General Chat / "GOP doesn't reflect America"

Arguing over the internet may be useless as far as actually getting anything done but I don't think it's ever useless to share opinions and debate issues. As The Guardian pointed out, we have different backgrounds and beliefs. We all have something to learn from each other. Debating isn't about changing other people's opinion as much as it is about expanding your own. At the same time, you shouldn't back down from an argument when you still have more to share because doing so prevents other people from benefiting from your opinion and it prevents you from getting responses. And I hardly think this is a stupid issue to discuss.

Sometimes I get a little carried away like anyone can and I resort to insults rather than arguments. It happens out of frustration. I appreciate that you've been such a good sport throughout all of this lazyboy and continue to debate even though you're getting the majority of the insults. Actually, I guess you're pretty much getting all of them.

Now to debate your points - I know this is a lot to ask, but please read what I have to say. I put a lot of thought into this and I'm trying to meet you on your own terms.

About Hitler etc:

Yes you should trust Hitler to describe his own beliefs. I'm not really talking about what Hitler believed because I don't know. But we can look back on what he did and even if he agreed with some principles of socialism, he clearly did not value personal liberty. You cannot value personal liberty and declare yourself leader for life. You cannot value personal liberty and have a ministry of propaganda. You cannot value personal liberty and have stormtroopers invading people's homes, seizing property, encouraging informants, and arresting dissenters. He may have called himself a socialist, he may have even called himself a democratic socialist, but that doesn't mean he believed the same thing I do and judging by his actions, he didn't. The same goes for Mussollini or Stalin or Mao or whoever else you want to bring up. Their record shows they did not value liberty. They did not share my beliefs about what the true benefits of socialism are and therefore they did not go about it in the same way I would. That's why I think it's unfair to discredit my beliefs by showing how bad Hitler was. He did not value liberty and I value it above everything else. You said it yourself that you wanted to link socialism to totalitarianism. While I agree with you that historically that is a valid link to make, if you read the quotes I posted that explains a critical difference in ideology and economic situation which led those leaders to choose totalitarianism. The conditions today are not the same as when those leaders were making their decisions so we can't assume the result would be the same. Especially since their ideologies were not the same as the one I am suggesting.

About Communism:

It seems to me your only basis for using the Communist Manifesto as a counter argument is that it led to totalitarian leadership in Russia, China, and Cuba. But looking at the principles in the document itself, it does not need to be totalitarian. In fact, a strong argument is made against totalitarianism. Capitalism and nationalism and totalitarianism are all closely linked. Marx's Communism was the antithesis to those. No country has actually acted out Marx's plan for a Communist government. Russia came the closest but they failed because they had to fight the second World War. You can't devote industry to improving the lives of your people when you are being invaded and have to defend yourself. I would suggest that is the reason Communism failed in Russia and reverted to a totalitarianism much more closely linked to nationalism and capitalism than the humanism that was the basis for Marx's Communism. 50 years of the Cold War has turned Communism into a dirty word but what I want you and everyone else to understand is that what we think of as Communism - Russia, China, Cuba - is not the same as the political ideology of Communism. Russian, Chinese, Soviet Communism I do not support. Theoretical Marxist Communism I do and I can't argue in favor of it unless you understand that because you'll keep talking about it as if it's inherently totalitarian which it is not in theory. Maybe the theory cannot work. That's something we could debate. But that isn't what we have been debating, what we've been debating is the definition and what Blitz is saying is that you just aren't understanding that difference. I can't debate stereotypes so I need you to understand what I mean when I say Communism.

Egoism:

What gives me pain more than anything else is seeing other people suffer. I grew up feeling that way. When my brother got punished, even if he deserved it, I felt worse than he did. He's stubborn. It effected me more. So maybe it is only my own selfish desire not to feel pain which leads me to argue for equality. The concept of a society is not fully at odds with the idea of egoism though. It's one level of thinking to say that I want what I want at all times. It's another level of thinking to say that I can't get what I want all of the time because other people might get in the way who are stronger. So to get what I want as much as possible, I should band together with others so we have more collective strength. Those people are going to want their way too so we have to work out a compromise. We'll work together and give up certain individual wants because it will enable us to get what we want more often than we could on our own. That's the social contract theory - that societies exist because of this unwritten social contract. Everyone is still selfish but we've been forced to compromise because we are not invincible on our own. Another level of thinking is to place your own ego in someone else. I want what I want, so they probably want what they want too. It doesn't hurt me a lot to not get this whereas it would bring them much much joy to get it. So I can give up a little of my own joy for a greater overall joy. Utilitarianism. I think people are capable of that kind of thinking. I would agree that all people have a natural tendency toward egoism. But I also think, through a more complex level of thinking, we can train ourselves to consider greater overall goods than limited self-interest. It is still a form of egoism. I think I will be happier in a society which produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If there's a 5% chance my happiness will go down as a result of this compromise (because it is only the super wealthy who would see that significant difference) and a 95% chance that my happiness will go up, than it is still in my best interest to go with the 95% chance. I would never say that I think of others first. But I would say that I consider the greater good in balance with my own self-interest.

