Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the government can spend 50 mill to train 4 foreign soldiers and the media thinks that is not news.
This was some news last year, a little stale now, but if you want to criticize military spending, get in line!
What of the "investment" to invade Iraq? You go on about $50 million to train foreign soldiers instead of committing our own along with the standard billions across the board? Nearly $600 billion last year alone, some 54 percent of all Federal discretionary spending?
Has Obama not been right to curb that "appeal" some, contrary to conservative "anti-government" types? Getting us out of Iraq for example, just for starters...?
the president can say each family will save 2,500$$ with obamacare and they don't...and he isn;t challenged by the mainstream media. Private business could not get away with that.
Don't you follow the news? I can hardly go a day without hearing what "promises" Obama made not kept, as if the ACA was ultimately as he originally thought or imagined. I know we should hold our elected officials accountable, but I really wonder to what extent people should consider these campaign "promises" legally binding...
Again, a big difference between Obama and a business, like say Volkswagen that can defraud all Americans and continue operations forever..., Obama has a maximum of eight years whether he cures cancer or not, corporations can cheat, lie, steal and go on forever.
This is the sort of "consequence" that becoming POTUS involves that no CEO need concern themselves with, and just another example of countless more why comparing government to business and vice versa is the proverbial mixing of apples with oranges...
PS: I'm still waiting for even one conservative to note any medical expense that is lower or even "free" as compared to before the ACA came into being. Like preventative care -- mammograms, colonoscopies, for example. You can't complain about the retail price of a cell phone, for example, and not recognize the cost is lower as a result of the rebate! I mean if we want to talk in business terms and/or be reasonable that is...
If we return to the example of the drowning man... if a crowd of people had gathered around him, I certainly wouldn't expect the guy in the wheelchair to attempt to save him. Maybe the guy in the wheelchair is better off because he isn't currently drowning, but it's way too dangerous for him and there's a good chance that he would lose his life in the attempt. The best candidate for the job also wouldn't be the average joe who can swim alright, even though he's the one most likely to actually attempt to save the guy. No, the best candidate for the job would be the guy who owns a helicopter, a boat and a team of professionally trained lifeguards... so it's no good if he's too busy using the helicopter to take his daughter on a joyride, or too busy sunning himself on his boat, or too busy using his lifeguards to beat up someone who owes him money.
First, I see we're making a lot of different points all at once, so if you want to just focus on the points you think are most important or fundamental, feel free. I know it can get overwhelming seeing a giant post where you have to respond to every point made. So anyway...
I don't disagree with anything you said. However, that still doesn't mean the best candidate is obligated to do anything. There's a difference between being an uncaring jerk and being a criminal. It isn't a criminal offense to let someone drown, even though you should probably be shunned and criticized to no end for doing that. It's a criminal offense to push someone in and then not help them, because the responsibility is on you for putting them in that situation, not them.
Quote:
My point is that you can't assign equal amounts of obligation to people unless/until they are equally endowed. Those who own a greater share of the resources have a greater obligation. With great power comes great responsibility. Only with EQUAL amounts of power do we end up with equal amounts of responsibility. It's a total dick move to turn to the guy in the wheelchair and say 'Hey, why aren't you saving this drowning man? Get off your ass and go do it!!'... but this is exactly the line of bull**** that the upper classes are feeding everyone else today.
If everyone who currently owns more than I do starts giving until they come down to my level and there's still a problem, THEN we can talk about what I should give up to help the poor.
The thing is, you're in the global 1% if you live in the U.S...so if the principle is that people who own more must give to those who need the money more (correct me if that isn't the principle), then we should be sacrificing most of what we earn to give to people around the world. I'm not accusing you of this, but a lot of people are very quick to defend this idea if they're the ones receiving the money, but not as much when they're the ones being taken from.
Quote:
And before we go down that road, I'm not saying that we can 'make' everyone naturally equal... I'm talking about basic things like security, health, education and opportunity... NOT pretending that everyone is exactly the same.
Fair enough. I assumed so.
Quote:
You totally missed what I was saying about intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation... I don't want to explain it again, so you'll either have to re-read my last post or google it. Most people don't work for money-- they work for food, shelter, health, entertainment and putting their kids through college. They also work because they get a sense of personal satisfaction from their work. Socialism provides the former and encourages the latter.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think I get it now. I'd say they work for wealth, which can come in many forms. Money is just a way to represent wealth...so instead of working directly for food, shelter, healthcare, entertainment, schooling, etc., they're given money which is more convenient. People have varying motivations and goals, so some will value money for the options it gives them, or for the material things they've always thought would be cool to have, or the status they get from it...others don't really care and can be happy not achieving much financial success. They might be more motivated to do other things, and that's fine. The personal satisfaction aspect varies as well. It depends on the person's attitude. Some take pride in their job, and others do the bare minimum so they can get the money and go do something else.
Quote:
Communism didn't fail because it has never been implemented-- the USSR was state capitalism. You can argue that the fact that it hasn't been implemented somehow suggests that it will never work, but then you would also have to admit the same for your own ideology.
This is where you're definitely losing me. The USSR was state capitalism? I'm definitely against crony capitalism (crapitalism), but that type of thing is what exists in the U.S. today. The USSR controlled the means of production - all the factories, farms, etc. - and the whole economy was centrally planned. Unbastardized capitalism is a pure free market, which is what I'm advocating. On the continuum of communism to capitalism, the ones closer to capitalism have ALWAYS produced a wealthier economy, and that benefits everybody, even the poor. You grow the whole pie instead of just divvying up the smaller pie that you have now.
