Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: French G. on September 11, 2009, 06:24:40 PM
-
Okay, they don't get much love on here, but can we post some positive examples?
I'll start. Tim Kaine, Gov-VA. Didn't vote for him, don't like him, but he's been doing okay. I listen to his call in radio show and he talks pretty straight, and has done nothing really bad. He may be a product of the VA governor's term limits but has done some downright conservative things like closing the interstate rest areas and cutting state jobs to meet his requirement to balance the budget. I probably won't trust him a bit on the national stage when he contines his career, but for right now he's okay.
Joe Manchin Gov-WV. Pretty pro business, West Virginia does not seem to be hurting too bad in he current economic mess. Currently pissed at the EPA because they are throwing up a bunch of new and improved road blocks to pretty much any coal project. I won't cry when the coal miners lose their jobs since they all voted the union card last year, but I think the governor realizes the kooks are running the nuthouse in DC.
I haven't paid enough attention to Mark Warner to comment, Jim Webb no matter what is a disrespectful liar in my book, and the up and coming Creigh Deeds I will probably say a lot of bad about. He really is a pompous little donkey.
-
Jim Webb no matter what is a disrespectful liar in my book, and the up and coming Creigh Deeds I will probably say a lot of bad about. He really is a pompous little donkey.
:laugh:
You can't even start a thread to deliberately praise democrats without listing why they're awful in the first post.
I've got nothing constructive to add about Arizona democrats. So I won't. =D
-
Bob Casey Jr.
Most, but not all, members of the Democratic Freedom Caucus. Not saying I think they're perfect, but good enough. Here's their platform http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/dfc-platform/
Blue Dog Democrats, some of the Boll weevils from the Reagan days, etc.
Now, I'd love to see a "A good Republican?" thread. Except Ron Paul, there's probably just as few.
-
Now, I'd love to see a "A good Republican?" thread. Except Ron Paul, there's probably just as few.
My man Mike Pence comes to mind immediately. Joe Wilson, too, it seems.
-
My man Mike Pence comes to mind immediately. Joe Wilson, too, it seems.
And Jim DeMint, SC Senator.
Precious few "good Republicans" out there these days...
Lindsay Graham, SC's RINO senator, is a little snot nosed SOB, but I digress...
-
Ted Kennedy. Paul Wellstone. You get the drift.
-
Ted Kennedy. Paul Wellstone. You get the drift.
Well that's a little harsh. I know I had to spike my own thread with my Jim Webb phobia but can't we have one thread without the anti democratic 2 minutes hate? Pleez.
Heck if this is a support group I'll go ahead and get it started. I voted for Clinton once. Not twice though.
-
It's a bit of joke, really. OK not really. Anyway, I don't see why it bothers you.
-
Ted Kennedy. Paul Wellstone. You get the drift.
Remarkably bad taste. But not exactly surprising.
-
Morbid humor. What's the problem?
It's clear that he was just making a joke, and it wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
-
John Dingell? He's pro-gun at least.
Also, do state-level Democrats count?
If yes, then Joel Winters (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/11/26/free_state_project_cheers_one_of_its_own_in_winters/)
-
Remarkably bad taste. But not exactly surprising.
Huh?! I wasn't aware that the "The only good X is a dead X" joke had become bad taste. ???
-
Yeah, I'd figured that was going to be at least one of the replies somewhere in this thread.
-
We're getting to the point where party affiliation means much less than political philosophy. The Republicans are starting to have as many liberals and fascists in their leadership as the Democrats. And most of the anti-2A legislation proposed has been shot down by moderate/conservative Democrats. Now, you have to look at a pol's voting record and stances to see what they really stand for.
Just look at the Texas governor's race. Many of the Dem candidates are less statist than the Repub candidates....and then there's Kinky.... ;/
-
The Republicans are starting to have as many liberals and fascists in their leadership as the Democrats
Starting?
-
Um, I'm in Illinois..... =|
-
Um, I'm in Illinois..... =|
So you *heart* Roland Burris then? =D
-
>Now, you have to look at a pol's voting record and stances to see what they really stand for.<
OH THE NOES!!!!!!!111!!!ONEONEONE!!!ELEVENTY
Isn't this what people should have been doing from the begining?
-
So you *heart* Roland Burris then? =D
The senate votes 83-7 to defund ACORN.....Let's take a quick look and what do you think the chances are that both *my* senators voted for ACORN...... Yep....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA06Z5e1ZFc&feature=related
-
John Ross.
RevDisk.
Huh?! I wasn't aware that the "The only good X is a dead X" joke had become bad taste. ???
When you're talking to members of X, yeah it pretty much is.
-
;/
-
I'm not sure why you would roll your eyes at this. Members of this forum are Democrats. Saying "The only good Dem is a dead Dem" doesn't strike you as even a teensy bit offensive?
-
Does this mean we can list Balog as a good Democrat?.....
...can we list him as our favorite Democrat?....
....what about as the official APS Democratic representative?.....
=D
-
;/
I don't care for the Dems as a whole. I'm starting to feel that way about the R's too, for that matter.
Put it this way. If fisty said "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" would that be ok?
-
No, I don't see how it's offensive.
-
It comes down to how much of a sense of humor you can muster.
-
;/
I don't care for the Dems as a whole. I'm starting to feel that way about the R's too, for that matter.
Put it this way. If fisty said "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" would that be ok?
Be a bit more acceptable if instead of muslim, he said raghead/gook/chink/charlie/jappo/nip/kraut/skinny or some other dehumanizing title typically concocted by the military to condition people to be ready for killing and out dotguv has declared war upon that group.
That way it fits into a proper societal context, and we can see he's just going along with his orders and training.
Leaving it as Muslim, it just comes across as too broad a brush.
Fisty, why would you say such a thing? I'm disappointed in you. Painting Muslims with a broad brush like that. :mad: :laugh:
You can do it with the Democrats, though. =D
Good democrats?
How about Leiberman? He left the party... that's a step in the right direction. He ain't a libertarian or even a conservative in platform... but I can applaud a good start, can't I?
-
No, I don't see how it's offensive.
=| Really? Well... alrighty then.
-
"The only good Muslim Zombie is a dead Muslim Zombie" ...
:How about now? Is anyone offended by this?... ???
-
I have changed my mind. In view of current events, I must conclude that my comment was racist, and I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. ... That's the logical conclusion...
-
I have changed my mind. In view of current events, I must conclude that my comment was racist, and I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. ... That's the logical conclusion...
I doubt it....has anyone seen the price of sheets lately?... :O
-
This distinguished public servant disagrees. :police:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/15/congressman-people-don-white-hoods-wilson-rebuked/
-
:How about now? Is anyone offended by this?... ???
Um, they're already dead.
The only good zombie is a headless zombie.
-
I have changed my mind. In view of current events, I must conclude that my comment was racist, and I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. ... That's the logical conclusion...
White sheets after labor day? How uncouth!
-
Obama is a good Democrat :)
-
Obama is a good Democrat :)
I find no fault in that statement.... =|
...neither do I find fault in the statement "Mussolini was a good fascist dictator"....
-
That raises the obvious question good for what?
Depending on what you mean by "a good Democrat", anyone could be one.
-
That raises the obvious question good for what?
Depending on what you mean by "a good Democrat", anyone could be one.
Good for the citizens of the United States of America of course!
-
Are you saying that you believe that Obama is good for the citizens of America?
???
-
Are you saying that you believe that Obama is good for the citizens of America?
???
Yes. Not everyone here is a conservative Republican or Libertarian.
I am excited about the fact that things I feel are important are finally getting some attention in a constructive way!
-
Good for American Citizens how, exactly?
Good for all American Citizens, or only some?
-
I am excited about the fact that things I feel are important are finally getting some attention in a constructive way!
This begs the questions:
1. What things do you feel are important?
2. How are they getting some attention? How does this differ from the past?
3. How is that attention constructive to the things you feel are important?
Just curious.
-
Are you saying that you believe that Obama is good for the citizens of America?
Yes. Not everyone here is a conservative Republican or Libertarian.
I am excited about the fact that things I feel are important are finally getting some attention in a constructive way!
The implication being that Obama's political goals are good for those of his political persuasion, not so much for others.
Shouldn't statesmen be working for the good of all; not just helping one set of interest groups at the expense of others? Why not just do the right thing?
-
This begs the questions:
1. What things do you feel are important?
2. How are they getting some attention? How does this differ from the past?
3. How is that attention constructive to the things you feel are important?
Just curious.
1. a) Healthcare reform, b) positive foreign policy, c) 'moral values' issues, to list the first three that pop into my mind.
2. a) The current healthcare reform debate, b) a less confrontational foreign policy based on the liberal and constructivist ideal and less on the realist idea c) less focus on them
3. a) I would rather see a publically funded health care system and this legislation moves in that direction, b) I see current international politics as being based more on results and less on cold-war dogma, c) I appreciate that we have better things to do than have the government making laws about sex
Yes. Not everyone here is a conservative Republican or Libertarian.
I am excited about the fact that things I feel are important are finally getting some attention in a constructive way!
The implication being that Obama's political goals are good for those of his political persuasion, not so much for others.
Shouldn't statesmen be working for the good of all; not just helping one set of interest groups at the expense of others? Why not just do the right thing?
Actually, the implication is that Obama's political goals will be better for America, which is what I wrote. Why would I want to harm you? You think your 'conservative' agenda helps the country, I think my 'liberal' agenda helps the country. That is the essence of honest political disagreement isn't it? Why would I think his agenda does not help you? We live in the same country!
Flame on! :)
-
1. a) Healthcare reform, b) positive foreign policy, c) 'moral values' issues, to list the first three that pop into my mind.
2. a) The current healthcare reform debate, b) a less confrontational foreign policy based on the liberal and constructivist ideal and less on the realist idea c) less focus on them
3. a) I would rather see a publically funded health care system and this legislation moves in that direction, b) I see current international politics as being based more on results and less on cold-war dogma, c) I appreciate that we have better things to do than have the government making laws about sex
Yes, but how do you think that any of these are beneficial to the citizenry?
Are you of the opinion that intentions matter more than results? I will agree that the ostensible intentions of the health care reforms is to benefit the citizenry, but it should be fairly clear that the results will be otherwise. Likewise for most of the foreign policy failings going on right now.
-
Yes, but how do you think that any of these are beneficial to the citizenry?
Are you of the opinion that intentions matter more than results? I will agree that the ostensible intentions of the health care reforms is to benefit the citizenry, but it should be fairly clear that the results will be otherwise. Likewise for most of the foreign policy failings going on right now.
Yes, I do believe they will be beneficial, if I did not think they would be beneficial I would not support the policies. I even gave examples of why I thought they would be beneficial.
In politics, I think results are the primary concern, as long as you make sure to examine long term consequences. Of course, intention matters because you can't have consistently good results without consistent intentions.
Again, I simply challenge the assumption that everyone thinks like the typical conservative on this site. Obviously, hundreds of millions of people do in America and in the world at large.
-
Mellestad,
Intentions, nor results matter not.
It is not better to entitle someone to free this or that on the backs of those who work hard to earn what they have: it is immoral. The government takes from the "rich" and gives to the "poor" at gunpoint. Entitling one class over another, while allowing one class to have what they did not work for: Immoral and unjust.
A truly free people have equal opportunity to succeed or fail, regardless of class or social status.
You will argue that it is immoral for a civilized society to stand by while the less "fortunate" suffer. Nobody's stopping YOU from doing something about it. But to do so on my back? That is just plain wrong.
-
Mellestad,
Intentions, nor results matter not.
It is not better to entitle someone to free this or that on the backs of those who work hard to earn what they have: it is immoral. The government takes from the "rich" and gives to the "poor" at gunpoint. Entitling one class over another, while allowing one class to have what they did not work for: Immoral and unjust.
A truly free people have equal opportunity to succeed or fail, regardless of class or social status.
You will argue that it is immoral for a civilized society to stand by while the less "fortunate" suffer. Nobody's stopping YOU from doing something about it. But to do so on my back? That is just plain wrong.
That is, of course, a political opinion. Making a political opinion out to be immoral is not helpful to anyone. I disagree with the notion that 'socialism' is immoral or unjust. If you want to advocate a total libertarian society that is fine, go do it. But I fundamentally disagree with that notion.
Using the resources of a collective body to further that bodies own goals is what modern government is all about. I think the government should do more than provide self-defense and a court system. You might want a return to 1776, but I do not, nor do most citizens. I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen, and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen.
Politics is about who gets what, where and why. This debate is an essential part of that! I would challange you to oppose socialist ideas on their own merit, instead of attacking them with a plea to a nebulous moral authority that most citizens do not agree with.
-
Yes, I do believe they will be beneficial, if I did not think they would be beneficial I would not support the policies. I even gave examples of why I thought they would be beneficial.
In politics, I think results are the primary concern, as long as you make sure to examine long term consequences. Of course, intention matters because you can't have consistently good results without consistent intentions.
Again, I simply challenge the assumption that everyone thinks like the typical conservative on this site. Obviously, hundreds of millions of people do in America and in the world at large.
You gave reasons why your preferred policies would be good for everyone? I mean, reasons more involved than you're a Democrat supportng the Democrat viewpoint...? Where?
I think we all agree that many people in this country think that liberal policies would be good for America. Too many people, in fact. We here on APS frequently lament the fact that so many people believe this stuff.
The pertinent question is, are all these people correct? Presumably you're one of these people. Perhaps you could give some good solid reasons why you think liberal/Democrat policies are good for the country.
-
Government services? Sure, everyone benefits. Fire, police, sewer, water, public works.
Welfare, "free" health care, yada yada? What did that person do to deserve being just given whatever, over me? Not a damn thing. Creating an entitlement class is immoral.
And as HTG says: Prove that your socialist programs really are really so good for America.
-
Using the resources of a collective body to further that bodies own goals is what modern government is all about. I think the government should do more than provide self-defense and a court system. You might want a return to 1776, but I do not, nor do most citizens. I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen, and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen.
Yes, but do the resources in question belong to "the collective body" and do they exist for the benefit of the collective? Or rather do those resources belong to the individual who produced them, and for the benefit of he who earned them?
I think the root fallacy of socialism lies in denying the right of an individual to keep what is his.
-
Why would I think his agenda does not help you?
Then I misunderstood you.
-
Government services? Sure, everyone benefits. Fire, police, sewer, water, public works.
Welfare, "free" health care, yada yada? What did that person do to deserve being just given whatever, over me? Not a damn thing. Creating an entitlement class is immoral.
And as HTG says: Prove that your socialist programs really are really so good for America.
Health care is not free, it is paid for by the working class. Me and you! I don't mind paying for a poor persons health care, in fact I already do through higher insurance premiums.
So, I assume you want me to focus on healthcare, rather than the other two things I listed? Ok.
The health care systems in well run 'socialist' countries are better. Canada, Australia, the Scandinavian countries are great examples.
