NationStates Jolt Archive

Welcome to the campaign thread! This thread is for:

* voters who wish to ask questions of any particular party, or to every party for that matter

* party members who want to advocate or explain points of their manifesto

* political debate between the parties and/or between parties and voters.


Voters may find the following links useful:
* the list of candidate parties (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=442409)
* the thread that started it all (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418608)
* the last NS General election (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423271)

The election will begin on October 1st.

Expect another party tomorrow.

Are you happy with socilaism?

You earn $15,000 per year, 50% of that is paid to the government to fund failing public services, services that the majority of citizens don't use, services where the employees earn 10 times more than you...

Your taxes are paying for people who can't be bothered to work, they earn more money than you for doing nothing. They spend their money on drugs, they buy nicer cars than you...

Are you still happy with socialism?

---------------------------------------------------------

Will you be voting for liberals?

Heres a few things to consider;

1. Liberals support abortion. Abortion is the termination of human life. So is murder.

2. Liberals support euthanasia. If you fell in and went into hospital, would you want to be killed?

3. Liberals support socialism.

4. Liberals want a cut back on homeland security, leaving peoples lives in danger.

---------------------------------------------------------

Do you really want these people in charge?

The NS Conservative Party are different. We believe things can change. We are the conservatives.

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal1.jpg
I thouhgt I'd help the NSCL until tomorrow.

Are you happy with socilaism?
God no.

Will you be voting for liberals?

Heres a few things to consider;

1. Liberals support abortion. Abortion is the termination of human life. So is murder.
Maybe you should check your Manifesto thread. The issue is currently being more thoroughly debated there, and to be honest I'd like to see you answer some of my questions. Dissonant Congition and I are handling the abortion debate, but there are actually a few other platform issues to consider as well.

2. Liberals support euthanasia. If you fell in and went into hospital, would you want to be killed?
Don't be ridiculous: it's nowhere near as simple as that and you damn well know it. Liberals don't support euthanasia for people who get knee scrapes; they suport euthanasia for people who consent to it beforehand and have little or no chance for revival.

3. Liberals support socialism.
Depends on just which perversion of the term 'liberal' you care to ascribe to it: some centuries ago, a "Classic Liberal" was more or less a present day libertarian or an individualist of some variety. Very technically speaking, most of us are "liberals" if we advocate any modicum of self rule.

4. Liberals want a cut back on homeland security, leaving peoples lives in danger.
Again, it's not that cut and dry. I can't speak for them, but to me any meaningful decrease in defense spending will have to go hand in hand with a less belligerent foreign policy. As long as we remain perpetually interested in bombing people with darker skin than us, a more or less totalitarian police state is almost a requisite.

Do you really want these people in charge?

The NS Conservative Party are different. We believe things can change. We are the conservatives.
Umm.... "things can change?" I thought conservatives were, by definition, opposed to most changes? The very [b]term conservatism is borne from the idea that we should hold to basic social and political traditions, therefore preventing it from advocating almost any form of change. Look it up.

Umm.... "things can change?" I thought conservatives were, by definition, opposed to most changes? The very term conservatism is borne from the idea that we should hold to basic social and political traditions, therefore preventing it from advocating almost any form of change. Look it up.

Yes but nowadays everythings become too left-wing, and we need to get back to the good old days, then conservatism can become true conservatism again.

Yes but nowadays everythings become too left-wing, and we need to get back to the good old days, then conservatism can become true conservatism again.

Indeed, the fall of the USSR, the rise of economic rationalists such as Reagan and Thatcher, and the drift of traditional labor-aligned parties towards these beliefs truly reflects the continued dominance of left-wing politics in the mainstream.

The Technocrat Party is coming very soon. Watch for it.

We are a party that stands for justice in oppresive regions. We organized and take full resposibility for the coup that took place in The Worldwide Union. We feel that it is our job to warn others about spys, and invasions and take action within our own regions and make the dictatorships crumble. Our constitution is the NSPABP which states that the Worldwide Union is a bad region and we will go against all similar regions.

Indeed, the fall of the USSR, the rise of economic rationalists such as Reagan and Thatcher, and the drift of traditional labor-aligned parties towards these beliefs truly reflects the continued dominance of left-wing politics in the mainstream.
Um.... actually, in most places it's nearly impossible to escape the thralldom of the Left. The world political climate right now tends to be dominated by pseudocapitalism, with certain leftist ideals like welfare and public works programs added to what would otherwise be a predominantly right-wing climate.

Besides, I thought you guys always maintained that the USSR weren't "real" leftists? Is this really the admission I've been waiting for for the last 5 years?

Will there be any annoying election commercials on tv?

http://img182.echo.cx/img182/6356/rtp3cg.jpg

Woo, we rock.

Um.... actually, in most places it's nearly impossible to escape the thralldom of the Left. The world political climate right now tends to be dominated by pseudocapitalism, with certain leftist ideals like welfare and public works programs added to what would otherwise be a predominantly right-wing climate.

Well, yes, but eliminating all welfare and public works is pretty extremist considering the current political spectrum. (Good luck getting voted into office on that platform.) Typically the move in recent times is towards cutting back the welfare state, not extending it, though...

Besides, I thought you guys always maintained that the USSR weren't "real" leftists? Is this really the admission I've been waiting for for the last 5 years?

They certainly weren't real socialists, but if you oversimplify things down to a left/right spectrum, of course they were left-wing to some degree. State-capitalist, but the absence of a free market makes them at least nominally leftist from an economic viewpoint, anyway. The other aspects of it were very extreme "rightist", though...

Um.... actually, in most places it's nearly impossible to escape the thralldom of the Left. The world political climate right now tends to be dominated by pseudocapitalism, with certain leftist ideals like welfare and public works programs
and why? because of market failures in "pure capitalism" that need to be corrected by the public sector. economic truth - the left is necessary.

Adriddia, if you please, could you place this party on your list?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444869
The NS Monarchist Party
http://www.feldhamster-rlp.de/Hamster/king.gif
He'd vote for the NSMP, why don't you?

Will there be any annoying election commercials on tv?

I doubt it...

As a side-note, I see people here advertising parties which aren't taking part in the election. Feel free to do so if you want, but do make sure voters realise you're not taking part.

I doubt it...

As a side-note, I see people here advertising parties which aren't taking part in the election. Feel free to do so if you want, but do make sure voters realise you're not taking part.
Is my party recognized?

Adriddia, if you please, could you place this party on your list?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444869

I can add it to the list of existing parties, but not to the list of parties standing in the election. Signing up for the election closed three days ago, sorry.

I can add it to the list of existing parties, but not to the list of parties standing in the election. Signing up for the election closed three days ago, sorry.
I thought it closed the 20th?

I thought it closed the 20th?

No, the rule was always that the list of parties would be finalised on the 15th, unless there were more than 10 at that date, in which case proceedings would be prolonged until the 20th to see if the list could be whittled down to 10.

Vote Democratic Socialist!

