General Chat / "GOP doesn't reflect America"

thanks for the good laugh link, ed.

funny stuff.

There is nothign wrong with helping people and seeking equality. The problem lies in your means. You want to forcefully make people help others. That is not your place. People have free will. You cannot have freedom unless you also have the freedom to discriminate in your private domain. You are in no place to judge others. You are not a superior being who can make them help others. You are a human too. You should let the people live life as they see fit not as you see fit.

Lazyboy, you're starting to make me mad. How many times can I say something and you not hear it? I want to forcefully make people help others? No I do not. No I do not. No I do not. No I do not. Did you hear me that time? Than stop saying it! Somehow you've associated Socialism with the tought police busting down doors and carting people off and that's just not true. If you want to talk about the thought police, George Orwell himself wrote (and let me find the exact quote here) "There is no chance of righting the conditions described in the earlier chapters of this book [The Road to Wigan Pier], or of saving England from Fascism, unless we can bring an effective Socialist party into existence" That's just one opinion but surely it counts for something that the man who wrote at length about the thought police and lack of freedom advocated a Socialist state. People should be able to lead life as they see fit. All people. Nobody is a superior being who can make other people help others. You're hung up on the idea of government control (as if we don't already have that anyway) and my whole point in the last post is that we need some form of organization or we'll all kill each other and we'll destroy the planet. No people should not be allowed to mine the planet dry when doing so will prevent anyone from living there. We have to set limits somewhere, so why don't we set it at the existence of the human race? Is that an unreasonable limit to set - people can do what they want so long as it doesn't endanger the existence of the human race? If there is nobody to make people consider the existence of the human race than individual self interest will drive people to destruction. I believe in maximizing human freedom too, I only suggest that we ensure human survival first on a universal level and then we give people the maximum amount of freedom possible beyond that.

I'm confused here. First you say this:

Laws are force. The government does not go in and negotiate with the people to do things. If you get a DUI a judge does not negotiate with you about it if you are found guilty. You are sentenced and the state will come after you if you disobey. That is force. Governments are force. it doesn't have to be SS troops kicking down doors watching what everybody is doing.

Then you say this:

Ed, you are wrong. Not all laws require compromise. Making murder illegal is not a compromise. Nobody has the right to kill another. Theft being illegal is not a compromise.

Yeah well what about self defense huh? Is that not also murder? What about stealing bread to feed your family? In some countries they chop off your hand for stealing. Should we do that? Doesn't that go against freedom too? All laws represent a compromise of your ability to do whatever you want. To say that murder and theft are not true human rights, now you're taking moral philosophy as a state of nature. It is not. It is invented. You can live by a moral code because it results in a better life for people but you are not doing it out of instinct, you are doing it because you've trained yourself. Instinct is to kill everyone else when it is to your advantage. Instinct is to steal what you can get away with. In our society, if you do those things the police are going to kick your door in and take you away. Force right? Governments do use force to enforce laws because if they didn't than laws would be pointless. And we need laws to prevent us from all killing each other. Which is why living in a society is always a compromise on individual freedoms. It may not seem like it to you because years of enculturation has taught you that you shouldn't murder or steal not because those things are against the law but because they are on some natural level wrong. Animals kill each other, they steal. Morality is a human invention. It exists in the mind. There are right and wrong only so far as you believe they are right and wrong and it is to our advantage to do so because we are much stronger as a society than we are as individuals.

How can these people make such decisions as to who will best care for them if they cannot? Nobody has answered this question.

People who steal and murder you mean? People who don't believe those things are fundamentally wrong? What you have us do, throw them in jail because they don't have the same moral code as you do?

I love how I am selfish for standing up for myself. I only want laws that punish people for depriving another person of his life, liberty, or property. The use of force is only warranted in response to force. And the use of force in response to force is not contrary to the ideals of peace. Humans are a flawed species and as such we will have our downfalls thus making government a need for the common protection of basic rights.

The use of force in response to force is contrary to the ideals of peace. When people say something like "fighting for peace" there is an inherent contradiction there. The best way to fight war is to go to the root of the problem and the root of the problem is always radically divergent interests which come to believe they can no longer co-exist together. The stronger one will crush the other and life will go on. But that is not peace. War has never solved any problems. All it does is crush them down and make them invisible. You keep bringing up how nobody can read Mein Kampf in Germany and how that is a violation of rights. So you must admit that World War II even did not solve the problem. The problem was not an evil man wanting to take over the world. That's the comic book version. The problem was the nation of Germany felt as if they'd been taken advantage of and so they built up their strength and they fought back against the nations which were oppressing them. Nazism was outlawed because we fear that sentiment rising up again. Crushing a people does not make them change their minds. True peace exists only when we share a common interest and no factional personal interests rise up counter to that. Some people love to say that this kind of peace is impossible. That people will always stand up for their own interests and the only kind of universal common interest that can exist is a corrupt one enforced by a dictatorship. What about patriotism? The kind of loyalty to your country that brings people to fight for it. What if there was only one nation? And it can't come from "fighting force with force". I fundamentally disagree that the way to stop terrorism is to hunt down terrorists and kill them. Terrorism is guerilla warfare. It is how people with an ideology conflict fight back against other ideologies which are much more powerful militarily. You can't stand up to them so you blow things up and create chaos and rally people to your cause. The US is never going to "democratize" the world by sending in the troops. Let other people find their own governments just as we found ours and show them that we are as interested in their survival, their freedom, their sovereignty as they are. That is how you make allies, that is how you create common interest. You keep talking about freedom and how Socialism is going to destroy it but you're the only one talking about force. You're the one saying force is right. You said it not me. But you seem to care more about your freedom in particular than the preservation of freedom for all people. I'm willing to sacrifice a little of my personal freedom in order to ensure freedom for all people and that's why I support a democratically elected socialist government. Not force, not workers revolution (THAT is communism) but a democratically elected government which is interested in ensuring peace and freedom for all people not just maintaining it for those who already have it.

