Strength, honor, and liberty

Hey there and welcome!

User talk:Strength, honor, and liberty/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Strength, honor, and liberty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Capitalism. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! – S. Rich (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Article on Capitalism 06/10/2013

I restored the material you removed because it did have a citation. See WP:PRESERVE for more info. I tagged the reference "page needed". Hopefully that will prompt an editor to supply the actual page where the data is located. If, after a while, we don't see an improvement in the reference, we might remove it. How long? I don't know. In articles that have a lot of page views, the corrections can occur quickly. In others, with fewer page views, such tags can linger. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Srich32977, thankyou very much for notifying to me to the correct protocol for editing Wikipedia. Can you please explain more to me about the polite method to delete comments from Wikipedia, I am very new, signed up today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Strength, honor, and liberty (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you mean by "delete comments". The comments on this user talk page can be removed in accordance with WP:OWNTALK. Comments on other talk pages must remain unless they violate WP:TPNO. WP:TPO has some guidance as well. (In some instances very offensive comments can be removed by administrators. But this is quite rare because the vast majority of editors come to WP to contribute in a collaborative fashion.) For more information on editing, I can suggest WP:BETTER. It is a good essay that I found quite helpful when I first started editing. – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This answered my question, thanks. I will try and get in contact with the author on this matter.

Capitalism

I'm not sure there are "many" countries that invest substantially less than 40% GDP on social service. Of course, the reason the US has less to spend on social services is that we spend such a huge amount on the military. You mention Singapore, but Singapore is a city state, almost entirely urban, and ruled by one party for more than fifty years, so it is an unusual case. Are there really "many" others? I'm willing to be convinced, but I need to see data. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

- My home country, Australia, is another example. Our current liberal government believes in cutting taxes, increasing private participation in the economy, and minimising government. Taxes and government services constitute 32.3% of GDP.

- Israel is also a developed country, and a democracy, with taxes are 26.4% of GDP. If they didn't have to spend so much on military (7.4% of GDP) taxes would be much lower.

- South Korea is also another example, if you own the Samsung Galaxy Smartphone you would know they are a high technology society, taxes contribute to 23.9% of GDP.

- Hong Kong is a very wealthy state, and I think you can treat it as a separate country because of its history (independent British colony until 1997, YES this happened 16 years ago, don't believe me check CIA Fact book, now owned by China but given total independence until 2047). If not for China would be a democracy, taxes are 22.1% of GDP.

- Japan is a developed nation with taxes 33.5% of GDP.

- List goes on, for more work it out from CIA World Factbook.

I can't see how you can write off Singapore just because it is a dictatorship, it may only have one city but it is still an independent country with its own laws. Has a whopping 5.5 million people which is a quarter of my countries population, despite us having a billion times bigger landmass (Australia ~same size of USA land).

US Military expenditure is 4.6% of GDP. I am not American, but I had believed that you guys (you said we) had very low taxes because the country believes in liberty and the free market. You provide for your poor and people with disabilities with free healthcare, which is humane and compassionate. After that everyone can afford healthcare, food and housing, and people exercise individual responsibility and follow their American Dream. People choose not to have health care, it is their choice, America anti nanny state. Also, low taxes is also a good wealth creator, since private companies are efficient so it is logical for the US to have low taxes so it can be more productive and encourages people to be more innovative through competition. I thought that "All men are created equal", is an extremely important aspect of this liberty, that everyone has a fair go in life.

There are so many examples, I think the pressure is on you to find examples of high taxing (>40%) developed nations that ARE NOT EUROPEAN. I suspect the Europeans have been swamped by communist ideology from their close proximity to former USSR, and their history with the two horrible World Wars, and half occupied by communist USSR until ~1989. Either way, Europe is the exception, please find me some counter examples(Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)).

I would guess that you are a libertarian. If I'm wrong, I apologize. Wikipedia is not really a blog, but I suppose if we confine our disucssion to our talk pages we aren't breaking any rules. I do ask that you sign your posts with four tildas.

I had a college roommate who was a libertarian, so I've heard the arguments. It seems to me that a simple reducto ad absurdum demolishes them. The limited libertarianism of the US Republican Party has allowed 700 US families to amass one third of the wealth of the entire country. Unlimited libertarianism would allow them to get it all. Obviously, that would not be good for me, but I don't think it would be good for them, either. They would have to live in a walled compound, with a private army. And they would forever have to worry about the loyalty of the commander of their private army. I really do think that those rich people such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who happily pay their taxes to live in a peaceful society, are wiser than your countryman Rupert Murdoch or my countrymen the Koch brothers, who have more money than they can ever spend and will never have enough. I have nothing against moderate wealth. Millionaires? More power to them. But billionaries who want more and more and more scare me, because wealth is power. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rick, I wouldn't call my self a libertarian, I am not that extreme. But I am drawn to many of the ideals of the American Dream, and in my home country I want to work towards a smaller government and greater personal and financial freedom. In my home country, I am called a liberal. This is not the same as the American liberal, it is the equivalent of the Republican party, I want to see Australia become more American. It is true that there is greater inequality with more capitalism, I think this is the greatest argument against capitalism. I guess I am not that concerned by inequality, I am more concerned by myself than some billionaire or millionaire (I am not either of them, but I don't care about them, I don't feel the need to take there money). I like a competitive society, one where everyone is given equal opportunity and the best rise to the top, like in sport and baseball. I still believe that we need to care for the less fortunate, the unemployed, disabled people, single mothers, people that go without food and homeless. I believe America does that, but I am not American so yeah correct me if I am wrong. Also I believe somethings need to be regulated, but I prefer to minimise regulations, I don't want over regulation.

Also I believe security is the responsibility of the government. Yes, that would be stupid if we all lived in fear in walled compounds, where is the liberty in that?

I read lots of Murdoch papers, he is Australian, yes he is biased but I like it hahahahha. But yes, I don't care if people amass lots of wealth, I don't feel it concerns me. We can all enjoy our lives and live happily as long as you have the basic necessities of life, in my opinion, at least in theory.

What do you call yourself? I guess your preferences votes go to democrats ... but would you call yourself a democrat or a liberal (the American liberal), or go so far as to say your a socialist or even a communist? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

I'm a liberal. Which means I agree with everything you say. Unfortunately here in America there is no level playing field, because the schools for the poor are so much worse than the schools for the rich, even when both are paid for with tax money. And, of course, the best schools are the "prep" schools, which are private schools. The result is that on the average, Americans are far below Australia in math, English, and problem solving. Another big problem with the money=power equation here is that many billionaires believe in the literal truth of the Bible, which means they fight to close clinics that provide birth control for poor women, fight the teaching of evolution in the public schools, and fight any government spending on the environment because they believe the Second Coming is nigh. So, while everybody likes the idea of the best winning out by honesty and hard work, an awful lot of people who are honest and hardworking haven't got a chance. Only the smartest, luckiest, and most ambitious can rise out of the underclass. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, always good to speak to like minded people :-)

I agree, I want school to be a level playing field in primary and high school. Australia has similar problems, it might not be as bad, but rich kids have an advantage over poor kids. And I think that is wrong/not ideal. In Australia all kids have the same textbooks, same curriculum, and all sit the same ATAR examination to get into Uni. But some public schools are full of bad kids that misbehave and cause chaos, so kids that want to learn can't. Also, rich kids can have access to lots of tuition, which gives them an advantage over a kid just as smart and hard working but from a poor background.

Some of it doesn't even have anything to do with money, just good vs. bad parenting. I don't necessarily want more money in Australia to be spent on education, but I do want to see discipline restored to classrooms, and sack bad teachers (bad teachers can't be sacked because of the union). There also needs to be greater emphasis on competition, with more cash prizes for good students in all levels.