Republicanism - Liberty and Government:

This is what I was looking for. Your suggestion for a better form of government - and it sounds like you believe in a lot of the same things I do.You believe democracy is terrible because it destroys the individual so clearly you value personal liberty. Me too. You believe minority groups are not adequately represented by democracy so you do value some kind of equal rights. Me too. So the difference isn't really in what we value, but in which system of government is best suited to uphold those values. That's a good thing to recognize. It means we can take the 'personal' conflict out of this discussion because we aren't really arguing about what values are important. We're having a politcal discussion about matching values to a system of government.

So let's have that debate. I'll start with a discussion of democracy. I think you raise some big questions that a lot of people have asked about democracy.

If democracy means rule by the majority than it fails at achieving liberty for all people. The minority view, and thus their right to participate in government, goes unrepresented. This is true. A pure democracy is always going to be some form of mob rule. So if pure democracy and liberty don't connect, what are the alternatives?

You suggest Republicanism. (Not the party but the political concept) which is the best defination for the government which currently exists in the U.S. Instead of putting everything to a vote, we elect representatives who we trust to make decisions for us, we retain the right to recall them if the majority disagrees with their decisions, and they choose what is best for the country. The central idea of the theory is that the best and the brightest of our society should be the ones making the decisions because it eliminates the possibility of mob rule. This is what the founders of our government felt was the best way to ensure liberty.

But does representative democracy really solve the minority problem? If substantial portions of the society are not recieving adequate education, health care, and jobs than they have no realistic chance of every serving as a representative. That means they effectively have no voice in the government. They must rely on representatives from the majority taking an interest in their concerns. You yourself said you believe in egoism. Elected officials are most likely to make decisions in accordance with the group they came from. If a minority group has no elected officials, than nobody is making decisions with their benefit in mind. This is the problem I see with a Republic. It does solve some of the problems of democratic leadership but not all of them. It is still rooted in democracy though so you shouldn't say democracy is terrible if what you really mean is that pure democracy is terrible. I also don't think small government and Republicanism are compatible ideas - the idea of seperating direct votes with elected officials already adds a level of government involvement. If Republicanism is what you believe in, you shouldn't call yourself a Near-Anarchist. But you probably have some defense for that so I'll let you make your case there and get back to the issue of democracy.

I am suggesting Socialism as a form of government which is best for upholding personal liberty and let me explain why I think it solves the problems of pure democracy better than Republicanism does. Mob rule is a danger because it allows the uneducated to make decisions which may ultimately be harmful to themselves. They just don't know any better. Well socialism seeks to make education universal which means any person can now potentially be the "best and the brightest". We all should be. Rather than solving that problem by only allowing certain people to rule, we seek to make all people capable of rule. We elect officials partly because they share the same views as we do and partly because we trust that their background qualifies them for the job. With socialism the goal is to make all people qualified for the job. Is that possible? You could debate that. In a modern industrialized nation like ours I think it is possible.

Now about the second issue, minority representation. Why are there few minority representatives in our government? I think it's because minority groups in general have less access to education, to health care, to high paying jobs. Things which qualify a person to be an official. When the majority of the property is in the hands of a few people, they also have a majority of the power. Since they have more power, they will dominate any system of government by representation. They will always be the best and the brightest because they have the means to get their. It's why there are so many millionaires in our government. They have the means to get themselves there while others do not. Now, if you value personal liberty - the right of all people to live the best life they can, than it should not be acceptable that the people in power are predominantly the people with the lion's share of the property and resources. For minority groups to be represented, they need the same resources the wealthy people have. For all people to be represented, all people need a share of the property and resources. Socialism redistributes a portion of the property to ensure that all people have a certain minimum. People can still have more, but we are saying that people should not live below a certain level. A lot of the reason for that is because people below a certain level lack the resources to have their voice heard in our representative government. Certain things - hospitals, schools, power plants, phone services - should be public property because they will then be available to all people not just the wealthy.

You talk about private domain and how government can infringe upon that. I can see your point that personal liberty can be compromised in that way. But personal liberty in my mind should exist for all people - not the privelaged people and I think you are falsely assuming that that is the case. The government should not infringe upon your ability to live a happy life. But what if you are incapable of living a happy life because you live in a country which has experienced a drought for five years? Should we not aid those people because doing so would infringe upon their personal domain? Maybe personal liberty dictates that somebody in Somalia has as much right to a happy life as someone in Boston. While the person in Boston was raised in a public school, given government aid to go to college, and treated medically under their parents health insurance - the person in Somalia has got a desert and no government aid. I think all of those things which make our lives better are great. We should spread them to all people. That isn't going to happy so long as a small percentage of the population owns a mammoth share of the resources. That is the logic behind Socialism. Improve life for ALL people by taking what we have and distributing it in a way that makes more sense. Does a person need four houses and 10 cars to live a happy life? What if we took the 3 houses they aren't using and the extra cars and used them to provide essential resources for someone else?