And there is no mass historical proof of people giving up political power. If the people need the government the government will assume all control because the governemnt cannot be opposed as it is the needed. And what would happen of over night Social Security or welfare or medicare just ended? There would be a lot of problems. A gradual decrease is needed just like a gradual introduction is needed.

Abraham Lincoln, who was the first to institute a wartime power decrease of personal liberty, was a Republican. FDR who presided over a similar wartime power was a Democrat. Socialists are not the only ones capable of increasing government control. What would happen if social security and medicare ended? Well a whole lot of people would have no money to retire on and even more people would have no health care (to add to the millions who already have no healthcare). We would have more old people than we know what to do with and we would have a major epidemic of treatable diseases like the Flu. Those programs are essential under our current economic system because people who cannot work (either because of lack of education, old age, or good old fashioned lack of jobs) have no means of supporting themselves. Great they can just die or move somewhere else and become someone else's problem. All hail freedom. You are so idealistic and freedom and self sufficiency (and I mean you have ideals about them not that you are irrationally optimistic about them) so why can't you see health care and education as fundamental human rights rather than products which must be paid for? Maybe in the future we'll just take all the babies, put them to work at age 4, and make them buy their famalies. Hell, why stop there. They should have to buy their brains too. Not everyone gets to be smart, only those that can afford it. If freedom is a fundamental human right, than shouldn't the human needs which make freedom even possible also be human rights?

Evils of Europe:
Ministiries of Culture - they regulate what media can enter the nation and be shown aka censorship.
French Ban on Religious Arcticles - hinders freedom of religion.
German Ban on Nazism - hinders the freedom of speach and flow of ideas.
English Ban on Guns - hinders self defense and has caused an increase in violent crimes.
Those are some. Most states have controls on media. The taxes have done nothing for their economies too.

Okay, I also disagree with the first three. Ecomony is an empty measure unless you also connect it to quality of life. Sure the US outproduces everyone else. We also have a very low level of education compared to most first world countries and ridiculously inadequate health care. Does the working class single mother care what the "Economy" is doing? She just wants the means to survive. And the ban on guns causing an increase in crime is debatable. Hinders self defense? Why because we can't shoot people? I bet the death toll has gone down. Which is more significant, violent crimes or deaths? Sure Europe has it's own problems. But so does the US. We can find a lot of positive examples from Europe too and we can learn from their mistakes. Why does it have to be negative all of the time. Why is it "we can't do that because this will happen". We can work through those problems just like we work through the problems we have now.

I don't know, there's more I could respond to but I'm tired. I've given you more than enough to pick apart anyway.

LB- Every "Evil" that you pointed to in Europe currently exists in the US as well, just in different forms.

As for violent crime in England. They had a total of 41 murders in 2001. How many thousands more did the US have? Your argument is seriously flawed.

As for China....your mother's bus driver took a wrong turn? And did what...drove her to a Chinese torture camp where she was caned mercilessly? You really are a funny guy....really....funny.

Ed, you agreed that laws are force. So if socialism does not use laws (force) then you are discussing a commune. How do you plan on creating this commune then? Through socialism? That would be force and the same way that communism wishes to attain its commune.

So killing is moral and thus subjective? Then Hitler was okay in killing the Jews because he felt he was doing the morally right thing and murder is subjective. Or there are "moral" absolutes and murder being wrong is one of them. Self defense is not murder. Murder is the deliberate killing an innocent. Killing in self defense is not killing an innocent.

My question is on democractic socialism. If the people need an agency to fullfill their needs they must be unable to get those needs. But how can they chose who is best for fullfillig those needs if they themselves cannot? If people can take care of themselves then what reason is there for socialism?

How is force in response to force bad when you just defended self defense? You are not in a state of peace if you have injustice. Lack of violence doesn't always mean you have peace.

The uS also doesn't have the censorship that is present in Europe. I can buy any bopok I want. Yes, the FCC controls broadcast but they are public broadcasts.

Killings are different than violent crimes. With the lack of guns it is easier for a criminal to use a gun without having to resort to shooting. Look at the biggest fear among criminals. It is usually that their victims are armed with a gun. Guns save more lives than they take.

