Summit of the Americas

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Right now in the States is a movement whose main thought is that less government is better. That may be true. Unfortunatley the definition of what part of the bueracray is not neccesary varies as you go not only from race to race but from one economic level to another.

---

I think that the issue is not so much one of wanting less government, but rather, of wanting a smaller federal government where many of its responsibilities are pushed back to the states.

quote:

---

While this is happening the services the government offers is going to deteriorate now due the lower tax base

---

Perhaps, but my wish is that with a smaller federal government, our taxes will stay in our municipalities to be used locally. Currently, most of it goes to Washington where it is either 1) wasted, 2) sent overseas where it is wasted, 3) sent back to the states as block grants with strings attached, only allowing the states to have it if they conform to federal "regulations." We should only have to send enough money to Washington for it to be able to provide for the common defense, ensure interstate commerce, and to administer to itself. The powers of the federal government are limited and laid out in the Constitution. The tenth amendment says that anything not expressly granted to the federal government belongs to the states and the people.

[Guest Hyperion]

For the most part I think Menchise is going along the right track. Cpatalism is merely a system that the west has adopted as its system of government. And as with many thing it is what we make it. In the lest 20 years the social conscience of the average person has been dimishing more and more as the financial pressures of daily life continues to increase.

I dont think anyone would argue that simply making a success of ones self is i every real sense much harder than it was in 1980 when R. Reagan and Brian Mulrooney came into power with thier respective conservativ governments. The public desire for less taxation has created a wave in movement for what the call more "efficient" government system; which is more in the sense of less government.

For the record i was homeless myself Shingen in that i was without accomodation for about 2 weeks. And in that time i prevailed upon friends to help my through that time and i was grateful for thier help. However at the same time in my own province i was alwyas aware that there were in fact places people can go for temporary living quaters and felt although not thrilled with the idea that i might have to go there. the mere fact that they were there provided some easing of the strain of the situation if i was not able to find an apartment in that time.

I completely disagree with the concept that all homeless people are substrance abusers. Yes there are some but it is more often that these people who can be considered "Street" peopled are there more of other causes, be an abusive household or in some cases chronic mental illness. However there is a large feeling (More in the US) that homeless people are simply sponging off society, this is false.

For all the waste that is in the sytem there is more revunue lost to corrupt and illegal business practices;not to mention the "corporate welfare" system, than are lost in the welfare system.

Captalism in its sense that seems to be brought forth here by Shingen is as bad as any other repressive system out there, as it tends to keep the poor, poor and helps the welathy to become even more so. And if for a moment, we consider his advice that those who find themselves economically "Unviable" to take up arms against thier oppresers. Consider you have a severly unsastified group of people who have finally come to the end of thier tether. Given up hope at the prospect bettering themselves and turn away from the system, the potential ugly side of this is that instead of simply going out on to the street and forgetting captilism and its society. They decide to do something about it, not by being involved in government but by arming themselves (Of which there are plenty of weapons about in the US) striking at the same symbols of government and society that they felt have betrayed them.

The result is domestic terrorism. The usual public answer to this is that terorism is wrong no matter how you look at it. Keep in mind that to the British Empire in 176 looked upon the colonists in America as exactly that, only worse; both terrorists and traitors.

For those who promulgate the market forces should determie what is best in terms of how groups of people have been treated. They need only examine the troubles that black men and women in the US have been having. If im not mistaken a black man was shot only a few weeks ago in Phlidelphia, the result was a three day riot where the mayor considered calling in the National guard and imposing a curfew (Read this as Martial law).

The reason behind this was not simply that a black man was shot by a white police officer (Although this was a major part) But it represents a level of frustration in the black community. And like black people the poor represent another (Yet smaller) poertion of the general populace, who one day instead of buying a bottle as Shingen puts it, may instead decide to buy a gun and take matters into thier own hands.

Either way the western governments will have to face up to the reality that you cannot reduce people to a an economic number and expect to get away with it forever. One way or another they eventually will have to pay. The citizens and goverments of our nations are now facing which method they are going to choose

[aramike]

OK, I just wrote this LONG danged response only to have an internal server error.

To summarize...

Drunken homeless: What else can they do with their money, you ask? Get two meals instead of one to beg less frequently. Buy an ID card and use the shelter to help get a job and some dignity. You justify drunkeness as their "escape". That's the same excuse drug addicts use, yet we're less tolerant of them for some reason (rightfully so). Also, you say that the bottle usually comes AFTER they become homeless. This is untrue, completely. The bottle is a HUGE REASON most become homeless winos.

Worker's rights:

So, you're saying that the US should be responsible for the laws that OTHER nations don't follow? Just because gold miners in South America are dying because their governments WON'T PROTECT them, does NOT mean it is AMERICA'S fault. Sure, there is corporate INFLUENCE involved, but if free trade was TRULY implemented, you'd open new markets allowing those corporations to have less influence over the local economies.

Wait, the US should be responsible for doing something about THAT, but not Salvador Allende?

Chile:

Here's what you NEGLECTED to mention (yes, I am quite well versed in foreign history): When Allende was elected he only received 36% of the vote, meaning that the MAJORITY of the country did NOT want him to be president. He SIEZED private lands owned by American corporations and his OWN citizens - I call that GOVERNMENT THEFT. What about you, Steve? Jaguar?

Further, he NATIONALIZED BANKING, causing an inflation of OVER 150%! Allende THEN put a prize freeze on goods, but it didn't work because Chile hardly had the resources for this. The US government simply supported OPPOSITION, which is made of of Chile's citizens.

That is why socialism doesn't work.

Steve:

quote:

---

I think that the issue is not so much one of wanting less government, but rather, of wanting a smaller federal government where many of its responsibilities are pushed back to the states.

---

Yep! A great example of that in the paper today, actually - a FEDERAL COURT literally THREW OUT a Wisconsin law banning partial birth abortions. Makes me SICK.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

For the most part I think Menchise is going along the right track. Cpatalism is merely a system that the west has adopted as its system of government. And as with many thing it is what we make it.

---

ummm.. I think that was my point, not Menchise's. I think you got us mixed up.

quote:

---

Captalism in its sense that seems to be brought forth here by Shingen is as bad as any other repressive system out there, as it tends to keep the poor, poor and helps the welathy to become even more so.

---

Again, I never said that... I think you need to read my posts again. What I said was capitalism is a system, and it is what people make it.

[aramike]

quote:

---

I completely disagree with the concept that all homeless people are substrance abusers. Yes there are some but it is more often that these people who can be considered "Street" peopled are there more of other causes, be an abusive household or in some cases chronic mental illness. However there is a large feeling (More in the US) that homeless people are simply sponging off society, this is false.

---

This is NOT false, statistically even. Last year, the Milwaukee Mission (a homeless shelter that helps find jobs) reported that only 4% of the people that it had helped find a job retained it for more than 3 weeks. The primary cause of jobs being lost was substance abuse. Also, the workers had a MAJOR tendency to NOT return to work after the FIRST payday, and when they did, an estimated 80% returned under the influence of a substance (alcohol). Substance abuse is also cited as the PRIMARY CAUSE of homelessness in America by the Department of Health and Human Services.

There's a reason for this, actually - most homeless folks that are CLEAN of drugs and alcohol don't have a very difficult time working to get back on their feet, and they ALL (99.99%) eventually accomplish this (within weeks). Substance abusers, on the other hand, don't have the mindset for it. They rely on alcohol too much which causes poor decisions to be made and a more long term homelessness (often permanant). When offered assistance, many of those refuse it because they know that drinking would have to be the first to go.

The US' social programs DO offer exceptional care to the homeless. However, being a republic, the homeless are not obliged to take it. And in the tip off between job or bottle, the bottle is dominant.

This illustrates the largest problem with liberals, actually. They tend to "downplay" the actual CAUSES of problems with the intend of winning voters. Go figure.

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

[Guest Shingen]

I want to bring an issue up here, that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but since we are getting into more 'esoteric' topics, I'm gonna do it anyway.

Firstly, I don't know if you all believe in God or not (by this I mean: a Divine Intelligence that created everything and controls everything), and I don't wanna turn this into a religious argument, but IMHO, since you all are bringing in aspects of morality and the like, I fail to see any other way. I DO believe in God, and though I'm not going to go into my specific beliefs, I Do believe that GOD created the Universe, and ALL of the laws that govern it.

Both Menchise and Hyperion brought up the idea that Capitalism is a 'state of nature'. (Which it is) Now, IMHO, if you were to take Humanity completely off the face of the world, NATURE would work perfectly. Nature DOES work perfectly. (maybe not perfectly for YOU but perfectly none-the-less.) It was designed that way. Without Humanity, nature would continue to operate in a capitalistic way where species live and die, the strong survive and the weak become the food of the strong, thus the gene pool is strengthened by it, and nature continues to improve upon itself. Now, I admit that nature, left to itself, doesn't have a 'morality' pre-say. But it DOES discriminate against weakness and poor judgement. If nature works perfectly in a capitalistic way, then who am I to argue. I didn't write the laws of nature and I doubt very seriously, if anything I could come up with would work any better. I'm also NOT saying that we should continually oppress people of a weaker mind-set because 'it's the law of nature', what I AM saying it that the law was 'written' for a reason, and the reason is: Because it WORKS.

Secondly, noone can completely eliminate 'discrimination' because 'discrimination' is CHOICE! In order to CHOOSE 'A' over 'B', one must 'DISCRIMINATE' against 'B' in favor of 'A'. IMHO, most of all liberals scream about discrimination, because they truthfully don't believe that people are smart enough to take care of themselves, and must be 'governed' so that the 'weak' aren't 'oppressed'. What they really want to do, is take away your CHOICE, so that they can TELL you what to do and where to live and where to work, ect.ect.ect. This is why, IMHO, Liberalism=Socialism=Communism.

America as a government does not allow discrimination against people for economic reasons, sex, race, religion, etc. You can not be denied services because of any of these reasons. It DOES allow for discrimination against BEHAVIOR! So your argument that America oppresses the economically UNVIABLE is simply not true. People are either rich or poor because of their behavior! It seems to me that you want to take away the consequences of poor judgement, and bad behavior, lump everyone into the same class and rule them like a bunch of stupid children so that there is no one being 'oppressed'. In truth, in that scenario, EVERYONE is being oppressed EXCEPT the people making the rules! This is true Communism. At least Capitalism gives everyone EQUAL opportunity to improve their economic situation by controlling their BEHAVIOR and working within the LAWS OF NATURE, which you couldn't change if you had a thousand governments and as many 'experts'.

As aramike said earlier, if you were to put everyone in the same class, distribute the wealth equally among everyone, they would eventually arrive at the same capitalistic system we have now.

I for one would rather be left to fend for myself in the cold REALITY of nature, then to be ordered around like an idiot because some Liberal is trying to 'protect' my 'rights'.

..And no one has yet to offer any other VIABLE form of an economic system that comes anywhere near the benefits that Capitalism offers. That's because it hasn't been invented! Sure there are corporate abuses! There are government abuses. There are social abuses. But the abuses of Non-Capitalistic governments of FAR WORSE!!! Where are the examples of all the benign Socialistic/Communistic economies?? If socialism is so 'right' for the people, how come there is NO MAJOR socialistic economic power??? It seems to me, that if people really wanted to be lead around by the nose, we'd all be living the United Socialistic Collective of America.

[Steve Schacher]

RE: Rights

I'm in the middle of reading a fascinating treatise that I'm sure many have heard of and few have read. Follow the link below:

The Rights Of Man, by Thomas Paine, 1792.

An excerpt:

quote:

---

Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. But in order to pursue this distinction with more precision, it will be necessary to mark the different qualities of natural and civil rights.

A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.

From this short review it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society and those which he throws into the common stock as a member of society.

The natural rights which he retains are all those in which the Power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind; consequently religion is one of those rights. The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never surrenders it. But what availeth it him to judge, if he has not power to redress? He therefore deposits this right in the common stock of society, and takes the ann of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right.

From these premisses two or three certain conclusions will follow:

First, That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other words, is a natural right exchanged.

Secondly, That civil power properly considered as such is made up of the aggregate of that class of the natural rights of man, which becomes defective in the individual in point of power, and answers not his purpose, but when collected to a focus becomes competent to the Purpose of every one.

Thirdly, That the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself.

We have now, in a few words, traced man from a natural individual to a member of society, and shown, or endeavoured to show, the quality of the natural rights retained, and of those which are exchanged for civil rights.

---

Paine then goes on to apply these concepts to governments.

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[Gallion]

quote:

---

...In conclusion, Democracy is challenged by a symbiosis of Economic Liberalism and Capitalism, due to its state of nature where a strong minority dominates the distribution of the majority of resources essential for living...

---

First, the USA is not a democracy. The USA is a Republic, which is a representative democratic system of government. Read some of those textbooks yourself Menchise.

Capitalism is a economic system that is for the most part untethered by a government. Capitalism left on its own, without any type of safegaurds or other type(s) checks and balance is the survival of the fitest and be damned who/what gets in the way of progress. This is reminisent of the US Industrial Revolution in the late 1800's (AOL keyword = carpet baggers )

The bovine excrement that you so freely are spewing Menchise is classic case of socialist/communist propaganda. Look back into your own country of origin's history. If it was not for this evil capitalistic system/society your currency would not be the AUD but the Yen. Your monarch would not be the Queen but an Emporer located in Tokyo.

Frankly Menchise, your entire tirade is an excercise in futility IMO. You cannot support your premise with any substanciated facts without falling back to various socialist/communist dogma or propaganda that are proven fallacies.

To get this thread back on topic, I think this Summit of the Americas is a good thing. Once all trade and econimic barriers are remove, the western hemisphere will be a major player in this new global arena. The only problem is this change will take decades of effort, on all parties concerned, before the fruits of this labor are realized and the standard of living is raised. Effectively eliminating poverty for the most part. Poverty will never be eliminated. No matter how much a society tries to catch all its citizen(s), some few always manage to miss the boat.

TTFN

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Gallion ]

[JoeyGuppy]

My two cents:

Just from what I've seen in my current job large companies suck. The govenment has deregulated the industry I work in (radio) and the results IMHO have been pretty rotten. The deregulation started in the 80's but didn't really have too much efect untill Clinton passed some laws allowing more ownership of radio and TV stations. So instead of only being able to own two stations in a market now the owners could own 8 and they could also own a lot more stations nationwide. This started a large period of conslodation (I know I'm a bad speller) in which all these little radio compaines merged or took out massive loans so they could own the competion. After that they stared doing the same with companies in other markets and so on until there were a few large companies. Thats the way it is now, although there are still some smaller companies around they are finding it hard to compete with the large because the large companies an offer comercials on more stations than small companies. This benfits the busness that market there products using radio but is of little benifit to the consumer of radio who has to listen to more comercials. The large companies also are trying to cut costs by getting rid of people and useing automation. The thought is why have a DJ or news person in each city when we can pay just one person and make him or her do the work for five cities and deliver it by satilite or internet. This leads to less quality and local content for small or mid-size cities which lose the local personal. This might not be a bad thing for the radio listener since the large cities have better more expernced people but the person delvilering the broadcast has no clue what the place he or she is broadcasting to is like. Also with digital radio coming soon a lot of these big companies are trying to figure out a way to charge the consumer for listening so lets say when armike wants to listen to Rush Limbugor Tac wants to lisnten to Art 'taco' Bell They will have to pay $9.99 a month. I haven t heard of any thing regarding those two radio shows but a monthly fee is one of the plans floating around. This would not be good for consumers because radio is free for the lisnters now. There will also be more consolodation since the new fcc chairman Powell (Colen Powells son) is aganist a lot of the ownership rules still in place. Can anyone say citzen kane. Free markets at work don't well in the broadcasting industy as far as I can see, and if your thinking of starting a radio station, the very few frequnces still avalible for comercial broadcasting are now sold by auction to the highest bidder, and you will be competing against comapines with millions (and billions) of dollars. When there were only small comapanies there were a lot of voices yelling, pretty soon there will be only one.

added:

Free trade in the americas will work bad in radio if instead of a few guys in texas owing most of the radio in the US they now own most of the radio on the two continents. (the largest company in radio is contoled by a guy and his family in texas)

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: JoeyGuppy ]

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

The bovine excrement that you so freely are spewing Menchise is classic case of solcialism/communism propaganda.

---

ROFLMAO!!! hehehehe.. that's funny! Bovine excrement!

I got another point I wanna throw out there! All these Liberals scream about cultural diversity and relegious diversity and racial diversity, but when it comes to economic diversity, they spout off all this crap about how homeless everybody is, and how 'big business' and capitalism are keeping everyone 'oppressed'! Some people don't want wealth! Wealth entails a hellava lot of headache! If the truth were known, wealthy people probably got twice as many problems as poor people! I would assume one would have to sacrifice a large part of their free-time in order to get 'wealthy', and damn it, if that's what they want then so be it. If others want to sit at home and watch TV, instead of doing the research it takes to become wealthy, then that's fine too! I ain't gonna feel guilty 'cause I make more money then Joe-Blow down the road! If he wants to make more money, then let him find a way! I gonna go play BC3K!!!

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

The deregulation started in the 80's but didn't really have too much efect untill Clinton passed some laws allowing more ownership of radio and TV stations.

---

I think the broadcast industry is a special case because it is the only private occupation specifically mentioned in the Constitution (free press).

With that in mind, Clinton knew very well what he was doing. As I'm sure you know, the television market (where most people get their news) is dominated by the left. This forced the right to move to radio, where people like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Schlessinger flourish. In order for a cabal of leftist media moguls to dominate the airwaves, the laws limiting ownership in competing markets had to be abolished.

We are now seeing the effects in conglomerations like AOL-Time-Warner-CNN and ABC-Disney-ESPN. In radio, you have national networks gobbling up local stations and sending national feeds with no local flavor.

The media are no longer acting as agents of the people, responsible for watching over the government (as was intended by their special reference in the first amendment). With Clinton's love of everything Hollywood, and Hollywood's love of adoration by Clinton, they are being transformed into a propagandist arm for the left. In order to do this, ownership has to be centralized. In order to do that, deregulation has to occur.

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[Guest Shingen]

If I have to pay to listen to the EIB network, then so be it! It beats anything the liberals got on TV. Anyone ever seen 'Politically Incorrect'? That guy is a joke. IMHO

Here's something for all you liberals!

The EIB Network

[JoeyGuppy]

Well it looks like Bush is going to keep up the same thing clinton did by putting powell in as fcc chairman. He has been getting a lot of presure to get rid of crossownership rules by Fox and Cbs so they can own all the TV, Radio, and Newspaper in the same cities. And it's not just left vs right , Fox is somewhat right, while Cbs (owned by viacom I belive) is somewhat left. They both want less ownship rules beacuse the large shareholders want more contol (ie. Rupert Murdoch wants to tell you what what he wants you to hear and not let anyone else up on the soapbox). If people Took an interest in What the media compaies do instead of just lisneting to what they say the laws would not be changed. But for most people their interests are not focused on the media which is the the it should be, if only we could trust the owners and large shareholders of the media comapnies. But I don't belive it's some vast left or right wing conspircay, it's just of people in control of the comapies trying to take more power.

[Menchise]

[Steve Schacher]

I'm not saying it's a left-right conspiracy, but rather that nature abhors a vacuum. The right wing fled to radio because the left wing owned television. The left wing is now expanding its consolidation to radio.

To say that CBS is slightly left is to say that Clinton is slightly Democratic.

Fox is a bit of an anomoly. It is the only television outlet that explores the conservative viewpoint in depth -- the others only pay it lip service. Yet the Fox News Channel is the fastest growing channel and is now beating CNN. People have come to learn the spin game and know bovine excrement when they see it. They are now turning to Fox for their news, and CNN is taking notice. Also, the current Republican administration is making Fox their preferred channel, which has to annoy the "elites."

And yet, Rupert Murdoch also owns the Fox network which has very low-brow entertainment. Rumors are that he is also eying UPN, which is even lower than Fox (except for Voyager). Murdoch also own the New York Post, which is a somewhat tabloid newspaper in New York City except for its conservative editorial board.

But to get back to my point, as soon as News began to be treated as a commodity, the first amendment check against an overbearing government went out the window. News gathering capabilities were cut due to corporate bottom line objectives. Reporters stopped digging for unfavorable stories because they didn't want to get banned from lavish White House dinners. Networks didn't report news because it would adversely affect the parent company's parent company's lobbying efforts.

For an excellent chronicle of network news bias, check out the Media Research Center.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

If you want an example of a bad election, think about this. The majority of Americans voted for Al Gore. Bush won the election instead. Maybe HE should be overthrown.

