NationStates Jolt Archive

You seem to be under the impression that doctors, firemen, police, etc. work because they actually care about the people they are trying to help.


In reality, they work at these professions for one reason alone, and that is because they can gain some advantage from it -- in this case, a financial one. Some of them may also gain a sensation of pleasure from participating in the helpful work involved, but that is a secondary benefit.

Likewise, the person giving $10 to a homeless guy does so because it gives him a greater sense of self-worth or morality, rather than because he actually can put himself in the homeless guy's shoes.

And reason is what makes us human, anyway. Read up on your Plato, padawan.

if Plato was an anthropologist he'd be relevant but he wasn't, come back when you fully understand hominid development and the reasons we succeeded as a species...until then your "I am Super-hard ass-Man, I need no one" rants don't impress anyone, it's just silly talk....

if Plato was an anthropologist he'd be relevant but he wasn't, come back when you fully understand hominid development and the reasons we succeeded as a species...until then your "I am Super-hard ass-Man, I need no one" rants don't impress anyone, it's just silly talk....

Relax. He's only 17 and does not know how the real world works.

Some Americans look to European countries such as France, Germany and its Scandinavian neighbors and suggest that we adopt some of their economic policies. I agree ... we should look at Europe for the lessons it can teach us.

Government spending exceeds 50% of the GDP in France and Sweeden and more than 45% in Germany and Italy, compaired with the US Federal, State and Local spending of just under 35%. Government spending encourages people to rely on handouts rather than individual initiative, and the higher taxes that finance the handouts reduce incentives to work, save and invest. The European results shouldn't suprise anyone after looking at this. US per-capita output in 2003 was $39,700, almost 40% higher than the average of $28,700 for European nations.

Over the last decade the US economy has grown twice as fast as the European economies. In 2006, the European unemployment average was 8% while US the average was 4.7%. What's more, the percentage of unemployment lasting 12 months was 12.7%, while in Europe the corresponding figure was 42.6%. Since 1970, 57 million new jobs were created in the US and just over 4 million were created in Europe.

Mitchell (See sources below) cites a comparitive study by 'Timbro' showing European countries rank with the poorest American states in terms of living standards, roughly equal to Arkansaa and Montana while only slightly ahead of West Virginia and Mississippi. *In terms of income levels, productivity, employment levels and R&D investment ... it would take Europe about 2 decades to catch up with the US, assuming the US didn't grow any further.

We don't have to rely on these statistics to make us not want to be like Europeans; just watch where the foot traffic and money flows. Some 400,000 European science and technology graduates live in the US. European migration to our country rose by 16% during the 1990's. **In 1980 the direct investment in the US was at $127 billion; today it is morethan $1.7 trillion. In 1980 there was $900 billion of foreign portfolio investment -government and private securities- in the US. Today, there is more than $4.6 trillion, much of it coming from Europeans who find our economica nd investment climate more attractive.

Sources:
"Fiscal Policy Lessons from Europe" -Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation-
'Timbro' -Sweedish think tank-
*'Eurochambers' -The Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry-
The Center for Freedom and Prosperity
**The Bereau of Economic Analysis

I think Europeans and lots of Americans forget that things in America are much more different than things in Europe and the UK. Problems you have over there, we lack. Problems we have over here, you lack. All in all I'm a Libertarian so of course I'm all for small government. Giving half of everything I own worked hard to aquire to someone who lacks work ethic isn't going to entice this person to get modivated, grab some initiative and get a job. It encourages slothful behavior.

Besides you all cheer for a man who represents the only state in America with the least amount of gun laws. They have two that I know of: "No guns on School grounds" and "Juvenile Possession Law" (bars possession of handguns by juveniles) I thought all you Socialist, Commies, Fascist and Liberals hated guns in far more excess.

So please, mind your own business and worry about your own governments ... and I'll continue to encourage, vote, write and petition for a government that does the same here.


ILU

On the other hand, if it were the mainstream view of human nature, the world would be a far, far better -- albeit tougher -- place than it is today. The impure and weak would be purged, compassion and empathy would be old ridiculous outdated concepts, and everyone would work for what they get and be damned happy with it too. There would be no homeless or poor after about twenty years, because they'd all be dead by then. All we'd need are decontamination teams to go in and get rid of all the dirty illnesses they spread.

Hoo boy, where to begin.

For the moment, I'm going to leave off any obvious moral commentary, and stick with pointing out the simple non sequitur in your reasoning.

Basically, if I interpret what your critique of "socialism", "liberalism", and "compassion" correctly, you object to it because it offends your notion of justice, on the grounds that it gives to some that which does not belong to them, and refrains from giving to others what does belong to them. Insofar as some people work harder and longer than others, they are more deserving of benefit from that work.

Your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from your premises, however, because your ability to work hard is a matter of chance and circumstance far more than it is a matter of effort. I'm pretty smart, and smartness is something that, properly employed, can be pretty well rewarded in the marketplace. But my being smart has little to do with my own effort: I benefitted from proper genetic recombination from properly suited parents, I grew up in a first-world nation, I had access to good food and water supplies growing up, I had well-educated parents, and I had easy access to large volumes of accumulated knowledge. If I had been born in 500 A.D., if my parents had been crack addicts, if I had been born in Sierra Leone, some or all of those things simply would not have happened or would not have mattered. Put simply, I didn't choose my place of birth, my parents, my available resources, and I had no causal influence on them. So how can I really say that I deserve the benefits that accumulate from them? All I can say is that I made somewhat good use of an astonishing material and genetic legacy, which is to say that I didn't totally screw over my astonishingly good fortune. "Not being a total f$%k-up", however, is hardly a reason to "deserve" what I've gotten in life.

As such, I do have compassion for those weaker than me, partly because I realize that the advantages that I had were a consequence largely of chance rather than my own doing, and partly because even those who fall because of their own doing do so not so much because they are weak as because they are ignorant: we all do the things we do because we think they will make us happy, but very few understand what it is that really makes us happy. Again, the fact that I, in my presumption, think I have a somewhat better notion of what makes man happy than the ordinary person is a consequence largely of chance: I've had the material and physiological luck to study greater minds than myself and learn from their wisdom. Not everyone has such luxury or such ability.

So put simply, I take strong issue with the notion that some people are more "deserving" than others to benefit, because "deserving" implies that you caused your own fortune. Your ability to cause your own good luck, however, depends to a very great extent on factors that you have no control over: your happy accidents of favorable location, genetic heritage, and so forth. Insofar as those have significant causal agency on any good fortune you have in life, you cannot really call yourself deserving of the good that happens to you. You look at the weak and say that they deserve what they got for their own weakness. If you were wise, you would look at the weak and say "There but for the grace of God go I."

Edit: Additionally, if you were well-versed in Plato you'd know his response to Thrasymachus' point on much the same issue.

if Plato was an anthropologist he'd be relevant but he wasn't, come back when you fully understand hominid development and the reasons we succeeded as a species...until then your "I am Super-hard ass-Man, I need no one" rants don't impress anyone, it's just silly talk....

Um, what? I'm ranting now? I seem to be speaking fairly rationally, sarcasm aside.

According to Plato's philosophy the highest good is reason, not empathy or anything else. I just happen to agree with that part of it.

Also, anthropologists weren't there, I don't see how they can have any idea whether early hominids genuinely wanted to help each other or did so only because they gained some advantage from it, namely the ability to survive. Could you explain to me how exactly it is that you know which they chose? Or how you know for certain that those who claim to feel empathy do it for empathy's sake alone rather than because of the pleasant sensation ("warm fuzzy feeling") it gives them?

@Allegany County 2, I don't see how my age is particularly relevant. From my experience with others I know a good deal more than some older people do about how the world works. Then again, can anyone ever really know how the world works outside of their own little prism of experience? I say I don't know how the world works because I'm not so arrogant as to think I can understand it, the way some people are; I know how the world works in relation to me, but not other people. Do you claim otherwise?

You seem to be under the impression that doctors, firemen, police, etc. work because they actually care about the people they are trying to help.


In reality, they work at these professions for one reason alone, and that is because they can gain some advantage from it -- in this case, a financial one. Some of them may also gain a sensation of pleasure from participating in the helpful work involved, but that is a secondary benefit.

Likewise, the person giving $10 to a homeless guy does so because it gives him a greater sense of self-worth or morality, rather than because he actually can put himself in the homeless guy's shoes.

And reason is what makes us human, anyway. Read up on your Plato, padawan.

When I had my appendix removed recently, I asked the surgeon something that had been on my mind all day. Right before they put me under, I asked him if he ever got used to saving people's lives. He laughed and said no, that he wouldn't do it anymore if he ever got used to it. That is real. That is why he did it.

In a world without such compassion, I would have had to pay him whatever he asked to save my life. And since I could not have paid him very much, I would likely have died, unless I could have removed my appendix myself. Fortunately, that is not real.

As a human being who observes, I have to say that my observations of human behaviour imply that compassion and empathy are real things that influence human behaviour, even among strangers.

Now, how does your theory fit with my observations?

@Allegany County 2, I don't see how my age is particularly relevant.

Its relevent in this case for you have no clue as to what precisely you are talking about. You do not have any life experience whatsoever and frankly, you are ranting like an immature child who is not getting his way.

From my experience with others I know a good deal more than some older people do about how the world works.

Thats only in your mind my young padawan learner.

Then again, can anyone ever really know how the world works outside of their own little prism of experience?

Not 100% but one can get an understanding on how it works by actually paying attention and noticing trends that occur.

I say I don't know how the world works because I'm not so arrogant as to think I can understand it, the way some people are; I know how the world works in relation to me, but not other people. Do you claim otherwise?

Nope but I do have knowledge on how the political system and international systems work. I have knowledge in domestic and international politics and knowledge in history that corresponds to such.

Hoo boy, where to begin. -snip-
You do realise that that post consisted of sarcastic self-mocking? Hence the mention of the "impure and weak". I don't really believe that the homeless and poor are impure and weak, just that they aren't making the best use of the resources society has to offer them. As for believing that only they themselves can raise themselves out of the conditions they've been thrown, that's also based on my own experience -- all the assistance of others has done nothing for me, and only through my own will and determination did I ever get anything done.

I'm also trying to rationalise my otherwise irrational complete lack of compassion for other people. So I'll say a lot of self-contradictory things in the process. Won't do a blow by blow argument here because... meh.