My mother ended up in a run down neighborhood. How is that funny? Because she saw the misery that most Chinese live in?

No...you cannot buy any book you want. In several hundred counties around this country there are "obscenity" laws, that not only relate to pornography, but also to certain material that is deemed "unpatriotic"...so it is exactly the same thing as Germany's Mein Kampf debacle.

No the squalor that many Chinese face is not funny. YOU are funny for stating "The Chinese" hide what China is really like...even though you have personally never experienced it. Your mom went on a tour. You didn't. I have been all over China (and seen dogs being carved up for food at road side kiosks), and yes it is bad. But I know that, because I have experienced it firsthand. Nevermind.....you don't listen anyway. I'm not sure why I keep replying to your posts. I must be a glutton for punishment.

Ed, you agreed that laws are force. So if socialism does not use laws (force) then you are discussing a commune. How do you plan on creating this commune then? Through socialism? That would be force and the same way that communism wishes to attain its commune.

What? Laws have to be enforced yes or they serve no purpose. And a certain amount of laws are required for society to exist. Socialism has the same laws we have today and would enforce them in the same way. It is not a commune, it is not communism. You misunderstand me. Laws are neccesary. I wrote a whole frickin essay explaining why just two posts ago. What more do you want?

So killing is moral and thus subjective? Then Hitler was okay in killing the Jews because he felt he was doing the morally right thing and murder is subjective. Or there are "moral" absolutes and murder being wrong is one of them. Self defense is not murder. Murder is the deliberate killing an innocent. Killing in self defense is not killing an innocent.

I never said subjective. Any time I say right and wrong are not universal absolutes people assume I mean that morality is subjective and everyone can create their own. That's not what I mean. What I mean is that morality is not a state of nature, it is an intellectual ideal. Murder is wrong in a universal way not because the universe says so but because if all people are allowed to murder, than we could never live together as a society, we would be afraid for our lives constantly. You don't think it is wrong to kill an animal for food do you? Or to kill somebody in self defense? You think it is wrong to kill a person who is not threatening your life and that is because you do not want to be killed yourself. You forgo your right to kill so that you will not be killed yourself. It isn't divine providence that creates this morality, it is rational thought. People long long ago realized these things and they pass the lessons on to you. That is morality. Other cultures have invented all sorts of different moralities. For example, human sacrifice is justified within a culture where it is believed that failre to sacrifice humans will result in greater death. That doesn't make human sacrifice right in an absolute sense, but it does make it a valid rational choice within the context of those beliefs and people who have those beliefs have a whole religion and culture which would support the idea that human sacrifice is right. We all accept a moral code which allows for the best life possible. If you believe all people have a right to live, than murder is quite clearly not allowable.

My question is on democractic socialism. If the people need an agency to fullfill their needs they must be unable to get those needs. But how can they chose who is best for fullfillig those needs if they themselves cannot? If people can take care of themselves then what reason is there for socialism?

People are capable of taking care of themselves only when they are first provided with the resources needed to survive. In a previous time there was sufficient abundance of resources for people to produce their own food and shelter. But now with corporations stockpiling huge quantities of resources, regions incapable of supporting the population living there, and population increasing everywhere else it is becoming impossible for one person to obtain the resources needed to survive without the cooperation of other people. People all over the world are starving to death. How can you possibly say that people are capable of supporting their needs when this is happening? People in the US are starving to death while other people are eating far too much. Clearly something about the world as it is today is preventing people from obtaining what they need to survive so we need to find a way to get them those resources. That's not to say that it is the government's responsibility to serve their needs, but it is the government's responsibility to ensure that those needs are met. There's a difference between a government handout (which is what we do now by the way) and a government which organizes society so that needs are met for everyone. The socialist party in the US was at it's peak during the Great Depression when it was clear to people that their needs were not being met by the existing economy. The people voting today are mostly the people whose needs are being met. Therefore they vote to maintain the status quo and we get conservative and yet more conservative as our political choices. The people who truly would support a socialist party just need to be more informed and that's tough to do when information is controlled by money and all the money is in the hands of corporate power. Democratic socialism can succeed. Democracy and socialism are one and the same. 50% of the population voting is not true democracy and that is the problem.

How is force in response to force bad when you just defended self defense? You are not in a state of peace if you have injustice. Lack of violence doesn't always mean you have peace.

I didn't defend self-defense, I said it is a form of murder that we allow in our society. That's right you are not in a state of peace when you have injustice. One more reason why we will only be in a state of peace under a socialist system. Capitalism requires injustice, it exists because of injustice. That's what Marx was so upset about. That's why Marx wanted a violent revolution to stamp out injustice. I don't want that because as we've seen in Russia and in China, violent revolution does not end injustice, it merely reverses who is at the top and who is at the bottom. Peaceful revlution - revolution without force, revolution through words - that produces real change and that is the goal of democratic socialism.

The uS also doesn't have the censorship that is present in Europe. I can buy any bopok I want. Yes, the FCC controls broadcast but they are public broadcasts.

