.

 

I'd like to know what libertarians think about this too.

Libertarians can acknowledge that everyone has the freedom to have children, and the government can't intervene with that right. On the other hand, somebody has to keep those children healthy. If the parents can't do it, the state must do it. This seems like quite a dilemna for a libertarian.

 

Sorry to say, that has already been done.

 

And because of the taxes, they must also pay a mountain of land rent for access to the services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for.

GET IT?

I.e., government will only try to rescue you and your children from enslavement by landowners if you take a vow of perpetual poverty.

GET IT?

 

Hey, why not have Obama Jr. pass another executive order stating that-The only type of Fornication in America will be-"Anal Fornication" calling it the Reggie Love-Anal Penetration Law.--Stop Global Warming, decrease the population polluting people from ever being born.

 

It's a dilemma for everyone. Freedom comes with responsibilities. Even libertarians generally understand that society has a right to protect itself against people who can't or won't be responsible for their actions, but stopping irresponsible parents from having more children evokes the forced sterilization, eugenics, racism and Naziism memes.

 

That is one dimensional thinking.

Having children is not what makes a family poor, it's all the ancillary choices made by the parents and the involuntary or causational circumstances that come together which make the family poor. A husband and wife who both graduated from high school, with three or four children, are not destined for a life of poverty. The selfish acts, and poor choices in life that lead to a single mother, who dropped out of school at age 16, and has four children from three different men may be heading towards a life of poverty, if her decisions and actions stay on this course of self destruction.

 

This is where the idea of not taxing these charitable groups, who volunteer to organize the community to tackle these problems came from. The liberal progessive would simple create another government entity within another government agency, and start trying to manage the people with regulations, taxes, mandates etc...

 

We want people to create things.

If you want people to create things you want to give them incentives.

Protecting their creative works with IP laws creates an incentive to invest and labor in creative fields because valuable creations can then later be sold under protections that prevent others from unjustly enriching themselves by stealing the creative work represented in the product.

You just want to give up our edge to the Chinese so we can all work in sweat shops and watch government programming on TV.

- - - Updated - - -

So, big taxes are to keep you beholden to land barons? How many acres can you buy with a years taxes? In my area 2 out in the boon and 1 out west partially in the boon.

There are countries where you can't own land, just lease it from government. Why are they among the poorest in the world?

 

That's assuming that NGOs are a good thing. One could argue that the mere existence of NGOs suggest that the government isn't doing enough to protect the interests of the people -- especially vulnerable populations like children in poor families.

I can't help but think of ACORN and how it was destroyed by selfish people who didn't want to pay their share, or resented poor people... or both.

What I usually hear from Libertarians is that poor families are poor through their own fault and they deserve the consequences. Not much sympathy for poor children there.

 

Of course you think that about NGOs I stead of realizing that a) they exist because government is not effective at changing the lives of the poor and b) people are as charitable as conservatives have been saying they are even though that has died a bit since lefterism swept the nation.

 

You seem confused about my post. I stated that the existence of NGOs may be due to the government's ineffectiveness in dealing with social problems. Rather than creating more NGOs, why not improve or increase government programs?

If there is a town with a poor family and no charitable person or organization wants to help them because they're white, or black, or whatever reason, the government would have to step in to help them. Why not rely less on charity in the first place?

From my experience, liberals are more charitable when it comes to marginalized people. Also, they are less likely to complain about helping others by contributing to institutionalized programs.

 

I think the damage is done.

 

I'm pretty sure that few 9/11 truthers have non compete clauses at their jobs at the 7-11. Maybe if you're in the late night radio show business...

 

But that's not going to happen, and this is just what many conservatives just do not understand. What do you think all the masses of impoverished people are going to do?!?

Eventually the government will intervene, it is inevitable. Even if you don't agree with it, that is what is going to happen. You see, there are many people, including myself, who believe the government has an obligation to all the poor people within our borders. If you let them in, you have to take care of them. Many naive Libertarian idealists think the free movement of people can be allowed while still conserving the principles of laissez-faire.

 

You didn't know? Mr fraud here is a news anchor for MSNBC. Makes sense doesnt it?

 

Have you ever met a failing government program you didn't want to expand?

Rely on family. The left thinks it is fine to rely on others but never those people who are supposed to look out for you.

only when it comes to abortion funding. Co servatives are far more charitable statistically.

no, they only give more to causes to kill those people.

You meant to say "also they are ok with taxing people other then themselves to pay for programs that keep people dependent on government and the democrat party". Because then you would be factually accurate.

 

Ah, a broadcasting job that would embrace a 9/11 truther!

OK it makes sense now.

 

That must be why you demand that we pay landowners for creating nothing.

Economists have known for many decades that the granting of monopolies is one of the least efficient and most economically harmful ways to provide an incentive. It is merely the way that kings were using -- and people were consequently used to -- at the time current IP legal traditions were being established, because they didn't understand enough economics to understand how harmful it is.

IP monopoly privileges have no protective effect on creative works. Their only effect is to remove others' rights to liberty.

But the fact that people did so before IP proves that that incentive is unnecessary; and if some additional incentive is deemed prudent, it would be far more efficient to offer prizes for desired works, or ex post facto prizes for unexpected works whose value is later recognized. Proof: the Kremer Prize solved, in less than 30 years, a problem that IP monopoly privileges could not solve in 200 years. Additional proof: modern science, which rarely offers researchers IP privileges, has nevertheless advanced exponentially on the basis of virtually no incentives but scholarly priority and academic tenure.

I.e., their supply is artificially reduced to create rents.

Privileges.

No, it prevents them from producing as much of the product as is economically justified. There is nothing unjust about enriching oneself by providing value for money, as the vast industries that enable entrepreneurs to enrich themselves by production of public-domain goods proves.

No, that is a fabrication. There is no stealing involved because copying does not deprive anyone of what they would otherwise have, and is therefore not a violation of rights. The claim that copying is stealing is just a flat-out lie.

We already gave it up by robbing our producers for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, parasitic rent seekers.

Hehe... McJobs. Faux News. 'Nuff said.

No, they are to steal from the productive and give the loot to landowners.

That depends mainly on how much access to tax-funded services and infrastructure those acres afford their user.

And both of them probably far from good public roads, hospitals, public transit, stores where you can use food stamps, police and fire protections, public water and sewer systems, etc., etc. -- and especially the JOB OPPORTUNITIES that gather around such government-provided amenities.

ROTFL!! Oh, you must mean like... HONG KONG, which routinely tops lists of the freest countries in the world, and enjoys greater wealth and prosperity than 90% of the countries where land is privately owned? Or do you mean like MONACO, where all the land is leased from the government, and which has the richest population in Europe and a yacht basin full of mega-yachts?

Those countries where you can't own land, just lease it from government?

ROTFLMAO!!

The objective fact of physical reality is that such countries are RICH, because recovery of publicly provided location subsidies for the purposes and benefit of the public that provides them is JUSTICE.

By contrast, there are countries where private landowning is well established, where private interests own almost all the good land, and where government does little or nothing to rescue the people from the robbery, oppression and enslavement that inevitably result from private landowner privilege: countries like Pakistan, Guatemala, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Paraguay, Zimbabwe, El Salvador, etc. Why is EVERY SINGLE ONE of those countries a poverty-stricken hell-hole, hmmmm?

You need to stop typing and start thinking.

 

That is known to be extremely stressful on families and family relationships, and results in even more problems.

 

Simply muster up enough morality to bear true witness to our own laws regarding the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will.

 

Better that people rely on government for their care? At least with family there is an incentive to go out and provide for yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

How is tonga doing?