^ = \/
Agree/Disagree
Agree/Disagree
If we were to create a new World
Several responses:
1) Who are you, or anyone, to say that those who work with their minds are any less entitled to the money they earn than those who work with their hands? See, there's this little thing called the law of supply and demand. Quoted from Somebody's Gotta Say It, by Neal Bortz (good book - you should read it): "Since it's easier to work with your muscles than it is to work with your head, you find a larger supply of people who earn their pay through largely physical effort than those who earn by thinking and reasoning...I understand taht even the most menial of tasks requires some mental effort, and that the world's smartest lawyer has to lift a law book every once in a while. Still, the more tools you bring to your job, the more you're going to make. But here's the rub: The left has tried to co-opt the term 'working people' to sell the idea that if you work with your brain instead of with your brawn, somehow you're not really working. You're not one of the 'working people.' It's a simple class warfare tactic: Lead those who make less into resenting those who make more, because those nasty rich people aren't really working for their money. They're not part of the 'working class.'
And even if the first statement were true (which, in most cases, it is not unequivocally true, as even individuals like Bill Gates started fairly low on the economic ladder, at least compared to where he is today - in fact, he was a highschool dropout, and Warren Buffet invested the money from his grandfather's grocery store), those individuals are few and far between. Actually, fewer than 2% of the millionaires in this country inherited their wealth. I have more of a problem with a government who would steal my hard-earned cash and give it to lazy bums who sit at home and watch TV while collecting a welfare check.
2) Business used to promote the general welfare? Where is the motivation to work? I say that innovation and thinking should be rewarded, not stifled in a communal environment.
3) Democracy? Where'd you get the idea that the US was a democracy? The following, I must admit, is quoted directly from Somebody's Gotta Say It by Neal Bortz. While he is thought of as only a talk-radio host, he's also a lawyer, and his information is accurate.
"There's a quote that I've been using for some time now that has been attributed to a number of different historians and authors, among them Alexander Tyler (or Tytler, if you please), Benjamin Disraeli, Arnold Toynbee, Lord Thomas MacCaulay, Jack the Ripper, and others. Who actually wrote it? Who knows? Regardless of the original author, however, the idea rings true: 'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back to bondage'...It is not, nor was it ever, the intended purpose of our government to serve 'the interests of the majority.' Our Founding Fathers understood this quite well. That's why we don't have a democracy. It's why the Fathers spoke in such fearful terms of the concept of democracy. It's why they gave us a republic instead - a government founded on human rights and laws, not on the dangerous principle of simple majority rule."
4) As for someone not being able to afford a house, well, let me give my perspective on that. Most people in America can afford a house. There are very few individuals who cannot, even without the handouts the government seems so ready to give. And as for that person's vote being a joke, I'm not sure how you get that. They are the ones that get to vote the most. Ever heard of the Motor-Voter Act? Well, the not-so-well-known part of that act is that it demands that every person applying for welfare benefits be offered the opportunity to register to vote. So the people who make the least money are offered the opportunity to register every time they pick up their welfare check? I think that right there aggrevates the problems inherent in a democracy.
Do me a favor - define 'culture' for me. What is 'culture?' See, each person would define that differently. I'll take that a step further - what is 'cultural awareness?' Can you define those for me? What culture am I supposed to be aware of? Or is it its own thing?
Right - but mandated by the government. Or are we not forming a government here? Is this anarchy? If not, then the 'selfless individuals helping one another' is mandated by the government and is therefore the opposite of non-selfish people helping one another. I am an individual. I exist for me, my family, and my friends - not for the state. I have individual likes and dislikes, wants and needs. I am unique, not merely a stamped-out variation of some lager group template. Government exists to protect my rights, not to order my life. And I certainly don't exist to serve government. Of course, this could get me into taxes, individual rights, the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, etc., but I won't. The point is that I fully believe that selfless, non-government-mandated charity is a good thing; government-mandated selflessness is an oxymoron. I am an individual; government exists to preserve my rights - that is the only reason it exists.
Oh, I won't say it's not bad. But what if it really is the best of all possible worlds? What if man really cannot create a better system? That's why I said to debate it on its merits.