Democratic socialism is more opposed to censorship in principle than any other political ideology. It is an intellectual ideology which requires full freedom of information.

Killings are different than violent crimes. With the lack of guns it is easier for a criminal to use a gun without having to resort to shooting. Look at the biggest fear among criminals. It is usually that their victims are armed with a gun. Guns save more lives than they take.

How do you know what the biggest fear among criminals is? The issue with gun control is not crime prevention anyway. Removing all guns from the hands of civilians would lower violent crimes. Criminals would find other ways but guns are the easiest way to murder someone and it would be harder for a criminal to get a gun (or at least it would be if other countries didn't gladly provide them with their guns anyway). Not to mention criminals are only robbing banks and jacking cars because of the economic inequality that exists in our system anyway. Under a socialist system there would be less need for those crimes. The biggest opposition to gun control is not about crime though, it's about government takeover. If the military has all the guns, than the public is at risk of a military takeover. That is a legitimate risk and the reason why I have trouble choosing a side on the issue. In any case, a world based on the principle of peace and mutual understanding would seek to illiminate all use of force for any reason making guns irrelevant at some point.

My mother ended up in a run down neighborhood. How is that funny? Because she saw the misery that most Chinese live in?

Good for her. I'm glad she got to see the truth. Of course you know there are just as many slums in the US don't you? If China is hiding this than so are we. So is everybody who has a stake in proving that their flawed ideology is better than someone else's flawed ideology. I don't want to hide those problems, I want to find solutions to them.

Here's another interesting article about a project to provide wireless broadband in Philadelphia. The internet represents information, it does make sense to associate it with PBS and NPR. I hope this happens.

The European nations do not have a stronger economy. The dollar is still the currency of the world. The US GDP per capita is still higher than any nations except Luxembourg.

I wish you would stop using this argument. Let me give you a nice, simple example (that probably ignores all the rules of economics, which is more than enough reason to completely rape) in an extremely exagerated manner. (...It's what any good politician would do.)

Sure, exchange rates for third world countries with the US dollar might equal 1000 whatevers to each of our dollars, but in real world equivelency, the average wage there might be 1000 units. When the currency is worth less, so are the products. That's one of those important factors of your beloved Capitolism; if you want to make a profit, you have to sell your product for a reasonable price so somebody can afford to buy it. 1000 units in that economy would be enough to give them their essential items like food and housing (I'm not talking about quality), so no employer is going to hand out more than he has to (If you don't believe me on that one, go apply for a job at Burger King). So the per capita income of that country is now $53-54 per year since everyone is getting their dollar a week, but everyone there got what they needed. Stacks up great against ours, eh? (what is it, like $30,000+ these days? I can't be bothered to put too much effort into an argument you're going to ignore.)


That doesn't matter though, as long as you get to flaunt in the fact that your country makes more than the rest of the world...

Evils of Europe:
Ministiries of Culture - they regulate what media can enter the nation and be shown aka censorship.

This really isn't necessarily an "evil", because even if it can be used to let the state censor medias, it can also help creating a larger diversity in public medias. If all medias, or any art form, depend on advertising and private sponsors to survive, they obviously will have to go after what the advertisers and sponsors want, and doesn't want to be shown. So the medias will only show things that help the advertisers sell their products, or atleast that doesn't stop them from doing so. I disagree with any form of censorship, but I wonder what is worse, trusting the democratically elected government to control some of the medias based on the principles of democracy, or letting large international corporations and such control the medias based on making profit.
That sounds a bit naive, but I hope you get my point.

^hey you! talk to this guy about Sweden, i'm sure they've had Socialist party presidents before, maybe. and how is it like in Europe.

okay, Lazy Boy, i didn't say that the parties should be controlled by the governemnt atleasta in the sense of total control, what i ment was this.

you have a collection of the amount of money in the governement, then you send it or regulate it to each party, therefore through the media and other usages to send out the word of the party. like in Spain, the election was going on, actually it had past the Socialist Party(Sen. Zapatero) beat the Republcan party (Pres. Aznar), but in every townsquare i could see flyers everywhere, for any party. Viva Aznar, and english sign saying Vote Green, in Segovia. all parties are heard, seen and known. have you even heard of Micheal Bednarik of the Liberterian Party who is running this year for President of USA? have you even heard he was mentioned? have you even seen a flyer? a photo? anything? no... you know why, it is not known because of lack of money, and in America atleast its hte popular two party. which is.... more and more becoming into one idea, like two brothers fighting to be king for example. Green isn't known that well either, i don't even see them on TV. the last time i saw Ralph Nader was on Bill Maher (sp) show on HBO which is great, but its not exactly prime-time. the other parties have to be heard, and the only outlet to be heard is if the governemnt the system of which we are based on. helps the other American parties be heard and be known. otherwise Lazy Boy Government help.

you say the Chinese have slums.. well look at India, if you saw Greece which has a strong Socialist party, how could you say they are oppressed people? when they just held the Olympics, a group of people who knit pick every country elegible for the Olympics and then set it on a vote. America has its slums as well you know? ever been to the little dinky towns in America, ever been in the bad sign of Cities like New York, Chicago, Milwaukee, Miami...etc. etc. every where no matter where you go.

and like Blitz quoted it. a Socialist state makes it their job to help those who are in need or cannot help themselves. but does not hinder those who can.