In my opinion, you claim to support personal liberty but it's really only liberty for you. You want your right to own 4 houses and 10 cars and if I show you that doing so prevents 1000 people from eating for a week, you don't care. That's not your problem. No one is telling them they can't have 4 houses and 10 cars too, and besides you even donate 1000 dollars a year. But you miss the point that you only have those kinds of things because you live in the wealthiest country in the world. A country which is wealthy BECAUSE it uses it's technology and military to seize far far more than it's fair share of world resources. It's only possible for you to have so much if some of the people in the world have very little. 5% of the population using up 25% of the world's resources is what capitalism is and sure it looks great from the inside but it has everything to do with exploitation and nothing to do with personal liberty.

And that is why I think Socialism, not pure Democracy or Republicanism, is the ideal form of government for securing personal liberty for all people. There's a lot more to the world than just the U.S. and the more we ignore their liberty while continuing to snap up a huge portion of the resources, the more they are going to get (justifiably) pissed off at us. Face it, we are England and everyone else is America now. The WTC? That was the Boston Tea Party all over again. It only seems different because now we're on the other side.

Russia was by far one of the worst places to try communism. The idea is that the post-industrial society was a communist society. Russia was not at the level of industrialization to make the shift to Marx's percieved post-industrialism.

My near anarchy statement is that most people against more government want to keep things the same. I want more than an end to increase of size but also reduction. Most people see today's government as the minimium. It's really something my dad started that I've just really liked because it sounds very radical and I consider myself an extremist.

But a person who compromises some of his wants to achieve a greater goal still wants to. The difference is between want and force. A person who doesn't want to do something but does is being forced to. If a person does it on his own then. I have found through my experience that most people that talk about their selflessness are only doing so to look good. The person either doesn't really do such things or only does them to look good. I consider it a very poor reason to just back up somethign with "I'm a selfless person" because to me there really is no such thing unless you're being forced.

I see the more socialistic approach we have been taking as the source of the problems that everybody wants to solve.

The education system has failed. It is not lack of money. The trend in the United States is that the worse the public school system the more money spent per child. The Atlanta city schools are most likely the second worst public school system in the US. I believe the district pays around $9,000-$10,000 per child. That is enough money to send every child in the system to a private school. If money is the issue then kids in Atlanta should be getting a great education. The problem is that the system no longer requires anybody to work. Schools are more concerned with modern, tech savy educational means. So the money is being spent in ridiculous places. Then the idea of an education for all has destroyed the concept of kids being held responsible. Social promotion seems to be the result of this. Now nobody has to learn. Cobb County (the best schools in GA which again is 50 of 51) had a rigid social promotion program in place up until very recently. The program was for grades K-5. The district was perplexed as to why none of the middle schoolers were able to read well. My seventh grade year saw the addition of an extra class, Literacy. Students couldn't be held back unless a request was made by the parents and it was still difficult to get done. The schools are just the start of the destruction of responsibility. And the private schools aren't exempt from this trend either.

Health care will not be solved by nationalization. The government has placed great restrictions on medicine. It is incredibly difficult to become a doctor in the US. Barely any new medical schools opened in the second half of the 20th Century. The reason doctors get paid so much is because there are not enough of them. I would have to say the biggest case for nationalized medicine is the elderly. But the elderly in the US are the richest demographic. So their taxes will go up and they will lose more moeny to pay for medicine littered with government control. Doctors need less restriction and more competition. It is simple supply and demand. If we allow for more doctors to practice and have training match the field of specialization then prices will go down because doctors must fight for customers by having good service and low prices.

I'm not quite sure how ensuring high wages could be effective. It can only help fuel bad workers. High wage I take means it will create a decent lifestyle. But that comes as a claim to a right to high wage. Along with the claim to right to high wages comes a right to a job. And remember a right is something a person deserves no matter what. So if one always has a well paying job what incentive is there to give quality work?

You mention the government being used to exploit people. Now if the government collects taxes and gives that money to a thurd world country what do you think the ineveitable is? If a government is getting huga grants from other governments then that government becomes dependent on the others and thus can only expect exploitation. A charity does really possess the power to exploit people it helps. Most of the people working charity want to do it and thus are not going to expect anything in return.

The problem with social welfare is that you cannot punish those who do not act. It may be considered a moral wrong but under law there is no proper line to draw. If people were punished for inaction think fo all the people that would be tried over not trying to stop a bank robbery. Sins of omission are a moral issue and cannot be a legal issue. Where is the line drawn? Inaction to stop anything most likely effects somebody else.

I must disagree heavily with terror. These are not rebels. They are religious fanatics who want the world to be dominated by fundamental Islam. It more accuratly reflects the Catholic Church's practice of inquisition during the height of its power in Europe. I am not saying Islam is bad. But I see no hint at all that they would allow different religious views, equality of women, or many of the other aspect of personal liberty. I see nothign wrong with the destruction of the liberty of those out to destroy liberty. Otherwise we would fall into a state of greed filled, id dominated anarchy.

Oh and just a small FYI. When mentioning political beliefs if you just mean the belief and not parties keep the first letter lower case. Capitolization means a relation to a party.