1) There is a difference between localized management and the management which Im reffering to. That which your so quickly to come to the defense to is that which actually works to continue a business operation, modling change and operations to continue in a profitable enviorment to sell goods/labor/services in a competitive manner. I refer to the few that sit on the top and merely meanuever themselves to stay there, gaining maximum profit for less actual work... CEO's and Boards of Directors who don't contribute much or anything at all but hold positions of power. Who said a thing about giving your money to people who didn't work? Wasn't even mentioned in my sentences.
2) Do you realize how shitty that sounds? "My work helps everyone to live a better life... why the hell would I want to do that?" You're going to need to better explain how promoting the general welfare of humanity is a stiffling event.
3) Really don't care what the US is, all I wan't is for a system with the greatest amount of freedom and happiness whilst filling all my above criteria. If I use a current nationstate as an example, its only for those parts of it I find useable.
4) Culture generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance. Cultures can be "understood as systems of symbols and meanings that even their creators contest, that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another" Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity.
5) Of course you don't exist to serve the government, you selfishly live to serve yourself. When given the choice to see that everyone on the planet be happy and content, your chief concern is how does this effect my hoarding of wealth and power so that I may continue to lord it over the poor and impoverished. The system I would propose would make such a thing near impossible, not so much by force of government but by development of an economy where it befits you to put more in to get more back.
A government of the people, promoting selflessness, is a people promoting selflessness. This isn't pork barrel polotics you hear about in the senate, this is a brand new world with new leaders and philosophies were dealing with. If we create a new government thats based around the people governing themselves, and that government promotes a policy of selflessness in its general economic/business model, then the people themselves promote it.
2) Do you realize how shitty that sounds? "My work helps everyone to live a better life... why the hell would I want to do that?" You're going to need to better explain how promoting the general welfare of humanity is a stiffling event.
3) Really don't care what the US is, all I wan't is for a system with the greatest amount of freedom and happiness whilst filling all my above criteria. If I use a current nationstate as an example, its only for those parts of it I find useable.
4) Culture generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance. Cultures can be "understood as systems of symbols and meanings that even their creators contest, that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another" Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity.
5) Of course you don't exist to serve the government, you selfishly live to serve yourself. When given the choice to see that everyone on the planet be happy and content, your chief concern is how does this effect my hoarding of wealth and power so that I may continue to lord it over the poor and impoverished. The system I would propose would make such a thing near impossible, not so much by force of government but by development of an economy where it befits you to put more in to get more back.
A government of the people, promoting selflessness, is a people promoting selflessness. This isn't pork barrel polotics you hear about in the senate, this is a brand new world with new leaders and philosophies were dealing with. If we create a new government thats based around the people governing themselves, and that government promotes a policy of selflessness in its general economic/business model, then the people themselves promote it.
So what is your desire, then? That we take away middle and high-level management, leaving all the work to be done by...who? They actually do work, believe it or not, mostly to keep the organization functioning and profitable. Because it is profit that drives people to do well.
Because in attempting to mandate the promotion of the general welfare, you inherently destroy the attempt. People by nature are basically evil, selfish, greedy, etc. They are not good by nature. Therefore, the best system of government is one that protects the rights of the individual from those who would harm it while promoting a system whereby everyone has an equal opportunity to work hard and perform to the best of their ability.
So which culture them am I supposed to be aware of? Should I, for example, condone the culture of Jeremiah Wright, whose words have been spread all over the media recently? Or should I acknowledge the culture of those who proclaim in the streets slogans like, "God hates fags," and the like? Or what about those who bomb abortion clinics? Is their culture valid? On that ground, then, who decides which culture is correct? Or is culture suddenly a living, holy thing that is an absolute?
That is not necessarily my chief concern; I have no qualms about helping others. However, that is based on my religious beliefs; the general attitude of humanity is to do exactly what you say above. Your system, if it followed the will of the people, would turn into a system whereby individuals would do everything they could to work it. If it didn't follow the will of the people, it still falls under the oxymoron of government-mandated charity.