Edit: Additionally, if you were well-versed in Plato you'd know his response to Thrasymachus' point on much the same issue.
Admittedly, I am a perfunctory student of philosophy at best and only stick around long enough to find which parts I like and dislike before moving on. So feel free to ignore that comment. ^=.x&

You do realise that that post consisted of sarcastic self-mocking? Hence the mention of the "impure and weak". I don't really believe that the homeless and poor are impure and weak, just that they aren't making the best use of the resources society has to offer them. As for believing that only they themselves can raise themselves out of the conditions they've been thrown, that's also based on my own experience -- all the assistance of others has done nothing for me, and only through my own will and determination did I ever get anything done.

I'm also trying to rationalise my otherwise irrational complete lack of compassion for other people. So I'll say a lot of self-contradictory things in the process. Won't do a blow by blow argument here because... meh.

I usually take even verbal exchanges at face value, but fair enough. I certainly agree with you that the homeless and poor don't make the best use of their available resources. In point of fact, had you been speaking to me even recently, I might have deep down admitted serious misgivings about helping them at all. But I would have been wrong. It doesn't follow from the fact that they are ignorant that we should lack compassion for them. In point of fact, their ignorance could just has easily have been mine.


Admittedly, I am a perfunctory student of philosophy at best and only stick around long enough to find which parts I like and dislike before moving on. So feel free to ignore that comment. ^=.x&

If you ever want to change that, I do have to say that Book I and II of the Republic were astonishingly good introductions into philosophy for me, which was the section I was referring to. Additionally, feel free to consult if you want.

Last time I checked most Americans were classified in the middle class range...And, last time I checked, most of Europe had a pretty big unemployement rate...

Yeah, he's wrong, or we both misunderstood him. Actually, the poor in America are much better off than the average household in Europe. Being poor in whatever country is all relative. The poor in America aren't really poor anywhere else.

Um, what? I'm ranting now? I seem to be speaking fairly rationally, sarcasm aside.

According to Plato's philosophy the highest good is reason, not empathy or anything else. I just happen to agree with that part of it.

Also, anthropologists weren't there, I don't see how they can have any idea whether early hominids genuinely wanted to help each other or did so only because they gained some advantage from it, namely the ability to survive. Could you explain to me how exactly it is that you know which they chose? Or how you know for certain that those who claim to feel empathy do it for empathy's sake alone rather than because of the pleasant sensation ("warm fuzzy feeling") it gives them?

[

I'm sorry if you find "rant" a harsh description but it describes your illogical attitude.

some dead Greek who had no knowledge of the development of man has no relevance, I don't care how astute his observations were if I were call my friend a Philosophy PhD he could likely quote me another half dozen philosophers who give conflicting views from Plato. Philosophy is not a hard science.

Archaeological evidence supports hominid cultures caring for those of the society who cannot care for themselves and Anthropological studies of primitive cultures support the findings. Societies care for those who are unable to care for themselves even when there is no obvious benefit to be gained. It's hard wired into our brains to help each other, it's what makes us human, the reason we survive.

Yeah, he's wrong, or we both misunderstood him. Actually, the poor in America are much better off than the average household in Europe. Being poor in whatever country is all relative. The poor in America aren't really poor anywhere else.

Being poor isnt just relative to where you live, its relative to what you need to buy. And since in America just visiting the ER costs as much as an Xbox or new TV, when it comes to healthcare and such, the socialists have a point. Any basic necessity should not cost the same as luxuries. It makes no difference if your relatively rich compared to europeans, your gona feel a hell of a lot poorer if you come down with a heart condition.

Yeah, he's wrong, or we both misunderstood him. Actually, the poor in America are much better off than the average household in Europe. Being poor in whatever country is all relative. The poor in America aren't really poor anywhere else.

that's funny, have you ever been to europe? Since a fair number of European countries have a higher standard of living than the US I'd guess that you've never left the USA. My middle class European cousins would politely decline to switch places with any american poor.

that's funny, have you ever been to europe? Since a fair number of European countries have a higher standard of living than the US I'd guess that you've never left the USA. My middle class European cousins would politely decline to switch places with any american poor.

I was rather confused by that myself. When I lived in Germany the average German seemed quite well off compared to the poor town I came from in Michigan.

I was rather confused by that myself. When I lived in Germany the average German seemed quite well off compared to the poor town I came from in Michigan.

and his comment about american poor not being as the poor anywhere else...I didn't think you can be any poorer than the street people that inhabit many american cities, how are they better of than the homeless of any country(let alone my middle class Euro cousin with a 3 bedroom home and 30'ft motorhome).

some dead Greek who had no knowledge of the development of man has no relevance, I don't care how astute his observations were if I were call my friend a Philosophy PhD he could likely quote me another half dozen philosophers who give conflicting views from Plato. Philosophy is not a hard science.


Philosophy is the science. It defines what science is, what the limits of science can be, and how to approach scientific and non-scientific questions about the world. You could not have modern science without philosophers like Popper and Kuhn, nor could you have science at all without ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.

Perhaps to put it another, somewhat less blistering, way: in order to understand something scientifically, you need to know what that thing is, you have to know what causes it, what a cause is, what it is that seperates one thing from another thing, what science is, how you organize ideas logically, and so on. Those are all philosophical questions, and they require philosophical responses. Hence, philosophy is often called the first science, since it forms the framework for how your work out your problems scientifically. Ergo, you should not knock philosophy. As those old windbags Plato and Aristotle were the first to rigorously use and explain the world world in philosophical manner, they were in some sense the first true scientists of the world. Ergo, you probably shouldn't knock them either. In point of fact, you should probably read them, because they were some of the most ridiculously smart people in the history of the world for inventing whole-cloth the notions that make our world so successful today.

Yeah, he's wrong, or we both misunderstood him. Actually, the poor in America are much better off than the average household in Europe. Being poor in whatever country is all relative. The poor in America aren't really poor anywhere else.
Any proof of that?

I found an interesting site that lists the countires with the top qualities of life, The US is in 13th which is respectible, but cmon for "the best country in the world" to only be 13th, thats not good. The list of countries who are ahad of the US inlcude Sweeden, a Socialist country, and other countries that implemment certain soicialist ideas. Countries like Norway, Switzerland, Denmark and others, which makes you think, are full blow capitalism or full blown socialism the answer? I think a mix between the two would be the best, and according to statistics, it is the best.

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005 here's that site

Philosophy is the science. It defines what science is, what the limits of science can be, and how to approach scientific and non-scientific questions about the world. You could not have modern science without philosophers like Popper and Kuhn, nor could you have science at all without ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.

Perhaps to put it another, somewhat less blistering, way: in order to understand something scientifically, you need to know what that thing is, you have to know what causes it, what a cause is, what it is that seperates one thing from another thing, what science is, how you organize ideas logically, and so on. Those are all philosophical questions, and they require philosophical responses. Hence, philosophy is often called the first science, since it forms the framework for how your work out your problems scientifically. Ergo, you should not knock philosophy. As those old windbags Plato and Aristotle were the first to rigorously use and explain the world world in philosophical manner, they were in some sense the first true scientists of the world. Ergo, you probably shouldn't knock them either. In point of fact, you should probably read them, because they were some of the most ridiculously smart people in the history of the world for inventing whole-cloth the notions that make our world so successful today.

point taken, but it's a soft science...and it isn't the first science, the hard sciences of experimentation and observation were well under many centuries before philosophers like Plato were even born...

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

that my friend, is not socialism, its full blown communism.

Ideologically your argument is sound. It would be great for the income gap to be decreased, but you have to realize that its not the government's job to do that. Its the people's. If you want to be rich, go to school, get a job, work your ass off. Dont say, "oh uncle sam please bail me out."

1st off its nots full blown communism because the government is not in total control of business, im all for free enterprise, and dont think that the government should beable to tell people what to make and how much to sell it for.

2nd, there are people that go to school work hard, and still dont as well off as they should. And one thing that bothers me is that many people dont go to college because they dont have the money to pay for it, if the government would help pay for school, more people would go to school, get better jobs, and then hopefully the list of problems would be shortened. Also there are 47-48 million americans that do not have health care, and figuring out a plan that can get those 47-48 million americans without healthcare is crucial, how can americans not be given something that is important to survival. God, even slaves had healthcare in the 1700's-1800's in The USA.

Don't any of you geniuses remember that Bernie was Congressman for a bunch of years? It's not like being a Socialist is all that different from being a Democrat or a Republican, anyway.

I got a kick from reading the caption on the photo that accompanied the article. If Mr Sanders thinks the US health care system can survive without being "...driven by profit", he's lost touch with what has made the United States great.

Don't any of you geniuses remember that Bernie was Congressman for a bunch of years?

I kinda assumed that was covered in the 15 odd pages I didn't read. Did people seriously not know this?

It's not like being a Socialist is all that different from being a Democrat or a Republican, anyway.

I have to disagree with you there, but I imagine it'd be better to agree to disagree. I'm willing to bet our political spectrums are a bit different.

Yeah, he's wrong, or we both misunderstood him. Actually, the poor in America are much better off than the average household in Europe. Being poor in whatever country is all relative. The poor in America aren't really poor anywhere else.
Wow. Talk about ignorance.

The tremendous and abject poverty of way too large a percentage of the population in the US is in fact one of the most deplored things about the US abroad. It definitely is in Europe and I would wager in the rest of the world.

American-level poverty is the grim specter looming about every discussion about diminishing social security and welfare programs here - it's considered the terrible outcome of a misguided and entirely un-European policy that nobody ever wants to see repeated here.

Wow. Talk about ignorance.

The tremendous and abject poverty of way too large a percentage of the population in the US is in fact one of the most deplored things about the US abroad. It definitely is in Europe and I would wager in the rest of the world.

American poverty is the grim specter looming about every discussion about diminishing social security and welfare programs here - it's considered the terrible outcome of a misguided and entirely un-European policy that nobody ever wants to see repeated here.

And the European way is not always the best solution either. *points to high unemployment rates*

Any proof of that?