No, the rule was always that the list of parties would be finalised on the 15th, unless there were more than 10 at that date, in which case proceedings would be prolonged until the 20th to see if the list could be whittled down to 10.
That's fair. In that case, could my party be recognized for the next election?

That's fair. In that case, could my party be recognized for the next election?

No problem!

You'll just have to be patient for a while, though...

No problem!

You'll just have to be patient for a while, though...
That's alright, I intend to be here for a long time.

vote UDCP (http://www.udcp.org/)!

http://www.udcp.org/Graphics/Posters/UDCP%20banner.jpg
(ok its an old poster, from the last election, but my computer with the original files on has decided to die last week, so i can't change the date just now. ah well i'll just have to make all new posters :P )

couldn't you copy it to paint and then edit it, then host it on imageshack? It would be really, really small, but it would work.

when do we vote?

when do we vote?
October 1st

Is it just me or does this picture rule?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Poster_russian.jpg

couldn't you copy it to paint and then edit it, then host it on imageshack? It would be really, really small, but it would work.
sounds like a lot of effort, but thanks... besides i think a new batch of posters is in order anyway

sounds like a lot of effort, but thanks... besides i think a new batch of posters is in order anyway
This brings back memories.

besides i think a new batch of posters is in order anyway

Woo!

Though I'm sorry to hear about your computer...

This brings back memories.
what of? i'm always lazy so it could be anytime over the last year or so :D

Woo!

Though I'm sorry to hear about your computer...
ah don't worry, i think its just the PSU so it'll be up & running again by the end of the week with a bit of luck :)

what of? i'm always lazy so it could be anytime over the last year or so :D
Of the last election. DHomme will be in here battling it out with the NSCL and then it will be just like in real life. :)

Of the last election. DHomme will be in here battling it out with the NSCL and then it will be just like in real life. :)

*sniff sniff* hmmm. It smells of libertarians in here.

*sniff sniff* hmmm. It smells of libertarians in here.
I hope Eichen and VO come soon.

This deserves a bump.

*sniff sniff* hmmm. It smells of libertarians in here.
pee-ew *fans self*

pee-ew *fans self*
Ahh, Socialists! *covers mouth*

Ahh, Socialists! *covers mouth*
*farts*

ha hahahhahahahahaa :P

*walks in, helps himself to a beer, scratches testicles, and likewise farts*

Yep, socialism.

Eh, gentlemen... May I remind you this is a thread for political debate and campaigning?

Eh, gentlemen... May I remind you this is a thread for political debate and campaigning?

I thought that's what we were doing? We're bound to attract the vote of people who...uh...fart, scratch, and drink beer. :D

I thought that's what we were doing? We're bound to attract the vote of people who...uh...fart, scratch, and drink beer. :D
farting, scratching and drinking beer?? count me in! *votes 4 j00*

I hope Eichen and VO come soon.
Vote for yourself... vote NS CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

Vote for yourself... vote NS CLASSICAL LIBERALS!

Vote for all humanity... vote REVOLUTIONARY TROTSKYIST PARTY

Vote for all humanity... vote REVOLUTIONARY TROTSKYIST PARTY
Vote for Whomever the Hell You Want.

I have yet to decide on which party to support.

and why? because of market failures in "pure capitalism" that need to be corrected by the public sector. economic truth - the left is necessary.
You are aware, of course, that "pure capitalism" has never existed, which sort of prevents it from having any "market failures," right?

Fee Fie Foe Fist, I smell the stench of a communist.

Seriously PM, take a shower sometime....

and then vote Classic Liberal.

I say chaps, would not it be an absolutely spiffing idea to vote for the New British Imperialist Party?

We propose the making mandatory of the drinking of tea, the compulsary wearing of pith helmets when in Africa or India. and many other dashed brilliant ideas.

Jolly good show chaps, Carry on!

I would like to pose a question, it's open to any party but I would prefer it if the NS Classic Liberals, the Reason Party, and the Conservative Party respond.
How would you propose the balance between order and freedom can best be achieved, or if there would by any limitations?

How would you propose the balance between order and freedom can best be achieved, or if there would by any limitations?

As a society becomes more developed, the natural forces of free human interaction are directed towards a more and more ordered state. As people become increasingly interdependant through constant interaction, those who act rationally, I assume a vast majority, will be forced to act socially with benefit to all as well as themselves or lose the benefits of society.

Of course government must have some police presence to deal with individuals who cannot make competent rational decisions or choose to ignore reason.

How would you propose the balance between order and freedom can best be achieved, or if there would by any limitations?
It's kind of hard for anyone to answer that question on one foot, unless you take an equally blind hard-line stance on either side . A lot of people assume that because I want a smaller government, I want a smaller police force too. As a point of fact, I happen to think the police force in this country could do with a little kick in the pants--as long as they can be trusted to not do stupid shit like give me a parking ticket for parking in a "bus loading zone" that wasn't a bus loading zone 10 days ago and still isn't today.

Any true balance between order and freedom is impossible without knowing just what consitutes a breach of order and what does not. In my city, for example, a fire broke out on campus last year that killed 5 people. Apparently, it was started in a couch. Apparently this epidemic can be solved by banning couches on one's porch, as it seems to have been the local government's answer to the "problem." I'm sort of getting ahead of myself here, but before this question can be answered, as I said, we need to re-evaluate the concepts of 'order' and 'freedom.' Before they're properly defined [which they're not], this question can't be answered.

I would solve--or attempt to solve--this issue by sponsoring a number of initiatives to reduce the work load of or state and local police forces so that they have more time to dedicate to real threats like murders, rapes, and theft. There shouldn't be a city on the planet where speeding tickets or couch violations outnumber the distribution of [i]real justice.

Terrorism is a different issue. Terrorism is not a problem that can be solved without first disposing of our antiquated, hawkish foreign policy. It's probably not something that can be solved by a to-the-letter Libertarian policy, at least not during this generation.

Vote for all humanity... vote REVOLUTIONARY TROTSKYIST PARTY

For the sake of all humanity don't vote Revolutionary Trotskyist Party [/color][/b]

VOTE CLASSICAL LIBERAL

We won't sacrifice you for the greater good. We won't violate your rights and merit because of a deluded drive for equality. But we won't let you starve on the basis of ideology either.

You are aware, of course, that "pure capitalism" has never existed, which sort of prevents it from having any "market failures," right?
well "pure capitalism" has x many market failures. normal, workable capitalism in a mixed economy -in the real world - has market failures too, just fewer or less extreme ones, but they are most certainly still there. thats why all economies round the world are mixed - the state must correct these failures using the public sector.

sorry it was just that, from your original post i quoted, it sounded like you were denouncing 'pseudocapitalism', evidently in favour of what i called 'pure capitalism' - and this is what i figured your party stance was.
especially as you attacked the welfare state, which sits at the heart as a method for correcting such market failures.

The world political climate right now tends to be dominated by pseudocapitalism, with certain leftist ideals like welfare and public works programs added to what would otherwise be a predominantly right-wing climate.

so are you - and your party - for such a 'pure capitalist' system?
because it works so well in many parts of africa at the moment... unregulated markets are where its at :rolleyes:
(though of course you'll blame the corrupt government for the suffering of the people)

remember that, just as you say 'pure caplitalism' has never been reality, neither has real communism.
however, unlike true capitalism (or whatever we call it), true communism can actually work ;)



VOTE UDCP

A question for all parties:

What would you consider the most important role of Government to be?

A question for all parties:

What would you consider the most important role of Government to be?

As a representative of the Classic Liberals:

To protect the liberty and autonomy of the people.

We won't sacrifice you for the greater good. We won't violate your rights and merit because of a deluded drive for equality. But we won't let you starve on the basis of ideology either.

You'll just let them starve if their boss decides they should starve or not...

But we won't let you starve on the basis of ideology either.

You know, that's the first time I hear someone from NSCL say that... I'd be extremely interested to hear what social measures you do advocate.

A question for all parties:

What would you consider the most important role of Government to be?

As a representative of the UDCP, I would say: to ensure that every person has the necessities for decent living conditions. Fair wages, a roof over their heads, water, electricity, enough food, good healthcare, and everything else that, today, is being sacrificed in the name of sacrosanct economic "rights" which deny the most basic human rights of all.

well "pure capitalism" has x many market failures. normal, workable capitalism in a mixed economy -in the real world - has market failures too, just fewer or less extreme ones, but they are most certainly still there. thats why all economies round the world are mixed - the state must correct these failures using the public sector.
I've got news for you: market failures are part of life. Bad things happen and any attempt to do away with them all will only result in mutual insanity. Occasionally, people stop buying certain things, or innovations in another area of the market pushes the old blood out. The internet, for example, is currently in the process of making a lunch out of the phone companies. Does that mean we should put a lip clamp on internet communications development? Are you really going to be singing the same tune when/if an alternate energy source is devised, pushing the big oil companies that much closer to the brink?

The seperation of state and economics should be on par with the seperation of church and state. The Market--regardless of its failures--is a perfect indicator of just what people are willing to spend their money on: therefore it's the only valid barometer for determining what material values a particular culture holds dear. Government interference only muddies the waters, and in the few instances where they do end up fixing things, they have to bust a few heads to do it.

The State has no business fixing the market because, simply put, the market will always fix itself. Wehn things are all said and done, you'll fuck over more people trying to fix it than you would if you just let things take their course.

sorry it was just that, from your original post i quoted, it sounded like you were denouncing 'pseudocapitalism', evidently in favour of what i called 'pure capitalism' - and this is what i figured your party stance was.
I was, and it is.

especially as you attacked the welfare state, which sits at the heart as a method for correcting such market failures.
Right. "Lets steal from people and give their money away because another group of people might stop buying a certain product." Sounds perfectly logical to me.

so are you - and your party - for such a 'pure capitalist' system?
Yes.

because it works so well in many parts of africa at the moment... unregulated markets are where its at :rolleyes:
(though of course you'll blame the corrupt government for the suffering of the people)
They're not corrupt? This is news to me.

Besides, the consequences of a free market system in fucking Africa do not dictate the consequences of a free market system in America. We have tractors and fuel and things like cars and state of the art assembly facilities. Africa has very few of them. Africa's problems don't stem entirely from their government, but rather they are due in part to lingering effects of colonialism and what seems like a continent-wide propensity to avoid change. If the resources existed in Africa for the average man to start up a legitimate business concern, we'd probably see a lot more development from them.

remember that, just as you say 'pure caplitalism' has never been reality, neither has real communism.
however, unlike true capitalism (or whatever we call it), true communism can actually work ;)
You keep thinking that. In the meantime, consider that the closest thing we've got to pure Communism is probably North Korea or Cuba. The closest thing we have to pure Capitalism is America. The comparisons should be self-evident.

VOTE REASON

The Market--regardless of its failures--is a perfect indicator of just what people are willing to spend their money on: therefore it's the only valid barometer for determining what material values a particular culture holds dear.

I disagree. The market doesn't reveal what people want, it creates those wants, and one of its most perverse effects is the creation of artificial wants, pseudo-necessities, the belief that everyone must absolutely have this or that which ranges from useless to harmful, and would never have occurred to people in the first place had advertising not got at them. I don't see the market as a valid "indicator" of anything.


Government interference only muddies the waters, and in the few instances where they do end up fixing things, they have to bust a few heads to do it.


Government interference has the benefit of refocusing production on that which is truly necessary (as a priority, that is; it doesn't preclude the production of non-necessary goods). The Market's logic is one of profit. The government's logic would be one of public good and well-being. The market doesn't care about people not being able to feed themselves or sleep with a roof over their head or have access to medication. It cares only about profit. Which is why government intervention is vital to counter it.


The State has no business fixing the market because, simply put, the market will always fix itself. Wehn things are all said and done, you'll fuck over more people trying to fix it than you would if you just let things take their course.


I disagree. Making sure that everyone has adequate healthcare for example is a necessity, and not one the Market will ensure. It won't "fix itself", because there's no profit in it.


You keep thinking that. In the meantime, consider that the closest thing we've got to pure Communism is probably North Korea or Cuba. The closest thing we have to pure Capitalism is America. The comparisons should be self-evident.

Except that your comparison is flawed. Cuba or North Korea are the antithesis to pure communism, which implies a withering away of the State.

Even so, let's look at your example. Take Cuba. (North Korea is a Stalinist aberration, and no more representative of communism than, say, Pinochet's Chile was of capitalism.) Leaving aside the matter of dictatorship (which the UDCP obviously does not advocate), Cubans have the best healthcare system West of the Atlantic, a more efficient education system than the US, free housing (free housing!), and a life expectancy equal to that of the US, a country with far more ressources at its disposal (to be specific, Cubans live on average a few weeks longer than Americans).

Your comparison is anything but "self-evident", from the perspective of those priorities.

VOTE UDCP!

I disagree. The market doesn't reveal what people want, it creates those wants, and one of its most perverse effects is the creation of artificial wants, pseudo-necessities, the belief that everyone must absolutely have this or that which ranges from useless to harmful, and would never have occurred to people in the first place had advertising not got at them. I don't see the market as a valid "indicator" of anything.
An "artificial want," so long as it remains something people are willing to spend money on, is still a valid representation of what the person spending that money wanted to get out of it. I'm not here to discuss the necessity of every particular product, but I can say that people are free to spend their money how they see fit, and that's the way it should be in any country that wants to call itself "free." If you don't like whats being bought and sold, tough shit.

Government interference has the benefit of refocusing production on that which is truly necessary (as a priority, that is; it doesn't preclude the production of non-necessary goods). The Market's logic is one of profit. The government's logic would be one of public good and well-being.
You'd think, wouldn't you? Strangely enough, I'd venture to guess that the market has done a lot more for us than the government ever has or ever will. I'm beginning to suspect the majority of my opponents on this board wil rapidly come to understand this when they have to live on their own for, say, six months.

The government, in the name of "public good," has created and tested nuclear weapons; it has waged a constant war on my paycheck and my personal habits for quite some time now. I'm not seeing much of anything that resembles a tangible benefit.

The market doesn't care about people not being able to feed themselves or sleep with a roof over their head or have access to medication.
Unless you happen to be in the grocery, housing, or medical industries. Don't be ridiculous.

It cares only about profit. Which is why government intervention is vital to counter it.
It's only vital if you regard "making profit" as a sin. If that's the case, good luck in life, pal. See how far you get with that.

I disagree. Making sure that everyone has adequate healthcare for example is a necessity, and not one the Market will ensure. It won't "fix itself", because there's no profit in it.
Making sure everyone has "adequate healthcare" would mean that I'd end up paying another 15-20% of my wages to the government, in exchange for a sevice that I, being a 20 year old male, would rarely make use of. It would end up being a fair deal for a very, very small minority.

Except that your comparison is flawed. Cuba or North Korea are the antithesis to pure communism, which implies a withering away of the State.
I can almost hear your fingers clutching around those straws from here, despite AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" blaring from my computer's speakers.

Even so, let's look at your example. Take Cuba. (North Korea is a Stalinist aberration, and no more representative of communism than, say, Pinochet's Chile was of capitalism.)
There's no denying it's much closer to general leftist ideals than it is to mine. It remains one of the last bastions of extreme leftism on the planet.

Leaving aside the matter of dictatorship (which the UDCP obviously does not advocate), Cubans have the best healthcare system West of the Atlantic, a more efficient education system than the US, free housing (free housing!), and a life expectancy equal to that of the US, a country with far more ressources at its disposal (to be specific, Cubans live on average a few weeks longer than Americans).
You heard this where? More importanly, you believed it? Seriously, I expected better from you. Cuba has been a rat-hole for decades.

VOTE REASON! WIN A FREE COUNTRY!

I disagree. The market doesn't reveal what people want, it creates those wants, and one of its most perverse effects is the creation of artificial wants, pseudo-necessities, the belief that everyone must absolutely have this or that which ranges from useless to harmful, and would never have occurred to people in the first place had advertising not got at them.

A market doesn't create wants any more than a house creates a birthday party.

PEOPLE have wants, a market is just a venue for people to match their wants with their needs and what they can offer. It isn't an actor as you seem to imply, conscious and malicious.

The Market's logic is one of profit. The government's logic would be one of public good and well-being.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Sorry, I know thats not much of a debating tactic. But then neither is this bald faced assertion that seems to ignore that the biggest killers of the 20th Century were not "markets" but governments! Public good, indeed.

The market doesn't care about people not being able to feed themselves or sleep with a roof over their head or have access to medication. It cares only about profit.

A market can care? Or not care? I don't think so.

A government doesn't care about people not having access to medication, as long as they don't threaten the government's power. And even that can easily be remedied with some state funded propaganda.

Governments are concerned with power, and maintaining and grabbing that power.

Cubans have the best healthcare system West of the Atlantic,

Correct my geography if I'm wrong, is not Canada West of the Atlantic?

a more efficient education system than the US,

Efficiency is easy when the scale is much smaller. And how are you measuring "education efficiency" here anyway?

free housing (free housing!),

Now you sound like an advertising company. Free coupons! :)


Say Melkor, is there a Reason Party thread, manifesto and/or forum? I'm interested.

There's a manifesto thread somewhere, but it hasn't been posted to since the first election, if I recall correctly. I don't have a forum, since I'm something of a lone wolf when it comes to most of my politics. The only real reason why I'm not en league with the NSCL is they are, in fact, a collective. ;)

You'd think, wouldn't you? Strangely enough, I'd venture to guess that the market has done a lot more for us than the government ever has or ever will.

Depends who you mean by "us", I suppose. You'd be hard-pressed to justify that the market has done more for the poor.


I'm beginning to suspect the majority of my opponents on this board wil rapidly come to understand this when they have to live on their own for, say, six months.


Sorry, no. ;) I spent a year living completely alone, in a foreign country at that - when I was the age that you are now, as a matter of fact. And yet here I am.


The government, in the name of "public good," has created and tested nuclear weapons; it has waged a constant war on my paycheck and my personal habits for quite some time now. I'm not seeing much of anything that resembles a tangible benefit.


Well that would be because our sense of priorities is different, wouldn't it... I pay taxes, and I don't see it as being a "war on my paycheck".


Unless you happen to be in the grocery, housing, or medical industries. Don't be ridiculous.


Sorry, but my point stands. Those are still based on profit, not on an altruistic desire to provide for the needy. If it weren't so, you wouldn't have homeless people, people in the Third World dying of diseases we can easily treat, or people in poor countries starving while rich countries destroy their surplus food so as not to cause prices to go down due to overproduction. A capitalist society's priorities lead it to leaving people to die in order to make a profit. The food production industry, caring about people not having access to food? I think not.


It's only vital if you regard "making profit" as a sin. If that's the case, good luck in life, pal. See how far you get with that.


Not as a sin. But as something which should not be glorified as the utmost priority. There are too many things which are - or rather should be - far more important.


Making sure everyone has "adequate healthcare" would mean that I'd end up paying another 15-20% of my wages to the government, in exchange for a sevice that I, being a 20 year old male, would rarely make use of. It would end up being a fair deal for a very, very small minority.


Again, it boils down to priorities. I consider that enabling everyone to have adequate healthcare is a priority.


There's no denying it's much closer to general leftist ideals than it is to mine. It remains one of the last bastions of extreme leftism on the planet.


True. But unless you're willing to say, for example, that Pinochet's Chile is close to the type of society you advocate, it's not an argument you can use.


You heard this where? More importanly, you believed it? Seriously, I expected better from you. Cuba has been a rat-hole for decades.


I heard what where? I'll answer point by point.

That they have an excellent healthcare system is, I think, undisputed by anyone with a shred of objectivity. That their life expectancy equals (and very slightly surpasses) that of the US, I got from various sources, including the CIA factbook website - not, I think you'll agree, exactly a mouthpiece for pro-Cuban propaganda. (They put the Cuban life expectancy at 77.23 years, and that of Americans at 77.71 years. Cuban men live slightly longer than American men, while American women live slightly longer than Cuban women, but overall the difference is negligeable.)

That housing is free in Cuba, I got from Cubans themselves, when I went there. Several Cubans told me so, including some who were otherwise very critical of their government, so I'm enclined to take their word for it.

That their education system is one of the best in the continent, I got from Lonely Planet, so that's the one point you might justifiably question. Though again, Lonely Planet isn't exactly an organ of Cuban propaganda.

Vote for democracy, vote for economic freedom

VOTE FOR THE NS CONSERVATIVE PARTY

There's a manifesto thread somewhere, but it hasn't been posted to since the first election, if I recall correctly. I don't have a forum, since I'm something of a lone wolf when it comes to most of my politics. The only real reason why I'm not en league with the NSCL is they are, in fact, a collective. ;)

Join Us. You Know You Want To. For the Greater Good.
:D

Okay okay, so what about, I dunno, a partnership? Individual liberty doesn't mean cooperation is impossible, and I find I agree with like all of your political points IIRC.

I mean not like it matters, its just NS general elections.

A market doesn't create wants any more than a house creates a birthday party.

Do you seriously believe that? That a market doesn't create wants? I'd call that denying an obvious fact. Where do you think those wants come from? That they spring up spontaneously in people? That they precede the products corresponding to them, and even the idea of those products? Are you denying that the market gets us to feel we "need" things that we'd lived perfectly well without and had never felt we needed (or felt we were doing without) before?


PEOPLE have wants, a market is just a venue for people to match their wants with their needs and what they can offer. It isn't an actor as you seem to imply, conscious and malicious.


Oh, yes it is. See above. A conscious actor, at least; whether or not it's "malicious" would be far more subjective. It's driven by profit, which I wouldn't say is inherently malicious, just callous and inhumane. Its aim isn't to cause suffering; that's just an inevitable by-product of its aim, which is the enshrining of profit as the absolute goal.


Sorry, I know thats not much of a debating tactic. But then neither is this bald faced assertion that seems to ignore that the biggest killers of the 20th Century were not "markets" but governments! Public good, indeed.


I would say that depends on how you count. The millions who have been killed by the market may be indirect victims, but that doesn't make the market any less responsible.

Besides, you know very well I'm not condoning that kind of government actions. You, on the other hand, are supporting an economic system whose very logic and structure is quite literally lethal.


A market can care? Or not care? I don't think so.

A government doesn't care about people not having access to medication, as long as they don't threaten the government's power. And even that can easily be remedied with some state funded propaganda.


A bit of a weak argument, no? ;) A bit of a generalisation unsupported by fact?

Depends who you mean by "us", I suppose. You'd be hard-pressed to justify that the market has done more for the poor.
Compare America's poor to the poor in the rest of the world. Oh wait, I take that back: there's no comparison. In this country, you're "poor" if you have only a small apartment, a nominally functional car, and only two color tvs. I've been poor before and I'm quite familiar with what the market did for me during that time. It kept me fed, for one thing.

Sorry, no. ;) I spent a year living completely alone, in a foreign country at that - when I was the age that you are now, as a matter of fact. And yet here I am.
Give it a few more years. I'm sure you'll change your mind on a few things.

Well that would be because our sense of priorities is different, wouldn't it... I pay taxes, and I don't see it as being a "war on my paycheck".
You don't see something wrong with the Government saying "Workers need to make x amount of money per hour" and then making sure that they make less than the stated amount per hour? We may have different standards as to just what consitutes "theft," but I happen to think taking my money without my knowledge or consent would classify. If anything, it is my moral responsibility to make sure that my money is being put to legitimate use, even if I did want to pay for these things. Without the right to withold our cash, the Government doesn't really have any incentive to get it right.

If you're going to tax us, at least let us know how its going, or send around a guy with a clipboard to ask "Do you want us to save money for you when you get old?"

Tax enthusiasts love to claim that the process appeals to the idea of trade: you pay a certain amount for certain services. However, trade, by definition, requires the consent of both parties. The "consent" that has been "granted" to the government in the form of intellectually vacant politicians who were put into power largely before I was born just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry, but my point stands. Those are still based on profit, not on an altruistic desire to provide for the needy.
The very fact that you would attempt to invoke an argument like this speaks volumes as to your ignorance of Objectivism. An "altrusitic desire to provide for the needy" is not something we countenance as being any more virtuous than my trying to earn my own goddamn living. Don't compromise my chances just because other people might not find life particularly easy.

Sorry, you can shake that pity tree all day long and there ain't nothin' gonna fall out.

Not as a sin. But as something which should not be glorified as the utmost priority. There are too many things which are - or rather should be - far more important.
Fuck that. Even if your precious "common man" [who are actually middle class in this country] is going to take your handout, his motive is profit not of money, but of food--he's seeking to advance the progress of his own life. There is nothing more important than profit and producing for oneself.

Again, it boils down to priorities. I consider that enabling everyone to have adequate healthcare is a priority.
Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but the Left in all its wisdom can think of no better way to fund this than by taking some random chunk of the People's money. Note the emphasis.

Try to be a little more creative, for Christ's sake. As a civiliaztion, we have demonstrated ourself capable of astounding displays of ingenuity. I'm sure we can cook something up that doesn't involve me and a bunch of Libertarians bitching about our paychecks being raped.


That they have an excellent healthcare system is, I think, undisputed by anyone with a shred of objectivity. That their life expectancy equals (and very slightly surpasses) that of the US, I got from various sources, including the CIA factbook website - not, I think you'll agree, exactly a mouthpiece for pro-Cuban propaganda. (They put the Cuban life expectancy at 77.23 years, and that of Americans at 77.71 years. Cuban men live slightly longer than American men, while American women live slightly longer than Cuban women, but overall the difference is negligeable.)
I've never heard that anywhere in my life. Currently, the American Life expectacy stands at about 77 years and 5 months. Cuba's is 77.04, which is a little less. Pretty good all things considered, but one must also consider that Cuba also has roughly the population of New York City.

Statistics seem to show they've done fairly well in that area, but you can't really compare a stat like that as it pertains to 11 million people with one like ours that deals with close to 300 million. Our average is brought down by what probably ends up being a higher auto accident rate per capita, and other things that I cant be arsed to think about right now that grow larger as the population does. Like genetic defects and things.

That housing is free in Cuba, I got from Cubans themselves, when I went there. Several Cubans told me so, including some who were otherwise very critical of their government, so I'm enclined to take their word for it.
Nothing is "free." Someone had to pay for the materials to build that thing and for the labor to put it up. Somehow, the government gets away with calling it "free" when they do it, just because it's tax funded. Taxes don't make their results "free," if they did we'd get that money back.

That their education system is one of the best in the continent, I got from Lonely Planet, so that's the one point you might justifiably question. Though again, Lonely Planet isn't exactly an organ of Cuban propaganda.
The best in the continent? I got news for you: their competition isn't exactly fierce. America's been slipping in that area for a while now, and Mexico isn't likely to be very good at all. If anything I'd venture to guess their closest competitor is Canada.

Still, education levels are more of a function of the population, it's not a function of how much money you throw at it. You can show every kid in America the same Founding Fathers clipshow, and guess what? The same ones that are capable of learning from it and want to learn more will be the people who end up succeeding almost regardless of your national education policy. In a lot of places in the world, it doesn't make much sense trying to explain trigonometry to farm boys.

Vote for democracy, vote for economic freedom

VOTE FOR THE NS CONSERVATIVE PARTY

You do realise that almost every party is standing for democracy, and that that several are standing for so-called "economic freedom" - most notably the NSCL and the Reason Party?

You'll have to do better than that. :D

Yes but nowadays everythings become too left-wing, and we need to get back to the good old days, then conservatism can become true conservatism again.

You folks think the Democrats are liberal, in Canada some people are even stupid enough to think the Liberal party is actually liberal.. their not, they're centrist.. Most people don't even know what "left-wing" is. As shown daily on this forum.

You do realise that almost every party is standing for democracy, and that that several are standing for so-called "economic freedom" - most notably the NSCL and the Reason Party?

You'll have to do better than that. :D
I love it when I'm allowed to get away with agreeing with you guys. As much disdain as I have for the Left, that's nothing compared with my contempt for the Right. I just so rarely ever get a chance to go after American Conservatives on this board: there isn't much to be found anywhere north of the personal freedom line. If you're going to only get half of it right, I'd rather it be your half.

Do you seriously believe that? That a market doesn't create wants? I'd call that denying an obvious fact. Where do you think those wants come from? That they spring up spontaneously in people? That they precede the products corresponding to them, and even the idea of those products? Are you denying that the market gets us to feel we "need" things that we'd lived perfectly well without and had never felt we needed (or felt we were doing without) before?

Yes. A market provides a place for businesses to operate. In operating they advertise. In advertising people do or do not feel a need. But a market itself doesn't create anything, other than the base opportunity.


Oh, yes it is. See above. A conscious actor, at least; whether or not it's "malicious" would be far more subjective. It's driven by profit, which I wouldn't say is inherently malicious, just callous and inhumane. Its aim isn't to cause suffering; that's just an inevitable by-product of its aim, which is the enshrining of profit as the absolute goal.

You are confusing a business's individual motives with motives for some nebulous "market." A market doesn't have a single aim like a single actor does. If it did businesses operating in the market wouldn't compete.


I would say that depends on how you count. The millions who have been killed by the market may be indirect victims, but that doesn't make the market any less responsible.

Yeah, actually it does. Otherwise you, as a consumer of anything, are "indirectly responsible" for any deaths you attribute to "the market." And I know you don't think you are responsible.

And who are these people anyway? Can you honestly say they were killed by a market?

Besides, you know very well I'm not condoning that kind of government actions. You, on the other hand, are supporting an economic system whose very logic and structure is quite literally lethal.

OTOH you know very well I don't see it as "quite literally lethal" hence it is false to say I support that. It's your claim that's its logic and structure is lethal, not mine. I support an economic system that is better than the others.


A bit of a weak argument, no? ;) A bit of a generalisation unsupported by fact?

Not really. I could support the statements of government with quotes from Goebbels, couldn't I. Seems a pretty strong argument against the pure morality of government to point out governments that were, literally and directly, mass murderers...

Will you be voting for liberals?

Yes... Especially in the real world

Heres a few things to consider;

1. Liberals support abortion. Abortion is the termination of human life. So is murder.

I don't support abortion. "Moderate" conservatives only get that label by supporting abortion. Finally, conservatives only give lip service to ending abortion. Or, on occasion, draconian yet meaningless legislation which only puts mothers lives in danger. Pointless to decide on that basis.

2. Liberals support euthanasia. If you fell in and went into hospital, would you want to be killed?

I figure suicide is a DIY job.

3. Liberals support socialism.

Hell, yeah! Rich people make more money sitting on their fat a$$ets, than anybody gets from real honest WORK. The only useful thing the Leninist/Stalinist totalitarians came up with is, "You work, you eat. You don't work you don't eat." Not exactly a free lunch for the lazy if implemented!

4. Liberals want a cut back on homeland security, leaving peoples lives in danger.

I'm all for cutting back on draconian measures that restrict freedom while providing a thin illusion of security. We're safer with real police work and an intact Bill of Rights.
---------------------------------------------------------

Do you really want these people in charge?

The NS Conservative Party are different. We believe things can change. We are the conservatives.

Conservatives who believe things can change? OK. Conservatives who think things should change? Orwellian use of the language.

Compare America's poor to the poor in the rest of the world. Oh wait, I take that back: there's no comparison. In this country, you're "poor" if you have only a small apartment, a nominally functional car, and only two color tvs. I've been poor before and I'm quite familiar with what the market did for me during that time. It kept me fed, for one thing.

Are you denying that there's genuine poverty and people living in the streets with nothing or next to nothing in the US and other Western countries? And that those just above that level struggle constantly to make ends meet?

It's funny you should make that comment, by the way: it reminds me of something I was thinking just a few weeks ago. Namely, that if I were to be poor, I would much rather be poor in Cuba than in the US or any other Western country. At least I would have a house, a steady income, enough food, and good health. Being "poor" in Cuba is nothing like being poor in the West.


Give it a few more years. I'm sure you'll change your mind on a few things.


I hope not. ;)


You don't see something wrong with the Government saying "Workers need to make x amount of money per hour" and then making sure that they make less than the stated amount per hour? We may have different standards as to just what consitutes "theft," but I happen to think taking my money without my knowledge or consent would classify. If anything, it is my moral responsibility to make sure that my money is being put to legitimate use, even if I did want to pay for these things. Without the right to withold our cash, the Government doesn't really have any incentive to get it right.

If you're going to tax us, at least let us know how its going, or send around a guy with a clipboard to ask "Do you want us to save money for you when you get old?"


I can agree with you to a limited degree. One thing we can agree on is that there should be safeguards to ensure tax money is not wasted. On the other hand, I don't agree that taxation is theft, or that everyone should say exactly where their tax money should go (for one thing, it would be chaotic, and for another, there's the little problem that they would probably not be enclined to suggest much of it going to those most in need).

Are you saying you see all taxation as theft? Because if there were no taxes, I somehow doubt voluntary donations would be enough to maintain healthcare and social services, an adequate police force and fire-fighting force, necessary work such as keeping roads in reasonably good condition...


Sorry, you can shake that pity tree all day long and there ain't nothin' gonna fall out.

So I gathered a long time ago. ;)


Fuck that. Even if your precious "common man" [who are actually middle class in this country] is going to take your handout, his motive is profit not of money, but of food--he's seeking to advance the progress of his own life. There is nothing more important than profit and producing for oneself.


That's not what I call profit. Essentials aren't profit. The drive for profit is, essentially, the drive to earn more money than you actually need, at the expense of those who actually do need it. Your argument doesn't hold water, in the sense that there can be no ethical objection to a man trying to feed himself and survive. The ethical objection arises when the actions of others prevent him from doing that, or make it a significant struggle for him.


Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but the Left in all its wisdom can think of no better way to fund this than by taking some random chunk of the People's money. Note the emphasis.

Try to be a little more creative, for Christ's sake. As a civiliaztion, we have demonstrated ourself capable of astounding displays of ingenuity. I'm sure we can cook something up that doesn't involve me and a bunch of Libertarians bitching about our paychecks being raped.


Well, I'm sure you'd object to increased taxation on large companies on the grounds that that would be pillaging the property of company owners... Money has to come from somewhere. Yes, there are ways to limit the need for taking it from your average citizen, but you can't cut out tax completely.


Statistics seem to show they've done fairly well in that area, but you can't really compare a stat like that as it pertains to 11 million people with one like ours that deals with close to 300 million. Our average is brought down by what probably ends up being a higher auto accident rate per capita, and other things that I cant be arsed to think about right now that grow larger as the population does. Like genetic defects and things.


Fair enough, though I strongly doubt that genetic defects account for the fact Cuba has managed to match the life expectancy of a first-world nation. As for car accidents, I can assure you Cubans are reckless drivers (though it's true I didn't see any car accidents while I was there), so there's no reason for the average to be any different. Eating disorders probably go a fair way towards lowering the average American life expectancy, though, and your overall point does make sense. Still, it doesn't detract from the achievement of the Cubans.


Nothing is "free." Someone had to pay for the materials to build that thing and for the labor to put it up. Somehow, the government gets away with calling it "free" when they do it, just because it's tax funded. Taxes don't make their results "free," if they did we'd get that money back.


Ah, but the end result is that an essential need is met for all Cubans.


The best in the continent? I got news for you: their competition isn't exactly fierce. America's been slipping in that area for a while now, and Mexico isn't likely to be very good at all. If anything I'd venture to guess their closest competitor is Canada.


And Costa Rica is pretty close, from what I've heard... You're right, the competition isn't fierce, but that's due mainly to the extreme capitalism that has been the driving doctrine in many nations of the Americas. Even if the competition wasn't worth much, it's still an achievement on Cuba's part, and a reflection of their priorities.


Still, education levels are more of a function of the population, it's not a function of how much money you throw at it. You can show every kid in America the same Founding Fathers clipshow, and guess what? The same ones that are capable of learning from it and want to learn more will be the people who end up succeeding almost regardless of your national education policy. In a lot of places in the world, it doesn't make much sense trying to explain trigonometry to farm boys.

All right, I can concede that point. Although education programmes in Cuba have been effective in the sense of reversing the lacks from the pre-Revolutionary period. One of the first thing the government achieved in the early 60s, and remarkably quickly at that, was making sure everyone could read and write and was given a proper education. What they make of it is, I agree, up to each of them as individuals, and a credit to those individuals who are eager to learn more.

I love it when I'm allowed to get away with agreeing with you guys. As much disdain as I have for the Left, that's nothing compared with my contempt for the Right. I just so rarely ever get a chance to go after American Conservatives on this board: there isn't much to be found anywhere north of the personal freedom line. If you're going to only get half of it right, I'd rather it be your half.

I feel essentially the same way. Much as I may find your socio-economic ideology disturbing and unethical, I can respect your beliefs in every other aspect. At least they're grounded in rational principles; Conservative positions usually are not.

Which makes you by far the lesser of two evils.

Yes. A market provides a place for businesses to operate. In operating they advertise. In advertising people do or do not feel a need. But a market itself doesn't create anything, other than the base opportunity.

I disagree, for the reasons I mentioned. The market's goal is to generate that so-called need, for its own profit.


You are confusing a business's individual motives with motives for some nebulous "market." A market doesn't have a single aim like a single actor does. If it did businesses operating in the market wouldn't compete.


You're quibbling on details. What I said applies to individual businesses, and hence to the market as a whole. Businesses are driven by profit, which in turn drives the market.


Not really. I could support the statements of government with quotes from Goebbels, couldn't I. Seems a pretty strong argument against the pure morality of government to point out governments that were, literally and directly, mass murderers...

That's called Godwinism. Invoking nazism is hardly a valid or rational argument against government in general. And I could point out that in most cases governments prevent inter-ethnic violence within their borders, for example.

Whereas, on the contrary, it is intrinsic for the market to withhold vital necessities when there is no profit to be made by letting those in need have them. Which is why, as I pointed out earlier, people in the Third World die of illnesses we know how to cure, and starve while the West destroys its surplus food production. Because it would not be profitable to give them access to that medicine and that food. Those are victims of the market, very real, and very numerous. And, unlike victims of governments, they are victims on an inherent caracteristic of capitalism.

Are you denying that there's genuine poverty and people living in the streets with nothing or next to nothing in the US and other Western countries? And that those just above that level struggle constantly to make ends meet?
Of course not. I'me merely pointing out that the standard of living for our poor is much better than anywhere else in the world. In most countries, malnourishment is the primary concern. In this country, the problem is the opposite: our poor are eating too much. Obesity is a bigger problem for them than malnourishment will ever be.

It's funny you should make that comment, by the way: it reminds me of something I was thinking just a few weeks ago. Namely, that if I were to be poor, I would much rather be poor in Cuba than in the US or any other Western country. At least I would have a house, a steady income, enough food, and good health. Being "poor" in Cuba is nothing like being poor in the West.
That's.... disturbing and eyebrow-raisingly uninformed to say the least. If being poor in Cuba was so great, I doub't there'd be much of an issue about them trying to raft to freaking Florida every day.

I can agree with you to a limited degree. One thing we can agree on is that there should be safeguards to ensure tax money is not wasted.
No, I'm saying taxation is not a legitimate function of government. The fact that it is poorly run merely compounds the problem: it's not the root of it.

On the other hand, I don't agree that taxation is theft, or that everyone should say exactly where their tax money should go (for one thing, it would be chaotic, and for another, there's the little problem that they would probably not be enclined to suggest much of it going to those most in need).
If taxation isn't theft, then I want my cut of your paycheck too. Since, after all, it's apparently OK to take money away before you even get it. A government can't be very representative of the people if its moral standards are not consistent with ours. If I took your money and spent it on the "greater good," I'd have charges brought to me just the same. I don't think people should get away with it just because they happen to work in the Capitol building. For all the denouncement the Left does for the Aristocracy in this country, they do seem to wholeheartedly seem to support certain aspects of it.

Are you saying you see all taxation as theft? Because if there were no taxes, I somehow doubt voluntary donations would be enough to maintain healthcare and social services, an adequate police force and fire-fighting force, necessary work such as keeping roads in reasonably good condition...
1) Yes.
2) Healthcare and Social Services are not generally a necessity for the entire nation; rather they are functions whose benefits reach a select few. The costs to maintain these programs for the people who actually need them is far, far less than any governmental budgetary projection you've ever seen in your life. I need only point to the situation going on right now in the Gulf Coast to prove that--when genuine problems arise--society solves them. Excepting the Corps of Engineers who are rebuilding the levees in the city, I would guess that private manpower is doing more to patch that problem up than the government is.
3) Roads are generally funded through the state DOT, which gets that money from ticket, license, and registration fees. The only tax-supported roadway project in the US right now is the Interstate system, I believe. We have companies being formed to colonize Mars; somehow I think that if the government hadn't done it and the demand existed, some corporation would have built a damn road. They might charge tolls but in the end, it probably wouldn't be any worse than the taxes we ended up paying in the first place.

That's not what I call profit. Essentials aren't profit. The drive for profit is, essentially, the drive to earn more money than you actually need, at the expense of those who actually do need it.
No, profit consists merely of making a gain on a transaction. Like most liberals, you're turning the concept of profit into a bloated, conflated mass of ideas that resembles its definition in name only. If profit always came at the direct expense of other people, economic growth would be utterly impossible.

Your argument doesn't hold water, in the sense that there can be no ethical objection to a man trying to feed himself and survive.
And there can be no ethical objection for attaining a profit, either.

The ethical objection arises when the actions of others prevent him from doing that, or make it a significant struggle for him.
The left has some pretty funny ideas about just what does and doesn't consitute the application of force against another man's rights. Apparently, I might as well be kicking a bum in the balls for every dollar I put into savings, some argue. It never ceases to amaze me the ridiculous ends you guys will run to in order to assure me that a man who enters business and puts food on the plates of millions, where there previously was none, is doing a disservice to humanity.

Well, I'm sure you'd object to increased taxation on large companies on the grounds that that would be pillaging the property of company owners... Money has to come from somewhere. Yes, there are ways to limit the need for taking it from your average citizen, but you can't cut out tax completely.
This is an oddly traditionalist way of looking at things. Yes it has to come from somewhere, but it'd be nice if it didn't have to come from the pocketbooks of the people whos rights you are "protecting." Also, you tell me that tax "can't be cut out," and promptly fail to explain why. Why can't tax be done away with? Why is it the best anyone can come up with?

Fair enough, though I strongly doubt that genetic defects account for the fact Cuba has managed to match the life expectancy of a first-world nation.
Dude, it was an example. I was pointing out that we have a higher rate of moratility caused by problems which grow exponentially as the population increases. Nowhere did I assume that "genetic defects account for the fact Cuba has managed to match the life expectancy of a first-world nation."

As for car accidents, I can assure you Cubans are reckless drivers (though it's true I didn't see any car accidents while I was there), so there's no reason for the average to be any different.
Except that there are probably more miles of roadway in any one state than in the whole country of Cuba. There's also probably more cars too. America, with the emphasis it places on automobile mobility, is sure to be leaps and bounds ahead of most countries in this department. I'm not sure we hold the per capita accident title, but the volume of accidents in this country alone is mind-boggling.

Eating disorders probably go a fair way towards lowering the average American life expectancy, though, and your overall point does make sense. Still, it doesn't detract from the achievement of the Cubans.
It does if you want to make comparisons like these. Taken as a national effort I'll grant you that, but if you want to go comparing their life expectancy to the US, all of the variables must be considered.

Ah, but the end result is that an essential need is met for all Cubans.
Yeah? At what expense?

And Costa Rica is pretty close, from what I've heard... You're right, the competition isn't fierce, but that's due mainly to the extreme capitalism that has been the driving doctrine in many nations of the Americas. Even if the competition wasn't worth much, it's still an achievement on Cuba's part, and a reflection of their priorities.
Please Christ, tell me he's kidding. I may blame socialism on a lot of things, but trying to claim that an economic system is responsible for the aggrigate intelligence level within that nation is mind-bogglingly assumptive at best.

You are aware, of course, that "pure capitalism" has never existed, which sort of prevents it from having any "market failures," right?

Yeah. Socialism is the tool that saves capitalism. That was Roosevelt's real goal. To save capitalism. I giggle a little when I hear people call him a socialist!

I suspect most people agree that a mixed economy is best. We just disagree on the proportions. I think we also disagree about the composition of baby versus bathwater. ;)

I disagree. The market doesn't reveal what people want, it creates those wants, and one of its most perverse effects is the creation of artificial wants, pseudo-necessities, the belief that everyone must absolutely have this or that which ranges from useless to harmful, and would never have occurred to people in the first place had advertising not got at them. I don't see the market as a valid "indicator" of anything.


You're thinking of "marketing." Marketing is the tool by which advertisers twist the market to their employer's desire. Not the same thing. A "democracy" in which all the voters are brain-washed into "happy programmed little children" is not a good example of a democracy, nor is our "manufactured consent" market a good example of a market economy.

I disagree, for the reasons I mentioned. The market's goal is to generate that so-called need, for its own profit.


Then I guess I have to politely say you do not know what a market really is and leave it at that.

You're quibbling on details. What I said applies to individual businesses, and hence to the market as a whole. Businesses are driven by profit, which in turn drives the market.

Oh it's only a "detail." Well I may as well say that since a cell's goal is to support the whole of the body, and a body is made up of cells, and a business is made up of bodies, and a market of businesses, then the market's goal is to support the whole! :D


That's called Godwinism. Invoking nazism is hardly a valid or rational argument against government in general. And I could point out that in most cases governments prevent inter-ethnic violence within their borders, for example.


It's not "Godwinism" to point out an immoral government when you are claiming that governments by nature are concerned for the public good.

Nor is it out of place to point out a comment by Goebbels which merely happens to support my original point, that it's easier to control the masses via manipulation - you'd think he'd know, yes? - than to actually do everything they want like a passive servant.

And nazism isn't good enough for you? What about stalinism? How about the PRC? Do you really think these governments are "concerned" for the welfare of the people and some 'greater good?'


Whereas, on the contrary, it is intrinsic for the market to withhold vital necessities when there is no profit to be made by letting those in need have them. Which is why, as I pointed out earlier, people in the Third World die of illnesses we know how to cure, and starve while the West destroys its surplus food production. Because it would not be profitable to give them access to that medicine and that food. Those are victims of the market, very real, and very numerous. And, unlike victims of governments, they are victims on an inherent caracteristic of capitalism.

Oh, but our government is concerned with the public good! Therefore it would be morally compelled to send assistance!

Same with all the governments of the Third World. Not a single one of them is corrupt or cruel... but if they are, let's blame capitalism instead of government! ;)

A question for all parties:

What would you consider the most important role of Government to be?
I think we established it had something to do with custard pies.

Tired of the serious issues of politics? Care not a jot for the unemployed, the criminals, the wars, the economy? Do you want to see your politicians in suits, arguing over the boring details of legislation?
Or do you want to see welly-hurling competitions in the halls of power? Baked beans poured by the truckload at rival parties' conferences? Free belly button fluff for all, not just the privileged?
Then:
Vote for the EMPHATICALLY SILLY PARTY!
This political message was brought to you by the Emphatically Silly Party. ESP. We know who you vote for.

Same with all the governments of the Third World. Not a single one of them is corrupt or cruel... but if they are, let's blame capitalism instead of government! ;)

Actually, I blame the particular governments and the people that run them.

Just a reminder that the election will begin tomorrow, and, in accordance with procedures agreed upon by Parliament, will last five days.

seems decidedly more low-key than last time... but then General has changed a lot since last time :(