General Chat / "GOP doesn't reflect America"

Yeah I know. Your post wasn't there when I started writing mine.

How can something that is supposed to be a universal basic apply only to the past? Either you believe that people own themselves and what they produce or that somebody else or everybody else owns them. If somebody else owns them then you have dictatorship. If everybody owns each other then you have your [I]Brave New World[I] which you seem to be against.

I am not against people helping others. But it has to be voluntary. You want to organize a government to forcefully make those people help the others. It has nothing to do with wherther or not they are still compensated in some way. It has to do with using law to make them do something. Government's can only punish people for their direct actions. Lack of actions can't be punished because a person didn't technically do anything to deprive another of their individual rights. By not feeding a hungry person you do not keep them from getting food you just do not give what is yours. It may be sad and cruel but it is not the place of government. The difference between charity and tyranny is force.

You are mixing rights with privledges. And this is how you are talking around things. So because society dictates that people have a "right"they have it? Rights are not declared by a group those are privledges. You are makign rights something granted by government. If rights are granted by government or society or whatever that makes that body superior to individuals. Of course your agent for creating this society is government. So therefore you again place government above the people.

You talk around things by claiming they are more complex than they are. You are making up huge analogies that are not needed when I ask simple questions on your beliefs. THings can get complex but there are still always nasic principles behing situations that show how they relate.

How does an object test on a document that is only a couple of pages long hinder people from being able to vote? I get mailed compies of the Constitution and they cost me nothing. It can be found in any US History book. It is available on the internet.it is available at libraries. How is anybody hindering access. The Constitution is a very black and white document. It says the government can do these things and the government cannot do these things. There isn't a whole lot to get into.

It is not the job of the government to make people's lives better. You make them an agent of managing society and thus put the government as an agent of controlling and managing the people. Last I checked the US doesn't have this sort of government involvement. Yet, the US is still considered the land of opprotunity. We still have lots of people trying to enter this country. We have a higher standard of living and yet we not socialist. How do the socialists create a better place and yet still have a lower standard of living? I would much rathe rhave an inbalance in society and still have it moving than a more equal one moving at a much slower pace.

Don't even bother Ed......it's like beating your head against a brick wall.

Then again...if you enjoy it....go for it.

(Secretly I think you are honing your skills as a writer....very in line with Chuck Paulnacheck(sp?)'s style....very fight clubby if you will....and that you are constructing arguments to test your fluidity as a writer.....A+ in my opinion...I smell a bestseller.....)

P.S. No Ed, I am not making fun of you. I am incredibly impressed by your aptitude of persistence in the face of futility.

"I am not against people helping others. But it has to be voluntary."

Do you think our society is fine the way it is now or do you think there should be change? The people who think everything is fine are doing great. The people who don't deserve to have a voice in this election too. And if someone thinks people need help, isn't it natural that they would attempt to devise a solution to get them help? Sure there are going to be some sacrifices. It depends where your priorities are. Anyone who thinks people need help but does nothing to help them is like someone saying they're okay with gay people having an equal right to marry women. It just doesn't do a whole lot of good.

I do tend to make things complicated with analogies but I don't believe in black and white. There are usually more than two polar opposite choices for any situation. (uh oh Blitz <-- inside joke) I can't give you simple answers because the world is not that simple. I'm trying to answer your questions as fully as I can and I'm no lawyer or anything. I haven't tried to sidestep one single question you've asked me. The questions I can't answer are the ones I don't understand. Like this statement:

"I would much rathe rhave an inbalance in society and still have it moving than a more equal one moving at a much slower pace. "

What does moving mean? The economy? You mean you would rather have production moving? Or trade? I just don't understand what you mean so I can't really respond to it. I'm not trying to be an asshole, I just honestly don't understand what you mean by that so I don't want to make the wrong assumption.

Maybe you're right. Maybe a simple test about the constitution should be required for voter registration just as you are required to take a test to get a driver's license. Maybe voting is a privelage not a right. I can accept that but only if it goes along with some kind of comprehensive program to educate people about the constitution. Not everyone has history books. Not everyone can read. And quite obviously not everyone has access to the internet. These are barriers that would have to be overcome for any such test to still be democratic.

"Either you believe that people own themselves and what they produce or that somebody else or everybody else owns them."

Another black or white and it seems to me that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Do people own themselves? Yes. Do people own what they produce? Think about that for a second. What does a doctor produce? What does a customer service representative produce? What does a lawyer produce? They provide services to other people. You can't even talk about ownership of production in a modern society because a lot of people produce only a service. See what I mean? You are asking loaded questions - people own themselves AND what they produce or not - and then critisizing me for not taking the bait. Yes to the first part, and maybe to the second part. We would have to define what they are producing first. People are only able to work as a doctor or lawyer etc. because there are other people out there producing the food which they then purchase. The issue of ownership is a lot more complex when you are talking about societies. If you want simple answers, ask simple questions.

