Consensus in Politics

[Nitack]

7. Self reliance: ABSO-FRIGGIN-LUTELY. Every person should be responsible for taking care of themselves. If they can't, then it is up to their family, kin, clan, community, if they so choose to. The idea that individuals are not expected to supply for their own wants and needs (see my comment on collectivism/socialism) is ridiculous.

 

Nitack, I am curious about your response to #7 do you think that someone who can no longer make a decent living due to circumstances beyond his or her control should just be shoved into the pit and covered up like a worn out or broken tool by businesses? What if their family clan or what ever cannot support them? What if their injury prevents them from taking care of themselves in a decent manner? Please clarify this.

 

There is a very slippery slope here, so I will tread carefully so as not to be accused of advocating euthanasia. In the instances where an individual is so incredibly disabled where they are not able to do any kind of work, then yes I would say that assistance is acceptable. I do however think that many individuals either do not try, or outright refuse, to obtain employment and adjust their lifestyle to suite. In our society there are jobs that all but the most grievously of injured individuals (we're talking neck down paralyzed) can not find something that they can do.

 

In this instance, the answer to your question hinges on what you define as a "decent living". If you are a single mother with two kids working for minimum wage and can only afford to live if you share an apartment with another single mom in the same situation, I consider that acceptable and see no reason why those individuals should be getting welfare. Many people, in my opinion, have an inflated sense of what are the bare necessities. Food, shelter, clothing are really it in my book. Everything else is luxury.

[nutronjon]

Oh wow, where to begin...

 

1. Capitalism: Capitalism, although imperfect, offers the opportunity to be justly rewarded for your efforts and risks taken.

2. Collectivism: Read: 'socialism'. Collectivism is a fatally flawed concept. The idea of socialism is that every person will do their part for the betterment of all. This is not how things work in a practical sense though. It is in our nature to try to get the most while doing the least. That is an instinctual imperative for humans. You need the resources but if you consume more energy (work) than you secure (food/money) it is a losing proposition. Unfortunately the US is moving towards this type of socialist society. Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, are all just socialist programs that are designed to redistribute resources from those who have to those who have not. These are doomed to failure though, because we have a population with unlimited wants that are all after the same limited resources. Right now we are suffering from what is called the "Tyranny of the Majority" by political scientists.

3. Larger government to serve the citizen's needs: Government is by nature inefficient. As others have pointed out, with out a profit motive, there is no compelling incentive to reduce waste and inefficiency. Most economists will tell you that taxing a population in order to set up government programs will only end up hurting your economy, and lowering the overall standard of living.

4. Equality of citizens: The purpose of government is to secure the rights of the citizens. A tenant of democracy is the equality of all citizens. A bit of soap boxing here... but we do have a significant population that is denied equal rights in statute. Gays and Lesbians are denied the simple protections that I and my wife enjoy. This is no less an injustice than what the civil rights movement sought to correct.

5. Political correctness: If you do not respect the right of another person to be politically incorrect (or just to be an *** hole) then you have no expectation to the right of your own opinion being respected. It is only through the guarantee of your right to dissent that we truly have democracy. The emphasis on political correctness continually erodes the rights of an individual to form their own opinion. I do not agree with racists and bigots, but I respect their right to be wrong .

6. Biblical morality: Biblical morality has a right place... it is called a church. It is not the business of the government to dictate morality at all. Morality is an individual decision. The only place of the government is to ensure that your morality (lets say you were into human sacrifice) does not intrude on the rights of another to their morality (people who don't want to be sacrificed ;)).

7. Self reliance: ABSO-FRIGGIN-LUTELY. Every person should be responsible for taking care of themselves. If they can't, then it is up to their family, kin, clan, community, if they so choose to. The idea that individuals are not expected to supply for their own wants and needs (see my comment on collectivism/socialism) is ridiculous.

8. Increased government regulation of large corporations: Here is where I will diverge from my libertarian/small government bent slightly, but only slightly. Because things like pollution can have an impact on the lives of others, that should be regulated. Also, although I am a hard line capitalist, I think that for a PUBLICLY TRADED company, that there should be limits on executive compensation. Bob Nardelli, of Home Depot infamy should not have gotten a $200+ million dollar pay check for being fired. Executive salaries for publicly traded companies, where they have solicited money from the public in an IPO and they have share holders, should be regulated back to the realm of reasonableness.

