NationStates Jolt Archive

I changed everything in the Bill of No Rights so that it says the exact opposite. This was done at Shinra X's request:

ARTICLE I: You have the right to a new car, big screen TV, and any other forms of wealth that you desire. We will steal those of others to give to you if you wish as long as you remember to vote for us.

ARTICLE II: You have the right to never be offended. Hey, censorship means more power for us.

ARTICLE III: You have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, sue the tool manufacturer! There are a lot of out-of-work lawyers who would gladly appreciate the business.

ARTICLE IV: You have the right to free food and housing. Don’t worry; the Russians will pay for it.

ARTICLE V: You have the right to free health care. Then after one of your free doctors misdiagnoses you and you die, your family can sue. Refer to Article III.

ARTICLE VI: You have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, you can just tell a sob story about how you were oppressed by this evil society and a jury will let you off.

ARTICLE VII: You have the right to the possessions of others. The great thing about democracy is that you can now put down your gun and use the ballot box to rob other people instead.

ARTICLE VIII: You have the right to send our children off to risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We like oppressive governments and there’s nothing better than being one.

ARTICLE IX: You have the right to a job. You have the right to an infinite wage too. If you feel that you are being underpaid, you can call in the government to shoot your employer.

ARTICLE X: You have the right to happiness. You also have the right to be free from bad weather, disease, and all of those other nasty things in life.

You're not at all interested in making sensible proposals, are you?

I made sensible proposals (Cato, etc.). None of them passed.

Well, one of them passed, teh Fifth Amendment.

I made sensible proposals (Cato, etc.). None of them passed.


Your proposals all benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

I made sensible proposals (Cato, etc.). None of them passed.


Your proposals all benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

Yes I see how having a fair trial beenfits the rich at the expense of the poor :roll:. And my "no compulsory military service" and "no affirmative action" resolutions... yep those just kill the poor :roll: ...

I made sensible proposals (Cato, etc.). None of them passed.

Well, one of them passed, teh Fifth Amendment.

So now you've descended into petulant whining. Look, even after you get out of school, not everybody will agree with you, no matter how clever you think you are. You're just going to have to learn to deal with it.

No, they allow all people to be left alone. Now, if we left them alone, the productive would benefit more than the unproductive. If that's a bad thing, and we should put gun barrels to the faces of the productive, then, you're for the Right to Enslave.

I made sensible proposals (Cato, etc.). None of them passed.

Well, one of them passed, teh Fifth Amendment.

So now you've descended into petulant whining. Look, even after you get out of school, not everybody will agree with you, no matter how clever you think you are. You're just going to have to learn to deal with it.

...? It's called satire. Never have I personally insulted anyone, never have I complained about people disagreeing with me.

Part of my philosophy is the right to free speech. You can disagree with me all you want. And I can disagree with you. And mock you. :lol:

Overall,I'd say that that proposal makes as much sense as the one being voted upon right now.

I like this proposal better. It has more substance because it actually quantifies many things.

TGM, you can't make some people happy no matter WHAT you say. Obviously they're just resisiting the Bill of No Rights because they don't like you and will contradict everything you say.

Don't believe me? This is the exact opposite of the bill for vote now.

TGM, you can't make some people happy no matter WHAT you say. Obviously they're just resisiting the Bill of No Rights because they don't like you and will contradict everything you say.

Don't believe me? This is the exact opposite of the bill for vote now.

You're implying that the opposite of a piece of stupidity is automatically smart. Let's take a simple example to show that this is not true:

The nation of Oonamahambra should be nuked back to the Stone Age every Thursday.

Now for the opposite:

The nation of Oonamahambra should be nuked back to the Stone Age every day except Thursday.

See? It's still just as stupid either way.

TGM, you can't make some people happy no matter WHAT you say. Obviously they're just resisiting the Bill of No Rights because they don't like you and will contradict everything you say.

Don't believe me? This is the exact opposite of the bill for vote now.

But the exact opposite in content of something puerile and derisive is going to stay, you know, puerile and derisive. Like the proposal at vote right now.

Cato acts was sensible up to a point but I disagreed with two articles. Hence I didn't vote for it. Until something suits me perfectly I won't vote for it.

The Federation of Flaming Moderates fully supports The Global Market. By voting down the current proposal, those voting against it are tacitly supporting the Right to Enslave Act anyway.

The Federation of Flaming Moderates fully supports The Global Market. By voting down the current proposal, those voting against it are tacitly supporting the Right to Enslave Act anyway.

Exactly. Since the word "do not" is changed to "do" this becomes the opposite resolution. I.e. instead of we should have a nuclear war every thursday it becomes we should NOT have a nuclear war every thursday. It has nothing to do with the other days of the week.

TGM, you can't make some people happy no matter WHAT you say. Obviously they're just resisiting the Bill of No Rights because they don't like you and will contradict everything you say.

Don't believe me? This is the exact opposite of the bill for vote now.

Just because you don't endorse one side of an argument, etc., doesn't mean that you automatically support the other side.

You are entitled to free healthcare.

You are entitled to free healthcare.

How so?

Free healthcare isn't really 'free', someone has to pay for it.

Sicne hte only power the govenrmnet has is a monopoly over the use of force, you are committing robbery.

What if you supported some articles in No Rights but found other articles sufficiently bad to vote no?

Sorry. I know that it's annoying to have your resolutions attacked, but you shouldn't lash out at your opponents like that.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Yes, the state, therefore the people, pay for it. But it means a poor family can afford it, instead of only the rich.

Yes, the state, therefore the people, pay for it. But it means a poor family can afford it, instead of only the rich.

You pay for it either way. With free healthcare you get a better product at a lower price.

You are improving the heatlhcare of maybe 15-20% at the very most of the population (remember that almost all workers get health insurance at work), and forcing the rest of the population to accept substandard healthcare.

This is why Canadians often come to the US for major surgery.

Free healthcare's all well and good for when you get a fever, but not when you get a brain tumor.

Yes, the state, therefore the people, pay for it. But it means a poor family can afford it, instead of only the rich.

ironically, the poor can afford it at expense of not only the upper class but also the other poor people. Here's an easy way to get money to the poor people so they can buy their own health care: LOWER TAXES. They get the money that belongs to them instead of getting money that belongs to someone else.

What? Sorry to break this to you, but tax is a percentage, and the poor get tax breaks. And the idea that the medical system is subxtandard because of it being state-funded? Well, look at the US, then look at Canada or Cuba, and they have far better services considering their GNP. Lowering taxes will not help nearly as much as free healthcare.

What? Sorry to break this to you, but tax is a percentage, and the poor get tax breaks. And the idea that the medical system is subxtandard because of it being state-funded? Well, look at the US, then look at Canada or Cuba, and they have far better services considering their GNP. Lowering taxes will not help nearly as much as free healthcare.

Okay next time you have to get Double Bypass surgery go get it in Cuba :roll:. You have to consider GDP per capita, not complete GDP and certainly not GNP (there is a difference between GDP and GNP). The US has a comparable GDP per capita to Canada. But our hospitals are staffed with better doctors and more advanced technology.

TGM, you can't make some people happy no matter WHAT you say. Obviously they're just resisiting the Bill of No Rights because they don't like you and will contradict everything you say.

Don't believe me? This is the exact opposite of the bill for vote now.

Ah, so if you wrote a bill supporting putting no-one in prison, then afterwards, a bill supporting putting everyone in prison, you'd have to vote for one or the other?

Don't make me laugh. Canada has a far better medical system. Which Canadians are on NS? Stephanistan is one. Few more. Ask them.

Don't make me laugh. Canada has a far better medical system. Which Canadians are on NS? Stephanistan is one. Few more. Ask them.

Canadian healthcare might be slightly better on day-to-day basis but for life-threatening things, America's is one of the best in the world.

American clinics such as Johns Hopkins University Hopsital and the Mayo Clinic regularly rank as the best cancer and heart disease centers in the industrialized world.

We are at the forefront of biotechnology, even with Bush's anti-cloning stance. We have the best doctors and hte best technology in the world. My dad works in the medical field, researching cancer technologies.

What? Sorry to break this to you, but tax is a percentage, and the poor get tax breaks. And the idea that the medical system is subxtandard because of it being state-funded? Well, look at the US, then look at Canada or Cuba, and they have far better services considering their GNP. Lowering taxes will not help nearly as much as free healthcare.

Okay next time you have to get Double Bypass surgery go get it in Cuba :roll:. You have to consider GDP per capita, not complete GDP and certainly not GNP (there is a difference between GDP and GNP). The US has a comparable GDP per capita to Canada. But our hospitals are staffed with better doctors and more advanced technology.

Or come to Britain. Don't forget, free healthcare doesn't preclude you from going private. And higher income tax and VAT has the effect of taxing the rich, and taxing luxury. Especially if you don't charge VAT on essential items.

You are entitled to free healthcare.

How so?

Free healthcare isn't really 'free', someone has to pay for it.

Sicne hte only power the govenrmnet has is a monopoly over the use of force, you are committing robbery.

Basically that's saying you should execute any citizen can't afford healthcare. If you let the people on the street not get the care they need, they could easily die from a sickness.

What? Sorry to break this to you, but tax is a percentage, and the poor get tax breaks. And the idea that the medical system is subxtandard because of it being state-funded? Well, look at the US, then look at Canada or Cuba, and they have far better services considering their GNP. Lowering taxes will not help nearly as much as free healthcare.

Okay next time you have to get Double Bypass surgery go get it in Cuba :roll:. You have to consider GDP per capita, not complete GDP and certainly not GNP (there is a difference between GDP and GNP). The US has a comparable GDP per capita to Canada. But our hospitals are staffed with better doctors and more advanced technology.

Or come to Britain. Don't forget, free healthcare doesn't preclude you from going private. And higher income tax and VAT has the effect of taxing the rich, and taxing luxury. Especially if you don't charge VAT on essential items.

And private healthcare doesn't preclude having free clinics either. We have lots of those in the States. Two in my city that I know of, and probably quite a lot more.

However public healthcare DOES rob people through taxation. And most of the time, it isn't the rich that are robbed so much as the middle-class.

You are entitled to free healthcare.

How so?

Free healthcare isn't really 'free', someone has to pay for it.

Sicne hte only power the govenrmnet has is a monopoly over the use of force, you are committing robbery.

Basically that's saying you should execute any citizen can't afford healthcare. If you let the people on the street not get the care they need, they could easily die from a sickness.

You can die from a sickness no matter how much money you have.

Basically that's saying you should execute any citizen can't afford healthcare. If you let the people on the street not get the care they need, they could easily die from a sickness.

You can die from a sickness no matter how much money you have.

If you really took care if your health though you would exersize, which is free, and take a multivitamin, which costs about $30-$40 for a year's supply depending on where you live. Not using crack also helps.

Day-to-day, exactly. A high-tech institute may be the best in the world, but that doesn't make the country so.

Day-to-day, exactly. A high-tech institute may be the best in the world, but that doesn't make the country so.

Why not? If you get a cold you're going to live through it regardless of whether you have healthcare or not. If you get cancer, having good healthcare will probably make a difference! And our cancer survival rates are the HIGHEST in the world.

Canadian healthcare might be slightly better on day-to-day basis but for life-threatening things, America's is one of the best in the world.



Okay, while I know that John Hopkins is fantastic, I also know that New York General Hospital bred MRSA first because they were underfunded. There's a lot of importance in maninatining healthy day-to-day healthcare systems. The recent cuts we have experienced will ruin us as well, in the long run. May I also remind you that Canada had a private-run healthcare system until the 1970s. The people clearly didn't like it since they had to change it, and it's a well-accepted view that now it is much better than it was back then.

Now onto life-threatening:

Or take this case, a friend of mine has Hydrocephalus, he needs a very simple opetration to drain his lymphatic system and tissues of excess accumulating liquid. Back when they lived in the States they needed to pay a few thousand dollars to have that operation which has to take place a few times a year, regardless of the taxes they paid. Here it's done for free. I'd rather be Canadian if I had hydrocephalus, in other words.

Having said that I recognise the advances American medicine has made and how much are being made as we er, type. A lot of it is due to the size of the country too - after all it is ten times the population of Canada, right?

Why not? If you get a cold you're going to live through it regardless of whether you have healthcare or not.

But if it's pneumonia I'd rather be in a hospital in Vancouver than in New York. Nuff said.

Canadian healthcare might be slightly better on day-to-day basis but for life-threatening things, America's is one of the best in the world.



