Which do you value more? Freedom? Or equality?
So far, every single person I've talked to (which is around 20-30) has said freedom. So why so many socialists? If you do choose a side, back it up. It's not that I want a war in this thread, it's that I want to actualy see some sensible reasoning on each side.
Personaly, I would rather have freedom. I think a capitalistic economy is best for our country, where the hard working get rich and the not-so-hard working sink to the bottom. Of course, a minimum wage wouldn't be a too bad, so long as it stays fairly low. I don't like the idea of brining myself and others at my level and higher down so that a couple of lazy people can move up. I know some people aren't lazy, but with enough effort, I believe even the poorest can rise to the top.
Really, true communism would be the best... but historical communism has taught us that that doesn't usualy work as planned. So, what about you guys?
Freedom. I want to get what I deserve for my hard work.
I like freedom. But, the amount of effort you put into your job is not necessarily the main factor of how well you get paid - but, rather, the job you're working in.
Suppose somebody's strength is a good ability in problem solving. This person could become a programmer and get a six figure job if he or she works hard enough at it.
But, suppose, somebody else's strength is a good ability to play basketball. This person could become an NBA star and earn a minimum of a six figures.
Of course, people should earn their living, but it is not necessarily always fair in a capitalist system that depends on money to reward people goods with. Money is more of a product of profitability than effort, so the hard workers and not-so-hard workers can be present at practically any level of income.
But I still prefer Freedom over equality for that reason, because equality removes effort from the system for gaining rewards (besides, CivBase is correct about historical Socialism anyway :-P). And, if nobody wanted to work to get their pay, the standard of living will be quite low. If nobody grew food, made furnitore, or governed people, then nobody would have access to those things. Money would be useless, as there would be nothing to buy. So, basically, everyone would be forced to make their own rewards anyway, or die trying.
What I'm getting at, is that the effort is the most important part of providing people rewards, and capitalism as it is today tries to do that to some degree. There isn't yet a way to pay people solely on the amount of effort they put into their work. A system quite different from modern capitalism would have to be implemented, where advanced implants or head gadgets would measure stress, fatigue, pain, suffering, etc. to determine just how much effort somebody put into their job. This would actually make for a much better market, as people would be more motivated to work harder, and, thus, produce better products.
Imagine, if every fast food restaurant was as good as a sushi bar. Imagine that the cooks there actually cared about the food they gave you. If you ate at fast food restaurants a lot, your standard of living would probably go way up. The same applies to every other job a human being has to work at.
Freedom usually means the illusion that you control your own destiny. Enough people die in car crashes that they didn't plan, from diseases they didn't choose, and from mistakes they knew they shouldn't make to show this is an obviously false idea...
Equality usually means the same options as others, not the exact same conditions. That allows both a rich man and a poor man to feel 'equal' when by most social measurements this is blatantly untrue.
So... pick an illusion. Neither freedom nor equality are 'real' things. They're both constructs of the human mind.
Therefore...
Since they're just something humans thought up, you're as FREE as you think you are, and as EQUAL as you feel you are... of course, there's nobody more free than a sociopath, or more equal than a murderer, so don't get too caught up in your feelings of freedom or sense of equality.
:)
-Av-
Quote from: Avatar on November 20, 2008, 01:39:58 AM
Freedom usually means the illusion that you control your own destiny. Enough people die in car crashes that they didn't plan, from diseases they didn't choose, and from mistakes they knew they shouldn't make to show this is an obviously false idea...
Equality usually means the same options as others, not the exact same conditions. That allows both a rich man and a poor man to feel 'equal' when by most social measurements this is blatantly untrue.
So... pick an illusion. Neither freedom nor equality are 'real' things. They're both constructs of the human mind.
Therefore...
Since they're just something humans thought up, you're as FREE as you think you are, and as EQUAL as you feel you are... of course, there's nobody more free than a sociopath, or more equal than a murderer, so don't get too caught up in your feelings of freedom or sense of equality.
:)
-Av-
Then again, nothing is real as fact is non-existant. All we have to look forward to is our reality of things... and if you're religious like me, heaven.
And just like that, we are suddenly all depressed as we learn that everything in our life really means nothing. It is all just in our heads.