9. Government job creation: NEGATIVE. Get your hands out of the economy! Business will take care of it, government will just **** it up.

10. Hiring and pay raises based solely on merit: This falls under two other categories, regulation of large corporations and equality.

 

I am a Libertarian. I believe that government exists to protect my individual rights and everything else is up to me to take care of. As more and more of my generation see that Social Security and Medicare are just elaborate pyramid schemes we know they will not be there for us. All money we put into those systems is basically gone. Unfortunately our futures were sold out by our grandparents and parents. They decided to force us to pay for their retirement through legislation and we were apathetic enough or felt guilty enough to let them, or too young to do anything about it.

 

 

Capitalism was built on the exploitation of human beings, and continues to thrive on the exploitation of human beings. This isn't to say there is no good in capitalism, but over look the bad, is to destort the truth.

 

The idea of socialism is that every person will do their part for the betterment of all. This is not how things work in a practical sense though. It is in our nature to try to get the most while doing the least.

 

I am a woman, you know that gender that for thousands of years, took care of everyone without pay, and is still prone to put serving others above self. Both my grown son and daughter give their all for their employers, and go beyond the call of duty, because of their work ethics, and do so for barely more than minimum wage, for human value reasons. We have all done our share of volunteer work, and if it is physically possible for me, I plan continuing my volunteer job until I am 80, because I am needed, and at 80, most of experience such physical deterioration, it is unrealistic for me to believe I can continue past 80. I already have much difficulty in getting around.

 

I could possibly find more impirical information to support the argument that some human beings do give their best for very little, because they have values that motivate them to do so. True some people are poor workers, but often this is because the employer has poor supervisory skills and pits management against the subordinates. This is a problem with autocratic industry and the solution to the problem is to use the democratic model.

[Moontanman]

There is a very slippery slope here, so I will tread carefully so as not to be accused of advocating euthanasia. In the instances where an individual is so incredibly disabled where they are not able to do any kind of work, then yes I would say that assistance is acceptable. I do however think that many individuals either do not try, or outright refuse, to obtain employment and adjust their lifestyle to suite. In our society there are jobs that all but the most grievously of injured individuals (we're talking neck down paralyzed) can not find something that they can do.

 

In this instance, the answer to your question hinges on what you define as a "decent living". If you are a single mother with two kids working for minimum wage and can only afford to live if you share an apartment with another single mom in the same situation, I consider that acceptable and see no reason why those individuals should be getting welfare. Many people, in my opinion, have an inflated sense of what are the bare necessities. Food, shelter, clothing are really it in my book. Everything else is luxury.

 

So you don't think the company the individual was working for when he was hurt doing his job has any responsibility?

[REASON]

Well, I guess it has become worth being penalized for my position on God again. A nice thing about having a God is having a point of view that includes more that a personal point of view. That does not mean when we contemplate what God's point of view might be, that we are knowing God. It is more like standing on the mountain to see the valley, and what see and think is still human. It takes us out of ourselves when we consider a bigger point of view.....

 

.....We now know the area of the brain for judgment is still developing until age 25, and this clearly means children should not be treated as adults in the court room nor in prison and our justice system is not based this science and needs to be changed.

 

So there are two points:

 

1. The acceptence of God is important to a broader point of view, and more humble perspective, than I am right and you are wrong, which is the result of having a very small point of view.

 

2. We need to study the Laws of Nature with science, and base our laws on the Laws of Nature.

 

nutron,

 

You posted all this trash in reply to my post! (I cut out the kiddie porn) :hyper: WTF are you even talking about? What makes you think any of us are interested in your take on every sexual violation of a child you can think of. None of what you said is related to my post whatsoever. :doh:

 

So my post was referring to "people," and it must have rung your bell because you seemed to react as though I was identifying you directly. Is there something you recognize about yourself in what I was saying?

 

I don't think anything I stated in my post was deserving of you rambling on about God, child molestation, 25 year old brains, and the frickin' laws of nature. You are so monochrome.

 

This thread is about Consensus in Politics. That means existing in a manner by which we are not so devided. Is that something you're at all interested in? Or are you going to sit there and continue to stick to your guns.

 

I would appreciate it if you are going to reply to my post that you at least address what I am saying, as opposed to just using a reply as an opportunity to preach to us some more about something unrelated.