The government is using my tax money to pay for a military I do not support. Are they forcing me to aid in militaristic imperialism? Since taxation seems to be what you mean by force. What if we take the same amount of money spent on that war and instead spend it to fund schools and hospitals. Maybe then other people would feel their wants are not being met. That's the way our system works. I don't see how spending tax money on the military is not force but spending it on providing education and health care to the people is. Or is lowering taxes the only government policy you support? What are you going to do when you have more money but there's no security to protect you, no roads to drive on, no parks to play in, and hell no clean air to breath either. You need that government just as much as everyone else does. Society is going to exist whether you like it or not. It may as well be a society which helps people.

(thanks Meretrix. the brick wall is bloody but I feel I'm still getting the better end of it)

my head caved in already, the'yre's just no reasoning with a hard core person.

Society is not fine as it is. There are problems. But I do not want to use a government to change people. That is not the perpose of government because again you have one group shaping another.

I mean everything from economy, to standard of life, to equality. That is what I mean about inequality but progress and equality without progress.

Only 3% of US citizens over the age of 15 are illiterate. I don't think the ability to read is the issue. Access isn't the issue because we have public schools that have history books with the Constitution in it. And there are still libraries. And I'm sure it's available at almost any government office. So access is not the issue. People have access, plenty of access.

How is ownership a complex loaded question? An individual owns the services he provides because they come from him. There are of him. I don't see how else you can define ownership. There is nothing complex about it. One's skills and ideas are the property of the said individual because they come from that individual. So again, people belong to either themselves, another person or persons, or to everybody. Now which do you believe to be true?

Military is a legitamate field of government. The job of the military is protect the whole people. There is no specification to any one group. A rich person cannot get welfare. So the government is discriminating. The military is for the defense of all. A person has the right to defend himself in nature and thus a collection of people can defend themselves.

Again, you may all mock me. I quite enjoy it.

military protects all is your only excuse?

ok, health care covers all. Problem solved.

But people do not have healthcare for all in a state of nature. There is no basis fo healthcare in government because it is something not all of the population can do. We can all defend ourselves and thus we can centralize our defense. We cannot all practice medicine and therefore cannot centralize it.

But people do not have healthcare for all in a state of nature. There is no basis fo healthcare in government because it is something not all of the population can do. We can all defend ourselves and thus we can centralize our defense. We cannot all practice medicine and therefore cannot centralize it.

No matter how long a Coaster Ed post gets, it remains coherent.
Which cannot be said about what I just quoted.

What I want to know, right, is how someone who is paralyzed from, like, the neck down can "defend themselves".
See that, LazyBoy? That right there? I just owned your ass with just about the most stupid argument I could think of. And I didn't even understand your post!!



... I think the government who runs my country is doing a pretty neat job with centralised healthcare...

military is FORCED to protect you, under your own argument. Period. And no, not everyone is capable of protecting themselves. Period.

Government's are designed to protect individual rights.
Individual rights are those actions that can come from the individual to that individual.
A person defends himself. How well doesnot matter and is aside from the point.
Medicine does not come from oneself. I believe for lawyers the saying is: "A lawyer who represents himself has an idiot for a client."
Therefore medicine is not an individual right because it goes from one to the other.

The government is not going to try to change people to make them more moral or anything. The government does provide certain services in exchange for which the people pay a tax on their income and property. What I am suggesting is that we expand those services to reach more people and in return there will be more capable workers contributing to the economy and contributing taxes. The ultimate goal is to have nobody receiving money from the state through welfare handouts except those who are incapable of taking care of themselves (ie elderly and disabled people). Cutting off the money will not remove the economic drain on the system posed by these people, it will just transfer it to law enforcement and prisons. Provide them with some resources and training so they will eventually be able to contribute to the economy instead.

I mean everything from economy, to standard of life, to equality. That is what I mean about inequality but progress and equality without progress.

So inequality with better economy, standard of living, and better equality is better than equality and a weaker economy, weaker standard of living, weaker equality. Nice one. So equality is part of what you consider to be progress then. Or I suppose you mean whatever contributes to the best blanace of the three. That means a better standard of living but weaker equality and a weaker economy would also be preferable to a strong economy and better equality but weaker standard of living right? Well what if we could get two out of three - better average standard of living, better equality, weaker economy. Sounds like a fair trade to me, sounds like "progress" even. That's socialism.