Russia was by far one of the worst places to try communism. The idea is that the post-industrial society was a communist society. Russia was not at the level of industrialization to make the shift to Marx's percieved post-industrialism.

Agreed. Which is why the failure of communism in Russia is not irrefutable evidence that communism will fail elsewhere.

But a person who compromises some of his wants to achieve a greater goal still wants to. The difference is between want and force. A person who doesn't want to do something but does is being forced to. If a person does it on his own then. I have found through my experience that most people that talk about their selflessness are only doing so to look good. The person either doesn't really do such things or only does them to look good. I consider it a very poor reason to just back up somethign with "I'm a selfless person" because to me there really is no such thing unless you're being forced.

I agree that a lot of times 'selflessness' is just a show people put on to make themselves look better. Like wealthy people giving money to charities. I don't care how many millions they give away, if that only represents 1% of their total income it's no more selfless than me flicking a dime at a bum on the street. Selflessness is not a motivation for anything. If we are talking about a society where people give up something to gt something else in return, namely better health care, education, and job opportunities - I think that is compatible with what we know about human nature. People are always going to retain some level of self-interest. But if I can recognize that I don't need all of the money I make and other people do need it and make the decision on my own to treat the greater need, than I think other people are capable of that too. No they shouldn't be forced to, but people are still capable of it.

A lot of people really have no idea that the things they want aren't really needs because this culture distorts wants and needs. I grew up thinking I needed new Ninja Turtle action figures and brand name shoes. Millions and millions of dollars are spent a year to make me think I need those things. Meanwhile, news about people in other countries is very limited. Most people don't watch international news, they watch local news or no news at all. I don't think we should force people to sacrifice some of their wants for other people's needs - but I do think we should, as a country with a moral conscious, at least work to counteract the millions being spent to throw our priorities out of whack so that businesses can sell us their products. Sure having an advanced society and a thriving economy is great, but at what cost? If it means us citizens must become self-interested consumers with little regard for people all over the world who are suffering while we live our life of luxary, I think that's a problem. As a human being with a moral conscience, that offends me. The most important factor in my own happiness is self-determination. Feeling like I have the resources and the ability to think for myself. If the whole society is designed to make me stop thinking for myself and give into the idea that wants are needs and ignore the rest of the world, than society is a danger to self-determination. That is why propaganda is such an offensive idea - because it means the government or whoever doesn't trust people to think for themselves. Well advertising and local news are both forms of propaganda which succeed in creating the illusion that us citizens of the United States bear no responsibility for what is happening in the rest of the world. Considering that the resources which make our way of life possible (not just oil) come from all over the world, we are responsible for the rest of the world.

I see the more socialistic approach we have been taking as the source of the problems that everybody wants to solve.

One of the sections in that pamphlet about socialism from below was about liberal reform. It makes the point that liberal reforms in Europe were actually a hindrance to the spread of Marx's Communism because they made enough changes to appease the workers and prevent them from rebelling without really changing the structure of society. The elite are still running things, but they discovered that Monarchy or Oligarchy no longer worked when discontented people had the combined strength to overthrow them (as was demonstrated by the French Revolution). So instead, the elite discovered they could continue to rule if they made enough concessions to keep the people happy. So the point is, liberal government reform (of the kind that you rightly critisize) does not really solve the class problem, it only prolongs it. I would agree with you that liberalism - which is not really socialism, but rather an attempt to patch up aristocratic societies with popular reforms - causes more problems than it fixes. But I still posit socialism as the only solution because those social reforms are not really socialism. They are socialism from the top down - from the elite - and true socialism requires a reform of the entire economic system from the bottom up. From the workers being oppressed - not the leaders who don't want to end oppression, only disguise it.

Education:

You make a lot of good points about the failure of education in this country. I agree that spending more money has never been the answer but I see a couple reasons for that which you don't mention. One is that the commitment of money for education has never been a total commitment. We currently have the largest and most powerful military in the world. Do we really need to spend another 400 million dollars on making it stronger? What would that 400 million do if it was spent on education? Well for one thing it would pay the tuition of every college student in America. How many more people could go to college if they didn't have to find $25,000 a year to pay for it? SO that's one problem. The other problem is beauracracy. The money is not being spent in the right places. You did mention this a little. It's true that spending all that money on computers is not the answer. Computers are great, sure. But I didn't even have one until 7th grade and at my elementary school we had a few but we hardly ever used them. We learned just fine without them. Writing, reading, basic arithmetic, basic history and research skills. That's what people need to be learning in elementary schools and computers aren't needed for any of that.

School boards, like all beauracracies, are much too big. Remember what I said before about the people being paid the most being the ones who do the least work? The lions share of the wages given out by schools should go to the teachers. They're the ones doing the job of teaching. Some administrators are needed but nowhere near what we have now. It doesn't make sense for people to get paid 80,000 a year or whatever to decide what our schools should be doing when the ones actually doing it, the teachers, get less than half that. Raise teachers wages, bring in more teachers, buy more textbooks and repair buildings. That 400 million would go a long way if put into those areas.