 

:fly:

[nutronjon]

nutron,

 

You posted all this trash in reply to my post! (I cut out the kiddie porn) :D WTF are you even talking about? What makes you think any of us are interested in your take on every sexual violation of a child you can think of. None of what you said is related to my post whatsoever. :doh:

 

So my post was referring to "people," and it must have rung your bell because you seemed to react as though I was identifying you directly. Is there something you recognize about yourself in what I was saying?

 

I don't think anything I stated in my post was deserving of you rambling on about God, child molestation, 25 year old brains, and the frickin' laws of nature. You are so monochrome.

 

This thread is about Consensus in Politics. That means existing in a manner by which we are not so devided. Is that something you're at all interested in? Or are you going to sit there and continue to stick to your guns.

 

I would appreciate it if you are going to reply to my post that you at least address what I am saying, as opposed to just using a reply as an opportunity to preach to us some more about something unrelated.

 

:phones:

 

Well I guess this thread is completely ruined. The whole page is nothing but personal attacks and defenses that have nothing to do with the subject. Except for my copied post which is on subject, and the rant in response to what I said, is so off the wall, I don't understand it at all.

 

I said we can use science to come to a consensus, and that doing so is associated with my understanding of God, which comes from philosophy.

 

I didn't read the whole thread about aleins, but what I did read of it, was nothing like the attacks in this thread. What is happening here? Why does all this intolerance flare up, and why are these attacks that ruin threads ignored. The whole page is attacks ruining the thread, and it was a darn good thread. I hate to see this thread ruined.

 

Reason, I honestly do not understand your reaction, however, I remember in the past it was very bad manners to speak of sexual matters, and really taboo to speak of sexual abuse of children. I don't think I was the one who brought up the subject of sex, but it is an area where we do not share agreements. The things I mentioned have been in our news recently. A 19 year boy is being prosecuted for molesting child at his mother's day care center. A 28 year female teacher was prosecuted for engaging in sex with a young male student, and her light sentence was compared the the sentence of an older male teacher also charged with engaging sexually with students. I am thinking, what should we expect? We have destroyed the rules we once lived by and have not come to an agreement on new rules. The boundries are not clear, and we need to work on setting clear boundries, before we load up our prisions with people who are not clear about the boundries. In the past anything outside of being virgin until marriage, and monogomy was wrong, and all the rest was so taboo we didn't even speak of it. In movies married couples slept is separate beds. We changed the rules, now we need a consensus on boundries. We are not born knowing all these rules, but they come out of social agreements, and today we don't have firm social agreements.

[nutronjon]

Yeah but they saw his nakedness and covered it up before anyone could be offended and maybe destroy western civilization.

 

We do not have social agreements and we need them. We can use science to achieve them.

[questor]

I think this thread shows clearly that consensus on any subject is difficult to obtain. People have too many different opinions and perceived needs or predjudices.

Moontan, I sympathize with your plight if you are injured. When I had my own business,I employed up to 20 people. If I had to pay wages when someone became disabled, I would have to pay it out of my profit. I would also have to hire another worker for that job, with another salary. A couple of these situations could have forced me out of business, along with the rest of my employees. When some one takes a job, it is wise to find out if there are benefits for a situation like yours. If there are none, you can buy insurance or get a better job. If you were injured on the job, what about workmen's comp.?

[Nitack]

So you don't think the company the individual was working for when he was hurt doing his job has any responsibility?

 

Ah, but that is a caveat that was not addressed. My personal belief is that it is a matter to be negotiated between the worker and the employer. If you want short or long term disability insurance and your prospective employer does not offer it and is unwilling to negotiate for it, you find a different job. Government mandated disability benefits only serve to drive up the cost of business and in the end hurt consumers. For some one like me, working in an office, disability insurance is practically pointless. No policy offered by my employer would cover me for an injury that happened outside of work, and the likelihood of my being hurt at work is so slip it is a waste of money. If my employer is still mandated to provide coverage it only drives up costs with out giving anything tangible back. For a roofer, exterminator, animal control, police officer, fireman, etc... well any of those jobs I would refuse to take with out a disability policy offered. It is a matter of taking control of your own life and your own well being rather than expecting the government to do it for you.

 

If you give up that responsibility to make that choice for yourself don't you also give up the ability to object when the government mandates something you don't agree with?

[Nitack]

Capitalism was built on the exploitation of human beings, and continues to thrive on the exploitation of human beings. This isn't to say there is no good in capitalism, but over look the bad, is to destort the truth.