Duh...... and so what anyway?
Everything works fine the way it is right now so lets just concentrate on keeping it like this.
Freedom is real actually. It may have been created by mankind but it is now real. It is as real as a telescope or a computer = just an assortment of atoms really, but the whole becomes far greater than the sum of its parts.
Av and BBB have it about right. Neither thing really exist. Don't take that the wrong way, mind.
Quote from: bigbadbogie on November 20, 2008, 04:03:38 AM
And just like that, we are suddenly all depressed as we learn that everything in our life really means nothing. It is all just in our heads.
No, it means your life means what YOU think it means. In the end the only thing that defines your reality is YOU.
It's the basis for a lot of ideals in the world, from insanity to magic to philosophy to martial arts to social status to... the list is too long. It's a basic truth, one that many people understand only on an unconscious level, or when they reach the very end of their journey.
It all boils down to the idea that you are ultimately and totally responsible for the only thing you actually have any real control over...
You.
-Av-
too darn early for deep thoughts...
Freedom vs Equality:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
This basically means that everyone is free to buy a house, but not all are equally able to buy/afford a house.
Capitalism vs Socialism:
"You can have anything you want in Alice's Restaurant.":
With Capitalism, you have a wide range of houses to choose, but in Socialism it would be just like everybody else's.
Quote from: Red Devil on November 20, 2008, 04:36:01 PM
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Nice little bit of Orwell there :)
If you think you have either, then you have actually chosen to deceive yourself.
I would like to have both, but not too much of either, both are tyranny's when taken too far.
Quote from: mrtwosheds on November 20, 2008, 10:14:32 PM
If you think you have either, then you have actually chosen to deceive yourself.
I would like to have both, but not too much of either, both are tyranny's when taken too far.
As historical communism has proudly shown us...
Quote from: Avatar on November 20, 2008, 11:29:35 AM
No, it means your life means what YOU think it means. In the end the only thing that defines your reality is YOU.
It's the basis for a lot of ideals in the world, from insanity to magic to philosophy to martial arts to social status to... the list is too long. It's a basic truth, one that many people understand only on an unconscious level, or when they reach the very end of their journey.
It all boils down to the idea that you are ultimately and totally responsible for the only thing you actually have any real control over...
You.
-Av-
too darn early for deep thoughts...
Life is not but our own perception of what it is. While everyone lives a life, nobody, even if put through the exact same events and the exact same body, can have the same life (chaos theory :lol:). God created us in his image, but each of us uniquely flawed. In other words, Hannah Montanah (dispite how I hate her) was right, "life's what you make it." Reality is all we have.
Quote from: Red Devil on November 20, 2008, 04:36:01 PM
Freedom vs Equality:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
This basically means that everyone is free to buy a house, but not all are equally able to buy a house.
But you can't forget that in America, though some may find it harder, everyone has the chance to get that house. The only reason we're not able to buy that house is because some let their persistance wear them down faster than others.
I added an "afford" to my post for the sake of clarity.
Quote from: Red Devil on November 21, 2008, 01:45:59 AM
I added an "afford" to my post for the sake of clarity.
As far as I'm concerned, my post still stands if that's what you're trying to clarify.
Freedom vs Equality? I can't see those two being opposites. If you're in a minority group and have the same rights (equal) as everyone else, you are "free" to do the things that other people can do, so you have both. I don't believe that those two (freedom and equality) are non-existent, I just think that the definition of those two words are based on opinion. You could almost say they're a unit of measurement.
The problem with communism is that it doesn't take into consideration the fact that people are individuals.
Equality is just a buzzword. It you're discriminated against, deal with it. If you want something, take it. Human rights are not granted by an organization but by the individual themselves. You only have rights if you fight for them.
Quote from: Feared_1 on November 21, 2008, 04:20:11 AM
Freedom vs Equality? I can't see those two being opposites. If you're in a minority group and have the same rights (equal) as everyone else, you are "free" to do the things that other people can do, so you have both. I don't believe that those two (freedom and equality) are non-existent, I just think that the definition of those two words are based on opinion. You could almost say they're a unit of measurement.