So again, people belong to either themselves, another person or persons, or to everybody. Now which do you believe to be true?

Ah, that is a simpler question. People belong to themselves. Simple answer. But it doesn't solve anything because we can agree on that question and still disagree about what exactly it means to own yourself. I think it means that an individual is free to make their own choices, to believe what they want, and to pursue their own goals however they see fit. But just like we pay a doctor to perform a surgery for us, we pay the government to perform services for us. Those services include things like defense, public works, law-enforcement, health care, and education. All of those services require other people to perform them but we are paying for the service, not for the person's labor. None of these people are slaves because they are also free to make their own choices, to believe what they want, and to pursue their own goals however they see fit. And they may in turn pay for some service or product which we provide. That is how a society works and that's why I say we can own ourselves and still receive services from other people so long as they aren't being forced to provide those services - which they aren't.

I never said the military is not a legitimate service provided by the government. What I said is that I for one believe that the amount of money being spent on the military at this time exceeds what is required for my defense. I think some of that money could be better spent elsewhere, but it's neccesary to spend some money on the military no matter what because as you say national defense is a governmental priority (at least until we managed to achieve some kind of world peace in which case all of human production would go directly to the benefit of all people. Isn't that something that all people should wish for, and work towards?). The "defense exists in a state of nature but healthcare does not" argument doesn't really prove anything. Maybe if we all contribute to national security individually you would have an argument, but we do not. In fact, if anyone is being forced to provde a service it is the soldiers who fight and die for our defense while we do our part by waving flags. If a group of people form a tribe and pool their resources to provide better defense for all of them, they can just as easily agree to pool their resources to provide the best medical care they can for everyone too. That is the basis for any system of government and so long as the services and tax rates are approved through democratic means, it is a fair system.

And speaking of health care: U.S. vs. the rest of the civilized world

As long as we're talking about human rights, you may want to read the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's pretty short. I suggest you take particular note of Articles 25 and 26.

Government's are designed to protect individual rights.
Individual rights are those actions that can come from the individual to that individual.
A person defends himself. How well doesnot matter and is aside from the point.
Medicine does not come from oneself. I believe for lawyers the saying is: "A lawyer who represents himself has an idiot for a client."
Therefore medicine is not an individual right because it goes from one to the other.

What the hell? I put a band-aid on myself. There, I have succesfully administered healthcare to myself. And just as a thousand guys in tanks is better than me with a spear, all that medical equipment and research going on in a hospital is better than my single band-aid. National defense exists because the group is stronger than the individual. Same with national healthcare. The two actually correlate quite nicely.

The modern socoialist states of Europe are creatign leeches. France has to limit how much people can work. They obviously have not created a system where all except the unable work for each other.

Capitalism creates a lot more progress than socialism. The socialist state has everybody mroe in one class. The capitalist may have more class diversity but they are always moving up faster than the socialist. So the lowest of the capitalists are still higher and getting off better than the lowest in the socialist. That si what i mean and that is what I think will happen.

I defined individual right. Bandaging oneself is not practicing medicine. There is nothing individual about practicing medicine on oneself. You know damn well that a doctor wouldn't practice on himself. They are slaves because people claim a right to their property, that which comes from an individual. A right belongs to an individual and could thus be considered property. Therefore they are slaves because they are considered a right.

We don't all contribute to national security because we created a government because we all have a right to defense. Healthcare requries more than one person and thus cannot be an individual right. It has nothign to do with team work.

That article did nothing but say the US spends more money on healthcare. Heaven forbid the government let people do as they please.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a disgusting document that shows just how vile the United Nations is. Have you read Article 29 Section 3? "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Do you understand what that is saying? According to the UN you do not have the right to speak out against the UN. It doesn't get any deeper than that. The UN is saying you cannot disagree with them. That is disgusting concept that is only supported by those who supprt the concept of the supremacy of the state.

I want you to go and tell a starving person "I'm sorry, we can't give you welfare, because someone with 19 limosuines can't get welfare, and that would be discriminatory if we gave you any money. Cya in the Afterlife kthx!"

um.. the UN a vile institution? ok.... lets see what happens if we made that irrelevent oh wait thats right..... Iraq happened.

the only problem i have with the U.N. is its a huge beaucracy problem. they have too many countries that more or less don't know how to properly equip its peace keepers, ie Rwanda Tutus and Hutus massacre killings. the remaining peacekeepers had enough amunition for about 30mins. if they worked out the beacracy problem things would be much better.

but i disagree with you on the UN. and i'm not arguing with you anymore. since its obvious i'm talking to a wall. open up your mind to the other ideas, and atleast consider the fact some of these ideas have a good benefit for people, i mean you like Anarchy since its totally freedom to people but if thats true well look at Somalia - Anarchy, look at America - Right winged Democracy, look at Spain - Socialist nation, look at China - Communist, and look at Congo - Dictatorship.