 

Exploitation is not the exclusive domain of capitalism. Every economic/government system has their hands in exploitation. To overlook that fact is to distort the truth. Capitalism, as I stated previously, gives every person the chance or opportunity to change their lot and to achieve success. Not all will, but all have the chance.

 

I am a woman, you know that gender that for thousands of years, took care of everyone without pay, and is still prone to put serving others above self.

 

Taking care of others is not the exclusive domain of women. For thousands of years men contributed just as much by hunting/gathering/farming/laboring to provide food and shelter for their spouses and offspring. Your comment denotes an extremely gender-centric view point and lack of understanding of the other genders role during those thousands of years. Just because the males traditional role was not birthing and child care does not diminish the value of our contributions. This is the kind of militant feminism that does not seek equality, but instead seeks superiority by devaluing the other gender and seeking to frame them as less important.

 

This one line that you wrote has severely diminished anything you could contribute in my mind because of the fallacies and ignorance inherent in it.

 

Both my grown son and daughter give their all for their employers, and go beyond the call of duty, because of their work ethics, and do so for barely more than minimum wage, for human value reasons. We have all done our share of volunteer work, and if it is physically possible for me, I plan continuing my volunteer job until I am 80, because I am needed, and at 80, most of experience such physical deterioration, it is unrealistic for me to believe I can continue past 80. I already have much difficulty in getting around.

 

I could possibly find more impirical information to support the argument that some human beings do give their best for very little, because they have values that motivate them to do so. True some people are poor workers, but often this is because the employer has poor supervisory skills and pits management against the subordinates. This is a problem with autocratic industry and the solution to the problem is to use the democratic model.

 

I am very delighted to read that your children have been taught a good work ethic. You either obfuscate or fail to realize that you do in fact receive something in return for that volunteer work. You receive a feeling of self worth and "goodness" by doing that. That is still a payment for services rendered. It is not a monetary or resource payment, but an intrinsic one.

 

You also fail to realize that in order to "volunteer" your basic needs must be met first. If your basic needs (food, shelter, security, etc.) are not met then you either die or start working to obtain them. What ever payment you earn beyond what is required to meet your basic needs, whether it be monetary or intrinsic, is still something you work for. It is a rare individual that can put his basic needs aside in order to work for others, and even then he is getting paid in a way.

 

Your arguments overall show an extreme bias in favor or your gender to the point of devaluing males, and a lack of basic understanding of anthropology and psychology. You may think I am just calling names, but I am actually calling you out for the fallacy in your arguments and misrepresentation of the human condition that you are propagating.

[Nitack]

We do not have social agreements and we need them. We can use science to achieve them.

 

Every time you are even near another human being you participate in a social agreement. You don't take their food/cloths/money because you don't want them to take yours. You drive in a certain way in order to ensure that you don't hit some one else and they don't hit you. If we did not have social agreements then every person would respond to their most basic instincts and there would be no society. This is called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract which was a concept first developed by John Locke. Just by living in a society you engage in the social contract. Some people break some aspects of the contract (thieves, murderers, etc.), but even they follow the majority of the contract. Even language requires a social contract. You speak, they listen; they speak, you listen... otherwise there is no point to language if not to communicate and be communicated to.

[Moontanman]

Ah, but that is a caveat that was not addressed. My personal belief is that it is a matter to be negotiated between the worker and the employer. If you want short or long term disability insurance and your prospective employer does not offer it and is unwilling to negotiate for it, you find a different job. Government mandated disability benefits only serve to drive up the cost of business and in the end hurt consumers. For some one like me, working in an office, disability insurance is practically pointless. No policy offered by my employer would cover me for an injury that happened outside of work, and the likelihood of my being hurt at work is so slip it is a waste of money. If my employer is still mandated to provide coverage it only drives up costs with out giving anything tangible back. For a roofer, exterminator, animal control, police officer, fireman, etc... well any of those jobs I would refuse to take with out a disability policy offered. It is a matter of taking control of your own life and your own well being rather than expecting the government to do it for you.

 

If you give up that responsibility to make that choice for yourself don't you also give up the ability to object when the government mandates something you don't agree with?