Now, you can trot out the anecdotal horror stories if you like, and tell me how people flock to America for our superior private health care. a) Those anecdotal stories are disproved by the fact that the citizens of those countries are far happier with their health care system than we are with ours, and are far cheaper b) Of course they do. If Sweden had 350 million citizens they would not be flocking here, they would have the tax base to do it on their own. You can't compare apples and oranges.
I imagine you will disagree with my assertion though, then we can both start trawling wikipedia and google for articles and statistics ad nauseum.
That is my basic point though...well run socialist countries top America on the human development index. I don't understand how people can champion pure capitalism and privatization as the cure for all ills, when it clearly is not. Even in America, an enormous part of our cherished way of life is 'socialist' and anti-capitalist, but when someone suggests something socialist it is seen as somehow immoral by conservatives. It isn't even an attack based on results, it is often an attack based on emotion. I think you have to do better than that.
-
Yes, but do the resources in question belong to "the collective body" and do they exist for the benefit of the collective? Or rather do those resources belong to the individual who produced them, and for the benefit of he who earned them?
I think the root fallacy of socialism lies in denying the right of an individual to keep what is his.
I think there has to be a balance. The far side is Communism, and while I don't have any 'moral' objection to that, it has been shown again and again that it does not work.
The resources belong to the individual, but government is a social contract. Everyone on this board gives up something for the benefit of the collective, because if the collective thrives so does the individual.
Again, I am not pushing Communism, and Communism != socialism. America has been adopting socialist ideas since its founding, and our daily life is full of them now. I simply think we should take it a step further and socialize our healthcare system.
-
Even if we assume that socialist countries have superior health care (a premise you will have to defend if you want it to be accepted) you still haven't addressed the root evil inherent in stealing a man's livelihood. It may not be a big deal to you, but it is a big deal to me and a great many of the others out there who are being stolen from and enslaved.
At the very least you need to pay some lip service to this issue, and not merely dismiss it as you did earlier.
-
Oh I could list things that should be peeled back and deregulated for hours, but I'm sure you'll find a good, marxist reason to run down each of them.
"Something" is not everything.
Every entitlement should be peeled back. To say anyone deserves anything for free on the backs of the collective is immoral. You say it is not. I disagree, unilaterally and fully.
Even if we assume that socialist countries have superior health care (a premise you will have to defend if you want it to be accepted) you still haven't addressed the root evil inherent in stealing a man's livelihood. It may not be a big deal to you, but it is a big deal to me and a great many of the others out there who are being stolen from and enslaved.
At the very least you need to pay some lip service to this issue, and not merely dismiss it as you did earlier.
He
doesn't
believe
it
is
a
root
evil.
Reasoning with a socialist is like trying to convince a mugger not to take your wallet and beat you half to death.
-
Health care is not free, it is paid for by the working class. Me and you! I don't mind paying for a poor persons health care, in fact I already do through higher insurance premiums.
So, I assume you want me to focus on healthcare, rather than the other two things I listed? Ok.
The health care systems in well run 'socialist' countries are better. Canada, Australia, the Scandinavian countries are great examples.
Now, you can trot out the anecdotal horror stories if you like, and tell me how people flock to America for our superior private health care. a) Those anecdotal stories are disproved by the fact that the citizens of those countries are far happier with their health care system than we are with ours, and are far cheaper b) Of course they do. If Sweden had 350 million citizens they would not be flocking here, they would have the tax base to do it on their own. You can't compare apples and oranges.
I imagine you will disagree with my assertion though, then we can both start trawling wikipedia and google for articles and statistics ad nauseum.
That is my basic point though...well run socialist countries top America on the human development index. I don't understand how people can champion pure capitalism and privatization as the cure for all ills, when it clearly is not. Even in America, an enormous part of our cherished way of life is 'socialist' and anti-capitalist, but when someone suggests something socialist it is seen as somehow immoral by conservatives. It isn't even an attack based on results, it is often an attack based on emotion. I think you have to do better than that.
have you ever lived or gotten medical care anywhere other than the usa? folks bleat about japanese healthcare. its not as good as the bleating.
-
have you ever lived or gotten medical care anywhere other than the usa? folks bleat about japanese healthcare. its not as good as the bleating.
No, just research.
I have plenty of anecdotal evidence as well, but I don't feel that is valid in this type of discussion.
(Edit: I do think I can have an opinion without direct experience though, just like most of you do.)
-
I received "free" health care in the Military. I hope and pray to every available deity that I never have to suffer "free" health care again.
-
Why not make the free health care system optional, and let everyone choose whether they want to participate in it or not?
-
I received "free" health care in the Military. I hope and pray to every available deity that I never have to suffer "free" health care again.
That is why I emphasize, "well run".
I simply try to demonstrate that it is possible to have a well-run tax-payer funded system.
Why not make the free health care system optional, and let everyone choose whether they want to participate in it or not?
I would be fine with that. The system being debated now lets people retain private insurance, and they receive tax-credit for premiums.
-
Why not make the free health care system optional, and let everyone choose whether they want to participate in it or not?
Australia's system is actually a far better option than our current semi-socialist one. Medicare, Medicaid etc are what drive the costs up so much.
-
Why not make the free health care system optional, and let everyone choose whether they want to participate in it or not?
I would be fine with that. The system being debated now lets people retain private insurance, and they receive tax-credit for premiums.
Nuh unh. No, no, and no. And Hell no. Not at all. Not even a little.
"Optional" would mean that I have a choice in whether or not you steal my livelihood to run your free health care system. That ain't what they're proposing, not by a long shot.
-
Even if we assume that socialist countries have superior health care (a premise you will have to defend if you want it to be accepted) you still haven't addressed the root evil inherent in stealing a man's livelihood. It may not be a big deal to you, but it is a big deal to me and a great many of the others out there who are being stolen from and enslaved.
At the very least you need to pay some lip service to this issue, and not merely dismiss it as you did earlier.
If taxes are stealing and immoral, you cannot live in a country with any government. I understand what you are saying, but I don't see how you can have a society that exists without that structure. I hear many people talk about a Libertarian utopia, but I have yet to see one functioning. Why is the current system of healthcare reform worse than social security? Or Medicaid, or Grand Coulee Dam, or the Interstate system? Jamis thinks I am unreasonable, but I don't see why healthcare reform is evil and deserves a tea party, but unemployment insurance does not.
You attack my ideas at the 'root level' but you all live in a society that employs an enormous amount of socialism. Why weren't you throwing tea parties under Reagan? He has plenty of socialist laws, and he pushed the deficit up.
If you are advocating a true Randian society...well, show me one that works first. I don't demean your conservative ideas like some of you are demeaning my liberal ideas, I simply ask for rational responses based on reason and evidence. America became great even with 'evil', 'immoral' socialism.
I think, perhaps, part of the problem is the wording. 'Socialism' is somehow more evil than 'taxes', because it seems to receive such a gut level reaction. Perhaps because of the McCarthy era and socialism=Communism=evil?
-
If the Progressives had merely intended to take my money and to give it to a poor person, that'd even be tolerable. Except, in no country in the world do Progressives restrain themselves to just that. At no time through human history have socialists 'just' taken people's money and funded welfare with it. That would have already been wrong, but that is not the goal of Progressivism. The desire of progressives is to manage every bit of my life, for my own good of course.
If the Progressives merely intended to take my money for funding an education system in which the children of the poor would be taught, that would be a far superior system than what is experienced in many states in the Old World , where private schools are either actively suppressed by the government – like in Israel – or, as in Europe, regulated to the point of becoming virtually identical to public schools. And homeschooling is of course illegal.
Let us take healthcare. The plan is not merely to fund the health care of the poor, of course, but to control health care and related issues. As such they will tax cigarettes, and they will tax (and eventually no doubt ban) 'unhealthy' food and soda and so forth – already Congress is debating a tax on carbonated drinks. Because they're unhealthy of course. Similarly, they prohibit you from selling your own kidneys – though selling your own kidney is less dangerous than playing a season of football – or even, in some countries, your own sperm.
Now, I know what you will say. You will say – 'Microbalrog, but surely that is not oppression! After all you surely do not claim that you have some form of basic civil right to eat whatever the hell you choose! Why, if you did that, we'd have to cover your health care expenses!'
Forget, here, that had you not undertaken to underwrite my expenses, this whole argument wouldn't have existed. The problem here is that throughout its history, Progressivism has sought to regulate trade – in absolutely everything – and absolutely any kind of human activity. In the European countries you point your finger at, and Israel, which imitates them, the progressives had gone and regulated (or banned) fireworks, sweet drinks, video games, horse racing, automotive racing, firearm possession, and so forth. Where I live, automotive racing is illegal, and so are any and all fireworks, and so are energy drinks over a certain grade of caffeine content, and so is digital radio, and cryonics, and most traditional forms of burial known to man. Child protection services are allowed to seize children without trial and judicial review occurs only after the child has been removed, with the burden of proof on the family.
And of course, you're going to tell me that you're not oppressing me.
Because after all, there's no guaranteed right to unhealthy food, outline anywhere, right?
And there's no guaranteed right to NASCAR racing, right?
And no guaranteed right to hunt, and to be cryonically frozen, and to launch model rockets, and to launch fireworks, and play poker, right?
But the problem is, little tiny things add up. We already – as you pointed out – live in a universe where hundreds, thousands of little tiny things are made unavailable to us by the fiat of people who decided – based on their own little cultural prejudices, their superior college educations, knowing two languages rather than one – that they knew better than us. We have grown so accustomed to this universe that we now believe that this is normal, and this is freedom. We don't even know about the opportunities we might have had if we were free.
Progressives believe that since a few token rights – a vestige of free speech, for example – are not denied us, we are still free.
“So, you've already accepted all of those tons of infringements, just another little one, it won't hurt,” - they cajole.
Sometimes this is likened to a salami. A huge salami, and the Statists are taking turns taking up slice by slice. Medicare! Social Security! Income Taxes! Compulsory Education!
So just because you've managed to establish all of this 'anti-capitalist' stuff before I was born, I'm supposed to give up the rest of the Salami, too? Why don't you be a darling and give my salami back?
-
I would be fine with that. The system being debated now lets people retain private insurance, and they receive tax-credit for premiums.
Nuh unh. No, no, and no. And Hell no. Not at all. Not even a little.
"Optional" would mean that I have a choice in whether or not you steal my livelihood to run your free health care system. That ain't what they're proposing, not by a long shot.
Doesn't hurt to ask for that in the bill!
-
If the Progressives had merely intended to take my money and to give it to a poor person, that'd even be tolerable. Except, in no country in the world do Progressives restrain themselves to just that. At no time through human history have socialists 'just' taken people's money and funded welfare with it. That would have already been wrong, but that is not the goal of Progressivism. The desire of progressives is to manage every bit of my life, for my own good of course.
If the Progressives merely intended to take my money for funding an education system in which the children of the poor would be taught, that would be a far superior system than what is experienced in many states in the Old World , where private schools are either actively suppressed by the government – like in Israel – or, as in Europe, regulated to the point of becoming virtually identical to public schools. And homeschooling is of course illegal.
Let us take healthcare. The plan is not merely to fund the health care of the poor, of course, but to control health care and related issues. As such they will tax cigarettes, and they will tax (and eventually no doubt ban) 'unhealthy' food and soda and so forth – already Congress is debating a tax on carbonated drinks. Because they're unhealthy of course. Similarly, they prohibit you from selling your own kidneys – though selling your own kidney is less dangerous than playing a season of football – or even, in some countries, your own sperm.
Now, I know what you will say. You will say – 'Microbalrog, but surely that is not oppression! After all you surely do not claim that you have some form of basic civil right to eat whatever the hell you choose! Why, if you did that, we'd have to cover your health care expenses!'
Forget, here, that had you not undertaken to underwrite my expenses, this whole argument wouldn't have existed. The problem here is that throughout its history, Progressivism has sought to regulate trade – in absolutely everything – and absolutely any kind of human activity. In the European countries you point your finger at, and Israel, which imitates them, the progressives had gone and regulated (or banned) fireworks, sweet drinks, video games, horse racing, automotive racing, firearm possession, and so forth. Where I live, automotive racing is illegal, and so are any and all fireworks, and so are energy drinks over a certain grade of caffeine content, and so is digital radio, and cryonics, and most traditional forms of burial known to man. Child protection services are allowed to seize children without trial and judicial review occurs only after the child has been removed, with the burden of proof on the family.
And of course, you're going to tell me that you're not oppressing me.
Because after all, there's no guaranteed right to unhealthy food, outline anywhere, right?
And there's no guaranteed right to NASCAR racing, right?
And no guaranteed right to hunt, and to be cryonically frozen, and to launch model rockets, and to launch fireworks, and play poker, right?
But the problem is, little tiny things add up. We already – as you pointed out – live in a universe where hundreds, thousands of little tiny things are made unavailable to us by the fiat of people who decided – based on their own little cultural prejudices, their superior college educations, knowing two languages rather than one – that they knew better than us. We have grown so accustomed to this universe that we now believe that this is normal, and this is freedom. We don't even know about the opportunities we might have had if we were free.
Progressives believe that since a few token rights – a vestige of free speech, for example – are not denied us, we are still free.
“So, you've already accepted all of those tons of infringements, just another little one, it won't hurt,” - they cajole.
Sometimes this is likened to a salami. A huge salami, and the Statists are taking turns taking up slice by slice. Medicare! Social Security! Income Taxes! Compulsory Education!
So just because you've managed to establish all of this 'anti-capitalist' stuff before I was born, I'm supposed to give up the rest of the Salami, too? Why don't you be a darling and give my salami back?
Arguing that there is a slippery slope does not mean the original idea is invalid. If it were, nothing would ever be done. I think nationalized healthcare is not too far down the slope. Many here do. I would say not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Anyway, that is all I have time for today. I imagine I will have lots to respond to tomorrow.
-
If taxes are stealing and immoral, you cannot live in a country with any government. I understand what you are saying, but I don't see how you can have a society that exists without that structure. I hear many people talk about a Libertarian utopia, but I have yet to see one functioning. Why is the current system of healthcare reform worse than social security? Or Medicaid, or Grand Coulee Dam, or the Interstate system? Jamis thinks I am unreasonable, but I don't see why healthcare reform is evil and deserves a tea party, but unemployment insurance does not.
Because...
Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
...I don't see providing free health care listed anywhere. Do you?
-
I think nationalized healthcare is not too far down the slope.
You mistake me. I believe we are ALREADY too fat down the slope, and so is America.
Even if Congress does not pass a single new bill, there's STILL far too much government.
-
AWWW now you got me agreeing with mb =D :O
-
That is why I emphasize, "well run".
I simply try to demonstrate that it is possible to have a well-run tax-payer funded system.
I would be fine with that. The system being debated now lets people retain private insurance, and they receive tax-credit for premiums.
Well run my posterior.
Medicare/Medicaid/SS are all sucking from the system at an astronomical rate. This government couldn't run a brothel successfully, much less any of the current crop of entitlements. How could any of us in good conscious continue to allow the beast to feed from the trough?