I did not mean that Spain tries to make people poor... in fact i just said the opposite, FREE EDUCATION IS ENTITLED TO ALL SPANIARDS, the only education i don't know if its free is college and or universities. everyone in Spain is entitled to atleast have a High School degree.. shit.. talk about freedom a teenager can drop out of school if he/she dosent want to do school anymore, but is free to go back when they want or need to. it is not a control on your life, its a freedom of your life, with only boundaries to keep the civility.


Bush people... always about the EVIL, listen the world isn't black and white its shades of gray.

Ed, the comprimise made with murder is not not killing. The comprise is that when you kill you risk being killed. You do not compromise any of your life by not murdering people.

People all over the world are starving to death. How can you possibly say that people are capable of supporting their needs when this is happening?

So you do not think all people are capable of fullfilling their needs.

There is nothing wrong with punishing people who deprive others of their livelihood. Socialist states claim that people have a right to house, or medicine, etc. The problem is housing requires somebody else to build the house because as stated it is not easy. Same goes for medicine it requires a doctor. How can you claim the right to something that requires somebody else to work?

Democracy is not socialism. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Democracy is anything the majority wants. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. If the people all agree to help each other guess what you have? A commune because the people voluntarily choose to help each other.

Gaurdian, party funding is still government involvekment. Michael Badnarik was covered by the news here in Atlanta but primarily because of the convention. The Libertarian Convention was also shown on C-SPAN. It is not the place of the government to make the people be heard.

What part of censoring media or being involved in the arts protects the basic rights of the people. Fraud is still a criminal act so false reporting wouldn't be legal. And large corporations do not have militaries.

Midnight Aurora, i'm really lost as to what you are saying. All numbers on the CIA World Factbook are in US Dollars. And on average Europe still has a higher unemployment rate than the US.

There is nothing wrong with punishing people who deprive others of their livelihood. Socialist states claim that people have a right to house, or medicine, etc. The problem is housing requires somebody else to build the house because as stated it is not easy. Same goes for medicine it requires a doctor. How can you claim the right to something that requires somebody else to work?

Democracy is not socialism. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Democracy is anything the majority wants. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. If the people all agree to help each other guess what you have? A commune because the people voluntarily choose to help each other.

first thing first:

you first say that punishing people who deprive others of their livelihood is necessary... and then turn around and say that using force to ensure equal livelihood for everyone is not ok...

Ok... how are you going to punish those who disrupt other's livelihoods? It takes people, and resources. You need to FORCE people to punish those OTHER people. Those people being forced are called "police". When you are an officer, you are given a job to do, and you get paid for it. But, you need to do THAT job that THEY give you. If you don't, it's called being a "vigilantism". You are only allowed to seek a livelihood of enforcement of justice THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT. And, as it goes, it's definitely illegal to ask for payment for "enforcing justice" outside the "law". So, in effect, you can't punish anyone without forcing someone to do it. Perhaps in your perfect world, there are no government owned anything, just vigilante's and private doctors running around. Sounds a bit like what you don't like about universal healthcare doesn't it?

Our society is too BIG for your kind of anarchy. Go somewhere else if you want anarchy so bad.

And now the second:

3 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner is no worse than 1 wolf decidicing what's for dinner in a meadow filled with sheep. In fact, it's better, since no matter the sheep count, the 1 wolf will always choose what is in his best interest and what's in his best interest is having sheep for dinner. However, the democratic method changes it's outcome if there are more sheep than wolves (obviously figuratively speaking), and thus the wolves are kept at bay from singularily deciding what the meal will comprise of. Anarchy being what it is, the wolf will eat the sheep, and that'll be the end of it. No compromise, nothing. Weak die, strong live. Quality of life goes down the drain for an overwhelming number of people, and things are less productive than they were anyway. Besides, anarchy also doesn't work because of one SIMPLE thing: there will always be someone who takes it upon themselves to take control of everyone else with force. Period. anarchy LEADS to dictatorship, or atleast factions of dictators. Anarchy is about 3 steps BACK from an actual society that thrives on compromise (something you seem to hate with a passion).

So, in truth, a democratic society has a much better chance of being fair than any sort of dictatorship/anarchy will ever have.

Ed, the comprimise made with murder is not not killing. The comprise is that when you kill you risk being killed. You do not compromise any of your life by not murdering people.

But you DO give up your right to total freedom of choice if you live in a state where murder is against the law and you'll be jailed if you do it. You do give up that right to do whatever you want and that is the compromise. With no laws, you could do whatever you want but with murder against the law, there's at least one thing you can't do. And that is the compromise. That you're better of for giving up that right - because people can't murder you - just supports the idea that to live in a society we must make neccessary compromises.