Health Care:

You're right that it isn't easy to become a doctor. That's a lot of years in school - at expensive schools no less. How do you suggest we increase the supply of doctors though? Build more medical schools so admissions requirments aren't so steep? Help to pay some of the tuition of med students? Those are things I would agree with as part of a larger commitment to funding education. Your suggestions - more doctors = more competition = better care for less money - they sound good in principle but is that really practical? If you want less government control, a smaller form of the government we have now, how is that going to translate to more doctors? If you want more doctors, than you've got to go out and get more doctors. More schools, lower tutition, or whatever will cause there to be more doctors - that's not going to happen with less government control. Initially at least you're going to have to put in the money and the effort to improve the situation, than you can step back and decrease government control. You can't really call for less control and expect big changes. Less control is going to perpetuate the conditions that exist now.

You talk about national healthcare not working because it will require taxes to go up which will hurt the class of people -elderly - who stand to benefit most from national health care. While it's true that taxes go up, national healthcare also means the elderly would be paying less - a lot less considering elderly people are the ones who need it the most. All those pills they need to take, the surgeries, that is where all their money is going anyway. They would stand to benefit from such an adjustment.

As with anything else, if supply and demand is so powerful - if it's the answer to our problems, than why isn't it working now? Supply and demand is the golden rule in our economic system. But what if there is inadequate supply or inadequate demand? What if inadequate supply means people are dying unnecesarily? When we're talking about health care, you have to agree that there will always be a demand. If supply and demand were the answer, than supply would be increasing right now to meet the demand. In actuality, the opposite is happening. The middle class of America are making less money than they were 25 years ago (when adjusted for inflation) while the cost of health care is going way way up. That is unacceptable. Sooner or later only the truly wealthy are going to be able to afford health care. Something's got to be done about that. National healthcare is not going to solve everything (see prior criticism of liberal reform). It has to come with a complete restructuring of our economic system. But I personally feel that the people who work the hardest - the working class - should be the ones with the most access to healthcare and right now the opposite is true. That is a problem that less government control will not solve.

Responsibility:

I'm not quite sure how ensuring high wages could be effective. It can only help fuel bad workers. High wage I take means it will create a decent lifestyle. But that comes as a claim to a right to high wage. Along with the claim to right to high wages comes a right to a job. And remember a right is something a person deserves no matter what. So if one always has a well paying job what incentive is there to give quality work?

It seems to me like your biggest argument against socialism is personal responsibility. You think a system which assigns resources to the areas with the most need will train people to expect aid and therefore not work as hard. First of all, I must ask you, what is the significance of 'hard work' for someone working at a McDonald's? If your job is to fill orders and flip burgers, is it really essential that you work hard? Isn't the idea that hard work is a motivation in itself a little outdated? The real reason for working hard is to improve your quality of life. So if socialism adequately redistributes resources so everyone can have a decent quality of life and the people who work extra hard can have a better quality, than there is still motivation to work hard. And the 'Ford' ideology of work is essentially a capitalist one. Overproduction - we produce as much as we can as fast as we can - is meant to raise a larger profit. Well what if profit is not the end goal? What if we only produce what we need? People are still going to work because they'll have to to get the benefits that come with being a member of society. That is true today only today there is no guarantee that working hard will get you a quality life. People working in low paying jobs like construction and agriculture may work just as hard - probably harder actually - than dentists and lawyers. Why do we say that hard work in one area is more valuable than hard work in another area? That whole economic model encourages hard worker while compensating some people with huge profits for it and other people barely get living wages. It only seems fair to you because you are on the huge profits side of the system. And besides, doesn't knowingly contributing to a society which provides for all people make you a more responsible human being than working for yourself and fighting over every penny the government wants to take from you?

Money by itself is nothing. It represents an exchange of services for services. Instead of that direct exchange, you get compensated in paper bills which you then use to get the services you need. Take out money and the motivation for working is still the same - it just becomes clearer that the money itself is not the end goal but the services it can buy. As long as the energy going into the system - the productivity - meets or exceeds the energy going out - the quality of living of all people - than the system is self-sustaining. I don't think the end of capitalism would mean the endof responsibility, I think it would readjust our priorities so we're working for the right reasons.

Charity:

You mention the government being used to exploit people. Now if the government collects taxes and gives that money to a thurd world country what do you think the ineveitable is? If a government is getting huga grants from other governments then that government becomes dependent on the others and thus can only expect exploitation. A charity does really possess the power to exploit people it helps. Most of the people working charity want to do it and thus are not going to expect anything in return.

So your suggestion is that a government shouldn't give money to other countries because they may use that as reason to exploit them (which they could) but an individual should because they are more likely not to exploit them? I guess you do have a point. How often has the US given supposedly free aid to develope economies and then used those economies to sell our corporate goods. We do that all the time. Again, that is more reason for a socialist economy instead of a capitalist one. A socialist economy has no need to exploit others in that way. And really, if people are starving to death by the millions, I tend to think any aid (no matter how dubious the intentions) is a good thing. In a socialist system, aid is given out on the basis of real need. If people need help, they will get it. That comes with the recognition that we are all one community throughout the world and a person starving to death in Somalia is no different than a person starving to death in Detroit. Both need help. I don't see how it coud ever be immoral to help a person who is going to die otherwise.

