Raven

quote: You would have to define what you mean by "viable." If it means self-sustaining, then Egypt fails because it depended on the forced labor of others -- a situation that couldn't last forever. IÔÇÖve never seen anything that suggests a society could last forever, viability does not require self sustenance (you wonÔÇÖt find a single country today that is independent of the world market), Egypt was a viable society for a very long time, but times change. quote: If it wasn't wrong then (if the morals of the time let it be acceptable), then why was there such an outcry to "Let my people go?" The Jews thought it was wrong, the Egyptians didnÔÇÖt. quote: If what constitutes a viable society changes over time, then you would have to endorse slavery in the United States. If it was okay for Egypt, and it was okay for colonials at the time (until the 1850's), then we can't apply today's standards to slavery and say that reparations are due -- because the South had a viable society. Sure, then I endorse slavery. It was a hell of a lot more moral then the wage slavery that was going on in the north for some time and it is a hell of a lot more moral then modern sweatshops. Lotharr mentioned earlier that illegal aliens are brought into the US and then made to work in ghastly conditions until they are worthless as laborers. As far as reparations, that ridiculous, I can see giving an ex slave enough money to get started in life and call it reparations, but there are no ex slaves left, period. ItÔÇÖs the same damn thing with the Native Americans, we didnÔÇÖt take there land, we took there grandparents land, so why is the government giving them money? ItÔÇÖs all quite ridiculous. quote: On the other hand, if there are some absolutes of humanity that transcend time, then societies must be measured by them. Absolutes of humanity that transcend time, yea, one comes to mind; the stupidity of the people. When the mob has enough power to control the government itÔÇÖs a disaster, we saw it with the ancient Athenians and we are seeing it today. Athens fell because of a series of really bad choices that (typical of the mob) failed to take into account long-term affects. The modern equivalent is socialism, look at Canada and JaguarÔÇÖs lovely explanation of what is happening there. The same thing is happening in America, not understanding (or not caring about) the big picture, people vote for politicians that do the most for them, whether this means federal funding for projects in there community, welfare, or clearly unconstitutional gun control laws. quote: Due to the fact that socialist type programs have been implemented by the federal government, the constitution is being ignored, NO WHERE in that document does it ALLOW the government ANY of the power it has now. If a state wants to implement universal helathcare, that is it's right, but the feds are not supposed to be involved. I agree with the rest of your argument, but this statement is not exactly true. If you recall the general welfare clause that everyone was throwing around a while ago it can be interpreted to allow the federal government to do a lot of things, this being on of them. I imagine that the framers would have been aghast to see what has been done to the constitution, but it is constitutional as far as we judge such things these days.

quote: Egypt ruled for centuries on the backs of Hebrew slaves. Would that qualify as a viable society? I have to go with Epsilon 5 and Menchise on this one, what constitutes a viable society changes over time. quote: Here is one that I just made up a few minutes ago... The health of a society depends on: 1. The support of the people. 2. The ability to cope with aggregate problems on a regular basis. 3. A drive towards a socially progressive direction. 4. The acceptance of change within its social structure, including its fundamental elements, in accordance with social progress. 5. Expression of relative solidarity with other societies. There are a few more things I could add, but I would say this is a pretty good model. quote: One of the points of socialism (and communism) is that 'businesses' don't run the economy. I know who runs the economy in a communism, but how does it work in a non-communist socialist system? quote: Only two types of socialism have been tried: Neo-Marxism (Chile in the '70s), and Marxism-Leninism. Some would also include National Socialism in that list, but I don't, because it was never really socialist in the first place. In the case of Chile, the US took every step to sabotage it. LetÔÇÖs look at the progression of a slightly different societal mechanism, democracy. We can see democracy in itÔÇÖs infancy in Athens, a good idea perhaps, but with plenty of problems. We see bits and pieces of democracy fit there ways into other governments (the example that comes to mind is the House of Commons from old England), until we finally end up with a government that calls itself a democracy but is VASTLY different from the original Athenian democracy. I'm not saying that socialism will take this course (and itÔÇÖs a rather disturbing thought that it might) but if a primarily socialist society is ever to come about it will likely hold as much in common with the modern idea of socialism as modern democracy holds with Athenian democracy. What does this mean for our debate? It means that socialism is in an infantile state and that, no matter how much capitalist governments dabble in socialism, it may well be hundreds if not thousands of years before a viable form of socialism is formed.

