what's BAD about democracy(for once)?

i had never actually planned this thread so the thread name is just there because it fitted really. it's not going to become a series (i think).

is playing the power in the hands of people that mostly know very little about what they are voting for or who they are voting for. a good idea? lets be quite frank over 50% of people are idiots. and they get to decide the future of our nation? isn't that stupid?

should the power not be in the hands of an unbiased few but educated in what they are voting for. even say having to take some test on politics to prove you understand what you are voting for.

I'm for a constituonal republic, not a democracy.

abuse of power

tho you could put that into anything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

I'm for a constituonal republic, not a democracy.

---

A constatutional republic? Care to explain? Sorry I am not on the up and up on this theory.

If I am not mistaken we have a constatutional republic. A democracy is nice in theory but sucks in reality. Imagine a form of government where evey decision to be made has to be voted on by everyone...EVERYONE! All 300 million votes to be tallied and accounted for just for a simple law and such. It would take forever to get anything done. That is what a real democracy is.

Which is why we all support a Constitutional Republic. True Democracy is just as bad as true, widespread Communism.

i meant our democracy as it stands currently.

Some people don't deserve a say in the politics of their country.

would these people you talk of be criminals or the ones who choose to vote ignorantly?

Basically anyone who isn't informed enough to make an intelligent decision.

exactly. so should we have a test to make sure?

No, that would just encourage less people to vote. I personally think basic education in politics should be compulsory for students. I myself wish I knew more about how my own country is run...

...nah, not really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThroneofDravaris

No, that would just encourage less people to vote. I personally think basic education in politics should be compulsory for students. I myself wish I knew more about how my own country is run...

...nah, not really.

---

A basic education in politics?! That'd be pointless. How about a course in basic economics?

I mean more along the lines of the history and a summery of various political parties, just so people know exactly who they are voting for.

I'd prefer a course in economics, so they'd know which of the proposed systems stands a better chance in suceeding. Especially since the views of the various parties change over time.

BTW, your explained course is better than I initially thought. I was thinking more along the lines of "politics: the art of making yourself look good and everyone else look bad"...

The bad thing about democracy is that people are, in general, stupid. One intelligent ruler will rule a country better than a whole population with shifting intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

I'd prefer a course in economics, so they'd know which of the proposed systems stands a better chance in suceeding. Especially since the views of the various parties change over time.

BTW, your explained course is better than I initially thought. I was thinking more along the lines of "politics: the art of making yourself look good and everyone else look bad"...

---

You all didnt have a required Economics and Government course in high school? In California we have one semester of each in our senior year. Probably could have done with more, but still, it's a start.

I had an economics class. No political class so to say but I think a year of US History fits the bill enough.

I had taken Government Studies, one year worth. I have also taken two years of ecconomics. I have never run across the word Republic Democrocy or w/e. It does strike my interest though.

The problem with having a majority vote is the media can scew the minds of many very easily. If we did vote on every issue (I am certain we do have the technology to do so and keep it seamless) I don't think things would get thought through enough. Its hard enough to get our presidents to state any honest truths in debating or in thier campain. We see normal citizens tossing slander arround at this point because they think thier canidate is the best. So one of kerries fans might say Bush is an alien or somthing... It gets really rediculous.

I think our disctricts should basically have more representatives, which take the concesus vote of the people (much like the electoral college, but more personable to each area) These people could then have a cleaner discussion and cast the votes that meet the needs of thier people. This of course would be prone to bribery and such. It would be nice to see laws set up that prevent poloticians from accepting gifts and such, but I could already see the loophole abuse :(.

I also would like to digress that having electoral points per state is a waste of time. Different area's of teh states have different opinions, and having a great density of people living in the major cities, those votes will simply dwarf the numbers on the small scale, and shift all electoral points to a single canidate. I see that as screwing the system more than anything.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

A constatutional republic? Care to explain? Sorry I am not on the up and up on this theory.

---

A constitutional Republic is the kind of government that you are living in currently. Imagine if everything was really decided by the majority. Don't like Black people down south? Well, hell, lets have a majority vote to restrict their rights. Democracy allows for an opression of the people, a Republic does not.

Aristotle warned against direct democracy, calling it "mob rule", as I recalled.

So, we all agree, Cloud - real democracy sucks.

I have to put up with all of you and your filthy opinions.

Quote:

---

what's BAD about democracy(for once)?