So you do not think all people are capable of fullfilling their needs.

I think all people ARE capable of supporting their needs if they are provided with an environment where their needs can be met. Imagine people live on a giant checker board. All the white squares grow food, enough to support a person and all of the balck squares don't. All the pieces on the black squares will starve to death if they aren't helped by the people on the white squares. Now the pieces all move but there aren't enough white squares for everyone. The people who were on the black squares, who needed help before, are now the ones who must give help. Does that make sense? Everyone is CAPABLE of supporting themselves (well except for young children, elderly people, and people with severe injuries or disabilities who you could say are permanently on the black squares) but not everyone can unless we work together because of the uneven way resources are distributed.

And on top of that, considering that proper health care and good education are what make people capable of contributing to society, it makes sense to me to use our collected resources to make sure as many people as possible get those things. That way as many people as possible will be contributing to society and we will be stronger because of it.

There is nothing wrong with punishing people who deprive others of their livelihood. Socialist states claim that people have a right to house, or medicine, etc. The problem is housing requires somebody else to build the house because as stated it is not easy. Same goes for medicine it requires a doctor. How can you claim the right to something that requires somebody else to work?

There are people today who build houses and get paid for it. That is how they support themselves and it is productive to society. It's the same with doctors. Meanwhile there are other people who benefit from those services. Socialism would not change the doctors and construction workers roles - they still provide a service in exchange for resources. All I'm claiming as a right is health care, education, food, and shelter. If we believe those are rights, than we all contribute a portion of our income to recieve them in the same way people contribute taxes now to recieve security, public works projects like roads, schools, and hospitals. A society is only as rich as it's poorest man. It is only as educated as it's lowest classes. If a society can't even provide it's people with the most basic of resources, than what good is it?

Democracy is not socialism. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Democracy is anything the majority wants. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. If the people all agree to help each other guess what you have? A commune because the people voluntarily choose to help each other.

Parties have platforms which represent what they plan to do in office. People read the platforms and vote for the one they agree with. If more people vote for the Socialist party, than it becomes the party in office. What is so hard to understand about that? I thought democracy was 'everyone has a voice' not the people with money get to speak more loudly and more frequently than everyone else. You are right that pure democracy is rule by the majority. And that is exactly why the US is a constitutional democracy because the founders of our government did not trust the majority. The purpose of a constitution is to ensure basic rights for all people and then beyond that you let the majority decide, hopefully in a controlled and equal manner. Our constitution guarantees certain rights - free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of all people to vote, etc. - which it would be in the interest of the majority to revoke but they cannot do that because the constitution stands above everything. Now, what I am suggesting is that we expand those rights to include the right to equal education, equal health care ofr all people. Then the majority couldn't take those away from the minority no matter how much it would be to their benefit. Democracy means all people have an equal voice in the state. That just is not true except under socialism.

Gaurdian, party funding is still government involvekment. Michael Badnarik was covered by the news here in Atlanta but primarily because of the convention. The Libertarian Convention was also shown on C-SPAN. It is not the place of the government to make the people be heard.

This is an election and the majority of the media only shows two candidates (not coincidentally, the two who've raised the most money). That is not a fair election. It ensures that only those people with huge financial support are capable of reaching all people with their views. Is anyone going to vote for someone they know nothing about? When media is shoving Kerry or Bush? down our throats for 8 months, most people are going to vote for Kerry or Bush and there are other candidates out there. The fact that 50% of the eligable population does not even vote suggests to me that they haven't found a candidate who they support. Maybe if the Libertarians and the Greens and the Socialists and whatnot had their voices heard, more people would find a candidate they identify with and more people would vote. It is impossible at this time to run for president unless you have millions of dollars or can raise millions of dollars. That is not democracy, that is aristocracy. Somebody should be able to run for office with no money, especially since the media nowadays is quite capable of spreading your views to people all over the country.

What part of censoring media or being involved in the arts protects the basic rights of the people. Fraud is still a criminal act so false reporting wouldn't be legal. And large corporations do not have militaries.

Oh don't they? Large corporations contribute money to lobbyists and politicians who ensure their views are heard. Our president and vice president are both former CEOs. Corporate interests have more control in American politics than any other interest group. And in a way corporations do have militaries. They have armies of lawyers who get them out of any kind of legal trouble. Corporate power and government are very connected. Where do you think those millions in campaign finances come from?

PS - More from Mr. Moore

Lazy Boy, this is what your "EVIL" Socialist state does for its people http://news.yahoo.co...ment_spain_dc_2

I saw a thread like this a couple of months ago.
And you know what, you guys are talking about the same exact topics.

I thought you guys would of learned by now that you're not going to be able to change each others opinions, no matter what the facts are.
Really, Ed, Blitz, and Lazy.

And I would have thought it would be clear by now that this pretty much is my life at the moment. I don't even think it's about changing opinions anymore. It's about keeping the words coming out so I can see them and prove to myself that I'm still alive.