(sorry, had to channel a little longeyes there... :laugh:)
Arguing that there is a slippery slope does not mean the original idea is invalid. If it were, nothing would ever be done. I think nationalized healthcare is not too far down the slope. Many here do. I would say not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Anyway, that is all I have time for today. I imagine I will have lots to respond to tomorrow.
Many liberty minded people actually see health care as the bottom of the slope. We've been slip sliding for decades. Government has jammed its snout into every aspect of human development and life. Most of us are sick of it, and have finally had enough.
Entitlements are immoral. There is an inherant evil to taking from one class and giving to another. A man (or woman) is entitled to keep what he earns, grows, makes or creates. Socialism is an evil of inexplicable proportions. Being given everythi...ng you need for subsistence in life lends nothing to the human condition. A class that is just given all that it needs will never strive to be more, instead they consume all they are given and will strive to be nothing more than fat and dumb. We're going on 70 years of welfare in this country. Take a good hard look at the entitled class: What has welfare done for them? Keep them alive? When's the last time you took a trip through the ghetto/trailer park/West Virginia? Me, I'd rather be dead than survive on what was taken by force from someone else.
Your "free" health care/mandatory health care system is the bottom of the slope.
-
I would say not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Unfortunately, you are.
-
AWWW now you got me agreeing with mb =D :O
Only because I say te same thing here I say in other threads? =D =D
-
>I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen<
That's good: glad you're willing to fund this stuff!
>and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen.<
Which is where we run into problems.
Here's a thought: how about if we start taking money from YOU for things *I* think need to be done? Sound fair?
>This government couldn't run a brothel successfully<
Which isn't an exaggeration: they literally ran a brothel into the ground. When you can't run a brothel at a profit, there's a major problem. And you want to see the same government take over healthcare?
-
Using the resources of a collective body to further that bodies own goals is what modern government is all about. I think the government should do more than provide self-defense and a court system. You might want a return to 1776, but I do not, nor do most citizens. I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen, and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little after reading that... =(
How'd that Margaret Thatcher quote go?
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you will run out of other people's money..."
-
It does kinda leap out atcha, doesn't it?
-
I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen, and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen.
BRING IT! I'm prepared to do everything I can so that you and your ilk don't succeed.
You want socialism? You want your paradise? You seem so fond of the way other countries are run. Go to them. Stop trying to tear down the US...
-
That is, of course, a political opinion. Making a political opinion out to be immoral is not helpful to anyone. I disagree with the notion that 'socialism' is immoral or unjust. If you want to advocate a total libertarian society that is fine, go do it. But I fundamentally disagree with that notion.
Using the resources of a collective body to further that bodies own goals is what modern government is all about. I think the government should do more than provide self-defense and a court system. You might want a return to 1776, but I do not, nor do most citizens. I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen, and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen.
Shall we go into what some are prepared to do to resist such wrongful compulsion?
In many cases, one suspects it would be quite painful for you. Very briefly so, admittedly, but quite painful.
Myself, I'm not keen on the sort of slavery (yes, I said slavery and I *MEANT* slavery - call it what it is!) you appear willing to inflict on me. Take that as you will.
I applaud your willingness to sacrifice your assets for what you believe in. I condemn your willingness to steal *MY* assets for what you believe in.
-
That is quite an over-developed sense of entitlement, isn't it? :O
-
I simply try to demonstrate that it is possible to have a well-run tax-payer funded system.
Name *one* "well-run tax-payer funded system" that our .gov has or currently runs. Just one, and if you can't, then explain to me why you think that the .gov will finally get it right with health care ??
I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen, and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen.
Molon Labe
-
What I've read here is a central disagreement about the following.
I think the root fallacy of socialism lies in denying the right of an individual to keep what is his.
Conservatives tend to take this as a central axiom. To them, it's a truth, and arguments are and generally built off of it.
But! The other side doesn't generally regard this as a truth.
Ignoring the argument that socialism is immoral in any measure (as others don't see things this way), I think one way to view this as a continuum from anarchy (total freedom from the rule of law) to communism (government ownership of everything).
On anarchy: One is free to keep all the fruits of their labor, however I don't think such a system can thrive. Without some protections afforded by society, what's to keep another from blowing you away because you've managed to earn $10? What's the incentive to work hard if the government hasn't maintained a monopoly on violence, thus allowing anyone strong to take anything from someone weak?
On communism: What's the incentive to do anything at all if the effort you put forth has no correlation to the rewards you reap?
I don't see how either extreme can work.
In this continuum, I think there has to be some socialized services (police, courts, prisons), but not so much that the cost becomes a disincentive to strive for improvement of ones own life.
The problem is that most socialized services in the US are superfluous BS.
A central axiom I believe is that: In general, people will make choices that are most economically advantageous to them, without regard to others.
Unfortunately, because of this inherent nature of people, any socialist system created will be abused.
A further conclusion drawn is; if I'm running a big corporation, and corporate taxes in the US are 35%, and they are 20% in Russia, I will, by default move operations overseas. The world has gotten a lot smaller with the advent of modern technology -- moving operations across countries isn't as big of a deal as it once was.
[/random thoughts]
-
Using the resources of a collective body to further that bodies own goals is what modern government is all about. I think the government should do more than provide self-defense and a court system. You might want a return to 1776, but I do not, nor do most citizens. I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen, and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen.
In the interest of full disclosure... I am a Democrat. On some matters, I am even considered a liberal.
However, I must say, I think you would find it deeply educational to get some more travel under your belt. Spent a year or two in a former communist country and see what horrors lay at the end of the road you wish to travel down. Yes, yes, "but I just want this SMALL piece of your freedom, property and income!" We both know you want to take as much as you can take. Every last cent, every last freedom, until you burn the world with the physical manifestations of the evil of your ideology.
To put credit were credit is due, your side has been winning for a hundred years. Each day, we lose more freedom. We made some progress, in some areas, a lot of progress, but we steadily lose ground. Sooner or later, the tide will turn. People want to be free. They get complacent and lazy when times are good and are happy to sign away their life's blood for bread and circus. But sooner or later, they remember that they are people, not slaves.
-
Sooner or later, the tide will turn. People want to be free. They get complacent and lazy when times are good and are happy to sign away their life's blood for bread and circus. But sooner or later, they remember that they are people, not slaves.
You're way more optimistic than I am.
-
You're way more optimistic than I am.
Gotta believe in something. Otherwise, what's the point of living?
-
Gotta believe in something. Otherwise, what's the point of living?
On this forum, I believe the accepted answer is "eating bacon."
-
That is, of course, a political opinion. Making a political opinion out to be immoral is not helpful to anyone. I disagree with the notion that 'socialism' is immoral or unjust. If you want to advocate a total libertarian society that is fine, go do it. But I fundamentally disagree with that notion.
Using the resources of a collective body to further that bodies own goals is what modern government is all about. I think the government should do more than provide self-defense and a court system. You might want a return to 1776, but I do not, nor do most citizens. I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen, and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen.
Politics is about who gets what, where and why. This debate is an essential part of that! I would challange you to oppose socialist ideas on their own merit, instead of attacking them with a plea to a nebulous moral authority that most citizens do not agree with.
Socialism is not so much a political opinion, more of a means to control a population. And I am also one who believes that socialism is immoral as is any system that takes/steals from producers to give to the parasites of society. You want health care? Get a job and pay for it yourself.
So you are prepared to make me pay more taxes to fund something you want are you? Well bully for you. Have you ever heard the fable about the goose that laid the golden egg? At some point the evil rich people that you think need to fund all these wonderful entitlement programs are going to review the balance sheets and decide that working to support leaches and freeloaders isn't worth the hassle and they will change lines form the payout line to the handout line. Seriously, why should I bust my hump so .gov can take most of the fruits of MY labor and give it to welfare rats?
Your view of politics - Politics is about who gets what, where and why
leaves out the part about where it comes from.
There is nothing nebulous about my moral authority, I don't owe you or anyone except my wife or children a damn thing.
-
Politics is about who gets what, where and why.
No, it's your politics that is about that.
Once you accept that the role of government is to take (By tax or regulation) from Peter to pay Paul, then indeed, the question becomes, who's going to be Paul.
Big corporations whimpering for bailouts? Defense contractors? Unions? The unemployed and shiftless?
Once you believe that politics is all about currying favors - rather than 'nebulous' concepts like morality and rights. then politics is indeed only about might makes right.
But that's only true if we agree to accept the legitimacy of the founding concept - that politics is all about trading for favors, and that this is some form of immutable force that we are powerless to change, that the welfare state is here to stay and all we can do is bend over and grovel before its ever-expanding might. You believe - and you want us to believe - that resistance is futile, that a universe without a welfare state is impossible, and anybody who claims they oppose socialism is just a hypocrite because they have no choice but to accept the existing socialism in their lives, so obviously they can't take a principled stand against socialism.
But socialism is not a given, immutable fact of our lives.
There was a human world before the welfare state, and there will be a world after.
And I'm planning on living in it.
No.
-
Heh, I knew I would have lots to read :)
No reason to respond one-by-one since all the posts are about the same thing. Here are my comments on the root cause:
1) Saying politics is not about distributing resources ignores reality and human history.
2) Saying we should go back to a strict constitutional role of the government is, in my opinion, wrong. The country has been taxed since it began, either by states or by the feds. Taxes are socialism. I don't want to live in 1776, and I doubt most of you do either.
3) I think responsible socialism is fine, most of you think it is immoral. Ok, not much I can say to that, besides I think you are wrong. Too many countries have had great success. Australia is a moderate example, Sweden is another good example...these are 'horrible' socialist countries, but they seem to run better in many ways than our own beacon of freedom. The evidence shows that socialism != collapse. The world is full of socialist countries that operate at least as well as America. I have been to Communist countries, and again, saying socialism=Communism shows a lack of understanding about both things.
4) Many of you think the country is too socialist, I don't. I don't call you immoral for holding that opinion, I just think you are incorrect. One of the reasons I poked my head in here is because this board has a strong tendency to group-think. Hundreds of millions of people disagree with you, but many just call everyone else an idiot, or a 'libtard'. Well, great...but you won't win elections unless you get some better ammunition.
5) I also have to point out that I really do understand where you are all coming from. I went through a Libertarian phase myself, I even helped convince my local caucus to vote for Ron Paul once. So don't try to paint me as an unthinking Democrat when that is far from reality. I have actual reasons for believing what I believe. I think America can be a better place, and I am willing to fight politically for that. Apparently people like erictank are willing to threaten physical violence if democracy does not go their way. I am not willing to make the same statement. If the majority of the American people would have been able to elect a government that did not support the ideals I champion, I would be working within the system to change them, not threatening rebellion because you don't get your way. It isn't always the 'government' and black helicopters. It is often the other half of the country who has a differing opinion on how the country should work.
6) In my opinion, America today is a better place than America before social reforms began. You might beg to differ, and that is your right. So fight for it politically, like I do. What we have here is the essence of democracy. I get the impression that you think the 'government' is a faceless entity that seeks to attack you, but that is not so. I am a citizen, and right now the 'government' is doing some of the things I have wanted it to do. I am sure you will get your chance again, but you will get your chance sooner if you moderate your voice and try to reach out to my side, instead of lashing out every time you are confronted with a different world-view.
7) I would be one of the people paying taxes, so you can't say I want an entitlement state for my own direct benefit. I think our country would be stronger if we raised taxes to pay for public health care and public college level education. I do support 'opt-out' programs and tax credits though, if that is what it takes. I would rather have 75% of the country progress than 0%.
Of course, I imagine to most of you I am still a horribly mis-guided, stupid, possibly evil, cretin. So be it, I do not hold you to the same opinion even though we disagree on some politics. Don't expect too many more replies on this thread though, because I think we understand one another and I won't respond unless I feel it is constructive to do so.
-
Okay fine.
In the exercise of reasonable discussion:
Take your point on "responsible" socialisim (although I still contend that socialisim isn't the end means of the modern progressive).
How do you justify the continued creation and growth of an "eater" class? People who contribute nothing to society and yet continue to draw from society? How do you justify an unequal yoking of the classes?
Would you walk into a store and take something from their shelves, without paying for it, and just tell the shop-owner that you deserve it by virtue of breathing?
The inherent flaw in modern socialism is the creation of the entitlement class. How is it morally acceptable for an entire class able bodied citizenry to be allowed to take and take from the system, while all those “above” them are burdened with their care? The system in place in most of the Western world rewards the lazy underbelly of society, and conversely incrementally punishes the successful, who are charged with caring for them. Ever see a lazy ant? Of course not!
-
mellestad,
Your argument seems to hinge on a false dichotomy and what I consider a misreading of history.
First, the dichotomy: either more progress (socialism) or return to 1776. This assumes that socialism is what turned America from a rural, backwater nation in the 18th century to the economic and scientific powerhouse of the 20th, and that turning back the clock on government intervention would result in a return to 18th century conditions.
Now, the history: I suggest that it is not social programs that made America great, but rather the lack of government intervention and social programs (compared to the rest of the world) that persisted until the middle of the 20th century. In the last 50 or 60 years (maybe a bit more), socialism in America has progressed to the point where we're actually on par with the rest of the world, and what has happened to our standing with respect to them? Decline.
I posit that, without socialistic programs transferring wealth from the productive to the non-productive, we'd (the non-productive included) be in much better shape economically, technologically, and culturally. As a former libertarian, you should be familiar with these arguments. I'm curious as to what arguments changed your mind. There's nothing unrealistic about my argument so far, except that it relies on a restrictive (and, I would argue, correct) interpretation of the Constitution, something we've gotten away from in the last 50-100 years, with arguably negative results.
-
I'd rather live in a rural, backwater nation and be free than live in a world superpower and be a slave.
-
I'd rather live in a rural, backwater nation and be free than live in a world superpower and be a slave.
YOU DID IT AGAIN! oh the agony!
-
Just hitting one point...
>What we have here is the essence of democracy.<
You are absolutely correct. However, it has been a known fact that total democracy will only last until the body politic realizes they can vote themselves money (read: "entitlement programs") from the treasury, at which point it collapses. Which is pretty much where we're currently going.
It also ignores that the US was intended to be a republic...
-
Okay fine.
In the exercise of reasonable discussion:
Take your point on "responsible" socialisim (although I still contend that socialisim isn't the end means of the modern progressive).
How do you justify the continued creation and growth of an "eater" class? People who contribute nothing to society and yet continue to draw from society? How do you justify an unequal yoking of the classes?
Would you walk into a store and take something from their shelves, without paying for it, and just tell the shop-owner that you deserve it by virtue of breathing?
The inherent flaw in modern socialism is the creation of the entitlement class. How is it morally acceptable for an entire class able bodied citizenry to be allowed to take and take from the system, while all those “above” them are burdened with their care? The system in place in most of the Western world rewards the lazy underbelly of society, and conversely incrementally punishes the successful, who are charged with caring for them. Ever see a lazy ant? Of course not!