quote: OK, now let's apply these criteria to the USA. The United States has been around for approximately 225 years. During that time, the government has gone through 11 state secessions, one civil war, four presidential assassinations, and nine additional assassination attempts. Does that mean that it's questionable? Those numbers were for an example and were not meant to be used as criteria for judging the viability of a society. I'm not sure if anyone could come up with a comprehensive model for this type of thing, but that does not negate the fact that successful societies are the ones that tend to last and unsuccessful societies tend to fail much sooner. If you really wish to argue against this then why donÔÇÖt you suggest a better way of judging a societyÔÇÖs fitness rather then simply denouncing mine. quote: Different countries have slightly different criteria, but in Australia, if I remember correctly, it's any able-bodied person between the ages of 15 and 65. Excellence, just what I was hoping to hear. You canÔÇÖt employ everyone between 15 and 65 because not all of them are willing to be employed. Some would rather just mooch off of welfare (made dreadfully easy in a socialist society), some prefer a life of crime and, unless youÔÇÖre suggesting communism rather then socialism, some are going to be too wealthy to worry about working. Furthermore, so long as the economy is run by businesses and such there are still going to be people who are laid off of work, or who have trouble finding a job, or whatever. Basically, the same problems in capitalism that cause unemployment will cause it in a socialist system. Unless youÔÇÖre suggesting communism, that is something else entirely. quote: It takes a positive vision that sets a positive direction. If the vision doesn't turn out right, then revise it, change it, and try again. I pretty much have to go with $ilk on this one, while the change may be for the better most of the time it isnÔÇÖt. Even with a proven system like capitalist democracy (for which there are a number of good models) we see numerous failed attempts and catastrophes, but with socialism for which there are no long term successes except in the mildest form and numerous failures what chance does it have. Its like fascism, an interesting idea but not something that pans out in the end. [ 05-19-2002, 14:54: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

quote: Yepyou leave enough open in this thought for me to try to fill....except where you would have people think that caring about their fellow citizens is a byproduct of programming, I'd say this is something that is inherent in the human condition...the only conditioning I see is trying to have people accept their fellow humans terrible, and exploitive existence, at the hands of policy put out by certain eco-political programs.... I'm not saying that people care about others because of programming, but rather that people TEND to care about others because of various types of programming. Lets look at an airplane as an analogy, we can think of a persons hardwiring as the basic build of the plain, the wings, the engines, all that, and a persons personality (or whatever you want to call it) the pilot. Without the pilot to start the engines, operate the flaps, steer the plane, and all the other stuff the pilot does the plane isnt going anywhere. On the other hand without the wings, engines, and the likes the pilot would be better off walking. quote: But get some rest troop you sound tired. Now thats good advice, good night.

quote: Then what are you saying? Nope not a big thing at all ....in this country someone can easily change the channel and watch.....curling or something (I really do like Canada).100+ channels to occupy time and slip past any "moral feelings"......not a big deal at all. Are those inborn idea's "humanity"? I thought you said these were social controls somehow programmed into the mob? Maybe its getting late, but that doesnt make any sense. Humans (not just the mob) are programmed in number of ways, some of which reinforce social controls. As an example, feeling empathy for someone is not a learned trait, at least not entirely, but instead one that (almost) all humans are born with. I say almost all because sociopaths dont (among other things) feel empathy for others. This isnt something I care about enough to argue at length, if you dont believe me, thats fine, but please, no more incomprehensible sarcastic analogies (if that was an analogy, its hard to tell).

quote: Yeah when I read about illegal immigrant labor (brought in country by domestic corporations) more or less "encouraged" to work 12+ hour days for much less then minimum wage and in conditions that..well I know that doesn't phase you....develop disorders and sustain injuries that will destroy their working ability permanently and are then deported.....yeah I feel something....must be hardwiring....that must be it. Oh, I'm not saying that itÔÇÖs all hardwired, but people do have a natural tendency to feel empathy and such. ItÔÇÖs not a big thing, and it can be at least partially overcome by those of us who want to, but there is an inborn tendency in people to act in a ÔÇ£moralÔÇØ manner. Why do you think that such reactions are universal even when morals are not?

quote: Yup...very subjective stuff....would you care to elaborate on biology being involved in social control? Sure, but mostly what I am talking about is the kind of hardwired nonsense that supports morals. People tend to feel empathy for those in pain, to feel guilt about doing something wrong, to feel squeamish at the sight of blood, that kind of thing. Things like this tend to make people react morally, perhaps making people ÔÇ£intrinsically goodÔÇØ as you say.

