NationStates Jolt Archive

Is this right?

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!

Is this right?

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!
Yes, in the US liberal is left wing. Socialist is considered insanely far left wing. It's just the way our culture and media shape the political discussion.

Yes, in the US liberal is left wing. Socialist is considered insanely far left wing. It's just the way our culture and media shape the political discussion.People in the US seem to think the scale is one-dimensional: liberal on one side, conservative on the other.

I suppose they've never heard of libertarianism, authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, socialism, nationalism, fascism, nihilism, daltonism, rheumatism, Dadaism...

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Is this right?

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!

Yes, on both counts.

Well, I've heard US Conservatives seriously calling the BBC a communist news service.

Is this right?

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!

There are reasons for this perception in the US:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

--Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party presidential
candidate and one of the founders of the ACLU

It's because liberalism (as it is today) in America IS the basis of socialism. They've bastardized the actual meaning of the word liberal--which is why libertarianism had to be invented, to take back the original meaning.

Another reason is the media and major party systems won't allow for more than two parties. The media barely reports on third parties, and when they do, the parties are just "spoilers" for one side or the other, and the government keeps enacting laws (such as the vaunted campaign finance reform laws) that maintain the status quo, making it impossible for a third party to raise the funds necessary to take on the two juggernauts.

In regard to your last question:
I can't stand the thought of the socialism that is prevalent in Europe taking over in the US.

Well, I've heard US Conservatives seriously calling the BBC a communist news service.

I've heard US conservatives gloating because liberals got "trounced" again by the "conservative" Labour party.

One can only laugh.

;) Well, I've heard US Conservatives seriously calling the BBC a communist news service.

ahhh, well it appears they have got one thing correct ;)

In the US, people are afraid of communism. Therefore a conservative can win by calling his liberal opponent a communist. Sad but true.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

In the US, people are afraid of communism. Therefore a conservative can win by calling his liberal opponent a communist. Sad but true.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

That's not as effective as it was in the 50s and 60s anymore.

Is this right?

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!
Yes.
Because that's what we've been told for a long time now and our sheepish little mindsets can't even entertain the possibility of that not being the case. Never mind the fact that the general meaning of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" should rationally dictate that people should be constantly switching sides, depending on the political climate of the time.
For instance, in the mid-90's when Clinton was in the white house, those who supported his administration and policies (generally democrats) would be seen as wanting to preserve existing conditions and technically were "conservative." At the same time, those who opposed his presidency (generally republicans) would be "open to change" and want policies to be "mixed up a bit" and thereby their views would technically be "liberal."
Besides, we're Americans after all. We don't give a hoot about any other system of government, unless such systems are getting in the way of our corporations making buttloads of money. If that's ever the case, then we just go in and spread some liberty.

I suppose they've never heard of libertarianism, authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, socialism, nationalism, fascism, nihilism, daltonism, rheumatism, Dadaism...



*tee hee*

Neo, are you so isolated that you haven't heard this before?

I even recall posting many times, 'There hasn't been a credible Left in the US since 1920'

Guess you don't read the posts.

<<Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

>>

Yes, most of America does look at politics as strictly Left v. Right. It is the unfortunate consequence of an effectively two party system. At the moment, Republicans represent a conservative religious right wing and Democrats represent a liberal Populist left wing. Both are free-spending rubes who would rather legislate their "values" than protect their Rights.

<<Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship! >>

As for looking at Europe as a communist bloc, some Americans do see it that way. Americans who pay attention, however, see most of Europe is a socialist democracy, becoming more so as the EU gains more power and crushes little things like national sovereignty and personal property rights.

<<Isuppose they've never heard of libertarianism, authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, socialism, nationalism, fascism, nihilism, daltonism, rheumatism, Dadaism... >>

Entertaining. America has felt most of these “isms” in it's history. At our core, the constitution and the way our nation was originally organized was as a Libertarian nation. There was a bit of argument over how centralized power should be (The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists), but thats about it. Authoritarianism is what we cast off when we started firing bullets in 1776, and what we again fought off in 1812. Anarchism isn't really government, its a high-school kid's good idea before he realizes that people are basically greedy little beasts. Communism and Socialism are what we stand against, ideologically. We are capitalists. Nationalism is alive and well, but again, thats not a government, thats a “jingoistic” pride in one's nation. You know, that thing that lead Europe to kill itself twice before 1950? Fascism is something else we have always fought, it is antithetical to the American way, although some of our presidents have endangered that in the last century. Nihilism isn't a way of government, but Nietzsche's philosophy. What colorblindness, arthritis, or an art movement have to do with the discussion, I'm not sure...

<<I've heard US conservatives gloating because liberals got "trounced" again by the "conservative" Labour party.

One can only laugh. >>

American conservatives love it because Blair dances when Bush says boo. Or Clinton. Come to think of it Thatcher liked to dance for Reagan...Yes, one can only laugh.

The fact of the matter is, America is not Europe. Politically, the idea of socialism is antithetical to the system of government we live under. Redistribution of wealth, contraction of civil rights, highly centralized government, these things that are the norm for Europe are unthinkable here in the States. It is important to remember that the US wasn't granted it's freedom by a king, it wasn't handed to us after a world war. Americans fought, killed, and died in order to wrest their freedoms from the grips of an unfeeling monarchy. Over the years we have had to fight for our survival on a regular basis. It leads to a rather polarized view of the world.

I've heard US conservatives gloating because liberals got "trounced" again by the "conservative" Labour party.

One can only laugh.

Yep, Labour sure beat those darn liberals, the Conservative party. :)

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Pretty much. However, there are left-wing republicans and right-wing democrats.

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!

I don't believe socialism is the best government to live under. Everyone should have an opportunity to succeed as best as one can. Democracy allows that, socialism restricts.

These are just my humble opinions.

Yep, Labour sure beat those darn liberals, the Conservative party. :)

And the acursed Leftist BNP, I suppose?

(For those unfamiliar with British Extreme parties, BNP = British National Party. Want to do nice things like totally isolate the country and give the government full control over virtually everything. Lovely people. Their manifesto made me laugh)

To be fair, the labour party in the UK is pretty far right, though less so than the tories of course e.g. student top-up fees, identity cards...

Most Americans have the belief that money they work for should be theirs. Philanthropy should not be forced. Are there poor people? Yes. Should the government have the power to take money out of my paychecks and give it to those poor people? No. Is it good to help the needy? Yes. Should there be an authority that has the power to take (steal) from the non-needy and give to the needy? No. It's stealing.

So, are Americans greedy? Yes. But are Europeans greedy? Yes. American greed tends to be more in the realm of, "I earned it; it's mine." European greed is more like, "Let's trade with hostile countries so our government has more money to provide us with through its socialist programs. So what if china wants to build nuclear weapons? So what if Iran wants to wipe out Israel? As long as our government gets the extra money." So it's all about money, in the end. Americans and Europeans are no different in their natures, since they're all humans (though I sometimes wonder about the french...).

The main difference is that in America, fewer people view the government as their nanny.

And yes, Americans have heard of Libertarianism. It's pretty popular here. I'm a mix between "conservative" and Libertarian. Liberals in America are technically not liberals, in the traditional, accurate sense of the word "liberal". They are, however, leftists. Some liberals are more to the left (socialists), others are far to the left (insane commies), and others are more to the center (moderates). Same is true for conservatives, only on the opposite end of the spectrum. Though I do think that more liberals are far to the left than conservatives are far to the right.

Interestingly, the futher you go either left or right, the more in common people have. The far right and the far left are both censorship nuts. The far right wants to censor anything that can offend the far right, and the far left wants to censor anything that can offend the far left.

To be fair, the labour party in the UK is pretty far right, though less so than the tories of course e.g. student top-up fees, identity cards...
Proposing identity cards is not necessarily a right-wing thing.

thats true but you might more expect it from a rightwing government

And the acursed Leftist BNP, I suppose?

Those politically-correct pinko commies were sent packing, too.

I'm being sarcastic, just in case anybody hadn't noticed.


EDIT: Anyway, on a more serious note: I must admit that I defined politics on a simple right/left scale before I joined this forum.

as an independant i dodn't wholly support the left or right. i feel both sides have good and bad in them.
that being said, the generalization in present day US politics(it changes with time, in the 60's the demecrats were actually the big pro-racist, pro-segragetion anti "Liberal" party. opposite of what they claim to be today) is that if you are liberal you are on the "left" and if you are conservative you are on the "right"

somethings that people tend to fail to consider that there are moderates in both parties(although currently more on the rpublican side) who may support certain idea's or views from thier opposites while still maintaining strong held positions that make them a left or right kind of politician.

then you have the "fringe"
on the left the rabid animal rights, gay rights, pro- abortion, anti-religion crowd
on the right you have the moralistic, religious, rabid anti-abortion, anti-gay
crowd
we call these "ultra" conservative or "extreme" liberals


as for europe
from my interaction from our neighbors across the pond-they find american liberals to be "to conservative" except for mabey the "fringe" groups.

part of this reality is that europe has been going secularist socialism, while american has maintained a nearly constant moralistic religious base in it's population.

so yes most americans find the predominant socialistic governments of europe to be oppressive big government tyrannical "nanny states".

:D

Is this right?

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!

It is. Isn't it?


Sorry for the sarcasm. Socialism is EXTREMELY left wing (from the US point of view). It is seen as very unAmerican due to the fact that it is a stepping stone to communism.

So, are Americans greedy? Yes. But are Europeans greedy? Yes. American greed tends to be more in the realm of, "I earned it; it's mine." European greed is more like, "Let's trade with hostile countries so our government has more money to provide us with through its socialist programs. So what if china wants to build nuclear weapons? So what if Iran wants to wipe out Israel? As long as our government gets the extra money." So it's all about money, in the end.
STOP RIGHT THERE

I've reported this post to the mods. I am extremely offended that you say that all Europeans:

1) approve of trade with hostile countries
2) don't care about what happens in the world
3) rely on paycheques from the government
3) worship socialist ideology

It's your kind of pig-headed, racist thinking that results in so much flaming between Euros and Americans these days.

Do you think that the US government has a lily-white record? You guys have done much more dirt in the world since 1945 than European countries have. The US government is guilty of everything you decided to lay the blame on ordinary Europeans.

Over the years we have had to fight for our survival on a regular basis. It leads to a rather polarized view of the world.
List the wars the USA has had to fight for its survival.

thats true but you might more expect it from a rightwing government
Not at all, the concept of ID cards comes from authoritarian socialism.

STOP RIGHT THERE


Get 'em Swimmingpool

Get 'em Swimmingpool
Sure did. When I see posts like that, the urge to believe all negative stereotypes about Americans gets stronger.

List the wars the USA has had to fight for its survival.


The Civil War is the only one since we gained our independence, and we were fighting ourselves. And even then the US was not being invaded.

I've heard that a Canadian high school teacher drew a political spectrum on the chalkboard whilst he was talking about the concept, then he erased the entire left half and said, "that's the American political spectrum."

Sure did. When I see posts like that, the urge to believe all negative stereotypes about Americans gets stronger.

I am an American and I have pretty much the same stereotypes against normal Americans. Most normies (as we in the Beautiful Peoples Club like to call them)are ignorant of foreign history or politics, most are nationalistic and at least somewhat hostile towards foreign governments. The level of corporatism in our government requires some nationalism to sooth those that would normally disenfranchised.

*urge to kill, rising*

The political compass is N-dimensional, it cannot be described by left or right, but left and right are the best ways for a human mind to understand the complexities of politics. A true compass would require a tesseract to define it, a shape that has more than three dimensions in it's volume. A better way would be to say that a person was "left wing" and add a suffix of some description, socialist, stalinist(actually more like hyper-conservative, but most people don't realise that), libertarian(liberal libertarian, hah, I crack me up), or something like that, not perfect, but better than what exists.

So, are Americans greedy? Yes. But are Europeans greedy? Yes. American greed tends to be more in the realm of, "I earned it; it's mine." European greed is more like, "Let's trade with hostile countries so our government has more money to provide us with through its socialist programs. So what if china wants to build nuclear weapons? So what if Iran wants to wipe out Israel? As long as our government gets the extra money." So it's all about money, in the end. Americans and Europeans are no different in their natures, since they're all humans (though I sometimes wonder about the french...).


Your comparing American tax policy to European trade policy. They are not exactly comparable.

As for American trade policy, the Americans claim to support democracy around the world. What about the American support of the Saudi government and the money it gives to Israel to build on the occupied territories.

[QUOTE=Glorious Discordia
As for looking at Europe as a communist bloc, some Americans do see it that way. Americans who pay attention, however, see most of Europe is a socialist democracy, becoming more so as the EU gains more power and crushes little things like national sovereignty and personal property rights.

The fact of the matter is, America is not Europe. Politically, the idea of socialism is antithetical to the system of government we live under. Redistribution of wealth, contraction of civil rights, highly centralized government, these things that are the norm for Europe are unthinkable here in the States. It is important to remember that the US wasn't granted it's freedom by a king, it wasn't handed to us after a world war. Americans fought, killed, and died in order to wrest their freedoms from the grips of an unfeeling monarchy. Over the years we have had to fight for our survival on a regular basis. It leads to a rather polarized view of the world.[/QUOTE]

Anyone who thinks Europe is socialist needs a new meaning of the word socialism. Or to actually come over here and look.

You see the difference is we do not force women to pay so they can have their babies in a hospital or old men to pay for a hip replacement. We have something called 'humanity'. And you accuse our monarchs of being unfeeling. Ha!

And by the way Europeans have been fighting for their freedom for a far longer time than America. How many wars has Britain had to fight to keep the Spanish, the French and the Germans off our coasts?

The Civil War is the only one since we gained our independence, and we were fighting ourselves. And even then the US was not being invaded.

1812, WW1, WW2, theoretically vietnam and korea(not really wars for our survival, but we believed our survival was threatened by the communists, perception versus reality, perception wins) even the war in afghanistan and Iraq could be argued as wars for our survival(I'm anti-Iraqi freedom, the war, not the concept, but again, perception versus reality, perception wins again)

part of this reality is that europe has been going secularist socialism, while american has maintained a nearly constant moralistic religious base in it's population.

No, European moralistic values were and are far more Christian than those of the USA ever where, and probably will ever be in my opinion. And socialism goes better with Christianity than capitalism.

Of course, it depends on what you call "christian values". In my view Europeans roughly follow the gist of the doctrine, the main concepts and ideas of it, but have a loose attitude to most things which are officially sins as well as the actual worshipping. For a very large part they still act and think like Christians though, with Christian morals - even if they say they are atheist. People get upset by greed, and the salaries of topmanagers for instance - something quite unlikely to happen in the states

In the US on the other hand the focus (again: in my view) does not lie on the religion in totality, but on picking out certain sections. Lots of attention for the worshipping of God, lots of attention for issues like abortion and "sanctity of marriage". Very little thinking of the "grand idea" or "feel" behind the religion. A trend that seems common in the US: focus is needed (attack Osama instead of thinking of the Taliban as a whole. Saddam instead of his party. Always have a focal point)

Which one is the true Christian depends on your point of view. And feel free to disagree with my thoughts ;)

<angry rant about sterotypes>
Sure did. When I see posts like that, the urge to believe all negative stereotypes about Americans gets stronger.

You HAVE to be doing this for comedic effect... right?

that being said, the generalization in present day US politics(it changes with time, in the 60's the demecrats were actually the big pro-racist, pro-segragetion anti "Liberal" party. opposite of what they claim to be today)
Yeah, it kind of happened over segregation, basically. Up until the middle of the century, the democratic party was more conservative, but then one of the democrats (I forget which one) was anti-sergregation and his republican opponent was pro-sergregation and the south swung red and the north swung blue and both parties quickly changed their policy to appeal to their new supporting block. That's the way it's been for the last 50 years, but it will eventually change again.

List the wars the USA has had to fight for its survival.
I believe the American Revolution and the war of 1812 (something I'm sure is whitewashed in British history, just like the Russian invasion is kind of ignored by the people both here and in Europe) were being referenced. Think of it this way- at the time Europe had a history of absolute monarchs and a huge peasentry with a few nobles swimming in money, all gotten from what was for all intensive purposes slave labor. Revolutions are everywhere, but how many successfully throw off an oppressive power (and England was very oppressive) and then manage to infuse a brand new political system, and then create prosperity? Most new goverments crumble allowing a dictator to take over. Democracy at the time was a wacko idea, in the same way communism was 70 years ago (except communism failed). That's something to be proud of, and we all are.

As for the war of 1812, Britain invaded the U.S. over silly reasons which seemed good at the time, burned down Washington, and occuppied for a little bit. They were quickly overthrown, however. You can be sure Britain woudl have loved to re-institute the king.

socialism isnt as far left wing as you may think. Many democrats are sudgesting major socialist reforms such as john kerrys free health care, although im not quite sure how long he was in favor of that...

1812, WW1, WW2, theoretically vietnam and korea(not really wars for our survival, but we believed our survival was threatened by the communists, perception versus reality, perception wins) even the war in afghanistan and Iraq could be argued as wars for our survival(I'm anti-Iraqi freedom, the war, not the concept, but again, perception versus reality, perception wins again)

1812 started because several warhawks wanted to take Canada from Britain. We invaded Canada.

Do you really think that Austria and Germany would have invaded the US in WW1? Do you think Hitler or the Japanese would have invaded the US in WW2?

As for Vietnam and Korea, even if we did think it was for survival, we were wrong.

Anyone who thinks Europe is socialist needs a new meaning of the word socialism. Or to actually come over here and look.

You see the difference is we do not force women to pay so they can have their babies in a hospital or old men to pay for a hip replacement. We have something called 'humanity'. And you accuse our monarchs of being unfeeling. Ha!

And by the way Europeans have been fighting for their freedom for a far longer time than America. How many wars has Britain had to fight to keep the Spanish, the French and the Germans off our coasts?

Yeah, we don't force them to pay either, we have medicaid for that, it's not a very good way to do it, but it's what we're willing to do, since the old man who needs a hip replacement probably has enough money, if he was responsible with his spending and saved money like I do he wouldn't even need insurance, the mother in the hospital should have a family, her parents that is, a husband and possibly extended family that could help her pay for it, if they were responsible in their spending they'd definitely have enough money for hospital costs, I currently have enough money saved up to pay for another repair on my femur, and that was about 200 just for the hospital stay alone, everyone should be fiscally careful and have at least 5k in savings whenever possibl, or working towards 5k.

1812 started because several warhawks wanted to take Canada from Britain. We invaded Canada.

Do you really think that Austria and Germany would have invaded the US in WW1? Do you think Hitler or the Japanese would have invaded the US in WW2?

As for Vietnam and Korea, even if we did think it was for survival, we were wrong.

1812 started because of a minor conflict in tripoli that the british got involved in against our marines, we then defeated tripoli and the brits got cranky, they attacked us and we invaded canada to drive them out.

People in the US seem to think the scale is one-dimensional: liberal on one side, conservative on the other.

I suppose they've never heard of libertarianism, authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, socialism, nationalism, fascism, nihilism, daltonism, rheumatism, Dadaism...

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

No thats not true those all can fall into category along the line of wright wing and left wing im a libratarian, and my party is very right wing. And socialism is the far end left wing while communism is the very end of the left wing and fascism is the very end of wright wing. Right wing and left wing dont have to do with what political party you are at all you can technically be a left wing republican or a right wing democrat the right wing left wing just shows how liberal or conservative you are. And yes every political party can be put somewhere in the right wing left wing category except anarchism which isnt because it is against both the sides of the wing and is not a kind of goverment it is anti goverment if there was anarchy there wouldnt be any scale of how conservative or liberal you are.

And id like to piont out after reading some more of this conversation that europe is very socialist, not like communism but they are socialist. Americans dont pay 40-60% of our income to have free healthcare or transportation if you havent noticed almost everything like that such as healthcare and transportation are private and i still think our goverment is to socialist. All of the socialist programs weve started like maintained welfare and such, have only changed the way our economy works from the rich people riding on the poor peoples back to the poor people riding on the rich and the middle class.

Your comparing American tax policy to European trade policy. They are not exactly comparable.
He wasn't even doing that. It was just an excuse for an anti-European racist flame.

You HAVE to be doing this for comedic effect... right?
No. Believe it or not, I don't like being told that I am greedy or that I support Chinese torturers and Iranian fundamentalists, all just because I am European.

List the wars the USA has had to fight for its survival.


(almost) every war up to World War II. In all of those wars, American land was in some way threatened

1812 started because of a minor conflict in tripoli that the british got involved in against our marines, we then defeated tripoli and the brits got cranky, they attacked us and we invaded canada to drive them out.

The US made the initial declaration of war, and Madison's reasons, as stated to congress, made no mention of a British attack.

He wasn't even doing that. It was just an excuse for an anti-European racist flame.


No. Believe it or not, I don't like being told that I am greedy or that I support Chinese torturers and Iranian fundamentalists, all just because I am European.

I dont think the americans are saying anything like that and on my side do you think i like being called a greedy warmonger, just because im american.

Yeah, we don't force them to pay either, we have medicaid for that, it's not a very good way to do it, but it's what we're willing to do, since the old man who needs a hip replacement probably has enough money, if he was responsible with his spending and saved money like I do he wouldn't even need insurance, the mother in the hospital should have a family, her parents that is, a husband and possibly extended family that could help her pay for it, if they were responsible in their spending they'd definitely have enough money for hospital costs, I currently have enough money saved up to pay for another repair on my femur, and that was about 200 just for the hospital stay alone, everyone should be fiscally careful and have at least 5k in savings whenever possibl, or working towards 5k.

Bah! What's with this line of thinking?

My parents are poor. Why is that my fault? I'm trying to go to college, but for me that means that I have to be intelligent and persevering (which I luckily am, my brothers are not). So, my brothers are not going to college. Why is it that someone with rich parents can send their kids to college even if they were not intelligent and persevering? Why is it that because my parents were poor, I never had a doctor? I've only been to the doctor for an emergency (appendicitis), and we obviously can't afford that.

Why is it that because my parents are poor, I grow up with disadvantages? Should I be punished for my parents' bad choices?

Should lazy rich kids be rewarded for their parents' good choices?


It's not my fault that my parents are poor. I should not be punished for it. It should not be harder for me to get an education (to make money so I am not poor like my parents) than a rich kid.

(almost) every war up to World War II. In all of those wars, American land was in some way threatened

ah yes. like all those indian wars, where the murderous hordes of natives tried to invade the land that had been ours since time immemorial. or that time when mexico marched on washington. or when those damn filipinos tried to take away our independence and turn us into a colony. or when austria and germany sacked chicago.

Yes, in the US liberal is left wing. Socialist is considered insanely far left wing. It's just the way our culture and media shape the political discussion.

yah

and left-wingers call right-wingers "fascists" even though fascism uses some left-wing ideologies.

Why is it always America? Hmm...

Why is it always America? Hmm...

I don't know. Maybe the rest of the world is bored and likes picking on the prom king.

hehe

Is this right?

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!

Unfortuneatly yes, many of my fellow americans have a very "one dimentional" view of politics in general... LEFT = Liberal, RIGHT = Conservative.... And statism vs. libertarianism is almost ignored (both of our major parties are heavily statist).... I have no such "single line" view.... And can recognize far more subtlety amongst americans.... even if they practice 1-d politics.

Economic Left/Right: 6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

How you get this???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

Is this right?

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!
In america, the term liberal has been accosted by the social democrats.

STOP RIGHT THERE

I've reported this post to the mods. I am extremely offended that you say that all Europeans:
Rule number 2 of american politics. The UK is not part of europe.

Well, doesn't EVERYBODY know that the Democrats are really Communists?
Seriously, you guys should have caught on when they tried to pass that bill abolishing private property. Of course, nobody knows about since they used the KGB to assassinate the reporters and such.
Yup.

You see the difference is we do not force women to pay so they can have their babies in a hospital or old men to pay for a hip replacement. We have something called 'humanity'. And you accuse our monarchs of being unfeeling. Ha!

Yes, instead these hospital bills get paid for by the government... Where does the government get its money? Oh that's right, the magical money tree. We just pull some cash off it and away we go! If there's not enough on the tree, we'll just print up some new money. The government is rich! They can always print more money!

You see, you actually DO FORCE people to pay. The people who pay are the taxpayers. It's called stealing as someone pointed out earlier. Where's the "humanity" in that? The government has no right to infringe on my property rights. Get the hell out of my wallet. If I know someone who needs financial help, and I am able to help them out, I will. The government has no right to force me to do it.

Stop acting like money grows on trees.

In America the bills are not immediately due. They can put as little as $10 dollars on every bill they have. And no hospital or agency can do anything about it.

For the great deal of Americans most of what happens outside our borders we do not care. And most of the wars we have fought we for our survival or the survival of our allies. WW 1 and 2 Europe was to weak to stop the German invasion. America did not want to enter these wars since we had no reason to. But the nations in Europe begged from American aid. In WW 2 Hilter wanted to bomb New York with a radioactive bomb. If America did not enter the war everyone in Europe would be speaking german.

America has saved Europe from itself twice in one century. Thousands died on the beaches of Normandy and the French say get your trash off our beach. With that attitude is it any wonder America has its outlook? Many in Europe dont like America. But what irritates them the most is that America for all its arrogance is needed. I do not doubt that if America shut down all its bases in Europe and around the world and retreated to its own borders in a act of self-reservation since most nations hate us. There would be war. Without an American presence and the threat of its war machine nations would war with one another. I am not saying that we stop war since there will always be fighting. But an American presence gives most nations pause. And those that dont we eventually attack.

That is why there are flame wars here. They hate us but they need us. Long live the American Empire.

(almost) every war up to World War II. In all of those wars, American land was in some way threatened
Indeed, if America had not taken control of the Philippines, it would certainly have been destroyed. :rolleyes:

No, list wars that were necessary to fight for survival. Not just territory. I mean wars that, if lost, would have meant the end of the United States of America. Unless I am uninformed and Mexico also wanted to take over Washington DC back in 1850?

Is this right?

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!

Sad, but mostly true.
I was called "Commie" for a year, just because I said socialism was a pretty good idea.

ah yes. like all those indian wars, where the murderous hordes of natives tried to invade the land that had been ours since time immemorial. or that time when mexico marched on washington. or when those damn filipinos tried to take away our independence and turn us into a colony. or when austria and germany sacked chicago.
haha, that's my point!

Fact is, most countries in Europe have had to fight many more true wars of survival than America has.

I dont think the americans are saying anything like that and on my side do you think i like being called a greedy warmonger, just because im american.
I agree that's unfair too, and I think that Europeans who tar all Americans as warmongers are also jackasses.

Rule number 2 of american politics. The UK is not part of europe.
:rolleyes:

How is the UK not in Europe? I don't live there anyway, I'm Irish.

both of our major parties are heavily statist
Funny, both ardently left-wing Democrats and rabidly conservative Republicans both imagine themselves to be anti-statist.

It's called stealing as someone pointed out earlier. Where's the "humanity" in that? The government has no right to infringe on my property rights. Get the hell out of my wallet.
Sometimes a sacrifice must be made for the societal good. Why does the government have not right to infringe upon your wallet? Not that I disagree, but why? Try not to reference the US Constitution. In addition, why does the government have no right to tell its citizens what do do with their money, but it does have the right to tell its citizens what do do with their bodies (drugs)?

That is why there are flame wars here. They hate us but they need us. Long live the American Empire.
Most Europeans do not want America to go isolationist, but we think that you tend to interfere where you shouldn't and/or in the wrong way.

Most Europeans also think that a permanent global American presence is not required to prevent wars.

Your post came across as rather patronising and elitist.

haha, that's my point!

Fact is, most countries in Europe have had to fight many more true wars of survival than America has.

Yes, but Europe has also fought more wars of opression and pregidus then the U.S. has.

The facts are, Europe's history is full of brutal acts of opression, ethnocentricity, raceism, hatred, Imperialism, religious fanatcisium, ect...

But that does not mean that Europe is a bad place with bad people in it.

I hear so often that America is bad because of it's history! WHEN EUROPES HISTORY IS 10 TIMES MORE VIOLENT.


And on the topic of wars that the US fought to preserve itself... Lets review the list shal we...

American Revolution: fairly obvious.

1812: I don't know, haveing you'r capitol burned to the ground sounds fairly bad to me...

Mexican American War: The US protects our citizens because we acculy care.

Civil War: Last I checked, keeping ones nation unified was a good thing...

Indian Wars: Like I said, WE PROTECT OUR CITIZENS!

Spanish American War: A. The Cubans ASKED us too... B. Spain ATTACKED US first.

WWI: Europe asked us too.

WWII: Europe BEGED us too... Also Pearl Harbor ticked us off.

Korea: The UN asked us too.

Vietnam: The FRENCH BEGED US TOO!

Gulf: Iraw FORCED us too.

Afghanistan: Ossama Forced us too.

War of Iraqi Freedom: Dose more dead terrorists and a nation newly Freed, sound bad to you? Or arew you just a bunch of heartless monsters?

War to liberate Europe for the 21st century: Opps... forgot... this is classified... :rolleyes:


I hope you enjoyed my rant, so to keep the feelings happy. I leave you with my favorite U.N. solagans... Enjoy :D


http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/imaoun500.gif

People in the US seem to think the scale is one-dimensional: liberal on one side, conservative on the other.

I suppose they've never heard of libertarianism, authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, socialism, nationalism, fascism, nihilism, daltonism, rheumatism, Dadaism...

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Isn't rhumatism a disease? I mean, seriously, I've heard of all of those except rheumatism. And I'm a conservative-libertarian by american standards. The american political scene as a whole may be relatively conservative, but cities like Seattle, San Francisco, and Austin are practically straight out of Europe. (Austin is the weirdest instance, being in Texas... literally within a mile of city limits you're back in beer, bate, and ammo country.)

I've heard US conservatives gloating because liberals got "trounced" again by the "conservative" Labour party.

One can only laugh.
Yeah, I know - "conservative" . . . like Maggie Thatcher :rolleyes:

I find this "left"-"right" idea to be completely foolish and far too simplistic. I am a libertarian and I often refer to myself as Liberal and people assume I am "left-wing". It is irritating.

You conservatives nailed us. All those SUV-driving lawyers and doctors who supported Howard Dean have a secret agenda of slaughtering the capitalists to make way for the dictatorship of the proletariat. US liberalism is based on the old British Liberal Party. The whole point of American liberalism is regulating business so that it benefits society as a whole and encouraging economic growth through the betterment of society leading to a better business environment. It's also libertarian in the sense that it believes personal freedoms can be threatened by corporations and wealth as much as they can by an oppresive government. This is a tradition in the Democratic Party that dates back to the days of left-wing ascendence (FDR, LBJ, JFK- the acronym presidents.) Republicans Nixon and Eisenhower were close to this school of thought too. It's not even vaguely socialist.

You conservatives nailed us. All those SUV-driving lawyers and doctors who supported Howard Dean have a secret agenda of slaughtering the capitalists to make way for the dictatorship of the proletariat. US liberalism is based on the old British Liberal Party. The whole point of American liberalism is regulating business so that it benefits society as a whole and encouraging economic growth through the betterment of society leading to a better business environment. It's also libertarian in the sense that it believes personal freedoms can be threatened by corporations and wealth as much as they can by an oppresive government. This is a tradition in the Democratic Party that dates back to the days of left-wing ascendence (FDR, LBJ, JFK- the acronym presidents.) Republicans Nixon and Eisenhower were close to this school of thought too. It's not even vaguely socialist.
Liberalism today is not Classical Liberalism which is modern-day libertarianism. American liberals and libertarians disagree on issues of economics and often see the government as a major source for the rise of monopolies.

You conservatives nailed us. All those SUV-driving lawyers and doctors who supported Howard Dean have a secret agenda of slaughtering the capitalists to make way for the dictatorship of the proletariat. US liberalism is based on the old British Liberal Party. The whole point of American liberalism is regulating business so that it benefits society as a whole and encouraging economic growth through the betterment of society leading to a better business environment. It's also libertarian in the sense that it believes personal freedoms can be threatened by corporations and wealth as much as they can by an oppresive government. This is a tradition in the Democratic Party that dates back to the days of left-wing ascendence (FDR, LBJ, JFK- the acronym presidents.) Republicans Nixon and Eisenhower were close to this school of thought too. It's not even vaguely socialist.

Ok, lets play the what if game...


Ok, so now America uses this system. Sounds good right? Yes, it dose. At first, the labourors and unioners get more money, the big businesses are regulated and controled by the government. And people seem to be happy... for a while.

But soon, prices of American made good SKYROCKET to unbelieveable hights. Forign nations stop buying American good due to price. The strengh of the dollar plummets. And Buisness leave for nations such as China and India for cheaper labour. We respond by taxing foring products that enter our contry, the result is that other contries stop tradeing with us.

Withen a generation, the US is nothing more then a strugeling second rate nation...



Now, lets look at China...

China has no minimum wage. No regulation on the Buisness *that I know of* and a people who are used to working for close to nothing.

Products from China are cheap and quickly made. More contries trade with them, and so their economy rises. As long as labour stays cheap, more and more forign Business will come to China to open-up shop.

However, soon the Chinese workers come down with the "European Sickness" or the want of more rights and money for lower working hours.

Thus the cycle repeats it self...


Moral: The idea looks good on paper, but in pratice, IT SUCKS.

And on the topic of wars that the US fought to preserve itself... Lets review the list shal we...

American Revolution: fairly obvious.

1812: I don't know, haveing you'r capitol burned to the ground sounds fairly bad to me...

Mexican American War: The US protects our citizens because we acculy care.

Civil War: Last I checked, keeping ones nation unified was a good thing...

Indian Wars: Like I said, WE PROTECT OUR CITIZENS!

Spanish American War: A. The Cubans ASKED us too... B. Spain ATTACKED US first.

WWI: Europe asked us too.

WWII: Europe BEGED us too... Also Pearl Harbor ticked us off.

Korea: The UN asked us too.

Vietnam: The FRENCH BEGED US TOO!

Gulf: Iraw FORCED us too.

Afghanistan: Ossama Forced us too.

War of Iraqi Freedom: Dose more dead terrorists and a nation newly Freed, sound bad to you? Or arew you just a bunch of heartless monsters?

You're right on War of Independence, 1812, Civil War, and WWII.

You're wrong on the rest. Remember, I didn't ask you to justify every US war ever. I only asked for a list of wars that were essential to America's survival.

Mexican American War: The US protects our citizens because we acculy care. - Mexico wasn't planning to invade Washington DC.

Indian Wars: Like I said, WE PROTECT OUR CITIZENS! - not essential to America's survival. That was genocide, not self-defense.

Spanish American War: A. The Cubans ASKED us too... B. Spain ATTACKED US first. - not essential to America's survival

WWI: Europe asked us too. - not essential to America's survival, or even Europe's

Korea: The UN asked us too. - not essential to America's survival

Vietnam: The FRENCH BEGED US TOO! - not essential to America's survival

Gulf: Iraw FORCED us too. - not essential to America's survival

Afghanistan: Ossama Forced us too. - not essential to America's survival

War of Iraqi Freedom: Dose more dead terrorists and a nation newly Freed, sound bad to you? Or arew you just a bunch of heartless monsters? - not essential to America's survival

---

Regarding your views of Iraq (yeah, more dead terrorists will make everything perfect - remember, money grows on trees), you are a simpleton.

And that silly little anti-UN chart is not exactly intellectual.

Moral: The idea looks good on paper, but in pratice, IT SUCKS.
What is the point of a booming economy when quality of life is non-existent?

Now, lets look at China...

China has no minimum wage. No regulation on the Buisness *that I know of* and a people who are used to working for close to nothing.

Products from China are cheap and quickly made. More contries trade with them, and so their economy rises. As long as labour stays cheap, more and more forign Business will come to China to open-up shop.

However, soon the Chinese workers come down with the "European Sickness" or the want of more rights and money for lower working hours.

Thus the cycle repeats it self...


Moral: The idea looks good on paper, but in pratice, IT SUCKS.

Now, I could be wrong, but I've always heard China was a communist country..

This has to be one of the saddest examples of some of you people's characters.

One person begins a post that could have been a rather intresting political argument/debate and then what do we know everyone takes eveything to the extreme and thinks there being insulted. It doesn't matter who insulted who or who did what first, it went from polotics to pride to anger and etc and then became rather dumb with all the anti-European and anti-American posts. (My my surprising this all went by the normal human reactions.....)

Don't use this thread as a place to yell and hate others because they freely express their beliefs here, in the end these posts just become boring little things.

As for my response to main topic.....

Sadly as has been said a decent amount of Americans(I am one) see things as how they have been told by day one; good or bad, white or black, or in this case Liberal or Conservative.

That does not mean we all see it like that. Many of those who do see more than that never speak up or aren't given the chances, so if we appear to be a nation that exists only with red or blue then my advice is to stop believing the media and find your own answers. (This isn't meant to offend anyone, my apologies if there is offense taken.)

You're right on War of Independence, 1812, Civil War, and WWII.

You're wrong on the rest. Remember, I didn't ask you to justify every US war ever. I only asked for a list of wars that were essential to America's survival.

Mexican American War: The US protects our citizens because we acculy care. - Mexico wasn't planning to invade Washington DC.

Indian Wars: Like I said, WE PROTECT OUR CITIZENS! - not essential to America's survival. That was genocide, not self-defense.

Spanish American War: A. The Cubans ASKED us too... B. Spain ATTACKED US first. - not essential to America's survival

WWI: Europe asked us too. - not essential to America's survival, or even Europe's

Korea: The UN asked us too. - not essential to America's survival

Vietnam: The FRENCH BEGED US TOO! - not essential to America's survival

Gulf: Iraw FORCED us too. - not essential to America's survival

Afghanistan: Ossama Forced us too. - not essential to America's survival

War of Iraqi Freedom: Dose more dead terrorists and a nation newly Freed, sound bad to you? Or arew you just a bunch of heartless monsters? - not essential to America's survival

---

Regarding your views of Iraq (yeah, more dead terrorists will make everything perfect - remember, money grows on trees), you are a simpleton.

And that silly little anti-UN chart is not exactly intellectual.


Historically, you missed a few inaccuracies:

War of 1812: Washington, DC was burned down in response to the American sack and burning of Ottawa. The war was started over impressment and economic issues.

Spanish-American War: We weren't attacked first. The Maine Explosion was an accident which the press and the President exploited for a declaration of war. NO historical or factual study has produced ANY evidence that this explosion was anything but an accident.

Korea: The UN forces were a cover for an American intervention. WE introduced the resolution calling for force in Korea. OUR idea.

Vietnam: The French were long gone before the first US troop was deployed. All we gave the French were money and guns.

Gulf I: "Iraw" never forced us to do anything.

On Afghanistan, he kinda has a point. Not doing anything about September 11th could have been pretty bad for the lives of millions of Americans. This invasion was vitally important to national security. Unfortunately, it got fucked up by poor planning and execution.

Gulf 2: Another good idea that was totally fucked up by the Bush crew. They can't seem to do anything right.

What is the point of a booming economy when quality of life is non-existent?

Generally, a booming economy would make quality of life pretty good 'tis the point of an economy...

Now, I could be wrong, but I've always heard China was a communist country..

and, in fact, you are wrong. the most you can get out of them is that they claim to follow "socialism with chinese characteristics". but these 'chinese characteristics' apparently involve private ownership of the means of production (by foreign capitalists, no less) and wage slavery. so it ain't even socialism. hell, they don't even have national healthcare.

To be fair, the labour party in the UK is pretty far right, though less so than the tories of course e.g. student top-up fees, identity cards...

By the standards we apply in Europe, yes.

But, given that the Americans who make the statement see the DNC as far left, well, Labour shift dramatically back to where they belong.

Do you think that the US government has a lily-white record? You guys have done much more dirt in the world since 1945 than European countries have. The US government is guilty of everything you decided to lay the blame on ordinary Europeans.


List the wars the USA has had to fight for its survival.


Not at all, the concept of ID cards comes from authoritarian socialism.


Hmm, lets see. Does American have a lily white record? No, we have a terrible one. We invented manifest destiny and the Roosevelt corallary to the Monroe doctrine. We commited genocide against an indigeonous people. We have screwed with the politics of other nations since the late 19th century. See, the dirty little secret is that there are no white hats. In world politics there are no good guys. Everyone has done things that have lost them any semblance of moral superiority. The fact of the matter is, though, that the relativism we see in Europe is disgusting. There are objective measures of "better than X." We don't cut off the genitals of 9 year old girls in order to control their future sexuality, we don't stone women for having sex, we don't force them to wear burkas, we don't have public executions, and we don't trample the civil or political rights of our citizens. That makes us better than countries that do.

As for wars that the US has had to fight for survival. We had to throw off monarchy in England in 1776, in 1812 we again had to force back the British, then we had to fight our own people in the Civil War in order to preserve the union. We had to protect our borders during the Spanish American war. Then twice in this century we had to bail out Europe because they couldn't stand up to the Germans. Make no mistake, both Wilhelm and Hitler would have tried to cross the Atlantic. So yeah, we've fought to survive. We also had to build a nation from scratch, without royalty or royal funds.

Your comparing American tax policy to European trade policy. They are not exactly comparable.

As for American trade policy, the Americans claim to support democracy around the world. What about the American support of the Saudi government and the money it gives to Israel to build on the occupied territories.


Ugh, don't get me started on Israel and the Saudis. If we have a national shame, its that we supported those two disgusting regimes.

Ok, lets play the what if game...


Ok, so now America uses this system. Sounds good right? Yes, it dose. At first, the labourors and unioners get more money, the big businesses are regulated and controled by the government. And people seem to be happy... for a while.

But soon, prices of American made good SKYROCKET to unbelieveable hights. Forign nations stop buying American good due to price. The strengh of the dollar plummets. And Buisness leave for nations such as China and India for cheaper labour. We respond by taxing foring products that enter our contry, the result is that other contries stop tradeing with us.

Withen a generation, the US is nothing more then a strugeling second rate nation...



Now, lets look at China...

China has no minimum wage. No regulation on the Buisness *that I know of* and a people who are used to working for close to nothing.

Products from China are cheap and quickly made. More contries trade with them, and so their economy rises. As long as labour stays cheap, more and more forign Business will come to China to open-up shop.

However, soon the Chinese workers come down with the "European Sickness" or the want of more rights and money for lower working hours.

Thus the cycle repeats it self...


Moral: The idea looks good on paper, but in pratice, IT SUCKS.

Businesses benefit from certain kinds of regulation. The steel for an average GM car made in America (which they all aren't) costs about $800, the healthcare for the workers who made it, provided by GM, costs about $1,600. In Japan, the employer pays nothing towards health care because the government provides it. Environmental regulations that give tax breaks to companies using green technology reward companies for ingenuity and innovation, which can then be exported to places like Europe that have stricter environmental policies.

Also, it's better for the economy for middle class people to have more money. If a millionaire gets richer, the money goes into an offshore bank account, or maybe a new factory in China. If a family of 4 that makes $100,000 a year makes a few thousand more, they'll buy a new car, or maybe a new house, both of which are expensive and labor intensive, helping the economy. If the family buys American, they could even benefit the economy by buying more consumer goods.

Anyone who thinks Europe is socialist needs a new meaning of the word socialism. Or to actually come over here and look.

You see the difference is we do not force women to pay so they can have their babies in a hospital or old men to pay for a hip replacement. We have something called 'humanity'. And you accuse our monarchs of being unfeeling. Ha!

And by the way Europeans have been fighting for their freedom for a far longer time than America. How many wars has Britain had to fight to keep the Spanish, the French and the Germans off our coasts?


I've got news for you, when the Government decides to pay for it's citizen's private services, thats socialism. What you call humanity is charity. Now I have no problem with that, but the government mandating it is wrong. Granted, right and wrong are different here and there because the various nations of Europe are built on a different system than America.

Oh, and I don't consider fighting one monarchy to preserve the power of another monarchy "fighting for their freedom." England gave up it's freedom when Boadicea fell to the Romans and didn't bother to stand up for it again until the Kaiser started to march.

Ugh, don't get me started on Israel and the Saudis. If we have a national shame, its that we supported those two disgusting regimes.

Just curious. Why the past tense? Did something change while the rest of the world wasn't looking?

(almost) every war up to World War II. In all of those wars, American land was in some way threatened

Ok, to be fair, WWII was mostly the US cleaning up it's mess from getting involved in WWI. The smart bet for WWI would have been to make an alliance with Germany, thus avoiding the rise of Hitler, WWII, and (likely) the Cold War. But hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

Bah! What's with this line of thinking?

My parents are poor. Why is that my fault? I'm trying to go to college, but for me that means that I have to be intelligent and persevering (which I luckily am, my brothers are not). So, my brothers are not going to college. Why is it that someone with rich parents can send their kids to college even if they were not intelligent and persevering? Why is it that because my parents were poor, I never had a doctor? I've only been to the doctor for an emergency (appendicitis), and we obviously can't afford that.

Why is it that because my parents are poor, I grow up with disadvantages? Should I be punished for my parents' bad choices?

Should lazy rich kids be rewarded for their parents' good choices?


It's not my fault that my parents are poor. I should not be punished for it. It should not be harder for me to get an education (to make money so I am not poor like my parents) than a rich kid.


Because theres no better way. Yeah, you were poor, boo hoo, so was I. You worked hard and made it to college, so did I. Your brothers didn't, do they deserve to go? No. Because in this society you either have to earn it or inherit it. That gives you the chance to be the rich guy whose kids don't have to earn it. It gives you the chance to go to a doctor every time you have a runny nose. Most importantly, though, it gives you the chance to keep whats yours. In this country, no one has a right to what you own but you. Every step towards socialism weakens that tenet of personal property just a little. Remember, theres always someone worse off than you with a hand out.

Want a good idea of what happens when you take from the rich and give to the poor? Go read a short story by Kurt Vonnegut called "Harrison Burgeron."

Bah! What's with this line of thinking?

My parents are poor. Why is that my fault? I'm trying to go to college, but for me that means that I have to be intelligent and persevering (which I luckily am, my brothers are not). So, my brothers are not going to college. Why is it that someone with rich parents can send their kids to college even if they were not intelligent and persevering? Why is it that because my parents were poor, I never had a doctor? I've only been to the doctor for an emergency (appendicitis), and we obviously can't afford that.

Why is it that because my parents are poor, I grow up with disadvantages? Should I be punished for my parents' bad choices?

Should lazy rich kids be rewarded for their parents' good choices?


It's not my fault that my parents are poor. I should not be punished for it. It should not be harder for me to get an education (to make money so I am not poor like my parents) than a rich kid.


No, it's not your fault. No, it's not fair. But, you can't force egalitarianism, either. That just stagnates economies, and it also isn't right to strip someone else of what they already possess.

You play the hand you're dealt.

You're not being punished, however. You're just starting with less. You still have the potential to do just about anything you set your mind to--use that perseverance you proudly tout (and rightfully so), and make things better for yourself.

Well, doesn't EVERYBODY know that the Democrats are really Communists?


Given their druthers, the Democrats would be communists (though they'd never call it that) and the Republicans would be theocrats (though they'd never call it that). Thats why we have ballots and, as a last-case-scenario, bullets.

No, it's not your fault. No, it's not fair. But, you can't force egalitarianism, either. That just stagnates economies, and it also isn't right to strip someone else of what they already possess.

You play the hand you're dealt.

You're not being punished, however. You're just starting with less. You still have the potential to do just about anything you set your mind to--use that perseverance you proudly tout (and rightfully so), and make things better for yourself.

Well, I must admit, you have a point.

There are two major issues that I still would fight for in this country, though.

Equal education for all and equal healthcare for all.

But then, that's why I'm liberal.


I just think that "play the hand your dealt" is not the right way to think. I know other people believe it is the right way to think, and therefore this is a matter of opinion.

I think "deal everyone an equal hand" would be more along the lines of the analogy I'd like to see. The people would of course still have the ability to "play the hand" how they wanted, but one person would not start with an advantage over the other.


In today's society, of course hard work pays off. The problem that I see is that in some instances, the hard work continues to pay off to people who didn't actually do said "hard work." i.e. the example of the rich kid inheriting his families' fortune to pay to go to college. That rich kid can be lazy all the way up until he's 18, and then as long as he works from then on he will be on the easy road to wealth. Whereas, the poor kid will have to begin his work in grade school, when he doesn't even realize that the actions he takes then directly affect the quality of life he has in the future.


Oh well, I guess I've stated my opinion, and everybody is entitled to one. :)

Given their druthers, the Democrats would be communists (though they'd never call it that) and the Republicans would be theocrats (though they'd never call it that). Thats why we have ballots and, as a last-case-scenario, bullets.

Nope, Democrats will never be communist.
Communism ,at least stalinist version of it, usually present today requires no religion. There are many Democrats with religion.

Repulicans...well theocrats fits strangely. There are few atheist repubs that I know of.
Maybe if they did Libertarians wouuld finally vote for their own party.

I'm not really gonna quote anyone here, but what is all this about "essential to survial" garbage? It isn't nice, it isn't pretty, it isn't even right, but in this world the strong devour the weak. Governments get into pissing contests, leaders get imperialistic, and people die. No one really gets to call foul because everyone has done it and will do it again. What started WWI? It wasn't nationalism, it wasn't Ferdinand's death, it was the big boys in Europe fighting over who got to oppress what developing country. The US didn't call foul because they had just gotten done with westward expansion. The world is a bad place, the only thing you can do is wear a helmet, buy a gun, and try not to pick a fight.

Nope, Democrats will never be communist.
Communism ,at least stalinist version of it, usually present today requires no religion. There are many Democrats with religion.

Repulicans...well theocrats fits strangely. There are few atheist repubs that I know of.
Maybe if they did Libertarians wouuld finally vote for their own party.

Democrats would be Statist Socialists

Republicans would be Statist Theocrats

Overall.

Which is why I vote LP.

I am neither a Statist, a Socialist, nor a Theonomist.

Well, I must admit, you have a point.

There are two major issues that I still would fight for in this country, though.

Equal education for all and equal healthcare for all.

But then, that's why I'm liberal.


I just think that "play the hand your dealt" is not the right way to think. I know other people believe it is the right way to think, and therefore this is a matter of opinion.

I think "deal everyone an equal hand" would be more along the lines of the analogy I'd like to see. The people would of course still have the ability to "play the hand" how they wanted, but one person would not start with an advantage over the other.


In today's society, of course hard work pays off. The problem that I see is that in some instances, the hard work continues to pay off to people who didn't actually do said "hard work." i.e. the example of the rich kid inheriting his families' fortune to pay to go to college. That rich kid can be lazy all the way up until he's 18, and then as long as he works from then on he will be on the easy road to wealth. Whereas, the poor kid will have to begin his work in grade school, when he doesn't even realize that the actions he takes then directly affect the quality of life he has in the future.


Oh well, I guess I've stated my opinion, and everybody is entitled to one. :)

I guess the reason why I'm not for the everyone starts at the same place is that you have to take that money from someone that worked for it. Not all that many inherit.

So, we just steal money from those that didn't actually earn it? How would we determine this? Give up all the money you've earned when you die? That's still stealing from a person. It's taking control of someone else's property.

There just is no right way to start everyone at the same level. Not without running over someone's rights.

It would be nice to have everyone start at the same place, and have them rise or fall by their own merits, but real life doesn't allow for that--and it never really will, regardless the laws in place--someone will always be able to have power over someone else.

I guess the reason why I'm not for the everyone starts at the same place is that you have to take that money from someone that worked for it. Not all that many inherit.

So, we just steal money from those that didn't actually earn it? How would we determine this? Give up all the money you've earned when you die? That's still stealing from a person. It's taking control of someone else's property.

There just is no right way to start everyone at the same level. Not without running over someone's rights.

It would be nice to have everyone start at the same place, and have them rise or fall by their own merits, but real life doesn't allow for that--and it never really will, regardless the laws in place--someone will always be able to have power over someone else.

you don't 'steal' money, people pay taxes because they accept that living in a society is better than living in anarchy. It helps the economy to keep everyone healthy and to educate everyone as much as possible.

Without taxation their could be no government, and without government we'd be like somalia

Generally, a booming economy would make quality of life pretty good 'tis the point of an economy...
It certainly should be the point of a good economy, but as we observe in the real world, a huge GDP alone doesn't mean your citizens have it good.

Hmm, lets see. Does American have a lily white record? No, we have a terrible one.
So you admit this, but why do you accuse Europeans of endorsing the worst aspects of their governments' foreign policies, while absolving Americans of blame for their country's?

Also, how do you substantiate your claim that America has had to do a lot more fighting for survival since its foundation than any European country? To me it appears that America has had a rather sheltered history compared to Europe. When was any American's house destroyed by a bomb dropped from above? That pretty much says it all. The American homeland has not been invaded by a foreign power since 1812.

Every step towards socialism weakens that tenet of personal property just a little. Remember, theres always someone worse off than you with a hand out.

Want a good idea of what happens when you take from the rich and give to the poor? Go read a short story by Kurt Vonnegut called "Harrison Burgeron."
Why do Americans always talk about socialism in ideological terms? For we Europeans the benefits of (some aspects of) socialism are an everyday reality, not just some vague force of evil in the world as it is to most Americans.

And if the American way is so much better, why is it not in the top 5 best countries to live in, but several "socialist" European countries are?

No, it's not your fault. No, it's not fair. But, you can't force egalitarianism, either. That just stagnates economies, and it also isn't right to strip someone else of what they already possess.
Yes, you can force egalitarianism. The well-educated workforces of Europe have not exactly stagnated our economies, have they?

The world is a bad place, the only thing you can do is wear a helmet, buy a gun, and try not to pick a fight.
We can make the world better. Frankly some of us would rather live a life of relative peace, prosperity and security, even if it means paying taxes. It's preferable to the life of violence and fear that you promote.

Want a good idea of what happens when you take from the rich and give to the poor? Go read a short story by Kurt Vonnegut called "Harrison Burgeron."
Way to misunderstand Kurt Vonnegut.

you don't 'steal' money, people pay taxes because they accept that living in a society is better than living in anarchy. It helps the economy to keep everyone healthy and to educate everyone as much as possible.

Without taxation their could be no government, and without government we'd be like somalia

It's funny how paying for medicine so that poor people don't drop dead in the streets is socialism. Paying for food so that children don't die of malnutrition is socialism. Paying for birth control so that poor people don't have children that they can't afford to take care of is socialism.

Paying for police to beat up and arrest poor people who might steel money, take drugs to escape the drudgery of their lives, take poor care of their kids because they don't know how to do any better or can't afford to feed them, and to round up and drive off anyone who complains too loudly about how much all of that sucks... well that's just good government.

Conservatives are sickening perverts.

you don't 'steal' money, people pay taxes because they accept that living in a society is better than living in anarchy.


<sigh> And for those of us who disagree? It's stealing. The government is taking my money when I don't want to give it. I shouldn't have to pay for my neighbors' kids to go to school. I shouldn't have to support someone abusing a welfare system that doesn't force someone to actually get a job. Just because I look for ways of shrinking the government's gargantuan girth doesn't mean I want anarchy.


It helps the economy to keep everyone healthy and to educate everyone as much as possible.


Funny, that actually doesn't work the way you think it does. Not everyone has access to health care in the US, yet our economy is still pretty powerful. And our education system (run by the government) is certainly nowhere near stellar--yet we still have that powerful economy.


Without taxation their could be no government, and without government we'd be like somalia

Bullshit. The US started out without taxes. It only "needed" them when it started to control the populace.

We invented manifest destiny
Actually, one could easily argue that the romans invented it.

Businesses benefit from certain kinds of regulation. The steel for an average GM car made in America (which they all aren't) costs about $800, the healthcare for the workers who made it, provided by GM, costs about $1,600. In Japan, the employer pays nothing towards health care because the government provides it. Environmental regulations that give tax breaks to companies using green technology reward companies for ingenuity and innovation, which can then be exported to places like Europe that have stricter environmental policies.

Also, it's better for the economy for middle class people to have more money. If a millionaire gets richer, the money goes into an offshore bank account, or maybe a new factory in China. If a family of 4 that makes $100,000 a year makes a few thousand more, they'll buy a new car, or maybe a new house, both of which are expensive and labor intensive, helping the economy. If the family buys American, they could even benefit the economy by buying more consumer goods.

And the end result is... FEWER JOBS BECAUSE THE BUSINESSES GO OVERSEAS! What a good idea.

You are right, if a Millionaire makes more money, it will go to a new factory in China. Why? Because the labour is CHEAPER there. If you regulate business, then Business will just go away.

Also, you are right, a middle class family make $100K it is good. But who will make their new car? The Chinese. Why? BECAUSE THEY MAKE CHEAPER CARS! Why? BECAUSE LABOUR IS CHEAPER THERE.

<sigh> And for those of us who disagree? It's stealing. The government is taking my money when I don't want to give it. I shouldn't have to pay for my neighbors' kids to go to school. I shouldn't have to support someone abusing a welfare system that doesn't force someone to actually get a job. Just because I look for ways of shrinking the government's gargantuan girth doesn't mean I want anarchy.



Funny, that actually doesn't work the way you think it does. Not everyone has access to health care in the US, yet our economy is still pretty powerful. And our education system (run by the government) is certainly nowhere near stellar--yet we still have that powerful economy.



Bullshit. The US started out without taxes. It only "needed" them when it started to control the populace.

You agree to live in the society by not moving. Just as Socrates agreed to die in Athens. Go read up about that.

Your education system kicks the crap out of most in the history of man. There are many countries in the world with little or no education.

Welfare isn't about people not wanting to work. It keeps people alive who CANNOT work. Do you value your possessions more than someone's life?

thus avoiding the rise of Hitler, WWII, and (likely) the Cold War. But hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?
Actually, had we just told Clemenceau and Lloyd George(the french and british, respectively) to fuck off with their reparations demands of Germany, WWII would have been avoided. Also, had we just taken Patton and MacArthur's advice and ripped apart what was left of Russia at the end of WWII the cold war wouldn't have happened. Instead we let them keep half of europe and rebuild.

Yes, you can force egalitarianism. The well-educated workforces of Europe have not exactly stagnated our economies, have they?


No, your upswing in economy came from reducing taxes and other things:

After a stagnant 13-year period with less than 2 percent growth, Ireland took a more radical course of slashing expenditures, abolishing agencies and toppling tax rates and regulations. At the same time, the government made credible commitments not to engage in deficit spending or inflate the currency.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-21-03.html

Sounds like you dropped taxes, and got rid of some of those egalitarian-forcing regulations. You took less from the people, and started spending money in a wiser fashion. That's what I wish to do as well.

http://www.cps.org.uk/pdf/art/38.pdf

Here, the EU, from 1996 to 2005, the GDP rose 2.4%, where the US rose 3.4%. You guys in Ireland, though, you jumped 7.4% (again, to actually getting rid of some taxes and regulations--by down-sizing).

No, your upswing in economy came from reducing taxes and other things:

After a stagnant 13-year period with less than 2 percent growth, Ireland took a more radical course of slashing expenditures, abolishing agencies and toppling tax rates and regulations. At the same time, the government made credible commitments not to engage in deficit spending or inflate the currency.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-21-03.html

Sounds like you dropped taxes, and got rid of some of those egalitarian-forcing regulations. You took less from the people, and started spending money in a wiser fashion. That's what I wish to do as well.

http://www.cps.org.uk/pdf/art/38.pdf

Here, the EU, from 1996 to 2005, the GDP rose 2.4%, where the US rose 3.4%. You guys in Ireland, though, you jumped 7.4% (again, to actually getting rid of some taxes and regulations--by down-sizing).

and china kicked your asses, so should we all become communist?

You agree to live in the society by not moving. Just as Socrates agreed to die in Athens. Go read up about that.


Funny, living in a federal republic, the individual isn't supposed to be overrun by the majority--as it works in a true democracy.


Your education system kicks the crap out of most in the history of man. There are many countries in the world with little or no education.


And yet we have kids that can't even point to their own damn country. We have kids graduating that can't read. Governmental schools are corrupt, and so are their unions. They're continuing to get worse as the years pass.


Welfare isn't about people not wanting to work. It keeps people alive who CANNOT work. Do you value your possessions more than someone's life?

I value my life, the lives of those I care about, and the efforts I've made more than any stranger I'll never know. Humans are not above everything. I know welfare isn't about people that don't want to work. But there are many that don't, and do abuse said system. If it weren't there, maybe more might have a bit more incentive to get out and work. It is not my job to keep someone else alive, unless I deem it so.

and china kicked your asses, so should we all become communist?

Ah, but why did they kick our asses? Because they've taken EVERYTHING from the people.

Ireland kicked our asses by giving back instead of taking more.

I'll take option #2.

and china kicked your asses, so should we all become communist?
They also have how much untapped potential again? With upwards of triple the population and starting much, much further behind one would hope that their GDP would increase faster. Simple logic really.

Funny, living in a federal republic, the individual isn't supposed to be overrun by the majority--as it works in a true democracy.


Yu still have rights, but you reliquish some for the security of society.


And yet we have kids that can't even point to their own damn country. We have kids graduating that can't read. Governmental schools are corrupt, and so are their unions. They're continuing to get worse as the years pass.


The USA is more literate than a vast majority of the worlds countries.


I value my life, the lives of those I care about, and the efforts I've made more than any stranger I'll never know. Humans are not above everything. I know welfare isn't about people that don't want to work. But there are many that don't, and do abuse said system. If it weren't there, maybe more might have a bit more incentive to get out and work. It is not my job to keep someone else alive, unless I deem it so.

If you value your possessions above human life then I consider you immoral and evil and am glad you live a great distance from me.

They also have how much untapped potential again? With upwards of triple the population and starting much, much further behind one would hope that their GDP would increase faster. Simple logic really.

yes, it is simple. The comparisons made by Zaxon are simplistic and naive

In regard to your last question:
I can't stand the thought of the socialism that is prevalent in Europe taking over in the US.

Oh no a system where people don't shit all over the poor, quick label it evil and get Murdock to make everyone believe its the spawn of satan ...... gimps

Yu still have rights, but you reliquish some for the security of society.


See, there's the difference between the European definition of rights and the US definition of rights. In the US constitution, rights are defined as immutable, regardless of "laws". When you are forced to give up rights, it's being done illegally.


The USA is more literate than a vast majority of the worlds countries.


The point is, private and home schools pump out better educated kids than any government agency can. Government costs more and is much less efficient than any private organization.


If you value your possessions above human life then I consider you immoral and evil and am glad you live a great distance from me.

Your choice--I personally don't see myself as evil. I don't harbor any ill will toward you, I just don't value you only because you exist. If you want respect, you earn it, not just be born.

yes, it is simple. The comparisons made by Zaxon are simplistic and naive

Sure, Enlightened, sure. How about your proof to the contrary?

Oh no a system where people don't shit all over the poor, quick label it evil and get Murdock to make everyone believe its the spawn of satan ...... gimps

More like a system that will take away what I've worked my tail off to earn.

Sometimes a sacrifice must be made for the societal good. Why does the government have not right to infringe upon your wallet? Not that I disagree, but why? Try not to reference the US Constitution. In addition, why does the government have no right to tell its citizens what do do with their money, but it does have the right to tell its citizens what do do with their bodies (drugs)?

"Societal Good" who decides what that is? The concept of greater good is bullshit, the only thing that matters is protecting individual sovereignty. If you do this, it justifies the outcome, no matter what. If you claim the ends justify the means you can then justify totalitarianism or anything else.

The government has no right to infringe upon my wallet because the only legitimate function of a government is to protect individual rights and protect national sovereignty. In the state of nature man has inherent control over what is his. Even if 99% of the population vote for some welfare program, that doesn't make it legitimate. Any individual is just as valid and has the same rights as any group.

When did I say the government had the right to tell you what you can put in your body? Oh that's right, I didn't. Take whatever drugs you want, just leave me the hell alone.

See, there's the difference between the European definition of rights and the US definition of rights. In the US constitution, rights are defined as immutable, regardless of "laws". When you are forced to give up rights, it's being done illegally.



You give up your rights too. The government can imprison you, execute you, draft you, seize your property...


The point is, private and home schools pump out better educated kids than any government agency can. Government costs more and is much less efficient than any private organization.


I don't trust private schools to have the best interests of the students at heart, they are, afterall, only out to make money in the end.


Your choice--I personally don't see myself as evil. I don't harbor any ill will toward you, I just don't value you only because you exist. If you want respect, you earn it, not just be born.

I don't know you, but I still value you more than a toaster. What value would you put on a human life?

Sure, Enlightened, sure. How about your proof to the contrary?

erm, China growing more and being communist?

You are not comparing like for like - European countries have been around a lot longer than the US and have totally different industries. Your comparison is naive in the extreme.

"Societal Good" who decides what that is? The concept of greater good is bullshit, the only thing that matters is protecting individual sovereignty. If you do this, it justifies the outcome, no matter what. If you claim the ends justify the means you can then justify totalitarianism or anything else.

The government has no right to infringe upon my wallet because the only legitimate function of a government is to protect individual rights and protect national sovereignty. In the state of nature man has inherent control over what is his. Even if 99% of the population vote for some welfare program, that doesn't make it legitimate. Any individual is just as valid and has the same rights as any group.

When did I say the government had the right to tell you what you can put in your body? Oh that's right, I didn't. Take whatever drugs you want, just leave me the hell alone.

you cannot protect the individual if they do not accept a reduction in personal freedom. They must accept that the government can impose sanctions on them if they act against another individual

you cannot protect the individual if they do not accept a reduction in personal freedom. They must accept that the government can impose sanctions on them if they act against another individual

Yes, that's why I said the only legitimate function of the government is to protect individual freedom. Basically you can't force your will on anyone else. You can't kill someone (right to life), you can't steal from them (right to property), etc.

Another important thing to note... The government doesn't "give" you any rights. Rights are God-given and exist naturally. They all derive from the right to be left alone.

Yes, that's why I said the only legitimate function of the government is to protect individual freedom. Basically you can't force your will on anyone else. You can't kill someone (right to life), you can't steal from them (right to property), etc.

but to do that you must relinquish some freedoms to the government. One is to pay for a legal system whereby wrongdoers are caught and prevented from committing more crimes. Another is the provision of a system of trial to protect you from false accusations.

but to do that you must relinquish some freedoms to the government. One is to pay for a legal system whereby wrongdoers are caught and prevented from committing more crimes. Another is the provision of a system of trial to protect you from false accusations.

Yes there should be a court system, police and military. Those are the only legitimate expenditures of the government.

Yes there should be a court system, police and military. Those are the only legitimate expenditures of the government.

why should you not be protected from infectious disease?
What about protection from industrial waste?
Should you receive a death sentence if you are injured and unable to work for a few months?

You give up your rights too. The government can imprison you, execute you, draft you, seize your property...


But I first have to infringe upon someone else's rights before I give up mine. I'm not infringing on anyone's rights when I decide not to pay for what I don't use.


I don't trust private schools to have the best interests of the students at heart, they are, afterall, only out to make money in the end.


Oh please. The government's not any better. The results speak for themselves, though. The kids that come out of private and home schools have more knowledge in their heads that they can use.


I don't know you, but I still value you more than a toaster. What value would you put on a human life?

Depends on the person. My wife? My life for hers. Saddam Hussein? a $.75 10mm round.

But I first have to infringe upon someone else's rights before I give up mine. I'm not infringing on anyone's rights when I decide not to pay for what I don't use.


How about a private police force and prosecution service then?
Ever read jennifer government?


Depends on the person. My wife? My life for hers. Saddam Hussein? a $.75 10mm round.

how much for someone you've never met?

erm, China growing more and being communist?

You are not comparing like for like - European countries have been around a lot longer than the US and have totally different industries. Your comparison is naive in the extreme.

China's been around for 2000 years. Your point?

My point was that Ireland, not really known for their oppressive governments gave back taxes (IE lowered them), got rid of useless appendages of their government that were wasting money, and removed certain other restrictions--and their GDP for the last 10 years rose 7%. I would like the US to do the same--get rid of the chaff that plagues the US government and give the money back to those that actually earned it.

China's been around for 2000 years. Your point?

My point was that Ireland, not really known for their oppressive governments gave back taxes (IE lowered them), got rid of useless appendages of their government that were wasting money, and removed certain other restrictions--and their GDP for the last 10 years rose 7%. I would like the US to do the same--get rid of the chaff that plagues the US government and give the money back to those that actually earned it.

Ireland also gets a large amount of money from the EU for development.

Your view of economics is overly simplistic.

you cannot protect the individual if they do not accept a reduction in personal freedom. They must accept that the government can impose sanctions on them if they act against another individual


One of the gents that helped founded our country said:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

I don't expect you to understand, since you've already determined that it's okay to relinquish your freedom.

but to do that you must relinquish some freedoms to the government. One is to pay for a legal system whereby wrongdoers are caught and prevented from committing more crimes. Another is the provision of a system of trial to protect you from false accusations.

All of this functioned without taxes, initially.

All of this functioned without taxes, initially.

How exaclty?

Who maintained the court house? The prisons? The police?

One of the gents that helped founded our country said:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

I don't expect you to understand, since you've already determined that it's okay to relinquish your freedom.

You relinquish your freedom to kill people in order to protect your own life.

I think you are the one who doesn't understand

How about a private police force and prosecution service then?
Ever read jennifer government?


I own the book, yes. I would pay for privatized services I deemed necessary to be in my life, yes.


how much for someone you've never met?

Again, it depends. Is it someone from my community? Is it someone I have something in common with? Or is it a total, utter stranger? If that's the case, they deserve the same rights I have. Including to live or die by their own merits.

Ireland also gets a large amount of money from the EU for development.

Your view of economics is overly simplistic.

You have yet to post anything to prove me wrong. You just keep opining about my views.

Welfare isn't about people not wanting to work. It keeps people alive who CANNOT work

most of us (including right wing republicans like me) support this version of welfare, what we do not like is the current system (suported by the liberal democrats) where drug addicts, unwed mothers with 5 kids, 4th generation welfare families (unmaried of course) keep collecting and never try to work.

anytime someone tries to "reform" welfare, like allowing people to get a job and keep the medical benefits for their kids (somthing nto allowed under the current system) the democratic liberals are on the news, screaming that the republicans are trying to take food out of the mouths of needy children, what they do not tell you is that they are opposed to changing the system because the majority of welfare recipients vote democratic and they do not want to lose that voter base

How exaclty?

Who maintained the court house? The prisons? The police?

There were no police. :) Police forces didn't exist until the late 1800s in the US. This is one of the cultural items that make us rather independent and wish to carry weaponry to defend ourselves.

Tariffs generally supported the tiny federal infrastructure.

I own the book, yes. I would pay for privatized services I deemed necessary to be in my life, yes.



And screw those that can't pay? You rather the rich could just through the poor in prison because the poor can't afford justice? How about slavery?

What about people too ill to work for a few months, should they die?


Again, it depends. Is it someone from my community? Is it someone I have something in common with? Or is it a total, utter stranger? If that's the case, they deserve the same rights I have. Including to live or die by their own merits.

total stranger, monetary value? Would you give up a dollar to save their life? 3? 10?

Interesting.

I'll stick to UK and US here.

In the UK we have a specific tax named National Insurance. This was established to pay for things like the health service. In the US, you all have your health insurance. So when you get sick, your insurance company tries to wriggle out of paying for anything or pay for as little as possible. In the UK, you get the treatment you need. No argument. In both countries you pay for it. In the UK you do not have to fight to get your aspirin.

And try applying it to those kids who get type 1 diabetes at 18 months old. Or downs syndrome. Or a thousand other conditions for which there is nobody to sue (though I am sure you would try)

If there is a situation where the unemployment in an area hits 40% and you are made redundant, you just walk out and find another job? The "welfare" systems exist to tide you over until you can support yourself again.

Are there abuses? Yes. Its a criminal activity and on the whole I cannot see much difference in the overall level of criminal activity and fraud between the two nations.

Take your taxes and your insurance and add them up. I'm sure that overall they will not form a hugely different sum from a higher level of taxation.

And that is taking the simple examples and ignoring other benefits. No system is perfect. I suppose that in the US you have the option of gambling that you will not get sick or become jobless. You can go buy a new car instead.

It is curious that auto insurance is mandatory in the US by comparison. After all, taking the same logic that you should not have to pay taxes as an insurance against sickness, should you be able to choose not to have auto insurance? So if you suffer some incident at the wheel and mow down 15 people in a bus queue, you just go into your savings, right?

I could go on with things like policing. Wait till you're robbed and then go rent a cop. No point in everybody paying in advance. After all, other people get more out of it than you do, right?

But I can't be arsed.

Money is everything. America's economy is all powerful and that is a justification for everything. Not true. There are environmental policies in effect all over the rest of the world which the US ignores on the simple grounds that it will cost too much money. Most of the rest of the planet is trying to stop the planet itself being polluted and destroyed while the US increases its efforts to do so.

So get this..... The rest of the world (including so many countries which are considered "inferior") are giving the US a "handout". We pay to reduce damage to the planet so you do not lose money.

As for foreign intervention, Europe as a whole appears to have been learning the lessons of history. We have made our mistakes. Perhaps the US needs to get its fingers burned and learn its own lessons. Perhaps one day we will have a PM who will not roll over every time the president offers a choccy drop.

Finally UK politics. The "New" Labour party outmanoevred the Conservatives by moving sharply to the right. As a result, the Conservatives have had to move further to the right and are still travelling. So we have Tory and New Tory. The continuing progress of the Liberal Democrats is interesting. Despite the fact that nobody thinks they can win an election, their share of the vote continues to grow - and they are looking more and more like socialists - not because they are, but because the alternatives are more and more right wing as the others try to outdo each other.

If we had a system where individual votes counted I suspect you would find a Lib Dem government in no. 10 at the first attempt. And bear in mind that they are the ones proposing increases in tax for public services and get 22% of the vote even when we know they cannot win.

All the above is personal opinion and not to be taken as the opinions of my countrymen/women. Let the flames commence.

Well, I've heard US Conservatives seriously calling the BBC a communist news service.

I am a staunch US Conservative/Reactionary, and I dont think the BBC is Communist at all.

I find topics and discussions like this sickening. We all have our ways of life. We all have different views. Does it matter? No. Are we all human? Yes.

Do you wonder why there is no peace. When there are forums like this that still argue over topics they cannot change. Does it do any good? No. Does it cause more animosity and hate? Yes.

In America's history it as done good and bad, People remember the bad more. Why? Because they are jealous and need some place to point a finger. Did America want to enter any WW? No. Did America want to enter Vietnam? No but we did because they French where overrun. The Vietnamese wanted US aid to repel the French but we sided with Europe. In Korea we where advisors. Did we want to enter the war? No, but we did eventually. In most of its history America was asked to come and give its aid.

But none remember the good that it has done. Feeding those in Ethopia. Giving aid to Solmoia. And recently the disaster in Southeast Asia. Did other nations offer as much? Did other nations send so much aid. How many europeans rushed to Southeast Asia?

Europe as done good and bad. I see no reason to keep pointing fingers at one another. For pete sake we are all human.

There were no police. :) Police forces didn't exist until the late 1800s in the US. This is one of the cultural items that make us rather independent and wish to carry weaponry to defend ourselves.

Tariffs generally supported the tiny federal infrastructure.

with no police only the rich have access to justice. You seem to advocate some kind of feudal system, where the landed aristocracy looks after their serfs.

Trust me, we tried it in Europe. It sucked.

You relinquish your freedom to kill people in order to protect your own life.


No, the person attacking you relinquishes their rights. There is no such thing as a freedom to kill. There is a right to defend yourself.


I think you are the one who doesn't understand

Oh, I understand my point of view quite clearly. :rolleyes:

No, the person attacking you relinquishes their rights. There is no such thing as a freedom to kill. There is a right to defend yourself.

Oh, I understand my point of view quite clearly. :rolleyes:

No, you decided there is no right to kill. Just like we in the UK decide everyone has a right to healthcare.

Is this right?

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!


I don't think it matters much. We will either win the fight against the Corporations, or we all lose and die off, besides the rich play-boy millionaires who are trying to hoard it all for themselves.

Social-Policy is alive and well just above the US in Canada, however, it's not liked alot. You must understaqnd the basic reason it is not allowed to enter the mindset and all we hear on American TV is Corporate Hacks. That's because both Parties are OWNED by corps now. That is what it is about... Its about Making things easy for business while we sit here and get distracted by Right vs Left or whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. They are both Capitalism bases.

What America needs is to wake up and realize SOCIALism is when group of individuals form the government that assists the disadvantaged, not screw them in the ear. In the US, the leading cause of bankruptcy is Medical Bills, old people can't get perscriptions because they are too expensive, and the education system frequently pimps for corporations to further indoctrinate the minds of the youth. It causes all kinds of freaky things.

For example, instead of wanting to help each other as communities (opps, almost let out the basis for communism there.. Whew, I hope this political idea doesn't get me slammed! ;P) people are afraid, scared, told what they are to want, unsure of how to get it, ticked off, unsure of why they are ticked off and generally like a devistated peasent society... No communication on a REAL social level. Everything passes through the TV filter of corporate primetime before they hear it. When it is "sold".

The indoctrination AGAINST anything not capitalism is deemed frightening and odd. Whereas alternate forms of government is regularly studied in other lands. Unfortunately the two parties both want more money and they validtate this by stating they "invested" in the presidency and then they "sell" the president to preform the functions.

Most other countries (Canada for example) limit the amount of money you can spend on elections and disavow any private or corporate sponsorship, in certain areas, to allow things to be more balanced and the basis for ideas becomes broader.

We have :
The Conservative Party - Reprsenting big business and corporate tax cuts etc... Basically, the US's buddies, they got in power and made free trade and fucked everyone. So... That's what I think of them.

The Liberal Party - Mired in scandle, but generally do preform better than the rest. Unfortunately, it's being invaded by US democratic business's, but they do manage to avoid getting Canada into any Wars with poor starving brown people, massacring them with bombs and machinguns.

The New Democratic Party - Actually fighting for the rights of the disadvantaged... Thankfully. They managed to pull 4.6 billion in funding for the poor and humanitarian aid this year, pulling it from Corporate Tax cuts. Kudos to them.

The Green Party - Gaining momentum now, and likely going to have a seat at the table during the next election. They are trying to bring about social libertarianism. I fully support the idea. No more large corporations if we can avoid it.

The Marijuana Party - A party solely devoted to legalizing marijuana. Actually quite the following here...


What I see is a US Corporate Fascist overthrow of the US. Is seems to be working and unforuntately that will only lead to war with the US. Fasism will not be tolerated... Of Course, the US was deeply involved in funding the Nazis prior and during their atrocities,.. Infact, Prescott Bush, grandfather to the current pres was a big part of it. And the fact that Terrorist states support Gerogre Bush in his "War on Terror" is not a good thing. They know exactly what it is... A war against freedom-fighting. A war against the dejected masses who resist being turned into a commodity... All the US has to do, is attack a white-nation, then the whole world will turn against them... I'll laugh from my porch... ;P

I recommend the People of the US see what is occuring around them. The people on the outside know what is happening on the inside... We know it's only a matter of time before you have black clad police officers arresting people without warrants and spy-taps on phones and emails without alerting anyone, even a judge... The military will be asked to train your police and they will install "validiate who you are citizen" mechanisms everywhere... Your kids will be trained by the TV to accept this and in school they will be asked to "snitch" on their neighbours for the government...

Actually... If you think that's scarey, I'm joking... Each thing I just mentioned has so far come to pass.

Oh, and that "hidden footage" of the senate's hearing on voting infractions(by the republican party) that state "Yes, they wished me to flip votes and not get caught", *IS* a fucking clue. You don't even VOTE anymore. You just pretend to... Elect the person who will not represent you (unless you are the top 1% of the population, ei, rich)

You guys have a democracy in so much as North Korea has a democracy. Even if you rebel, they will just try and kill you socially. It's they're job, to rule like the new nobles and aristocrats.

Remember to spit on these people. They are criminals who rape our planet and make wage slaves out of everyone.

And screw those that can't pay? You rather the rich could just through the poor in prison because the poor can't afford justice? How about slavery?


Everyone is free to rise or fall by their own efforts. I grew up poor, myself. I worked my ass off, and I'm not poor anymore. If I can do it (I am no superman), anyone can.


What about people too ill to work for a few months, should they die?


What preparations did they make before becoming ill? DID they prepare?


total stranger, monetary value? Would you give up a dollar to save their life? 3? 10?

Total stranger, didn't know anything about them, and I was right there? To actually save their life? Depends on what I could afford. I will not give a dollar amount to an entrapment question. It will always depend on the exact curcumstances.

Would you give everything you had to save a person? In a society that wouldn't save you afterward? I probably wouldn't.

I don't think it matters much. We will either win the fight against the Corporations, or we all lose and die off, besides the rich play-boy millionaires who are trying to hoard it all for themselves.

Social-Policy is alive and well just above the US in Canada, however, it's not liked alot. You must understaqnd the basic reason it is not allowed to enter the mindset and all we hear on American TV is Corporate Hacks is because both Parties are OWNED by corps now. That is what it is about... Its about Making things easy for business while we sit here and get distracted by Right vs Left or whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. They are both Capitalism bases.

What America needs is to wake up and realize SOCIALism is when group of individuals form the government that assist the disadvantaged, not screw them in the ear. In the US, the leading cause of bankruptcy is Medical Bills, old people can't get perscriptions because they are too expensive, and the education system frequently pimps for corporations to further indoctrinate the minds of the youth. In causes all kinds of freaky things.

For example, instead of wanting to help each other as communities (opps, almost let out the basis for communism there.. Whew, I hope this political idea doesn't get me slammed! ;P) people are afriad, scrared, told what they are to want, unsure of how to get it, ticked off, unsure of why they are ticked off and generally like a devestated peasent society... No communication on a REAL social level. Everything passes through the TV filter of corporate primetime before they hear it. When it is "sold".

The indoctrination AGAINST anything not capitalism is deemed frightening and odd. Whereas alternate forms of government is regularly studied in other lands. Unfortunately the two parties both want more money and they "invested" in the presidency and then they "sell" the president to preform the functions.

Most other countries (Canada for example) limit the amount of money you can spend on elections and disavow any private or corporate sponsorship, in certain areas, to allow things to be more balanced and the basis for ideas becomes broader.

We have :
The Conservative Party - Reprsenting big business and corporate tax cuts etc... Basically, the US's buddies, they got in power and made free trade and fucked everyone. So... That's what I think of them.

The Liberal Party - Mired in scandle, but generally do preform better than the rest. Unfortunately, it's being invaded by US democratic business's, but they do manage to avoid getting Canada into any Wars with poor starving brown people massacring them with bombs and machinguns.

The New Democratic Party - Actually fighting for hte rights of the disadvantaged... Thankfully. They managed to pull 4.6 billion in funding for the poor and humanitarian aid this year. Kudos to them.

The Green Party - Gaining momentum now, and likley going to have a seat at the table during the next election. They are trying to bring about social libertarianism. I fully support the idea. No more large corporations if we can avoid it.

The Marijuana Party - A party solely devoted to legalizing marijuana. Actually quite the following here...


What I see is a US Corporate Fascist overthrow of the US. Is seems to be working and unforuntately that will only lead to war with the US. Fasism will not be tolerated... Of Course, the US was deeply involved in funding hte Nazis... Infact, Prescott Bush, grandfather to the current pres was a big part of it. And the fact that Terrorist states support Gerogre Bush in his "War on Terror" is not a good thing. They know exactly what it is... A war against freedom-fighting. A war against the dejected masses who resist being turned into a commodity... All the US has to do, is attack a white-nation, then the whole world will turn against them... I'll laugh from my porch... ;P

I recommend the People of the US see what is occuring around them. The people on the outside know what is happening on the inside... We know it's only a matter of time before you have black clad police officers arresting people without warrants and spy-taps on phones and emails without alerting anyone, even a judge... The military will be asked to train your police and they will install "validiate who you are citizen" mechanisms everywhere... Your kids will be trained by the TV to accept this and in school they will be asked to "snitch" on their neighbours for the government...

Actually... If you think that's scarey, I'm joking... Each thing I just mentioned has so far come to pass.

Oh, and that "hidden footage" of the seates hearing on voting infractions that state "Yes, they wished me to flip votes and not get caught".

You guys have a democracy in so much as North Korea has a democracy. Even if you rebel, they will just try and shoot you.


You forget one thing.

We Republicans also stand for the RKBA

And as long as we have that, NO ONE will take over unless WE want them too.

STOP RIGHT THERE

I've reported this post to the mods. I am extremely offended that you say that all Europeans:

1) approve of trade with hostile countries
2) don't care about what happens in the world
3) rely on paycheques from the government
3) worship socialist ideology

It's your kind of pig-headed, racist thinking that results in so much flaming between Euros and Americans these days.

Do you think that the US government has a lily-white record? You guys have done much more dirt in the world since 1945 than European countries have. The US government is guilty of everything you decided to lay the blame on ordinary Europeans.


List the wars the USA has had to fight for its survival.


Not at all, the concept of ID cards comes from authoritarian socialism.


Don't you think some Americans on this forum are offended about some of the insults Europeans put on this forum?
Yes. But I'm not going to report it because it's dumb, immature, and pointless to report that.

Because everyone's going to do it in one way or another anyway.

Yes, the US government isn't so great, neither is any other country's government - there is no such thing as a perfect government.

Many Europeans I know think that

Europeans:
1) approve of trade with hostile countries
2) don't care about what happens in the world
3) rely on paycheques from the government
3) worship socialist ideology

I know ALOT of Europeans.

"It's your kind of pig-headed, racist thinking that results in so much flaming between Euros and Americans these days."

It's not racist by the way...they were not being racist in that post.

snip

Here's an easy one for you.

You are married. You have worked and saved.

Then your wife gets cancer. You give up work to care for her and spend all your savings to try and save her. She dies.

Then to cap it all off, you get TB. You cannot afford to get treated. You cannot get a job while you're ill, and no-one will loan you money because you can't pay it back.

So you die.

Sound like a good system?

Krackonis, what is your working definition of "fascism"? Corporate fascism seems like an oxymoron to me. Fascists are statists who don't like any type of private sector.

Someone said "right to healthcare". Let's sit quietly and consider how ridiculous that statement is...

Ok, that's long enough. Rights exist naturally. In the state of nature I can't force someone to care for me, I can only care for myself. Healthcare is a service that you can chose to pay for.

As far as "you're screwing over the poor", well in a system with smaller government everyone has more money, and the economy is stronger. Also, I'm not saying private charities aren't good. I'd donate whatever money I didn't need to charities that I felt were worthy. The problem is with government "charity" it's illegitimate and inefficient.

As some said somewhere, "Welfare is to charity what rape is to sex"

If there is a situation where the unemployment in an area hits 40% and you are made redundant, you just walk out and find another job? The "welfare" systems exist to tide you over until you can support yourself again.


You're confusing welfare with unemployment insurance. You pay directly to the fund for unemployment insurance--for yourself if you ever need it. Welfare--that's a different animal.


Take your taxes and your insurance and add them up. I'm sure that overall they will not form a hugely different sum from a higher level of taxation.


Here's the difference. Insurance is generally a choice. Taxes these days are not. That's what I'm against. The forcing of the general populace to do these things.


And that is taking the simple examples and ignoring other benefits. No system is perfect. I suppose that in the US you have the option of gambling that you will not get sick or become jobless. You can go buy a new car instead.


Yes, you are FREE to do that, if you choose.


It is curious that auto insurance is mandatory in the US by comparison.


Yup, your knowledge of the US is so vast. Wisconsin has no such law. You don't have to have insurance everywhere.


After all, taking the same logic that you should not have to pay taxes as an insurance against sickness, should you be able to choose not to have auto insurance? So if you suffer some incident at the wheel and mow down 15 people in a bus queue, you just go into your savings, right?


If a person chooses to do so, yup.


I could go on with things like policing. Wait till you're robbed and then go rent a cop. No point in everybody paying in advance. After all, other people get more out of it than you do, right?


I have weapons for my own defense. I will never rent a cop.


Money is everything. America's economy is all powerful and that is a justification for everything. Not true. There are environmental policies in effect all over the rest of the world which the US ignores on the simple grounds that it will cost too much money. Most of the rest of the planet is trying to stop the planet itself being polluted and destroyed while the US increases its efforts to do so.


The planet will continue to be here long after humanity has gone. Freedom of choice is everything--not money.


So get this..... The rest of the world (including so many countries which are considered "inferior") are giving the US a "handout". We pay to reduce damage to the planet so you do not lose money.


Your choice.


As for foreign intervention, Europe as a whole appears to have been learning the lessons of history. We have made our mistakes. Perhaps the US needs to get its fingers burned and learn its own lessons. Perhaps one day we will have a PM who will not roll over every time the president offers a choccy drop.


I'm a Libertarian--I don't believe in foreign intervention either. Nice generalization.

Krackonis, what is your working definition of "fascism"? Corporate fascism seems like an oxymoron to me. Fascists are statists who don't like any type of private sector.

Someone said "right to healthcare". Let's sit quietly and consider how ridiculous that statement is...

Ok, that's long enough. Rights exist naturally. In the state of nature I can't force someone to care for me, I can only care for myself. Healthcare is a service that you can chose to pay for.

As far as "you're screwing over the poor", well in a system with smaller government everyone has more money, and the economy is stronger. Also, I'm not saying private charities aren't good. I'd donate whatever money I didn't need to charities that I felt were worthy. The problem is with government "charity" it's illegitimate and inefficient.

As some said somewhere, "Welfare is to charity was rape is to sex"


No rights exist naturally. In nature the strong dominate the weak. Humans developed a collective societal system because it makes us stronger and more resiliant. We can achieve things individuals cannot.

I belive in the right to life, and as an extension the right to free healthcare and support in times of need.

You're confusing welfare with unemployment insurance. You pay directly to the fund for unemployment insurance--for yourself if you ever need it. Welfare--that's a different animal.

Here's the difference. Insurance is generally a choice. Taxes these days are not. That's what I'm against. The forcing of the general populace to do these things.

Yes, you are FREE to do that, if you choose.

Yup, your knowledge of the US is so vast. Wisconsin has no such law. You don't have to have insurance everywhere.

If a person chooses to do so, yup.

I have weapons for my own defense. I will never rent a cop.

The planet will continue to be here long after humanity has gone. Freedom of choice is everything--not money.

Your choice.

I'm a Libertarian--I don't believe in foreign intervention either. Nice generalization.

I did not say those things. Please correct your post.

You forget one thing.

We Republicans also stand for the RKBA

And as long as we have that, NO ONE will take over unless WE want them too.

It doesn't help if you pointing them at the people who are your neighbours, instead of the huge rolling corporation who is trying to tell you they own the genetic rights to your corn, and therefore , you have to pay them for the 3 years of planting you made with your corn, and the beef that may have ate that corn.

Yeah, when that day comes, you shoot them, then the police/military/blackcladninjas come to correct you and your community and they roll in the nerve gas and... Wait that was Waco... Hmmm...

The people of the world will come to your aid anyways, we came to Frances aid, we came for Belgiums aid, and when the US goes Fascist, we will come to your aid.

And then you can rebuild your country, hopefully not under the "rape the planet" principle.

No rights exist naturally. In nature the strong dominate the weak. Humans developed a collective societal system because it makes us stronger and more resiliant. We can achieve things individuals cannot.

I belive in the right to life, and as an extension the right to free healthcare and support in times of need.

What gives you the right/power/privelage to force me to do anything?

If you want to help the poor, do it yourself, don't force me to. Any government that forces me to pay for others wellbeing is tyrannical and evil.

What gives you the right/power/privelage to force me to do anything?

If you want to help the poor, do it yourself, don't force me to. Any government that forces me to pay for others wellbeing is tyrannical and evil.

any person who considers property more important than life is evil.

And any system that allows the rich to ride roughshod over the rights of the poor is tyranical

any person who considers property more important than life is evil.

And any system that allows the rich to ride roughshod over the rights of the poor is tyranical

Property and life are derived from the same thing. I value life very highly, thanks.

When did I say the poor don't have any rights? Oh that's right, I didn't.

You notions of class warfare are archaic and show your lack of belief in the the sovereignty of the individual.

Property and life are derived from the same thing. I value life very highly, thanks.

When did I say the poor don't have any rights? Oh that's right, I didn't.

You notions of class warfare are archaic and show your lack of belief in the the sovereignty of the individual.

If the poor cannot get protection because they cannot afford it, their 'rights' are irrelevant.

As for the non-sensical gibberish at the end, wtf?

with no police only the rich have access to justice. You seem to advocate some kind of feudal system, where the landed aristocracy looks after their serfs.

Trust me, we tried it in Europe. It sucked.

No, you're interpreting it that way. I keep what I make and own. That's it. I don't tell others how to live their lives--just so they don't try to control mine.

No, you're interpreting it that way. I keep what I make and own. That's it. I don't tell others how to live their lives--just so they don't try to control mine.

how do you stop them controlling you precisely?

I did not say those things. Please correct your post.


Whoops! Sorry about that. You did not indeed.

any person who considers property more important than life is evil.


Again, YOUR OPINION.

Again, YOUR OPINION.

yes, my opinion. and that of any civilised human being.

how do you stop them controlling you precisely?

Depends on the situation. If there is legislation that is illegal, I bring awareness up as to what is going on. I try to get the system to change by the standard legal avenues.

If someone wants my wallet--I fight.

If the poor cannot get protection because they cannot afford it, their 'rights' are irrelevant.

As for the non-sensical gibberish at the end, wtf?

What protection? I said there should be police and courts to protect individual sovereignty, which apparently you don't understand.

You can't go kill or steal from anyone, regardless of how much money they make. The government should make sure this is the case.

I'm saying don't look at it from a collectivist group-think mentality. If you want to implement all these grand schemes for society, go ahead, just don't do it through the government. If it's a good idea and people like it, you'll get funding.

Unfortunately, I have to go now. Good luck justifying statism, I'm sure you'll find some way to convince yourself it's right.

yes, my opinion. and that of any civilised human being.

Ah yes, the touting of the term "civilized". Whee. Usually it's from those that were in power, but no longer are.

Look down your nose all you want. I really could care less.

Depends on the situation. If there is legislation that is illegal, I bring awareness up as to what is going on. I try to get the system to change by the standard legal avenues.

If someone wants my wallet--I fight.

what legal awareness? If there is no police or judiciary, who can stop them?

If 10 of them want your wallet, and everything else you have, who stops them?

with no police only the rich have access to justice. You seem to advocate some kind of feudal system, where the landed aristocracy looks after their serfs.

Trust me, we tried it in Europe. It sucked.

The lack of police forces a sort of redistribution of wealth.

If all of the police in NYC disappeared and the government made it clear that there would be no imposition of law and order then hoodlums would carjack some jeeps and SUV's and go aviking in the suburbs.

Eventually the rich would hire security guards for themselves, but they'd have to pay them well because these would have actual work to do, they wouldn't just be rent-a-cops whose only real job is to call the police when they hear a racoon knock over a garbage can.

Individual working class neighboorhoods would have to chip in to hire security guards, but they'd still get defense.

You'd still have poverty, but there'd be less of it, because as the poor population grows it becomes more restless and more guards have to be hired. Who do they hire? Why, the poor of course. Abolish the police then. It's a socialist institution that's only good for destroying the property defense job market.

It doesn't help if you pointing them at the people who are your neighbours, instead of the huge rolling corporation who is trying to tell you they own the genetic rights to your corn, and therefore , you have to pay them for the 3 years of planting you made with your corn, and the beef that may have ate that corn.

Yeah, when that day comes, you shoot them, then the police/military/blackcladninjas come to correct you and your community and they roll in the nerve gas and... Wait that was Waco... Hmmm...

The people of the world will come to your aid anyways, we came to Frances aid, we came for Belgiums aid, and when the US goes Fascist, we will come to your aid.

And then you can rebuild your country, hopefully not under the "rape the planet" principle.


Yep, you keep lying to you'r self and one day you'll wake up.

Even a corporation fears a gun pointed at it's head. Also, the military, suports US. They aren't mindless drones who have been programed to do the bidding of who ever is in power. They are usualy avid christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. They feel pain, they have free will and use it. Thats why our solders CHOSE to join the armed services. They are there to protect and serve the PEOPLE. And we are the people. Even the business owners.

So I will say this once: NO EVIL GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE CONTROL IN THE U.S. NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT ONE TOO. :)

What protection? I said there should be police and courts to protect individual sovereignty, which apparently you don't understand.

You can't go kill or steal from anyone, regardless of how much money they make. The government should make sure this is the case.

I'm saying don't look at it from a collectivist group-think mentality. If you want to implement all these grand schemes for society, go ahead, just don't do it through the government. If it's a good idea and people like it, you'll get funding.

Unfortunately, I have to go now. Good luck justifying statism, I'm sure you'll find some way to convince yourself it's right.

ciao

The lack of police forces a sort of redistribution of wealth.

If all of the police in NYC disappeared and the government made it clear that there would be no imposition of law and order then hoodlums would carjack some jeeps and SUV's and go aviking in the suburbs.

Eventually the rich would hire security guards for themselves, but they'd have to pay them well because these would have actual work to do, they wouldn't just be rent-a-cops whose only real job is to call the police when they hear a racoon knock over a garbage can.

Individual working class neighboorhoods would have to chip in to hire security guards, but they'd still get defense.

You'd still have poverty, but there'd be less of it, because as the poor population grows it becomes more restless and more guards have to be hired. Who do they hire? Why, the poor of course. Abolish the police then. It's a socialist institution that's only good for destroying the property defense job market.

are you using somalia as a model for this? Because your system doesn't seem to based in then real world...

any person who considers property more important than life is evil.

And any system that allows the rich to ride roughshod over the rights of the poor is tyranical

Let me summarize the conservative position on taxes and government spending in America.

"Any government that takes money from people who aren't me and gives it to me is good. Any government that takes money from anyone and gives it to anyone who isn't me is evil."

"Liberal states are full of freeloaders who think that the government owes them a handout, that's why Conservative states live off of the tax dollars that are collected from Liberal states."

Is this right?
Have you people not heard of socialism?
You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!

you people?! ok,um you Europe fags can go screw each other, and are you saying America is dumb, or stupid? It is stupid in some ways but definetly not in military power, we would kick everyones asses!

If the poor cannot get protection because they cannot afford it, their 'rights' are irrelevant.

As for the non-sensical gibberish at the end, wtf?

perhaps the poor should go out and do for themselves and stop bitching about what they don't have... take responsibility for themselves.

snip

I suggest you read the rules and delete your post before you get modded

forum rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Neo-Cannen, yes, we've heard of the stain on financial freedom that is known as socialism...

perhaps the poor should go out and do for themselves and stop bitching about what they don't have... take responsibility for themselves.

yes they should. But if you don't protect their rights then you destabalise society and communists or facists get into power.

I suggest you read the rules and delete your post before you get modded

forum rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

what did he say?

wait, hold on, i'll check. lol

yes they should. But if you don't protect their rights then you destabalise society and communists or facists get into power.

caveat: those who are physically/mentally able to take care of themselves should do so.

what rights of theirs are not being protected? (just curious.. not asking a rhetorical question)

Rebeled Elves

Enlightened Humanity's advice concerning your last post is wise... please follow it.

caveat: those who are physically/mentally able to take care of themselves should do so.

what rights of theirs are not being protected? (just curious.. not asking a rhetorical question)

they are being protected at the moment, for the most part, in western countries

But total economic freedom leaves the poor unable to protect themselves - they cannot hire security guards (mentioned above), they cannot get healthcare.

Look at Somalia for an extreme example.

Or how about the areas of the world where you can starve to death or live effectively as a slave labouring on someone elses land? You have no means to get out of the situation, because if you stop work you starve.

We don't cut off the genitals of 9 year old girls in order to control their future sexuality

Which country are you talking about? If you read it from the internet could you provide a link? Or was it just some bullsh*t you made up?

they are being protected at the moment, for the most part, in western countries

But total economic freedom leaves the poor unable to protect themselves - they cannot hire security guards (mentioned above), they cannot get healthcare.

Look at Somalia for an extreme example.

Or how about the areas of the world where you can starve to death or live effectively as a slave labouring on someone elses land? You have no means to get out of the situation, because if you stop work you starve.

okay, cool. as for getting health care in America, most companies seem to provide it... so perhaps the key is getting a job.

and for security, buy a shotgun.

hehe

Out of all the answers and comments, must say that you wrote well and with reason. ;)

<<Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

>>

Yes, most of America does look at politics as strictly Left v. Right. It is the unfortunate consequence of an effectively two party system. At the moment, Republicans represent a conservative religious right wing and Democrats represent a liberal Populist left wing. Both are free-spending rubes who would rather legislate their "values" than protect their Rights.

<<Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship! >>

As for looking at Europe as a communist bloc, some Americans do see it that way. Americans who pay attention, however, see most of Europe is a socialist democracy, becoming more so as the EU gains more power and crushes little things like national sovereignty and personal property rights.

<<Isuppose they've never heard of libertarianism, authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, socialism, nationalism, fascism, nihilism, daltonism, rheumatism, Dadaism... >>

Entertaining. America has felt most of these “isms” in it's history. At our core, the constitution and the way our nation was originally organized was as a Libertarian nation. There was a bit of argument over how centralized power should be (The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists), but thats about it. Authoritarianism is what we cast off when we started firing bullets in 1776, and what we again fought off in 1812. Anarchism isn't really government, its a high-school kid's good idea before he realizes that people are basically greedy little beasts. Communism and Socialism are what we stand against, ideologically. We are capitalists. Nationalism is alive and well, but again, thats not a government, thats a “jingoistic” pride in one's nation. You know, that thing that lead Europe to kill itself twice before 1950? Fascism is something else we have always fought, it is antithetical to the American way, although some of our presidents have endangered that in the last century. Nihilism isn't a way of government, but Nietzsche's philosophy. What colorblindness, arthritis, or an art movement have to do with the discussion, I'm not sure...

<<I've heard US conservatives gloating because liberals got "trounced" again by the "conservative" Labour party.

One can only laugh. >>

American conservatives love it because Blair dances when Bush says boo. Or Clinton. Come to think of it Thatcher liked to dance for Reagan...Yes, one can only laugh.

The fact of the matter is, America is not Europe. Politically, the idea of socialism is antithetical to the system of government we live under. Redistribution of wealth, contraction of civil rights, highly centralized government, these things that are the norm for Europe are unthinkable here in the States. It is important to remember that the US wasn't granted it's freedom by a king, it wasn't handed to us after a world war. Americans fought, killed, and died in order to wrest their freedoms from the grips of an unfeeling monarchy. Over the years we have had to fight for our survival on a regular basis. It leads to a rather polarized view of the world.

Which country are you talking about? If you read it from the internet could you provide a link? Or was it just some bullsh*t you made up?

Sudan for one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2977426.stm

I am an American and I have pretty much the same stereotypes against normal Americans. Most normies (as we in the Beautiful Peoples Club like to call them)are ignorant of foreign history or politics, most are nationalistic and at least somewhat hostile towards foreign governments. The level of corporatism in our government requires some nationalism to sooth those that would normally disenfranchised.

The man likes Family Guy...Have u watched the recent ones? They're wicked.

The EU is actually more decentralized than the USA, since the individual EU member states have a lot more sovereignty than the American states.

To those who said the American principle is to allow everyone to succeed the best they can, while the european welfare sytem restricts this: But what about poor people who can't afford the money to start a business or whatever and make it big in life? That's why at least some socialism is necessary IMNSHO.

okay, cool. as for getting health care in America, most companies seem to provide it... so perhaps the key is getting a job.

and for security, buy a shotgun.

hehe

and what if 5 people with shotguns come to rob you?

you people?! ok,um you Europe fags can go screw each other, and are you saying America is dumb, or stupid? It is stupid in some ways but definetly not in military power, we would kick everyones asses!

It's people like you that are the reason most of the world hates America. You make me sick. I bet Bush is your own personal Michael Jackson.

Yep, you keep lying to you'r self and one day you'll wake up.

Even a corporation fears a gun pointed at it's head. Also, the military, suports US. They aren't mindless drones who have been programed to do the bidding of who ever is in power. They are usualy avid christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. They feel pain, they have free will and use it. Thats why our solders CHOSE to join the armed services. They are there to protect and serve the PEOPLE. And we are the people. Even the business owners.

So I will say this once: NO EVIL GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE CONTROL IN THE U.S. NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT ONE TOO. :)

I'm glad you'll only say it once. That way I don't have to have a long winded argument pointing out how flawed your argument is. Set aside that you don't have an argument, only some fervent hopes stated as fact.

And evil government already has control of the United States. Corporations do NOT fear guns pointed at their heads. Our government consistently overthrows democratically elected foreign governments at the behest of American corporations. We set up sadistic right wing military dictatorships because the corporations that operate there know that a single corrupt dictator is easier to manage than a complicated democratic governing body.

This is why there's such a big movment to privatize everything in this country. If the government does something then they are obliged to do it with principles in mind like lack of discriminatory hiring practices, responsivness to constitutional principles, things like that. If schools are run by corporations then they get to tell you all sorts of lying bullshit and it's ok, they're a private company, they can do what they want. If all the businesses are in a mall then you can't protest their practices. A government run street has to let you, its unconstitutional not to, a mall doesn't have to let you do anything.

Our government is evil, and it's becoming facist.

It's people like you that are the reason most of the world hates America. You make me sick. I bet Bush is your own personal Michael Jackson.

Yes, in that when he was very young the Bush's offered him something that he didn't have the intellectual skills to know he was supposed to resist. Using the trust that these gifts helped establish he quickly began to take advantage of him. Now he doesn't know how to find the strength to turn against his abuser, and so he defends him. He sympathizes with his aggressor.

This same sort of "battered wife's" syndrome is a common psychopathology with working and middle class republicans who don't really understand things like strength and morality.

Take, for example, when W's brother was asked "do you think your brother is strong enough to be president?" and Jeb's answer was to tell the story of how when they were kids, Dubya used to shoot him with a BB gun. Now that's Strength.

Our government is evil, and it's becoming facist.
Why the present tense?

I suggest you read the rules and delete your post before you get modded
Good advice, not taken in time.
you people?! ok,um you Europe fags can go screw each other, and are you saying America is dumb, or stupid? It is stupid in some ways but definetly not in military power, we would kick everyones asses!
Rebeled Elves, if you can't post without flamebait-ish invective, I suggest you find a different set of forums to inhabit. This one has rules about such things, which you would do well to read. The convenient link in my signature should make that process inordinately easy.

Are we understood?

Good.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Is this right?

Is the American political compas pointed at Conservative = Right and Liberal = left?

Have you people not heard of socialism?

You must think Europe is under some kind of communist dictatorship!


We Yanks have always had somewhat "antique" political perceptions compared with the rest of the world.

you don't 'steal' money, people pay taxes because they accept that living in a society is better than living in anarchy. It helps the economy to keep everyone healthy and to educate everyone as much as possible.

Without taxation their could be no government, and without government we'd be like somalia

Not quite. Taxation is theft in this country. You cannot opt out of the system. If you try to opt out (ie, stop paying taxes and move to the woods) and you're lucky the government puts you in jail for tax evasion. If not, your son gets shot in the back and your wife gets sniped while holding a baby.

Bullshit. The US started out without taxes. It only "needed" them when it started to control the populace.
The US Government started out getting its revenue from trade tariffs. I don't suppose you are in favour of protectionism?

I shouldn't have to support someone abusing a welfare system that doesn't force someone to actually get a job.
Damn right you shouldn't. So are you against all welfare or only against welfare abuse?

I shouldn't have to pay for my neighbors' kids to go to school.
You should. Living in a country with an uneducated populace will only come around to bite you in the ass anyway. America's education system doesn't suck because it is government-funded; it sucks because of other reasons. How do I know this? Because if the former was true, then every country with public education would have a crappy education system.

If you regulate business, then Business will just go away.

Not necessarily. If you over-regulate, it will go away, but if the government acts responsibly to protect society yet maintain a pro-business environment, the economy will flourish.

Sounds like you dropped taxes, and got rid of some of those egalitarian-forcing regulations. You took less from the people, and started spending money in a wiser fashion. That's what I wish to do as well.

Here, the EU, from 1996 to 2005, the GDP rose 2.4%, where the US rose 3.4%. You guys in Ireland, though, you jumped 7.4% (again, to actually getting rid of some taxes and regulations--by down-sizing).
That's true. I agree with deregulation, cutting spending and taxes - I'm not some loony socialist - because it stimulates the economy to create jobs. But public education - which is what we were talking about - is where I put the foot down. During the boom years, Ireland has actually increased its public education spending. I am going to begin a four-year degree course in a university soon. I will not have to pay tuition fees because the government pays for it. I don't think that education should be the preserve of the elite.

I'll tell you about our taxes as well. There are two rates. Earnings below 32,000 euro are taxed at a rate of 20%. Earnings above that are taxed at 42%. My point is that we haven't had a successful economy by completely eliminating all forms of socialism, as you would like to make us think.

It is not my job to keep someone else alive, unless I deem it so.
Yes, it is. The right to life comes above the right to keep all your earnings.

"Societal Good" who decides what that is? The concept of greater good is bullshit, the only thing that matters is protecting individual sovereignty.
The government, elected by the people, decides this. I know this is tyranny by majority (oh, those poor poor corporations - the heart bleeds), but if you think that any concept of the greater good is bullshit, then you should support anarchism.

People, including you, live in societies. You're not a solitary floating being. To a certain degree you're interdependent on other members of the society. You have to pay your way, or you're out of the society.

No, the person attacking you relinquishes their rights. There is no such thing as a freedom to kill. There is a right to defend yourself.

There is a freedom to kill. It's not a legal right, but the freedom to kill exists from nature. As a society we opt out of "survival of the fittest" and thus make it illegal to kill people.

Don't you think some Americans on this forum are offended about some of the insults Europeans put on this forum?
Yes. But I'm not going to report it because it's dumb, immature, and pointless to report that.
Yes, I think that much of the anti-American flaming that goes on here is idiotic too.

Many Europeans I know think that

Europeans:
1) approve of trade with hostile countries
2) don't care about what happens in the world
3) rely on paycheques from the government
3) worship socialist ideology

I know ALOT of Europeans.

Wow, I don't know many Europeans who think like that. But what do I know? It's not like I live there. Oh wait...

"It's your kind of pig-headed, racist thinking that results in so much flaming between Euros and Americans these days."

It's not racist by the way...they were not being racist in that post.
Sorry, it's xenophobic. Which is just as bad.

In the US, people are afraid of communism. Therefore a conservative can win by calling his liberal opponent a communist. Sad but true.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Liberals are communists, just under a different name. They don't want to admit it, but their just as bad as the Soviets. Sad but true.

and what if 5 people with shotguns come to rob you?

use your Uzi

snip

Dude, do you guys pay anything like Uk national insurance, or just those taxes?

The UK is 10% over £5000, 20% over £7000, and 40% over £34000 ish

Plus National Insurance which is 11% above £91 per week

use your Uzi

what about 100 people?

Here's an easy one for you.

You are married. You have worked and saved.

Then your wife gets cancer. You give up work to care for her and spend all your savings to try and save her. She dies.

Then to cap it all off, you get TB. You cannot afford to get treated. You cannot get a job while you're ill, and no-one will loan you money because you can't pay it back.

So you die.

Sound like a good system?

Funny, I would have prepared for something like that and bought insurance (like we already have...). Also, my friends and family would help out were it necessary.

Krackonis, what is your working definition of "fascism"? Corporate fascism seems like an oxymoron to me. Fascists are statists who don't like any type of private sector.
You're thinking of communism.

Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power.

The governments of Benito Mussolini and Hitler were actually on quite good terms with big business.

Not that I'm agreeing with Kracker or whatever his name is; I don't think that the US is a fascist country.

Liberals are communists, just under a different name. They don't want to admit it, but their just as bad as the Soviets. Sad but true.
Sorry, when did liberal Democrats propose opening gulags for Republicans? I must have missed that one.

Liberals are communists, just under a different name. They don't want to admit it, but their just as bad as the Soviets. Sad but true.
Thats a vast generalisation. Have you ever heard of Classical Liberals? American liberal and a European Liberal are two different things entirely.

So you admit this, but why do you accuse Europeans of endorsing the worst aspects of their governments' foreign policies, while absolving Americans of blame for their country's?

Also, how do you substantiate your claim that America has had to do a lot more fighting for survival since its foundation than any European country? To me it appears that America has had a rather sheltered history compared to Europe. When was any American's house destroyed by a bomb dropped from above? That pretty much says it all. The American homeland has not been invaded by a foreign power since 1812.


Why do Americans always talk about socialism in ideological terms? For we Europeans the benefits of (some aspects of) socialism are an everyday reality, not just some vague force of evil in the world as it is to most Americans.

And if the American way is so much better, why is it not in the top 5 best countries to live in, but several "socialist" European countries are?

We can make the world better. Frankly some of us would rather live a life of relative peace, prosperity and security, even if it means paying taxes. It's preferable to the life of violence and fear that you promote.


Ok, lets address these one by one.

1) I wasn't the one who mentioned Europe's dealings with unplesant regimes. Everyone does it, its a sad fact of world politics.

2) America hasn't been invaded because of Geography. That and the small fact that an actual land war in the United States would be as militarily difficult as invading Russia during the winter. That doesn't change the fact that Europe has rarely fought for their freedom. The King of England repelling the King of France is a victory only for the King of England.

3) You wanna pay more taxes, give up rights, etc? Fine, live in Europe. If thats what you value, go for it. Me, I'd rather live free and in danger than safe through abrdiged liberty, its why so many of us are angry about the PATRIOT Act.

4) I don't think its preferable. I think being free is more important than being safe. Besides, I'm better able to protect myself than my government. In the best of circumstances, a police response takes around two and a half minutes. A twelve guage packed with razors takes less than a second.

what legal awareness? If there is no police or judiciary, who can stop them?


Ah, then you're talking about a corrupt government, then? Well, then right in the Declaration of Independance it tells that the citizenry has the duty to rise up and make it right.


If 10 of them want your wallet, and everything else you have, who stops them?

Well, for one thing, I have enough situational awareness to not get into that situation in the first place....

Way to misunderstand Kurt Vonnegut.

Why, because I apply his critique of an egalitarian social structure to an egalitarian economic structure? I've got news for your, Vonnegut distrusted the government.

Liberals are communists, just under a different name. They don't want to admit it, but their just as bad as the Soviets. Sad but true.
Yeah, everybody who's anybody knows the Democrats are trying to abolish public property and use the KGB to execute political opponents.
Oh wait, what's that? They aren't!

what about 100 people?

mines, greek fire, a deep moat around your house, and high, sheer walls made of kevlar. hehe

100 people knocking on your door with shotguns? In the US?

Or are you giving a hypothetical of a warlord-ruled African country/area?

mines, hand grenades, a deep moat around your house, and high, sheer walls made of kevlar. hehe

100 people knocking on your door with shotguns? In the US?

Or are you giving a hypothetical of a warlord-ruled African country/area?

what i am saying is that with no government protection you WILL end up like Somalia.

Actually, had we just told Clemenceau and Lloyd George(the french and british, respectively) to fuck off with their reparations demands of Germany, WWII would have been avoided. Also, had we just taken Patton and MacArthur's advice and ripped apart what was left of Russia at the end of WWII the cold war wouldn't have happened. Instead we let them keep half of europe and rebuild.


LOL, true, but MacArthur was a nutbag. Ever hear of his alternative to the DMZ in Korea? I'kk give you a hint, it involved a nuke every 3 miles along a river...

what i am saying is that with no government protection you WILL end up like Somalia.

yah

"Do Americans seriously think ---"

No.

/ObWiseAssery

Ah, then you're talking about a corrupt government, then? Well, then right in the Declaration of Independance it tells that the citizenry has the duty to rise up and make it right.


who decides when the government is corrupt? Who rises up if the rich are happy? The rich will keep the poor down if they are doing well, history teaches us that



Well, for one thing, I have enough situational awareness to not get into that situation in the first place....

dodging the question

It is important to remember that the US wasn't granted it's freedom by a king, it wasn't handed to us after a world war.

Anyone would think that no Europeans fought and died for their freedom in WW2, and that no European nation rose up in a civil war or revolution and overthrew its monarchy.

You relinquish your freedom to kill people in order to protect your own life.

I think you are the one who doesn't understand

Untrue. Ya see, here in the States, your right to protect your life is pretty strong. In all 50 states (and DC to boot) you can use deadly force on someone breaking into your home. The mere fact that they are there without your knowledge or permission is enough to contitute a reasonable threat to your life. In 38 states, everyday Americans are allowed to carry concealed handguns to defend themselves against criminals. In at least 3 states (and growing) you are not expected to try to flee or otherwise defuse a violent situation with an assailant- even if you could run, it is legal to shoot a man dead for pulling a knife on you. America isn't Europe, you don't understand.

with no police only the rich have access to justice. You seem to advocate some kind of feudal system, where the landed aristocracy looks after their serfs.

Trust me, we tried it in Europe. It sucked.

Maybe in Europe. Here in the states you can get a decent rifle or shotgun for a hundred bucks.

Untrue. Ya see, here in the States, your right to protect your life is pretty strong. In all 50 states (and DC to boot) you can use deadly force on someone breaking into your home. The mere fact that they are there without your knowledge or permission is enough to contitute a reasonable threat to your life. In 38 states, everyday Americans are allowed to carry concealed handguns to defend themselves against criminals. In at least 3 states (and growing) you are not expected to try to flee or otherwise defuse a violent situation with an assailant- even if you could run, it is legal to shoot a man dead for pulling a knife on you. America isn't Europe, you don't understand.

my point is you cannot go around killing people for fun.

This whole idea of 'rights' and 'freedoms' is subjective, there are no inherent rights, only those we decide upon as civilised beings

The US Government started out getting its revenue from trade tariffs. I don't suppose you are in favour of protectionism?


Not really, no. Some other way would need to be found--perhaps some sort of tax that some could opt for--particular services for instance.


Damn right you shouldn't. So are you against all welfare or only against welfare abuse?


One begets the other, unfortunately. So, while I'm for the spirit of some sort of welfare system, it can't work in reality without being severely abused.


You should. Living in a country with an uneducated populace will only come around to bite you in the ass anyway. America's education system doesn't suck because it is government-funded; it sucks because of other reasons. How do I know this? Because if the former was true, then every country with public education would have a crappy education system.


Good point. I'll limit it to this then--government funded programs don't work in the US.


Not necessarily. If you over-regulate, it will go away, but if the government acts responsibly to protect society yet maintain a pro-business environment, the economy will flourish.


I've yet to see a government actually act responsibly.


That's true. I agree with deregulation, cutting spending and taxes - I'm not some loony socialist - because it stimulates the economy to create jobs. But public education - which is what we were talking about - is where I put the foot down. During the boom years, Ireland has actually increased its public education spending. I am going to begin a four-year degree course in a university soon. I will not have to pay tuition fees because the government pays for it. I don't think that education should be the preserve of the elite.


But why should someone have to pay your way through college, when you're capable?


I'll tell you about our taxes as well. There are two rates. Earnings below 32,000 euro are taxed at a rate of 20%. Earnings above that are taxed at 42%. My point is that we haven't had a successful economy by completely eliminating all forms of socialism, as you would like to make us think.


Not eliminating all, I never said that. I said that your GDP went up when you downsized.


Yes, it is. The right to life comes above the right to keep all your earnings.


That's where we'll disagree. Anyone tries to steal my stuff just lost their rights.


People, including you, live in societies. You're not a solitary floating being. To a certain degree you're interdependent on other members of the society. You have to pay your way, or you're out of the society.


Ah, if only they'd let me out...but no, they'd just imprison me. You aren't allowed to be "out" of society.


There is a freedom to kill. It's not a legal right, but the freedom to kill exists from nature. As a society we opt out of "survival of the fittest" and thus make it illegal to kill people.


How it's supposed to work (at least in the US) is thusly:

You don't infringe upon anyone else's rights, or you lose yours.


Yes, I think that much of the anti-American flaming that goes on here is idiotic too.


As is the European bashing.

Maybe in Europe. Here in the states you can get a decent rifle or shotgun for a hundred bucks.

it is irrelevant if those who control you are more powerful. One man with a gun does not overthrow a system, otherwise how'd the Germans control France in WW2, eh?

Here's an easy one for you.

You are married. You have worked and saved.

Then your wife gets cancer. You give up work to care for her and spend all your savings to try and save her. She dies.

Then to cap it all off, you get TB. You cannot afford to get treated. You cannot get a job while you're ill, and no-one will loan you money because you can't pay it back.

So you die.

Sound like a good system?


Those silly Americans, surely they haven't thought of THAT!



...Oh...wait...Medicare!

Those silly Americans, surely they haven't thought of THAT!



...Oh...wait...Medicare!

My point is you NEED some kind of safety net. That's socialism, though in a mild form.

dodging the question

Well, if I'm never going to be in the situation....

Alright, for the sake of the argument, I am surrounded by 10 armed people. I give up. You can't get out of that. And the police wouldn't be there to help, either.

No one would be safe in that situation, with or without police.

my point is you cannot go around killing people for fun.


You are most certainly right. And we DON'T.


This whole idea of 'rights' and 'freedoms' is subjective, there are no inherent rights, only those we decide upon as civilised beings

Your belief, and that's fine. But that's not how it works in the US.

Well, if I'm never going to be in the situation....

Alright, for the sake of the argument, I am surrounded by 10 armed people. I give up. You can't get out of that. And the police wouldn't be there to help, either.

No one would be safe in that situation, with or without police.

but there would be the knowledge that the police could help you later, which you DON'T get without a collective system

You are most certainly right. And we DON'T.



Your belief, and that's fine. But that's not how it works in the US.

of course it is, that's what your constitution is for. Expressly to layh out your rights as decided at the time

Out of all the answers and comments, must say that you wrote well and with reason. ;)

Thankee Kindly ;)

it is irrelevant if those who control you are more powerful. One man with a gun does not overthrow a system, otherwise how'd the Germans control France in WW2, eh?

By having a good chunk of the French populace helping them?

You're right--one person with a gun doesn't overthrow a system. Now, when a country has 80 million gun owners and 300 million guns....that's a bit different.

but there would be the knowledge that the police could help you later, which you DON'T get without a collective system

If I survive, *I* will help me later.

of course it is, that's what your constitution is for. Expressly to layh out your rights as decided at the time

Actually no, it's not. It just reinforces the natural rights. It even states that.

what about 100 people?

Drum clip...

By having a good chunk of the French populace helping them?

You're right--one person with a gun doesn't overthrow a system. Now, when a country has 80 million gun owners and 300 million guns....that's a bit different.

and most of them won't fight. No-one rose up when the popular vote elected gore did they? Or against the patriot act?

Face up to it, most people don't want to cause a fuss, and will go along so long as they are mostly ok

Drum clip...

Heh. Maybe if they were on one side of you.

and most of them won't fight. No-one rose up when the popular vote elected gore did they? Or against the patriot act?

Face up to it, most people don't want to cause a fuss, and will go along so long as they are mostly ok

No one rose up all the other times when a president was elected by electoral vote, rather than popular either....

The patriot act is being worked on. Rising up and overthrowing the government is not the FIRST step. It's the last.

it is irrelevant if those who control you are more powerful. One man with a gun does not overthrow a system, otherwise how'd the Germans control France in WW2, eh?

Hitler took control in Germany by disarming the public. I seem to remember that France had a tad of resistance in WWII. Something about armed partisans running through tunnels, engaging in espionage and sniping german officials. Played a pretty significant part in information gathering...See, its never one man. Its many men and women who make the conscious choice to refuse to bow.

Wow. I've got to butt in.

I'm not really replying to anyone, just a general response to this thread.

I'm an American, who is left-wing and a socialist. I like money, I wish I had more of it, but it's not the end-all, be-all for me. And I would gladly give it to help others who need it more. That, for me, is just humanity...it's a no-brainer.

I think everyone has a right to be healthy; hence, everyone has a right to healthcare. Free healthcare. Yes, taxes will be higher, but big friggin' deal. As seemingly everyone has pointed out, if you save money, then you'll have more of it, and therefore more of it to pay in taxes.

As far as carrying a gun, I'd really rather not. That would not make me feel more secure unless I was fighting in a war. I'm just not prepared to shoot someone, because that goes against any morals I have. I would much rather have a police force to protect me. And not a privatized police force; they should be there to protect everyone, not just those who can afford it.

and most of them won't fight. No-one rose up when the popular vote elected gore did they? Or against the patriot act?

Face up to it, most people don't want to cause a fuss, and will go along so long as they are mostly ok

See, that shows a lack of perspective that I can't blame you for. When Gore won the popular vote but lost the election, we could accept it. There was the whole elctoral college thing, and the Supreme Court did rule. Besides, even if we dislike Bush he can only get elected twice. As for the PATRIOT Act, were fighting it in the courts and its getting knocked down over and over. It takes alot to make Americans go looking for blood, and our government generally doesn't go that far. Even if they do, we fix it. Just look at the 18th ammendment.

Untrue. Ya see, here in the States, your right to protect your life is pretty strong. In all 50 states (and DC to boot) you can use deadly force on someone breaking into your home. The mere fact that they are there without your knowledge or permission is enough to contitute a reasonable threat to your life. In 38 states, everyday Americans are allowed to carry concealed handguns to defend themselves against criminals. In at least 3 states (and growing) you are not expected to try to flee or otherwise defuse a violent situation with an assailant- even if you could run, it is legal to shoot a man dead for pulling a knife on you. America isn't Europe, you don't understand.

Unfortunately if you fail to kill your attacker and merely maim him he will sue you for every cent you have.
America is a nation run by lawyers, and when I last checked had more lawyers per head of population than any other nation in the world. Such a nation is not a nation of the free. If it was truely a nation of the free then there would not be such a need for so many lawyers or privately owned guns.
One thing I have noted is that the American Civil War, if you remove all of the propaganda, spin and hype was fought over a single issue, and that issue was "If a State/Territory voluntarily joins the United States of America, do they then have the right to leave at a later date?"
Now, in the land of the free, a nation of rights, the answer has to be yes, but the federal government disputed this, a war ensued and freedom technically lost, and the answer no became part of US law.

Why, because I apply his critique of an egalitarian social structure to an egalitarian economic structure? I've got news for your, Vonnegut distrusted the government.
Did he really? Goodness me, I never realised. Anti-government = anti-liberal? Are you sure, dearie?

Unfortunately if you fail to kill your attacker and merely maim him he will sue you for every cent you have.
America is a nation run by lawyers, and when I last checked had more lawyers per head of population than any other nation in the world. Such a nation is not a nation of the free. If it was truely a nation of the free then there would not be such a need for so many lawyers or privately owned guns.
One thing I have noted is that the American Civil War, if you remove all of the propaganda, spin and hype was fought over a single issue, and that issue was "If a State/Territory voluntarily joins the United States of America, do they then have the right to leave at a later date?"
Now, in the land of the free, a nation of rights, the answer has to be yes, but the federal government disputed this, a war ensued and freedom technically lost, and the answer no became part of US law.

I'm not really worried about maiming an intruder, a home defense shotgun load has essentially a 0% chance of survival after impact because of simple shock. After impact the likelyhood of survival drops even further because of catastrophic blood loos due to soft tissue damage. Even if that wasn't the case, nearly every state in the nation has either laws or precedents that prevent intruders from litigating.

Unfortunately if you fail to kill your attacker and merely maim him he will sue you for every cent you have.
America is a nation run by lawyers, and when I last checked had more lawyers per head of population than any other nation in the world. Such a nation is not a nation of the free. If it was truely a nation of the free then there would not be such a need for so many lawyers or privately owned guns.
One thing I have noted is that the American Civil War, if you remove all of the propaganda, spin and hype was fought over a single issue, and that issue was "If a State/Territory voluntarily joins the United States of America, do they then have the right to leave at a later date?"
Now, in the land of the free, a nation of rights, the answer has to be yes, but the federal government disputed this, a war ensued and freedom technically lost, and the answer no became part of US law.

The civil war was a difficult war. I personally have no problem with a state (or block of them) breaking away from the union. The problem was, the south had virutally no economy outside of agriculture and no infrasturcture to fix that. A failed nation next door is a dangerous thing (just ask people in the former Soviet Union).

Did he really? Goodness me, I never realised. Anti-government = anti-liberal? Are you sure, dearie?

Burgeron was a story about why egalitarianism is a bad idea and why the government should not be trusted to enforce equality. There simply isn't another way to read it. Everyone who is above the mean is handicapped so that no one has an unfair advantage over anyone else. The resulting society he portrays is one devoid of life or culture, one where the only lawful individual is one who conforms lowest common denominator. When a strong individual finally refuses the literal chains that bind him to this weak ideal, an agent of the government comes and murders him in cold blood. Even though his death is witnessed by the entire nation, no one, not even his parents, are unable to protest because they have been reduced to the level of distracted simpering idiots. It would be hard to not read an economic critique into Harrison Burgeron considering the time period in which it was written, when both Americans and Europeans were embracing more and more the idea of socialsm (even if Americans were afraid to call it that). It is an attack on the very idea of enforced equality, a critique of those who would seek to bring the mighty down to the level of the weak. Was Vonnegut a conservative or a liberal? Neither, like most Americans he didn't fit easily into a little Cartesian mold. When it came to equality and egalitarianism, Vonnegut was obviously a libertarian. The rest of his work has a certain libertarian bent to it as well.