It needs to be somehow be a level playing field in honour of "All men are created equal", I am trying to figure out a way to do that without destroying the system. This issue is really important to me. What are your ideas?

And that includes all women are created equal too

What are your thoughts on higher education? In Australia the government pays through an interest free student loan (yes no interest!) for college degrees. The result is a highly politicised funding model and students can't chose how much money they want to spend on their degree -- I like the American model, where you can go to the bank, get out a loan and never touch taxpayers money. The only thing different that I might propose is that perhaps the government could make it compulsory that a student applies and qualifies for a loan in order to attend college? --> thats just qualify, don't need to physically borrow the money

You can't stop parents paying for a kids uni education, but maybe this will stop rich kids getting in at the expense of poorer kids. Example --> two bright hardworking students achieved the same score for their college entrance exams. One rich one poor, neither of them qualified for a loan. But the rich kid got into uni because his parent paid. Make it compulsory to qualify for a loan and this will not happen, level playing field? Could that work?

I know there are federal loans by the way, which I think is better than our loans because government makes money on them so it is easier to invest in University education and other higher learning centres. US spends more on higher education than Australia does

hahahahah I can understand your frustration. I find these religious debates really difficult, even though I myself am not religious. So difficult I want to shove it under the carpet and forget about it. Although while I am not against religious schools, I am dead against NOT teaching evolution. Australia isn't nearly quite as religious as America, so I don't think I have been exposed to quite the same religious debate as you might have been.

Also we have really rich people too, including the richest woman in the world Gina Rinehart. Over $30bn in assets, and the Australian economy is a fifteenth of the size of yours and we have the richest woman in the world. I guess I want her to have a better voice because we are so left winged so I don't mind her. All she wants to do is dig holes and mine dirt, apparently thats really profitable, all fine by me. These guys actually do some amazing stuff with the mines they build, the technology is so advanced, she is building a $10 billion mine in the middle of nowhere, ships so much iron ore to China. It is 227 km from the nearest port, need to build a whole new rail network just for this mine

I guess that's it, our rich people don't talk about religion. It is only about lower taxes and liberal government and IR Reform, which I am happy with so I really don't mind them. I guess it is different in America (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)).

What are your thoughts on higher education? In Australia the government pays through an interest free student loan (yes no interest!) for college degrees. The result is a highly politicised funding model and students can't chose how much money they want to spend on their degree -- I like the American model, where you can go to the bank, get out a loan and never touch taxpayers money. The only thing different that I might propose is that perhaps the government could make it compulsory that a student applies and qualifies for a loan in order to attend college? --> thats just qualify, don't need to physically borrow the money You can't stop parents paying for a kids uni education, but maybe this will stop rich kids getting in at the expense of poorer kids. Example --> two bright hardworking students achieved the same score for their college entrance exams. One rich one poor, neither of them qualified for a loan. But the rich kid got into uni because his/her parent paid. Make it compulsory to qualify for a loan and this will not happen, level playing field? Could that work? I know there are federal loans by the way, which I think is better than our loans because government makes money on them so it is easier to invest in University education and other higher learning centres. US spends more on higher education than Australia does

I would never want to stop parents from buying their kids a good education. What I object to is the public schools, funded with taxpayer money, favoring rich kids. The US spends huge quantities of money on "education" but spends it badly. All education is under local control, and the local schoolboards are usually staffed by rich, religious businessmen who want to keep taxes low but love spending money on sports. Students, unless they have rich parents, can only go to college with a government loan, which they wind up paying on all their lives. When they reach sixty five, the student loan payments automatically come out of their social secruity check. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

How has the money been misspent? Where does it all go? How can public schools favour rich kids?

I am not necessarily against parents paying for a good education, just " Only the smartest, luckiest, and most ambitious can rise out of the underclass". To a certain extent, I see those two different statements contradict each other. (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC))