poltitical forum

[Oerwinde]

i live in america.and if u ask me the liberals over here suck!.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah those damn liberals. If it wasn't for them you'd still have slavery! And no social security! Or Public schools! I mean, America is just better off without them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh please!!! if those liberals hadnt come in and screwed up everything we might not have the problems we do today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You do realize that if it weren't for Liberals you'd probably be a farmer trying to hide as much food as you could before your lord took it all for his feasts right?

 

Liberal: Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Conservative: Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

 

I'm not saying everyone should be liberal, we need a balance otherwise there would be change just for the sake of change, but if everyone were conservative, we'd still be in the middle ages.

[Reveilled]

Reveilled: what do you think about society? What is it's purpose, in your opinion? What your talking about sounds awfully lot like "every man for himself", and I'm not quite sure it goes along with the idea of society so I'd like to get your views on this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The purpose of a society is to protect the freedoms of the society's participants. To this end, the government should provide emergency services, such as police, a military, and possibly roads. Anything else is something that must only be participated in on a voluntary basis. It is not purely a matter of "every man for himself", because people derive happiness from helping others often as much as from helping themselves. Private charity can provide many of the things that government provides, and it can provide it without taking money off of people without their consent and threatening them with imprisonment if they don't pay.

 

Societies existed before socialised medicine, they existed before social security, and they existed before drug prohibition, and given the dictionary definition, I don't see how any system of governemnt from anarchism to Libertarianism to Fascism wouldn't be going along with "A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture."

[WITHTEETH]

i live in america.and if u ask me the liberals over here suck!.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah those damn liberals. If it wasn't for them you'd still have slavery! And no social security! Or Public schools! I mean, America is just better off without them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh please!!! if those liberals hadnt come in and screwed up everything we might not have the problems we do today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've heard this view point before by a man i know. his version is social security, medicare, welfare, help for handicap and so on crushed our balances. and goverment programs dont work because they can't organie anything. he is a radical chrstian, so i don't understand him at all. didn't jesus care for the poor, feed the needy and help the handicap? i think he just bought in to what he was told without question. strange becaseu he grew up without front teeth becaseu of an accident that could have been easily fixed if he did have healthcare. instead he learned not to smile throughout middle school and 3 years of highschool.

[FaramirK]

Reveilled: what do you think about society? What is it's purpose, in your opinion? What your talking about sounds awfully lot like "every man for himself", and I'm not quite sure it goes along with the idea of society so I'd like to get your views on this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The purpose of a society is to protect the freedoms of the society's participants. To this end, the government should provide emergency services, such as police, a military, and possibly roads. Anything else is something that must only be participated in on a voluntary basis. It is not purely a matter of "every man for himself", because people derive happiness from helping others often as much as from helping themselves. Private charity can provide many of the things that government provides, and it can provide it without taking money off of people without their consent and threatening them with imprisonment if they don't pay.

 

Societies existed before socialised medicine, they existed before social security, and they existed before drug prohibition, and given the dictionary definition, I don't see how any system of governemnt from anarchism to Libertarianism to Fascism wouldn't be going along with "A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Its a good argument. It seems that one of the main causes of poverty is an over-taxing authority anyway. Imagine how low taxes would be if the Government cut down to only paying for public transport, emergency services and the military!

 

And I agree that charity is better than Social Welfare...

[FaramirK]

i live in america.and if u ask me the liberals over here suck!.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah those damn liberals. If it wasn't for them you'd still have slavery! And no social security! Or Public schools! I mean, America is just better off without them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh please!!! if those liberals hadnt come in and screwed up everything we might not have the problems we do today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm no liberal...but what do you have against them, not everything, but give us one or two reasons to work with...

[Oerwinde]

Its a good argument.  It seems that one of the main causes of poverty is an over-taxing authority anyway.  Imagine how low taxes would be if the Government cut down to only paying for public transport, emergency services and the military!

 

And I agree that charity is better than Social Welfare...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No one in modern society was taxed into poverty. Poverty is a result of low wages, not high taxes. When someone has to work 3 jobs just to keep his family above the poverty line, and corporations are reporting record profits, thats not taxes fault.

[FaramirK]

Its a good argument.  It seems that one of the main causes of poverty is an over-taxing authority anyway.  Imagine how low taxes would be if the Government cut down to only paying for public transport, emergency services and the military!

 

And I agree that charity is better than Social Welfare...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No one in modern society was taxed into poverty. Poverty is a result of low wages, not high taxes. When someone has to work 3 jobs just to keep his family above the poverty line, and corporations are reporting record profits, thats not taxes fault.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, thats not true. Government greed has ended alot more governments in bloody revolt than greedy corporations.

[SteveThaiBinh]

And I agree that charity is better than Social Welfare...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it? First of all, you have to assume that the rich are so generous that they will give enough to alleviate poverty and suffering in their own countries. I doubt this. I recently read a survey showing that people on relatively low incomes were the most generous, in terms of proportion of income spent on charity in the UK, but it was still tiny relative to the amount of money needed to keep thousands of people above the poverty line. The rich, on the whole, are extremely mean.

 

State-organised social security has a more reliable source of income and is better able to tackle poverty. Because it does not rely on the whims of the fickle rich, comprehensive plans can be made (though this does not always happen, of course). It is also, and I accept this may be a cultural difference between the US and Europe, seen as a right. All citizens have a right to a minimum standard of living, because anything else demeans us all and our society.

[FaramirK]

And I agree that charity is better than Social Welfare...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it? First of all, you have to assume that the rich are so generous that they will give

 

No, everyone can afford to be charitous, and my beliefs demand that I be...recieving kindness form some one is so much more meaningful than getting a government food stamp in the mail...

[Oerwinde]

Its a good argument.  It seems that one of the main causes of poverty is an over-taxing authority anyway.  Imagine how low taxes would be if the Government cut down to only paying for public transport, emergency services and the military!

 

And I agree that charity is better than Social Welfare...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No one in modern society was taxed into poverty. Poverty is a result of low wages, not high taxes. When someone has to work 3 jobs just to keep his family above the poverty line, and corporations are reporting record profits, thats not taxes fault.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, thats not true. Government greed has ended alot more governments in bloody revolt than greedy corporations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats because if someone lead a bloody revolt in a corporation, even if it succeeded everyone involved would be thrown in prison, then whatever it was they fought for would go back to what it was before.

 

Taxes don't cause poverty in my country, because if you're in poverty you're not required to pay taxes.

[Oerwinde]

And I agree that charity is better than Social Welfare...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it? First of all, you have to assume that the rich are so generous that they will give

 

No, everyone can afford to be charitous, and my beliefs demand that I be...recieving kindness form some one is so much more meaningful than getting a government food stamp in the mail...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure most people can afford it, but relying on private charity assumes people are. People are selfish. People are greedy. Relying on the selfless nature of human beings to help the poor and less fortunate won't achieve anything.

[Reveilled]

And I agree that charity is better than Social Welfare...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it? First of all, you have to assume that the rich are so generous that they will give

 

No, everyone can afford to be charitous, and my beliefs demand that I be...recieving kindness form some one is so much more meaningful than getting a government food stamp in the mail...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure most people can afford it, but relying on private charity assumes people are. People are selfish. People are greedy. Relying on the selfless nature of human beings to help the poor and less fortunate won't achieve anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's just not true. People are generous. If people are so greedy, why do charities exist? If people are so greedy, why does almost every philosophy and religion in human history stress selflessness? If people are so greedy, why do people vote in governments with huge social welfare budgets? If people were so greedy, no one would donate to charity. If people were greedy, they would all follow beliefs that stressed keeping everything you have and relentlessly trying to get more. If people were so greedy, the only people who would vote for things such as social security would be the parasites who intend to live off of it.

 

I'm one of the most selfish people you'd ever meet, but I donate to charity. I've even done volunteer work. I plan on spending a year in Africa after I finish my degree. You know why? Because knowing that I helped someone makes me happy. Being generous to others gives me fufillment, and so by being geneours I have fufilled my selfish desire for happiness.

 

I really don't understand where everyone gets this belief that humans are greedy. It's pessimistic and depressing, and gives humanity far too little credit.

[SteveThaiBinh]

People in general are generous, but the rich are not generous in proportion to their wealth. The idea was being suggested that you could abolish the welfare state and voluntary donations would make up for it. I think there would be a huge shortfall, in part due to the richest in society failing to donate sufficiently. The poorer you are, the more you understand the nature of poverty and need, and the more generous you are.

[Reveilled]

People in general are generous, but the rich are not generous in proportion to their wealth.  The idea was being suggested that you could abolish the welfare state and voluntary donations would make up for it.  I think there would be a huge shortfall, in part due to the richest in society failing to donate sufficiently.  The poorer you are, the more you understand the nature of poverty and need, and the more generous you are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Voluntary donations wouldn't make up for it entirely, but they don't have to. As a result of abolishing these things, people themselves would have more money to pay for them when they need them, and the people who live off the system would no longer be a drain on it, lowering the amount needed to sustain it.