Okay, while I know that John Hopkins is fantastic, I also know that New York General Hospital bred MRSA first because they were underfunded. There's a lot of importance in maninatining healthy day-to-day healthcare systems. The recent cuts we have experienced will ruin us as well, in the long run. May I also remind you that Canada had a private-run healthcare system until the 1970s. The people clearly didn't like it since they had to change it, and it's a well-accepted view that now it is much better than it was back then.

Now onto life-threatening:

Or take this case, a friend of mine has Hydrocephalus, he needs a very simple opetration to drain his lymphatic system and tissues of excess accumulating liquid. Back when they lived in the States they needed to pay a few thousand dollars to have that operation which has to take place a few times a year, regardless of the taxes they paid. Here it's done for free. I'd rather be Canadian if I had hydrocephalus, in other words.

Having said that I recognise the advances American medicine has made and how much are being made as we er, type. A lot of it is due to the size of the country too - after all it is ten times the population of Canada, right?

We've also made more medical progress than Europe... which has almost triple our population.

We've also made more medical progress than Europe... which has almost triple our population.

A bit more, if you put Soviet, Brit and German together. And Europe is hardly a single political entity even today. But yes, lots of progress was done in the States, I give you that. Attracting talent and all.

We've also made more medical progress than Europe... which has almost triple our population.

A bit more, if you put Soviet, Brit and German together. And Europe is hardly a single political entity even today. But yes, lots of progress was done in the States, I give you that. Attracting talent and all.

And guess why we atract more talent? because of capitalism!

And guess why we atract more talent? because of capitalism!

True. True. It was pretty tough in Europe back then. More money in the States. It won't always be that way, of course, but that's how it used to be.

And guess why we atract more talent? because of capitalism!

True. True. It was pretty tough in Europe back then. More money in the States. It won't always be that way, of course, but that's how it used to be.

Yes it will. We have a much faster growth rate than Europe. By 2030 only one of the world's five largest economies will be in Europe.

Before Sweden adopted socialism in 1970, its economy was growing at 5.7% a year. At that rate, the per capita income of Sweden would be over $70,000 today... over double that of the United States.

Yes it will. We have a much faster growth rate than Europe. By 2030 only one of the world's five largest economies will be in Europe.

Before Sweden adopted socialism in 1970, its economy was growing at 5.7% a year. At that rate, the per capita income of Sweden would be over $70,000 today... over double that of the United States.

Okay. No you won't, in terms of research the EU has practically caught up already; specifically Sweden is growing splendidly. Secondly, the US is bankrupt, the vast majority of the States are bankrupt, the dollar is over-priced and as soon as the first Asian country or Russia graduate into a consumer economy and sell back the dollars the US will have a frighful recession. It's very fortunate for everyone that it hasn't happened yet.

Just as up in the air as your prediction, by the way.

We've also made more medical progress than Europe... which has almost triple our population.

A bit more, if you put Soviet, Brit and German together. And Europe is hardly a single political entity even today. But yes, lots of progress was done in the States, I give you that. Attracting talent and all.

And guess why we atract more talent? because of capitalism!

So... every country should abolish free healthcare so they can all attract more talent?

We've also made more medical progress than Europe... which has almost triple our population.

A bit more, if you put Soviet, Brit and German together. And Europe is hardly a single political entity even today. But yes, lots of progress was done in the States, I give you that. Attracting talent and all.

And guess why we atract more talent? because of capitalism!

So... every country should abolish free healthcare so they can all attract more talent?

Well without the talent you wouldn't HAVE much healthcare in the first place....

Well without the talent you wouldn't HAVE much healthcare in the first place....

Come on. The USSR had better healthcare than the US for a long time, until the inevitable collapse came because the bonzes drank the country away.

But what can you do eh?

Well without the talent you wouldn't HAVE much healthcare in the first place....

Come on. The USSR had better healthcare than the US for a long time, until the inevitable collapse came because the bonzes drank the country away.

But what can you do eh?

Since when did the USSR have better healthcare than the USA...? The US has been on the forefront of medical science since WWII.

We've also made more medical progress than Europe... which has almost triple our population.

A bit more, if you put Soviet, Brit and German together. And Europe is hardly a single political entity even today. But yes, lots of progress was done in the States, I give you that. Attracting talent and all.

And guess why we atract more talent? because of capitalism!

So... every country should abolish free healthcare so they can all attract more talent?

Well without the talent you wouldn't HAVE much healthcare in the first place....

My point here is that you're talking about already trained talent -- people who train in, say, England or Canada, because the Universities are much cheaper, then take their talent across to America, where you get paid more to work. So, the talent always comes from somewhere.

My point here is that you're talking about already trained talent -- people who train in, say, England or Canada, because the Universities are much cheaper, then take their talent across to America, where you get paid more to work. So, the talent always comes from somewhere.

Johns Hopkins University has the best Med School in the world... And if you're poor you can get a scholarship... only about 10% of college students pay the asking price on their schoools...

Since when did the USSR have better healthcare than the USA...? The US has been on the forefront of medical science since WWII.

Okay maybe I was too extreme in my claims but - they had a better vaccination system, better knowledge of physiotherapy, they disocovered the macrophage; Also, lots of research was and still is undisclosed and lots of American scince papers refused to recognise Soviet research. I'm not saying that overall more research was done, because there probably wasn't, they were too busy with rockets, but the citizen was covered, medically. Now with capitalism in place the population is dropping, life expectancy is dropping, easily preventable diseases have resurfaced and in fact things are pretty bleak. The private sector cannot be trusted to take care of a population because that's not its job.

Johns Hopkins University has the best Med School in the world... And if you're poor you can get a scholarship... only about 10% of college students pay the asking price on their schoools...

Very unequivocal there, are you? But yes, it's a great school.
Still doesn't change the fact that so many Americans come here to study because they can't study at home. And so many of our grads go there to work, make money and come back here to live.

Since when did the USSR have better healthcare than the USA...? The US has been on the forefront of medical science since WWII.

Okay maybe I was too extreme in my claims but - they had a better vaccination system, better knowledge of physiotherapy, they disocovered the macrophage; Also, lots of research was and still is undisclosed and lots of American scince papers refused to recognise Soviet research. I'm not saying that overall more research was done, because there probably wasn't, they were too busy with rockets, but the citizen was covered, medically. Now with capitalism in place the population is dropping, life expectancy is dropping, easily preventable diseases have resurfaced and in fact things are pretty bleak. The private sector cannot be trusted to take care of a population because that's not its job.

Wait... life expectancy is dropping in capitalist countries? I'll need proof for that since that hasn't happened in any countries for hundreds of years.

Also, the Soviets didn't actually research too much on rockets. Their scientists were literally forced to work at gunpoint. That's not very effective way of working. All their rocket science was stolen from the Germans. This is why Stalin was so eager to tkae Berlin (and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute) even though he already agreed to share it with the Allies.

My point here is that you're talking about already trained talent -- people who train in, say, England or Canada, because the Universities are much cheaper, then take their talent across to America, where you get paid more to work. So, the talent always comes from somewhere.

Johns Hopkins University has the best Med School in the world... And if you're poor you can get a scholarship... only about 10% of college students pay the asking price on their schoools...

Except foreign students...

My point here is that you're talking about already trained talent -- people who train in, say, England or Canada, because the Universities are much cheaper, then take their talent across to America, where you get paid more to work. So, the talent always comes from somewhere.

Johns Hopkins University has the best Med School in the world... And if you're poor you can get a scholarship... only about 10% of college students pay the asking price on their schoools...

Except foreign students...

This figure comes from the Princeton Review and INCLUDES foreign student.

My dad was getting his graduate degrees at the University of Delaware while still on his green card, and he ended up getting his tuition refunded 100% because of university policies regarding getting straight-As.

Wait... life expectancy is dropping in capitalist countries? I'll need proof for that since that hasn't happened in any countries for hundreds of years..

No, just in Capitalist Russia compared to Socialist Russia.

Also, the Soviets didn't actually research too much on rockets. Their scientists were literally forced to work at gunpoint. That's not very effective way of working. All their rocket science was stolen from the Germans. This is why Stalin was so eager to tkae Berlin (and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute) even though he already agreed to share it with the Allies.

dude, for all your good points you give in to too much propaganda. The soviet rocket superiority started the space race and the cold war. The names of the scientists are very well known, even though many did work in prison. Rather than being forced to work at gunpoint most were put to prison for having dangerous ideas. It was a very bad climate for research because of all teh paranoia but there was still a lot done nonetheless. For the record American rocketry was also stolen from the germans, same place, same time. Soviet scince was behind on telecommunications, say, but not in rocketry. In fact russian rockets are still more reliable than any others, if a little old.

No, just in Capitalist Russia compared to Socialist Russia.

This is because Russia made the transition too quickly. I've already explained in another thread why the transition to capitalism should go slowly. If you look at China, China DID transition slower than Russia... it started in the early eighties. Now it is doing better than it EVER did under the communists.

The Chinese government has realized this, basing their economic reforms in the CITIES, where people ARE educated and there IS more respect for property rights. Even IF the government is oppressive and there isn't much Rule of Law.

So in China the cities are capitalist and the countryside is still communist. Shanghai's per capita income is over triple the rest of the mainland.

Russia made a very sudden transition in the early 90s. Then it hit a wall. It didn't possess the necessary prerequisistes for capitalism (Responsible Government, Rule of Law, Property Rights, Universal Education). Thus it crashed. In 2000, China ranked MORE capitalist than Russia (though Russia ranked more capitalist until 95 or 96).


dude, for all your good points you give in to too much propaganda. The soviet rocket superiority started the space race and the cold war. The names of the scientists are very well known, even though many did work in prison. Rather than being forced to work at gunpoint most were put to prison for having dangerous ideas. It was a very bad climate for research because of all teh paranoia but there was still a lot done nonetheless. For the record American rocketry was also stolen from the germans, same place, same time. Soviet scince was behind on telecommunications, say, but not in rocketry. In fact russian rockets are still more reliable than any others, if a little old.

Yeah we stole a lot from the Nazis too, I admit. All their top scientists came to work for us because the Soviets would've shot them. But the Soviets got all the blueprints and stuff. Sputnik's engine was virtually identical to the old German V2 engines only with better fuels...

Since when did the USSR have better healthcare than the USA...? The US has been on the forefront of medical science since WWII.

Okay maybe I was too extreme in my claims but - they had a better vaccination system, better knowledge of physiotherapy, they disocovered the macrophage;

They also had horrible famines for years because of a political agenda against Mendelian genetics.

Also, lots of research was and still is undisclosed and lots of American scince papers refused to recognise Soviet research. I'm not saying that overall more research was done, because there probably wasn't, they were too busy with rockets, but the citizen was covered, medically. Now with capitalism in place the population is dropping, life expectancy is dropping, easily preventable diseases have resurfaced and in fact things are pretty bleak. The private sector cannot be trusted to take care of a population because that's not its job.

Actually, the standard of living has risen. I'd really like to see where you're getting your figures from.

Actually, the standard of living has risen. I'd really like to see where you're getting your figures from.

Really? The amount of shopping malls has risen, but so has the amount of tuberculosis cases. you know nothing, keep quiet.

Since when did the USSR have better healthcare than the USA...? The US has been on the forefront of medical science since WWII.

Okay maybe I was too extreme in my claims but - they had a better vaccination system, better knowledge of physiotherapy, they disocovered the macrophage; Also, lots of research was and still is undisclosed and lots of American scince papers refused to recognise Soviet research. I'm not saying that overall more research was done, because there probably wasn't, they were too busy with rockets, but the citizen was covered, medically. Now with capitalism in place the population is dropping, life expectancy is dropping, easily preventable diseases have resurfaced and in fact things are pretty bleak. The private sector cannot be trusted to take care of a population because that's not its job.

Not true, it's not the government's job to make sure each citizen is in healthy condition. It is the citizen's job. The citizen chooses which private entity would serve him best (or if he's unconcious, his family), and has to trust in them, not in the government.

When we start believing that the government should take care of us, we may as well submit all of our responsibilities, and thus, all our freedom to them. If the government is given the power to rule over a person's every day life, they practically become a dictatorship, and all the citizens become mindless sheep that have no purpose but to serve the oppressive government.

Since when did the USSR have better healthcare than the USA...? The US has been on the forefront of medical science since WWII.

Okay maybe I was too extreme in my claims but - they had a better vaccination system, better knowledge of physiotherapy, they disocovered the macrophage; Also, lots of research was and still is undisclosed and lots of American scince papers refused to recognise Soviet research. I'm not saying that overall more research was done, because there probably wasn't, they were too busy with rockets, but the citizen was covered, medically. Now with capitalism in place the population is dropping, life expectancy is dropping, easily preventable diseases have resurfaced and in fact things are pretty bleak. The private sector cannot be trusted to take care of a population because that's not its job.

Not true, it's not the government's job to make sure each citizen is in healthy condition. It is the citizen's job. The citizen chooses which private entity would serve him best (or if he's unconcious, his family), and has to trust in them, not in the government.

When we start believing that the government should take care of us, we may as well submit all of our responsibilities, and thus, all our freedom to them. If the government is given the power to rule over a person's every day life, they practically become a dictatorship, and all the citizens become mindless sheep that have no purpose but to serve the oppressive government.


Spoken like an L-Der :lol:

Since when did the USSR have better healthcare than the USA...? The US has been on the forefront of medical science since WWII.

Okay maybe I was too extreme in my claims but - they had a better vaccination system, better knowledge of physiotherapy, they disocovered the macrophage; Also, lots of research was and still is undisclosed and lots of American scince papers refused to recognise Soviet research. I'm not saying that overall more research was done, because there probably wasn't, they were too busy with rockets, but the citizen was covered, medically. Now with capitalism in place the population is dropping, life expectancy is dropping, easily preventable diseases have resurfaced and in fact things are pretty bleak. The private sector cannot be trusted to take care of a population because that's not its job.

Not true, it's not the government's job to make sure each citizen is in healthy condition. It is the citizen's job. The citizen chooses which private entity would serve him best (or if he's unconcious, his family), and has to trust in them, not in the government.

When we start believing that the government should take care of us, we may as well submit all of our responsibilities, and thus, all our freedom to them. If the government is given the power to rule over a person's every day life, they practically become a dictatorship, and all the citizens become mindless sheep that have no purpose but to serve the oppressive government.


Spoken like an L-Der :lol:

ha, i watched the finals at Wake, that was enough L-D for me :P. Btw, how'd ya do?

ha, i watched the finals at Wake, that was enough L-D for me :P. Btw, how'd ya do?

I went 2-4. Not too good i know. Both of hte rounds I won were on Neg.

At least nobody withdrew their funding for Forensics after watching an L-D event unlike some other events I could name *cough*policy*cough*

ha, i watched the finals at Wake, that was enough L-D for me :P. Btw, how'd ya do?

I went 2-4. Not too good i know. Both of hte rounds I won were on Neg.

At least nobody withdrew their funding for Forensics after watching an L-D event unlike some other events I could name *cough*policy*cough*


man, that topic was evil :-/. I would hate to go affirmative on it, i'd be gagging the entire time :P.
*we're getting off topic*

heh...

Not true, it's not the government's job to make sure each citizen is in healthy condition. It is the citizen's job. The citizen chooses which private entity would serve him best (or if he's unconcious, his family), and has to trust in them, not in the government. .

What if the citizen is unable? And why is a private entity better than a public one? Because of your personal conceit that that is the right way?



When we start believing that the government should take care of us, we may as well submit all of our responsibilities, and thus, all our freedom to them. If the government is given the power to rule over a person's every day life, they practically become a dictatorship, and all the citizens become mindless sheep that have no purpose but to serve the oppressive government.

Spoken like a true alarmist. Nothing else to add to that.

May I point out that for millenia there was no social systems and the citizens did everything for themselves; there were no systems to protect them against disease, unfair harassment or violence. I doubt that we had it any better than today though, and most people would agree with me.

If you really want to have a mediaeval society where might makes right and wealth gives health go ahead and live in one, there's plenty of them out there. I will remain here and try to build a better society.

Not true, it's not the government's job to make sure each citizen is in healthy condition. It is the citizen's job. The citizen chooses which private entity would serve him best (or if he's unconcious, his family), and has to trust in them, not in the government. .

What if the citizen is unable? And why is a private entity better than a public one? Because of your personal conceit that that is the right way?

If the citizen is unable, instead of turning to the government, he/she should turn to religious houses (like churches) or other types of charities, like the Salvation Army.

Private entities are better than public ones for two reasons:
1: public ones have a set standard; private ones have to not only have the public standard, but in a practice that wants to thrive, the standard is upped more, giving more capable doctors

2: in public institutions, the people who take up the job don't usually do their job with maximum efficiency. Why? Simple, not only do they not have to worry about losing their job if they screw up, but they won't get paid any better if they do a good job or work harder. When a person is given the incentive that if they work harder, they get more money, you can bet that they are going to work pretty hard. When a person knows he can lose his job if he isn't very good, he's going to work his ass off.




When we start believing that the government should take care of us, we may as well submit all of our responsibilities, and thus, all our freedom to them. If the government is given the power to rule over a person's every day life, they practically become a dictatorship, and all the citizens become mindless sheep that have no purpose but to serve the oppressive government.

Spoken like a true alarmist. Nothing else to add to that.

May I point out that for millenia there was no social systems and the citizens did everything for themselves; there were no systems to protect them against disease, unfair harassment or violence. I doubt that we had it any better than today though, and most people would agree with me.


citizens now don't have to worry about the disease of yester-year; becuase we have much better sanitation.

unfair harrassment? be a little more clear on this point, please.

Violence? what does this have to do with health care? I'm not arguing about any other social system in this argument, therefore i'm going to omit this one, unless you can link them.

These days are really good, but i would think them better if I didn't have to worry about paying for someone else's health care through not only taxes but through charities ( I give to charities, so in essence, i would be paying twice for the same thing). Charities alone do nicely.



If you really want to have a mediaeval society where might makes right and wealth gives health go ahead and live in one, there's plenty of them out there.


i don't see where "might makes right" comes into the picture, considering we are talking about wealth...

You are certainly correct! Wealth gives health! Wealth does a lot of things because we are in a capitalist society! We need to understand that if we want something, we need to earn the wealth to afford it. Wealth is a measure of how much a person was willing to risk in order to become successful (except for people who inherit their money). Many people abhor Bill Gates for the reasons that he's rich. But why? He EARNED that money! Yet every year, we take 40-50% of his money away from him, so we can give it to somebody who not only didn't earn that money, but isn't doing anything to help himself. Add this to the fact that Bill Gates gives millions to charity alone, and you got this great amount of wealth being pumped out of Gates' wallet and into other people.

I will remain here and try to build a better society


That's what Marx said, what happened to his philosophy?

TGM, you know why neither Cato, nor no rights passed.

It is because we do not like you slipping very regressive articles in with the otherwise wonderful proposal.

I endorsed them as I thought that people out to debate them, but after the tantrum that you threw with "The Socializm Acts" and "Right to Enslave" I, and I suspect many other delegates, will never take any proposal that you put forth seriously again.

Peace, Truth, and Justice,
Luke,
President of the United Socialist States of Qaaolchoura,
Founder and Delegate, Zhaucauozian Friendship,
Hawk of the UN Proposals,
Pesterer of Enodia

man, that topic was evil :-/. I would hate to go affirmative on it, i'd be gagging the entire time :P.
*we're getting off topic*
heh...

Well... remember the topic March of 2002?

"Resolved: Limiting Freedom of Expression is Justified in the Interest of Protecting the Children."

There were people running cases like:
VP- Ultimate Truth
VC- Anarchists' Social Contract

C1- Child porn is bad
C2- Violence hurts kids
C3- Censorship is fun

Okay not that stupid but I actually DID have to debate people who used Ultimate Truth or Anarchist Social Contract as VPs.

I posted a joke case on that topic on the lddebate.org case exchange:
VP- Survival of the Human Species
VC- Biological Fitness of children

C1- Pornography increases rates of reproduction
C2- Violence in Media teaches children basic self-defense skills

This scarred the class of 2005 such as myself for the rest of their high school careers.

Well at least we don't have to debate national ocean policy. One of our seniors who did policy for three years is switching to L-D cause of that.

BTW How'd you do at Wake?

I'm going to Minneapolis next. (Or Minneapple as it's called :roll:).

If the citizen is unable, instead of turning to the government, he/she should turn to religious houses (like churches) or other types of charities, like the Salvation Army.


Anyone but you. Like people who care. Fair enough.


Private entities are better than public ones for two reasons:
1: public ones have a set standard; private ones have to not only have the public standard, but in a practice that wants to thrive, the standard is upped more, giving more capable doctors


That is very highly debatable but you seem to think your own position is necessarily true. Disappointing you should see it that way.

citizens now don't have to worry about the disease of yester-year; becuase we have much better sanitation.

Sanitaion is always a public affair. Show me where a private company would run a sewer? Same thing with vaccination programs and the ilk. You cannot thank the private sector for today's health advances because there's nothing to thank them for.

i don't see where "might makes right" comes into the picture, considering we are talking about wealth...

Righto. I do. Most people do. You hide your head in the sand.

we need to earn the wealth to afford it. Wealth is a measure of how much a person was willing to risk in order to become successful


Right. Nothing you do is worth the amount of stuff you recieve by being a member of this society. I've said it before and I will say it again. the wealth you earn is useless outside the context of this society that you live in. You don't do enough to make statements like we need to earn the wealth to afford it even if you're a doctor, which you most probably aren't, you still don't.

that's what Marx said, what happened to his philosophy?

good question. i'd like to know what happened to it. as far as i know it's still around.

If the citizen is unable, instead of turning to the government, he/she should turn to religious houses (like churches) or other types of charities, like the Salvation Army.


Anyone but you. Like people who care. Fair enough.

I'm pretty sure i have already stated i PERSONALLY give to charities.




Private entities are better than public ones for two reasons:
1: public ones have a set standard; private ones have to not only have the public standard, but in a practice that wants to thrive, the standard is upped more, giving more capable doctors


That is very highly debatable but you seem to think your own position is necessarily true. Disappointing you should see it that way.

Gee, highly debatable. Well, that means there are two or more interpretations. I find it disappointing you don't believe my interpretation, and that you don't see it that way.




citizens now don't have to worry about the disease of yester-year; becuase we have much better sanitation.

Sanitaion is always a public affair. Show me where a private company would run a sewer? Same thing with vaccination programs and the ilk. You cannot thank the private sector for today's health advances because there's nothing to thank them for.

point taken on this matter ^_^ I secede this point.



i don't see where "might makes right" comes into the picture, considering we are talking about wealth...

Righto. I do. Most people do. You hide your head in the sand.


instead of insulting me, you could at least do me the favor of explaining what you mean by this quote...



we need to earn the wealth to afford it. Wealth is a measure of how much a person was willing to risk in order to become successful


Right. Nothing you do is worth the amount of stuff you recieve by being a member of this society. I've said it before and I will say it again. the wealth you earn is useless outside the context of this society that you live in. You don't do enough to make statements like we need to earn the wealth to afford it even if you're a doctor, which you most probably aren't, you still don't.



I particularly am not a doctor, but both my parents are. If you are getting at the point that people aren't getting money for doing random acts of kindness or being good people, and the only people who are getting money are the ones who are corrupted and evil, then i would say that i'm not the only one brainwashed by our society. Lot's of good people made a lot of money doing things for their community. doctor's make much wealth doing good things, although many people believe they are paid too much to save lives. Now, not all money had is money earned, as seen by sports and entertainment personalities, but as they say in capitalist countries, supply and demand. A hard-working person, someone who genuinely wants a job, who isn't smoking some drug, and is really determined should technically under our society be favored; since the determined, hard-working employee is the one that works most productively.

the italics.... "We need to earn wealth to afford 'it'"... what's "it"? to afford wealth? :-/



that's what Marx said, what happened to his philosophy?

good question. i'd like to know what happened to it. as far as i know it's still around.

Every time people tried to use it, the government quickly rose to power as an oppressive dictatorship. It's been proven to NOT work. Under real life situations, communism doesn't work. It's too idealistic.. it's like utopia: perfect, but flawed in the fact that it breaks down when the factor of human nature is added. That's why Capitalism works soo well. It's BASED on human nature.

man, that topic was evil :-/. I would hate to go affirmative on it, i'd be gagging the entire time :P.
*we're getting off topic*
heh...

Well... remember the topic March of 2002?

"Resolved: Limiting Freedom of Expression is Justified in the Interest of Protecting the Children."

There were people running cases like:
VP- Ultimate Truth
VC- Anarchists' Social Contract

C1- Child porn is bad
C2- Violence hurts kids
C3- Censorship is fun

Okay not that stupid but I actually DID have to debate people who used Ultimate Truth or Anarchist Social Contract as VPs.

I posted a joke case on that topic on the lddebate.org case exchange:
VP- Survival of the Human Species
VC- Biological Fitness of children

C1- Pornography increases rates of reproduction
C2- Violence in Media teaches children basic self-defense skills

This scarred the class of 2005 such as myself for the rest of their high school careers.

Well at least we don't have to debate national ocean policy. One of our seniors who did policy for three years is switching to L-D cause of that.

BTW How'd you do at Wake?

I'm going to Minneapolis next. (Or Minneapple as it's called :roll:).

I got to quarters in Humourous Interpretation ^_^ (top 12)

I'm going to University of Pennsylvania (1 week from now) next.

My point here is that you're talking about already trained talent -- people who train in, say, England or Canada, because the Universities are much cheaper, then take their talent across to America, where you get paid more to work. So, the talent always comes from somewhere.

Johns Hopkins University has the best Med School in the world... And if you're poor you can get a scholarship... only about 10% of college students pay the asking price on their schoools...

Except foreign students...

This figure comes from the Princeton Review and INCLUDES foreign student.

My dad was getting his graduate degrees at the University of Delaware while still on his green card, and he ended up getting his tuition refunded 100% because of university policies regarding getting straight-As.

Wow! That sounds great. I hope that happens when I do my MFA in NY *hopes very hard*.

I think this needs to be said:

As a doctor myself, we are REQUIRED to take and uphold the Hippocratic Oath, which states we will heal people in need. Period.
Financial aspects are worked out AFTER treatment. No one is put out on the streets for not paying. A doctor can be sued (and kicked out of the profession) for doing just that.

Poor people would not (and do not) die for that reason in countries that do not have socialized medicine. If you don't want to DESTROY medical innovation and all future hope of drugs against horrible diseases now, you will resist government control of the medical profession.

I think this needs to be said:

As a doctor myself, we are REQUIRED to take and uphold the Hippocratic Oath, which states we will heal people in need. Period.
Financial aspects are worked out AFTER treatment. No one is put out on the streets for not paying. A doctor can be sued (and kicked out of the profession) for doing just that.

Poor people would not (and do not) die for that reason in countries that do not have socialized medicine. If you don't want to DESTROY medical innovation and all future hope of drugs against horrible diseases now, you will resist government control of the medical profession.

You may not be able to refuse treatment, but people can most certainly get into huge debt they'll never be able to get out of, and end up losing everything up to their home because of it. You also DO NOT receive free pysciatric care, which means people who could be saved from suicide often aren't because they can't pay.

If you don't want to DESTROY medical innovation and all future hope of drugs against horrible diseases now, you will resist government control of the medical profession.

I know more than one doctor who says the opposite.

Under real life situations, communism doesn't work. It's too idealistic.. it's like utopia: perfect, but flawed in the fact that it breaks down when the factor of human nature is added. That's why Capitalism works soo well. It's BASED on human nature.

I agree that currently communism is impossible. We are insufficiently technologically advanced and our social planning systems are highly flawed. Maybe it will be feasible much much much later.

AS to the point of being a doctor. Even if you are a doctor, the amount of work you do cannot provide you with the standard of living you are enjoing in a civilised country if you're not in a civilised country. It is agreed that doctors get paid well, but that's only society's conceit, although I agree with it. If you translate a doctor's work into real economic benefits s/he won't be really producing as much as s/he is getting.

Er. Okay. Basically, wealth is only relevant in a social context. It is irrelevant in the context that the bill puts it, that of property.

Cheers.

I think this needs to be said:

As a doctor myself, we are REQUIRED to take and uphold the Hippocratic Oath, which states we will heal people in need. Period.
Financial aspects are worked out AFTER treatment. No one is put out on the streets for not paying. A doctor can be sued (and kicked out of the profession) for doing just that.

Poor people would not (and do not) die for that reason in countries that do not have socialized medicine. If you don't want to DESTROY medical innovation and all future hope of drugs against horrible diseases now, you will resist government control of the medical profession.

AMEN :lol:

A further point, because of the US government stranglehold on doctor's and medical regulation, doctors in certain states are going on strike. Some hospitals are closing down some of their facilities, and people may start feeling the impact very soon....

Under real life situations, communism doesn't work. It's too idealistic.. it's like utopia: perfect, but flawed in the fact that it breaks down when the factor of human nature is added. That's why Capitalism works soo well. It's BASED on human nature.

I agree that currently communism is impossible. We are insufficiently technologically advanced and our social planning systems are highly flawed. Maybe it will be feasible much much much later.

If you figure it out, let me know :o


AS to the point of being a doctor. Even if you are a doctor, the amount of work you do cannot provide you with the standard of living you are enjoing in a civilised country if you're not in a civilised country. It is agreed that doctors get paid well, but that's only society's conceit, although I agree with it. If you translate a doctor's work into real economic benefits s/he won't be really producing as much as s/he is getting.


Doctor's do surgeries, diagnose, etc. In an economic sense, you can translate all the things a doctor does to "services" and change the "medical practice" to "medical industry". Therefore, it can be seen that because money is exchanged for services, doctors are being paid for what they do (except for in the case where they do stuff for free, which can be common in some cases). That is in a capitalist economy, of course. I have no information on how it would work in other types...


Er. Okay. Basically, wealth is only relevant in a social context. It is irrelevant in the context that the bill puts it, that of property.

Cheers.
i must be stupid, cause i still can't make out what this phrase means-_-

You can die from a sickness no matter how much money you have.

If you really took care if your health though you would exersize, which is free, and take a multivitamin, which costs about $30-$40 for a year's supply depending on where you live. Not using crack also helps.

That is why we need to build up our money. We need something to spend in the afterworld.

It may or may not be a universal right for a person to have adequate health care. It is inarguably the right thing to do to at least try to ensure that all people have such coverage. A just-released Congressional Budget Office study shows that nearly 60 million Americans lack health insurance at some point during the year. The number of uninsured is soaring at the rate of nearly 1 million people every year. More than 40% of uninsured adults postponed seeking medical care last year alone. Insurance costs paid by working families are increasing exponentially, and 1,300 babies are born in this country without health insurance every day; at the same time we're planning to slash funding for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $2.5 billion. The food or medicine decision that is forced on people in this country every day should disgust us all.

While uninsured patients are rarely turned away, they are NOT afforded the same treatment as those with insurance coverage. They are not provided regular examinations for the purposes of preventing illness, only emergency care. In terms of emergency care for the uninsured, the same tests are not run, the same care is not taken RE: overnight observation, and on and on. The dismissive nature of the uber-capitalist argument (all jobs provide health care - lie; most poor people don't take proper care of themselves and/or smoke crack - lie) makes all capitalists look bad and does nothing more than build the cold-hearted capitalist caricature. We all need to step away from the rhetoric of whatever economic or political system that serves to define us and agree upon what in principle should be so bloody simple to agree upon: it is not right that so many children are allowed to BECOME sick, simply because their parents are poor.

Why not? If you get a cold you're going to live through it regardless of whether you have healthcare or not. If you get cancer, having good healthcare will probably make a difference! And our cancer survival rates are the HIGHEST in the world.

Cancer is an insignificant problem if you look at it in a world perspective. It is a problem for rich people in rich countries.
Now, you talk about a cold. But people do die from these things in LEDCs. You ignorance astounds me. Per day, around 24,000 children die from diarrhoea (is that how you spell it?) - rehydration salts that could save their lives cost 50p a packet. Good healthcare is not high tech stuff that only the rich can afford: it is about helping eveybody on the things that are the main problems.

Auskordarg fully agrees with the Global Market and shows its backing for the Bill of No Rights.

Skund Beckenstein, Foreign Secretary of the Dictatorship of Auskordarg

What a bunch of nerds.

Why not? If you get a cold you're going to live through it regardless of whether you have healthcare or not. If you get cancer, having good healthcare will probably make a difference! And our cancer survival rates are the HIGHEST in the world.

Cancer is an insignificant problem if you look at it in a world perspective. It is a problem for rich people in rich countries.
Now, you talk about a cold. But people do die from these things in LEDCs. You ignorance astounds me. Per day, around 24,000 children die from diarrhoea (is that how you spell it?) - rehydration salts that could save their lives cost 50p a packet. Good healthcare is not high tech stuff that only the rich can afford: it is about helping eveybody on the things that are the main problems.

It's not physically possible to die from a cold.

ANd oral rehydration packets, for $240,000, will save 3 million lives annaully. This is eight cents per treatment. Anyoen can afford this.

The problem ISNT that they have no money... it's that there isn't any place that they can go to buy this stuff... this is because their countries lack stability and are unable to attact businesses willing to sell it.

Besides, all the aid we give to third-world governments... it doesn't go to things like this... it all ends up in Switzerland.

Besides, all the aid we give to third-world governments... it doesn't go to things like this... it all ends up in Switzerland.

Switzerland?! How is this (It may seem like a dumb question but I am truly puzzled!)?

Don't be stupid, you can die from a cold if you have an immunodeficiency syndrome like AIDS. And, yes, the problem is about availability of medicines. But governments not allowing businesses to sell it is a lie - corporations charge highly for necessary medicines, not particularly rehydration salts but those in tackling AIDS. They use copyright to stop countries "making their own".

It's not physically possible to die from a cold.
No, but a common cold can degenerate into pneumonia if you ignore it. And pneumonia CAN and DOES kill people. Poor people, that is.

ANd oral rehydration packets, for $240,000, will save 3 million lives annaully. This is eight cents per treatment. Anyone can afford this.
Ha ha ha ha!! You don't really have a clue what real poverty means, do you? There are tens of millions of people in the world who can't even afford to buy a piece of bread.

I suggest you come down from your ivory tower and face reality, my friend.

92% of the world have no available money whatsoever.

It's not physically possible to die from a cold.
No, but a common cold can degenerate into pneumonia if you ignore it. And pneumonia CAN and DOES kill people. Poor people, that is.

ANd oral rehydration packets, for $240,000, will save 3 million lives annaully. This is eight cents per treatment. Anyone can afford this.
Ha ha ha ha!! You don't really have a clue what real poverty means, do you? There are tens of millions of people in the world who can't even afford to buy a piece of bread.

I suggest you come down from your ivory tower and face reality, my friend.

Why don't you look at ACTUAL STATISTICS. The lowest per capita income in the world is BURUNDI, and that is an income of $120. EIGHT CENTS OUT OF $120 IS NOTHING!! You might not be able to afford a loaf of bread every day, but you can certainly afford a half slice of bread EVERY YEAR!

Why don't you look at ACTUAL STATISTICS. The lowest per capita income in the world is BURUNDI, and that is an income of $120. EIGHT CENTS OUT OF $120 IS NOTHING!! You might not be able to afford a loaf of bread every day, but you can certainly afford a half slice of bread EVERY YEAR!

Well actually you are wrong there.

According to the CIA World Factbook 2003 the poorest country is: East Timor at $500 a year.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tt.html#Econ

Don't be stupid, you can die from a cold if you have an immunodeficiency syndrome like AIDS. And, yes, the problem is about availability of medicines. But governments not allowing businesses to sell it is a lie - corporations charge highly for necessary medicines, not particularly rehydration salts but those in tackling AIDS. They use copyright to stop countries "making their own".

Now of course without the corporations those drugs wouldn't exist in the first place...

Why don't you look at ACTUAL STATISTICS. The lowest per capita income in the world is BURUNDI, and that is an income of $120. EIGHT CENTS OUT OF $120 IS NOTHING!! You might not be able to afford a loaf of bread every day, but you can certainly afford a half slice of bread EVERY YEAR!

Well actually you are wrong there.

According to the CIA World Factbook 2003 the poorest country is: East Timor at $500 a year.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tt.html#Econ

Do they have stats for places like Burundi and Somalia? Are you sure? Because I'm using United Nations stats and Burundi is the lowest at $120... There's lots of countries under $500.

And if you're right, then... that makes my case even better.

I've had a cold for three days with no medication or anything. I'm not getting pneumonia though I do have a rather shallow breath as of now.

The lowest income I think is $80 per annum in Sierra Leone, but that's from memory.
State-owned enterprises would devote less time to finding ways to make more profit and more time improving, discovering and didtributing medicines. So they would exist. The USSR (although I do not like them) had the finest biochemists in Eurasia.

I made sensible proposals (Cato, etc.). None of them passed.

Well, one of them passed, teh Fifth Amendment.

As far as I know, you've had three proposals make it to quorum. One of them passed. Two of them didn't. Of the two that didn't, one of them wasn't serious (Bill of No Rights), and my region opposed it for that reason. Cato was more serious, but it covered so many things that it was easy to find something objectionable. You'd probably have more luck pushing through one issue at a time.

If you're frustrated that your two latest resolutions failed, the solution is not to spam the UN with satirical proposals that will never pass. Instead, keep coming up with serious proposals, or else stop posting proposals altogether.

Do they have stats for places like Burundi and Somalia? Are you sure? Because I'm using United Nations stats and Burundi is the lowest at $120... There's lots of countries under $500.

And if you're right, then... that makes my case even better.

I've had a cold for three days with no medication or anything. I'm not getting pneumonia though I do have a rather shallow breath as of now.

Yep they do - click here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Do they have stats for places like Burundi and Somalia? Are you sure? Because I'm using United Nations stats and Burundi is the lowest at $120... There's lots of countries under $500.

And if you're right, then... that makes my case even better.
Oh yes, $500 per year! How incredibly rich! They can obviously afford anything. :roll:

Do they have stats for places like Burundi and Somalia? Are you sure? Because I'm using United Nations stats and Burundi is the lowest at $120... There's lots of countries under $500.

And if you're right, then... that makes my case even better.
Oh yes, $500 per year! How incredibly rich! They can obviously afford anything. :roll:

They can certianly afford EIGHT CENTS PER YEAR which is what oral rehydration salts cost.

Do they have stats for places like Burundi and Somalia? Are you sure? Because I'm using United Nations stats and Burundi is the lowest at $120... There's lots of countries under $500.

And if you're right, then... that makes my case even better.
Oh yes, $500 per year! How incredibly rich! They can obviously afford anything. :roll:

They can certianly afford EIGHT CENTS PER YEAR which is what oral rehydration salts cost.

That is quite true. Whilst they are immensly poor they can afford 8 cents a year.

Do they have stats for places like Burundi and Somalia? Are you sure? Because I'm using United Nations stats and Burundi is the lowest at $120... There's lots of countries under $500.

And if you're right, then... that makes my case even better.
Oh yes, $500 per year! How incredibly rich! They can obviously afford anything. :roll:

They can certianly afford EIGHT CENTS PER YEAR which is what oral rehydration salts cost.

That is quite true. Whilst they are immensly poor they can afford 8 cents a year.

500 USD a year, NOT in America, is certainly enough money to keep alive, and certainly enough that a person could live off of in a third world country. The government has no responsibility towards the people's happiness nor the standard of their life, only that they live and that they can pursue happiness.(at least America's constitution says that)

Catholic Europe, teh CIA factbook uses the PPP system. This is why we had different figures.

China's Real GDP per capita is about $1,500. But using the PPP system it is well over $4,000. This is because Chinese goods are so cheap and the government has low tariffs.

I guess this applies to Burundi as well. Though my $120 statistic IS a few years outdated.

Of course they can afford 8 cents per year. However, these people DESPERATELY NEED those salts. So what's to stop corporations from taking advantage of the poor people's desperate situation and to raise the prices of rehydration salts?

The government has no responsibility towards the people's happiness nor the standard of their life, only that they live and that they can pursue happiness.(at least America's constitution says that)
The government is invested with power BY THE PEOPLE, and it exists for one purpose and one purpose alone: To serve the interests of the people, whatever those interests may be. Having high standards of living is certainly in the interest of the people, therefore the government has an obligation to provide the people with standards of living which are as high as possible.

Remember, the government is a TOOL OF THE PEOPLE. So it obviously has obligations towards the people.

Don't be stupid, you can die from a cold if you have an immunodeficiency syndrome like AIDS. And, yes, the problem is about availability of medicines. But governments not allowing businesses to sell it is a lie - corporations charge highly for necessary medicines, not particularly rehydration salts but those in tackling AIDS. They use copyright to stop countries "making their own".

I think you forget the amount of work that goes into the creation of such drugs which tackle AIDS. If you were ever in biology, you would know that AIDS is cause by the HIV virus. Viruses change SOO often, that not only is there no cure, but no vaccination and certainly little to do that will save their lives. drugs which halt AIDS for short periods of time will only work for a period of a month, in which the HIV virus has enough time to evolve and thus make the medication useless. So, it would take LOTS of money every year to make those drugs, make NEW drugs, discontinue or reship OLD drugs, and then find out that they don't work. If those corporations were to lower the prices, all you will do is:

1: give the person taking the drugs a couple days more.
2: the corporations lose LOTS of profit, so now you have either people losing jobs or having huge cuts in their salary

So, by the laws of capitalism, making governments slash prices on such goods will ultimately lead to a downhill spiral for everyone. Remember California's Energy crisis? What was the problem there? Simple; the government thought the prices were too high. So, they lowered them. California suffered from many blackouts and brownouts, simply because the plants were not making enough money to sustain their systems OR pay their workers. I'm quite sure a couple may have actually shut down. When government puts limits on businesses, EVERYBODY loses.

Therefore, putting limits towards the amount a business could sell something is a horrible idea, which will get many people in the poor countries dying at a faster rate (the drugs brought to them will not be as effective as the more expensive stuff), and the workers and businesses lose lots of money, causing a great wave of unemployment coming from that industry.

Of course they can afford 8 cents per year. However, these people DESPERATELY NEED those salts. So what's to stop corporations from taking advantage of the poor people's desperate situation and to raise the prices of rehydration salts?

The government has no responsibility towards the people's happiness nor the standard of their life, only that they live and that they can pursue happiness.(at least America's constitution says that)
The government is invested with power BY THE PEOPLE, and it exists for one purpose and one purpose alone: To serve the interests of the people, whatever those interests may be. Having high standards of living is certainly in the interest of the people, therefore the government has an obligation to provide the people with standards of living which are as high as possible.

Remember, the government is a TOOL OF THE PEOPLE. So it obviously has obligations towards the people.

The Corporations don't have to raise the price of dehydration salts.

You have local business as well. And corporations can't claim a monopoly without government help. Water plus sugar plus a wee bit of salt.

The problem is that there ARENT any corporations or any other sort of business for that matter in those parts of the world.

In third-world Latin America and East Asia, there are VERY FEW diarreha deaths and starvation deaths, THANKS TO CORPORATE INVESTMENT.

80-90% of the three million diarreha deaths each year are in Subsaharan African countries with very little outside investment.

Of course they can afford 8 cents per year. However, these people DESPERATELY NEED those salts. So what's to stop corporations from taking advantage of the poor people's desperate situation and to raise the prices of rehydration salts?

simple: competition between the businesses. There is no patent for them, i believe.


The government has no responsibility towards the people's happiness nor the standard of their life, only that they live and that they can pursue happiness.(at least America's constitution says that)
The government is invested with power BY THE PEOPLE, and it exists for one purpose and one purpose alone: To serve the interests of the people, whatever those interests may be. Having high standards of living is certainly in the interest of the people, therefore the government has an obligation to provide the people with standards of living which are as high as possible.


high standards of living is part of their "pursuit of happiness." It isn't a necessity that the government MUST provide. When you put more things in the government's hands that either shouldn't be or aren't necessary, you have given the government more power than it needs. All the government should do is make sure you have the ability to pursue high standards of living.

The constitution only gives these obligations for the government:
1: coinage
2: defense against foreign invasion
3: major roadways (although this isn't all too necessary)
4: post offices
5: patents and copyrights
6: general and UNIFORM taxation (meaning EVERYONE is taxed the same percentage, unlike what we have now)

I don't see in there that the government has any obligation to the happiness of their citizens... only to their pursuit of such a nature. Otherwise we might as well become a totalitarian state which takes all our rights in exchange for our happiness. With our rights comes responsibility, one of which is to keep ourselves healthy and alive. All citizens in America are able to do so without uniform health care through charities, charity hospitals, religious organizations, welfare (i want to get rid of this one, but i'm using it now because it's convenient), and plans through their employee contract.


Remember, the government is a TOOL OF THE PEOPLE. So it obviously has obligations towards the people.

It has such obligations that don't interfere with my rights to take care of myself and to get a decent amount of my hard-earned money WITHOUT 40% of it being taken away from me.

The Corporations don't have to raise the price of dehydration salts.
No, but raising prices would maximize their profits. Therefore they will do it, no matter how many people die in the process. Remember, by your own admission, corporations have no morals.

You have local business as well. And corporations can't claim a monopoly without government help.
One word: Microsoft.

In third-world Latin America and East Asia, there are VERY FEW diarreha deaths and starvation deaths, THANKS TO CORPORATE INVESTMENT.
Those places also tend to have STRONGER AND MORE STABLE GOVERNMENTS, which provide far more welfare to their citizens than the virtually non-existent governments of sub-saharan African countries.

simple: competition between the businesses. There is no patent for them, i believe.
And what if ALL businesses impose inflated prices? A choice between various kinds of oppression is not freedom.

high standards of living is part of their "pursuit of happiness." It isn't a necessity that the government MUST provide. When you put more things in the government's hands that either shouldn't be or aren't necessary, you have given the government more power than it needs. All the government should do is make sure you have the ability to pursue high standards of living.
No, the government should guarantee those standards of living to its citizens. That's why it exists in the first place. It's called the SOCIAL CONTRACT. And since the people are the ones who invest the government with power, they are the ones who should decide how much power is "too much".

But as long as the government is firmly under the control of the people, there's no such thing as "too much" government power. That's like saying that the people have "too much" power and you want to take some of it away from them.

The constitution only gives these obligations for the government:

[...]
The constitution can be changed, and it SHOULD be changed if it is in the interest of the people to do so.

Otherwise we might as well become a totalitarian state which takes all our rights in exchange for our happiness.
Incorrect. A totalitarian government cannot and does not guarantee the happiness of the people, because it is not under their control. The only government who can guarantee things to the people is a democratic government.

It has such obligations that don't interfere with my rights to take care of myself and to get a decent amount of my hard-earned money WITHOUT 40% of it being taken away from me.
Then I suggest you have a little chat with your employer. He already takes away a huge part of you hard-earned money. It's called capitalist exploitation. You produce wealth for your employer, and in return you get a salary which does not reflect the value of your product or that of your work.

The Corporations don't have to raise the price of dehydration salts.
No, but raising prices would maximize their profits. Therefore they will do it, no matter how many people die in the process. Remember, by your own admission, corporations have no morals.

They do what maximizes profits. If you raise the price of something and no one can afford it that hardly helps your profits.

Plus if the public sees you as evil that doesn't help either.

You have local business as well. And corporations can't claim a monopoly without government help.
One word: Microsoft.

The only thing Microsoft had a monopoly on was its own invention, Windows. It claimed about 90% of the OS market becuase it created a better product. But taht doesn't make it immune to innvoation by a third party.

The only way to secure a monopoly is through physical force or the threat thereof... any good drug dealer will tell you that.

In third-world Latin America and East Asia, there are VERY FEW diarreha deaths and starvation deaths, THANKS TO CORPORATE INVESTMENT.
Those places also tend to have STRONGER AND MORE STABLE GOVERNMENTS, which provide far more welfare to their citizens than the virtually non-existent governments of sub-saharan African countries.

I never said you should have no government. Those governments in East Asia and Latin America are MORE OPEN TO INVESTMENT. That's why.

The Chinese government has taken a stance against social security. Not for the reasons that the Libertarians give, but because, in Jiang's own words, "High social security benefits encourage laziness."

I've had a cold for three days with no medication or anything. I'm not getting pneumonia though I do have a rather shallow breath as of now.

TGM, we know that you aren't comparing yourself to an impoverished Burundian! Tell us we don't need to take the UN's valuable time educating members on the differences in the immune systems of citizens in developed nations and those of third world nations.

I've had a cold for three days with no medication or anything. I'm not getting pneumonia though I do have a rather shallow breath as of now.

TGM, we know that you aren't comparing yourself to an impoverished Burundian! Tell us we don't need to take the UN's valuable time educating members on the differences in the immune systems of citizens in developed nations and those of third world nations.

My point stands... it's just about impossible to die from a cold.

You have local business as well. And corporations can't claim a monopoly without government help.
One word: Microsoft.

And the government shut it down. So how did the government help them become a monopoly? It was all from the genius mind of Gates and his company; the government wanted to stop it.

In third-world Latin America and East Asia, there are VERY FEW diarreha deaths and starvation deaths, THANKS TO CORPORATE INVESTMENT.
Those places also tend to have STRONGER AND MORE STABLE GOVERNMENTS, which provide far more welfare to their citizens than the virtually non-existent governments of sub-saharan African countries.

I don't have anything on this one; i think Global Market sums it up

simple: competition between the businesses. There is no patent for them, i believe.
And what if ALL businesses impose inflated prices? A choice between various kinds of oppression is not freedom.
because the same as what Global Market said. Economics 101: Supply and Demand, though the demand HAS TO be able to get the supply. When two businesses compete for the same niche in the economy, everybody wins. They won't try and help each other out. They will try and get a lower price than the other, which will mean more people will buy from them. Eventually, hte price of the product will hit the lowest it can where the business is making some profit, where it will stabilize.


high standards of living is part of their "pursuit of happiness." It isn't a necessity that the government MUST provide. When you put more things in the government's hands that either shouldn't be or aren't necessary, you have given the government more power than it needs. All the government should do is make sure you have the ability to pursue high standards of living.
No, the government should guarantee those standards of living to its citizens. That's why it exists in the first place. It's called the SOCIAL CONTRACT. And since the people are the ones who invest the government with power, they are the ones who should decide how much power is "too much".


I've already said this, the government has no grounds on which it should do this. I'm going to start using the whole "corruption" bit, now.

--How much of your taxes that go to medicare do you really think go to the poor people who need it? ooooh, that's right, half; if you're lucky. just like social welfare, it's a ploy by the government to get more money in it's budget. at least half of our taxes are pocketed by greedy politicians (all said and good, but the arguments you've held here are against this). So, when you pay those taxes, who do you REALLY think it's helping? Furthermore, more and more doctors are refusing to accept medicare. Why? Easy! They are very liable not to pay even WITH medicare. So why is it there? Simple. The government is acting as a middleman and pocketing a percentage of it. Therefore, medicare is slowly becoming useless. End the corruption, end public medicare.

Yes, and I decide that going over the constitutional bounds is "too much," since it infringes on my rights. My rights are more important than my security. So what's more important to you? That you are secured a piece of bread every meal just for being alive, not doing anything? Or that every morning you wake up with half a piece of bread, knowing that you earned it with your labor?


But as long as the government is firmly under the control of the people, there's no such thing as "too much" government power. That's like saying that the people have "too much" power and you want to take some of it away from them.


But that's the thing, the more power given to the government, the less the people have control over it. Who in this thread remember a certain FDR? He practically made America a dictatorship by using his reform policies to combat the economic depression. All americans gave up a lot of their freedoms for his security, he planted a majority of the Judicial house, AND he had the favor of over half the senators and representatives. All because the people WANTED the government to support them. We are lucky that this system wasn't in place for long, or else somebody could've easily taken control. Systems where the government has a great hold on people are easily tainted by corruption (as it is now) and worse, totalitarianism.

The constitution only gives these obligations for the government:

[...]
The constitution can be changed, and it SHOULD be changed if it is in the interest of the people to do so.


The interest of the people is VERY subjective to interpretation. I think that not only are liberal reforms unconstitutional, but they are also making our population STUPID. Why? because if people don't have to get off their asses to work and make money, then they won't try.


Otherwise we might as well become a totalitarian state which takes all our rights in exchange for our happiness.
Incorrect. A totalitarian government s
cannot and does not guarantee the happiness of the people, because it is not under their control. The only government who can guarantee things to the people is a democratic government.
Bull. Wanna talk about the absolutist states of 1500-1600 Europe? Their citizens were moderately happy, although the peasants got regularly screwed by LARGE TAXES.

Dictatorships can guarantee things to their people, as long as the dictator is benevolent. Is that something you would want? That's what you're edging for. A government where they take complete care of their citizens; they don't have to worry about a thing. All they have to do is let the government handle it, cause they could do it best. such an example is a benevolent dictatorship, which arises from such things as we have now. No freedom, just happiness. But i'm not happy... would you be?


It has such obligations that don't interfere with my rights to take care of myself and to get a decent amount of my hard-earned money WITHOUT 40% of it being taken away from me.
Then I suggest you have a little chat with your employer. He already takes away a huge part of you hard-earned money. It's called capitalist exploitation. You produce wealth for your employer, and in return you get a salary which does not reflect the value of your product or that of your work.

But it's his right, it's his private company. The Government has no right to 40% of my money, and as soemone said to me earlier in this thread, "Taxes are a percentage". Doesn't matter how much i make, i still lose 40%. That's a lot.

You're not at all interested in making sensible proposals, are you?

This one's at least meaningful and would actually have some sort of clear effect if enacted! Give The Global Market's representative some credit!

However, I'm not convinced there isn't a paradox inherent in the bit that allows you to get the government to shoot your employer. What if you're employed by the government? I think that The Global Market should have thought it through a little better before proposing it! It's always a good idea to check your reasoning before posting nonsense to message boards. (I know I always do.)

I'm sure looking forward to getting my free teevee, though! I'm hoping that we can retool the economy of the Rogue Nation of Futplex so that it can produce enough to match the world's big-screen teevee needs!

They do what maximizes profits. If you raise the price of something and no one can afford it that hardly helps your profits.

Plus if the public sees you as evil that doesn't help either.
They will raise prices as much as they can without losing customers, of course. They won't make the salts so expensive that no one will afford them. They'll just make them expensive enough to rip off the poor as much as possible.

And if the public sees you as evil, you can always use the media to indoctrinate them with propaganda. It's the time-honoured corporate tradition. Of course, Mussolini was the guy who thought of it first, but the capitalists soon adopted the idea as their own.
The only thing Microsoft had a monopoly on was its own invention, Windows. It claimed about 90% of the OS market becuase it created a better product. But taht doesn't make it immune to innvoation by a third party.
Sure, Windows was definately the best when it was invented. Since Microsoft got its monopoly, however, they have stopped all innovation and concentrated their efforts on putting down any possible competitor.
The only way to secure a monopoly is through physical force or the threat thereof... any good drug dealer will tell you that.
But there's also blackmail, and the threat of non-physical force. If you want to force someone to do what you tell him, you have many more options than just threatening to beat him up. You can blackmail him with compromising photos (not necessarely authentic), or threaten to ruin his business and cause him to go bankrupt.

It never ceases to amaze me what close-minded view some of you right-wing capitalists have.

I never said you should have no government. Those governments in East Asia and Latin America are MORE OPEN TO INVESTMENT. That's why.

The Chinese government has taken a stance against social security. Not for the reasons that the Libertarians give, but because, in Jiang's own words, "High social security benefits encourage laziness."
Heh, so you admire the internal policy of a totalitarian dictatorship. Why am I not surprised?

And by the way, a lack of social security will encourage a man to work in the same way that putting a gun to his head will encourage him to work. Both are effective methods, and both are immoral, oppressive, and equivalent to slavery.

And the government shut it down. So how did the government help them become a monopoly? It was all from the genius mind of Gates and his company; the government wanted to stop it.
Thank you! In case you haven't noticed, you've just made an argument for my side. Microsoft got its monopoly without the help of the state. In fact, the state always worked AGAINST that monopoly.

And it doesn't matter whether Gates had a spark of genius or not. Having a brilliant idea does not give you the right to monopolize a market and aggresively exterminate all competition.

I don't have anything on this one; i think Global Market sums it up.
His argument does not refute mine.

because the same as what Global Market said. Economics 101: Supply and Demand, though the demand HAS TO be able to get the supply. When two businesses compete for the same niche in the economy, everybody wins. They won't try and help each other out. They will try and get a lower price than the other, which will mean more people will buy from them. Eventually, hte price of the product will hit the lowest it can where the business is making some profit, where it will stabilize.
*sigh*
I'm very familiar with your capitalist propaganda 101, and I'm afraid you need a reality check. It's late and I don't have the time to type the short and concise reply that I wish to, so I'll just give you a link to a complete and lenghty explanation of why capitalist economic theory is utter crap (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secCcon.html). It's long, but I'm sure you'll find it a very interesting read.

I've already said this, the government has no grounds on which it should do this.
Yes it does. It has the mandate of the people, while corporations do not.

I'm going to start using the whole "corruption" bit, now.

--How much of your taxes that go to medicare do you really think go to the poor people who need it? ooooh, that's right, half; if you're lucky. just like social welfare, it's a ploy by the government to get more money in it's budget. at least half of our taxes are pocketed by greedy politicians (all said and good, but the arguments you've held here are against this). So, when you pay those taxes, who do you REALLY think it's helping? Furthermore, more and more doctors are refusing to accept medicare. Why? Easy! They are very liable not to pay even WITH medicare. So why is it there? Simple. The government is acting as a middleman and pocketing a percentage of it. Therefore, medicare is slowly becoming useless. End the corruption, end public medicare.
Funny how public welfare programs only seem to go wrong in the USA, while the rest of the world never has any problem with them. Your arguments are proven false by the success of the European welfare states, where people enjoy higher standards of living (on the average) than in the USA.

Of course that things will start going wrong if the government gets corrupted. That's why we have to make sure that the government is NOT corrupted, and that it keeps only a tiny fraction of our tax money for itself. Do you know how you can achieve this? By a system called DEMOCRACY. As in "power to the people", not as in "choose between two monolithic political parties that are pretty much the same". The US government is more like a one-party system with two rival factions than an actual democracy.

Yes, and I decide that going over the constitutional bounds is "too much," since it infringes on my rights. My rights are more important than my security. So what's more important to you? That you are secured a piece of bread every meal just for being alive, not doing anything? Or that every morning you wake up with half a piece of bread, knowing that you earned it with your labor?
No offense, but you're pathetic. Are you going to start preaching about the "virtues" of breaking your back 10 hours a day for a mouldy piece of bread from your "generous" employer who owns five luxury houses and ten expensive cars? That's what your capitalist buddies used to preach in the 19th century. But I thought you'd come up with better propaganda since then...

But that's the thing, the more power given to the government, the less the people have control over it.
Uh-huh, and I'm supposed to take your word for it, right? The fact is that this is a completely unfounded assumption that you just pulled out of thin air. The government can be very powerful and yet firmly under the control of the people. Many modern democracies are proof of this.

Also, I fail to see how it's better to give the power to unelected and undemocratic organizations (known as corporations), who represent only their own interests, than to give the power to an elected and democratic organization (known as the government), who represents the interests of the people.

Who in this thread remember a certain FDR? He practically made America a dictatorship by using his reform policies to combat the economic depression.
He also brought millions of people out of poverty, created new jobs for everyone, pulled the US economy out of the greatest depression it has ever known, greatly raised standards of living, and won a World War. He has done more service to America and the world than any other US president in history. Without him, it's likely the USA would now be a poverty-stricken third world country, and Europe would be known as the Great Reich.

You can whine about FDR's methods, but you can't argue with the results.

The interest of the people is VERY subjective to interpretation. I think that not only are liberal reforms unconstitutional, but they are also making our population STUPID. Why? because if people don't have to get off their asses to work and make money, then they won't try.
Oh, so people are just like cattle that need to be whipped to work harder, right? :roll:

Putting a gun to someone's head will certainly make him work harder, but is that the kind of society you wish to live in?

People should have their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education) guaranteed. The motivation to work comes from the fact that most people won't just be satisfied to have their basic needs met. They'll want a TV set, or a car, or a better house, or some fancy clothing. So they will work for it.

As for the interests of the people, only the people themselves have the right to decide what their interests are. Neither me, nor you, nor the president of the USA can decide for them.

Bull. Wanna talk about the absolutist states of 1500-1600 Europe? Their citizens were moderately happy, although the peasants got regularly screwed by LARGE TAXES.
To be more exact, large taxes FOR THE POOR. The rich nobles and clergy were totally excused from paying any tax. And all the tax money was used for the entertainment of the rich, not for any kind of welfare.

Dictatorships can guarantee things to their people, as long as the dictator is benevolent.
Which is EXTREMELY rare. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Is that something you would want? That's what you're edging for. A government where they take complete care of their citizens; they don't have to worry about a thing. All they have to do is let the government handle it, cause they could do it best. such an example is a benevolent dictatorship, which arises from such things as we have now. No freedom, just happiness. But i'm not happy... would you be?
As I said, absolute power corrupts absolutely. No benevolent dictatorship stays benevolent for too long. I want a government that takes care of its citizens, of course, but such a government MUST be a free and fair democracy. Otherwise the ruling class will soon realize that they can screw their people as much as they want, and the welfare state will go down the drain.