Welfare:

The problem with social welfare is that you cannot punish those who do not act. It may be considered a moral wrong but under law there is no proper line to draw. If people were punished for inaction think fo all the people that would be tried over not trying to stop a bank robbery. Sins of omission are a moral issue and cannot be a legal issue. Where is the line drawn? Inaction to stop anything most likely effects somebody else.

This is where we keep disagreeing. You want to make everything an issueof moral absolutes and I think that's an impractical way to go about social change. Is welfare a permanent solution to unemployment and poverty? I don't know anyone who would say that it is. Those conditions are created by a capitalist economy. We can try to patch up the problems with welfare or we can throw that all out the window and start over with a socialist economy which doesnt create those problems in the first place. To be honest, I don't really have any interest in debating sins of omission with you. But I will debate all day that the conditions of poverty are increased by a capitalist economy and decreased by a socialist one. So let me ask you a moral question since that's so important to you. Is it morally right for one person to live in a palace while the rest live in straw huts?

Terrorism:

I must disagree heavily with terror. These are not rebels. They are religious fanatics who want the world to be dominated by fundamental Islam. It more accuratly reflects the Catholic Church's practice of inquisition during the height of its power in Europe. I am not saying Islam is bad. But I see no hint at all that they would allow different religious views, equality of women, or many of the other aspect of personal liberty. I see nothign wrong with the destruction of the liberty of those out to destroy liberty. Otherwise we would fall into a state of greed filled, id dominated anarchy.

Yes but that doesn't make them "bad men". Capitalism is spreading it's consumer culture throughout the world (McWorld anyone?) and there are people in other countries who don't think it's as great as we do. Religious fanatics or no, they only want what they believe is right. Capitalism has done a lot of bad for a lot of people. It's only natural that there are people out there with other ideas about how things should be done. But this is where liberty matters most. We don't nuke people who we disagree with, we talk with them and debate and come to an understanding. I don't know if the people blowing up buildings can be reasoned with. I think they turned the corner from people with a vision to people with an obsession a long time ago. But terrorism doesn't get it's strength from the ones blowing up buildings. It gets it's strength with the people who cheer when they see those buildings getting blown up and I for one think those people can be reasoned with. Blowing up their homes is not the way to do it. Look at our country 200 years ago. Slavery, only white property owners could vote. 100 years ago we still had segregation and women still couldn't vote. These people in the Middle East are not lost because of Islam. They aren't uncapable of changing their ideas. They're just a little behind us when it comes to human rights because the industrial changes which were the catalyst in our society have not fully occured there. They are us 100 years ago and they can come to understand the benefits of universal suffrage and women's rights and whatnot if we help them improve their economy rather than blowing them up.

Oh and just a small FYI. When mentioning political beliefs if you just mean the belief and not parties keep the first letter lower case. Capitolization means a relation to a party.

Lesson learned. I've never been good at knowing when to capitalize. That probably contributed to the confusion. But if I may return the favor, it's capitalization. Capitol is a government building.

But there is no proof that says capitalists will not be charitable. Why give to charity if the government is "taking care of it"?

You question why so much is spent on defense and not education. Again, you're solution is to just spend more money. Schools need to be held more accountable. Public schools have started to ensure the next grade of education. That is social promotion and already explained why that is bad. Private schools do the same thing. The kids are so used to mommy and daddy doing everything and mommy and daddy ensure they stay in school. I attended a private Baptist school for grades 1-3 in a very small town in Arizona. In 3rd grade one kid had assulted another but he got a very minimal punishment. The kid was disliked and the reason he stayed was obvious. His parents owned what was virtually the only computer store in town and thus provided the school with computers for free. The people as a whole need to be held more accountable.

And the money they have does need to to be spent resonable. Teachers need to be given an incentive to teach. In our society that incentive is money. But we need to stop this idea of compassionate government. The reason there are so many administrators at schools is that the government is being "compationate".

Medical schools turn away possible the largest percentage of applicants. The problem isn't people wanting to be doctors or being able to go to med school. The med schools just can't handle all of them. And it is't that people don't want to try to open med schools. With so many people trying to get in med school it is a prime time to open a for profit school as it would be a great money making venture.

The American elderly will loose more money on nationalized healthcare. As I stated the elderly are our most wealthy. So say medicine is nationalized and will pay for 90% of the costs. Now lets say an average American elderly citizen has a $1000 medical bill that needs paying. The government will cover $900 dollars of that and the elderly man is left with only $100 to pay. That sounds great. But the government needs to pay people in order to manage everything. I'll be generous and say the government spends 20% of what it collects on the collection, management, and distribution of the money. That means the government needs $1080 to pay the $900 medical bill. Now this man is most likely a full tax paying citizen. So while he himself only pays the doctor $100 he also pays the $1080 in taxes used to cover the other costs. So he is actually paying $1180. That's $180 more than he needed to without nationalized medicine. Now multiply this several million times and you have a vast amount of money lost. The government will always have to pay people to run these programs. Social programs create a loss of money no matter what.