And no, I'd never argue that it can't work because it's never existed before. That one is used on me all the time, so I know how frustrating that is . If that were true, we'd still be living like cavemen.
Quote:
Yes, and the government is obligated to care for its citizens.
This is exactly my point-- thank you.
I disagree here as well. The government, at least in the U.S., was designed to protect people from internal or external criminals and resolve disputes, and that's about it. It wasn't seen as the government's job to get involved in society and provide anything else. I even have an issue with the minimal government set up, because they still decided they're allowed to take everyone's money by force to fund the courts, military, police, and pay the politicians...but I've gone over that before.
Quote:
What kind of a ****ty parent spoils the older brother while giving the younger sister nothing?
The brother grows up feeling like the world owes him everything and the sister grows up feeling resentment towards her brother. The brother doesn't understand why the sister doesn't just suck it up and make due with what she was given, and the sister doesn't understand how the brother can be so selfish.
Well, first I'd say the government isn't supposed to be our parent, although that's basically what people want it for...but I agree that the government shouldn't play favorites, if that's your point. You have the rich making deals with politicians, and that's a huge problem as I think we talked about earlier...maybe it was someone else.
The selfishness part is important. If you earn something honestly, not fraudulently or by force, it belongs to you. You're the rightful owner. If someone else tried to take it from you by force or fraud, it isn't selfish to defend against that.
Quote:
Socialism isn't the same thing as collectivism.
I explained this in my last post.
Your definition of collectivism as 'the idea that individual rights can sometimes be violated if it serves the common good, or the most good for the greatest amount of people, or some variation of that' is inaccurate. You're describing act utilitarianism. Collectivism tends to involve subordinating one's own will to that of the group.
What's the real difference? Are you voluntarily subordinating your own will to that of the group? I have no problem with that. I have a problem with being forced to do so.
Quote:
Part of a truly egalitarian society would be giving everyone equal amounts of freedom to express themselves, hence my comments about civil rights... but of course, it would also extend to business opportunities, educational opportunities, etc. You can have duties to society without those duties getting in the way of your personal goals. Christians have a duty to serve God, but they don't let that get in the way of opening businesses or writing novels or becoming scientists or expressing themselves in various ways.
I don't know why you think you're expressing yourself as a freedom-loving individual by competing for a job in some big corporation somewhere in order to pay off your enormous student loan. Do you really feel like an individual slaving away your youth so that you can get a promotion and make six figures working 72 hours a week? Is this what you think most people have always dreamed of doing with their lives? How exactly does a demeaning, low-paying job at MacDonald's turn you into a better person?
The way I view it is that everyone is born with different abilities and into different situations, and the law shouldn't prevent anyone from achieving whatever they can from there. That isn't the same as the law proactively "making" everyone more equal.
The analogy I like is to imagine a race. Everyone in the race has different levels of speed, endurance, training, etc...the only thing needed to make it fair is to not move certain people ahead or behind the starting line (everyone has the law apply equally to them, not favoring or punishing any person or group). Once the gun fires, it's all on the runners to win or lose the race. It might not be fair that some people have more ability, but that doesn't mean they're obligated to let the slower people win. Every person in the race is free to run as hard or as slow as they want as well, so effort is a factor too.
To answer your last paragraph, I think it helps to look at history. If this were hundreds of years ago, or even decades ago, life was very hard. You had to work most of your life just to survive. The creation of wealth in society has allowed us to even have the luxury of free time, or the luxury to only work 40 hours a week and still be doing pretty well. If the wealth of society continues to grow, which it will, but more slowly if hindered by the state, it will allow for even more freedom to do as you please. You can see how that has happened in places that are becoming more industrialized that were previously rural.
Because Corporations are Amoral. That is they will do what they do if it kills you or saves your life, which ever makes a profit. government theoretically does what ever gets your vote. They are supposed to be beholding to you. Money for campaigns have degraded the proses so that corporations now have the upper hand.
Let me help your type out with something. Being on the Right and being a Nationalist is a positive.
I'm proud to be American. Apparently you are not.
I'd like to know what the antithesis of Nationalism is in your young mind.
You need to get over that thinking.
I'm a middle of the road Democrat (and former Republican). I'm proud to be American and respect our history.
Being on the right means people like Donald Trump represent you, and he doesn't believe that America is great.
Any idea that Democrats and people to the right of center are less than patriotic demonstrates childish, limited wisdom.
How many concentration camps or gulags has big business made?
How many people has big business imprisoned over thier views?
How many nations has big business invaded?
Wake up.
Intentional genocides, probably none. Poisoning of drinking water supplies by mine seepage, the Love Canal, etc. ... plenty. But you'll probably say, "Well that's just cancer, not genocide".
Imprisoned. Rarely. But there were atrocities against union members, particularly in the country's earlier history.
Big business has invaded other big business, such as in hostile takeovers. And, big business has sapped the resources of many third world countries.
You do realize that none of those are capitalist societies right? The reason there are poor and starving people is a lack of wealth in society. Capitalism has created the most wealth throughout history. Zero entitlements in the Soviet bloc? Their entire society was communist, and it collapsed. It isn't sustainable. (I know you don't support communism, btw)
I assume you won't read this, and it's a long article, but it addresses a lot of what you said here. If you want to respond to me, I'd ask that you read this first. You can skip down to the line where he asks if capitalism requires government.
I am sooooo sorry I read that racist right wing diatribe. When the author begings with calling people like me *******s, the rest of the article might as well be written in Greek.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. If that were true, we'd still be living like cavemen.