---

Morons electing other morons to be their leaders, things going slowly, lots of rules and the ability to avert or abuse them, and tons more. But, hey, it's the best out of the bad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i had never actually planned this thread so the thread name is just there because it fitted really. it's not going to become a series (i think).

is playing the power in the hands of people that mostly know very little about what they are voting for or who they are voting for. a good idea? lets be quite frank over 50% of people are idiots. and they get to decide the future of our nation? isn't that stupid?

should the power not be in the hands of an unbiased few but educated in what they are voting for. even say having to take some test on politics to prove you understand what you are voting for.

---

Those "idiots" are just as effected by voting as the ones with sticks up there asses. Theyre entitled to vote just as much as anyone else is.

not if they don't know what's good for them or anyone else.

the nazis were voted in with a democracy. the bnp are gaining votes in britain and bush won the first election let alone the second. democracy sucks.

Also the public is ignorant when it comes to long boring areas or other many little bits of peaces of everyday nation ruling that is important that the normal person just doesnt know anything about nor cares about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

not if they don't know what's good for them or anyone else.

the nazis were voted in with a democracy. the bnp are gaining votes in britain and bush won the first election let alone the second. democracy sucks.

---

Doesnt matter. Theyre still effected just as much as you and I are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

not if they don't know what's good for them or anyone else.

the nazis were voted in with a democracy. the bnp are gaining votes in britain and bush won the first election let alone the second. democracy sucks.

---

How the hell do YOU know more about what's better for people than they do? What unique knowledge of the universe gives you (or any other person) a say over what's better for a majority of others?

I've found that when somebody says "Some people don't deserve a say in the politics of their country," they're usually talking about people who *gasp* have a different opinion on things than them.

well i would hate to think that the millions of germans who voted nazi were clued up into exactly what they were doing with that cross on the ballot paper. the nazis won on a democractic system because the people voting had no idea (were ignorant) of what they were doing. any person who had taken the time of day to look at hitler and the nazi party and wasn't just voting out of desperation for something to be done would have seen that it was not a very wise thing to be voting for. as 6 millions jews will agree.

Well, the Jews weren't the ones who voted.

well they did. they're vote wasn't taken aay until the nazis were in power.

and the germans did in general. they basicly voted for aushchwitz and belsan when they ticked that box. they may not have known it. but some people did. they knew the german plicy on jews. and either they were evil enough to still vote this way. or they didn't out of morals and knowing what was right. they rest of the ignornat masses voted nazi and ushered in the holocaust in the ballot box.

Quote:

---

the nazis won on a democractic system because the people voting had no idea (were ignorant) of what they were doing.

---

Oh, now, the Germans weren't ignorant of anything. They LIKED the Nazi idea, they LIKED Hitler, and they LIKED hearing what he had to say, and they hoped that by electing him, it would make things better for them and worse for their enemies.

Mostly, the Germans voted to Hitler because they believed he'd be the one to take them from their misery, and make them rise above their poverty and general feeling of inferiority. If he promised to cast chaos upon the world and the Jews - well, that was just a nice bonus.

hitler promised a quick fix. people didn't see the methods. they didn't look that far. they didn't see the warsaw ghetto, stalingrad, auschwitz, poland. they say in hitler a quick fix out of misery. he was just better at saying he had the quick fix. how they got it wasn't important. as long as he could deliver. and they believed he could more than anyone else.

I believe most Germans were fairly aware of what was going on. It was just that they were seeing positive change, so why protest? And you can't entirely say the nazis were elected democratically, as they cheated.

Quote:

---

And you can't entirely say the nazis were elected democratically, as they cheated.

---

They didn't cheat, they simply terrorised everyone into voting for them, and killed members of the other parties. :)

Have you ever seen any of the nazi ads, Cloud 9? Hitler was an excellent speaker and he ran under the platform of rebuilding the homeland. He was extremely charismatic, and the ads he ran depicted a lot of white, blond-haired blue-eyed men having fun, going out with shovels, not guns, keeping themselves clean, etc.. The situation with the jews arose after the election, and a good portion of the populace either ignored it or didn't realize how bad it was.

Quote:

---

Well, hell, lets have a majority vote to restrict their rights. Democracy allows for an opression of the people, a Republic does not.

---

so true. And seeing as how I belong to several minority groups, I reeeeeally don't like the idea of simple majority rules.

Quote:

---

Hitler was an excellent speaker and he ran under the platform of rebuilding the homeland.

---

Exactly. He knew how to tell people what they wanted to hear. :mad:

Quote:

---

Exactly. He knew how to tell people what they wanted to hear.

---

So does Bush, Karl Marx, and every other pollitician. I think technically lying during your campain should be considered a form of treason, no? It cheats the people, and breaks the pupose of our voting process.

Bipper

Quote:

---

The situation with the jews arose after the election, and a good portion of the populace either ignored it or didn't realize how bad it was.