But there is an incentive to work hard at McDonalds. Who is more likely to get a raise or promotion? The guy who is rude to customers or the guy who is polite to customers. I would say that always being polite to customers requires work. One must deal with some rather annoying characters and of course could have personal issues to deal with. Now yes you cannot live the high life off of a job of McDonalds. And this is where the problem of consumerism plays in. Does the guy working at McDonalds and supporting himself really need a TV? We need to as a whole accept sacrifice and that "Keeping up with the Jones" is not best for us.

How would it be possible to eliminate money. The beauty of money is that a service doesn't have to be exchanged with another service. How else could people be organized to do a service in exchange for another service. Money is the solution. If one cannot build something he no longer has to find somebody who can and needs the services he can offer. Instead he can give him some fabric with green ink on it.

In order to create a socialist country that will not exploit those who are given aid you need your perfect socialist state. Nothing is perfect. Charitable gifts are just that, gifts.

Socialism is about those with giving to those who do not. It helps to ensure this giving by using a government. So socialism obviously holds those with not giving to those without as wrong. This is then a moral absolute. So socialism is then founded on a moral idea. The moral idea it is founded on is inaction. So socialism is itself trying to fight sins of omission.

You ask if it is right to live in a mansion while others live in huts. There are two reasons why this could happen. One is that the man in the mansion is forcing the other to live in the hut. He has exploited the man and deprived him of his livelihood. Most will agree that this wrong. It is a moral absolute. But if the man in the mansion has in no way effected the life of the man in the hut? There is no moral absolute. Saying the man should do something creates a moral absolute. Saying the man shouldn't do anything creates another. Leaving healp up to the man does not.

I agree that the Islamic fundamentalists are behind the world in their view of society. And if a people wish to live in a fundamentalist theocratic state that is their right. The problem is when those people wish to end our right not to live in such a state. The Islamic people are not the problem. It is the fundamentalists that are. These people just want to kill those who disagree. Why else would you have terrorists targetting and killing non-Zionist Jews? Those Jews don't believe there should be a Jewish state until the messiah comes and therefore against the existance of Israel. They were killed because they are Jews. Why are hostages being held in Iraq demanding their native land pull out from Iraq when their nations aren't in Iraq? They are not on the defensive, they are on the offensive.

And yes, I do suck at "spelen".

Okay, one more post and then I'm out.

First of all, education is very important to me. It's everything really. Education is the difference between easily manipulated followers and people who can stand up for themselves. Education is what makes us who we are, it takes us from being fully dependent on others to being fully self-sufficient. But education is more than just 6 hours a day in a classroom. Education is the lessons your parents teach you. It's what you observe about how people interact in your society. It's the books you read, the movies and shows you watch, the music you listen to, the clothes you wear. Education is a lifelong process - a willingness to be taught. It is a personal spiritual quest to find your place in the world and get the most you can out of life. I don't think more money is the answer to any problem. But while it's all well and good for people to proclaim their dedication to education and the students of today being the leaders of tomorrow, it would be nice to see some actual dedication not just words. An increased dedication to education is going to require allocating more resources plain and simple.

That's not THE solution though. I think it will also take a comprehensive change in school curriculum. The emphasis should be on gathering knowledge and understanding it. Train students to be critical thinkers, to want to learn about the world. Memorization of facts and increased testing seem to be the bread and butter of school curriculum today and that's not really what education is. Mainly my point is that education is more or less ignored by our political leaders and that's why it's floundering. You've been in school, surely you realize more tests aren't going to change anything. It's the focus and the commitment that needs to change.

But above all else, I believe that education is the singular most important factor in how succesful a person can be in their life and for that reason, we have a duty to ensure that all people have access to the best education possible. How well you communicate, how well you interpret information and form your own conclusions - these are skills which are needed for all people to function in society and if we as a society are not doing our best to ensure that everyone learn these skills, then we are failing.

You talk a lot about personal responsibility and you strike me as someone with very little faith in humanity. For example, you mention the one kid who assaulted another kid and got away with it because his parents contribute to the school. But what about the other hundreds of kids who are well behaved and willing to learn? Yes responsibility is something we need to teach, maybe even emphasize more, but it's clearly something a lot of people do manage to learn. What about you? Do you consider yourself a responsible human being? How did you get that way? As you yourself said, we shouldn't be trying to change people by force. But what we can do, is make every effort to get kids off to a good start. That's part of education too. See I have a lot of faith in people. I think given the right conditions, every person can become responsible, intelligent, and self-motivated. Why shouldn't we want to spread those values to all people?

Compassionate government. I guess that means the government taking care of people. It's wrong because it teaches people to be reliant you say? See I think people learn responsibility by example. People around them are responsible and they learn to follow that behavior. A government is responsible for the well being of it's people. Society is all about people coming together to become something greater than it's individual parts. How are people going to learn to responsible when even the government takes the "somebody else's problem" excuse? Poverty? Somebody else's problem. Unemployment? Somebody else's problem. Starvation? Somebody else's problem. Well what good is a society if it leaves us to fend for ourselves? What if the farmers decide they'll only make enough to feed themselves?