God bless NOT the USA, but the world... thank you.

Why not direct the poor person to a charity?

The UN is supposed to be some peace keeping human rights organization yet it is comprized mostly of dictators.

Just because somethign benefits people doesn't make it proper. A big corporation dumping chemicals anywhere is beneficial for the corporation but aren't proper. Learn to read I never said I support anarchy. I love how I'm closed minded but you are not.

Defense and healthcare are the same thing. Both exist because humans have the will to survive. Your "self defense can be acheived by everyone" doesn't work. If that was the case, then why are soldiers forced to doing it FOR you? If you were capable of defending yourself from the forces outside this sovereignty, shouldn't you have some hand in ACTUALLY defending this country? But you YOURSELF can't protect yourself from nuclear holocaust can you? You can't make sure it doesn't happen by yourself can you? Of course not, that requires a large force and threat of force and intelligence, networks, peacekeeping, etc. Doctors are no more slaves than soldiers are (if anything, being in the military is MUCH close to being in slavery than any other profession). Pull your head out of your ass, stop weeping for wealthy doctors, and start weeping for hungry kids who would LEAP at the education and freedoms that you take for granted.

What part of individual right do you not understand? Military is self defense. They all volunteer to do that job. I understand that doctors will still get paid. But how is it an individual right? The only answer I have recieved is that the doctors will still get paid. Maybe you should look beyond stereotypes and answer what I am asking.

well, you don't HAVE to be a doctor... you could be a fireman!

The modern socoialist states of Europe are creatign leeches. France has to limit how much people can work. They obviously have not created a system where all except the unable work for each other.

Capitalism creates a lot more progress than socialism. The socialist state has everybody mroe in one class. The capitalist may have more class diversity but they are always moving up faster than the socialist. So the lowest of the capitalists are still higher and getting off better than the lowest in the socialist. That is what i mean and that is what I think will happen.

How can the person with the lowest standard of living under capitalism be better off than the person with the lowest standard of living under socialism? The 'lowest' (using the abbreviation cause it is shorter, not to imply they are low in any other way than economic standard of living) under the capitalist system have nothing. No job, no home, no education, no health care. Literally nothing. Under socialism, they are assured education, health care, some reasonable form of shelter, and a reasonable chance to get a job. Yes there is more mobility to move up under capitalism because people can start so much further down. Equal opportunity is a fiction with capitalism. If everyone in the world lived the way middle class Americans live now, the planet would not survive another 10 years. Capitalism is perputuated by the lies and manipulation of a global consumer culture. So long as everyone gets their daily fix of commercial breaks, the sytem perpetuates itself. What happens if people realize they don't need 10 pairs of shoes, they don't need a supersized value meal, they don't need 3 cars and 2 TVs and a new plasma screen and a bottle of wine with every other meal? If people stop buying things, capitalism collapses. If people spend less money, we would see deflation rather than inflation. And if that happens than people working low paying jobs like waitresses would actually stand a decent shot at being able to live on their wages. Everything about capitalism contributes to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. So long as advertisers keep us in a constant state of want and the rich people build impressive office buildings and free way systems we see this as progress. We see the ability to live an American middle class lifestyle as our right. What about the migrant workers getting paid less than minimum wage to pick produce for you? They can't afford a large home or a comfortable car. Maybe there is room for .1% of those people to improve their economic status significantly but not for all of them. Not even close. Social mobility is an outright lie. What do John Kerry, John Edwards, George Bush, and Dick Cheney all have in common? All of them were millionaires before they ran for president/vice president. They didn't get there from the rice fields I assure you of that. But you are irrefutably right about one thing - that is what you think will happen. I'm really not that familiar with the french political system so I can't explain why it has failed or succeeded. That is obviously something I should look into. But to say that France is creating leeches when I guarantee you the amount of money the U.S. gives in handouts every year is much much much more (even the percentage of GDP) is really failing to see the forest for the trees. If capitalism is so great, why are so many people who were born and raised in our capitalist society out of work and uncapable of supporting themselves?

I defined individual right. Bandaging oneself is not practicing medicine. There is nothing individual about practicing medicine on oneself. You know damn well that a doctor wouldn't practice on himself. They are slaves because people claim a right to their property, that which comes from an individual. A right belongs to an individual and could thus be considered property. Therefore they are slaves because they are considered a right.