I'm feeling outnumbered, but here goes: quote: That tells alot on your ethics. And it's not a compliment. I will take it as one anyway. quote: They're living at the expense of other. Frankly, that doesn't bother me. As long as there's no "abuse" (finding some way to get more money than needed for medication and whatsoever). So even with there medication they are useless, whats the point. If the choice was between you and a few of your friends getting an extra 3 or 4 grand a year and one of these medical pickles getting there 20 grand a year, which would you choose? quote: Yes. For poorer people a few days being unable to work can be catastrophic for the budget. Not all employers pay their employees for Medical LOA. Then they should have PRIVATE INSURANCE, or if they dont then they should consider which is worse; paying for the medication or missing more work. If someone wants to be able to live a comfortable life then they should have to pay for it, that includes medical expenses. quote: We pay as much taxes as we are required too, like everyone else. I don't see why I can't a service that's put at my disposition. That would be ridiculous, I'm not in the least criticizing you for taking advantage of what is placed before you, that is common sense. If the government is willing to pay for your surgery then that is fine, what I object to is the government robbing people so that they it can pay for that surgery. quote: Make me suffer until I have the money? Yeah right. That's a inhuman thought IMO. People should never be left to suffer. Loans? Don't have the money for the interests. Either you take out a loan and pay a little extra in interest (not all that much on $800 either) or else you wait until you have the money and then get the operation. Remember that without social security you wouldnt have to pay as much in taxes and would have more money. quote: A poor guy (A) and a regular guy ( both get the same medical plan at the same company. It both costs them the same price. But A makes less money than B. Who gets to pay more, proportionally? I don't think the company is going to give any favor to Mr. A compared to Mr. B Of course not, there is no reason for the company to play favorites like that, its ridiculous. But what would really happen is that Mr. A would get cheaper insurance that lacked all the frills that Mr. Bs insurance provided and that wouldnt get him into as good of doctors but would still be enough to survive. You cant expect a poor person to get as good as health care as someone who pays more, that is what is unfair. quote: While here, you get to pay an amount of money that increase with higher income, so both Mr. A and Mr. B pay a similar amount of taxes proportionally to their income. Yes, I know how taxes work. quote: OK then, in your opinion, how long must a society last before you can say that it works? This is getting overly technical, I dont know exactly how long a society has to last to be viable, it depends on stable the government is well as how long it lasts. A government that does wonderfully for 100 years may be viable while a government that goes though those same 100 years with a series of failed coos and similar nonsense would be a lot more questionable. quote: That's not what I was saying at all. In economic terms, employment and unemployment refers to the workforce, not the entire population. That is why employment statistics do not take infants into account. Full employment means that the entire workforce is essentially employed. Ok, first answer me this; what makes someone part of the workforce? quote: There is a third choice: to change society for the better. Oh, and a fourth choice, change the system for the worst and dont forget wreck the system entirely, that makes a good fifth choice. I agree that trying to change the system is a valid possibility, but dont assume that any change made by workers is going to be for the better. quote: Hey! I have an in-grown toenail too. BTW Ep5, I know exactly how you felt. I've already had it pulled out and cut out by doctors on two occasions, and it keeps coming back! A slight bump feels like a hammer blow, and most of my socks are blood-stained. My condolences, I wish you luck getting rid of it. quote: heh heh....for all that intelligence you seem to have missed the class on how to play nice with others....it's ok....at least your consistent... Why thank you, you are too kind quote: ok....so does mine. Oh, I'm not really disagreeing with you at all on this one, most people are quite firmly in the grasp of social controls, and a good part of that is biological. Just remember that even if most people act in a moral manner, some of their morals may vary from your own, even to the point of being quite horrid.

quote: Way too simplistic. That argument suggests that a police state works when it hasn't been overthrown regardless of how often the people attempt to do so. ItÔÇÖs true, a society survives so long as it functions. If someone comes up with a police state that can survive a couple of hundred years then perhaps it is a viable type of society. ThatÔÇÖs a little on the side, a police state does work until its been over thrown no matter how many people try to do so. Whether or not a government is popular may affect how viable it is, but it is its ability to last that is the real measurement. And no, I am not supporting a police state, I donÔÇÖt honestly think that is a viable way to go. quote: It wasn't circular. I said that all people who can work are employable; I did not say that all people can work, therefore all people are employable. If that is the case, then how can you guarantee 100% employment if not everyone is employable? That has, if I recall, been one of you major points: socialism is better then capitalism because everyone is employable. quote: That's because exploitation is preferable to starvation (usually). So it is, but it none the less is a choice that workers make. quote: Reminds me of Robin Hood. Me too, but I'm not so sure the idea of being chased down and robed by a man with tights and a bad hat is all its cracked up to be. quote: I have to disagree with this statement. In my opinion morality in a societal sense is a manifestation of an underlying good in human nature. I guess it comes down to if you believe people are good or bad or programmable. While highly programmable I choose to operate under the assumption that people have a inherent good nature and as more time goes by we will see this take form in various intuitions. Well, at least you know what manifestation means As far as people being more good then evil, I would say that is subjective. Certainly most people act based on some set of morals, and do what they believe is right (or at least justifiable) but whether or not that is good is a matter of opinion. None the less I would have to agree with you that most people (under most conditions) can be called good people without much fear of inaccuracy. None the less, my argument stands. Morality has no intrinsic value because it is nothing but a product of social controls (the same as this underlying goodness you talk about) and is variable depending on who you ask. A thief may very well feel justified in stealing from those who are more successful because of some sense of being wronged. This thief thinks that he is right in what he does, does that make it so? Most people would argue no, as they would look at it through there own personal sense of morality. quote: What do you do? You let him/her die? You've been sounding alot in this thread as if anyone unable to work is useless and should receive any kind of help, and I don't like that. If I'm wrong, well that's what I see. I have to agree with Jaguar on this one, let independent charities deal with those who need money. As far as letting them die, well if they are consistently unable to get there act together and have sown themselves to have no more potential then bums, then why not? ItÔÇÖs for the better. quote: No recovery (as I remember) but they live a less or more decent life. Right, so does this mean that they can work (you said originaly that there sickness prevented them from working) once they receive treatments or are they living a ÔÇ£less or more decent lifeÔÇØ totally at the expense of others? quote: "Needs" are not necessarily for survival. It's applicable in any situation where someone has a health problem. So if I have the flue and I want to get some medication (antiviral or whatever the hell they proscribe) then I can expect someone else to pay for this for me because I NEED to get over the flue quickly and in as much comfort as possible? quote: Furthermore, althought I didn't had a job (and still don't, a problem I'm trying to rectify), If ever I had one I couldn't work. It was dolorous to run, to jump, and even to walk! It was hard to put socks and shoes. Even do while biking i don't hit my feets on a surface, the vibrations caused dolor after about 10 mins. If I hit my toe on a chair leg, It would usually hurt for about 4-5 hours. If someone dropped something heavy or stepped on my feets, I would scream. Sounds ghastly, in fact it sounds like just the kind of thing you COULD have suffered through to gather that $800 (thatÔÇÖs $800 Canadian mind you, not all that much when you think about it) for the operation. While it no doubt was easier to steal that money from others, it makes it no less right. quote: Yes exactly. What's your problem with that? You'd rather see poor people being sick all time because they can't threat themselves? ThatÔÇÖs suggesting that poor people canÔÇÖt buy insurance or save up money for themselves. Maybe with heavy taxes that is the case, but it makes much more sense that the poor should keep that money to pay for insurance and such with. I, personally, have no reason to believe that the poor are that incapable. And my problem, as you put it, is having to pay for poor people who canÔÇÖt hack it or who donÔÇÖt bother. quote: You cannot be "unbiased" in this situation. You can only be unbiased when you are a "judge" or in any position which requires you to evaluate both sides to determine who's right. Actually, judges arenÔÇÖt completely unbiased either (thatÔÇÖs impossible), they just try to be as unbiased as possible. quote: And a part of my comments are based on "life experience" A step up on Menchise anyway. quote: I might have the wrong calling... damn language barrier... by "manifestants" I'm talking about those who take part in a manifestation. Those who walk the walk People who take part in a manifestation of what? YouÔÇÖre still not making sense.