If medical schools are so profitable and there's such a great supply and such a great demand, why aren't people opening new medical schools everywhere and becoming rich? That doesn't make economic sense.

There's a problem with your math. You forgot to divide 1180 by 200 million people. And that's only part of the problem. The other part is that a medical bill which costs $1000 today does not divide out into parts and labor. There's a sizeable chunk of that which is profit. If we eliminate the profit and put the extra money back into the maintenance of hospitals, the elderly man is not only paying less but also receiving better quality care.

We need to as a whole accept sacrifice and that "Keeping up with the Jones" is not best for us.

Exactly. Consumerism does not improve people's lives. But the "keeping up with the Jones' " philosophy is an essential part of capitalism. No demand = no supply = no profits = no economy. And really, does earning a promotion at McDonald's really drastically improve your lot in life? I don't see how making people wage slaves in the interest of hard work and bigger profits benefits humanity as a whole.

How would it be possible to eliminate money. The beauty of money is that a service doesn't have to be exchanged with another service. How else could people be organized to do a service in exchange for another service. Money is the solution. If one cannot build something he no longer has to find somebody who can and needs the services he can offer. Instead he can give him some fabric with green ink on it.

I know what money does. The problem with money though is it is an abstract resource not a physical one. Oil and iron are finite. Coal is finite. Wood and water are finite. Money we can print how ever much we like. It perpetuates the illusion that we can continue to use as many resources as we'd like with no repurcussions. Once upon a time people took pride in their work. Once upon a time people actually produced things. Now what do people do all day? So many people work just to earn a paycheck. It's a waste. Whatever people will give us a lot of money for, we'll do. You're complaining about the amount of waste involved in beauracry (like with school administrators) - that's what money does. If we had a society where every body contributed and everybody got a share of the combined production, there would be no need for money. Sure it sounds impractical now, but a few hundred years from now who knows.

Socialism is founded on the idea that the workers of any country are the backbone. They are the driving force, they make it succesful. In return they've been lorded over by Kings or Queens for thousands of years. Maybe it's time we stopped taking orders from some supposed "divine presence" and started ruling ourselves. That's what socialism is founded on - personal responsibility, and liberty. It's not robbing the rich and giving to the poor. It's an end to one group of people oppresing another.

As for the man in the mansion, you totally missed the point. It doesn't matter how he got there. The point is he lives in a huge house most of which he doesn't use. He gets fed huge feasts most of which he doesn't eat. Meanwhile, outside people are surviving on gruel and living in mud huts - 6 to a room. It doesn't matter to me how it got to be that way. What I'm asking is, does the man in the mansion have a right to call himself a human being and act as if he's a God at the same time? The man in the mansion obviously has the resources to improve the lives of all those around him without compromising the quality of his existence much. If he refuses to do so, can he call himself morally right? Maybe the people in the mud huts will realize that together they can overwhelm the mansion and take what is there. If the man in the mansion has the right not to help those people than certainly they should have the right to take what they can. Maybe those people now live in mansions. All throughout history the cycle repeats itself with the peasents and the mansion dwellers changing places until one day the people say "enough!" and finally give everyone an equal share and live in peace. That's what socialism represents. We can continue to blow each other up for all eternity over an increasingly dwindling supply of resources or we can work together and see if we can't apply our ingenuity to multiply those resources.

As for Islamic fundamentalists, I think they're no better or no worse than businessmen hoarding the world's resources in the interest of making a profit. Since there's more than one person on this planet, our actions are going to effect other people. Good and evil are defined by which side you're on. It is not okay to kill another person to further your own beliefs. It's no better to keep people in poverty to ensure your own prosperity. We're all guilty so instead of pointing fingers, we should start compromising.


I'm not going to be able to be online much for the next couple of weeks so I may not be able to respond. Anyway, I think this debate has gone on long enough. I've said what I wanted to say. You're welcome to continue if you'd like. It's not really my position to convince people of anything. I've got some experience and some ideas I'd like to share and people can do with it what they will. Really the one thing I care about is that I want people to think for themselves, learn all they can about the world, and then go out there and do what they think is right. Don't let anyone else tell you what's right, verify it for yourself. I get fed up with elections because it's all about manipulation. Don't let anyone manipulate you into voting one way or the other. Decide for yourself and I'll be happy, whatever it is you decide.

Lazyboy, I've been re-reading Plato's The Republic (not to be confused with the modern notion of 'republicanism') and wanted to recommend it to you if you haven't already read it. It deals with a lot of the issues we were talking about. Well everyone should read it really, it's supposedly the second most influential book in Western culture. But I think you would find it particularly interesting.

I have already read it. But what is the first most influential?

Take a guess

'contestant on Jeopardy'

"uh.. answer is Constitution of U.S.?"

My guess would have been Plato.

Bible!

Ding!

Ed, would you be a supporter of a Platonian (that a word?) republic?