They're not
opposites... but they are rarely found together. How can you be totaly free to do whatever you want when you are brought to the same level as everyone else? You are not free to move up, you are not free to move down, you are not free to be an individual.
Somebody tell me what equality means.
Ah, I love defining things with google, so here is what google has to say:
Quote from: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aequality
Definitions of equality on the Web:
* the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status
* a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced; "on a par with the best"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* Equality is the paradigmatic example of the more general concept of equivalence relations on a set: those binary relations that are reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. It goes beyond the other equivalence relations by also being antisymmetric. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality (mathematics)
* The fact of being equal; (mathematics) The fact of being equal, of having the same value; The equal treatment of people irrespective of social or cultural differences
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/equality
* The state of being equal and fair.
consultation.hartlepool.gov.uk/inovem/gf2.ti/f/7362/23301.1/dot/-/Compact%20Jargon%20Buster%20DRAFTamended.doc
* a measure of how similar people are to one another. It can be measured quantitatively with such measures as wealth concentration, Gini ...
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html
* suggests equal access to resources and opportunities and equal participation in all realms of society for women and men, but also for members of ...
www.fasngo.org/terms.html
* two diagonals stretching from squares 30 to 12 and 3 to 21
www.checkerschest.com/glossary.htm
* The principle by which all persons or things under consideration are treated in the same way.
www.emro.who.int/mei/mep/Healthsystemsglossary.htm
* Procedural (eg, political, legal?) - substantive (eg, social, economic, moral? religious?) - relationship between the government and equality?
faculty.smu.edu/jkobylka/American%20Political%20Thought/Concepts1.doc
* Diversity and Public & Patient Involvement Implications:
www.slam.nhs.uk/news/boardmin/docs/07nov06/TORforAcFin10-06.doc
* Ensure income distribution at any given time will not become less equitable over time.
www.pgia.ac.lk/notes/ec/EC%205153/RPM%20EC%205153%20L%20No%202%20%20Nov%2018%2006.ppt
* The condition of possessing substantially the same rights, privileges and immunities, and being substantially responsible for the same duties as other members of society.
www.cbsd.org/holicong/jendorman/PA_socialstudies_standards_vocabulary.htm
* meaning that the filter is false. There must be exactly one value of the OM attribute Attribute-Values.
docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/802-5047/6i8r5o8vl
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) that OvermindDL1 did manually since Greasemonkey does not work in Firefox 3.1 yet...
It's up to the government of each country to decide this stuff. Is Soviet Union free to choose which way to go, yes, well that's freedom in and of itself. Of course the "people" want what's on the other side of the fence if it looks good and they don't want what looks bad. Americans don't want the Government to change the course because they see Soviet people as being oppressed, and Soviets don't want to change course because they see the American people as being unbridled. Some people spank their children, some don't, it doesn't matter because it's just the way you were taught. I can't say I prefer one way or the other because I've never lived through the Soviet way.
So you'd like to have your government rule over your personal life? There's a difference between spaking an errant child and dictating what people can't and can't do\say\think.
Has Half-life 2 taught you nothing?
Quote from: CivBase on November 21, 2008, 03:29:12 PM
They're not opposites... but they are rarely found together. How can you be totaly free to do whatever you want when you are brought to the same level as everyone else? You are not free to move up, you are not free to move down, you are not free to be an individual.
If you think any Communist government so far on this Planet has actually upheld the Communist ideal, in that everyone is completely equal, then you're fooling yourself. All societies so far have had their cliques, their 'upper crust', and their 'downtrodden'.
If you take a room full of people, any people...
give them all the same amount of money, any amount...
wait a period of time, (not any time, has to be a decent interval)...
a few will have nothing, a few will have what they started with, and a few will have more.
If you repeat this experiment you'll find a certain group always ends up with more, and a certain group always ends up with less.
THAT is nature in general, and very much human nature. It's not normal for everyone to be exactly equal, there has to be an alpha, a beta, and a bunch of gammas...
-Av-
I think that all you guys who have more money than me should give it to me so that we'll be equals.
Yeah - lets give all this money that it took a lifetime to earn to that little bum out the back who just got out of jail for murder and make society equal.
Socialism is the stupidest thing ever devised.
Communism sucked and died.