quote: YES they need it. sometimes it's not enough. I can't point you to a specific article (as all avbout it was in local newspapers), but some people cought a serious sickness which demands to take over 80 pills a day from 8 to 10 different costly medication. And how could they get 20k a year, if their sickness prevents them from working? and how could they get and insurance like that? Do you know how much that would cost??? Ok, so our hypothetical Joe the medical pickle (what else can you call someone who takes 80 pills a day) is a completely non-productive individual who requires 20 grand in medical expenses plus living expenses (after all, he isnÔÇÖt working). How many people are paying to support this one person? It would take at least a few workers on minimum wage to support this one individual, wouldnÔÇÖt it be better if they were earning more money themselves rather then paying to sustain one useless member of society? Furthermore, you have to wonder whether or not someone who is taking 80 pills a day is on a road to recovery? Is all this money going to help someone to get better or just extend the time before they die? Does you government pay for people on extended life support as well? quote: Yeah right. Without the governmental medical insurance it could have cost around 800 f*ckin dollars. That would take us YEARS to accumulate. It's not like we can spend the money we have on anything. I suffered enough. My mother has problems at accumulating 200 dollars to pay for school stuff, so where could she find the money for the operation? If you really need 800 dollars for something then you ether do without or you EARN $800, or maybe you get a lone, but you donÔÇÖt steal it. Now, I'm not attacking you personally here, I canÔÇÖt blame you for taking advantage of a system that lets you make off with someone elseÔÇÖs $800 dollars, I'm instead aiming this at the system that allows someone to do that. But my argument holds, you talk about how necessary it is for the poor to survive, you mention people who are desperately in need of 20 grand a year for the medication to keep them alive (or at least put off there death), and then you go on to tell us about how YOU use this money for an operation that, while no doubt nice, is NOT IN THE LEAST NECICARY FOR YOUR LIFE. That is, youÔÇÖre not trying to claim that an ingrown toenail is a life threatening condition are you, because itÔÇÖs not. quote: You're jealous because your extra money is took to help those who need more, huh? Pretty selfish IMNHO. I suppose the money they take from you is used to buy poor people Rolls Royce's? NO, it's used to help them in time of needs. Perhaps you consider having an ingrown toenail a ÔÇ£time of needÔÇØ, but I doubt that most people would. What the money is used for is to provide a standard of living for individuals who are for some reason incapable of supporting that standard on there own. Furthermore, I would like to point out that while you accuse me of being selfish, you yourself argue for something that is beneficial to yourself. I make no claim to unbiased views, do you? quote: Whatever you think, while some people abuse the system, most are correct and honest. It's like a manifestation : all you notice is the violence and the minority who wreck everything, but you forget the majority of peaceful manifestants. Manifestants? Do you have any idea what that means? It means NOTHING, there is no such word as manifestants. Furthermore, you donÔÇÖt know what manifestation means or else you would have some idea how ridiculous that sounds. As far as the meaningful bits of that argument go, I have no problem with minority groups. I'm neither racist nor (god forbid) sexist. Now, on the Menchise quote: The system is not Darwinian at all. If it was then there would be no anti-trust laws, trade practices acts, or even health and safety regulations. Humanity would just be a part of the Animal Kingdom, and there would be no civilization. Look at a larger scale, survival of the ÔÇ£fittestÔÇØ society. Those societies that work are the ones that survive, those that donÔÇÖt work are the ones that fail. quote: Since this thread is already out of hand, I might as well debate this here. Like I said, put it in another forum. ItÔÇÖs a bloody pain to try to argue two separate things at the same time. quote: In my post I said, "The advantage of socialism in terms of employment is that all people who can work can get secure jobs, thus sustainable full employment, which is impossible in capitalism." All people who can work = employable people. Anyone who is not willing to work will be given enough to survive, but the lifestyle would be extremely basic and far from preferable when compared to working people. It's all about relative solidarity. Circular reasoning is inherently invalid. You say that all individuals are employable in a socialist economy, and you support this by saying that everyone can work. How do we know that everyone can work, because theyÔÇÖre all employable of course. Thus my point stands. quote: That argument assumes that rich people earn the money that they get. See Wage Labour and Surplus Value. That argument could also be manipulated to say that the colonial Americans were abusing the British for the money that they 'earned' through tea taxes as a reward for their conquest of the east coast. Your knowledge of New England townships is not the only thing lacking, the problem between the British and the American colonists was over taxes levied to pay war debts from the French and Indian war. The colonists found that they didnÔÇÖt like having to pay taxes and so decided to get ornery about it. The situation escalated with the Boston tea party and then the coercive acts until the colonial governments had no real option but to declare independence. I'm sure there could be a lot more said about that bit of history, but thatÔÇÖs the gist of it. As far as whether or not the rich earn there money or whether they exploit laborers for it, you have to admit that laborers are pretty eager to be ÔÇ£exploitedÔÇØ. If we consider labor as a commodity like any other then we can understand that its price is dictated by supply and demand, just like any other commodity. Workers get for there labor what people are willing to pay for it, just like business owners get for there goods (or services, or whatever) what people are willing to pay.