Sure. It is a FACT that the standard of living in Europe is much higher than in Europe. Sorry to all the Europeans who think otherwise, but it's true, and Timbro, an economic research institute from Europe,documented it. Here is the PDF: http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

And here is a paper written by Daniel Mitchell, I think someone else posted it as well. The Heritage Foundation is from America though; the Timbro institute one might be more interesting to Europeans:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1979.cfm

I don't know who said that the standard of living in Germany is better than the US, but that's completely false. If the US took on Germany as a state right now, it would be the poorest state in the nation. That's right, there are U.S. states with higher GDP's than the entire country of Germany. It's not because people in the U.S. are better or any smarter, it's just because of bad policies in Europe. I love Europe, in fact most of my family is living in Europe right now, but bad economic policies are just bad policies.

And to the person who said going to the ER will cost you as much as a Playstation: if you have insurance you can go to the ER or to the doctor as much as you want, whenever you want. I prefer this instead of paying out in taxes a year for a service I may never use. I haven't been to the doctor in years, so why would I pay for something I don't use? I pay as I go; it seems to make the most sense to me. And insurance is getting cheaper and cheaper, especially for students and especially for the poor.

I kinda assumed that was covered in the 15 odd pages I didn't read. Did people seriously not know this?

It wasn't clear. The article covered it, but you know how deep most go into those.

I have to disagree with you there, but I imagine it'd be better to agree to disagree. I'm willing to bet our political spectrums are a bit different.
When you consider that income re-distribution is a cornerstone of Socialism, I'm not sure how you can disagree with the statement that Republicans, Democrats, and Socialists are all cut from the same cloth.

I don't know who said that the standard of living in Germany is better than the US, but that's completely false.

That was me, and you're setting up a bit of a strawman there. Your argument was that the poor in the US have a better standard of living than the average European and that's not at all true. I grew up in a poor town in the US and I never saw that level of poverty anywhere in Germany. Perhaps the "average" standard of living in the US is better, but there is a massive gap between the rich and the poor that isn't nearly so big in Germany.

According to Mr. Sanders, only "extreme right-wingers" believe that the rich shouldn't be punished for their success and that the lazy shouldn't be given the money earned by hard workers.
Could you be any more brainwashed? :rolleyes:

Some Americans look to European countries such as France, Germany and its Scandinavian neighbors and suggest that we adopt some of their economic policies. I agree ... we should look at Europe for the lessons it can teach us.

-snip-
Then why is life considered to be so good in these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_HDI_index) awful 'socialist' backwaters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4020523.stm)?
I thought all you Socialist, Commies, Fascist and Liberals hated guns in far more excess.
I'm against guns because I'm a centre-left Christian pacifist. The socialists and communists like guns because they need them for their revolutions. The fascists don't support Sanders; as New Mitanni demonstrates, they support Bush.

No. The situation is 49 democrats, 49 republicans, and two independents, both caucusing with the democrats.
What's "caucusing"?

In a way, I'm disappointed, but at least with more anti-Republicans, their damage can be undone (or at least halted) all the faster.

As a former hard-core conservative from the US, I can quite safely say that many Conservatives already believe that over 50% of the Senate is Socialist... and that count INCLUDES Republicans.

Then the fools don't know what socialism is.

It’s good that he got elected, but he’s wrong about America. Most Americans couldn’t give a shit about the poor, not realizing that they are in fact poor.
Most Americans are not poor, surely?

They don't give a shit about the actual poor because religion is Sunday-only for most of them, and because they're deluded by capitalist myths.

Anyway though this is no surprise. I have thought a large portion of both houses far too socialist for the good of America.
At least it's not you, or your Mr. Moneybags lobby deciding, in that case.

When exactly did xenophobia come into play here?
It's a bit of a stretch, but I suppose you could claim that many anti-Sanders people think that socialism is inherently unAmerican.

I can't believe good hard-workign Americans would elect a socialist, of all things.
It's because they're good and hard-working that they elected a socialist. This is nothing new. (well maybe for America, but not for Europe)

However, when they try to take control of my government and then force, through legislation and taxation, everyone else to live by their values, they will find no greater enemy than me. The same can be said of right-wing fundies.
Every political group with legislative ambitions is trying to force everyone else to live by their values. Libertarians included.

It's just a matter of trying to get the majority to agree with your political group.

That was me, and you're setting up a bit of a strawman there. Your argument was that the poor in the US have a better standard of living than the average European and that's not at all true. I grew up in a poor town in the US and I never saw that level of poverty anywhere in Germany. Perhaps the "average" standard of living in the US is better, but there is a massive gap between the rich and the poor that isn't nearly so big in Germany.

What makes an income gap undesirable? There's always going to be an upper ten percent and a lower ten percent. The idea that everyone should have the same income is founded in irrationality.

What makes an income gap undesirable? There's always going to be an upper ten percent and a lower ten percent. The idea that everyone should have the same income is founded in irrationality.

Indeed as it is impossible to do.

Congress is WAY Left of the American public.If you asked most Americans if they want fewer government programs and less taxes,the polls are over 80 percent
Actually the reverse is true. Americans tend to agree with vague conservative statements, but on specific issues they tend to agree with more left-wing, practical solutions.


When you consider that income re-distribution is a cornerstone of Socialism, I'm not sure how you can disagree with the statement that Republicans, Democrats, and Socialists are all cut from the same cloth.
You mean, they're government parties?

Name a 20th century government party (that has actually been in government) in a developed country that did not impose taxes.

And the European way is not always the best solution either. *points to high unemployment rates*
Is that all you guys have on us? Frankly I think that a marginally higher unemployment rate is an acceptable price to pay for the advantages.

What makes an income gap undesirable? There's always going to be an upper ten percent and a lower ten percent. The idea that everyone should have the same income is founded in irrationality.

You went a bit far there. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an income gap, but a large one will cause problems. Check this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation) out for a better explanation.

That was me, and you're setting up a bit of a strawman there. Your argument was that the poor in the US have a better standard of living than the average European and that's not at all true. I grew up in a poor town in the US and I never saw that level of poverty anywhere in Germany. Perhaps the "average" standard of living in the US is better, but there is a massive gap between the rich and the poor that isn't nearly so big in Germany.

Actually the average standard of living for the poor, in the U.S. is higher than the overall standard of living in Germany, and that's a fact. I've posted links to all the research documenting it. But one person's personal experience usually has more credibility than hard facts.

Actually the average standard of living for the poor, in the U.S. is higher than the overall standard of living in Germany, and that's a fact. I've posted links to all the research documenting it. But one person's personal experience usually has more credibility than hard facts.

Perhaps it's Eastern Germany that's the culprit. I never spent much time out there but I heard the situation there wasn't very good.

I believe in the American federal system as it was at the time of the Founding, except without slavery.
Except freedom of religion, as you proved in this thread.

Your views on war with Iraq, Iran and the rest don't really fit in with limited government ideals.

In short, I believe in freedom within the scope of the traditional American system. And you know who that excludes ;)
Me?

Ah, the middle. Ever compared the "middle class" to the "upper class." It's quite a gap. The middle class should be referred to as the Upper-Lower Class.


Actually, America has higher living standards than Europe, so basically if what your saying is true then Europes "middle" class is lower than upper lower class.

Actually, America has higher living standards than Europe, so basically if what your saying is true then Europes "middle" class is lower than upper lower class.

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the top 15 in the world by the standard economist measure of standard of living. Per capita income is high but also less evenly distributed than in most other developed countries; as a result, the United States fares particularly well in measures of average material well being that do not place weight on equality aspects.

On comprehensive measures such as the UN Human Development Index the United States is always in the top ten, currently ranking number ten, though generally ranked lower than the Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Belgium, Canada, Australia, and (until recently) Japan; Canada and Norway have alternately held the top spot for some time. On the Human Poverty Index, however, the US is ranked worst among the selection of 17 wealthiest countries, scoring bad on all counts except for long term unemployment."

Europe only has higher unemployment rates because an entire section of the American population is so far gone that it doesn’t even bother to find work. Europe may have fewer working, but who has fewer living in the streets?

Ah, but of course this incourages laziness on the part of many people and a severe decline in innovation as proven by Europes extremely slow economy.

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the top 15 in the world by the standard economist measure of standard of living. Per capita income is high but also less evenly distributed than in most other developed countries; as a result, the United States fares particularly well in measures of average material well being that do not place weight on equality aspects.



Average material well being is all that really matters, I really don't care if someone else is getting really rich, as long as I'm doing well myself.

Why is Ireland such a huge engine in the EU, despite it's economy?

Because it's economy is much more geared towards the free market.


Socialism is, at best, a barely workable system. Socialism's basis is a state run economy, which is inefficient for a number of reasons. For starters, Governments are much more prone to waste than private enterprises, and even more prone to corruption than corporations, since in the government the only way a politician can earn more money, while a corporation can earn more through work.

State run economies also tend towards inflexibility. While the market will be constantly fluctuating and adapting, the socialist government will end up having to draw and re-draw plans.

Furthermore, it is ethically unjustifiable. Each person has, through his own hard work and perseverance, created a certain amount of wealth for himself. The government then takes the wealth he has created, and redistributes it to people who had no part in its making.

People will reply that he benefits in the same way, to which I say that he receives, at best, compensation, and at worst, has been stolen from by the government.

Ah, but of course this incourages laziness on the part of many people and a severe decline in innovation as proven by Europes extremely slow economy.
As proven by America's continually lead in the research and production of new technology.

No, that's marxism, A.K.A. communism. A thouroughly failed ideology, I might add. Socialism is simply redistribution of wealth, ownership of resources stays in the same hands, the products of those resources are simply redistributed.

And the stagnation of innovation, new ideas and of course rights and freedoms that are usually granted by a democratic system.

Furthermore, it is ethically unjustifiable. Each person has, through his own hard work and perseverance, created a certain amount of wealth for himself. The government then takes the wealth he has created, and redistributes it to people who had no part in its making.


Miles and miles wide of the mark. Most people do not get rich through hard work and perseverance but through being born into the right kind of family.

Except freedom of religion

Theocratic ideologies that call themselves "religions", whether they are Islam, cults headed by polygamist "prophets" who pimp young girls to older male cultists, or the like, don't fit within, and are incompatible with, the traditional American system. The same applies to ancient Aztec human sacrifice and Carthaginian Moloch-worship, for that matter. I stand by my statement.

But I would favor amending the Constitution to specifically exclude such ideologies and practices from the scope of the First Amendment.

Your views on war with Iraq, Iran and the rest don't really fit in with limited government ideals.

Foreign policy decisions that seek victory over our enemies is hardly incompatible with limited government ideals. Try again.

Me?

