Welcome to Gaia! ::

[ Message temporarily off-line ]

tanasha.....if you would actually READ the article, it explains wal-mart's aid as well. Like how they sent two trailer trucks full of fresh water and FEMA "rejected" those trucks because "they didn't need them." This type of action should show people that govenrment can't help you and actually just makes people's lives more miserable. My values co-incide with the mises institute. I am just using them as sources of higher authority. They are pro-market and pro-freedom. I myself follow those ideals as well since I love freedom and I love how I can do whatever I need to in order to preserve myself(this is taken as long as I respect the freedoms of others). And it is only fair and equal to allow others(even businesses) to have the same freedom I do. And these are my values. It's just that you want sources of my accusations....and I am giving them to you.

Also, I doubt brown would be charged because he is a government official. Don't you know that when government fails......no one really gets in trouble? Was anybody really persecuted for the failure of protecting america when 9/11 hit? Also, if you would read further in that article, it would explain how ken lay shouldn't have been persecuted by the government. The market solved that problem by basically putting him out of power and his empire of enron crumbled. Yes, I believe he violated other people's property(the workers and the stockholders.) But if those people really valued their property, they would've sued them(which I believe most of them did.)

I might - IF you were to argue for yourself, instead of bashing people over the head with a quotebrick.

The point of debate is to better your own argumentation abilities, and simply lugging around the arguments other people used doesn't serve that purpose. I go in without anything but my values, my own skill, and a handy internet search to support my points with evidence that's as unbiased as reasonably possible. You go in with the values you found on Mises, the arguments you found on Mises, and the articles you found on Mises.

Ever play on online game? Ever encountered a hacker? Rather than playing the game for the sake of playing, they play the game for the sake of winning by whatever means necessary - they have little or no skill at it themselves, they rely on the prewritten fake skills of other people.



Explain? Explain what? Wal-Mart sent aid, FEMA turned it away - what elaboration needs to be done?



Or that it's unwise to hire fired stableboys for important positions.



"Appeal to Authority" can be a logical fallacy too ( http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm ). In this case, it would be a number two fallacy - Mises is arguing a position that's unpopular with experts in the field, and while "Appeal to Popularity" is also a logical fallacy ( http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm ) it's most certainly enough to invoke the disagreement of experts case.



When people ask for a "Source", that means "Evidence of your claim". Mises isn't evidence, it's an editorial.



No, he won't be charged because the people in a position to do something are his friends.



Only because the people lack the desire to doggedly persue malice and incompetence.



Wasn't that after the people involved fled the country with inflated bank accounts? They care about the company they leave behind why?



You can't sue people who the US can't touch.



It might.



Giving the army corps would have prevented most of those problems from having happened - they constructed unsafe levies that violated their own guidelines because they were denied the funding they needed to do the job properly yet had to get it done.

A private contractor could have done a better job, but would have cost more money in order to do so. Sadly, since the levies that failed were nothing more than concrete walls, building proper levies would require more land, which would mean taking people's homes.



The government? Not quite - nobody can protect people from disasters, it's simply not possible.



That's not quite accurate. While 80% of people got out when they had the chance, about 99.9% decided to get out, but 19.9% never had a chance of doing so.

one explanation I've heard is that FEMA wants to take the credit for helping these people. They don't want to look like incompetent so they refuse the service of private industries in order to look like the heroes that helped the victims of katrina.

when has government NOT abused its power? If you put someone in that kind of authority....the chance of corruption is there. Of course, you could also argue that businesses are the same way. But of course, if a business becomes corrupt....then it has the chance of going out of business and consumers will fight back against the business and probably sue. Then that business corruption will no longer exist. Government doesn't work that way. It takes more work than just depriving it of money to put government out of business. Government is not a business because it doesn't work towards profit. When government screws up just like as it did now, do you see the bush administration going out of business? no. Do you see a possibility FEMA will still exist? yes. Get a budget increase? probably. Their thinking is FEMA failed because it didn't have enough money. So giving it more money will make it better. That's just more wasteful tax dollars used to fund an inefficient organization of the government. Why continue to fund these failing government organizations?

Many people in the area lacked cars, and the public transportation system was shut down the friday before it hit - before they knew it *was* going it hit, and long before there was an evacuation notice.



Question: Are *you* covered for flood damage? Do you know how to apply for flod insurance?



Can you cite a source for the cost of flood insurance?



Noted.



Rationalization has killed more people than any other vauge concept in the history of time than any other cause. Rationalization is an amalgam of flawed logic, false information, and poor judgement.



That presumed that that all of them are perpetual welfare recipients, which is a claim I doubt you can support.



That's fine, just make sure that your beliefs are justified and not rationalized.

Yah, I know that nearly the whole statement is in generalizations. and here's me trying to cover my a** in that respect:



but i hold a sincere opinion that capitalism is the best system for rewarding those who work and letting those who don't work rot. sure, life isn't fair, and there are a few exceptions, a few honest people really are poor for one reason or another, but if they work hard, under this system of economics, they can get back on track.

Anyways, the main point is this: I don't feel like I'm obligated to help a stranger or to help society as a whole. If you do, that's fine, donate to a charity if it makes you feel better. Just leave me out of it, don't force more tax dollars out of me for your own cause.

[ Message temporarily off-line ]