quote: And medication is free, paid by taxes. Actually its not free, its PAID FOR BY TAXES. quote: Something similar here. And you get good loans and (forgot the calling) "given money" depending on the available you and your parents have. There called grants (at least they are in the US). This I approve of, by the way. Our economy needs trained workers to continue to succeed. quote: A minimum wage worker CANNOT pay himself such things. Everyone has to pay for the care of those who make less. And I'm not sure a private insurance will pay indefinitely for medication and treathments if you get a serious sickness. And since we pay with taxes, all is much simpler. When I'm sick and need to see a doctor, I just show my card and I get an appointment. Then, if I need medication, I go to the pharmacy, and get it for free, nothing asked (only if prescribed of course) I have no interest in being forced to pay for an incompetent or incapable individualÔÇÖs health care. A smart person would be able to work at a job paying more than minimal wage, I donÔÇÖt care about dumb or lazy people. I do not like having my standard of living lowered just so that some looser can have his standard of living raised. I have no obligation to pay for others survival, I do, however, have an obligation to myself and those I care about. If I feel like giving then I will give to a charity but let it be my choice. quote: Some people here need over 20k dollars a year to pay all the threatment and medication they need to survive. Would they really NEED all that money if the government didnÔÇÖt give it to them? If someone is disserving of 20 grand a year then they will have been smart enough to have 20 grand a year, or at least insurance. quote: I got 2 operations to my feets due to ingrown nails. They had to be removed. One time in a clinic (was unsuccessful thought), one time at an hospital. I got medication to reduce the pain (Triatec pills). Cost of all this? 20 dollars. You got other people to pay for your convenience, you should be proud. You talk about how necessary it is to have the government pay for health care so that the wretched masses can survive, and then you talk about how you use it to take care of a matter of convenience. Makes my argument that much easier. Did it ever occur to you that socialism is a form of abuse of minorities? Because there are more poor people then rich people they use there majority to steal money from those who earn it while preaching about how right it is. Perhaps you didnÔÇÖt know, but its quite common for thieves to tell themselves that what they are doing is right and that they are only getting what they deserve from a society that has somehow cheated them. quote: The difference between a governmental insurance and private one is that the government is there to HELP PEOPLE, the private societies are there to MAKE A PROFIT. There is another way to look at that; private insurance companies are there to make a profit while providing a service (its something a lot of companies do) while the congressmen (and women, for that matter) are trying to please there constituencies by giving them money. ItÔÇÖs a ploy to get reelected.