Yes, but people do not naturally promote selflessness. Man is inherently evil, and therefore his desires at base are corrupt and evil. How would the government promote such a policy without mandating it? Or would it simply give from the coffers until they were dry? On another note, where do you get the idea that anyone in America is truly poor? Yes, we have our wealthy, and we have individuals who are defined as poor, but can you really truly say that anyone, unless they have some mental or physical disorder that prevents them from earning a living - and even then they have recourse, can you really say that anyone is poor? Most of those who are defined as poor have a color TV, a cellphone, a car, and three or four kids. Poverty, true poverty, would not allow that. In fact, that's not such a bad living.
Don't get me wrong, I have great sympathy for the poor. I do what I can to help them out in any way I can. But I don't think the government should mandate that. That should be an individual's personal decision.
As you seem so quick to quote those works that suit you best, and your entire counterpoint to mine pivots on a single issue. That of people being evil by nature, I will counter that by saying that given my society, where people act for the common good for the betterment of all, based on the work of Jean Jacques Rousseau given this as a placeholder the evil you prescribe to people would not be given a place to take hold.
People are not good.
People are not evil.
Those are pre-conceived concepts based on morality, and so changes from culture to culture ergo the argument at its base is flawed. The kind and selfless man is good in one culture, and evil in the other. IE In a pure Capitalist society, said man would be seen as a rebel betraying the status quo.
The masses are neither good nor evil.
They are lazy, stupid, and short-sighted.
The majority prefers to put out the minimum amount of effort for the most amount of gain for themselves. Take for example... world hunger. We in the West live in a society of excess, while others starve to death. We COULD put in the effort, tighten our belts, and share our stuff. But that would be effort, and we'd loose for it.
People don't vote based on long term agendas that could improve their livelihood, but instead on the guy who'll give them the short term 0.5% tax break that'll save them about $20 a month. People fail to realize taxes are needed for social projects, like health care, education, and infrastructure. They rage about falling test scores without seeing why.
Humanity isn't stupid, just most of it.
Now Gue: Post something useful. :P
People are not evil.
Those are pre-conceived concepts based on morality, and so changes from culture to culture ergo the argument at its base is flawed. The kind and selfless man is good in one culture, and evil in the other. IE In a pure Capitalist society, said man would be seen as a rebel betraying the status quo.
The masses are neither good nor evil.
They are lazy, stupid, and short-sighted.
The majority prefers to put out the minimum amount of effort for the most amount of gain for themselves. Take for example... world hunger. We in the West live in a society of excess, while others starve to death. We COULD put in the effort, tighten our belts, and share our stuff. But that would be effort, and we'd loose for it.
People don't vote based on long term agendas that could improve their livelihood, but instead on the guy who'll give them the short term 0.5% tax break that'll save them about $20 a month. People fail to realize taxes are needed for social projects, like health care, education, and infrastructure. They rage about falling test scores without seeing why.
Humanity isn't stupid, just most of it.
Now Gue: Post something useful. :P
Hence why I say that people are evil. This is a basic fact; it is not determined based on culture, it is based on an absolute standard of morality that is, I think, inherent in nature. Would you consider it morally right for me to take a hammer and bludgeon you to death with it? What if my culture said that was morally acceptable?
This is what grates on me about the current trend to see truth and morality as relative. It doesn't work. Not only does it not work, if it were actually implemented there would be chaos. There is a standard to which people can compare actions. I have been called a Nazi on this board (that was Joren's doing, and completely false). What is it that makes us say Nazi-ism is wrong? If there is no absolute truth, who are we to condemn those who perpetrated the Holocaust? We can only do so if we say that there is a higher standard than culture.
That's another thing, too - since when did culture become a living thing? Since when did it become something other than what a majority of people in a given society do? When did it become something more than customs and beliefs?
Now I don't expect you all to agree with me on here. I expect a certain amount of ridicule. But I think if you really consider it, you know that I'm right.
I agree entirely - that's the problem with the Democrats in the US, I think (no offense to you Dems on here). I think the problem is that people vote to raise taxes for social projects without realizing that it is competition that makes those social projects (health care, education, etc) viable. I agree that there is a certain amount that is needed from taxes, but I think that most social projects controlled by the government are sadly inefficient and will continue to be so as long as they are run by politicians. Allow competition to control them and you get the best service for the lowest cost, leaving more money in the hands of the taxpayers for them to use to make more money and therefore pay more in taxes, even without raising the tax burden. You want an economic system that makes an optimal amount of the population happy? There you have it. The government functions, everyone's standard of living increases, education improves, the general welfare improves - what could be better?