---

The 'situation' with the Jews was always present - the hate was always there. Hitler and his regime gave that hidden hate expression - in genocide. Everyone knew it was going on (really, it was never possible to hide it, nor did they even try. They were proud of it), and most condoned it, others didn't care, and a very small and brave few fought against it. Most of the latter didn't live to the end of the war, but their deeds are remembered hounorably by those where were saved by these noble souls.

So, no, it wasn't some illusion. No, he didn't really speak of complete annihiliation of Jews, homosexuals, cripples, retards or Gyspies... but he made it clear he didn't take kindly to them. The smart Jews that lived in Germany, left prior to 1939, even though things got rough from 1933-35 and on. Most of the Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust weren't German citizens, but Polish ones, Dutch, Russian, and basically any other European nation that helped the Nazis in their attempt to liquidate the Jewish people, save Denmark and Norway, who saved most of their Jews, as little as there were (less than 3,000 in both nations).

Quote:

---

So does Bush, Karl Marx, and every other pollitician. I think technically lying during your campain should be considered a form of treason, no? It cheats the people, and breaks the pupose of our voting process.

---

I'm with you on that one. Unfortunatly, that law ain't gonna get passed anytime soon.

A preisdent here could be impeached for dishonesty, but it has to be blantant lying. Any president can claim that he couldn't help it, and then the charges would be dropped.

And, for the record, Karl Marx was a philosopher. He dealt in political theory, which is a branch of philosophy, but calling him a politician wouldn't really fit the bill.

True, I was more or less going with the fact that he was working on communism, and which he thought held great promise :D Just trying to balance out the Bush statment to signify more of a wide array of people whom fall into the same category.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

True, I was more or less going with the fact that he was working on communism, and which he thought held great promise :D Just trying to balance out the Bush statment to signify more of a wide array of people whom fall into the same category.

Bipper

---

He also thought that it would occur in the US first, because the US was a capitalistic society (and, as of yet, no capitilistic society has developed into a communistic one). The guy was an idiot, but not a politician. While those two identifiers may overlap quite a bit, they aren't the same.

Quote:

---

The guy was an idiot, but not a politician

---

Quoted because I love the way it sounds :D

YEa I guess I coulda just said Castero. But none the less, I see any form of democracy being weak to manipulation. If we wanna tye that in with communism, look at the Wisconsin Senetor JOSEPH MCCARTHYl whom used the red scare to waylay his opponents and sieze hiw moments of glory. For several years, McCarthy terrorized American public life, and even Dwight Eisenhower, who detested McCarthy, was afraid to stand up to him.

Our "Democratic Republic" still holds that one hint of weakness it would seem.

Bipper

lets throw something in the air here.

if only the educated were able to vote in the german elections (the ones that understoood party manifestos and everything) would the nazis have been able to come to power? would the educated have decided upon such a party?

With that in the air, immagine the opression schools would have to create a caste system. The meek and powerless would simply be the uneducated workforce. No matter how you look at it, society will alwasy be built on the backs of the less fortunate.

Hitler's agenda was pretty subtle. I guess I can't answer with any accuracy what woulda happend. Curious though.

Bipper

I would have to read Hitler's actual platform. Does he even get into his anti-Jewish stance in Mein Kampf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

Does he even get into his anti-Jewish stance in Mein Kampf?

---

He wrote down pretty much all of his opinions in that book.

oh yeah he rambles on about there being no jews in germany. only for the aryan race and killing all the slavs too.

Quote:

---

if only the educated were able to vote in the german elections (the ones that understoood party manifestos and everything) would the nazis have been able to come to power? would the educated have decided upon such a party?

---

Unfortunatly, being educated does not rule out being a compleat idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

Which is why we all support a Constitutional Republic. True Democracy is just as bad as true, widespread Communism.

---

Depends on the scale in which Democracy is used.

In local areas. Like states, cities, and towns. Most likely Towns, and cities do this. They would vote on laws and really most of the people fromt eh city will know aobut it. They will vote, and do vote for it effects them as a whole.

Now to run a country. Democracy has been proven ineffective.

constitutional Republic is just perfect for me :D

The problems with democracy are pretty apparent actually.

First off in the current American system, the candidates must have the support of either Dems or Reps to even think about *thinking about* running for statewide office. That means that you aren't going to get people who aren't already diehard Dems or Reps. Not only that, but once in power, the parties must do what they can to keep power. If your party loses seats, you lose influence and more importantly campaign money.

Sencondly, mostly due to the media, we aren't interested in actual leadership ability, just the *appearance* of actual leadership ability. Same with the issues. For the most part, people don't pay attention to how people vote, just what they say come re-election time. We could have paid actors doing drama in washington and I don't think anyone would notice.