quote: I am sorry Dragon Lady, but on the constitution, I must disagree, it was not meant to be reinterpreted, it says what it says. It is NOT a living breathing document as so many like to claim. NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE!! Whether it was meant to be a ÔÇ£living breathingÔÇØ document I donÔÇÖt know, but it was meant to allow flexibility in at least some key areas (the elastic clause for example). Judicial review (which was not part of the constitution, by the way) allows the Supreme Court to act as the final arbitrator of the constitution. Everyone likes bringing up the second amendment and saying how interpretation of the constitution has gone horribly awry, and in this case I agree, but we should also look at the fourth amendment. There is no mention of wire taps or other forms of electronic ÔÇ£searchesÔÇØ yet the supreme court has ruled that such searches (wiretaps anyway, I donÔÇÖt know about the rest) do in fact require a warrant. I agree with Steve that changing the constitution is better then simply reinterpreting it, but thatÔÇÖs the way it goes. The constitution is interpreted and people find ways to misinterpret parts of it (such as the second amendment) in such a way so as to say what they like. Lets keep this thread on topic though, if you want to argue about the constitution then make another thread and lets have at it.

quote: The consitution CANNOT be misinterpreted, it is very specific Not really, the constitution was left very vague in a number of instances so that it could be adapted to changing times. The general welfare clause you referred to is one of the prime examples of this, often called the elastic clause because it can be stretched to allow the federal government to do most anything. Other parts of the constitution (such as the second amendment) are clear, but people find ways of misinterpreting them to say what they want anyway. quote: Canada has a 0.3% birth rate, which mean in canada we have only ~95000 more people per year over a ~31.5 million population. Russia and Ukraine show the lowest, with -0.7%, while Palestine shows a 3.7% increase. the world average is 1.3% increase per year. Which is about 1.3% above where it should be.

quote: Life is not about making the most money and establishing the best system of production. Life, in my and others opinion, is about living a good, fair, and just life. Moral people want this for everyone not just the privileged. But your arguments show a lot of contempt for your fellow citizens and that it something I cannot stand by and watch without commenting. To go over it again, morality is a form of social control. ItÔÇÖs only validity is that which any individual gives it. Because, as a whole, moral action promotes a successful society it is necessary that most people have some type of morality. Your personal brand of morality (no doubt shared by many, but none the less only a single example) may require that everyone be placed on an equal footing (or some approximation there of), but nothing necessitates that all moral people share this view. Furthermore, because morality is totally artificial and without any intrinsic value itÔÇÖs validity is limited by its adherence. If I feel that something you consider amoral is ok, then as far as I'm concerned its ok. Period. quote: The longest lasting civilizations have always been oppressive and have always been destroyed or changed. England is a good example of this. Over time the people have changed government from a very small ruling elite to more participation by the people. This is the natural way of things....an ongoing moral growth of people and societies. So your saying that for a civilization to last a long time it has to be oppressive? That is very possibly true, but only because those civilizations that you called oppressive were realistic and feasible. A socialist society (or, I should say a predominantly socialist society) has not been proven to be realistic and feasible. Even more importantly, though, I will point out that just because government has been evolving in a given direction for the last few hundred years doesnÔÇÖt mean that is the only way. We had something of a democratic movement with the ancient Greeks as well, followed by the Romans, but that didnÔÇÖt last indefinitely so there is no reason that the present one will. quote: The wonderful thing about the Constitution is the goals are put out in the beginning and the rest is an attempt to empower the people to fairly set a system to achieve that goal. The statement is what it is....there is no ambiguity like Amendment two. "Promote the general welfare"....I really don't know how one can twist this....it is what it is. Since you have such a firm grasp on what the framers had in mind when they wrote the preamble, why donÔÇÖt you explain it for the rest of us rather then simply stating that it is obvious. The real wonderful thing about the constitution, by the way, is that it can be interpreted to mean just about anything that you want it to mean.

quote: Other kinds pf "funding" you can get is the family allowance, which is an amount of money given which depends on the age and number of kids you have and the income the family has. Paying people to reproduce, how ghastly. You would think there are enough people on this planet already.