Do you believe in the concept of natural law? In a state of nature one cannot claim any basic reason for killing. Freedom is not being able to do whatever the hell you want. Freedom is the ability to live life as you see fit without harming others. Nothing about one's life is being compromised by not killing.

How can people be capable be supporting their needs but need help? That makes no sense. Nothing is wrong with protecting people from having their lives compromised. Why can't the people on your black squares grow food? Is it lack of agricultural skills or is it the people on the white making sure they have no water? If it is because of bad agricultural skills then the people need find a way to inprove their skills and or ask the people on the white for help. They have no basis for demanding that white squares give them help. If they are being deprived of water then that is one group trying to hold another in bondage. Those people then have a right to take the water with force. You want to give the black squares food from the white no matter what. Funny how all these socialists, like Mr. Moore who you all seem to love, claim they want to help people while I don't see them giving away all the excess money they have.

Stop talking around everything. Why do you have a right, something that nobody can deprive you of and that is possesed by you as an individual, to something that requires anothe rman to labor. It doesn't matter if you still pay them you are still claiming a right to that person's laor and I want to know your basis for that claim.

We are NOT a democracy. Read the Constitution. The Constitution ensures each state a republican form of government, not a democractic form. There was a reason they didn't believe in democracy. And it was not because ideas couldn't travel as fast. It was because they recognized the problem with mob rule.

I have an idea to help end ignorant voting. How about restrict the vote. It is ridculous that most people who vote have never read the entire Constitution of the United States. Everybody shoould have to pass an object test on the US government, I think the Citizenship Test would be a nice universal test. You do not trust an operation to a construction worker. You do not trust law to a doctor. And you do not trust contruction to a lawyer. So why do you trust a government to people who know nothing about the government. Shouldn't all people know that Article I is on Congress and that Congress is comprised of a House of Representatives and a Senate. A simple objective test is not too much to ask.

Did I say that companies should be able to do all they want? No. The issue with companies I see is that most people just don't like them because they make money. That is a companies job. But again if people inside are breakign the law they should be punished. But that will only happen if the government is controled by people who actual know anything about the government.

Do you believe in the concept of natural law? In a state of nature one cannot claim any basic reason for killing. Freedom is not being able to do whatever the hell you want. Freedom is the ability to live life as you see fit without harming others. Nothing about one's life is being compromised by not killing.

So you don't think killing in self-defense or "... killing one person in order to save many many more lives" (as you posted in a topic 11 posted a link to, http://forums.nedesi...=ST&f=1&t=6259) are "basic reason[s] for killing" or compromises, and that taking away the right to do so would be a limit on this "freedom" you seem to value so highely? And still you defend the "right" to have guns for self defence? That sounds really hypocritical to me.

How can people be capable be supporting their needs but need help? That makes no sense. Nothing is wrong with protecting people from having their lives compromised. Why can't the people on your black squares grow food? Is it lack of agricultural skills or is it the people on the white making sure they have no water? If it is because of bad agricultural skills then the people need find a way to inprove their skills and or ask the people on the white for help. They have no basis for demanding that white squares give them help. If they are being deprived of water then that is one group trying to hold another in bondage. Those people then have a right to take the water with force. You want to give the black squares food from the white no matter what. Funny how all these socialists, like Mr. Moore who you all seem to love, claim they want to help people while I don't see them giving away all the excess money they have.

Look, helping "the black squares" doesn't simply mean giving the people living there money or food for basic survival as a short term solution, but resources so that they can support themselves, which they once could but was stopped from doing so because of being oppressed and exploited by the so called western world. That is the reason third world countries can, and should, demand long term help that goes to the people instead of the small elite that currently gets most of the money and resources being sent as "help". Giving away your "excess money" won't really help at all, and the white squares has efficiently stopped the black squares from taking what they need with force.
So basically, most people in the black squares are capable of supporting themselves, but are stopped from doing so. Not because they can't grow food, but most of it goes to us, instead of to the people who grow it in order to make a living by selling it much too cheaply to the western world. This is a form of modern global slavery, even.

I would write more, but I'm tired right now.

What would give you the impression that I'm talking around everything? I'm no less sincere with my comments than you are. Maybe you don't understand me because I'm trying to adress broader issues. You talk about murder and law as philosophical ideas and I'm looking at what society is now and how those concepts apply within our society. It seems to me you're looking for a specific thing and until you hear it you keep coming back with the same objections. It would be easier for me if you just came out with what you want because as far as I can tell I've already answered these objections.

As I tried to say before, I don't know if natural law is true or not but one thing I do believe is this - if it were true at some point way in the past, and it might have been, that doesn't matter now because it can't be true now. There are far too many people on this planet for us all to exist in a state of natural law. The resources don't expand with the population. So under natural law, when the population grows too large for the amount of resources, large amounts of people will die until the system becomes balanced. That is what happens to large populations in nature. Our ability to overcome our natural condition through technology and society is why we thrive.