But we are now at the point were it is clear that some freedoms do need to be curtailed, having our planet made uninhabitable by people being free to do whatever they want to it, is not a freedom any sane intelligent people would want.
And now we must learn that freedom must have limits.
This is not an invitation for the mad and stupid to start posting their reality denying opinions.
Quote from: mrtwosheds on November 22, 2008, 03:17:33 PM
Communism sucked and died.
Oh it's definitely not dead... it's such an attractive concept to those that can't seem to get ahead in life that it'll never die. Every time you see someone trying to raise the minimum wage, or bringing up national healthcare, or basically any time you see something that aims to let the Government handle some aspect of life instead of letting market pressures dictate terms... that's socialism, or society by the State.
The US Government bailing out Wall Street for a share in the businesses... the 'Economic Stimulus Payments'... these things should raise a flag for any Democratic society...
Someone said Democracies can only survive until the voters discover they can vote themselves money...
Maybe we'll see if that's true.
-Av-
Quote from: mrtwosheds on November 22, 2008, 03:17:33 PM
This is not an invitation for the mad and stupid to start posting their reality denying opinions.
That's definitely going to scare people away from doing so. Freedom doesn't need to be limited by any external forces. People need to learn discipline for themselves, not have it forced onto them.
@Av:Don't forget, the US isn't a democracy but a constitutional republic. But that's besides the point, as the things you brough up(bailout and etc.) should raise said flags anyway.
Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.
Socialism will build a health service for all of its people, they are still free to make other choices.
Communism will attempt to build a health service (and probably fail) for all its people and then deny them any other choice.
Capitalism does not build a health service, it only serves those who can afford it.
From here in Europe, this US argument about health services, looks very odd, (we all have health services available to all (even Americans!)) Lots of propaganda aimed at the well off, trying to tell them that health care for the poor is a bad thing! Very selfish, sounds like the UK in the 1930's. A damn good bombing of our city's by the Germans sorted that out. No political party would dare put forward a non inclusive health care system, it would be political suicide.
QuoteFreedom doesn't need to be limited by any external forces.
The purpose of Laws is to limit freedom, I am sure you are not an Anarchist, I know a few, they are all selfish idiots.
Quotethat's socialism, or society by the State.
It a damn sight better than the other currently available option. The state brought to you via global corporations.
Quote from: mrtwosheds
Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.
In truth, communism is closer to capitalism than it is to socialism. However, historical communism is closer to socialism. The difference is, in socialism and capitalism, people own their own land and property. In communism, however, the property belongs to the people (and in historical communism, the government).
Quote from: mrtwosheds
Socialism will build a health service for all of its people, they are still free to make other choices.
Communism will attempt to build a health service (and probably fail) for all its people and then deny them any other choice.
Capitalism does not build a health service, it only serves those who can afford it.
But in captialism, everyone has a chance to afford it, and there are different levels. So you can actualy get better healthcare than the government can supply.
Quote from: mrtwosheds
From here in Europe, this US argument about health services, looks very odd, (we all have health services available to all (even Americans!)) Lots of propaganda aimed at the well off, trying to tell them that health care for the poor is a bad thing! Very selfish, sounds like the UK in the 1930's.
Selfish? You think that us not wanting to give our hard earned cash to the lazy people and all the invading immigrants is selfish? Keep in mind that your entire government is socialistic, ours isn't and the only thing that would change in this is healthcare. What people need to realise is that healthcare is insurance. What happens when everyone has the same exact insurance? Well, unless the govt owns the hospitals too (not going to happen because our govt is so terrible at handeling money), then the hospitals will just raise their prices. Problem solved... for them.
Quote from: mrtwosheds
A damn good bombing of our city's by the Germans sorted that out. No political party would dare put forward a non inclusive health care system, it would be political suicide.
Well, we don't have a crazy dictator trying to conquer all of the Americas, do we?
*looks at TV and sees a picture of Castro*
Never mind....
Quote from: mrtwosheds
The purpose of Laws is to limit freedom, I am sure you are not an Anarchist, I know a few, they are all selfish idiots.
I'm not an anarchist, though I know this wasn't aimed at me. I do believe that social contracts are in order for a healthy society.