quote: It is sad that you ignore this truth of this American reality....or accept it and choose to write those people off. Your system needs an underclass bottom line. And for the time being you have a large crowd to draw upon. Poor people from other counties meet this requirement and work jobs for pay and in conditions other Americans would never dream of. You may think its ok but I do not. Well somebody has to do the miserable and repulsive jobs, where would we find people to degrade themselves so in a society in which no one was desperate for money? quote: And I am sick of hearing about twisted Darwinist views on the way that society should work. Not how it should work, how it does and has worked. Those societies that are based at least in part on survival of the fittest are the ones that last. Period. quote: Because in that case Dragon Lady you can shut your mouth and get back in kitchen..I would prefer to have you here discussing points and ideas but we can just let Darwin take care of that. (no offense intended, and if I singled you out by gender and that makes you feel uncomfortable let me know and I wont do it again) Thats just low. The fact that you would attack my gender in an intellectual debate shows either your lack of sophistication or a desperate need to discredit my ideas. quote: and oh my.... IT SAYS GENERAL WELFARE!!! WERE THE FOUNDING FATHERS SOCIALISTS AT HEART!?! Yea, as in general wellbeing, they didnt have social security back then. And before you argue that we need to dish out money to provide this general welfare, I would say that the 90+ percent of the population that are currently employed (as well as those who are only temporarily unemployed) qualifies nicely. quote: There is no mention of a ruling elite using a mob to their own ends. The mob is what keeps the higher end of society in power and comfortable and what will one day bring them down.sorry but that is moral side of human survival of the fittest.believe itpeople are looking for ways to be as moral as possible (well most) and it causes them to do all kinds of horrible things to each other.. amazing eh? You will note that while the constitution makes no overt mention of control by an elite class, the requirements to vote in the original document insured such a ruling class would exist. Furthermore, though the constitution never made any mention of this elite class using the mob for there own ends, it did support slaver (this was changed later, but were talking about the original constitution here). quote: Just as a master thesis or anything else will tell you what it intends to prove, it is NOT PART of the document, it just tells you what it's goals are. Absolutely correct, I'm looking at a copy of the constitution right now and there is no preamble. quote: I never said that capitalism was Darwinist, especially since it was invented before Darwin was born. Irrelevant, the system was not created to be Darwinian, it simply EVOLVED that way. We dont argue that evolution of the species isnt Darwinian because it happened before Darwins time, so why should we argue that way for economics. quote: The biggest limit on large scale direct democracy has been the lack of sophisticated communication tools to facilitate participation in decision making. In Ancient Athens, all of the voters could go and meet in one space to debate the issues, which became impossible later on. Many tend to assume that this makes direct democracy obsolete in today's large scale society. No mention of the New England townships? No matter, communication is not the only problem with a democracy, and the framers of our constitution knew this (Clearly stated in article 3 section 4 if I recall correctly). Even if technology allowed a populace to participate directly in every government decision, are the people responsible and knowledgeable enough to vote well? It would be mob rule of the worst kind. I could go on and on, but this is quite off topic. If you really want to discuss the viability of a true democracy start another thread and let's have at it. quote: The advantage of socialism in terms of employment is that all people who can work can get secure jobs, thus sustainable full employment, which is impossible in capitalism. Thats assuming everyone is employable and that everyone is willing to work. Two very large assumptions that you have yet to address.

quote: Childish and ludicrous. But extremely funny

quote: I have already provided one example of a socialist system that was so popular among ordinary workers that they were willing to defend it with their lives against an overwhelming military force; a force that took five days of bloody fighting to take control of one city that had little or no military of its own, and the first thing it did with that control was massacre the civilians at random. This is historical fact, not propaganda! One very localized instance. Your example is of a very small socialist system that, however successful, was not around long enough to prove its viability before it was conquered. Furthermore, a system that will work in a relatively small area may not be so successful on a larger scale. Observe, for example, true democracy. It worked in Athens, it worked in a number of early New England towns, but a large-scale democracy is simply not feasible. quote: The point is that regardless of skill, talent, or character, 6-8 percent of the workforce is constantly unemployed. That means that even if everyone worked their butt off in college, 6-8 percent still wouldn't get a job, even when the economy is in a boom. Oh really? That is quite a leap of logic, to figure that employment statistics based on a world in which a number of people are lazy and dont work because welfare supports them (at lest for a time) is viable in a hypothetical scenario in which everyone works hard. There will be just as many slackers and incompetents in a socialist society as in a capitalist one, more really because people wouldnt have as much reason to work (I believe the term welfare state describes this quite nicely). This is called human nature, and unless someone knows a way of having a socialist society that doesnt breed laziness and apathy then what are we arguing about? Whether or not a practical economic system is morally superior to a hypothetical one? quote: It's easy to preach 'survival of the fittest' when you're one of the fittest. It is one of the most hypocritical arguments I have ever read, especially when it's written by Americans. Remember the unalienable right to life that is guaranteed to ALL citizens? That includes the not-so-fit. Everyones a hypocrite, those who attack hypocrisy more so then most. But this isnt a case of hypocrisy, at least not on my part. I make no claim to high ideals, I dont preach about unalienable rights, and I DO live in a capitalist society. As far as an unalienable right to life, so what? That may have been a bit of ideology someone wrote down, but you will find our constitution is phrased a little differently. The actual wording of the constitution states (in the 5th amendment) that No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law not exactly an unalienable right to life. Furthermore, denying someone a gift is hardly the same as depriving them of life.

quote: Let's just shake hands and move on. Excellent Idea, no point in holding a grudge over something this petty.

Twisted!