---

Our electoral system is based on the Constitutional recognition that the people are represented by the States. Therefore, it is the states that have votes, not the people. Bush won the electoral college, made up of electors from each state, therefore he won the election. Let's not go down this path... please...

quote:

---

Ralph Nader wasn't even allowed to enter the debates, and he was the top third party candidate! This effectively meant that Americans only had two choices, and their choice didn't win! LOL.

---

Interestingly, the Democrats and Republicans conspired to wrest the control of debates away from the League of Women Voters by creating the Bipartisan Committee for Presidential Debates. Gore cited this committee as the "traditional" reason for his ducking one-on-one meetings with Bush on NBC's Meet The Press, yet this committee wasn't formed until 1986 or so, as an attempt by the two parties to keep out third party candidates.

quote:

---

If you want to label me, call me a Socialist

---

Personally, I don't want to label you. The only label that counts around here is BCM Beta Tester. We just like to pass the time between patches with interesting current events dialogs. So, whatever your opinions, political leanings, social leanings, or whatever, as long as it is kept civil and respectful, and not taken too personally (the CAT team will step in if it gets out of hand), and as long as you like intellectual debates with willing counterparts, you can call yourself whatever you want as long as, at the end of the day, you still feel your debate opponent is your colleague in the Battlecruiser community.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Personally, I don't want to label you. The only label that counts around here is BCM Beta Tester. We just like to pass the time between patches with interesting current events dialogs. So, whatever your opinions, political leanings, social leanings, or whatever, as long as it is kept civil and respectful, and not taken too personally (the CAT team will step in if it gets out of hand), and as long as you like intellectual debates with willing counterparts, you can call yourself whatever you want as long as, at the end of the day, you still feel your debate opponent is your colleague in the Battlecruiser community.

---

I completely agree.

[aramike]

[Guest]

I am not going to get too crazy here, but the fact is, he has admitted that he is a Socialist, therefore anything he says about the economy, country etc, we are going to disagree with. We are capitalists, he is not, we believe in personal responsibility, he does not, we believe in accountability, he does not, we believe in private property and he does not. He believes in a system that does not work, see the USSR, we believe in a system that does, see The USA.

We believe in idividual rights, he does not, we believe in the constitution of the US, he does not. We will NEVER agree, he is beyond help.

And just for the record, the media never reported this, why? because they wanted to be able to whine about the fact that Gore won the popular vote. FACT, after all absentee ballots were counted, BUSH WON BOTH the popular and the electoral votes. THAT IS A FACT!!! So don't give me anymore garbage about how Gore should be President because he won the popular vote, because he DID NOT!!!

And also, popular votes are for democracies, we are not a democracy, we are a republic!!

Now, think on this!!

quote:

---

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they

can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses

over loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship. "The average age of the worldÔÇÖs greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to

selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back into bondage."

The quote is from historian Alexander Frazier Tyler. He died in 1813, so he could hardly have been writing about the Republic of the United States. Actually, he was writing about the Athenian Republic.

---

This is where each and every DEMOCRACY is headed, and the fact that all of our offices are now popular voted instead of state appointed, like the senate was supposed to be. WE ARE IN TROUBLE!!!!

Johnny get your gun!!!

[Menchise]

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

If you required something that I have, which I didn't need at the moment, and I am confident that you will return it when I need to use it, then I would lend it to you.

If you just walked in and took my stuff without asking, it would still be theft in a Socialist system, because you are taking goods and services from someone who may need them.

In Socialism, the determining factor of the possession of objects is need, not property

---

Are you trying to tell us that they are no economic elites in your country?? That everything is based on need and that everyone has only what it takes to live 'comfortably'??? It seems you neglected to mention this.

If your government operates the way you say it does, then how can there be 105,000 homeless people sleeping out on the street of Australia??

It would seem that your 'social utopia' has a few economic elites of it's own.

...And another thing, you said that 'possession of objects is need not property, (which is ownership by the way) so if for some reason I needed that computer of yours, then I could come in a take it, right? I mean you don't own it, and I need it!

quote:

---

Socialists DO believe in personal responsibility, we just have a different interpretation of what a person is responsible for. Give me some examples of some personal responsibilities and I'll give you my interpretation. Note that my interpretations may not be the same as the interpretations of other Socialists.

---

In America, people are responsible for thier own actions, behaviors, debts, families, jobs, etc. Ever heard the saying: "If a man doesn't work, He doesn't eat." Well this is a basic precept of personal responsibility. ..and something I happen to agree with. I am only responsible to my government in that I am required to follow the laws that were written by our elected officials. I don't have to agree with them, and I can lobby to change them, but until that time I am responsible to follow those laws. I am not however, responsible for the stupid decisions of somebody else! If someone chooses to sit around at the homeless shelters, drink and do drugs, instead of choosing gainful employment. I am not responsible if he straves to death one night out in the rain! Nor would I want to be. Chronically unemployed people have generally been helped multipule times, and they still manage to become unemployed. Why is this my responsiblity?? I would feel a greater responsiblity to the children of this pathetic loser because unlike him, they didn't have a choice!

quote:

---

I also have a question for you about property and need. Can you think of one person in the entire world who NEEDS a billion dollars to live comfortably, let alone 100 billion dollars? It's ridiculous! If that wealth was distributed more evenly there would be NO poverty.

---

Poverty has vewry little do to with wealth. And as I stated earlier, wealth need not be 'reallocated' because is a replenishable asset and can be generated. Poverty is almost always a result of behavior. Be it the behavior of the individual, or the behavior of a government that practics slave-labor. In America, everyone one is paid according to the value of thier respective service/skill. There is no 'wealth' cap in America, as there would be in a socialistic government, because if someone wanted a higher wage earning, then they simply have to learn a skill that has a higher employment value. It seems to me that if you cosolodated all wealth and land ownership into a single 'collective', then you aren't eliminating the 'elite' classes, you are insuring them and guaranteeing that whom ever is in control of those assets chooses who's elite and who isn't!

quote:

---

You believe in a system that works (literally) for a minority of people, keeps a majority of people relatively comfortable, and keeps another minority alive (in many cases, barely), see the Upper Class, the Middle Class, and the Lower Class.

---

Why is it that most 'conservative people I know, donate more monies to charity then 'liberal' people?? Why is it that the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, and other 'socialistic' countries have a higher incidence(?) of human-rights violations then any other 'capitalistic' country??? If you look at the government structures of these countries, you will find a very difinite elite class, with NO opportunity for the lower classs to advance OUTSIDE the party proper.

And what Jaguar quoted is true of all the democracies so far, but it is NOT a certainty if we LEARN from the examples that history has taught us.

"Those you do not learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it." (..or somethign like that.)

[Guest]

quote:

---

I also have a question for you about property and need. Can you think of one person in the entire world who NEEDS a billion dollars to live comfortably, let alone 100 billion dollars? It's ridiculous! If that wealth was distributed more evenly there would be NO poverty.

---

OK, and who is the one who decides what is comfortable? You? and what business is it of yours whether someone makes a Billion dollars or not, if he does, he is obviously putting out a product or service that people want or need, otherwise he would not have a billion dollars. I say let him get all the money the market will bear, Why, because he is not only providing a service, he is creating jobs and opportuniies for others to get jobs, with his product he may create other cottage industries to support the product he is selling, see Detroit, there are over 5000 different companies and over 5 million jobs due to the Automobile industry alone. Directly or indirectly a Billionaire shares his wealth via the free market capitalist system.

I say let the rich be rich, because they create jobs for me and my family, and keep the money, and the economy flowing.

Your system would kill that, why work hard, why create things, why be the best you can be, when all that is gonna happen is that it will be taken away from you due to fairness. These systems always fail and always will, you take out the basic of human instincts, the strive for greatness and success.

Once you remove the prize, there will be no race!!!

[aramike]

Gotta be quick:

quote:

---

If you required something that I have, which I didn't need at the moment, and I am confident that you will return it when I need to use it, then I would lend it to you.

If you just walked in and took my stuff without asking, it would still be theft in a Socialist system, because you are taking goods and services from someone who may need them.

In Socialism, the determining factor of the possession of objects is need, not property.

---

Oh, really? Still theft? Hmmm, Allende's socialist government didn't ASK the people they were taking from, and neither has ANY socialistic government to date.

[Guest Shingen]

To get this thread back on topic, here is a rather interesting article about the history of the summit, the NAFTA agreement and related agreements.

Free Trade Area of the Americas

[Menchise]