I don't think socialism has to equal entitlement though. Granted, I am willing to accept a certain percentage because no system is perfect. With that understanding, I agree with you! I think we should work to make sure that percentage remains as low as possible for legitimate users of social services vs. non-productive waste.
mellestad,
Your argument seems to hinge on a false dichotomy and what I consider a misreading of history.
First, the dichotomy: either more progress (socialism) or return to 1776. This assumes that socialism is what turned America from a rural, backwater nation in the 18th century to the economic and scientific powerhouse of the 20th, and that turning back the clock on government intervention would result in a return to 18th century conditions.
Now, the history: I suggest that it is not social programs that made America great, but rather the lack of government intervention and social programs (compared to the rest of the world) that persisted until the middle of the 20th century. In the last 50 or 60 years (maybe a bit more), socialism in America has progressed to the point where we're actually on par with the rest of the world, and what has happened to our standing with respect to them? Decline.
I posit that, without socialistic programs transferring wealth from the productive to the non-productive, we'd (the non-productive included) be in much better shape economically, technologically, and culturally. As a former libertarian, you should be familiar with these arguments. I'm curious as to what arguments changed your mind. There's nothing unrealistic about my argument so far, except that it relies on a restrictive (and, I would argue, correct) interpretation of the Constitution, something we've gotten away from in the last 50-100 years, with arguably negative results.
My point would be that I can show you socialist countries that do very well, but can you show me a modern country that operates using your values, and is successful at the level of a first world nation? If you try to correlate American socialism with American regress, I can just as easily show you how our nation become more powerful as we increased socialism. I would not correlate the two though, because I think American power is more complex than the left vs. right of our domestic politics. Again, I have a lot of sympathy for the libertarian ideal, I just don't see any hard evidence that it can function well, just lots of conjecture and maybes. If you could show me a well functioning libertarian society, I would love to live there (Like in the book Freehold, for you nerds).
I'd rather live in a rural, backwater nation and be free than live in a world superpower and be a slave.
Taking away the appeal to emotion by using the word slave, I would rather live in a modern fully-socialist country like Norway than live in a rural, backwater nation with complete freedom. If I wanted total freedom I could just live off the grid.
Good discussion so far! I don't poke my head in to convert anyone, or because I enjoy getting beat up...I do it because it is important to challenge my own political beliefs, and adapt them when needed. APS always brings back results in that regard!
Just hitting one point...
>What we have here is the essence of democracy.<
You are absolutely correct. However, it has been a known fact that total democracy will only last until the body politic realizes they can vote themselves money (read: "entitlement programs") from the treasury, at which point it collapses. Which is pretty much where we're currently going.
It also ignores that the US was intended to be a republic...
When people use democracy, like I do, we don't mean mass rule, we mean the process of democratic representation in general. The US is still a republic, if it were not we would be voting on the health care bill directly. Also, I do not advocate pulling money for social services from nowhere, I understand how taxation works, and accept that painful reality.
-
Taking away the appeal to emotion by using the word slave, I would rather live in a modern fully-socialist country like Norway than live in a rural, backwater nation with complete freedom. If
I live in a modern, fully-socialist country. I have experienced the glories of socialism.
The problem, as I said, for me, has nothing to do with taxes, and everything to do with the piles of regulations and infringements and tiny rules that pile up and - TOGETHER - weigh a whole lot.
-
Well, I had a really long post set up that addressed MicroBalrog and Strings, but since mellestad has replied, I'll try this:
My point would be that I can show you socialist countries that do very well, but can you show me a modern country that operates using your values, and is successful at the level of a first world nation? If you try to correlate American socialism with American regress, I can just as easily show you how our nation become more powerful as we increased socialism. I would not correlate the two though, because I think American power is more complex than the left vs. right of our domestic politics. Again, I have a lot of sympathy for the libertarian ideal, I just don't see any hard evidence that it can function well, just lots of conjecture and maybes.
I would give as examples the United States before World War II and England spanning from the 17th (ish? maybe a bit earlier?) through 19th centuries. Both, during those times, had very few restrictions on the accumulation of capital while having limited governments that typically restricted themselves to protecting the rights of the people and not redistributing wealth. Both cases resulted in a previously unimportant nation emerging onto the world stage despite the efforts of the rest of the world to outstrip them.
Both cases ended with massive expansions of government power and control over the lives of its citizens, and, after that, both cases went (very slowly) from being arguably the most prosperous nation in the world to a much less relatively prosperous position. The momentum achieved by both kept their socialist policies from having immediate effect, but eventually their consumption of capital began to become overwhelming.
(Actually drawing a line is difficult because the advance of socialism was a slow process in both cases. I picked around the time the U.K.'s Fabian society published their famous manifesto and around the time of the New Deal. Both cases were a point when the progress of socialistic policy became more rapid)
My position has less to do with right/left (however you define them) and more to do with economics. I think that less control and less interventionism allows people to create more wealth. Every dollar you take from a rich man and give to a poor man hurts twice; it discourages the rich man from making more dollars and discourages the poor man from bettering himself.
Pro-socialist-policy people seem to have the idea that they can, with a bit of tinkering, get rid of the losers that exist in a purely capitalist system. I have seen no evidence that this is true. Entitlement systems tend to result in ever-growing underclasses dependent on handouts.
This results in an endlessly spiraling cost that inevitably drains the lifeblood of the nation. It can take a century, but it eventually happens.
The pro-control side always claims that all they need is a little bit more control and everything will be hunky-dory, but that's never the case. Usually, the unintended consequences of a piece of regulation are the very cause of the new problem anyway.
You said earlier that you think that the one more little step of nationalized healthcare is in the right direction. I've seen some of the pro-nationalization side's evidence and disagree with their conclusion, based on the evidence. I posit that further government control of the health sector, no matter how well-intentioned, will result in unintended consequences which will (sooner or later) lower the quality of our care.
-
If you want to look at it honestly, socialism works quite well: in small groups. Really, the old hunter/gatherer tribes were basically socialist.
Unfortunately, once you get to larger groups, rot springs up. And honestly, there is no way of keeping that rot under control except to keep social programs (any of the entitlement programs) to a bare minimum...
Let's take a serious look at healthcare. Not with an eye towards the government taking it over, but with an eye towards fixing the system (again: the government couldn't run a brothel successfully: they won't be any better at healthcare). Therein lies the problem with all the proposals coming out of Washington right now: they ALL want the government taking things over...
-
I don't think socialism has to equal entitlement though. Granted, I am willing to accept a certain percentage because no system is perfect. With that understanding, I agree with you! I think we should work to make sure that percentage remains as low as possible for legitimate users of social services vs. non-productive waste.
\
But the modern societal norm is that its acceptable to live on the government dole. Therefore, your socialist utopia is a broken model. It holds society back rather than promoting it. For it to work, it would have to be rebuilt from the ground up.
Progressive socialism isn't designed to help people. It is designed to build a dependent class who will keep a certain group of enablers in power. Some animals are more equal than others.
-
But the modern societal norm is that its acceptable to live on the government dole. Therefore, your socialist utopia is a broken model. It holds society back rather than promoting it. For it to work, it would have to be rebuilt from the ground up.
Progressive socialism isn't designed to help people. It is designed to build a dependent class who will keep a certain group of enablers in power. Some animals are more equal than others.
I never claimed a utopia would result, and I don't think the average American finds if 'acceptable' to live on the dole. The people who game the system are not going to be productive no matter what the system is. This, again seems like the slippery slope argument, and I don't find that convincing.
Rudy: Using England in the 18th century does not help much. If I had to pick a crappy time to live as a laborer, 18th century England would not be it! Maybe that is the difference. I am not claiming that socialism will increase the economy, but I don't think economic progress is the most important ideal we should be striving for. The societies that function like that are great, but only if you are doing well. When you do poorly, there is no safety net. You get the Great Depression and 18th century London.
Did those systems allow people to become wealthy? Yes. But wealth is not the ultimate measure of humanity.
Again, I think we all understand one another. I respect your opinions, I understand your opinions, but I disagree with them.
-
I live in a modern, fully-socialist country. I have experienced the glories of socialism.
The problem, as I said, for me, has nothing to do with taxes, and everything to do with the piles of regulations and infringements and tiny rules that pile up and - TOGETHER - weigh a whole lot.
there you go interjecting your real life experience against his study of references. unfair!
jeebus there is a certain irony to my making that observation using you ain't there...... :angel: :O
-
Do you think I could not make the same argument based on the study of references, CS&D? I agree it's cheating, but mellestad clearly thinks that the opinion of American-based APSers doesn't cont because they've not 'visited' the socialist countries. Perhaps the fact I live in one will be influential?
The ability of society to progress economically is a very powerful moral value, I think. Consider this:
Under a capitalist system, even one as truncated and socialist as the one we have, economic progress is ever-present, even during period of slow-downs such as the one we have today. Wealth is introduced and distributed unequally – so when the wealthy enjoy, say, 2X% growth, the poor enjoy 1X or even half of X. But it is still a great thing, because while the relative gap between the poor and rich increases in monetary terms, everybody's lifestyle improves. The modern American poor suffer from obesity as a problem. Centuries ago, the prevailing health issue was starvation.
Formally speaking – in terms of constant dollars – the wage of a poor man in today's America has not changed much over the last century (perhaps the economists on this forum can correct me if I am wrong!) - but the poor man in today's America has wealth available to him that'd make the Emperors of Rome weep in envy.
I would argue that this is a form of moral progress, too. People in today's world are healthier, and the have better access to food and knowledge and luxuries than at any time in human history. I think that reducing human suffering and making people happier is a human moral imperative.
Capitalist economists believe that in a condition of economic liberty, structures will emerge that, in the long run, will facilitate the movement towards an even greater prosperity for us all. It is true that it might seem this is not important – but perhaps that's because you are satisfied, in general ,with the level of prosperity you experience in person and in your community.
Contemplate people in India and tell me that it would not be a moral crime to bar them from achieving, for themselves, the sort of wealth you enjoy today. No? It would be?
If the economic growth inherent to capitalism continues apace, then eventually we will achieve a level of wealth that will allow us to look at modern America the same way we look today at the 18th century or at modern India. I don't see how it is not a moral value that modern society in that direction.
-
Rudy: Using England in the 18th century does not help much. If I had to pick a crappy time to live as a laborer, 18th century England would not be it! Maybe that is the difference. I am not claiming that socialism will increase the economy, but I don't think economic progress is the most important ideal we should be striving for. The societies that function like that are great, but only if you are doing well. When you do poorly, there is no safety net. You get the Great Depression and 18th century London.
It's important to note here that we're not choosing between everyone being fat and happy and a bunch of people being destitute.
The fact that growing English industry was able to employ those who would have previously fallen into a beggar/pariah class is a good thing. Yes, their wages were low, but they elected to take the jobs rather than starve or steal. Subsequently, their productivity increased and things got better for them. (In the meantime, England was quickly moving from its position as one of a few powers to arguably the biggest mover and shaker in the world.) Population growth and division of labor go hand-in-hand. The laborers were soon able to raise their positions rather than starve (or steal) thanks to the jobs provided by capitalistic investment, as well as lower prices of goods resulting from larger supplies. Large changes in the structure of production (e.g. the Industrial Revolution) do result in some people becoming short-term losers. If they're industrious, they can get back on their feet and become productive again.
If the ideal is not high productivity, I would be curious as to what the ideal should be. Happiness and humanity are not only subjective, but also only realizable through productivity. There's no other way to raise everyone's standards of living. Like I said before, every dollar of redistribution hurts twice. I contend that it isn't the government's place to ensure everyone has a safety net. It's our responsibility to provide our own safety nets. Creating massive systems of entitlement results in moral hazard that hurts more than it helps.
Higher production and a system of voluntary exchange enables more people to meet their needs, and requires people to find ways to be productive. Programs put in place to redistribute wealth may temporarily raise the standards of living of the beneficiary, but at the cost of destroying their drives to produce as well as the drives of those whose production has been taken.
It would be great if everyone would just work as hard as they can and donate everything they don't need to charity (and as Strings says, this can work okay in a tightly-knit group), but I'm strongly against codifying such a philosophy into law. It would result in the collapse of civilization. Steps toward such law has a lesser effect, but still, in my opinion, a negative one.
As far as humanity, I could argue that living under the thumb of an authoritarian state does little to enhance my humanity, no matter how fat and happy I am. Would you call the Deltas in Brave New World exemplars of humanity?
Like I said in my earlier post, I'm curious as to what arguments brought you from a libertarian perspective to your current perspective. I find myself unable to understand your opinions from a rational perspective. I understand that you want unfortunate people to be taken care of and happy, and so do I, but my considered opinion is that the means you suggest are counterproductive in the long run.
Despite our differences in opinion, I want to thank you for discussing this.
-
you could indeed but i take your first hand observations and experiences much more seriously. its old fashioned of me i know but they are much more heavily weighted in my thinking than your hypothesis's.
-
ah, but you forget: I dedicated four years of my life to studying the lifes and experiences of people who lived centuries before me, and I just signed up to spend two more years doing the same, and am probably going to spend the rest of my life doing that.
I don't mean that it makes me smart, but then, if it's impossible to understand, say, the lifestyle of people a generation removed without experiencing it myself, by studying the documents and statistics and source of that era, then it would sort of make the whole study of History sort of pointless.
-
But socialism could work! Never mind that capitalism, freedom and free markets are the engines that built the modern, prosperous West. Socialism could work! Never mind that socialism retards prosperity and progress all over the world. Socialism could work!
-
mb and your point? =D ;/ :lol: :angel:
-
ah, but you forget: I dedicated four years of my life to studying the lifes and experiences of people who lived centuries before me, and I just signed up to spend two more years doing the same, and am probably going to spend the rest of my life doing that.
I don't mean that it makes me smart, but then, if it's impossible to understand, say, the lifestyle of people a generation removed without experiencing it myself, by studying the documents and statistics and source of that era, then it would sort of make the whole study of History sort of pointless.
I never made an argument from authority. Someone told me I needed to visit post-communist/communist countries before I came to my opinions, I pointed out that I had. Your education is great, and I listen to your opinion respectfully. But I don't expect you to change your mind because many well educated social scientists are liberal, do I? I do understand what you are saying though. But if you want to compare based on modern social structures, how do you account for the fact that Scandinavian countries enjoy a higher rating on the human development index? My point is not that socialism is a cure-all, but rather it is part of a balanced governmental structure. In this discussion, I have seen the idea that it should be rejected completely, and I think that is a misguided idea.
Cassandra: Arguing that someones opinion is invalid based on age/experience is not a reasonable tactic, and I would encourage you to avoid it. 1) You assume I lack experience and credentials 2) You should be debating my ideas on their own merit in the first place. If I told you I had lived in China for twenty years, would that sway you? I think not. I don't require that you live in Sweden before you can prove me wrong.
Rudy: My ideal is roughly that of the Human Development Index. Naturally, 'happiness' is subjective and very complex, but the HDI is a rough indicator that also takes economic factors into consideration. Using that as a metric, it is clear that capitalism does not equal happiness. Now please don't say I am claiming Communism makes people happy, my point is simply that system of government leaning more heavily towards socialism commonly show positive outcomes.