Quote from: mrtwosheds
It a damn sight better than the other currently available option. The state brought to you via global corporations.
What other options do you see?
I think that a great option would be the government trying to prevent the lobbying of pharmacies and other medical companies. That'd fix a ton and not force equality down on us.
Quote from: CivBase on November 22, 2008, 07:16:00 PMIn communism, however, the property belongs to the people (and in historical communism, the government)
Don't forget, in communism the land belongs to EVERYBODY, not just the people living on it.
@Twosheds:Are you accusing me of something? I'm not an anarchist.
Also, people are free to change those laws as they see fit. They don't limit freedom. Passing laws to punish murder isn't the loss of freedom. You can still do it, but people won't stand for it.
QuoteSelfish? You think that us not wanting to give our hard earned cash to the lazy people and all the invading immigrants is selfish? Keep in mind that your entire government is socialistic, ours isn't and the only thing that would change in this is healthcare. What people need to realise is that healthcare is insurance. What happens when everyone has the same exact insurance? Well, unless the govt owns the hospitals too (not going to happen because our govt is so terrible at handeling money), then the hospitals will just raise their prices. Problem solved... for them.
Lazy people...what you need to understand is relativity, it applies very much to finance, at least a quarter or so of any population will always be "the poor" no matter how much they try not to be, that is why communism does not work, simple mathematics, capitalism chooses to call them lazy, or slaves, or lesser races etc etc. It is only once the Bombs fall on your nation and you start fighting and dying together, that people start to think, good enough to fight, good enough to die, but not good enough to be tended by a doctor when they need it? The conservative (read republican) government tried to put it back like that after ww2, to firmly re-establish the old class divides between those who have and those who do not. They suffered a huge defeat for it despite having been the victorious war government.
Yes I think it is selfish and divisive. America is redeveloping the old class systems that its constitution was designed to liberate it from.
Immigrants...I used to work for Xerox! they "invaded" south America for its resources, they took its wealth for north America and now you have their people too. Greed and consequences.
Quote@Twosheds:Are you accusing me of something? I'm not an anarchist.
No, it was a very anarchistic statement, freedom always needs to be limited, without laws nobody has freedom.
And maybe In the future without the right "world" laws nobody will have life.
Quote from: mrtwosheds
Lazy people...what you need to understand is relativity, it applies very much to finance, at least a quarter or so of any population will always be "the poor" no matter how much they try not to be, that is why communism does not work, simple mathematics, capitalism chooses to call them lazy, or slaves, or lesser races etc etc.
Very true with historical communism. With true communism, however, there is no economy, there is nothing to judge wealth, just people working for the good of everyone.
Quote from: mrtwoshedsIt is only once the Bombs fall on your nation and you start fighting and dying together, that people start to think, good enough to fight, good enough to die, but not good enough to be tended by a doctor when they need it?
Legaly, our hospitals are
required to provide care to everyone that comes in, wheather they can pay for it or not.
Quote from: mrtwoshedsThe conservative (read republican) government tried to put it back like that after ww2, to firmly re-establish the old class divides between those who have and those who do not. They suffered a huge defeat for it despite having been the victorious war government.
It's much harder to remove socialism than it is to apply it.
Quote from: mrtwoshedsYes I think it is selfish and divisive. America is redeveloping the old class systems that its constitution was designed to liberate it from.
It's always had that system and it's worked for over 250 years, I think it will work for a couple more.
Quote from: mrtwoshedsImmigrants...I used to work for Xerox, they invaded south America for its resources, they took its wealth for north America and now you have their people too. Greed and consequences.
Interesting way of looking at it... but couldn't they at least come over here legaly? Then they'll legaly have to pay taxes and live like any other American.
Quote from: mrtwoshedsNo, it was a very anarchistic statement, freedom always needs to be limited, without laws nobody has freedom.
But they do, they just don't live long enough to utalize it.
In other words; Free to die.
That's the one way of putting it, yes.
America is
trying to take the best of both Socialism and Capitalism in the same way that Microsoft is
trying to give you the best OS in the world... :evil:
The idea being that the Government will provide the basic level of support needed for someone to survive. It won't be much, it won't be pretty, it might be humiliating at times to take it, but it'll keep you alive. The country is moving towards Government housing, welfare, health care, etc. as being an all-inclusive 'suite' of services for those who can't afford anything more.