I'm only going to argue this one more time because it is really becoming redundant. Practicing medicine means WHAT?!?!?! Can you understand my frustration? You are implying that a person is not practicing medicine unless they go to school for 8 years and pay a bazillion dollars for a degree. Just about any culture you can look at practices some form of medicine even if it's something as simple as herbal remedies. An herbel remedy may seem laughable compared to a brain surgeon, but doesn't a tribal warrior with a spear seem just as laughable compared to an aircraft carrier or a nuclear submarine? If you broke your leg on a hiking trip and no one else is around you could fashion a splint. You cannot say self defense is a natural human ability everyone has and then say that medicine is not. Well you can say it but logic does not support that argument. I know damn well that a brain surgeon would not operate on themself, yes. I also know damn well that I could not fly a fighter plane or drive a tank. I still have to rely on someone else's services for my defense. I cannot defend myself against the Iraqi army. I probably can't defend myself even against you to be honest. But I do pay money to the government and receive their defense in return. Nobody is claiming a right to the lives of those soldiers. What people claim a right to is a competant military which allocates the common resources of society (and people are one of the resources of society) to the effective defense of it's people. It's very similar to claim a right to a government insitution which allocates resources to the necessary medical care of the people. It is claiming the right to healthcare not Dr. Gumdrop's services - and similarly I may claim a right to my defense but not to Pvt. Wippingboy's life. Those people are NOT slaves any more than I am a slave for making people's coffee at a coffeshop or ringing up their books at the bookstore.

We don't all contribute to national security because we created a government because we all have a right to defense. Healthcare requries more than one person and thus cannot be an individual right. It has nothign to do with team work.

I've already beat this into the ground going over it again and again, but if one more comment might contribute to changing your mind - national security requires a lot more than one person too. We created a government to provide us with a better standard of living and part of that is defense and part of that is our health - without which we cannot live at all.

That article did nothing but say the US spends more money on healthcare. Heaven forbid the government let people do as they please.

More importantly, we spend more money on health care than nations which have universal healthcare so the argument that universal healthcare is unfeasible because it would cost us so much more money is not true.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a disgusting document that shows just how vile the United Nations is. Have you read Article 29 Section 3? "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Do you understand what that is saying? According to the UN you do not have the right to speak out against the UN. It doesn't get any deeper than that. The UN is saying you cannot disagree with them. That is disgusting concept that is only supported by those who supprt the concept of the supremacy of the state.

Why does a unified body of nations dedicated to peace and human rights in the world seem to you like an oppressive autocratic regime. They want to force us to respect each other! Is that so evil? Isn't that the whole justification the Bush administration has made for invading Iraq - to further the cause of human rights - while simultaneously critisizing the UN whose only interest is human rights? I don't understand that. National sovereignty should not supercede human rights. Do you honestly think the UN by saying "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations," is trying to prohibit nations from exercising more human rights? It's a pretty comprehensive list. I'm curious which vital human right you think is being overlooked. The UN is not supposed to be lenient to nations which violate human rights. It exists as a collective of nations standing up for human rights. The UN is not saying you can't disagree with them, if you disagree with them than you don't join the UN. If it's such a disgusting concept, why don't you poll people. Ask them if they believe it is right for one nation or group of nations to intervene when fundamental human rights are being violated. I think you would find a lot of people agree with that. You can sit around all day and argue which rights are fundamental and which are not, but if you want to get anything done you'll need support and that involves compromise. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a set of rights that a lot of nations have agreed upon and that is what allows it to function. People HAVE to compromise and work together, there's no getting around that. If we don't than we'll all kill each other. Maybe you don't agree with some of the details, but look at that list again and tell me that you don't agree with at least the majority of them. You can't have your cake and eat it too - especially when we are talking about an alliance comprising hundreds of millions of people represented by many nations.

Why not direct the poor person to a charity?

Boy if that isn't avoiding an issue I don't know what is. People are poor? Let the charities take care of them. Where do you think those charities come from? They come from people very much like yourself with one key difference, those people actually give a damn. Or at least they give a damn enough to put their money where their mouth is.


----------

And because I'm sick and tired of the Michael Moore bashing and the unfounded comments about Fahrenheit 9/11 being propaganda, here's a list of factual support for everything in the film. Link. People should know that every fact in the movie would hold up in the court of law as absolutely true. The opinions are opinions but the facts are indisputable. The only propaganda taking place is the effort to have the film labelled as propaganda - mostly by people who haven't even seen all or any of it no less. It's fitting that the title of the film alludes to Fahrenheit 451 because censorship is what's taking place here. If these people succeed in convincing people not to see the movie or calling it propaganda without even seeing it, than they have succeeded in censorship. Go see the damn movie people. Form your own opinions.