I moved away from libertarianism because a) I think it makes ill-founded assumptions about human nature b) I have not seen an systems demonstrated that shows it works when given the kind of free reign many libertarians want.
a-expanded) I think you can show that human empathy declines in direct proportion to group size. Libertarianism relies a great deal on the idea that free markets will eventually sort things out, but I think greed and blatant self interest overcome empathy at the level of a nation-state. My argument would be that societies need rules to thrive. Again, not Communist. Here is a scale, you are here: --|------- I am here ----|---- Left is total free market, right is total State Control.
b) The examples so far of successful free-market societies are unconvincing to me.
This is getting circular though, and I am not going to drag this out endlessly. Again, I think we all understand each other, and we are at an impasse.
-
If I told you I had lived in China for twenty years, would that sway you? I think not.
it might not sway me but it would give you, and by association your beliefs, more credibility. interestingly enough my dad married very nice chinese lady and in her very large family so far none of them, and they have real world experience with socialism, is a fan of it. its always seemed odd to me that the "socialist paradises" seem to require fences to keep their folks in, as opposed to restricting folksw like you from getting in to paradise.
-
, how do you account for the fact that Scandinavian countries enjoy a higher rating on the human development index?
Scandinavians live longer on average and have more children of school age [as a percentage] enrolled in schools. Have you seen how the HDI is composed? It is comprised of four factors – adult literacy level (not being computed by official sources in any of the countries in question), GDP (purchaing power per capita, parity, life expectancy and a gross enrollment level [percentage of school-aged kids actually in schools].
GDP per capita is higher in the US than in any of those countries except for Norway. here is a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita). Adult literacy is AFAIK not offically computed in any of the nations in question. So only life expectancy and Gross Erolment remain as the factors in which said countries could really 'beat' America.
Because, in the United States, 2.2% of the total school-age population is being homeschooled, which is illegal in the Scandinavian countries, they're going to have an obvious edge in the gross enrolment ratio department. I do not see how this has anything to do with the quality of life in these countries. In fact I would say it makes the quality of life there worse, not better.
Furthermore, the United States has a lower life expectancy than the Scandinavian nations. It's possible that you're right and this is the result of the quality of health care in the US, however I would like to suggest that the higher murder rate is also responsible.
I am not sure how any of those factors is a measure of 'happiness'.
P.S.
You have wondered into a long-standing debate between me and C&SD.
You see, CS&D is an older fellow than me, and has traveled the world and done a lot of things, and he feels that this is the main basis for judging the world and forming opinions. He feels, with some justification, that an extensive personal experience iis a superior form of learning the world than book learning.
I am far younger than CS&D, but I try to base my opinions based on my historical knowledge and by trying to gain as much theoretical knowledge on those issues on which I pass judgement. I think that a person's private experience, though persuasive, is more anecdotal - I don't, for example, use my experience with the Israeli health care system as an argument against public health care - and he plural of anecdote does not equal data, IMO.
So we often cross proverbial swords on this.
-
and the insolent pup has been known to make some decent points :angel: easily recognized since its at those times i agree with him =D
you will find that i never question md in those areas where he hasmore experience than me and only hesitantly in areas where hes got more schoolin. hes driven me to read up more than once
-
1) Politics has been many things. Quests for power, glory, wealth, control, whatever. Politics is moreso about manipulating people than it is about moving resources from point A to point B. I believe it often has less to do with the distribution of resources as it does with control over the distribution of resources.
2) Taxes are not inherently socialist. Social control and administration of the means of production is socialism, specially the unequal distribution of wealth and compensation according to work done. True, it is widely held opinion, among capitalists and socialists, that socialism == high taxes, entitlement programs, etc. This is not necessarily the case, just common enough that people automatically assume so. I do love the nice false dichotomy you tossed in, very clever I must say and fairly smoothly delivered. One can obey the Constitution and live in the modern world. It is hard to imagine, as we've ignored much of the Constitution for so long, but it is entirely possible.
I must ask, you obviously have great disdain for the Constitution. Would you prefer, in your preferred socialist America, to junk the entire Constitution, or just the parts you happen to dislike?
3) Oddly, we have a member here from Sweden who would love to escape his socialist paradise for our evil capitalist empire of oppression and inequality. Same with MicroBalrog too, oddly. I met many folks from both examples you cited who wished to come to America. I tried to always ask why, and the usual answer was "For a better life". Funny, that.
As for socialism != collapse, socialism has only taken root since 1951 and progressed relatively slowly since. Even communism lasted 70 years. Socialism and communism are not the same thing, on paper. In real world, they're not exactly unrelated. Historically, there has been strong ties and much overlap between the two. To claim that no such link exists would be disingenuous at best.
4) You are entitled to hold whatever opinion you wish. I don't care for the juvenile insults like "libtard", "rethugs", "demorats" or the like. In general, this board tries to discourage it. But folks always come up with terms for folks they don't like. It's not exactly dripping from every post, as you may have noticed. Also, note that not a single person wants you banned. Most posters are relatively eager to engage in a relatively civilized philosophical conversation, with a higher degree of reason and logic than is norm to the internet. Perfection we ain't. We're merely an armed polite society, by and by.
As for group-think, you obviously haven't read any of the 9mm vs 45 or Linux vs Mac vs Windows threads. We have lawyers, German politicians, wacko libertarians, liberals, cops, geeks, grammar nazis, etc. Just because we manage to get along in a relatively polite manner doesn't we all have the same opinion.
5) If you had a "libertarian phase", I'll be suitably impressed. How long did it last? Did you put in plenty of research and thought, or did you give it a passing glance? I'm not being judgemental, I'm obviously not you so I don't know how serious you were about the matter. Not saying you had have a shrine to Rand in your living room or whatnot, but it'd be hard to take your former libertarian "creds" seriously if it was a six month fad.
And gods damn it, they're dark green. NOT black. Green actually has better IR properties. Some of us work with said "black helicopters" and prefer a bit of accuracy.
6) I'm a fan of the Constitution. I encourage and support applying it to every American, regardless of race, gender, creed or any other indicator. I've donated plenty of money to the EFF, which is the most effective civil rights organization in the US. I suppose that's "social reform". I do not consider creating inequality as social reform, which is what socialism is. Socialism by definition is the unequal distribution of wealth and compensation according to work done.
I have encouraged RKBA folks to reach out to folks outside their normal niche. But asking them to sell out their souls and their freedom to socialists would be a waste of time. Socialists by definition wish to restrict freedom (granted, primarily economic freedom), not encourage it.
Remember, our government is SOLELY granted abilities from the Constitution. It specifically states that only matters specifically delineated in the Constitution are allowed to the federal government. Everything else is reserved to the States or the people. One of the major points of the Constitution was to prevent the tyranny of the masses. Civil rights are not entitled to restriction from a 51% vote. The Constitution doesn't GRANT any rights, only specifies some of the rights you are born with by virtue of being a human. I fully realize this has not always been the implementation. It took certain minorities and women many years to get the recognition they were entitled to from the day the Constitution was signed. Those infringements are ENTIRELY due to people like yourself believing that civil rights can be infringed, if you just have enough votes.
Of course, I imagine to most of you I am still a horribly mis-guided, stupid, possibly evil, cretin. So be it, I do not hold you to the same opinion even though we disagree on some politics.
To be fair... We want to take nothing from you. We don't want to take your money, your freedom, your liberties, your lifestyle, your opinions, nothing. You desire to take from others involuntarily to give to those who have not earned it, restrict the economic freedom of others, restrict our lifestyles, etc. I don't know if you'd like to take our civil liberties and opinions, but your contempt of the Constitution which protects said liberties and opinions is suggestive. I'm glad you don't have those opinions towards us... But I'm not sure how you could think that we are misguided, stupid or evil when we wish you no harm nor wish to infringe any of your civil rights, liberties and freedoms.
-
I don't care if I live longer, am healthier, or get a better education: I'd rather have freedom.
-
Sweden works well? Ahahahahahaha....hahahaha!
No, it doesn't. We have a large number of people living on welfare concentrated mainly in the suburbs-turning-ghetto areas of mainly the three largest cities, but the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th is also having problems from what I've understood.
Good luck if you get sick with something not life threatening. Emergency care works, but not the other. The police force is so understaffed it's silly. Even cities with perhaps 50-70000 inhabitants are lucky to have 4-5 cops. Police stations are often closed. Most crimes such as burglary, assault, robberies (street robberies), rapes, arsons, vandalism etc go unsolved, and lots of the bank/cash deposit/armored car robberies goes unsolved as well. We had a rather spectacular one this morning, a bunch of robbers first stole a helicopter outside Stockholm, waltzed in to the airfield where the Stockholm Police Department keeps their 2 (of which one was away on maintenance) helicopters, planted a bomb/dummy bomb near it, took the stolen helicopter and landed it on the roof of a cash deposit. Good timing, considering that the 25th is generally the pay day for the entire country. It's currently not known how much they got away with, but "hundreds of millions of kronor" wouldn't be far fetched (ie atleast $12-13 million), and I seriously doubt the police will ever catch the ones responsible.
What else...oh yes, if you are retired, perhaps going a bit senile and live in an assisted living home? Ye gods have mercy on you. You've probably worked your entire life, paid enormous amounts of taxes, and you get jack *expletive deleted*it for your troubles. After all, we get 100.000 new "swedes" each year that we have to support, and the old folks are senile anyway, so they won't complain. The ones that we aren't supporting here we are instead sending countless millions to in futile attempts to help them build up their nations. I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen :rolleyes:.
What else...oh, while the rest of Europe have been enjoying such sinful things as privately run pharmacies (which we HAD until 1970 or so, but the government at that time obviously had to stick their nose where it didn't belong), we are currently de-regulating it, to much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the socialist scum. Personally I'm going to go out and buy a pack of aspirin from my nearest grocery store once that market has been de-regulated just to celebrate. Now if we could only get rid of the government monopoly on selling booze, wine and beer above 3.5 ABV...
Oh, forgot schools. They mostly suck, atleast the public. The independent schools (which are funded by school vouchers) have an extraordinarily good reputation though. I figure such things as classes small enough that the teacher can make sure that everyone gets the attention needed has something to do with it.
What else...oh yes, no respect for victims of crime, which to me is a symptom of the willy-nilly socialism gone rampant, where people of undefined qualifications try to shift the blame from the criminal to "the system", "institutional racism", "police brutality" and other poor excuses. The few rapists who are arrested seldom see much time behind bars, and if they are between 15 and 18 (sometimes even as much as 15 and 21) they get reduced sentences "because of their young age". Those under 15 can't be punished at all, not even for raping, torturing and murdering. How's that for a justice system? :mad:
This also reflects in the fact that while self defence is legal in theory, they WILL find a way to hang you for it. The law states that you are allowed to use "reasonable amounts of force". The definition of "reasonable" is left to the court. Now what can go wrong when you have a bunch of people who are out of touch with reality trying to decide if I acted reasonably when I cracked open some robbers head with my baton? No chance for 20/20 hindsight from THEM, right, nor is there any chance for them being high and mighty and expecting me to act according to their expectations (which probably comes down to either "running", "taking it up the ass", or "reasoning". Running is often not an option, I will not bend over to scum, and I won't even consider reasoning with rabid animals).
Still want to live here? The ghetto areas are particularly fine this time of year, what with all the burning cars, broken windows and such. You will probably not get robbed more than once or twice, and your girlfriend and daughters will adapt to being called whores, sluts, skanks, f*ckin whitey/Swede, f*cking Christian and other such lovely names.
-
I was wondering when the Viking was going to chime in on how well Sweden is doing. =)
-
I was wondering when the Viking was going to chime in on how well Sweden is doing. =)
I can't resist speaking out when I read such foolishness. =)
I could've gone on a bit further as well, didn't mention say our armed forces for example. I think I share the feelings of those who saw the writing on the wall back in 38-39, when our then Prime minister declared that "our preparations are good"...they weren't, and they aren't now, and now I'm wondering when the Russians are going to find a reason to take over Gotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland), citing our lack of will and strenght to protect that future gas pipeline that is being laid from Russia to Germany...as the Arctic Star incident showed, we aren't exactly world champions in responding to potential threats or emergency situations...
-
...
That makes more sense, thanks for pointing out the reasoning behind the the stuff between you and Cass!
Honest question, not trying to fight: Is the murder rate really that much of an influence on mortality? US is around 5-6 per 100k, I imagine Switzerland is below 1 per 100k. I am not into statistics, but even if those murders were all occurring at young ages I wouldn't think it would do much to the overall statistical life expectancy. My guess (pulled from nowhere) would be that American have a more unhealthy lifestyle. More fatty food, less exercise, more smoking. Again, total conjecture and curiosity here.
The HDI is very crude, as you know. If we want to get into subjective happiness, the US rarely falls into the top ten:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_lif_sat-lifestyle-life-satisfaction
http://www.le.ac.uk/users/aw57/world/sample.html
Again, my point is that the US is not the #1 nation in the world on many, many things and so my point would be that it is hard to use our success as a justification for anti-socialism, when socialism can obviously work very well for its citizens.
Rev:
Disdain for the constitution? Only if you make the assumption that every Supreme court in recent history has 'great disdain' for the constitution. The constitution is not a divinely inspired document, it was created by a political process using existing data and flavored with compromise. I doubt there has been an American government who operated purely based on the Constitution in over 200 years. Again, I have to point out that not agreeing with you politically does not mean I hate the country and everything you believe in.
Out of curiosity, how long should I have been a libertarian before I have the credentials to discuss it with you? My libertarian phase was probably for ~ two years. However, if I had never had any libertarian phase I would still feel justified in discussing about it. From my perspective, that was two years I spent being misguided and my energy was wasted for an ideal I now think is unsupportable.
Dark green...I will remember that!
About The Viking's post:
This is why I don't like using anecdotal evidence. If we polled 100 Swedes and 100 Americans, the Swedes would be happier with their government, on average than the Americans. Individual opinion, while useful, is too biased to make an informed decision on public policy. If I was on a foreign politics board and I got all of my opinions about America from Michael Moore without any other empirical investigation, how do you think I would react to American policy? I value The Vikings time, but I can easily find people who love Sweden, or Americans who hate America so when I am making decisions about what political process to champion, I have to use my head more than my heart.
-
Only if you make the assumption that every Supreme court in recent history has 'great disdain' for the constitution.
I call it "educated knowledge".
Many of the recent courts were explicitly guided by doctrines other than a respect for the Constitution's original intent.
The constitution is not a divinely inspired document, it was created by a political process using existing data and flavored with compromise.
So are all laws. Would you argue we should creativel interpret the law when it suits are?
THe Constitution is law. It's not just a set of vague guidelines, nor is it an a la carte menu.
-
I call it "educated knowledge".
Many of the recent courts were explicitly guided by doctrines other than a respect for the Constitution's original intent.
So are all laws. Would you argue we should creativel interpret the law when it suits are?
THe Constitution is law. It's not just a set of vague guidelines, nor is it an a la carte menu.