No, you'd fit within the scope. People like you aren't the enemy. You're just wrong on the issues. :D

At any rate, him getting voted in is a good sign that the US is finally joining the rest of the Western world in becoming a proper democracy.

Hmmm, I seem to remember a time when the U.S. was the only real democracy and the rest of the world was dominated by monarchial states.

Sure. It is a FACT that the standard of living in Europe is much higher than in Europe. Sorry to all the Europeans who think otherwise, but it's true, and Timbro, an economic research institute from Europe,documented it. Here is the PDF: http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

And here is a paper written by Daniel Mitchell, I think someone else posted it as well. The Heritage Foundation is from America though; the Timbro institute one might be more interesting to Europeans:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1979.cfm

I don't know who said that the standard of living in Germany is better than the US, but that's completely false. If the US took on Germany as a state right now, it would be the poorest state in the nation. That's right, there are U.S. states with higher GDP's than the entire country of Germany. It's not because people in the U.S. are better or any smarter, it's just because of bad policies in Europe. I love Europe, in fact most of my family is living in Europe right now, but bad economic policies are just bad policies.

And to the person who said going to the ER will cost you as much as a Playstation: if you have insurance you can go to the ER or to the doctor as much as you want, whenever you want. I prefer this instead of paying out in taxes a year for a service I may never use. I haven't been to the doctor in years, so why would I pay for something I don't use? I pay as I go; it seems to make the most sense to me. And insurance is getting cheaper and cheaper, especially for students and especially for the poor.

ok now I know your info is shit the highest GDP in the USA is California, if it were a nation it would rank 8th or 9th in the world...Germany is rated as 5th highest GDP at about 2.5 trillion, California is about 1.5 trillion, so go find better sources.

You playing a dangerous game with insurance using a pay as go method, contract cancer or heart disease and you'll find you've become un-insurable,good luck trying to find the several million you'll need for continuous cancer treatment or the hundreds of thousands for a heart transplant.

you can see a doctor as much as you want if you have private insurance, oh dear...as soon as an insurance company sees you as a health risk with repeated visits they'll cut you loose as soon as your policy expires, they're in it for profit not your well being.

Hmmm, I seem to remember a time when the U.S. was the only real democracy and the rest of the world was dominated by monarchial states.

first true democracy was N.Z.-189?, the first country to allow the vote for every adult resident regardless of race or gender. The US never reached that stage until the 1970's.

Sure. It is a FACT that the standard of living in Europe is much higher than in Europe. Sorry to all the Europeans 2who think otherwise, but it's true, and Timbro, an economic research institute from Europe,documented it. Here is the PDF: http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

And here is a paper written by Daniel Mitchell, I think someone else posted it as well. The Heritage Foundation is from America though; the Timbro institute one might be more interesting to Europeans:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1979.cfm

I don't know who said that the standard of living in Germany is better than the US, but that's completely false. If the US took on Germany as a state right now, it would be the poorest state in the nation. That's right, there are U.S. states with higher GDP's than the entire country of Germany. It's not because people in the U.S. are better or any smarter, it's just because of bad policies in Europe. I love Europe, in fact most of my family is living in Europe right now, but bad economic policies are just bad policies.

And to the person who said going to the ER will cost you as much as a Playstation: if you have insurance you can go to the ER or to the doctor as much as you want, whenever you want. I prefer this instead of paying out in taxes a year for a service I may never use. I haven't been to the doctor in years, so why would I pay for something I don't use? I pay as I go; it seems to make the most sense to me. A[/I]nd insurance is getting cheaper and cheaper, especially for students and especially for the poor.
Actually the average standard of living for the poor, in the U.S. is higher than the overall standard of living in Germany, and that's a fact. I've posted links to all the research documenting it. But one person's personal experience usually has more credibility than hard facts.
Wow. Just wow.

"the average standard of living for the poor, in the U.S. is higher than the overall standard of living in Germany, and that's a fact."?!?

To quote Wallonochia:
That was me, and you're setting up a bit of a strawman there. Your argument was that the poor in the US have a better standard of living than the average European and that's not at all true. I grew up in a poor town in the US and I never saw that level of poverty anywhere in Germany. Perhaps the "average" standard of living in the US is better, but there is a massive gap between the rich and the poor that isn't nearly so big in Germany.


That this Timbro Institute whose article you linked to just happens to be a lobby group for Swedish business interests wouldn't be noticeable in their research at all, right?
Nah, surely a sentence like "People would rather weep in the backseat of a new Mercedes than in the backseat of a second-hand Volkswagen" (p. 4) can be expected to be found in any scientific paper.

And, lo and behold, the whole article pans out that way - the US GDP is higher than that of European countries? No shit, Sherlock. Surely then the US poor must be better off, it's self-evident!

And look, it's true, they have more dishwashers, more clothes dryers, more microwaves, more cars even (p. 17)! Nevermind that none of these things is regarded as "necessary" for a comfortable life in Europe as it is in the US or, in the case of cars, in fact is as necessary.

And page 22 brings the coup de grâce: 40 percent of Swedish households would rank as low-income in the US! Which must suck unbearably for them because "[q]uite simply it is better to be poor in a rich country than rich in a poor one".
Those poor Swedes - I wonder why we never hear of their fate in the news, living in squalor, not even having air-conditioning!

Seriously, I can't believe this.

You whip out these reports and point to the numbers and say "Look! They're not really poor! They have it real good here!" without so much as batting an eye?

Nevermind if you've never been to Europe before, but have you ever even read or seen or heard anything about life conditions here, about poverty here?
If you had, you would realize how utterly wrong and clueless your picture of it is.

Those $US 25,000 that low-income Americans apparently have in common with 40 percent of Swedish households - did it ever even occur to you that Swedes have to work only 1 job each for that, that their medical expenses are covered, their childcare and their education is free, while the US has people working two and three jobs and still not being able to buy food at the end of the month because their kid got sick?

Did the friendly people of Timbro who so helpfully listed the rate of homeownership of the American poor bother to look at the shape of all that real estate? Must be splendid, I'm sure. And who cares about Europeans living much more urbanized and hence much more likely to rent (not least because houses are CONSIDERABLY more expensive here) in the first place? Bah.


Poverty in the US and in Western Europe is nowhere near comparable in its severity. We do have poverty, no question about it, but not only do we have much lesser percentage of people living in poverty over all, we also - and for this discussion apparently decisively - do have an infinitely smaller percentage of people living in abject poverty than the US. Of course, "abject poverty" seems to be defined quite differently, too:

To take some numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_level_%28US%29) from Wikipedia (yes, Wikipedia - it should be at least more unbiased than the Timbro Institute, don't you think?):

In 1999, the US poverty line was at about 29% of median household income.
11.3% of Americans were officially living below the poverty line in 2000 (12.7% in 2004).

In Germany, where the line for "strict poverty" (absolute Armut, the worst-off group) is set at 40% of median household income.
1.9% of Germans were officially living below that poverty line in 2003.


You were saying?

Ah right, your poor still have it better. Silly me.

you can see a doctor as much as you want if you have private insurance, oh dear...as soon as an insurance company sees you as a health risk with repeated visits they'll cut you loose as soon as your policy expires, they're in it for profit not your well being.

Or you could go to Europe where the quality of the health care is shit and where everyone pays exuberant taxes to cover it.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! That old chestnut. Ha ha.

A right to life: this term was hitched up to the anti-abortion bandwagon, but might have once meant something. Perhaps a right to health care, or to a living wage, or to be protected from bandits. Some socialist claptrap or other :rolleyes:

Liberty: even more misused. An almost religiously vague ideal, but might once have encompassed a right to a fair defence in court. Commie hogwash :p

The pursuit of happiness. A shiny thing they stuck on to make the Declaration prettier. Descent into Stalinism only narrowly averted by the sight of two dogs pursuing happiness and subsequent realization that this clause was probably a joke after all. :D
A right to life: Obviously, the entitlement to every individual to live.
Right to liberty: A right to freedom of thought and action that does not interfere with others rights to life, liberty, or...
The pursuit of happiness: The ability to pursue whatever task makes the individual feel happy, as long as it does not violate another's rights.


Seems logical to me.

...
Seems logical to me.

Clearly my sense of humour would be better employed elsewhere.
Good debate here ... I'll shut up now.

Wow. Just wow......

........You were saying?

Ah right, your poor still have it better. Silly me.


To quote you:

"Wow. Just wow...."

I didn't know numbers and statistics could be biased. What source should I quote? Wikipedia? "Europe Sucks." - Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is nothing but one large bias. An article could be written by anyone. I don't know why you'd quote Wikipedia and look stupid, when you could easily go to the sources cited in the Wikipedia article and look intelligent.

You could just look at the references Timbro uses in its article, like the census bureau for each country's statistics it uses. But if you want to read about Germany, from the CIA World Factbook: (or is it too biased?)

Germany's affluent and technologically powerful economy - the fifth largest in the world - has become one of the slowest growing economies in the euro zone. A quick turnaround is not in the offing in the foreseeable future. Growth in 2001-03 fell short of 1%, rising to 1.7% in 2004 before falling back to 0.9% in 2005. The modernization and integration of the eastern German economy continues to be a costly long-term process, with annual transfers from west to east amounting to roughly $70 billion. Germany's aging population, combined with high unemployment, has pushed social security outlays to a level exceeding contributions from workers. Structural rigidities in the labor market - including strict regulations on laying off workers and the setting of wages on a national basis - have made unemployment a chronic problem. Corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are setting the foundations that could allow Germany to meet the long-term challenges of European economic integration and globalization, particularly if labor market rigidities are further addressed. In the short run, however, the fall in government revenues and the rise in expenditures have raised the deficit above the EU's 3% debt limit.

I don't think it said anywhere that Germany had a low GDP as a nation, nor did it say anywhere that Germany wasn't the fifth largest economy in the world. They are simply saying that Socialist policies do not promote wealth creation, and that's true.

And you're reading my posts in a very general way. I am not saying that the poor in America are in any way better than the people in Germany or the rest of Europe. In fact in both places the poor are probably among the richest people in the world. The Western World has seen and is seeing a standard of living that mankind hasn't seen in its entire existence. And economies of both are growing; America's just happens to be growing faster.