But who wants health care that's the equivalent of Notepad, when Word will actually keep you alive if something bad comes along...
The problem is that even this basic level is SO attractive to residents of other countries that have nothing that it brings them in in droves to take advantage of it.
***
Quote@Av:Don't forget, the US isn't a democracy but a constitutional republic. But that's besides the point, as the things you brough up(bailout and etc.) should raise said flags anyway.
Why am I suddenly thinking of Monty Python??? lol...
-Av-
Anarchistic? Anarchists want a world without law. I said laws are not meant to restrict freedom. Laws are nessecary, but I think were having a disagreement on the meaning of the word.
@Avatar:In canada, our health care is 'free', but it's also of questionable quality. People with cancer have to wait months for treatment and so on.
QuoteThe problem is that even this basic level is SO attractive to residents of other countries that have nothing that it brings them in in droves to take advantage of it.
The price of success. Yes of course you want to eat food grown on their land, drive a car made from their steel, run by their oil, live in a nice house, reading a newspaper both made from their forests. You are outraged they they have the cheek to follow their wealth to somewhere they can use it, clearly they should all stay back at home and starve for your benefit too.
Lock down the borders! except... um sorry do you actually need that little rain forest right now? it looks untidy, my friends need to print some lies on it to sell me your lunch.
Yes lock down your borders, but make sure
nothing gets in or out... Soon your wealth will have gone and you'll be pulling the plough yourself, hoping for rain that might not come again.
America is a place of freedom, something that I think people misunderstand far too often...
Freedom means that you can do something, not that you have a right to what you want. It means that you have choices to make, that you choose your life. You can do anything here but, mrtwosheds, that doesn't mean that there aren't conciquences. I love how avatar made the connection with word vs notepad. It shows how everyone gets something with socialism, but nobody has the feedom to move up.
Here's a great scenario:
Three kids have waiting for halloween for a long time and have been trick-or-treating all night. They're all dressed up, and each carries a nearly full bag of candy. They all agree that this next house will be their last for the night, the house of Barrack Obama. Well, at the same time a teenager decides that he wants some candy. So he goes to the house too, no outfit or anything. So they all get their at the same time and ring the doorbell. Obama comes out, simileing, and looks at all four of them. When he sees the teenager he says, "well this isn't right, this kid has no candy." So Obama reaches into the bags of the little kids and gives him some of their candy. "Much better," he says and gives them each a tootsieroll from his huge box of candy. Then he closes the door and the teenager goes on his way, as happy as can be, leaving the three crying kids.
Quote from: mrtwosheds on November 23, 2008, 02:10:23 PM
The price of success. Yes of course you want to eat food grown on their land, drive a car made from their steel, run by their oil, live in a nice house, reading a newspaper both made from their forests. You are outraged they they have the cheek to follow their wealth to somewhere they can use it, clearly they should all stay back at home and starve for your benefit too.
They control the price/availability of all of those resources, so they shouldn't have to follow the wealth. They should have obtained it through trade for their resources. In many countries such things are 'nationalized', such that foreigners can't own them, and are therefore entirely under the control of the country of origin. Things like South American oil wells and refineries, which have recently been 'reclaimed' by the Government, or land in Japan, which can only be owned by Japanese born citizens.
*sigh* It's also sad that what you describe is the usual reaction. It's genetic, part of our basic brain function, to draw back and snarl when someone reaches for our stuff. This planet could be a paradise if only the opposite were true. Rather than 'close the borders' we should 'erase the borders', and all work together to make a decent basic quality of life for everyone.
What hugely traumatic event it would take to change this is beyond me... *cough*WATCHMEN*cough*...
-Av-
QuoteIt shows how everyone gets something with socialism, but nobody has the feedom to move up.
This is your misunderstanding, it does not mean that at all, (that's communism) The UK ran for centuries with an entrenched privileged class, it was impossible to "move up" unless you were already "up". It is this we keep in check with our occasional socialist government, every now and then they screw up and loose an election and the Conservative (upper class) get back in, then its tax cuts for the rich and powerful and bugger all for every one else. Now under both systems people can move up, on balance its probably easier when the socialist are in power though.
How can they move up when they can't choose what to get? Sure they can get more money, but they can't buy the better health insurance, they can't get better service, they're stuck with the govt services. And people can move up very easily here. This isn't the 1500s.
Quote from: mrtwosheds on November 23, 2008, 02:10:23 PM
The price of success. Yes of course you want to eat food grown on their land, drive a car made from their steel, run by their oil, live in a nice house, reading a newspaper both made from their forests. You are outraged they they have the cheek to follow their wealth to somewhere they can use it, clearly they should all stay back at home and starve for your benefit too.
Lock down the borders! except... um sorry do you actually need that little rain forest right now? it looks untidy, my friends need to print some lies on it to sell me your lunch.
Yes lock down your borders, but make sure nothing gets in or out... Soon your wealth will have gone and you'll be pulling the plough yourself, hoping for rain that might not come again.
I think you just described Australia from head to toe.
QuoteHow can they move up when they can't choose what to get?
You can choose! that's the point. A service only supplied to those who can pay is the one that removes any choice from those who can't. My Brother has very good private health insurance, it gets him the best doctors in the country for his medical problem, he chose to pay for it, because he can afford to. I can't afford it because I just have an ordinary job, so I get treated on the national health.
I can see Obama certainly has a big job to do combating divisive republican misinformation.
Quote from: mrtwosheds on November 23, 2008, 10:30:00 PM
I can see Obama certainly has a big job to do combating divisive republican misinformation.
What?
Sounds like he just looked through a dictionary and put together a bunch of big words to make himself look smart. :-P Nah...
Lol...
If you really really really want to observe American politics I suggest you become VERY familiar with the American financial structure and systems. To truly understand our politics you have to be able to follow the money.
Before going any further, a disclaimer or two: I voted for McCain because I'll take an ugly old vet over a young pretty politician any day of the week. That's it. No other reasons, and I'm not particularly one Party or another, having voted for the people and issues more than for the Party all of my life. I even voted Libertarian one year (mostly out of disgust with the other candidates).
I'm also totally color blind. We're all pink on the inside and I grew up a Star Trek geek so I think green and red are cool skin colors, and that there's not enough difference between black and white for me to even notice.
Now...
Obama spent an obscene amount of money ($427 Million reported so far so probably safe to add 50% on top of that) on his campaign. His online ad spending alone was more than McCain's total campaign spending. Google alone got over $2M. Much of the money came from his constituents but a disturbing amount came from overseas.
I also liked McCain's background better, being as he's pretty much proven his patriotism beyond any shadow of a doubt. Obama I'd never heard of (disturbing in it's own right) AND has the dubious distinction of coming from a State absolutely legendary in it's being the absolute seat of political corruption. I hate to generalize but that's how it was 'in the old days'... (remember, I'm old).
I predict that a few decades from now this whole election will make a riveting Movie of the Week... but for now everyone's just ignoring any details, since they're all busy waiting for all of the money they'll get from the 'redistribution'.
I seriously believe, after everything I've seen, that Hillary was their candidate of choice until research showed she couldn't beat McCain. A cold, scientific decision was made to use Obama instead as they felt that we weren't ready for a female President, but were ready for a sortof black one.
Then again I feel that that Gina Davis TV show where we had a woman President was part of the research... (move over Mel, and I'm gonna need one of those tin foil hats...) :)
*sigh*
Personally I think anyone who WANTS a political office should be BANNED from every attaining it. We should be voting in people that will do the job but absolutely do NOT want it. Think about that... :)
Either that or those in office should be given food, clothing, and shelter but their personal finances frozen for their term + 10 years. That would make it harder (but not impossible) for them to be swayed by money. (yeah, I know, they'd just use sex, drugs, rock & roll, or blackmail instead of bribes. Still...)
Anyway, getting back to freedom vs equality, I still maintain that both are an illusion externally, and can only be made real internally by YOU, the way you think, the way you act, and how you live out your life.
This is how people in prison have died free, and the lowliest street sweeper can be the equal of the richest man on earth.