Man, you are fast!
Saying that ignores the history of American jurisprudence though. If it were as clear as that, no-one would be having this discussion, because Judges would have tended to keep things on a tighter reign. Government, the constitution and laws are all 'living' things. Again, this is a political point on which people disagree, not a black and white problem where everyone who disagrees is wrong. Granted, if you are a strict constitutionalist you surely disagree with me there!
I probably won't be able to post more today. Been fun!
-
Huh? I'm not happy with my government now, but I would be even less happier with the other option, whom I consider more vile, evil and horrifying than Sauron and Obama combined. You think I would be happy with even MORE taxation on gas?
Even more taxes being taken from my pay check? More public sector jobs that produce jack *expletive deleted*it? I've heard of places in the public sector over here where the problem isn't as much burnout as it is "bore out". They collect their pay checks without doing anything specific, and are in some cases not only allowed, but encouraged to create their own tasks! Why the HELL should I pay for parasites like that? Think I like that?
Think I like even more people continuing to live on welfare while I bust my ass off working? Think I'm happy with being bled dry by a thousand cuts in the form of money for worthless artists who should get a haircut and a real job? Think I want even more money to be thrown at the worthless parasitic humans in the ghettos who think that car burning is a valid form of expressing themselves?
News for you, I don't! My money is being taken, and I feel that I get less and less for it in compensation. Considering the tax rates over here, I should have f*cking excellent police service, better medical service, and armed forces that could reasonably expect to defeat a more fearsome enemy than a Girl Scout troop, and countless of other things. What I get isn't even mediocre police service, call the local hospital and they'll call back when possible and I might get an appointment, and our armed forces would have something more to show for the 40-50 billion or so krona that we spend on them per annum.
If all of these things and the rest worked, I would probably still be unhappy about the money being STOLEN from me, but I would grudgingly admit that it works and I atleast get good compensation for it, but now I'm not merely unhappy, I'm seething with anger and rage and I want to repeatedly punch people in the face with a brick.
Most people that I discuss with on Swedish forums, even the ones who voted for the current administration, aren't fond of them, but feel the same as me, the current is bad, the alternative is not an option for any of them. Hell, even many of those who DIDN'T vote for the current administration fears and abhors the other alternative. While they may be social democrats, they aren't indoctrinated in their current ideas, which seems to be a broken record playing only "raise taxes, increase public sector, make sure you are able to collect unemployment forever, blabla". That if anything should tell you what many people over here feel. If the opposition takes control in the next election, I'm leaving the country post haste...
-
You say STOLEN as if he should care. He's made it clear that he doesn't have a problem stealing from you.
-
Saying that ignores the history of American jurisprudence though.
On the contrary, this draws upon the history of American jurisprudence. Now, I know that the ords 'activist judges' are abused as all get-out by anybody who sees a decision they won't like, but it's true that judges like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, and some of their descendants and successors, subscribed to a view wherein the intent of the founders counted for little, and that the constitution can be freely reinterpreted in light of social progress.
Now, you may like the concept of a living constitution – but you cannot at once say you adhere to the constitution meaning and reinterpret it freely. Maybe it would be better for the nation – I can certainly not say, for I am not a US citizen - if the American judiciary stuck b judicial activism as a doctrine. But you cannot lay a claim to both adhering a constitution and to reinterpreting it freely, at once. That is a logical contradiction.
A very good book on this subject – although of course biased, since it is written by a Cato-affiliated expert! - is “How the Progressives Re-Wrote the Constitution”, by Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago.
-
I'd imagine if you polled 100 looters on welfare from America and Sweden, the Nordic parasites would be far happier.
-
I'd imagine if you polled 100 looters on welfare from America and Sweden, the Nordic parasites would be far happier.
I'm not sure actually. Aren't there states that offer you massive handouts if you pop out a bunch of sprogs? Aren't there places in the US where some families are currently on the third generation of welfare? While we do have an extensive welfare system here, the massive handouts I've read about (Preacherman wrote about this on his blog just the other day, $500 per month and child in handouts :O) don't exist here. OTOH, we do have "free" medical care and whatnot...guess it evens out...
-
I'm not sure actually. Aren't there states that offer you massive handouts if you pop out a bunch of sprogs? Aren't there places in the US where some families are currently on the third generation of welfare? While we do have an extensive welfare system here, the massive handouts I've read about (Preacherman wrote about this on his blog just the other day, $500 per month and child in handouts :O) don't exist here. OTOH, we do have "free" medical care and whatnot...guess it evens out...
Aren't your universities free as well? All those "students" living on the dole...
-
Aren't your universities free as well? All those "students" living on the dole...
Universities are free yes, but fortunatly most of the dole money has to be repaid.
Quite a lot of people do get worthless degress though. I guess they end up at the local McDonald's or somesuch. Who would've imagined that their 6 years of gender studies, women's studies, feminist philosophy, comparative folk dancing and other Mickey Mouse-subjects would be so undesirable? Woe be upon them, guess they should've gone with engineering, or nursing, or accounting or whatnot :rolleyes:.
-
Universities are free yes, but fortunatly most of the dole money has to be repaid.
Quite a lot of people do get worthless degress though. I guess they end up at the local McDonald's or somesuch. Who would've imagined that their 6 years of gender studies, women's studies, feminist philosophy, comparative folk dancing and other Mickey Mouse-subjects would be so undesirable? Woe be upon them, guess they should've gone with engineering, or nursing, or accounting or whatnot :rolleyes:.
I'm gonna move to Sweden to get a free accounting degree. I'll tell 'em I'm an illegal Muslim immigrant so they don't discriminate against me. :D
-
I'm gonna move to Sweden to get a free accounting degree. I'll tell 'em I'm an illegal Muslim immigrant so they don't discriminate against me. :D
Why bother? Just come. It's still free for EVERYONE, unless they changed it very recently (there was talk about it, they were to start charging money from students from non-EU countries). So unless they've changed it, it's still a free-for-all :P. Just remember that bringing your guns will present some difficulties (and boy are you going to wish you were carrying in some places...)
-
Why bother? Just come. It's still free for EVERYONE, unless they changed it very recently (there was talk about it, they were to start charging money from students from non-EU countries). So unless they've changed it, it's still a free-for-all :P. Just remember that bringing your guns will present some difficulties (and boy are you going to wish you were carrying in some places...)
Can I apply for welfare too? This could work out. :)
-
Can I apply for welfare too? This could work out. :)
They've started to tighten up on that, so my initial guess is "no" :P. Besides, you aren't allowed to be on welfare or collect unemployment benefits if you are studying, got to take loans instead. Interest is very affordable AFAIK. Then, you would probably have to be either citizen or have permanent residency.
-
They've started to tighten up on that, so my initial guess is "no" :P. Besides, you aren't allowed to be on welfare or collect unemployment benefits if you are studying, got to take loans instead. Interest is very affordable AFAIK. Then, you would probably have to be either citizen or have permanent residency.
1. Goto Sweden
2. Get students loans and finish degree
3. Leave country, default on loans
4. ???
5. Profit!
Seriously, I wonder if how much luck they'd have sending the international collections agency after me. I may need to look into this. :lol:
-
1. Goto Sweden
2. Get students loans and finish degree
3. Leave country, default on loans
4. ???
5. Profit!
Seriously, I wonder if how much luck they'd have sending the international collections agency after me. I may need to look into this. :lol:
I do believe there are international agreements in place for stuff like this these days. Hell, they went after a chick who had gotten a degree, worked for a few years, then became a nun and then defaulted on her loans. IIRC she had moved to the US, they still got to her. Besides, I thought you were a man of honor Balog :P.
-
>If we want to get into subjective happiness<
You REALLY don't want to go there.
First off, the Constitution says "Pursuit of Happiness". Never said anything about actually getting it. The theory says we're free to pursue happiness in whatever way we wish (so long as we aren't harming others). But if we choose a path that isn't going to lead to happiness, that's a personal problem...
Second: "subjective happiness" is insanely difficult to judge.
Dad lived in Thailand for a few years, and is going back in a couple weeks. The people there (on the whole) are far happier than most Americans. However, their standard of living is below what most here in the States would consider poverty. Another point on this: dad's return was due to his health: the doctors in Thailand told him he'd be dead in 2 weeks if he stayed there. He came back 2 years ago...
-
I consider screwing over socialist countries an honorable thing. :P
Ok, so add in "Steal identity of famous US socialist advocate." Heck, La Raza has a lot of culturally enriched fellows...
-
I consider screwing over socialist countries an honorable thing. :P
Ok, so add in "Steal identity of famous US socialist advocate." Heck, La Raza has a lot of culturally enriched fellows...
Now that I can agree to :angel:.
-
I'm not sure actually. Aren't there states that offer you massive handouts if you pop out a bunch of sprogs? Aren't there places in the US where some families are currently on the third generation of welfare? While we do have an extensive welfare system here, the massive handouts I've read about (Preacherman wrote about this on his blog just the other day, $500 per month and child in handouts :O) don't exist here. OTOH, we do have "free" medical care and whatnot...guess it evens out...
Yes, welfare is a much abused and profited from system. Plenty of policritters get reelected by promising their constituents to use the government to rob others for the benefit of the constituents.
When you've got a 30 y.o. grandmother... (She had a kid at 15 and then her kid had another at 15), and mothers who have several children yet aren't even 21 yet...
I've often seen people in grocery stores pull out food stamp cards and purchase a whole cartload of food and pay nothing out of their pocket. That would be one thing if these people actually needed it, but the people that I've seen do this are clearly of the working age, wearing brand new clothes, and climb into a brand new car. And their cart is full of brand name goods and other expensive groceries.
I've seen people, upon finding out that their welfare card doesn't cover dog food, go back and get steaks for their dog instead.
Insanity!
-
Yes, welfare is a much abused and profited from system. Plenty of policritters get reelected by promising their constituents to use the government to rob others for the benefit of the constituents.
When you've got a 30 y.o. grandmother... (She had a kid at 15 and then her kid had another at 15), and mothers who have several children yet aren't even 21 yet...
I've often seen people in grocery stores pull out food stamp cards and purchase a whole cartload of food and pay nothing out of their pocket. That would be one thing if these people actually needed it, but the people that I've seen do this are clearly of the working age, wearing brand new clothes, and climb into a brand new car. And their cart is full of brand name goods and other expensive groceries.
I've seen people, upon finding out that their welfare card doesn't cover dog food, go back and get steaks for their dog instead.
Insanity!
Doesn't even begin to cover it.
IIRC, welfare checks over here is along the lines of maybe a ~$1000-1100, plus what you get for each kid (roughly ~$100-120 monthly), plus all the "free" stuff like medical care and such. But still, they don't get, to use the example from Preacherman's blog, $500 per kid and month straight into their greedy little hands (which I guess is in addition to whatever they get from welfare). Holy *expletive deleted*it, the western world needs a bit of political overhauling...read this (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=21150.0) thread in General? There's a scary link there...
I bet the dogs were happy though.
-
>If we want to get into subjective happiness<
You REALLY don't want to go there.
First off, the Constitution says "Pursuit of Happiness". Never said anything about actually getting it. The theory says we're free to pursue happiness in whatever way we wish (so long as we aren't harming others). But if we choose a path that isn't going to lead to happiness, that's a personal problem...
Second: "subjective happiness" is insanely difficult to judge.
Dad lived in Thailand for a few years, and is going back in a couple weeks. The people there (on the whole) are far happier than most Americans. However, their standard of living is below what most here in the States would consider poverty. Another point on this: dad's return was due to his health: the doctors in Thailand told him he'd be dead in 2 weeks if he stayed there. He came back 2 years ago...
True progressives believe its time to move past that old, withered document. Just read Mellestad's comments in this thread to understand that....
-
I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen, and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen.
IOW, you are prepared to use force to take what someone else rightly earned. Worse, you aren't even willing to do the dirty work yourself, but desire a third party (gov't) to do your dirty work. This places the armed robber at a higher moral plane than your own self.
I received "free" health care in the Military. I hope and pray to every available deity that I never have to suffer "free" health care again.
That is two of us. One reason I left .mil behind was that I was not willing to subject my future wife & children to such "free" health care. Thing is, .mil healthcare is the absolute best outcome possible for socialized medicine, what with the population consisting mostly of young adults and all thse in the population of better than average health and physical shape.
AWWW now you got me agreeing with mb =D :O
<jfruser quickly reads Revelations>
OK, not one of the signs of the Apocalypse.
Apparently people like erictank are willing to threaten physical violence if democracy does not go their way. I am not willing to make the same statement.
Oh, but you do. It is implied when you say you are willing to tax others. What if I say, "No?" If I do so enough times, eventually your proxy will stick a gun in my face and blow my teeth out the back of my skull.
Capitalist economists believe that in a condition of economic liberty, structures will emerge that, in the long run, will facilitate the movement towards an even greater prosperity for us all.
Yes, by they want what they want now! Just like my two toddlers, thay have a very limited understanding of the term, "delayed gratification."
And gods damn it, they're dark green. NOT black. Green actually has better IR properties. Some of us work with said "black helicopters" and prefer a bit of accuracy.
Just like a Ford sedan my dad bought when I was a kid. For the longest time, I referred to it as "the black car," while my dad insisted it was dark green. Well, one day, the sun was just right and I looked at it real close...and I'll be danged if it wasn't dark green.
Also, I have ridden in some of those choppers.
Personally I'm going to go out and buy a pack of aspirin from my nearest grocery store once that market has been de-regulated just to celebrate.
For some reason, I find that very sad. Kind of like someone in the USSR after the fall of the communist regime saying, "Once they're out of power, I'm going to travel to the next town over and not even bring my papers."
mellestad's writings indicate a belief in the rule of man rather than the rule of law.
That means there are no effective limits on what those in power can do to the citizenry subjects. (Citizens have the protection of law, subjects are--ahem--subject to the will of those in power.)
-
True progressives believe its time to move past that old, withered document. Just read Mellestad's comments in this thread to understand that....
If the US decides to get rid of it, I'd be happy to adopt it for us instead. :P
For some reason, I find that very sad. Kind of like someone in the USSR after the fall of the communist regime saying, "Once they're out of power, I'm going to travel to the next town over and not even bring my papers."
Sort of. Hell, I personally do as much, eh, let's call it "civil disobedience" as I feel that I can get away with. I'm quietly wondering just HOW much that is though. I wouldn't be surprised if I could carry around a sword on my belt and go unmolested by everyone except the authorities...
-
That is two of us. One reason I left .mil behind was that I was not willing to subject my future wife & children to such "free" health care. Thing is, .mil healthcare is the absolute best outcome possible for socialized medicine, what with the population consisting mostly of young adults and all thse in the population of better than average health and physical shape.
Yep. The only thing I liked about the .mil system is how readily they hand out pain killers. My wife lost a filling and got a ton of Vicodin. A friend was in bad pain, they gave him IV morphine and dilaudid. Or however you spell that.
-
Yep. The only thing I liked about the .mil system is how readily they hand out pain killers. My wife lost a filling and got a ton of Vicodin. A friend was in bad pain, they gave him IV morphine and dilaudid. Or however you spell that.
To folks not familiar with TRICARE, they hand out painkillers moreso than civvie doctors do, but they don't pass out the hardcore stuff like candy. Ranger candy they do hand out like candy. =D
Very simple reason why TRICARE has better pain management. DEA has no authority over TRICARE. Drug abuse within TRICARE is investigated by the FBI or the respective service investigative agencies (CID, NCIS, etc). Neither the FBI or the respective service agencies want people legitimately in pain to suffer. The DEA has other priorities than the patients.
-
AT least it's not as bad as the horror that is the IDF's medical facilities.
-
That is two of us. One reason I left .mil behind was that I was not willing to subject my future wife & children to such "free" health care. Thing is, .mil healthcare is the absolute best outcome possible for socialized medicine, what with the population consisting mostly of young adults and all thse in the population of better than average health and physical shape.
They misdiagnosed my wife's endimitriosis and refused to refer her to a specialist.
Wife: "My midsection hurts, and I'm nauseus."
Doc: "Here, take this pregnancy test."
Wife: "Husband is on deployment. I'm not pregnant."
Doc: "Sure whatever. Take this pregancy test."
Wife piddles in cup. Test, negative.
Wife: "See, told you."
Doc: "Must be PMS."
Three years later she was diagnosed with Endimitriosis by a civilian doctor. By then, her innards were all jacked up. We're lucky we managed to produce the two offspring we did.
I won't go into my undiagnosed broken rib, my jacked up oral surgery, and how many times I was turned black and blue just to get a blood draw.
-
To folks not familiar with TRICARE, they hand out painkillers moreso than civvie doctors do, but they don't pass out the hardcore stuff like candy. Ranger candy they do hand out like candy. =D
First time I got the Rx strength horse-pill of ibuprofen was for a strained knee got whilst jumping out of a C130. Oh, yes, the Ranger candy flow was broad, deep, and swift.
Very simple reason why TRICARE has better pain management. DEA has no authority over TRICARE. Drug abuse within TRICARE is investigated by the FBI or the respective service investigative agencies (CID, NCIS, etc). Neither the FBI or the respective service agencies want people legitimately in pain to suffer. The DEA has other priorities than the patients.
Yep, for all that is bad about the FBI, they have yet to approach the unbridled malevolence of the DEA.
I won't go into my undiagnosed broken rib, my jacked up oral surgery, and how many times I was turned black and blue just to get a blood draw.
I have not only my own horror stories, I spent a lot of time in Martin Army Community Hospital <spits bad taste out of mouth> because I was on thrice-daily IV antibiotics for 6+ weeks to help with the osteomyelitis introduced by the unaccountable & unaccredited butchers who hacked on ly busted ankle & leg. Damn near saw one of the butchers get his due (by way of severe beating) when they jacked around the kid of a major in my unit who was in for surgery.
-
I've been wondering why none of the punditry are reminding the public of the scandal at Walter Reed a few years ago. At least I haven't heard anybody say anything about it.
-
My flight surgeon and I jokingly referred to Motrin as "Vitamin M". I still think they manufactured it in the clinic, owing to the volume dispensed. =D
-
On the contrary, this draws upon the history of American jurisprudence. Now, I know that the ords 'activist judges' are abused as all get-out by anybody who sees a decision they won't like, but it's true that judges like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, and some of their descendants and successors, subscribed to a view wherein the intent of the founders counted for little, and that the constitution can be freely reinterpreted in light of social progress.
Now, you may like the concept of a living constitution – but you cannot at once say you adhere to the constitution meaning and reinterpret it freely. Maybe it would be better for the nation – I can certainly not say, for I am not a US citizen - if the American judiciary stuck b judicial activism as a doctrine. But you cannot lay a claim to both adhering a constitution and to reinterpreting it freely, at once. That is a logical contradiction.
A very good book on this subject – although of course biased, since it is written by a Cato-affiliated expert! - is “How the Progressives Re-Wrote the Constitution”, by Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago.
At least I think we understand each other though. We both know that there can be a wide range of political opinions about any particular issue, from basic constitutional law to tax reform. That, honestly, was my only point in this debate. I think this board can use some alternate input from the other 50% of the country, even if that means I get to spend a couple hours a week being spit on :lol:
I never expect to change anyones mind on APS, but I do tend to push the idea that just because someone disagrees with the conservative talking point of the day does not make them an unthinking idiot who doesn't understand what government is for. I certainly try not to reject conservative or libertarian ideals out of hand without actual analysis.
On a philosophical level there are three ways to formulate a political opinion:
1) From authority. This means you get your opinions from people around you in 'real life' or on this board, talking heads on TV and radio, or even documents like the Bible or the Constitution.
2) Personal thought. This means you tend to take your life experience and formulate your own responses without direct outside input.
3) Analysis. This means you try to be objective, and attempt to compare political ideas based on something emperical.
Naturally, people use all three of those, but usually favor one or the other. I *try* to use analysis because I think it is more consistent and likely to dredge up helpful solutions. Of course, being human I often fail and react emotionally because politics is about personal perception. But that is the reason I don't think it is a good idea to blindly follow the constitution...I don't take its authority for granted. Do I respect it? Absolutely! It has been rather effective. However, if something in it does not work well, I am not emotionally invested in it. Honestly, I would like to see regular constitutional conventions.
I grew up in a conservative family and went to a very conservative private school. The constitution was right up there with the Bible as something that was simply correct. I was taught it was an authority when it came to politics, basically infallible, along with the founding fathers. So I really do understand the idea that it should be held inviolate, although I do not follow it. To me, it seems silly to argue my points by saying I 'hate' the constitution, or think it is a 'moldy document'. What does that have to do with anything? To have any weight as an argument you have to assume that a document made by human beings is infallible. To me, that seems silly and smells like unhealthy, dogmatic 'patriotism'.
This discussion is about done isn't it? I've made my points, people can apply option 1, 2 or 3 and do whatever they want with it. If I don't post anything else in this topic, I hope no-one gets hurt feelings :)
Last time I stepped into a topic like this it ran for weeks and became one of the most lengthy threads in APS history, and I don't think it deserves that kind of drawn out discussion.
-
To have any weight as an argument you have to assume that a document made by human beings is infallible
The law has serious weight in discussions, not because it is infallible, but because it is current law.
-
The law has serious weight in discussions, not because it is infallible, but because it is current law.
I agree.
-
You have a point, Micro. However, using that logic, we shouldn't be arguing against gun laws (or drug laws, or whatever laws) because they are current law and therefore have weight... ;)
-
Actually, it's a fair comparison.
We're free to argue against gun laws and drug laws; not to randomly decide they're 'written by flawed humans' and make with snorting crack off the dust covers of GPMGs.
The leftists are free to argue against, or work to amend amend, the Constitution; it's ignoring/reinterpeting it outright that's entirely illegitimate.
-
Good Democrats are those who show their true colors, leading to their arrest, resignation - and best of all, they lead to investigation of other crooked politicians. In that vein, we have three nominations from the Show-Me State.
1. Jeff Smith
2. Steve Brown
ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI - FOX2now.com) - Two democratic Missouri state lawmakers have pleaded guilty to federal charges and have resigned. Former state Senator Jeff Smith of St. Louis and former state Representative Steve Brown of Clayton now face serious federal prison time. But more democrats could get swept up in this investigation. Smith and Brown both pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about whether they had worked with a shady political operative, a man with a record of drug and gun arrests and who is part of a probe into a pipe bombing.
The Feds swooped down on former Missouri State Senator Jeff Smith and former state Representative Steve Brown because both of them lied about whether they used Milton Ohlsen, nicknamed Skip. When Smith ran for congress in 2004, Brown suggested Smith use Skip Ohlsen to prepare anonymous postcards attacking Smith's opponent, Russ Carnahan. That's illegal.
When Skip Ohlsen was busted by the Feds on unrelated fraud charges, he told them about Brown's role. Brown then implicated Jeff Smith, his old friend. When asked Tuesday if it was hard to assist the prosecution against his old friend, Brown responded, "It certainly was, yes."
Former State Senator Smith said Tuesday, "I apologize first and foremost to my constituents. I apologize to my colleagues in the senate."
But the saga of Skip Ohlsen and top democrats in Missouri may be far from over. John Gillies with the St. Louis office of the FBI said Tuesday, "We will continue to vigorously investigate all corruption that comes to our attention." When asked if he thought there was significantly more of this going on in state government right now, Gillies said, "I'm telling you what we're doing is we're uncovering more of it."
http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-jeffsmith-folo-democrats-investigation-082509,0,279664.story
3. T.D. El-Amin
Missouri state Rep. T.D. El-Amin today pleaded guilty to a bribery charge in federal court. He faces between 18 and 24 months in prison. He pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe of $2,100 from the owner of a gas station. After the hearing he announced his resignation.
The federal investigation may not be over.
A collection agency recently sued El-Amin for about $13,000 in debt.
El-Amin’s father-in-law, Eddie Hasan, is currently in federal prison on tax evasion charges. Hasan ran a minority contracting consulting group, MoKan.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2009/09/el-amin-pleads-guilty-to-bribery-charge/
Oh, the schadenfreude. Missouri Republicans have their own sort of monkey-business to contribute.
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/the_state_of_black_america_news/12863
-
Last time I stepped into a topic like this it ran for weeks and became one of the most lengthy threads in APS history, and I don't think it deserves that kind of drawn out discussion.
Whoa.
Time out.
You can't hop into here and simply dictate that you aim to increase our taxes based on your sense of entitlement, and then say the topic doesn't warrant attention or lengthy discussion from the membership.
Not even. =|
-
Whoa.
Time out.
You can't hop into here and simply dictate that you aim to increase our taxes based on your sense of entitlement, and then say the topic doesn't warrant attention or lengthy discussion from the membership.
Not even. =|
I have to respond to every derail people bring up, rather than making my point, responding to pertinent questions, then retiring gracefully? Like I said, I have had my say, had a couple rounds of questions and answers, and now I would rather move on. Otherwise I will be stuck in this thread responding to the same comments about how I want to burn the constitution over and over until Ragnarok.
I'll humor you a bit though, because I am a nice guy.
It is disingenuous to say I want to raise your taxes based on my sense of entitlement.
1) I would not be the likely beneficiary of the services I am pushing for, I would be one of the tax payers. I am a middle-income adult with private insurance and my own private retirement package. I have never gone without gainful employment, I have always payed my taxes and been a 'good' citizen. I do not hate America, and I don't hate you, and I don't hate your ideals, and I am not a 'liberal' because I woke up one morning and thought it was a good idea. Besides the fact that political tests show again and again that I would best be labeled as a centrist anyway.
2) Many times I get this response that if I want to raise your taxes, I am stealing from you. Great, so we have two choices a) Tax nothing b) Only tax for the things you think are appropriate. You ignore the reality of politics by saying that if people want a system that runs contrary to your ideal, it is automatically a crime against humanity. If you really think it is your way or the highway, we cannot have any legitimate discussion on the matter. Then the only question is what are you going to do if democracy fails to return your desired result. Is that the discussion we are having, or can you admit that your ideal America is not the only possible option?
3) I don't support Libertarianism for the same reason I don't support Communism. Both assume an idealized human that will cooperate autonomously for the betterment of humanity. I think you need controlled capitalism. Capitalism is good because it helps generate wealth and gives humans an outlet for the instinctual desire to compete, and controlled because if you leave capitalism alone it degenerates into pure exploitation because of the same human nature. In small, like-minded groups either system can possibly lead to a near utopia, economically but they just don't scale. I would love it if Libertarianism could be empirically shown to work well at the level of a nation, but it has not and I suspect it will not. A nuclear armed superpower is not the appropriate place to test an idealistic model of governance.
4) I think healthcare, specifically, should be a government service. I think it is too important to leave it to the whim of monetary success. Will such a system be 100% perfect? Absolutely not. Is it better than dying because you are broke, or being financially ruined because you get hurt or sick? In my opinion, yes.
This discussion has been filled with me stating my opinion, explaining myself, then being called a constitution hating liberal criminal who wants to destroy everything you hold dear. I cannot have a discussion with that attitude, it is unproductive. Even your language in your request...'sense of entitlement' is loaded with spite.
As I said, I am not here to convert you. Some of you have rational reasons for being conservative, some of you are dogmatic about it. I have no illusions about convincing you I am correct, and would never try to force you into a discussion where I could 'prove' to you that I am right. Heck, I am even willing to concede that you may be right, because I don't pretend that I have all the answers, or my ideal government would lead us to a utopia.
I understand your opinion and your reasoning. I have written out my opinion and my reasoning in the best way I can. Now we can all a) reject b) accept c) analyze.
So do we end this and let people get on with their lives, or drag this out on and on without any benefit to either side?
(Edit, because I missed a word and it may have been confusing)
-
I have to respond to every derail people bring up, rather than making my point, responding to pertinent questions, then retiring gracefully? Like I said, I have had my say, had a couple rounds of questions and answers, and now I would rather move on. Otherwise I will be stuck in this thread responding to the same comments about how I want to burn the constitution over and over until Ragnarok.
I'll humor you a bit though, because I am a nice guy.
You can come here and try to make whatever point you want. You can run away after you think you've made it. But if you want to actually succeed at getting a point across, you're gonna have to be willing and able to back up your assertions and reasoning.
This ain't the kinda place that deals in quick one liners and platitudes. We actually try to discuss and reason through the complex issues we debate.
And copping the "I'll humor you" 'tude isn't going to get you very far, either.
-
You can come here and try to make whatever point you want. You can run away after you think you've made it. But if you want to actually succeed at getting a point across, you're gonna have to be willing and able to back up your assertions and reasoning.
This ain't the kinda place that deals in quick one liners and platitudes. We actually try to discuss and reason through the complex issues we debate.
And copping the "I'll humor you" 'tude isn't going to get you very far, either.
I don't think "I'll humor you" implies a 'tude. But mellestad, you misunderstand what Gewehr said. He didn't say you have to stick around. He said that your comments DID merit more discussion than you thought.
-
I'd really like to think this isn't a drive-by, where you stir the pot and then depart, neither entertaining nor condoning further discussion.
IOW, I'm approaching this from an administrator's angle. Threads with value don't get arbitrarily killed just because the OP doesn't like them anymore.
Now, as somebody who spent 20+ years in the military, I'm not entirely keen on government-run, or government-provided healthcare.
I have plenty of horror stories to relate, as does my then-dependent wife, and as stated before, the government can't even run a whorehouse, let alone nation-wide healthcare.