And here are more sources if you want them that are hopefully not biased but instead awesome:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6982/12-15-LongTermOutlook.pdf

http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2006doc.nsf/43bb6130e5e86e5fc12569fa005d004c/b13adab5b356167bc125717000540aa5/$FILE/JT03208866.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/growthandjobs/pdf/kok_report_en.pdf

http://www.euractiv.com/ndbtext/innovation/sapirreport.pdf

http://www.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2006/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2006_MONTH_10/3-03102006-EN-AP.pdf

If you need more, you just let me know.

And okay, now I'm done saying.

Most Americans are not poor, surely?
Compared to the rich, we're all poor. Most Americans are hopelessly in debt and are constantly under stress because of it.
They don't give a shit about the actual poor because religion is Sunday-only for most of them, and because they're deluded by capitalist myths.
Indeed.

Actually the average standard of living for the poor, in the U.S. is higher than the overall standard of living in Germany, and that's a fact. I've posted links to all the research documenting it. But one person's personal experience usually has more credibility than hard facts.
You're going to have a hard time convincing my that the average standard of living in Germany is this fucking bad. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/SI_Kozol_StLouis.html)

Sorry man, it's a little premature to start patting ourselves on the back.

You're going to have a hard time convincing my that the average standard of living in Germany is this fucking bad. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/SI_Kozol_StLouis.html)

Sorry man, it's a little premature to start patting ourselves on the back.

GREAT EXAMPLE. A town with a population of 32,000 people and is only 14 square miles. One town in the entire country is crappy. Way to suck America.

There are probably more towns like East St. Louis. There's Gary, Indiana and there's Richmond, Virginia. The point is, even though East St. Louis is crappy, the median household income is still $26,000. That's pretty damn good compared to other countries, where the average income is $0.

And East St. Louis is not the standard for the poor. The study simply showed that the average poor person in America was better off than those living in other countries.

Or you could go to Europe where the quality of the health care is shit and where everyone pays exuberant taxes to cover it.

you remind me of those three monkeys, hear, see and speak no evil....someday you need to try learn a few real facts and not what you've been spoon fed your entire life by the US corporate elite....your health care sucks...the facts are that socialized Euro health care is better and cheaper than US private care, FACT!

In 2000(I couldn't find the latest stats) the USA's private healthcare ranked 37th in the world, 1st place France

and the "exuberant taxes" you claim euro's pay for their better health care? Number 1 ranked France paid $2,125 per person...The United States spends a stunning $3,724 per person for a 36th place ranking. And there are many other socialist euro countries ranked ahead of the USA.

2000 rankings from WHO

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States

You went a bit far there. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an income gap, but a large one will cause problems. Check this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation) out for a better explanation.

Give me a break. It makes people feel bad to earn less than someone else? Then, they just need to do something to make themselves earn more. And not just sit and wait for the government to coerce someone earning more into giving it to the poor and unhappy.

Compared to the rich, we're all poor. Most Americans are hopelessly in debt and are constantly under stress because of it.


and therein lies the truth. but most people see their big new shiny car/widescreen tv/dvd, feel good for a tiny while, and then go back to the grind unaware of the pointless, ungratifying and unending cycle of consumeristic life they are stuck in. ignorance is bliss.

of course, it depends on what you value more: human happiness or economic growth... if one take one's head out of the sand, its obvious that one does not automatically equal the other any more.

Give me a break. It makes people feel bad to earn less than someone else? Then, they just need to do something to make themselves earn more. And not just sit and wait for the government to coerce someone earning more into giving it to the poor and unhappy.

You mean like storming the castle with torches and pitchforks and hanging the occupants by their entrails? Because that's generally what happens when the income gap gets too large--bloody and ugly revolution. I'd rather it didn't come to that, but at least I know I won't be one of those hanging on the wall when it's done.

You mean like storming the castle with torches and pitchforks and hanging the occupants by their entrails? Because that's generally what happens when the income gap gets too large--bloody and ugly revolution. I'd rather it didn't come to that, but at least I know I won't be one of those hanging on the wall when it's done.

That's fairly inane.

It doesn't have to come to that, because they're not trapped in a feudal society.

We have a society that has opportunity here in the US - you make it sound as though there is no opportunity, save for what can be taken by force from the rich by government fiat, and given to the poor.

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

He declared himself a socialist years ago. :rolleyes:

That's fairly inane.

It doesn't have to come to that, because they're not trapped in a feudal society.

We have a society that has opportunity here in the US - you make it sound as though there is no opportunity, save for what can be taken by force from the rich by government fiat, and given to the poor.

That's a very simple approach to an issue that has more factors than mere force. Force (i.e a fuedal system) can restrict opportunity, as does the wealth you are given, the education you are given, healthcare, information asymmetry and multiple other social factors such as social capital.

As a rule, those born stay poor and those born rich stay rich and without regard for any social justice that situation will only worsen. It will become a fuedal system with the lucky birth into information and wealth replacing the lucky birth into wealth and force.

As a rule, those born stay poor and those born rich stay rich and without regard for any social justice that situation will only worsen. It will become a fuedal system with the lucky birth into information and wealth replacing the lucky birth into wealth and force.

Gosh, then I guess I wasn't born poor, because I am well on the way to being rich... you're saying my dad didn't arrive as a penniless immigrant who didn't speak English in the 1950s, when there were no programs to help immigrants and non-English speaking people, and my mother wasn't raised in a very poor farm in the South as descendants of sharecroppers...

Boy, I wonder how I ever made it...

Actually, we are in a feudal society - specifically in the economic sphere.

The corporate lords preside over their kingdoms with their knights at their table, all the way down to the serfs.

The only difference is that if the serfs leave the holdings of the kingdom, they won't be hunted down and slaughtered.

As a rule, those born stay poor and those born rich stay rich and without regard for any social justice that situation will only worsen. It will become a fuedal system with the lucky birth into information and wealth replacing the lucky birth into wealth and force.

That's a pretty darned simplistic analysis of the situation, as well. People move in and out of 'poverty' all the time. There may well be a permanent underclass, but it's only there because the government allows it via the extortion that masquerades as numerous entitlement programs.

Gosh, then I guess I wasn't born poor, because I am well on the way to being rich... you're saying my dad didn't arrive as a penniless immigrant who didn't speak English in the 1950s, when there were no programs to help immigrants and non-English speaking people, and my mother wasn't raised in a very poor farm in the South as descendants of sharecroppers...

Boy, I wonder how I ever made it...

I guess someone should save the sarcasm until they learn to read and correctly interpret the phrase "as a rule".

And I'd also be interested to learn what "well on the way to being rich" constitutes

Gosh, then I guess I wasn't born poor, because I am well on the way to being rich... you're saying my dad didn't arrive as a penniless immigrant who didn't speak English in the 1950s, when there were no programs to help immigrants and non-English speaking people, and my mother wasn't raised in a very poor farm in the South as descendants of sharecroppers...

Boy, I wonder how I ever made it...

Lydania, then explain what happened to me. I wasn't "lucky".

Gosh, then I guess I wasn't born poor, because I am well on the way to being rich... you're saying my dad didn't arrive as a penniless immigrant who didn't speak English in the 1950s, when there were no programs to help immigrants and non-English speaking people, and my mother wasn't raised in a very poor farm in the South as descendants of sharecroppers...

Boy, I wonder how I ever made it...

Shhhhhh.

Lydania, then explain what happened to me. I wasn't "lucky".

I'm sorry? Why does that fall on me?

I was born middle-class and I'm going to die upper middle-class. I don't know what insights I'm supposed to have into the whole process of moving between social strata.

That's a very simple approach to an issue that has more factors than mere force. Force (i.e a fuedal system) can restrict opportunity, as does the wealth you are given, the education you are given, healthcare, information asymmetry and multiple other social factors such as social capital.

As a rule, those born stay poor and those born rich stay rich and without regard for any social justice that situation will only worsen. It will become a fuedal system with the lucky birth into information and wealth replacing the lucky birth into wealth and force.

Ignorance, say hello to Momomomomomo. Momomomomomo, say hello to Ignorance.

Oh, wait...I see the two of you are already very well acquainted.

I guess someone should save the sarcasm until they learn to read and correctly interpret the phrase "as a rule".

And I'd also be interested to learn what "well on the way to being rich" constitutes

I live in a 650,000 dollar house, and make 175,000 per year as a salary.

The house is around 6000 square feet of living space, plus a two car garage, on a half acre lot.

We own horses that we have boarded elsewhere (about a 10 minute drive).

My income has only grown over the years, never fallen. When I feel like changing jobs, I've always been able to find something better in about a week.

I live in a neighborhood full of people like me, none of whom were born rich, or even middle class.

I live in a 650,000 dollar house, and make 175,000 per year as a salary.

The house is around 6000 square feet of living space, plus a two car garage, on a half acre lot.

We own horses that we have boarded elsewhere (about a 10 minute drive).

My income has only grown over the years, never fallen. When I feel like changing jobs, I've always been able to find something better in about a week.

I live in a neighborhood full of people like me, none of whom were born rich, or even middle class.

What do you do? How did you get into it? And I'm very suspiscious of the last part.

What do you do? How did you get into it? And I'm very suspiscious of the last part.

It's called hard work.

What do you do? How did you get into it? And I'm very suspiscious of the last part.

Indeed, I most definitely call bullshit on that last line.

What do you do? How did you get into it? And I'm very suspiscious of the last part.

It's called software development.

The military paid for my college - so I had to do some hard work to get that money.

A degree in Computer Science and working hard in a good job market is key.

The DC Area has never been a "bad" job market in my lifetime (since 1961).

Almost everyone in my neighborhood has a similar experience. Including blacks and people from foreign countries (including one guy from Ethiopia, who came here as a refugee).

I live in a 650,000 dollar house, and make 175,000 per year as a salary.

The house is around 6000 square feet of living space, plus a two car garage, on a half acre lot.

We own horses that we have boarded elsewhere (about a 10 minute drive).

My income has only grown over the years, never fallen. When I feel like changing jobs, I've always been able to find something better in about a week.

I live in a neighborhood full of people like me, none of whom were born rich, or even middle class.

I live in a $6,500,000 and make 1,750,000 per year...my home 60,000 sq ft and i have a 20 car garage with a Lambo, Rolls, Hummer, and many other cars.
I have my own private zoo and a private Jet.

My income is unlimited as I'm a share holder of Halliburton.

I have no neighbours as I own the entire region.

:cool:

we can anything we want to be on the net can't we? you could be living in trailer park in Kansas with your dead mummified Grandma and your toothless wife/sister and 50 cats for all we know...