quote: People either retool or they get left behind. In the end, they are in the position that they're in due to decisions they made throughout their lives. It's brutal, but that's the way it is. Like I said, read my posts. All of them. You will find that, while I made no mention of businesses left behind, I did specifically say that having the claw your way over people is an important part of capitalism. My apologies if I offended you, but I get irritated by people who completely miss what I am trying to say, and then suggest that my arguments support some preposterous idea such as propping up the buggy whip industry. quote: While there is definitely a high number of long term unemployed, I'm not sure how much of that group consists of that 5 percent. Note that 5 is the absolute minimum figure for a Laissez Faire economy; it's usually 6-8 percent during booms, and it's extremely rare for it to get any lower. Most of the short term unemployed would come from the recessions, when the figure increases (usually 8-12 percent in the top industrialized nations). I'm not worried about those people who are temporarily unemployed. If they usually have a job then they SHOULD have some money saved against just this sort of thing, if they donÔÇÖt, they deserve what they get. Furthermore, IÔÇÖm not worried about people who are sometimes employed and sometimes not, if they have what it takes to succeed then they will, if they donÔÇÖt then thatÔÇÖs too bad for them. And finally I donÔÇÖt CARE about people who are unemployed for an extended period. They either donÔÇÖt have what it takes or else they are simply mooching off of welfare and could get a job if they really wanted to, but prefer to spend MY money. Furthermore, if charities didnÔÇÖt give money (or food, or whatever) to completely hopeless individuals then there wouldnÔÇÖt be nearly so much of a shortage. If someone repeatedly shows that they are totally incapable of surviving without charity or government intervention then they have no business surviving. This gets back to Darwinism and the survival of the fittest. quote: Right to the pursuit of happines, not happiness itself, is granted. People will make of that pursuit what they will. I would like to add to this and point out that though people have the right to pursue happiness, they donÔÇÖt always do so. We have neither the responsibility to force someone to act in there own best interest, nor any business doing so. If someone isnÔÇÖt willing to out put the effort necessary for success (and presumably happiness) then that is their problem. Period. End of story. P.S. Even the truly incapable are not without hope, they could always win a Darwin Award [ 05-15-2002, 14:13: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Delightful

quote: Are we supposed to prop up the buggy whip industry because the people would be out of jobs? What a ghastly idea, that is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard. Read my posts again, in fact read them a few more times. If you still donÔÇÖt get what I mean, then read them until you get it (at this point your pretty much hopeless and should be put on life support before your cerebellum fails along with the rest of your brain). quote: A worker is NOT forced to stay at a job, the manager doesn't sit there with a gun and say, "you have to work, and you have to work for this much" The market decides the value of a person's labor, if a company pays more, then that worker will leave his low paying company for the higher paying one, this in turn drives up the labor at other companies as they try to retain thier employees. That is the way capitalism works. Nothing unfair or wrong with it, you are paid what the market thinks your labor is worth, nothing more, nothing less. That is another way of looking at it. If you consider labor in the same light that you consider a product, it simply becomes a resource, which is bought and sold via the laws of supply and demand (and believe it or not, unions are not completely independent of this). This actually makes more sense, but it doesnÔÇÖt fully negate the abuse of power argument. Because those in charge of a company are in power, they can use this power to gather more power (the whole rich getting richer thing). So what am I saying? Well, I do support capitalism in the fullest, and I do agree with Jag about welfare, but what I am arguing here is that exploitation is inherent in capitalism. However, because it is possible for someone to move up (or move down, for that matter) based on (among other things) intelligence and skill, the system is fair. It would be contrary to human nature to expect those with power to forgo using it for personal gain.

Well whatÔÇÖs your point? I donÔÇÖt think anyoneÔÇÖs really concerned about the possibility for accidental deaths by guns. If I was interested in arguing for gun control I might also point out that getting a stolen gun is much easier if there are people who you can steal them from. But when it comes down to it that is irrelevant. Criminals tend to get weapons, knifes, guns, or whatever. I donÔÇÖt know about everyone else, but when it comes down to it I would rather have a gun and be attacked by someone with a gun then have nothing (or mace, which is worse then nothing) and be attacked by someone with a knife. Oh, and Jag, the chance of winning the lottery is about one in 7 million.

quote: Do you think that the mob can ever be more than just the mob? Maybe if there was no mob than these problems might not be so severe. Sure, as soon as someone comes up with a reliable and economically feasible form of mass conditioning they will be the thrall rather then the mob. On a more serious note, though, it is impossible to eliminate the lower class from the equation (at least at the present). If they werenÔÇÖt relatively uneducated and poor then it would be rather difficult for people on top to stay on top. quote: I can't beleive that. Won't beleive it for a minute. Not "always at the expense of others." Expense meaning detriment in this case. Believe it. I donÔÇÖt know about Sam Walton, but Bill Gates is insanely rich. Now, there is an old argument that says that wage labor is inherently exploitative because the laborers are always paid less then there work is worth. For an example, image you have someone working for you making buttons (you know, the kind you pin on your shirt. Take the amount the buttons sell for and subtract the value of the raw material and you have the amount that the labor is worth. But to turn a profit you have to pay the laborers less then their labor is worth, thus exploitation. The problem with this argument is that it doesnÔÇÖt take into account the infrastructure. Obviously the work of hiring salesmen, setting up stores, and other aspects of owning a business are necessary for those buttons (or whatever the product) to sell at all, thus part of that money that doesnÔÇÖt go to the laborer goes to paying for the infrastructure and the management. There is a problem is this reasoning, as well. In most companies the upper management gets paid much more then the work they do is actually worth. This money doesnÔÇÖt come out of thin air, rather it comes from those at the bottom (the laborers) who are in fact being paid less then their labor is worth. Thus monetary success REQUIRES exploitation of workers. This, by the way, is an abuse of power by the upper management, they control the company and thus they control how much they get paid and how much the laborers get paid, and itÔÇÖs never fair.