That ain't group-think, or all of us ganging up on you. It's me quite seriously asking ANYBODY why I should pay for their healthcare if they're capable of doing so themselves. I work hard for my income, and am busting my butt for a second retirement because I don't think Social Security will even be solvent when I turn 67 in a few years. I've already been to Communist and Socialist countries during my military career, and I see nothing I want for my life from those regimes. Nor do I care that we're already paying for roads, Cash For Clunkers, AIG bailouts, crack whore babies, or ACORN surveys with appropriated tax money. Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right, and coming into a forum exclaiming in no uncertain terms that you're prepared to make us pay taxes to support your healthcare desire is very much akin to Rex Cramer in the Danger Seekers scene from Kentucky Fried Movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U38HmSSAGSo
As HTG mentioned, please don't patronize us by saying you're "humoring me". Retiring gracefully? Not with that little jab. This is an internet discussion forum, not a "I'm taking my ball and going home because I don't like the answers" type of deal. We discuss things here, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, men, women, cat-lovers, dog-lovers, Windows, Linux, Mac, one big APS melting pot. Saying the thread no longer serves a purpose to you smells of something, and I'm very much tempted to remove the smell to a different location, in it's entirety. However, if you started the thread as some sort of social experiment via stirring the pot, my decision shall be sooner rather than later.
The thread will continue, as long as it remains civil. Much valuable discourse has been injected into the discussion, with or without the OP and/or their consent.
-
Just went through and read the entire thread, and something jumped out at me; specifically, using Swedish and other countries' life expectancy rates to harp on our health care.
Turns out, our health care has nothing to do with our shortened life expectancy. It is entirely because of our lifestyle, most notably our smoking and eating habits. You are more likely to die in this country due to high rates of heart disease and cancer. This is caused by our rich diets and the fact that we had the highest smoking rates in the world until 1985. If you do actually make it to 80 in this country, you are far more likely to live longer than people in other nations, precisely due to our good health care. The problem is that too many people sabotage their own health, which quite frankly isn't anyone's fault but their own.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22tier.html?_r=3&ref=instapundit
-
The thread will continue, as long as it remains civil. Much valuable discourse has been injected into the discussion, with or without the OP and/or their consent.
The OP notes that it is largely possible to talk about Democrats for many pages without too much bashing. (Except for the Missouri bushwhacking contingent of course. :D) I guess, knowing the mission of this board, I shoulda seen the thread drift coming.
On the one thread drift subject I will say that I have had excellent care within the military medical system, currently quite happy to pay $180/month to cover my family under Reserve Select. Motrin was ubiquitous of course, but one can choose not to take that crap. I am sure that Obamacare will somehow muck up my current choose my own docs, low co-pay, low premium health insurance that I a) pay for, and b) feel I have somewhat earned through 14 active and continued reserve service.
So for that... BAD DEMOCRAT!!! =D (feel like I need a rolled up newspaper)
-
I have to respond to every derail people bring up, rather than making my point, responding to pertinent questions, then retiring gracefully? Like I said, I have had my say, had a couple rounds of questions and answers, and now I would rather move on. Otherwise I will be stuck in this thread responding to the same comments about how I want to burn the constitution over and over until Ragnarok.
Perhaps until you actually adequately respond to those comments...
It is disingenuous to say I want to raise your taxes based on my sense of entitlement.
These ARE your words, Mellestad: "Using the resources of a collective body to further that bodies own goals is what modern government is all about. I think the government should do more than provide self-defense and a court system. You might want a return to 1776, but I do not, nor do most citizens. I am prepared to pay more taxes to make that happen, and I am prepared to make you pay more taxes to make that happen."
That's you saying that you want to raise my taxes to pay for something you want. How is that not *EXACTLY* your wanting to raise my taxes based on your sense of entitlement? You don't have to personally profit from it for it to be wrong.
Besides the fact that political tests show again and again that I would best be labeled as a centrist anyway.
Centrists don't want to take money from those who produce to give it to those who do not - and that's EXACTLY what you're proposing to do.
2) Many times I get this response that if I want to raise your taxes, I am stealing from you. Great, so we have two choices a) Tax nothing b) Only tax for the things you think are appropriate.
The Constitution actually does provide for taxation to support a number of national functions. Amazingly enough, universal health care is not enumerated among those.
4) I think healthcare, specifically, should be a government service. I think it is too important to leave it to the whim of monetary success.
It is, however, not a function which the government has any legitimate authority, under the Constitution - therefore, taxing to pay for it is unconstitutional, as well as unethical. If you wish that to be changed, there's a process for it. Try following it.
-
That's you saying that you want to raise my taxes to pay for something you want. How is that not *EXACTLY* your wanting to raise my taxes based on your sense of entitlement? You don't have to personally profit from it for it to be wrong.
Aren't you saying (as mellestad mentions in his 2nd point) that ANY tax is the result of someone's "sense of entitlement?" Whether or not it's in the constitution doesn't change the fact that people have to pay taxes for something they don't necessarily need or want because someone's "sense of entitlement" deemed it necessary.
-
You can come here and try to make whatever point you want. You can run away after you think you've made it. But if you want to actually succeed at getting a point across, you're gonna have to be willing and able to back up your assertions and reasoning.
This ain't the kinda place that deals in quick one liners and platitudes. We actually try to discuss and reason through the complex issues we debate.
And copping the "I'll humor you" 'tude isn't going to get you very far, either.
My point was a) I am not a drive by. If I were, I would have thrown out one post and left...how many have I posted in this thread so far? b) I genuinely think we understand one another, now we are at an ideological impasse and I don't know what I can say that will add value to this discussion. Getting into a circular discussion is not helpful, and my experience has been that once it starts going in circles it just keeps going until people get bored with it.
I'd really like to think this isn't a drive-by, where you stir the pot and then depart, neither entertaining nor condoning further discussion.
IOW, I'm approaching this from an administrator's angle. Threads with value don't get arbitrarily killed just because the OP doesn't like them anymore.
Now, as somebody who spent 20+ years in the military, I'm not entirely keen on government-run, or government-provided healthcare.
I have plenty of horror stories to relate, as does my then-dependent wife, and as stated before, the government can't even run a whorehouse, let alone nation-wide healthcare.
That ain't group-think, or all of us ganging up on you. It's me quite seriously asking ANYBODY why I should pay for their healthcare if they're capable of doing so themselves. I work hard for my income, and am busting my butt for a second retirement because I don't think Social Security will even be solvent when I turn 67 in a few years. I've already been to Communist and Socialist countries during my military career, and I see nothing I want for my life from those regimes. Nor do I care that we're already paying for roads, Cash For Clunkers, AIG bailouts, crack whore babies, or ACORN surveys with appropriated tax money. Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right, and coming into a forum exclaiming in no uncertain terms that you're prepared to make us pay taxes to support your healthcare desire is very much akin to Rex Cramer in the Danger Seekers scene from Kentucky Fried Movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U38HmSSAGSo
As HTG mentioned, please don't patronize us by saying you're "humoring me". Retiring gracefully? Not with that little jab. This is an internet discussion forum, not a "I'm taking my ball and going home because I don't like the answers" type of deal. We discuss things here, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, men, women, cat-lovers, dog-lovers, Windows, Linux, Mac, one big APS melting pot. Saying the thread no longer serves a purpose to you smells of something, and I'm very much tempted to remove the smell to a different location, in it's entirety. However, if you started the thread as some sort of social experiment via stirring the pot, my decision shall be sooner rather than later.
The thread will continue, as long as it remains civil. Much valuable discourse has been injected into the discussion, with or without the OP and/or their consent.
See my above post. In that spirit, do you have a question I should answer that will further this debate? I get that you don't like socialism, you get that I do, you have explained why you don't like it, I have explained why I do like it.
I'm not trying to be glib, I have spent literally hours reading this particular thread and responding to it. That is the definition of 'not a drive by'.
But if I am going to get in trouble if I don't answer some specific questions, fine. Ask some specific questions and I will try to be constructive. I'll try not to be patronizing or snide.
Aren't you saying (as mellestad mentions in his 2nd point) that ANY tax is the result of someone's "sense of entitlement?" Whether or not it's in the constitution doesn't change the fact that people have to pay taxes for something they don't necessarily need or want because someone's "sense of entitlement" deemed it necessary.
This was my point. Either taxes in any form are wrong, or they aren't. If they aren't then we are back to politics and we can have a rational discussion. If both sides are dogmatic, someone will win 100% and someone will lose 100%. If both sides are willing to moderate a bit then we reach a solution that is not so one sided.
To Eric: This is what I mean by circular. I have already responded to this idea, and if I 'have to' respond to every post like this the thread will never end. If you don't know my opinion by now, you never will, and if I don't accept your particular objections by now, I doubt another ten pages of posting will make a difference.
-
This was my point. Either taxes in any form are wrong, or they aren't. If they aren't then we are back to politics and we can have a rational discussion. If both sides are dogmatic, someone will win 100% and someone will lose 100%. If both sides are willing to moderate a bit then we reach a solution that is not so one sided.
To Eric: This is what I mean by circular. I have already responded to this idea, and if I 'have to' respond to every post like this the thread will never end. If you don't know my opinion by now, you never will, and if I don't accept your particular objections by now, I doubt another ten pages of posting will make a difference.
Your statement is a false dichotomy.
Either taxes in any form are wrong, or SOME TAXES ARE WRONG, or none are wrong. You think no taxes are wrong. That's fine, but the opposite of your position is not the only other position.
My position (and many in this thread) is that only constitutionally authorized taxes are right. If you want to tax and spend on other things, change the consitution. Instead you seem to be fine with: I can get enough people to vote for what I want, but not enough to actually change the constitution. So, I'll just ignore the constitution.
In other words, you want to change the rules of the game and then claim that because no one stopped playing everyone must be fine with it.
He's a hint: enough of us see the writing on the wall and are making contingency plans to stop playing. What happens when you don't have enough people left to steal from?
(Incidentally, we don't even have to stop playing to get to this point now. Current projections on Medicare is that it will run out of money in 2017. I estimate, ceteris paribus, they might be able to squeeze another decade and a half out of borrowing. Medicare CANNOT be sustained past 2030. My bet is it cannot even last that long. Social Security is in the best shape of all the entitlements, but I doubt it can last much beyond Medicare's 2030 implosion.)
-
Your statement is a false dichotomy.
Either taxes in any form are wrong, or SOME TAXES ARE WRONG, or none are wrong. You think no taxes are wrong. That's fine, but the opposite of your position is not the only other position.
My position (and many in this thread) is that only constitutionally authorized taxes are right. If you want to tax and spend on other things, change the consitution. Instead you seem to be fine with: I can get enough people to vote for what I want, but not enough to actually change the constitution. So, I'll just ignore the constitution.
In other words, you want to change the rules of the game and then claim that because no one stopped playing everyone must be fine with it.
He's a hint: enough of us see the writing on the wall and are making contingency plans to stop playing. What happens when you don't have enough people left to steal from?
(Incidentally, we don't even have to stop playing to get to this point now. Current projections on Social Security is that it will run out of money in 2017. I estimate, ceteris paribus, they might be able to squeeze another decade and a half out of borrowing. Social Security CANNOT be sustained past 2030. My bet is it cannot even last that long. And social security is in the best shape of all the entitlements.)
Actually, your point was my point. I am arguing that some taxes are fine and some are not. Hence, we can have a political discussion that does not involve armed citizens killing other citizens.
The constitution has been interpreted the way it is. It has been the status quo for a very, very long time now. You are a strict constitutional literalist, I am not. Democracy has not upheld your political opinion. It has not upheld mine either, there are many things about America I think are flawed and I don't ever see them changing.
Life, politics and democracy are not utopias. Never have been, never will be. You make the best of what you can. Have you joined phone banks? Have you been working in Washington DC as a lobbyist? Have you run for local office? Do you hold regular town hall meetings, and volunteer for national libertarian projects? Have you joined the Free State Project, and moved? Do you regularly write to your political representatives, and to local and national newspapers? Donate regularly to your preferred causes? Protested and marched?
-
Oh, but Mellestad, you do not understand. Liberals don't have jobs! We conservative have jobs, we don't have times for protesting. =) :| :|
-
Oh, but Mellestad, you do not understand. Liberals don't have jobs! We conservative have jobs, we don't have times for protesting. =) :| :|
Lol
(Edit: The tea party people had the right idea a couple weekends ago. The question is how many people actually support that platform, and if they have enough money and influence to either change the Republican party or create a new party large enough to be effective. We'll find out!)
-
Oh, but Mellestad, you do not understand. Liberals don't have jobs! We conservative have jobs, we don't have times for protesting. =) :| :|
Community Organizer is a respectable job. Have you learned nothing from last US presidential election? :mad:
=D
-
Oh, but Mellestad, you do not understand. Liberals don't have jobs! We conservative have jobs, we don't have times for protesting. =) :| :|
You may have noticed that the recent conservative protests were held on weekends. This is not a coincidence.
-
Have you joined phone banks? Do you regularly write to your political representatives, and to local and national newspapers? Donate regularly to your preferred causes?
Yes, yes, and yes.
I'm also a Friends of the NRA organizer, a volunteer range safety officer, and now own The Carnival of Cordite, getting ready to ramp it back up again.
Where in this thread, exactly, did somebody threaten to kill you? ???
-
Where in this thread, exactly, did somebody threaten to kill you? ???
Some people are so tactical, they ooze potential homicide out of their pores.
Or, it could be the Hoppes they dab behind their ears...
-
Yes, yes, and yes.
I'm also a Friends of the NRA organizer, a volunteer range safety officer, and now own The Carnival of Cordite, getting ready to ramp it back up again.
Where in this thread, exactly, did somebody threaten to kill you? ???
I think it was somebody who said that if he was willing to steal money from them, they would be perfectly happy about giving him a free .45 caliber lobotomy, or words to that effect.
-
Some people are so tactical, they ooze potential homicide out of their pores.
Or, it could be the Hoppes they dab behind their ears...
Lol, nice.
-
Hence, we can have a political discussion that does not involve armed citizens killing other citizens.
Killjoy.
-
Killjoy.
We could try having a political discussion *while* citizens are killing other citizens. Sort of the best of both world...Gladiator meets C-SPAN!
-
As long as it's Congress-folk killing each other, I'm down.
-
As long as it's Congress-folk killing each other, I'm down.
Maybe we should just go with the Taiwanese system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g10PAsvZFoQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g10PAsvZFoQ)
-
In case anyone still feels compelled to argue with me about about socialism, or my thoughts on constitutional law or taxation, don't expect any answers until Monday.
Have a good weekend!
-
We could try having a political discussion *while* citizens are killing other citizens. Sort of the best of both world...Gladiator meets C-SPAN!
I can think of one person who would tune in.
-
I can think of one person who would tune in.
i'd like to see the obama - rush match on WWE :angel:
at least it would be entertaining :cool:
-
The One is young, and probably has better reach. The newly slimmed-down Rush, on the other hand, is a football player FWIW.
-
The One is young, and probably has better reach. The newly slimmed-down Rush, on the other hand, is a football player FWIW.
I thought the Rush man had regained most of that weight, judging by the last picture I saw of him.
-
That's not what I'm hearing. Here's a light take on the subject.
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/08/rushs-weight-loss-stuns-mainstream.html
-
Obama wouldn't fight, he'd send in SEIU thugs to do the brawling.
-
Win.