 

As to the rich not donating sufficiently, ultimately that's their choice. But nowadays, most rich people are heads of companies, not wealthy landlords, so if you want them to donate more to charity, organise a boycott of their product until they do. If it matters enough to everyone, it'll happen. In any case, the rich have no obligation to give up more money simply because they have it. If they got it fair and square, it's their choice what to do with it.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The poorest in society pay little tax as it is. Abolishing social security and reducing taxes would help them very little, and charity would not be able to make up for it. The result would be devastating to the individuals involved and to society as a whole.

 

Consumer boycotts are too blunt an instrument to be effective in making rich people give to charity. You might shame the company head, as you say, but most of senior management are likely to be fairly rich, but out of the public eye. Again, you're looking at an enormous shortfall.

 

The rich do have an obligation to pay tax, just like everyone else. And we decide the level of tax and the way it will be spent through democratic elections. I notice that the Conservatives didn't just win.

[metadigital]

...I notice that the Conservatives didn't just win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's hardly an indication of any single issue, especially abolishing tax!

[Darth Flatus]

i'm a tax payer and i am happy for some of my income to be redistributed among public services including welfare. I'd rather one elected body be the administrator of those funds.

[SteveThaiBinh]

...I notice that the Conservatives didn't just win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's hardly an indication of any single issue, especially abolishing tax!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps. I think the kind of low-tax, low-welfare society that Reveilled describes probably can exist and be successful, if you judge it in its own terms. I just don't want to live there. Although I argue against it, I'm doing so according to my own criteria of the kind of society I want to live in, and ultimately there's unlikely to be fundamental agreement between us. So the only way to resolve the issue is through the democratic process.

 

There is a danger of assuming a general election victory means endorsement of a particular policy, but this danger is greater with side issues, such as the hunting ban, than key issues such as tax and the economy. In the end, I suppose the government has to proceed as if it did have a mandate, even if it doesn't really. Otherwise you have chaos and confusion. In our last election, there wasn't a political party putting forward Reveilled's vision of society. Maybe someone should start one, and test the country's opinion on this issue.

[metadigital]

Perhaps.  I think the kind of low-tax, low-welfare society that Reveilled describes probably can exist and be successful, if you judge it in its own terms.  I just don't want to live there.  Although I argue against it, I'm doing so according to my own criteria of the kind of society I want to live in, and ultimately there's unlikely to be fundamental agreement between us.  So the only way to resolve the issue is through the democratic process.

 

There is a danger of assuming a general election victory means endorsement of a particular policy, but this danger is greater with side issues, such as the hunting ban, than key issues such as tax and the economy.  In the end, I suppose the government has to proceed as if it did have a mandate, even if it doesn't really.  Otherwise you have chaos and confusion.  In our last election, there wasn't a political party putting forward Reveilled's vision of society.  Maybe someone should start one, and test the country's opinion on this issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not that I want to start a holy war ( " ) or make an odious comparison, but Hitler's National Socialists received a larger popular vote than Tony Blair's Labour party ... :ph34r:

 

I personally believe that to do a job properly, do it yourself. That means a smaller government. Minimal interference, and none of these pseudo-governmental quangos that seem to be such a fetish for British politics.

 

I can see the depression that will be hitting the UK economy (not that I wish to talk it down) because of Brown's blatant redistribution policies (government regional spending is over 60% of the GDP, as apposed to around 30% in London, for example) and artificial employment (over a million extra middle management government positions since 1997) together with the added tax burden (my tax rate went over 50% after the last election, as a Company Director), raiding the superannuation funds for

[Reveilled]

...I notice that the Conservatives didn't just win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's hardly an indication of any single issue, especially abolishing tax!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps. I think the kind of low-tax, low-welfare society that Reveilled describes probably can exist and be successful, if you judge it in its own terms. I just don't want to live there. Although I argue against it, I'm doing so according to my own criteria of the kind of society I want to live in, and ultimately there's unlikely to be fundamental agreement between us. So the only way to resolve the issue is through the democratic process.

 

There is a danger of assuming a general election victory means endorsement of a particular policy, but this danger is greater with side issues, such as the hunting ban, than key issues such as tax and the economy. In the end, I suppose the government has to proceed as if it did have a mandate, even if it doesn't really. Otherwise you have chaos and confusion. In our last election, there wasn't a political party putting forward Reveilled's vision of society. Maybe someone should start one, and test the country's opinion on this issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can tell you right now they'd probably get three or four votes tops. I accept that the society we have is roughly the society most people in Britain want, and that I'm never going to be able change it. That's fair enough for the British people. Instead, I'm moving to New Hampshire with the Free State Project, and we're going to create for ourselves the society we want. We'll see how it goes.

 

In an attempt to be as open and tolerant as possible, I'm just going to smile and say "to each their own."