-Av-
I know lots about American politics after being forced to watch about 5 million episodes of the west wing over the last few years.
Quote from: Avatar on November 24, 2008, 01:34:50 AM
Personally I think anyone who WANTS a political office should be BANNED from every attaining it. We should be voting in people that will do the job but absolutely do NOT want it. Think about that... :)
"Any leader who doesn't resent their leadership is half-way to being a tyrant." - bigbadbogie
Quote from: bigbadbogie on November 24, 2008, 01:03:53 AM
Sounds like he just looked through a dictionary and put together a bunch of big words to make himself look smart. :-P Nah...
No, I mean the statement I quoted was extremely biased and blamed republicans for something democrats are at the very least equally guilty of. In fact, by the very basis of the parties it is more likely for the democrats to do it more.
I am biased, I refuse to support or follow any political party. I am a considerable cynic, and am quite proficient at listening to politicians, understanding what it is they "want me to hear" and also extrapolating from what they say, what they are not saying...
I am not biased either way, I know the democrats are no better than the republicans. Its just that the republican miss-information is usually of a far lower quality than democrat miss-information. :-D
That is, it is usually much easier to see what it is they are not saying.
Try as I can, I cannot really see what they hope to gain from denying adequate healthcare to their own electorate. Cost does not wash with me as a reason, As an expanded health service simply provides even more avenues for profitable business, economic activity and growth. A real poisonous cynic might think that they actually wanted the poor to die, But I am certain that is not the case in America, as it is without doubt, the case in some other nations.
Quote from: mrtwosheds on November 24, 2008, 07:38:43 PM
Its just that the republican miss-information is usually of a far lower quality than democrat miss-information.
Ah yes. That happens when one has the media and 50% of the internet in their pocket. I just hope the fairness doctrine doesn't get passed because the in-pocket media is considered unbiased, so thus any station with a slight conservative tone would be FORCED to also air extreme liberalism, horridly damaging profits.
Quote from: mrtwosheds
I am not biased either way, I know the democrats are no better than the republicans. Its just that the republican miss-information is usually of a far lower quality than democrat miss-information. :-D
Lol, come on down here and listen to any news channel for five minutes other than Fox and you will be swayed the other way.
Yea, Fox is crap. If you want any *good* news channel, goto the BBC news, that are about the only decent one out there (and yes, they cover the USA as well), all the USA-bred news stations are utter and complete donkey and mule child excrement.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) that OvermindDL1 did manually since Greasemonkey does not work in Firefox 3.1 yet...
Its funny that FOX is called fair and balanced when all it is is less extreme liberal. Just don't watch Democracy Now, it makes me foam at the mouth (damn philosophy professor).
Most of the time it makes me angry too, but just now its got a little bit interesting, trying to figure out what's really going on behind the several layers of complex miss-info being hurled around between folks about the economic downturn.
I'm supposed to believe that due to allot of people stupidly lending money to people who weren't going to pay it back, that the global economy has gone tits up, and that apparently the cure is, allot of people lending even more money to people who will be even less able to pay it back, because the economy has gone tits up... And in order to get this happening, some lying bastards have given away allot of other peoples money to some other lying bastards, so that they have something to lend, and that then the first lot of lying bastards have gone off and borrowed another lots of money off of someone...unknown (?) and intend to use that in order to pay for... not taking quite as much money off of the people who could not pay their debts in the first place.
Clearly this is complete and utter cow poo, any fool knows that borrowing money actually makes you worse off most of the time and so does lending it to people who wont pay it back, so what they are not saying is "we havn't got an -ing clue what were doing or why but at least were doing something to justify the ever increasing huge paychecks we take off of you."
Or maybe they really are very very clever and are actually trying to cause a global great depression in order to regain the competitive advantage over the little green men on the moon...
Quote from: OvermindDL1
Yea, Fox is crap. If you want any *good* news channel, goto the BBC news, that are about the only decent one out there (and yes, they cover the USA as well), all the USA-bred news stations are utter and complete donkey and mule child excrement.
I kinda like fox, but I don't just watch it, and I do watch it realizing that it will likely be portrayed more conservative. However, same goes for CNN, keeping in mind that it's more liberal. I do kinda like Glenn Beck though.... :lol: