NationStates Jolt Archive

Suppose a country would be like this:


The rich can't prove that they worked for their money, but they can prove that they inherited it.

The taxes are so low (the wealthy complain, the government lowers them), no one has government funded healthcare/education/security.

It's every man for himself!

An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.

The lazy poor ultamately die of sickness or starvation.

The hard working poor try their hardest to maintain food on the table, but get sick and die, because they can't get proper healthcare.

Everyone is so damn stupid because education is so unstable since little or no government funding is involved.

The poor eventually die off, leaving the wealthy behind with no one to do all the physical/unwanted jobs. The wealthy resort to luring more immigrants to live in the country.

In the long run everyone dies off because of the lung-cancer causing pollution in the air, the disease-causing bacteria in the unfunded, unpurified water, and radiation caused by so many nuclear power plants in the area.

No one gives a damn about what the future of the world is going to be like, no one gives a damn what the fate of their children is.





A plane flies overhead and drops a nuclear bomb.

The pilot is also uneducated so A) he drops it on his own city and B) there are a lot of nuclear power plants in the area.

The world gets blown up by the magnified nuclear explosion.




But before the last three lines, wouldn't you guys consider this country heaven? That is what America could be like without any left wing liberals constantly trying to take money from everyone for the sake of the country. That is simply horrible. And anyone who dissagrees with me is unpatriotic.[/sarcasm]

;)


No but seriously, the point here is that liberals need conservatives, and vise versa. They rely on eachother to keep a country balanced. It gets annoying when I see people say "we have to get rid of the right" or "we must kill ever liberal" In fact the country won't succeed if it was too right or too left.

A good moral lesson learned there.

you're probably right. but doesn't that slow everything down because everyone is always arguing about it? I mean, if the senate were filled with excactly half conservatives and half liberals, they could never agree and nothing could happen. You kind of need an imbalance. and if that inbalance screws things up, everyone will be unhappy and vote for the other side and they can have a go at screwing it up.

Although you are absolutely right about us needing both sides of the coin.

That went on a bit too long; sorry! :-)

Let me try and flip that to the rabid-left point of view (and I'm a lefty, so no one hit me)


Taxes are 100%, but that funding is then split back amongst the community, with some syphoned off to fund public schools, health care etc

Social welfare supports everyone who needs it (encouraging a minority not to work at all)

Every case is judged individually, with proper debates about the moral implications of a ruling either way (this clogs the legal system to the point where it takes a good four months to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent)

The lazy poor are given everything they could need to become motivated (again, some will just be hopeless cases and never work).

The hard working poor easily find jobs, using resources provided by the government, and become contributers to society (at the expense of the rest of society).

Education is high because education is well funded - thus, people go into the work place well equipt to succeed (ditto as above).

Physical/unwanted jobs are done part time by students while they are studying. If more people are needed, a rotation is set up for it, similar to jury duty (imagine all the complaining this sort of scenario would get from the right :D)


Hmm... I don't know if that was as balanced as I'd like (I *am* awfully left-wing... hmmmm). But I tried to acknowledge the downsides too. And I don't really know if this is the response intended by this thread... 'twas interesting to type up though :p

No but seriously, the point here is that liberals need conservatives, and vise versa. They rely on eachother to keep a country balanced. It gets annoying when I see people say "we have to get rid of the right" or "we must kill ever liberal" In fact the country won't succeed if it was too right or too left.

A good moral lesson learned there.

It's putting people into small political boxes that is what ruins the politics of a country.

Liberal and conservative are no where near descriptive enough terms for what someone believes, and to cheapen politics to a black and white, liberal or conservative viewpoint is, to be frank, nieve and counterproductive to democracy.

you're probably right. but doesn't that slow everything down because everyone is always arguing about it? I mean, if the senate were filled with excactly half conservatives and half liberals, they could never agree and nothing could happen. You kind of need an imbalance. and if that inbalance screws things up, everyone will be unhappy and vote for the other side and they can have a go at screwing it up.

Although you are absolutely right about us needing both sides of the coin.

That went on a bit too long; sorry! :-)

Thats why the founding fathers set it up that way....haste makes waste and decisions made in haste are usually bad decisions.

you're probably right. but doesn't that slow everything down because everyone is always arguing about it? I mean, if the senate were filled with excactly half conservatives and half liberals, they could never agree and nothing could happen. You kind of need an imbalance. and if that inbalance screws things up, everyone will be unhappy and vote for the other side and they can have a go at screwing it up.

Although you are absolutely right about us needing both sides of the coin.

That went on a bit too long; sorry! :-)


Thats why in an interval of between 4-8 years, the government usually switches from leftist to rightist. So before we lean too much one way, the other government takes over and we lean the other way. It keeps things balanced and in the long run, we get pretty far.

There are no rich to build factories and employ the working class.

Taxes are 100% and everything is given away for free.

Because everything is free, nobody has the desire to work, innovate or contribute.

A black-market develops - It's every man for himself!

Crime has no punishment, except for the victim and society for allowing it.

Healthcare is free, but there are no doctors because there is no personal benefit - only a huge legal liability, and the education is too hard. (Nobody is willing to teach if for free either)

The hard working try their hardest to maintain food on the table, but get sick and die, because they can't find anyone willing to give them food for free, and all of the fruits of their labor were given away to other people.

Everyone is so damn stupid because education is so unstable since little or no government funding is involved. Nobody will build the schools for free, and the teachers would rather stay home watching imported black market DVDs than work dealing with unruly children for free.

In the long run everyone dies off because they are fighting with each other like animals trying to steal what they need from their neighbor.

No one gives a damn about what the future of the world is going to be like, no one gives a damn what the fate of their children is.

Suppose a country would be like this:


The rich can't prove that they worked for their money, but they can prove that they inherited it.

The taxes are so low (the wealthy complain, the government lowers them), no one has government funded healthcare/education/security.

It's every man for himself!

An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.

The lazy poor ultamately die of sickness or starvation.

The hard working poor try their hardest to maintain food on the table, but get sick and die, because they can't get proper healthcare.

Everyone is so damn stupid because education is so unstable since little or no government funding is involved.

The poor eventually die off, leaving the wealthy behind with no one to do all the physical/unwanted jobs. The wealthy resort to luring more immigrants to live in the country.

In the long run everyone dies off because of the lung-cancer causing pollution in the air, the disease-causing bacteria in the unfunded, unpurified water, and radiation caused by so many nuclear power plants in the area.

No one gives a damn about what the future of the world is going to be like, no one gives a damn what the fate of their children is.





A plane flies overhead and drops a nuclear bomb.

The pilot is also uneducated so A) he drops it on his own city and B) there are a lot of nuclear power plants in the area.

The world gets blown up by the magnified nuclear explosion.




But before the last three lines, wouldn't you guys consider this country heaven? That is what America could be like without any left wing liberals constantly trying to take money from everyone for the sake of the country. That is simply horrible. And anyone who dissagrees with me is unpatriotic.[/sarcasm]

;)


No but seriously, the point here is that liberals need conservatives, and vise versa. They rely on eachother to keep a country balanced. It gets annoying when I see people say "we have to get rid of the right" or "we must kill ever liberal" In fact the country won't succeed if it was too right or too left.

A good moral lesson learned there.

The way you described the Right-Wing Utopia (other than the exadurations and talk of people bombing themselves) seemed like a pretty nice place. CAPITALISM!!!! as john smith said "If you don't work, you don't eat." i DID however dissagree with the way you said that everyone would die off. the right wing still has a respect for nature. we're just not idiots about it. the left doesn't want to drill in alaska because it would "Kill off the bison" or something. haven't you ever seen those creatures? they sleep up against the thing because it's warm! the right wing would use the benifits of nature but wouldn't destroy it. you make us sound like heartless maniacs. but i ask you, how can you talk about the future ending with right-wingers when you left wingers go around KILLING BABIES!!!! if i walk into a nursery and throw all the babies out the window i'd be punished. how come the left wants babies to be killed in torturous ways (The brains being sucked out while the baby is still alive to assure that it is dead)? i thought you guys were against torture. the right-wing doesn't NEED the left, but the world would be a horrible place if the left didn't have the right.

Bozzy is my hero.

you're probably right. but doesn't that slow everything down because everyone is always arguing about it? I mean, if the senate were filled with excactly half conservatives and half liberals, they could never agree and nothing could happen. You kind of need an imbalance. and if that inbalance screws things up, everyone will be unhappy and vote for the other side and they can have a go at screwing it up.

Unless the senate, the house of representatives, and the president have a majority in one party nothing does get done. And when they ARE in they same side, something occurs that more often than not makes America look like a large group of morons and only helps us if we're lucky. And this is all in the name making one party look good, and another look bad. Now THAT'S American.

Anyways, I agree entirely.