The third thing is that people tend to all vote in their own best interest. So in a nation where most people are rich, taxes are to be cut and all that wasteful welfare has to go. Where people are poor, the social welfare state must get bigger and better, damn the cost. If you live in the city, you vote for environmental issues, but if you live in the country, then you vote to cut down the trees and sell the wood. So if you're in the minority and really need the legislation to pass, it probably wouldn't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

The third thing is that people tend to all vote in their own best interest.

---

Well, duh. How else would you expect people to vote? In the interest of other people?

[quote]Well, duh. How else would you expect people to vote? In the interest of other people?[quote]

Yes. If someone said that they would lower my taxes, I would vote for them. Then I would find out that to make way for the tax cuts was to pull back funding on schools (or somthing i care about). People will tend to 'glance' at platforms, and not think them over. I know I am guilty of this.

Bipper

Quote:

---

That means that you aren't going to get people who aren't already diehard Dems or Reps.

---

Which is irritating, because they tend to be more extreame than most.

Quote:

---

Sencondly, mostly due to the media, we aren't interested in actual leadership ability, just the *appearance* of actual leadership ability. Same with the issues. For the most part, people don't pay attention to how people vote, just what they say come re-election time. We could have paid actors doing drama in washington and I don't think anyone would notice.

---

Sad, but true. When the big issue during an election is same-sex marriage (and not the economy, war, terrorism, and the like) something is wrong.

Quote:

---

The third thing is that people tend to all vote in their own best interest. So in a nation where most people are rich, taxes are to be cut and all that wasteful welfare has to go. Where people are poor, the social welfare state must get bigger and better, damn the cost. If you live in the city, you vote for environmental issues, but if you live in the country, then you vote to cut down the trees and sell the wood. So if you're in the minority and really need the legislation to pass, it probably wouldn't happen.

---

It's not just who is in the majority, it's who has power. The poor and middle-class outnumber the rich, but due to donations, ect, the rich have a disproportional influence. Also, they are more likely to pay attention and vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

The third thing is that people tend to all vote in their own best interest.

---

Well, duh. How else would you expect people to vote? In the interest of other people?

---

What I mean is that if you live in an area where 51% of the people are Republican, unless the Republican really Fs things up, You'll have a Republican senator or rep or governor. Thing is, Everybody knows that, so they draw voting districts so that whatever party is in power can stay in power.

People should vote in their own best interests. But one of the problems is that issues that the more powerful people don't care about never get addressed. So if the powerful want tax cuts or don't give a crap about illegal immigration, the rest of the people can bitch and moan all they want. Doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

A preisdent here could be impeached for dishonesty, but it has to be blantant lying. Any president can claim that he couldn't help it, and then the charges would be dropped.

---

Clarification: a president can only be impeached for breaking a law or other government policy. The only simple way lying would fit into this is perjury - lying under oath, such as Clinton did.

Democracy is pretty essential - even if it gives idiots a say, it's better than a oligarchy, dictatorship or monarchy. Then you have one or a few idiots or maniacs in charge.
At least with democracy, there's ussually enough smart people to cancel the idiots out.
Though, judging by the past 2 US elections, not quite enough smart people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

It's not just who is in the majority, it's who has power. The poor and middle-class outnumber the rich, but due to donations, ect, the rich have a disproportional influence. Also, they are more likely to pay attention and vote.

---

Unfortuanatley true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

Well, duh. How else would you expect people to vote? In the interest of other people?

---

Yeah. I would. It's called socialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

...and, as of yet, no capitilistic society has developed into a communistic one.

---

Cuba. Admittedly, that was through revolution, but Castro's there, isn't he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

Though, judging by the past 2 US elections, not quite enough smart people.

---

Alright, this kind of thing really grates my nerves. What you're basically saying is that people who have a different opinion than you aren't smart. A lot of very intelligent people voted for Bush, and you can't simply dismiss them as idiots just because they disagree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

Well, duh. How else would you expect people to vote? In the interest of other people?

---

Yeah. I would. It's called socialism.

---

Yeah, that's the proof right there of how flawed an idea socialism is.

Quote:

---

Yeah, that's the proof right there of how flawed an idea socialism is.

---

All ideas are flawed. It's called 'human nature'. Besides, don't most religions tell you to think of others?