I live in a $6,500,000 and make 1,750,000 per year...my home 60,000 sq ft and i have a 20 car garage with a Lambo, Rolls, Hummer, and many other cars.
I have my own private zoo and a private Jet.

My income is unlimited as I'm a share holder of Halliburton.

I have no neighbours as I own the entire region.

:cool:

we can anything we want to be on the net can't we? you could be living in trailer park in Kansas with your dead mummified Grandma and your toothless wife/sister and 50 cats for all we know...

You could always visit me and find out.

I live in a $6,500,000 and make 1,750,000 per year...my home 60,000 sq ft and i have a 20 car garage with a Lambo, Rolls, Hummer, and many other cars.
I have my own private zoo and a private Jet.

My income is unlimited as I'm a share holder of Halliburton.

I have no neighbours as I own the entire region.

:cool:

we can anything we want to be on the net can't we? you could be living in trailer park in Kansas with your dead mummified Grandma and your toothless wife/sister and 50 cats for all we know...


We can also behave like huge arses, it seems... :rolleyes:

In fact, I think I'm close enough to Bottle to have Bottle verify.

I guess they have to play out their delusions somewhere.

You could always visit me and find out.

what and have you come after me with a chainsaw?

I guess they have to play out their delusions somewhere.

I guess you have to believe then, that all blacks are either unemployed, or poor, that no one ever makes it in this world, no amount of hard work or education will ever pay off, and there are zero opportunities in the US.

We can also behave like huge arses, it seems... :rolleyes:

acting like an arse is making unverifiable grandiose claims on the net...and even worse are people who gullible enough to believe them...wankers

I guess you have to believe then, that all blacks are either unemployed, or poor, that no one ever makes it in this world, no amount of hard work or education will ever pay off, and there are zero opportunities in the US.

Actually - would you believe it! - I believe that a figure somewhere between 100% and 0% of rich people got it through hard work. It's not one or the other, and you know it. Usually at this point someone posts a link to whichever logical fallacy the post happens to invoke but I think anyone who reads it can see the flaw in your reasoning.

acting like an arse is making unverifiable grandiose claims on the net...and even worse are people who gullible enough to believe them...wankers

Unverifiable?
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/aboutfairfax/

Take a look at the income stats, and then let me know.

I guess you have to believe then, that all blacks are either unemployed, or poor, that no one ever makes it in this world, no amount of hard work or education will ever pay off, and there are zero opportunities in the US.

Silly, EO. There aren't, and that's precisely why we all need the government to take care of us. Mmmm...Big Mother...

Unverifiable?
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/aboutfairfax/

Take a look at the income stats, and then let me know.

Might wanna quit digging. Just so you know. I could post a page detailing incomes from certain portions of Japan and claim that I live there, but that doesn't make it true.

It's not that I don't believe that you live there - it's that I don't particularly care and you're not really helping convince anyone.

Unverifiable?
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/aboutfairfax/

Take a look at the income stats, and then let me know.

you can't be that dumb, post a pic of yourself in front of your home holding up a sign saying NSG kicks ass and I'll believe it....just to start I'll post a pic of myself first http://thomashawk.com/hello/209/1017/1024/hdtv%20gates.jpg

you can't be that dumb, post a pic of yourself in front of your home holding up a sign saying NSG kicks ass and I'll believe it....just to start I'll post a pic of myself first http://thomashawk.com/hello/209/1017/1024/hdtv%20gates.jpg

Speaking of dumb... :rolleyes:

you can't be that dumb, post a pic of yourself in front of your home holding up a sign saying NSG kicks ass and I'll believe it....just to start I'll post a pic of myself first http://thomashawk.com/hello/209/1017/1024/hdtv%20gates.jpg

I'll have to wait until I get home from work, but ok. Not a problem.

That's fairly inane.

It doesn't have to come to that, because they're not trapped in a feudal society.

We have a society that has opportunity here in the US - you make it sound as though there is no opportunity, save for what can be taken by force from the rich by government fiat, and given to the poor.
Nope--what I'm saying is that when the gap between the haves and have-nots gets too wide, you get revolution. And it happens--it started to happen in this country around the turn of the 19th into the 20th century--it was a labor revolution, but there was plenty of blood spilt in the process. If it weren't for WWII, it might have gotten a lot bloodier. We're not there yet, and we might not be for a while, but there will come a point, if this continues, where the gap gets big enough where you get an open class war, complete with bloodshed and the rest. Desperation is a powerful motivator, almost as powerful as religion.

Nope--what I'm saying is that when the gap between the haves and have-nots gets too wide, you get revolution. And it happens--it started to happen in this country around the turn of the 19th into the 20th century--it was a labor revolution, but there was plenty of blood spilt in the process. If it weren't for WWII, it might have gotten a lot bloodier. We're not there yet, and we might not be for a while, but there will come a point, if this continues, where the gap gets big enough where you get an open class war, complete with bloodshed and the rest. Desperation is a powerful motivator, almost as powerful as religion.

Revolution usually comes when hunger is the primary motivator.

The poor have a problem with obesity in this country.

I guess you have to believe then, that all blacks are either unemployed, or poor, that no one ever makes it in this world, no amount of hard work or education will ever pay off, and there are zero opportunities in the US.

That's because they can't understand that military service IS an opportunity in and of itself. Not to mention all the other doors it opens.

Nope--what I'm saying is that when the gap between the haves and have-nots gets too wide, you get revolution. And it happens--it started to happen in this country around the turn of the 19th into the 20th century--it was a labor revolution, but there was plenty of blood spilt in the process. If it weren't for WWII, it might have gotten a lot bloodier. We're not there yet, and we might not be for a while, but there will come a point, if this continues, where the gap gets big enough where you get an open class war, complete with bloodshed and the rest. Desperation is a powerful motivator, almost as powerful as religion.

What's different this time is that people really do move in and out of the state of poverty. It's a tough stat to track down, but the poor aren't all the same poor all the time.

Another difference is in the class war already being fought over funding the government. Nowhere is it fair that the top 5% of income earners in the U.S. earn 31% of all income and pay 54.1% of all income taxes.

According to Mr. Sanders, only "extreme right-wingers" believe that the rich shouldn't be punished for their success and that the lazy shouldn't be given the money earned by hard workers. It's a miracle he got elected, and not the good kind, either. He seeks to destroy America's most fundamental freedom, that grievance which led us to declare war on Great Britain. Taxation is slavery, and socialists like Mr. Sanders want to put us in chains. I, for one, say "no" to his subterfuge.

Why not. Let those plutocrats own everything and then see how few chains we have. Teh ebil w3lf4r3 qu33ns!!!11! Let 'em starve and decrease the surplus population. :rolleyes:

BTW, he's been in the US House for 5 terms before his jump to the senate. No subterfuge here.

Another difference is in the class war already being fought over funding the government. Nowhere is it fair that the top 5% of income earners in the U.S. earn 31% of all income and pay 54.1% of all income taxes.
They can afford to be taxed more and they owe society for allowing them to become wealthy. The rich would be nowhere without the poor.

They can afford to be taxed more and they owe society for allowing them to become wealthy. The rich would be nowhere without the poor.

Nonsense and gibberish.

Nonsense and gibberish.
Elaborate.

They can afford to be taxed more and they owe society for allowing them to become wealthy. The rich would be nowhere without the poor.
Allowing them to become rich? Society didn't make it legal for them to become rich. It's always been that way. If people want them to have less money, stop buying their products. If they want them to give, stop buying from them until they donate more to charity.

Owe society? They owe society nothing. He never made an agreement with society to give money back if he became wealthy. His job was to try and advance his own position in life. He did. His debt to society is amply repaid by the services and items he provides.

It's societies job to protect people's ability to become wealthier. Not to make sure they do.

Elaborate.
Look up one post.

So it's more important that you "score" a point than that you actually learn something? What kind of fucked-up values system is that?
He's messing with your head. He likes to do that.

Hah! It will cure nothing.

All it will do is make a world of lazy people. "I'm guaranteed food, housing, education, etc! Why should I work?" and society will collapse.
It should create a world of moral people who no longer must obsess over pursuing their own ends, and instead turn to helping and enriching the lives of others.

Owe society? They owe society nothing. He never made an agreement with society to give money back if he became wealthy.
Contrary to libertarian propaganda, we are not like amoeba floating in a vaccuum. Society is the infrastructure that can be used to make money. Society could certainly do with some of that money, to fund said infrastructure.

Allowing them to become rich? Society didn't make it legal for them to become rich. It's always been that way.
No it has not. Traditionally, a man from peasant stock would remain a peasant all his life no matter how hard he worked, with extremely rare exception. Capitalism is a beautiful thing that allows for the exceptional to move up in their lot in life, but there will always be those who, for whatever reason, are incapable of doing so, and basic human compassion calls for us to assist them in at least acquiring the necessities of an acceptable life.
Owe society? They owe society nothing. He never made an agreement with society to give money back if he became wealthy. His job was to try and advance his own position in life. He did. His debt to society is amply repaid by the services and items he provides.
Society protects his right to property and society maintains the structure and order that allows wealth to even have meaning.
It's societies job to protect people's ability to become wealthier. Not to make sure they do.
Never said it was.

It should create a world of moral people who no longer must obsess over pursuing their own ends, and instead turn to helping and enriching the lives of others.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive


Contrary to libertarian propaganda, we are not like amoeba floating in a vaccuum. Society is the infrastructure that can be used to make money. Society could certainly do with some of that money, to fund said infrastructure.

Society isn't the infrastructure used to create wealth. Wealth is created independent of society; society forms in order to protect the ability to procure wealth.

The procurement of wealth was the infrastructure that society was built on.

YEH!!! SANDERS SANDERS SANDERS!!!!!! finally a Democratic Socialist who actually has a chance in a nation that just does this :sniper: to all people it hates. Doing this :sniper: just makes other people :mp5: thats not good! It's good to see that a peaceful, and equal and fair thinker is finally in office in the US. It's about time we get some freedom here! I'm sick and tired of Conservative freaks talking about Iraqi people are all evil and should be nuked! And also saying that all people who are not billionaires should be shot! I am happy to finally see my nation begin adopting freedom and liberty! It's about time that we get rid of those retard rednecks that just do this :upyours:

Allowing them to become rich? Society didn't make it legal for them to become rich. It's always been that way. If people want them to have less money, stop buying their products. If they want them to give, stop buying from them until they donate more to charity.