 

Oh I have disability, I worked for a major company. I was hurt due to their insistence that I and other workers break their own safety rules. (rules they are famous for) I was responsible for the safety of an entire work shift in addition to my regular job. I pointed out that what we were being required to do went against the safety principles the company is so famous for. No one was more surprised than me when I was injured. (somehow we all think it will happen to someone else) several people were injured over time and the company was eager to cover it up. I was given total and permanent disability with out any argument. I was much pissed when found out that most of my disability would come from the government. I thought the company should be responsible for the lions share if not all of it. Now ten years later i am finally getting a grip on my injury and thinking of going to school but it doesn't change the fact i was injured due to a company action that should not have come about and then the government had to pay instead of my employer. Justice is a fleeting thing I guess. My concern is for people who do not work for major copmpanies who can afford to pay for disability insurence and for those workers who are paid so poorly insurence of any kind is beyond their means.

[jackson33]

I think this thread shows clearly that consensus on any subject is difficult to obtain. People have too many different opinions and perceived needs or predjudices.

Moontan, I sympathize with your plight if you are injured. When I had my own business,I employed up to 20 people. If I had to pay wages when someone became disabled, I would have to pay it out of my profit. I would also have to hire another worker for that job, with another salary. A couple of these situations could have forced me out of business, along with the rest of my employees. When some one takes a job, it is wise to find out if there are benefits for a situation like yours. If there are none, you can buy insurance or get a better job. If you were injured on the job, what about workmen's comp.?

 

As an employer, you paid some into Workman's comp, unemployment insurance and SS/Medicare on behalf of that employee, whether you accepted as part of an employee cost or not. Then you no doubt probably had an 'Umbrella' insurance policy for you personal and business interest, to cover legal matters. Any employee hurt on the job, has a number of state/federal recourses, as well if off the job. Disability benefits, part of SS and then taken to Medicare, if qualified, has nothing to do with quality of the job...

 

In one of my post to your primary question, I tried to explain the consensus, was what is today. You or most of those posting are trying to implicate small minorities or agenda driven groups into what should or should not be, which is where what is came from. Right or wrong of any single change is subjective but still things have changed. Disliked women, for any reason, are no longer called witches and hung, blacks are no longer called 3/5th a citizen, every person over 18 now has a vote in all States, prohibition has come and gone and I could go on for a week on simple changes, even a personal opinion on each change. All this is acceptance of society to their GOVERNMENT. In a Muslim society, which is as contrary to our society you can get, however the people of that society accept their government/system and in most cases wouldn't trade it for ours, or would we theirs. The Chinese form of communism or the Russian attempts to democratize are acceptable to their societies, both currently encompassing Capitalism. Social acceptance of any society is and always has been a gradual change, from perceived extremism.

[nutronjon]

I think this thread shows clearly that consensus on any subject is difficult to obtain. People have too many different opinions and perceived needs or predjudices.

Moontan, I sympathize with your plight if you are injured. When I had my own business,I employed up to 20 people. If I had to pay wages when someone became disabled, I would have to pay it out of my profit. I would also have to hire another worker for that job, with another salary. A couple of these situations could have forced me out of business, along with the rest of my employees. When some one takes a job, it is wise to find out if there are benefits for a situation like yours. If there are none, you can buy insurance or get a better job. If you were injured on the job, what about workmen's comp.?

 

 

We often speak against socialism, but in reality, when we personally know and respect someone, if that person becomes disabled we want the best for the person. Low wages and no benefits such as medical insurance and retirement plans, are not the result of being employers being thoughtless S.O.B.'s but economic reality. Welfare in England was about subsidizing industry that successful argued, it could not pay higher wages and remain competitive on world markets. Individual employers can not give their employees the wages and benefits that honest, working people deserve. Our standard of living is great, because of all the people who work for below poverty wages and get no benefits, and they are not even assured vital things, such as decent housing, in decent neighborhoods, with decent schools, and medical care.

 

On the other side, property owners exploit the poor for rents. When the property own was the person who lived in the building and managed it, the human factor protected people who were honest and likable people. That is, when our relationships are based on personally knowing each other, they are different from what they are today. Today's property owner is likely to be investors who live in another state, and are driven by collective protection their investment. They have no problem driving out all those who can not afford higher rents. They care nothing about the people with whom they have no relationship, their families, or even their community. For those in many seats of power, it is all about money.

 

This is where government must step in. A democracy is about everyone having a say in government, even the laborer who has no property. All citizens have the right to self government for the protection of their interest, their families and their communities. Amazingly, the United States which introduced democracy to the modern world, is the most retarded when it comes to social services, and therefore the least humane. Nothing is done to improve conditions in ghetto neighborhoods, until the people riot, because these people do not have political power. The US has become excessively materialistic, and holds beliefs that are not best for all. Not everyone can get a better paying job. That is not economically possible, and I hate it when people avoid reality by saying everyone can get a better job.

 

Social Security was enacted during the Great Depression, after 30 years of grassroots movement failed to get a national pension plan. It was enacted in part to get older people to retire, and open up jobs for the young, lowering the unemployment rate. Social Security is based on age not need, to protect the dignity of those who qualify for it.

 

Workers Compensation, another institution we adopted from Germany, is vitally important, but too limited. Other developed countries have national medical plans, and it is primitive to not have universal health care.

 

The churches in the US have provided a lot of charity, but I don't a think a civilized nation should depend on religious people, for what is just human decency.

 

I just read Moontanman's argument, and I think he makes a point. The US has the worst industrial accident record of developed countires, and arguing why the employeer shouldn't have to pay for the result of breaking safety rules, when an employee is disabled, is not a good way to assure safety rules are inforced. I think this enployer point of view needs to expand, to cover the reality of workers forced to violate safety rules, to keep their jobs. This is not a minority issue, and it should not be an us against them issue. It is a moral issue.

[nutronjon]

Every time you are even near another human being you participate in a social agreement. You don't take their food/cloths/money because you don't want them to take yours. You drive in a certain way in order to ensure that you don't hit some one else and they don't hit you. If we did not have social agreements then every person would respond to their most basic instincts and there would be no society. This is called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract which was a concept first developed by John Locke. Just by living in a society you engage in the social contract. Some people break some aspects of the contract (thieves, murderers, etc.), but even they follow the majority of the contract. Even language requires a social contract. You speak, they listen; they speak, you listen... otherwise there is no point to language if not to communicate and be communicated to.

 

Interesting, we have an argument that a consensus is a hard thing to get, and now an argument that we have social agreements, that seems to deny all the disagreements.

 

How are social agreements learned? When a 28 year old consents to have sex with a seductive teenager, this is bad why? Do we all agree on this, and therefore, can hold that the 28 year old should know how everyone else thinks about this, and know without question, having sexual contact with a young but sexually activated peron is taboo? Would the answer to this question be the same in France or Holland?

[Nitack]

We often speak against socialism, but in reality, when we personally know and respect someone, if that person becomes disabled we want the best for the person. Low wages and no benefits such as medical insurance and retirement plans, are not the result of being employers being thoughtless S.O.B.'s but economic reality. 1 Welfare in England was about subsidizing industry that successful argued, it could not pay higher wages and remain competitive on world markets. 2Individual employers can not give their employees the wages and benefits that honest, working people deserve. 3 Our standard of living is great, because of all the people who work for below poverty wages and get no benefits, and they are not even assured vital things, such as decent housing, in decent neighborhoods, with decent schools, and medical care.

 

4 On the other side, property owners exploit the poor for rents. When the property own was the person who lived in the building and managed it, the human factor protected people who were honest and likable people. That is, when our relationships are based on personally knowing each other, they are different from what they are today. 5 Today's property owner is likely to be investors who live in another state, and are driven by collective protection their investment. 6 They have no problem driving out all those who can not afford higher rents. 7 They care nothing about the people with whom they have no relationship, their families, or even their community. For those in many seats of power, it is all about money.

 

This is where government must step in. 8 A democracy is about everyone having a say in government, even the laborer who has no property. 9 All citizens have the right to self government for the protection of their interest, their families and their communities. 10 Amazingly, the United States which introduced democracy to the modern world, is the most retarded when it comes to social services, 11 and therefore the least humane. Nothing is done to improve conditions in ghetto neighborhoods, until the people riot, because these people do not have political power. 12 The US has become excessively materialistic, and holds beliefs that are not best for all. Not everyone can get a better paying job. That is not economically possible, and I hate it when people avoid reality by saying everyone can get a better job.

 

13 Social Security was enacted during the Great Depression, after 30 years of grassroots movement failed to get a national pension plan. It was enacted in part to get older people to retire, and open up jobs for the young, lowering the unemployment rate. Social Security is based on age not need, to protect the dignity of those who qualify for it.

 

14 Workers Compensation, another institution we adopted from Germany, is vitally important, but too limited. Other developed countries have national medical plans, and it is primitive to not have universal health care.

 

15 The churches in the US have provided a lot of charity, but I don't a think a civilized nation should depend on religious people, for what is just human decency.

 

16 I just read Moontanman's argument, and I think he makes a point. The US has the worst industrial accident record of developed countires, and arguing why the employeer shouldn't have to pay for the result of breaking safety rules, when an employee is disabled, is not a good way to assure safety rules are inforced. I think this enployer point of view needs to expand, to cover the reality of workers forced to violate safety rules, to keep their jobs. This is not a minority issue, and it should not be an us against them issue. It is a moral issue.

 

Wow, this is the kind of unfounded drivel that is propelling the populist movement. Your full of accusations against those who have resources with very little substance. Please address the following issues with your post.

 

1. Please cite a source

2. Define "honest, working people". Because I busted my arse to get myself through college, served my time in the military to help subsidize that, worked full time, and now earn a good salary, does that mean that I am some how receiving an unfair level of compensation? Does my hard work count for nothing? Do my specialized skills that I honed through years of studying and work have the same value as the grocery clerk or Starbucks coffee jokey who went straight from high school to their minimum wage job?

3. Please define "decent housing, in decent neighborhoods, with decent schools". As for medical care, how can you have the right to something that requires another person to provide it to you?

4. I am a property owner and rent to individuals for profit. Should I not be compensated for the risk I took. Should I incur the risk of losing money and impoverishing my family with no potential for reward? Riddle me this, if there was no one willing to finance/build/supply housing would those people renting suddenly have the means to purchase their own house? With no investors willing to rent that housing you would find a crisis on your hands. Those investors supply the capitol needed to keep building more homes for our ever growing population. With out them, the low wage earners you pretend to advocate for would be homeless as the reduced construction of housing would drive housing prices up even higher.

5. Please please please cite a source on this. Where is the statistical data you have that shows what percentage of property owners don't even live in the community that they rent in?

6. This is a matter of basic economics sister. If the market could not support the prices charged, they could not charge it.

7. What are you basing this claim on? Do you have a source for this?

8. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

9. Unless you have a spec of land that is not with in the territorial boarders of an already existing country, you do not have the right to self-government. You have the right to cast a vote for a person to represent your interests. You have the right to enter your own name for consideration. You have no right to govern.

10. You are incorrect. The concept of modern democracy was introduced by England with the Magna Carta. And the only true democracy the world has ever seen was in the Greek city states, and even they were shaky as only certain people were allowed citizenship and the right to vote in governance.

11. This is a values statement based on your judgment of "social services" being good. I call it inhumane to steal money from my paycheck to provide for those who did not plan for their own retirement when that same benefit will not be available to me. That is called robbery, and you and your generation are seriously jeopardizing my ability (yes me, one of your rich elite) to provide for my children to attend college.

12. Based on your opinion and no supporting evidence. Statement rejected.

13. You are absolutely wrong here as well. Social Security was enacted because at the time our economy was most agrarian and manufacturing based. Senior citizens were not able to perform that work and were with out employment. I can dig up the statistics, but a large percentage of seniors lived in poverty. they did not save for their own retirment and they and the seniors of today are robbing younger generations to compensate for their own short sightedness. In the end, it is a pyramid scheme and it appears that my generation is on the bottom.

14. Health care is not a right, it is a privilege. Rights are inherent to every human being. They are intrinsic. They do not require anyone else to provide you with something in order to exercise that right. Health care relies on another individual or many individuals to provide you with something. What if they decided not to provide health care? Are they infringing on your rights? What about their right to chose what they want to do?

15. It is not the governments job to dictate morality. Forced charity is no longer charity, it is called communism and doesn't work.

16. The US has the worst record huh? Can you please cite a source on that? The worker has the right to refuse to engage in an unsafe behavior and we have laws protecting them from repercussions. They were not going to be shot for refusing to do it like in say... communist russia or china. The polish on that socialist apple is rubbing right off huh?

 

With every post you remind me more and more of the hippies of the 60's who had a lot of altruistic ideas but couldn't see that they were fatally flawed. Your feelings about an ideal world only work when EVERY person is in agreement with you. In fact most of the policies that you espouse were part of a very important movement in china... called the Great Leap Forward. It failed miserably and caused the deaths of 14 to 43 million people. Guess what china figured out... they needed to move to capitalism to actually improve peoples lives.