Note: I'm very sure the Nazis thought they were in the right for killing Jews, and I'm very sure the Mayans thought it entirely morale and sensible to rip someone's heart out. You can't presume that you are the Almighty, knowing the great morale ideal for I am sure there are money who are just as sure as you and hold entirely different beliefs.
To assume that YOU are right in a view of perception makes you biased. Congratulations, if you were in a scholarly philosophical debate you'd have just lost on the perception that your view is right beyond its mere credentials.
Carrying on....
.....How can you say you entirely agree when we reach different conclusions? :P
My point was concerning MORE taxes so that they can have better / more of those programs. Being a socialist, I believe the essentials should be covered by the government. It's for the simple reason of Supply and Demand. And I will use wonderful current corporate examples on modern necessities!
Fuel costs. Expensive. Why? Because they can. They're still making profit. Record years actually. Then why does the cost keep going up? Supply and demand. With everyone agreeing on approximately similar costs, and an bottomless well of demand, they can charge essentially what they want.
The problem is when you make everything controlled by business, businesses like to work together to ensure they all have optimal profit so that all their businesses can prosper. Really, the role of the CFO is to ensure maximum profit at minimum loss. Why risk chasing away the competition when you can all be guaranteed a rather healthy slice of the pie?
So what do you think would happen if education was made entirely on a private school system? Why, then the quality of schools wouldn't be level but based on your parents' wealth. The situation already in part exists, but isn't too bad at least in Canada where we have a lot of government money in our world-class public school system.
You cut to health care? Then poor die young, and the rich live on.
You can claim the higher ground? Then why should some very intelligent man, with great potential, slave in a menial job when he could be working in the offices, making the more pay? For the sins of his father lacking wealth? It's the very reason public services were created to OFFER the level playing field.
To assume that YOU are right in a view of perception makes you biased. Congratulations, if you were in a scholarly philosophical debate you'd have just lost on the perception that your view is right beyond its mere credentials.
Carrying on....
.....How can you say you entirely agree when we reach different conclusions? :P
My point was concerning MORE taxes so that they can have better / more of those programs. Being a socialist, I believe the essentials should be covered by the government. It's for the simple reason of Supply and Demand. And I will use wonderful current corporate examples on modern necessities!
Fuel costs. Expensive. Why? Because they can. They're still making profit. Record years actually. Then why does the cost keep going up? Supply and demand. With everyone agreeing on approximately similar costs, and an bottomless well of demand, they can charge essentially what they want.
The problem is when you make everything controlled by business, businesses like to work together to ensure they all have optimal profit so that all their businesses can prosper. Really, the role of the CFO is to ensure maximum profit at minimum loss. Why risk chasing away the competition when you can all be guaranteed a rather healthy slice of the pie?
So what do you think would happen if education was made entirely on a private school system? Why, then the quality of schools wouldn't be level but based on your parents' wealth. The situation already in part exists, but isn't too bad at least in Canada where we have a lot of government money in our world-class public school system.
You cut to health care? Then poor die young, and the rich live on.
You can claim the higher ground? Then why should some very intelligent man, with great potential, slave in a menial job when he could be working in the offices, making the more pay? For the sins of his father lacking wealth? It's the very reason public services were created to OFFER the level playing field.
Just one note; the private sector has proven itself to be just as inept and corrupt as the government sanctioned bodies to which they are often compared in terms of cost and product.
And when you get right down to it, the difference there - and throughout this discourse - is that it's all semantics and the only issue debated thus far has been the same... semantic.
Aztecs. The Mayans were quite often the sacrafices rounded up by the Aztecs.
And I don't think the idea of one central goverment will work. The world is too large, and too complex, for such a single entity to govern it all. Rather I think the seven continents should all become major nations (maybe Australia and Antartica can be combined into the same one) with current nations within each one becoming nation-states. The seven/six major nations then form an alliance of the world, which would basically be the UN, but much improved.
I don't really like any of the existing goverment types, but if I had to choose from the current ones being used, it would be democracy.