Menchise Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 quote:Irrelevant, the system was not created to be Darwinian, it simply EVOLVED that way. We donÔÇÖt argue that evolution of the species isnÔÇÖt Darwinian because it happened before DarwinÔÇÖs time, so why should we argue that way for economics.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. quote:No mention of the New England townships?My knowledge of New England townships is very limited when compared to the politics of Ancient Athens. quote: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.Since this thread is already out of hand, I might as well debate this here. Besides, the viability of true democracy does relate to Libertarian Socialism, in which contemporary writers such as Albert and Hahnel are currently offering the most refreshing alternatives to Marxism-Leninism (e.g. ParEcon). The issue of knowledge among the voting populace is still related to the issue of communication. A lack of knowledge comes from being uninformed about the issues on the agenda. Election 2000 was a classic example of this, when the biggest issues that were being communicated to the people were whether Bush could pronounce the word 'subliminal' and if Gore was a good kisser. The only candidate that spoke in-depth about any issues was Nader, and he was blocked from the means of communication. A lack of responsibility is related to universalist methodologies of democratic participation, that is when the people vote on issues that have no effect on them, thus marginalizing the people who are affected. A better description of this is in Albert's fourth value of ParEcon (quoted below). quote:For our fourth value, Economies also impact decision making relations. I call the associated value that needs to be propelled by a good economy "self-management." The idea is simple. Imagine a worker among many others who wants to put a picture of her family in her workplace unit. Who should make that decision? She should, unilaterally. ┬á Suppose she instead wants to put a loud radio in her workstation, blaring forth music. Who should make that decision? Certainly not her alone. Her neighboring workmates should have a say. ┬á And just that quickly we have our norm. Economic actors should influence decisions in proportion as the decisions impact them. ┬á Sometimes a decision should be unilateral ÔÇô even dictatorial. It isn't that the boss should decide dictatorially when I go to the bathroom, as now ÔÇô but that I should decide that, myself. Other times one person one vote, majority rule makes most sense. Or sometimes consensus makes most sense, or other procedures. ┬á The specific methodology is not universal. But the goal we are trying to accomplish with our choice of voting procedures is always self-management -- we should impact decisions in proportion as we are affected by them. ┬á If we don't each have proportionate influence, then obviously someone has disproportionately more and someone else has disproportionately less, but there is no moral or pragmatic justification for that. It is morally right that we control our own lives. More, we are each most suited to do so. We are each the world's foremost expert on our own desires and aspirations. ┬á And so we have a fourth value, self-management. quote:ThatÔÇÖs assuming everyone is employable and that everyone is willing to work. Two very large assumptions that you have yet to address.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. quote:Heh. The only thread ABOUT socialism vs capitalism gets hijacked to a debate on the constitution.LOL! quote: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.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.
Raven Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 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.
Menchise Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 quote: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.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. quote:Like I said, put it in another forum. ItÔÇÖs a bloody pain to try to argue two separate things at the same time.I explained why it was relevant to this thread. You've had no trouble debating the constitution so it can't be that much of a bloody pain. quote: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.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. quote: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.OK, so I gave a bad example, but I think you get the gist of what I was getting at. quote: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.That's because exploitation is preferable to starvation (usually). quote: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.This is why I referred you to Wage Labour and Surplus Value; as a contrary to your argument.
Charles Lindsey Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 quote: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. Reminds me of Robin Hood.
Lotharr Posted May 18, 2002 Author Report Posted May 18, 2002 quote: 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. 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. I plan on doing some research. Newts at 5:00pm c sound good?
Commander Elio Jason Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 it was never THIS easy to get 100 posts!
Epsilon 5 Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 quote:wouldnÔÇÖt it be better if they were earning more money themselves rather then paying to sustain one useless member of society?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. quote: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?No recovery (as I remember) but they live a less or more decent life. quote: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."Needs" are not necessarily for survival. It's applicable in any situation where someone has a health problem. 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. No, it wasn't life threatening, but it was almost an handicap. And what does it matter the type of sickness the person has? If the person is sick, his life can't go on as anyone healthy. It you had fever, could you work? Probably not. You'd want to have medication, and that costs money. quote: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.Yes exactly. What's your problem with that? You'd rather see poor people being sick all time because they can't threat themselves? quote:I make no claim to unbiased views, do you?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. And a part of my comments are based on "life experience" quote: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.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 quote: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.I made this analogy because i see alot of people here that, in various situations, see the minority which acts in a shocking way, while the majority stays "ok"
Raven Posted May 18, 2002 Report Posted May 18, 2002 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.
Epsilon 5 Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 quote: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.That tells alot on your ethics. And it's not a compliment. quote: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?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). quote: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?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. quote: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.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. 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. BTW don't get fooled about money conversion rates. 800 dollars is STILL alot of money here. quote: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.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 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. BTW - if that situation bothers you, I read that if you prefer to make affairs with a private health insurance company (that does more than travel health insurance, which isn't covered by the government), you can, and you won't pay the government. Althought that bothers the government, it is a possibility. quote:Actually, judges arenÔÇÖt completely unbiased either (thatÔÇÖs impossible), they just try to be as unbiased as possible.I said "can", not "are" quote:People who take part in a manifestation of what? YouÔÇÖre still not making sense.Ahh screw it forget that part.
Menchise Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 quote: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.OK then, in your opinion, how long must a society last before you can say that it works? quote: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.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. quote:So it is, but it none the less is a choice that workers make.There is a third choice: to change society for the better. quote:A step up on Menchise anyway.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. [ 05-18-2002, 23:07: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Epsilon 5 Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 quote: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.Hehe that's what I had. I got them removed to the root at the second time, since they grew back at first and created problems again. My toes are still red, but the doctor said it's normal, it's a sign of recovery.
Lotharr Posted May 19, 2002 Author Report Posted May 19, 2002 quote: Well, at least you know what manifestation means 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... quote: 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. ok....so does mine.
Guest $iLk Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 quote:No socialist system advocates supporting the lifestyles of slackers, although it does advocate the support of life (i.e. providing the absolute basics so that they don't starve). Capitalism does this Menchise, what are you arguing about? In a Capitalist society, the only difference would be that those who expend the most effort, earn more from it. In the end, regardless of your high intentions, I believe jealousy of those who succeed is the driving force behind Socialist argument.
Raven Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 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.
Lotharr Posted May 19, 2002 Author Report Posted May 19, 2002 quote: 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. Yup...very subjective stuff....would you care to elaborate on biology being involved in social control? quote: 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. yeah got that....page 2 about 8 posts up.... [ 05-19-2002, 01:20: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Raven Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 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.
Lotharr Posted May 19, 2002 Author Report Posted May 19, 2002 quote: 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. 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.
Raven Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 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?
Lotharr Posted May 19, 2002 Author Report Posted May 19, 2002 quote: Oh, I'm not saying that its all hardwired, but people do have a natural tendency to feel empathy and such. Its 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 moral manner. Why do you think that such reactions are universal even when morals are not? 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?
Raven Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 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).
Lotharr Posted May 19, 2002 Author Report Posted May 19, 2002 quote: 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). Heh heh always true to form....it is good to see that something has an intrinsic value....heh... quote: 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. 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.... But get some rest troop you sound tired.
Raven Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 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.
Menchise Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 quote:In a Capitalist society, the only difference would be that those who expend the most effort, earn more from it.Capitalism doesn't work that way. That's what Socialism aims for. quote: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.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? quote:Ok, first answer me this; what makes someone part of the workforce?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. quote: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.Yeah, yeah. quote: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.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. [ 05-19-2002, 04:08: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Guest $iLk Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 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. That's why Hitler and Stalin came to power. Positive vision, disasterous results.
Raven Posted May 19, 2002 Report Posted May 19, 2002 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 ]
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now