The people on the black squares cannot grow food because the black squares are different than the white squares - it has nothing to do with their ability. Maybe the black squares represent the desert and it's not possible to grow food there. Maybe the people on the white squares got there first and mined all the resources. Maybe there was a drought on all of the black squares this year. Why do you assume that the condition of the black square is because of some oppresion by the white squares? I never implied that. It's just an analogy meant to show how people can be equally capable and yet half of them still starve. The people on the black squares are not demanding the white squares help them, they are dying. The people on the white squares can just let them die or they can recognize that those other people are no less capable than themselves and given another roll of the dice, they might have been on a black sqaure themself. It's about putting yourself in other people's shoes and asking yourself what you would do. If you're on a square with no food, it doesn't matter who you are or what you're capable of, you're still going to die unless someone else helps you. And goddamnit Michael Moore is obviouslty not a socialist. What he does is his business. I agree that it's awfully hypocritical to talk about socialism and live in a mansion. I will never do it but I doubt I'll ever be that rich anyway because I'm devoting my energy to making the world better for the disadvantaged not on making money for myself. If I do make that kind of money, you can bet a whole lot more than 5% or whatnot will go to helping people. More like 90%. Michael Moore says a lot of things which strike me as truthful so I enjoy reading his comments but that doesn't mean I'm going to model my life after him.

It has nothing to do with labor. If education and health care can be provided by robots, even better. If one day we discover a vaccine for AIDS, the people who have AIDS should all have an equal right to that vaccine because it exists and can save their life. Yes it took labor to produce that vaccine and labor to distribute and administer it but that doesn't mean we can charge these people for it. It may be justified to do so but it isn't ethical. If someone becomes a doctor or a teacher, they do so because they want to. If there are more or less people for them to educate, that doesn't harm them in any way. You are talking about natural law rights - that which would exist without society. I am talking about rights within a society. Things like all people have the right to protection from the state military. If we live in a society which says all people are free, all people have equal standing under the state - than the resources provided by the state should be provided to all people. Everything within a society requires labor. But the beautiful thing about it is, instead of putting in your 1 unit of labor and getting 1 unit of production back, instead you put in your 1 unit of labor and get 1000000 units of production back. By allowing other people to benefit from your labor, you in turn benefit from everyone else's labor. Like a barter system. Societal rights ensure that every person in a society who puts in their unit of labor benefits from the collective production of the society. If we didn't have societal rights than some people would be getting nothing in return and other people would be getting a lot. See so it isn't someone else's labor that we may have a right to, it is the collective production of the society which we contribute to.

And we know what would happen if you insitute your little voting test. The wealthy and middle class people would pass it due to their educational background while the poor minority groups would fail it. The poor people would then have no voice at all and we have an even greater class divide than we had before. The oldest antidote to mob rule is universal education. Educate people and teach them the value of community interest. So I have an idea to end ignorant voting too - universal education. Which idea contributes to greater liberty?

I suspect we have a fundamental difference in belief about the differing capabilities of people. I believe that all people are equally capable from birth and if they are all provided with the resources to thrive in society they will. I don't want to speak for you, but it seems to me from what you are saying that you are more inclined to believe some people are born more capable than others as a birth condition. My answer to why some people are poor and uneducated is because they are born into poverty and are never provided with the education needed to overcome that. So to me, the biggest problem to solve is making sure all people are given the resources needed to thrive in society so that all people can be the best they can be. With your emphasis on lack of law and an aristocratic government you seem to prefer allowing people to naturally fall into classes on the basis of their background and available resources and innate capabilites and then letting the most capable lead the rest. I don't know that there's anything I can say that would change your mind if this is the case. The nature vs. nurture debate is not one I'm capable of advancing. I will suggest this- if you take a poor kid and give him the same resources as a rich kid, there is likely a much better chance he will go to college and if so thre's a greater chance he will get a good job and lead a better life. If it is in the interest of the government to provide the best possible life for the greatest number of people (not to serve the interests of an electing body whatever those interests may be) than getting the resources of health care and education to as many people as possible should be the highest priority. If on the other hand elected officials only exist to serve the demands of the people who elected them. I just wish the politicians would stop saying they will act on the basis of higher ideals when clearly they are not.

Oh and people don't like corporations because they make their profit by exploiting other people.

The people on the black squares cannot grow food because the black squares are different than the white squares - it has nothing to do with their ability. Maybe the black squares represent the desert and it's not possible to grow food there. Maybe the people on the white squares got there first and mined all the resources. Maybe there was a drought on all of the black squares this year. Why do you assume that the condition of the black square is because of some oppresion by the white squares? I never implied that. It's just an analogy meant to show how people can be equally capable and yet half of them still starve. The people on the black squares are not demanding the white squares help them, they are dying. The people on the white squares can just let them die or they can recognize that those other people are no less capable than themselves and given another roll of the dice, they might have been on a black sqaure themself. It's about putting yourself in other people's shoes and asking yourself what you would do. If you're on a square with no food, it doesn't matter who you are or what you're capable of, you're still going to die unless someone else helps you.

Just to avoid confusion, I used the black and white squares as metaphores for industrialized countries and developing countries, because that's what I thought lazyboy used it as, should have made that clearer.