Owe society? They owe society nothing. He never made an agreement with society to give money back if he became wealthy. His job was to try and advance his own position in life. He did. His debt to society is amply repaid by the services and items he provides.

It's societies job to protect people's ability to become wealthier. Not to make sure they do.

Well said. Well said indeed.

No it has not. Traditionally, a man from peasant stock would remain a peasant all his life no matter how hard he worked with extremely rare exception Could you provide some examples of this within free markets?

Capitalism is a beautiful thing that allows for the exceptional to move up in their lot in life, but there will always be those who, for whatever reason, are incapable of doing so If they are incapable of doing so, I fail to see why they are automatically entitled to advance. Additionally, a government would be incapable of distinguishing between those who are incapable and those who are just lazy.

and basic human compassion calls for us to assist them in at least acquiring the necessities of an acceptable life. If this was true, then the government would not have to coerce people to do anything, because human compassion would move them to do it.

Society protects his right to property and society maintains the structure and order that allows wealth to even have meaning.
Wealth always has meaning. Wealth is a means of power (the ability to affect change). Individuals with power, wishing to preserve it, managed to create systems where they could protect the ability to procure wealth.

There are plenty of people in the world who fail to grasp the simple concept that life on earth is not easy and if you are going to survive you are going to have to use your head.
Maybe for animals. Humans are able to control their own climate and destiny. We can make systems that guarantee survival, so why shouldn't we?

It's not my fault if someone goes and ditches an education in favor of an early marriage, then has a couple of kids with a shithead husband who is about to leave her.
I dismiss that. Why do you people always rely on stereotypes to make your arguments?

Why is Ireland such a huge engine in the EU, despite it's economy?

Because it's economy is much more geared towards the free market.
Watch what countries you're spouting bs about. We're not a "free market" country. The reason Ireland is such an engine is because of our low corporate tax rate which attracts the foreign companies.

Meanwhile, every party, even the most right-wing, campaign on platforms of more welfare and more public spending.

Socialism is, at best, a barely workable system. Socialism's basis is a state run economy, which is inefficient for a number of reasons. For starters, Governments are much more prone to waste than private enterprises, and even more prone to corruption than corporations, since in the government the only way a politician can earn more money, while a corporation can earn more through work.
This doesn't describe Ireland, or any EU member state.

Furthermore, it is ethically unjustifiable. Each person has, through his own hard work and perseverance, created a certain amount of wealth for himself.
The results of extreme capitalism are ethically unjustifiable.

The government then takes the wealth he has created, and redistributes it to people who had no part in its making.
If I ever become rich, I imagine that the teachers who educated me, and the doctors and nurses who helped me when I was sick will have had some part in my making.

Theocratic ideologies that call themselves "religions", whether they are Islam, cults headed by polygamist "prophets" who pimp young girls to older male cultists, or the like, don't fit within, and are incompatible with, the traditional American system. The same applies to ancient Aztec human sacrifice and Carthaginian Moloch-worship, for that matter. I stand by my statement.
That is bullshit. Sorry, but there's no other way to describe it, and you clearly don't know any Muslims. Do you really think that if your glorious founders had intended Islam to be excluded, they wouldn't have written it?

How are they death cults (Aztec religions should not be allowed because they murder people as a matter of ritual), or theocratic ideologies if the members aren't actually killing people, or campaigning for the imposition of their religion in government? For the latter, one could claim that some evangelical Christian groups that actually are in America fit the description, and are still allowed to exist (as they should be).

But I would favor amending the Constitution to specifically exclude such ideologies and practices from the scope of the First Amendment.
Sounds like you do actually want to change a lot about your constitution.

Foreign policy decisions that seek victory over our enemies is hardly incompatible with limited government ideals.
Occupying and installing governments on the other side of the world is?

No, you'd fit within the scope. People like you aren't the enemy. You're just wrong on the issues.
Why? Because I'm of the right race, religion, or ideology?

Well said. Well said indeed.
Someone (and it may as well be you) really has to explain to me why the atheist Americans are arguing for compassion and helping the poor, and the Christian Americans are arguing for pure capitalism and leaving the poor to suffer. It normally works the other way round.

Could you provide some examples of this within free markets?
No. As I said, capitalism is a wonderful thing. I was merely arguing against your point that it has “always” been that way. The free market is no natural thing, in fact it takes quite a bit of collective effort to make viable.
If they are incapable of doing so, I fail to see why they are automatically entitled to advance.
I didn't say they were entitled to advancement, only the basics.
Additionally, a government would be incapable of distinguishing between those who are incapable and those who are just lazy.
Laziness is its own form of incapability. The exceptional are not just skilled, but hard working and often lucky.
If this was true, then the government would not have to coerce people to do anything, because human compassion would move them to do it.
Not everyone is compassionate, as you so eloquently demonstrate.
Wealth always has meaning. Wealth is a means of power (the ability to affect change). Individuals with power, wishing to preserve it, managed to create systems where they could protect the ability to procure wealth.
And the abilty to mantain that wealth, often through rather, for lack of a better word, unfair means.

Shhhhhh.
Do you actually think that he makes a convincing argument? It's merely anecdotal, maybe a lie, and if it was worth considering, we would see it reflected in the statistics, aka facts.

We have a society that has opportunity here in the US - you make it sound as though there is no opportunity, save for what can be taken by force from the rich by government fiat, and given to the poor.
The US has some semblance of a social safety net. In the first two decades of the 20th century, every industrialised country adopted some socialist policies. Except one: Russia.

Maybe for animals. Humans are able to control their own climate and destiny. We can make systems that guarantee survival, so why shouldn't we?
Because all advancement and progress is dependant on competition.


I dismiss that. Why do you people always rely on stereotypes to make your arguments?
I hope you realize that statement is itself a generalization


Watch what countries you're spouting bs about. We're not a "free market" country. The reason Ireland is such an engine is because of our low corporate tax rate which attracts the foreign companies.
Your low corporate tax rate is just one part. And didn't it ever occur to you that lower corporate taxes qualify as a "free-market" type device? Ireland also fairs a less socialized version of government healthcare.


Meanwhile, every party, even the most right-wing, campaign on platforms of more welfare and more public spending.[/quote]
What politicians are campaigning on is much more a matter of what people want to hear and less what is really best.


This doesn't describe Ireland, or any EU member state.



The results of extreme capitalism are ethically unjustifiable.

I'm sure you have a very good reason, but I'd really love to hear them.

If I ever become rich, I imagine that the teachers who educated me, and the doctors and nurses who helped me when I was sick will have had some part in my making.
Sure they do. And you pay for them through currently existing taxes; there isn't a need to add more.


By the way, I'm an atheist. I don't know why YOU don't accept evolution.

Do you actually think that he makes a convincing argument? It's merely anecdotal, maybe a lie, and if it was worth considering, we would see it reflected in the statistics, aka facts.


The US has some semblance of a social safety net. In the first two decades of the 20th century, every industrialised country adopted some socialist policies. Except one: Russia.
!!!

Communism is the MOST EXTREME form of socialism.

(Fascism is to, in case you didn't know).

!!!

Communism is the MOST EXTREME form of socialism.

(Fascism is to, in case you didn't know).

I didn't know either of those things. Please explain.

Because all advancement and progress is dependant on competition.


To be petty, it's dependant on motivation. It's just that competition is a motivator.

However, to be more relevant I can't see the ethical distiction between using unchecked information asymmetries to supress your competition and unchecked violence to supress your competition

No.It hardly seems fair if you get to have claims accepted as facts without proof.
As I said, capitalism is a wonderful thing. I was merely arguing against your point that it has “always” been that way. The free market is no natural thing, in fact it takes quite a bit of collective effort to make viable.
It takes quite a bit of effort...to make people...do what they want with...their property???? What?

I didn't say they were entitled to advancement, only the basics.
I didn't know you where a creationist.

Laziness is its own form of incapability. The exceptional are not just skilled, but hard working and often lucky.
LOL. So if they just don't want to do anything, they should be provided for? L

Not everyone is compassionate, as you so eloquently demonstrate.
Then you admit that socialism will always have people dragging the system down.

And the abilty to mantain that wealth, often through rather, for lack of a better word, unfair means.
Such as? As far as I know, the laws currently in place, in the United States, prevent those unfair means.

I didn't know either of those things. Please explain.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html

Socialism is basically the theory of state run economies distributing property and wealth in such a manner as to create some semblance of equity among the population. Marxism is just the statement that people should be totally equitable.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html

Socialism is basically the theory of state run economies distributing property and wealth in such a manner as to create some semblance of equity among the population. Marxism is just the statement that people should be totally equitable.

And fascism is the direct opposite. Don't sell me that tripe about socialism just being milder fascism, or even milder communism.
Socialism and communism have completely different concepts of how egalitarianism should be brought about, what it entails and to what extent it should stretch.

It hardly seems fair if you get to have claims accepted as facts without proof.:confused: Honestly. I’m perplexed. I was referring to the past, to traditional economies. I really don't know what you're talking about here.
It takes quite a bit of effort...to make people...do what they want with...their property???? What?
It takes effort to keep the poor (and some of the rich) from taking what they will from the rich. Justice systems and welfare etc. It also takes quite a bit of effort to maintain the value of currency, essential to the free market system.
uI didn't know you where a creationist.
I'm not following.
LOL. So if they just don't want to do anything, they should be provided for? L
No one should go hungry on the streets or die of easily treatable diseases, no matter their predisposition to laziness.
Then you admit that socialism will always have people dragging the system down.
I'm not a fan of socialism. I like the means of production right where they are.
Such as? As far as I know, the laws currently in place, in the United States, prevent those unfair means.
Many of them, yes.
!!!

Communism is the MOST EXTREME form of socialism.

(Fascism is to, in case you didn't know).
He means before the revolution. They refused to adopt reforms, and so the poor tried to break the system and take what they wanted. They failed.

We need to elect one of those nuts from the Constitution Party. They'd be kind of funny if they weren't kind of scary. Oddly enough, despite their name, they support the establishment of religion... which (obviously) doesn't jive well with the constitution. Of course we could also elect someone from the Freedom Socialists, put them in a big mayonnaise jar with some air holes in the lid, shake it, and watch them fight. People would suddenly have a reason to watch CSPAN.