[nutronjon]

Wow, this is the kind of unfounded drivel that is propelling the populist movement. Your full of accusations against those who have resources with very little substance. Please address the following issues with your post.

 

1. Please cite a source

2. Define "honest, working people". Because I busted my arse to get myself through college, served my time in the military to help subsidize that, worked full time, and now earn a good salary, does that mean that I am some how receiving an unfair level of compensation? Does my hard work count for nothing? Do my specialized skills that I honed through years of studying and work have the same value as the grocery clerk or Starbucks coffee jokey who went straight from high school to their minimum wage job?

3. Please define "decent housing, in decent neighborhoods, with decent schools". As for medical care, how can you have the right to something that requires another person to provide it to you?

4. I am a property owner and rent to individuals for profit. Should I not be compensated for the risk I took. Should I incur the risk of losing money and impoverishing my family with no potential for reward? Riddle me this, if there was no one willing to finance/build/supply housing would those people renting suddenly have the means to purchase their own house? With no investors willing to rent that housing you would find a crisis on your hands. Those investors supply the capitol needed to keep building more homes for our ever growing population. With out them, the low wage earners you pretend to advocate for would be homeless as the reduced construction of housing would drive housing prices up even higher.

5. Please please please cite a source on this. Where is the statistical data you have that shows what percentage of property owners don't even live in the community that they rent in?

6. This is a matter of basic economics sister. If the market could not support the prices charged, they could not charge it.

7. What are you basing this claim on? Do you have a source for this?

8. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

9. Unless you have a spec of land that is not with in the territorial boarders of an already existing country, you do not have the right to self-government. You have the right to cast a vote for a person to represent your interests. You have the right to enter your own name for consideration. You have no right to govern.

10. You are incorrect. The concept of modern democracy was introduced by England with the Magna Carta. And the only true democracy the world has ever seen was in the Greek city states, and even they were shaky as only certain people were allowed citizenship and the right to vote in governance.

11. This is a values statement based on your judgment of "social services" being good. I call it inhumane to steal money from my paycheck to provide for those who did not plan for their own retirement when that same benefit will not be available to me. That is called robbery, and you and your generation are seriously jeopardizing my ability (yes me, one of your rich elite) to provide for my children to attend college.

12. Based on your opinion and no supporting evidence. Statement rejected.

13. You are absolutely wrong here as well. Social Security was enacted because at the time our economy was most agrarian and manufacturing based. Senior citizens were not able to perform that work and were with out employment. I can dig up the statistics, but a large percentage of seniors lived in poverty. they did not save for their own retirment and they and the seniors of today are robbing younger generations to compensate for their own short sightedness. In the end, it is a pyramid scheme and it appears that my generation is on the bottom.

14. Health care is not a right, it is a privilege. Rights are inherent to every human being. They are intrinsic. They do not require anyone else to provide you with something in order to exercise that right. Health care relies on another individual or many individuals to provide you with something. What if they decided not to provide health care? Are they infringing on your rights? What about their right to chose what they want to do?

15. It is not the governments job to dictate morality. Forced charity is no longer charity, it is called communism and doesn't work.

16. The US has the worst record huh? Can you please cite a source on that? The worker has the right to refuse to engage in an unsafe behavior and we have laws protecting them from repercussions. They were not going to be shot for refusing to do it like in say... communist russia or china. The polish on that socialist apple is rubbing right off huh?

 

With every post you remind me more and more of the hippies of the 60's who had a lot of altruistic ideas but couldn't see that they were fatally flawed. Your feelings about an ideal world only work when EVERY person is in agreement with you. In fact most of the policies that you espouse were part of a very important movement in china... called the Great Leap Forward. It failed miserably and caused the deaths of 14 to 43 million people. Guess what china figured out... they needed to move to capitalism to actually improve peoples lives.

 

 

Excuse me, but I do not read anything that begins with an insult.

[InfiniteNow]

Excuse me, but I do not read anything that begins with an insult.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the insults might actually stop if you moved beyond that quaint little principle of yours and actually tried. The fact that you don't read responses to you which don't blow smoke up your *** means you'll keep repeating the same mistakes and you'll keep receiving insults.

 

You're feeding a self-propogating cycle here, nutronjon. Open your eyes... please. It's downright painful to watch you do this so consistently.