[quote="Neo Aureus"]But it's his right, it's his private company. The Government has no right to 40% of my money, and as soemone said to me earlier in this thread, "Taxes are a percentage". Doesn't matter how much i make, i still lose 40%. That's a lot.
Riiiiiight... So your boss has the right to rip you off for his own benefit as much as he wants, but the government is evil if it does the same thing in order to help the poor. Sure, that makes sense. :roll:

ok, you took all of my stuff way out of context. Since you were saying the government helped Microsoft become a monopoly (in some other post down the line, since that was what i was responding to) I may have proved you right, but i also proved you inconsistent.

I never said corporations have a mandate over the government, but the people don't have complete control of OUR government as we can see now.

European states have worse problems than their socialist practices.

you already said, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, more power to the government, more corrupt it will become. stop being such a hypocrite.

I believe in there being many parites, hence why i'm LIbertarian, and would vote for a third party member. A republic is better, Democracy is mob-rule.

No offense, but you're pathetic. Are you going to start preaching about the "virtues" of breaking your back 10 hours a day for a mouldy piece of bread from your "generous" employer who owns five luxury houses and ten expensive cars? That's what your capitalist buddies used to preach in the 19th century. But I thought you'd come up with better propaganda since then...


Pathetic is not the word i would use to describe a man who sees it honorable to work hard for his bread and water.

If that employer has such wealth, kudos to him for making it to the top. Just because people are rich doesn't mean they are evil. Stop using the liberal propaganda that "Rich = Evil".

The government can be very powerful and yet firmly under the control of the people. Many modern democracies are proof of this.
correction: many socialist countries (i.e. the entirety of Europe) proves to you that government with immense power over their citizens takes care of them very nicely, but that is not what i think is important. The last time i saw, a fascist almost made it to be Frances prime minister. Right, people have control over their government.. of course :-/.


Also, I fail to see how it's better to give the power to unelected and undemocratic organizations (known as corporations), who represent only their own interests, than to give the power to an elected and democratic organization (known as the government), who represents the interests of the people.

I don't want the power in the government OR in the corporations. I want it in the people's hands.

He also brought millions of people out of poverty, created new jobs for everyone, pulled the US economy out of the greatest depression it has ever known, greatly raised standards of living, and won a World War. He has done more service to America and the world than any other US president in history. Without him, it's likely the USA would now be a poverty-stricken third world country, and Europe would be known as the Great Reich.


Then you agree that a benevolent dictatorship was created in this fashion?


Oh, so people are just like cattle that need to be whipped to work harder, right?

Putting a gun to someone's head will certainly make him work harder, but is that the kind of society you wish to live in?


not whipped, not shot, no physical violence whatsoever. I believe that people should have to work for what they are given. The government shouldn't be giving free handouts when that money could be given back to the people it rightfully was made by, or put into better programs.

People should have their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education) guaranteed. The motivation to work comes from the fact that most people won't just be satisfied to have their basic needs met. They'll want a TV set, or a car, or a better house, or some fancy clothing. So they will work for it.


If you put half the population of Africa into that situation, NONE of them would work. NO ONE from a third world country would do that.


To be more exact, large taxes FOR THE POOR. The rich nobles and clergy were totally excused from paying any tax. And all the tax money was used for the entertainment of the rich, not for any kind of welfare.


I said large taxes for the peasants, which translate to the poor... no need to yell or be redundant. Also, the clergy wasn't exempt from taxes in England, since the Catholic clergy was liquidated. The rich nobles were taxed and persecuted as well, under the Star Chamber.

I want a government that takes care of its citizens, of course, but such a government MUST be a free and fair democracy. Otherwise the ruling class will soon realize that they can screw their people as much as they want, and the welfare state will go down the drain.


The ruling class will soon find out that their citizens DEPEND on government subsidies... what happens then?

Riiiiiight... So your boss has the right to rip you off for his own benefit as much as he wants, but the government is evil if it does the same thing in order to help the poor. Sure, that makes sense.

government is public, my boss is a private entity. Two completely different thigns. If i felt i was being treated unfairly for what i'm worth, then i quit or renegotiate. If i'm worth it to the company, then they will renegotiate (which, actually happens in many cases). if i'm not worth it, then i go to one of the competitor companies.

Please stop taking my posts out of context, thanx.

ok, you took all of my stuff way out of context. Since you were saying the government helped Microsoft become a monopoly (in some other post down the line, since that was what i was responding to) I may have proved you right, but i also proved you inconsistent.

I never said corporations have a mandate over the government, but the people don't have complete control of OUR government as we can see now.

European states have worse problems than their socialist practices.

you already said, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, more power to the government, more corrupt it will become. stop being such a hypocrite.

I believe in there being many parites, hence why i'm LIbertarian, and would vote for a third party member. A republic is better, Democracy is mob-rule.

No offense, but you're pathetic. Are you going to start preaching about the "virtues" of breaking your back 10 hours a day for a mouldy piece of bread from your "generous" employer who owns five luxury houses and ten expensive cars? That's what your capitalist buddies used to preach in the 19th century. But I thought you'd come up with better propaganda since then...


Pathetic is not the word i would use to describe a man who sees it honorable to work hard for his bread and water.

If that employer has such wealth, kudos to him for making it to the top. Just because people are rich doesn't mean they are evil. Stop using the liberal propaganda that "Rich = Evil".

The government can be very powerful and yet firmly under the control of the people. Many modern democracies are proof of this.
correction: many socialist countries (i.e. the entirety of Europe) proves to you that government with immense power over their citizens takes care of them very nicely, but that is not what i think is important. The last time i saw, a fascist almost made it to be Frances prime minister. Right, people have control over their government.. of course :-/.


Also, I fail to see how it's better to give the power to unelected and undemocratic organizations (known as corporations), who represent only their own interests, than to give the power to an elected and democratic organization (known as the government), who represents the interests of the people.

I don't want the power in the government OR in the corporations. I want it in the people's hands.

He also brought millions of people out of poverty, created new jobs for everyone, pulled the US economy out of the greatest depression it has ever known, greatly raised standards of living, and won a World War. He has done more service to America and the world than any other US president in history. Without him, it's likely the USA would now be a poverty-stricken third world country, and Europe would be known as the Great Reich.


Then you agree that a benevolent dictatorship was created in this fashion?


Oh, so people are just like cattle that need to be whipped to work harder, right?

Putting a gun to someone's head will certainly make him work harder, but is that the kind of society you wish to live in?


not whipped, not shot, no physical violence whatsoever. I believe that people should have to work for what they are given. The government shouldn't be giving free handouts when that money could be given back to the people it rightfully was made by, or put into better programs.

People should have their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education) guaranteed. The motivation to work comes from the fact that most people won't just be satisfied to have their basic needs met. They'll want a TV set, or a car, or a better house, or some fancy clothing. So they will work for it.


If you put half the population of Africa into that situation, NONE of them would work. NO ONE from a third world country would do that.


To be more exact, large taxes FOR THE POOR. The rich nobles and clergy were totally excused from paying any tax. And all the tax money was used for the entertainment of the rich, not for any kind of welfare.


I said large taxes for the peasants, which translate to the poor... no need to yell or be redundant. Also, the clergy wasn't exempt from taxes in England, since the Catholic clergy was liquidated. The rich nobles were taxed and persecuted as well, under the Star Chamber.

I want a government that takes care of its citizens, of course, but such a government MUST be a free and fair democracy. Otherwise the ruling class will soon realize that they can screw their people as much as they want, and the welfare state will go down the drain.


The ruling class will soon find out that their citizens DEPEND on government subsidies... what happens then?

Riiiiiight... So your boss has the right to rip you off for his own benefit as much as he wants, but the government is evil if it does the same thing in order to help the poor. Sure, that makes sense.

government is public, my boss is a private entity. Two completely different thigns. If i felt i was being treated unfairly for what i'm worth, then i quit or renegotiate. If i'm worth it to the company, then they will renegotiate (which, actually happens in many cases). if i'm not worth it, then i go to one of the competitor companies.

Please stop taking my posts out of context, thanx.

ok, you took all of my stuff way out of context. Since you were saying the government helped Microsoft become a monopoly (in some other post down the line, since that was what i was responding to) I may have proved you right, but i also proved you inconsistent.

I never said corporations have a mandate over the government, but the people don't have complete control of OUR government as we can see now.

European states have worse problems than their socialist practices.

you already said, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, more power to the government, more corrupt it will become. stop being such a hypocrite.

I believe in there being many parites, hence why i'm LIbertarian, and would vote for a third party member. A republic is better, Democracy is mob-rule.

No offense, but you're pathetic. Are you going to start preaching about the "virtues" of breaking your back 10 hours a day for a mouldy piece of bread from your "generous" employer who owns five luxury houses and ten expensive cars? That's what your capitalist buddies used to preach in the 19th century. But I thought you'd come up with better propaganda since then...


Pathetic is not the word i would use to describe a man who sees it honorable to work hard for his bread and water.

If that employer has such wealth, kudos to him for making it to the top. Just because people are rich doesn't mean they are evil. Stop using the liberal propaganda that "Rich = Evil".

The government can be very powerful and yet firmly under the control of the people. Many modern democracies are proof of this.
correction: many socialist countries (i.e. the entirety of Europe) proves to you that government with immense power over their citizens takes care of them very nicely, but that is not what i think is important. The last time i saw, a fascist almost made it to be Frances prime minister. Right, people have control over their government.. of course :-/.


Also, I fail to see how it's better to give the power to unelected and undemocratic organizations (known as corporations), who represent only their own interests, than to give the power to an elected and democratic organization (known as the government), who represents the interests of the people.

I don't want the power in the government OR in the corporations. I want it in the people's hands.

He also brought millions of people out of poverty, created new jobs for everyone, pulled the US economy out of the greatest depression it has ever known, greatly raised standards of living, and won a World War. He has done more service to America and the world than any other US president in history. Without him, it's likely the USA would now be a poverty-stricken third world country, and Europe would be known as the Great Reich.


Then you agree that a benevolent dictatorship was created in this fashion?


Oh, so people are just like cattle that need to be whipped to work harder, right?

Putting a gun to someone's head will certainly make him work harder, but is that the kind of society you wish to live in?


not whipped, not shot, no physical violence whatsoever. I believe that people should have to work for what they are given. The government shouldn't be giving free handouts when that money could be given back to the people it rightfully was made by, or put into better programs.

People should have their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education) guaranteed. The motivation to work comes from the fact that most people won't just be satisfied to have their basic needs met. They'll want a TV set, or a car, or a better house, or some fancy clothing. So they will work for it.


If you put half the population of Africa into that situation, NONE of them would work. NO ONE from a third world country would do that.


To be more exact, large taxes FOR THE POOR. The rich nobles and clergy were totally excused from paying any tax. And all the tax money was used for the entertainment of the rich, not for any kind of welfare.


I said large taxes for the peasants, which translate to the poor... no need to yell or be redundant. Also, the clergy wasn't exempt from taxes in England, since the Catholic clergy was liquidated. The rich nobles were taxed and persecuted as well, under the Star Chamber.

I want a government that takes care of its citizens, of course, but such a government MUST be a free and fair democracy. Otherwise the ruling class will soon realize that they can screw their people as much as they want, and the welfare state will go down the drain.


The ruling class will soon find out that their citizens DEPEND on government subsidies... what happens then?

Riiiiiight... So your boss has the right to rip you off for his own benefit as much as he wants, but the government is evil if it does the same thing in order to help the poor. Sure, that makes sense.

government is public, my boss is a private entity. Two completely different thigns. If i felt i was being treated unfairly for what i'm worth, then i quit or renegotiate. If i'm worth it to the company, then they will renegotiate (which, actually happens in many cases). if i'm not worth it, then i go to one of the competitor companies.

Please stop taking my posts out of context, thanx.

And what if ALL businesses impose inflated prices? A choice between various kinds of oppression is not freedom.



Thank you. Beautifully said. Anyone who cannot see it happening now is rather idealistic.

And what if ALL businesses impose inflated prices? A choice between various kinds of oppression is not freedom.



Thank you. Beautifully said. Anyone who cannot see it happening now is rather idealistic.