"I would have made a good pope." --Richard Nixon

Because all advancement and progress is dependant on competition.
So in order to progress, there must always be suffering class? Or must other people be poor just because I do well?

I hope you realize that statement is itself a generalization
I wasn't complaining about generalisations, and I wasn't making an argument.

Your low corporate tax rate is just one part. And didn't it ever occur to you that lower corporate taxes qualify as a "free-market" type device?
It is, but we aren't a free market country, any more than we are a socialist country for our free education at all levels.

Ireland also fairs a less socialized version of government healthcare.
The only reason for that is because it has always been unaffordable. It's not some ideal we as a people have strived for. Most of us want more spent to improve the health service, not more privatisation. In case you missed history, Ireland was always western Europe's least developed nation.

Also, why do Americans always say "socialized healthcare"? Why not nationalised healthcare? Why not socialised military, or transport, etc?

What politicians are campaigning on is much more a matter of what people want to hear and less what is really best.
Hold on, I thought libertarians usually disliked the idea of government deciding "what's best for the people"?

There are real policies too, but the real policies are only made by the government parties, not all the parties.

I'm sure you have a very good reason, but I'd really love to hear them.
I don't want to write an essay, but the fundamental principle is that the absolute right to life is more important than the absolute right to private property.

Sure they do. And you pay for them through currently existing taxes; there isn't a need to add more.
So now you're advocating government education and healthcare? How confusing.

By the way, I'm an atheist. I don't know why YOU don't accept evolution.

Not all of us Christians think that the creation story is the literal truth. Evolution can be perfectly compatible with God.

!!!

Communism is the MOST EXTREME form of socialism.

(Fascism is to, in case you didn't know).
How can both fascism and communism be the most extreme form of socialism?

He means before the revolution. They refused to adopt reforms, and so the poor tried to break the system and take what they wanted. They failed.
Correct. Except about failing, to my knowledge the conservative tsarist government was destroyed.

So in order to progress, there must always be suffering class? Or must other people be poor just because I do well?
It doesn't sound nice, but yes. It's true.


I wasn't complaining about generalisations, and I wasn't making an argument.


It is, but we aren't a free market country, any more than we are a socialist country for our free education at all levels.
So what? America has Free Education up to University levels, and we are still considered "free-market", for the most part.



The only reason for that is because it has always been unaffordable. It's not some ideal we as a people have strived for. Most of us want more spent to improve the health service, not more privatisation. In case you missed history, Ireland was always western Europe's least developed nation.
I don't really see how what you want affects the reality.


Also, why do Americans always say "socialized healthcare"? Why not nationalised healthcare? Why not socialised military, or transport, etc?
Don't be petty.


Hold on, I thought libertarians usually disliked the idea of government deciding "what's best for the people"?

There are real policies too, but the real policies are only made by the government parties, not all the parties.


I don't want to write an essay, but the fundamental principle is that the absolute right to life is more important than the absolute right to private property.


So now you're advocating government education and healthcare? How confusing.


Not all of us Christians think that the creation story is the literal truth. Evolution can be perfectly compatible with God.


How can both fascism and communism be the most extreme form of socialism?[/QUOTE]

So in order to progress, there must always be suffering class? Or must other people be poor just because I do well?
It doesn't sound nice, but yes. It's true.


I wasn't complaining about generalisations, and I wasn't making an argument.


It is, but we aren't a free market country, any more than we are a socialist country for our free education at all levels.
So what? America has Free Education up to University levels, and we are still considered "free-market", for the most part.



The only reason for that is because it has always been unaffordable. It's not some ideal we as a people have strived for. Most of us want more spent to improve the health service, not more privatisation. In case you missed history, Ireland was always western Europe's least developed nation.
I don't really see how what you want affects the reality.


Also, why do Americans always say "socialized healthcare"? Why not nationalised healthcare? Why not socialised military, or transport, etc?
Don't be petty.


Hold on, I thought libertarians usually disliked the idea of government deciding "what's best for the people"? Labels DO suck.

There are real policies too, but the real policies are only made by the government parties, not all the parties.


I don't want to write an essay, but the fundamental principle is that the absolute right to life is more important than the absolute right to private property.[.quote] The right to life doesn't mean anyone has to help you live, just refrain from killing.



[quote]
Not all of us Christians think that the creation story is the literal truth. Evolution can be perfectly compatible with God. So, you support the degradation of the human race ???


How can both fascism and communism be the most extreme form of socialism?
Semantics. They are both extreme forms of socialism, sorry I put most. I only added facism as an after thought.

Both of them claim to socialists.

Laziness is its own form of incapability. The exceptional are not just skilled, but hard working and often lucky.



Uhhh, proof? There is no predisposition to laziness and even if there was it isn't an insurmountable obstacle. You can still get off your ass and work. You don't need to have everything provided to you.

Also, why do Americans always say "socialized healthcare"? Why not nationalised healthcare? Why not socialised military, or transport, etc?



In the constitution is says to provide for the defense of the people. No where in it does it say to provide high cost drugs to the people.

Both of them claim to socialists.

That's a pretty stupid argument for fascism being a form of socialism.

Correct. Except about failing, to my knowledge the conservative tsarist government was destroyed.
I would hardly call what resulted from that revolution a success.
Uhhh, proof? There is no predisposition to laziness and even if there was it isn't an insurmountable obstacle. You can still get off your ass and work. You don't need to have everything provided to you.
Not everything, just the essentials.
In the constitution is says to provide for the defense of the people. No where in it does it say to provide high cost drugs to the people.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And ironicly, the People themselves have to secure it hence WE THE PEOPLE!!

Not everything, just the essentials.
And that is where the argument falls apart. Drugs aren't essential. You don't need to live to 80. If you live a healthy life most drugs wouldn't be necesary. The government shouldn't have to fix every mistake that you make.

And ironicly, the People themselves have to secure it hence WE THE PEOPLE!!
Then why doesn't the same apply to the military or police?

And that is where the argument falls apart. Drugs aren't essential. You don't need to live to 80. If you live a healthy life most drugs wouldn't be necesary. The government shouldn't have to fix every mistake that you make.
First of all, not all ails can be prevented by healthy living, Parkinson’s for instance. Secondly, a necessity is anything needed to maintain life at an acceptable level of comfort. You don’t need to live to 80, but Western standards dictate that one should.

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

I could hardly be more capitalist, but I am overjoyed by this.

You have to pick your battles and dogmatic conservativism is first.

Then why doesn't the same apply to the military or police?

It does apply. The people volunteer and serve in those institutions. Also, the people themselves need to have defense provided by the government. Otherwise anybody can walk over you and force you into fighting a war by insurgency.

Then why doesn't the same apply to the military or police?

Military and police have healthcare provided for by the government. They are paid and funded for by the government. They are government employees.

If you live a healthy life most drugs wouldn't be necesary.

Cancer, Schizophrenia, Clinical Depression, Bipolarity, Degenerative Muscular Disorder, severe chronic hormone or mineral deficiencies, migraines, they can all be treated but not cured with drugs, and they can all happen through no fault of the victim.

First of all, not all ails can be prevented by healthy living, Parkinson’s for instance.
That is where charities come in.
[QUOTE=Neo Undelia;12193394]Secondly, a necessity is anything needed to maintain life at an acceptable level of comfort.
There is one thing that we have a fundamental disagreement on. Comfort is not a necessity. You are perfectly capable of living without comfort. In fact, in some cases comfort prevents progress. If you see everything as going okay then humanity stops.

You don’t need to live to 80, but Western standards dictate that one should.

Seeing as there is no country that i know of with a life expectancy of 80 i would strongly disagree with you.

There is one thing that we have a fundamental disagreement on. Comfort is not a necessity. You are perfectly capable of living without comfort. In fact, in some cases comfort prevents progress. If you see everything as going okay then humanity stops.
So Parkinson's sufferers should just grin and bear it? It's funny that these arguments never actually come from people who need drugs to function at the same level as their fellow human beings.


Seeing as there is no country that i know of with a life expectancy of 80 i would strongly disagree with you.

80's considered a "good run" in most Western societies. Remember that the life expectancy doesn't represent the age at which one normally dies of old age.

So Parkinson's sufferers should just grin and bear it? It's funny that these arguments never actually come from people who need drugs to function at the same level as their fellow human beings.

No they shouldn't at all. They should have health insurance or should get drugs from charity. My mom works at a free clinic at a local hospital. It is run completely by donations.

No they shouldn't at all. They should have health insurance or should get drugs from charity.
So it's either "have enough money to safeguard against any illness" or "rely entirely on the unreliable kindness of strangers"?

So it's either "have enough money to safeguard against any illness" or "rely entirely on the unreliable kindness of strangers"?

I've already gave you a case where it works. Just because you've only been exposed to one option doesn't mean that it is the only one.

Just because you've only been exposed to one option doesn't mean that it is the only one.

I haven't been exposed to either, by virtue of
a) living in a country where you don't have to pay for medicine, and
b) not having any serious mental or physical illness

I haven't been exposed to either, by virtue of
a) living in a country where you don't have to pay for medicine, and
b) not having any serious mental or physical illness

You do have to pay, just indirectly. That and others have to pay it for you. Your argument if you want to call it that doesn't make the other way wrong.

You do have to pay, just indirectly. That and others have to pay it for you. Your argument if you want to call it that doesn't make the other way wrong.

And I know how that pay is done :)

You do have to pay, just indirectly.
That and others have to pay it for you.

But, should I have a debilitating illness and no insurance, I wouldn't have to hope and pray that the people who do pay will be charitable enough this month for me to get my drugs to allow me to go to work.

bump

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

Byaaah!!!

But, should I have a debilitating illness and no insurance, I wouldn't have to hope and pray that the people who do pay will be charitable enough this month for me to get my drugs to allow me to go to work.

Thousands of people already do. The hospital is St. Mary's in bucks county PA. They cover any costs that aren't donated. Fitzpatrick gave the clinic $1 million during his campaign. Finally, most drug companies donate drugs for free.

Thousands of people already do.

That was my point.

Thousands of people already do. The hospital is St. Mary's in bucks county PA. They cover any costs that aren't donated. Fitzpatrick gave the clinic $1 million during his campaign. Finally, most drug companies donate drugs for free.

BINGO! Even I heard of this clinic. Of course, I attend school in Lancaster county. :)