-_-... do you have selective reading skills? Think of it this way:
Company A and Company B both make Product C. If they have a specific consumer market for Product C that makes X dollars a year, they have to be able to make Product C LESS than what a person could afford making X dollars a year. There is a LOT of math, in which they could maximize profits with LOWER prices. You need to do it:

Let's say that the corporations could sell 50C when C costs 25$, but could sell 100 when C costs 15$, since more customers were able to buy it. do the math:
50 times 25 = 1250$.
100 times 15 = 1500$
SEE?! SEE?! lowered profit, got more people to buy it, and thus it not only made up the difference, the profit ROSE. So is it safe business to make it more expensive than what the majority of your consumers can afford? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Even if they were greedy corporations, they know good business.

Australia's healthcare is vastly superior to the US. (Unless Johnny Bastard gets his way uncontested, anyway) Universal health cover, with technology equal to what the rich of the US can afford. The main reason being, that it's socialized.

I find it bizzare that you consider taxes "theft," when they pay for the roads which you use, the military that protects you, quite a bit of your education, and your hospital treatment, and countless other services you enjoy, which would cost a hell of a lot more than your taxes do otherwise.

The ruling class will soon find out that their citizens DEPEND on government subsidies... what happens then?

That wouldn't happen if companies were paying a fair living wage.

government is public, my boss is a private entity. Two completely different thigns. If i felt i was being treated unfairly for what i'm worth, then i quit or renegotiate. If i'm worth it to the company, then they will renegotiate (which, actually happens in many cases). if i'm not worth it, then i go to one of the competitor companies.

You can only quit if there are other jobs to go to. And, if there are no other jobs out there, you have no leverage to renegotiate. So, your stuck.

Do we say Rich=Evil? Well, remember this quote:

"When a man tells you he got rich through hard work, ask him 'whose?'"

And what if ALL businesses impose inflated prices? A choice between various kinds of oppression is not freedom.



Thank you. Beautifully said. Anyone who cannot see it happening now is rather idealistic.

-_-... do you have selective reading skills? Think of it this way:
Company A and Company B both make Product C. If they have a specific consumer market for Product C that makes X dollars a year, they have to be able to make Product C LESS than what a person could afford making X dollars a year. There is a LOT of math, in which they could maximize profits with LOWER prices. You need to do it:

Let's say that the corporations could sell 50C when C costs 25$, but could sell 100 when C costs 15$, since more customers were able to buy it. do the math:
50 times 25 = 1250$.
100 times 15 = 1500$
SEE?! SEE?! lowered profit, got more people to buy it, and thus it not only made up the difference, the profit ROSE. So is it safe business to make it more expensive than what the majority of your consumers can afford? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Even if they were greedy corporations, they know good business.

A very bookish response, NN. Real world economics are never so simple, a point we believe Constantinopolis made well and PIE seconded.

I've had a cold for three days with no medication or anything. I'm not getting pneumonia though I do have a rather shallow breath as of now.

TGM, we know that you aren't comparing yourself to an impoverished Burundian! Tell us we don't need to take the UN's valuable time educating members on the differences in the immune systems of citizens in developed nations and those of third world nations.

My point stands... it's just about impossible to die from a cold.

:? We call Avoidance - 15 yards and an automatic first down. With a weakened immune system (common in impoverished persons) a cold, which, to your point, is rarely deadly, can easily matriculate into something more serious, such as pneumonia.

With AIDS or another imunodeficiency syndrome, colds can escalate into life-threatening illnesses. I'm sorry to repeat this, but people in the Third World die from diseases we would think trivial.

And what if ALL businesses impose inflated prices? A choice between various kinds of oppression is not freedom.



Thank you. Beautifully said. Anyone who cannot see it happening now is rather idealistic.

-_-... do you have selective reading skills? Think of it this way:
Company A and Company B both make Product C. If they have a specific consumer market for Product C that makes X dollars a year, they have to be able to make Product C LESS than what a person could afford making X dollars a year. There is a LOT of math, in which they could maximize profits with LOWER prices. You need to do it:

Let's say that the corporations could sell 50C when C costs 25$, but could sell 100 when C costs 15$, since more customers were able to buy it. do the math:
50 times 25 = 1250$.
100 times 15 = 1500$
SEE?! SEE?! lowered profit, got more people to buy it, and thus it not only made up the difference, the profit ROSE. So is it safe business to make it more expensive than what the majority of your consumers can afford? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Even if they were greedy corporations, they know good business.

A very bookish response, NN. Real world economics are never so simple, a point we believe Constantinopolis made well and PIE seconded.

please give me the facts you are referencing for that statement, because this example happens to be a proven fact at increasing profit; i would like to see what would counter this that is also FACT, and not speculation. Then i'll move away from the "bookish response."

Also, the economics of the day are quite "bookish;" bookish enough that people can learn to make lots of money off of the stock market through books, people get economics degrees learning from economic theory from books, and most of our economy is based on the theoretical ratios of production/consumption. This tied in with the fact that people are able to predict economies through mathematical theory shows that Economics is practically an altered math course.

please give me the facts you are referencing for that statement, because this example happens to be a proven fact at increasing profit; i would like to see what would counter this that is also FACT, and not speculation. Then i'll move away from the "bookish response."

Also, the economics of the day are quite "bookish;" bookish enough that people can learn to make lots of money off of the stock market through books, people get economics degrees learning from economic theory from books, and most of our economy is based on the theoretical ratios of production/consumption. This tied in with the fact that people are able to predict economies through mathematical theory shows that Economics is practically an altered math course.

Well. It appears we touched a nerve. No offense intended, Neo. 8) We mean bookish, of course, not in the sense that knowledge comes from books. We are, in Idumea, quite keen on books. We mean the word to convey your utter lack of context when speaking on the subject. A+B = C. Okay, conceded as theoretical fact. Unfortunately, when we move to apply this "fact" in the messy real world, we realize that it has been assumed that we in fact are in possession of A, and that political, sociological, and psychological factors have not conspired to make B, for whatever reason, a far less desirable option than it was when we created our formula for success late one night in our office. We meant to say, in shorthand represented by the word "bookish", that economics is as much an art as it is a science, and improving profit is never so simple as pulling a single lever. We back this sentiment up with the fact that Economics Departments are as often found in Liberal Arts schools as they are in Business Schools, emphasizing academia’s ambiguity on the subject.

Pity to you if you believe that wealth can be made by book learning alone. The market requires as much instinct as it does mastery of statistical process control. Many an arrogant, bookish, individual has lost the proverbial shirt while demonstrating this truism.

please give me the facts you are referencing for that statement, because this example happens to be a proven fact at increasing profit; i would like to see what would counter this that is also FACT, and not speculation. Then i'll move away from the "bookish response."

Also, the economics of the day are quite "bookish;" bookish enough that people can learn to make lots of money off of the stock market through books, people get economics degrees learning from economic theory from books, and most of our economy is based on the theoretical ratios of production/consumption. This tied in with the fact that people are able to predict economies through mathematical theory shows that Economics is practically an altered math course.

Well. It appears we touched a nerve. No offense intended, Neo. 8) We mean bookish, of course, not in the sense that knowledge comes from books. We are, in Idumea, quite keen on books. We mean the word to convey your utter lack of context when speaking on the subject. A+B = C. Okay, conceded as theoretical fact. Unfortunately, when we move to apply this "fact" in the messy real world, we realize that it has been assumed that we in fact are in possession of A, and that political, sociological, and psychological factors have not conspired to make B, for whatever reason, a far less desirable option than it was when we created our formula for success late one night in our office. We meant to say, in shorthand represented by the word "bookish", that economics is as much an art as it is a science, and improving profit is never so simple as pulling a single lever. We back this sentiment up with the fact that Economics Departments are as often found in Liberal Arts schools as they are in Business Schools, emphasizing academia’s ambiguity on the subject.

Pity to you if you believe that wealth can be made by book learning alone. The market requires as much instinct as it does mastery of statistical process control. Many an arrogant, bookish, individual has lost the proverbial shirt while demonstrating this truism.

Sorry for snapping :oops:

capitalism and the economy are definitely a combination of the two, but the point was that businesses won't be oppressive towards their customers because it's bad marketing. If one company is going to be oppressive, all it will take is another to join the competition, and lower prices just an inkling; taking LOADS of business away from the first company. The first company would then one up the intruder, and then the second business would one up the first company, until the prices are at their lowest while they still make a profit (which they must get, despite the job they do). I will take as example the three gaming systems known as Xbox, Playstation 2, and Gamecube (it's the only one that comes to mind; i watch techtv too much) Originally, PS2's were somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 dollars. Xbox was around 300, and Gamecube around 200. As competition became fierce, PS2 lowered to 200, XBox started lowering to 200, and gamecube went to 150. Reasons why:
1: they were able to make them faster (slight, but not most important)
2: They had competition from the other two cheaper machines (very important)

Because of this, Each system's prices dropped one after the other, trying to get people to buy their product instead of the other two. I think now, a gamecube (originally somewhere between 150-200) is 100$. A hefty price drop. PS2's can be bought around 200, and that comes with deals on 30-50 dollar games; as is Xbox, which is also now at 200 and comes with 30-50 dollar games. Although not the same as medicine, the rules still apply. when their prices dropped, consumers flooded stores and bought all available; thus their profits had increased, and the consumers got what they wanted. Sure, the ones with little money (like myself...) can't really afford to buy all three, or two, but that Gamecube is pretty cheap, and is quite affordable under the average of 37,000 dollars a year for America.

Sorry for snapping :oops:

No worries, mate :wink:

capitalism and the economy are definitely a combination of the two, but the point was that businesses won't be oppressive towards their customers because it's bad marketing.

Your point is well-taken. We agree in principle and in general that, if left to its own devices, the Invisible Hand will move people and organizations to make the best, or at least most profitable, decisions, as your xbox example demonstrated.

However, the market isn't always left to its own devices - that's why it's so difficult to predict and/or manipulate. Politics sometimes interferes, and competition isn't always available (particularly regionally - i.e. cable providers regularly provide poor customer service at relatively high prices due to the absense of an alternative cable provider in the region) to prevent customers from becoming trampled on the way to the checkout. In terms of the drug markets, competition really has no bearing on the price of drugs until patents expire. It's in the drug company's best interest, in terms of profit, to maximize their margins during that "no compete" time span. In this light, one could argue that patents are a form of market protection, a government rule imposed upon and limiting the market's ability to evolve. (Stops, looks around the room, blushes) But enough of my blustering. Suffice it to say that it's important not to take capitalism too literally - it's still an invention of man and subject to all of his imperfections.

Sorry for snapping :oops:

No worries, mate :wink:

capitalism and the economy are definitely a combination of the two, but the point was that businesses won't be oppressive towards their customers because it's bad marketing.

Your point is well-taken. We agree in principle and in general that, if left to its own devices, the Invisible Hand will move people and organizations to make the best, or at least most profitable, decisions, as your xbox example demonstrated.

However, the market isn't always left to its own devices - that's why it's so difficult to predict and/or manipulate. Politics sometimes interferes, and competition isn't always available (particularly regionally - i.e. cable providers regularly provide poor customer service at relatively high prices due to the absense of an alternative cable provider in the region) to prevent customers from becoming trampled on the way to the checkout. In terms of the drug markets, competition really has no bearing on the price of drugs until patents expire. It's in the drug company's best interest, in terms of profit, to maximize their margins during that "no compete" time span. In this light, one could argue that patents are a form of market protection, a government rule imposed upon and limiting the market's ability to evolve. (Stops, looks around the room, blushes) But enough of my blustering. Suffice it to say that it's important not to take capitalism too literally - it's still an invention of man and subject to all of his imperfections.

hehe, yes, politics usually screws up everything (hence why i'm libertarian; minimal political control is the way I see to fix those kind of problems)

Although patents have their good points, they also stop the capitalist system for a time, (they are supposed to be limited to a period of.. what is it, 18 months or something like 7 years? i have no idea-_-) as you said before. But of course, patents expire, and thus the market is able to come back. In this light, such things as the debate about how "corporations maximize profits" and thus people can't afford drugs only lasts so long, and thus can't 'really' be used to support the argument (this could be debated, but by the time that we agree, the patents would've already run out :wink: ) as with the cable companies, i believe the real competitor is the satellite dish companies that are also in the area (directv i think is national here in the states, don't know if it's in Europe though)

heh, I'm 'reformed' Libertarian/capitalist. (I believe 'certain' things may need to be revised in those certain circumstances, but only to a degree). I'm not the one you should be worrying about :-/.

*PS, i'm also a strong supporter of the Socratic Method; thesis + antithesis --> synthesis = thesis + antithesis... etc.; I think he knew what he was talking about when he said there is no perfect system, but by always evolving and shaping, we can be on our way (although never close to) to a perfect system.