I think that a government should not be free of religon, but offer freedom of religion. I have stressed this so many times. I think I will just shut up on this point though :D

A government can only exist in any form only if it is sincere to its residence. When the government becomes used as a tool by 'Mob rule', corporate positioning or etc. It will fail. I really am not sure how much further America can stumble before she falls. I hope that time never comes, but I think it has come and past like a theif in the night :greenie: . The morals of today's America, seem so different to me. Then again, one must change with the times, or get stuck in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

Alright, this kind of thing really grates my nerves. What you're basically saying is that people who have a different opinion than you aren't smart. A lot of very intelligent people voted for Bush, and you can't simply dismiss them as idiots just because they disagree with you.

---

Quoted for severe truth. I have opinions, and I stress them as opinions. If the American government suddenly got baptised again, and became a beacon of christianity, then failed because of this, I would graciously accept the fact that I was wrong. Since I try not to call people's ideals stoopidz, I would hope that in the shadows of my defeat, they would be as gracious to me as I would be to them.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

Quote:

---

Yeah, that's the proof right there of how flawed an idea socialism is.

---

All ideas are flawed. It's called 'human nature'. Besides, don't most religions tell you to think of others?

---

Yes, most religions also place at least a little bit of emphasis on the individual. As I'm sure Raist and Hachi also feel, I don't have any problem with helping someone who I feel deserves my help. I do have a problem with my money being taken to help someone I've never met and can't in any way be sure will make any kind of worthwhile use of what is mine.

Of course, this is all built around the notion that the single fundamental right of life is self-jurisdiction, from which all other rights stem.

god him self does not give self determination. all in the great plan.

and the money that is "yours" has been earned. and you are richer because africans are starving. frankly. the food you eat is cheaper purely because the us and eu insist on watching 50,000 people starve to death.

by all means milf take the money and use it for your own desires rather than help the follow man. but it has blood on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

god him self does not give self determination. all in the great plan.

and the money that is "yours" has been earned. and you are richer because africans are starving. frankly. the food you eat is cheaper purely because the us and eu insist on watching 50,000 people starve to death.

by all means milf take the money and use it for your own desires rather than help the follow man. but it has blood on it.

---

Blood which is on my hands. Blood which I choose to have there. Just as you do, because you're spending who knows how much buying a computer, installing an internet setup, and maintaining that.

I don't believe in God. But if you want to get into a religious debate about free will, go start the thread.

I belive in God, and I wish that he was included in our government. At least, Christianities take on God. God does work to individuals, look at Moses, Job, and many others. God has a grand plan, but individual's good deeds and good servitude, will naturally be rewarded here or in heaven. This is clearly pointed out by Job's story. Granted to model a government based right off christianity would end in failure. Based on the fact that it would pretty much be a monarchy with an all knowing being as king. Us men will have to make due in the master's absence. :)

While having strict laws is important, always having room to sway will prevent a tree from snapping ins severe turmoil.

well milf my computer is needed due to my dyspraxia. and my internet is free through the master point service in these university halls.

and while my hands are still dirty through necessity. all food that i can buy is fairly traded or purchased from outwith the eu and us (and a few other countries). 10% of my monthly wage goes to charity each and every month regardless of anything. my hands are just less dirty with the blood of 30,000 children yesterday, today and tomorrow.

and having god who has a habit of murdering non-believers as leader is a truly bad idea.

Quote:

---

Yeah. I would. It's called socialism.

---

Hahahahaha. Socialism has never, and (hopefully) will never work, because humans, as a whole, are still too rational for it. Rationality, any sort of logic, promotes a semblence of self-interest. Damn good thing, too.

works in cuba.

Oh yes, Cuba is obviously an excellent place to live. That's why so many Cubans try to flee to the US. And, interesting fact, the average Cuban standard of living now is lower than during that big recession in the early '90s caused by the disappearance of Soviet subsidies. CIA World Factbook.

And private citizens also can't buy computers or even access the internet without authorization. Woah. Yeah, definitely where I want to live.

fabolous health care and research, hugely high standards of education.

what is crippling them (like africa) is american interference in their trade.

The fact that you can type this stuff apparently seriously amuses me.

Great research, you say, but as late as 2000, Cuba was ineffectively treating their drinking water. But who needs drinking water, adequate housing, and free access to basic goods when we can have advancements in the biomedical industry?

Cuba's only making headway in that singular department because it has totalitarian control of the economy. It's analogous to WWII Soviet Russia, when the Soviet Union had a huge industrial surge. But every other aspect of the country suggested horrible living conditions. Cuba's not as extreme as the Soviet Union, but it is similar. It boasts great living conditions, and points to the free health care as proof, but the veneer is belied by the fact that thousands flee the country in tiny rafts ever year to struggle to come to the US where they have a chance at freedom. People fled East Berlin, too.

EDIT: While looking up the CIA Factbook, I also found this article, which I love very much.

free-market health care dooms the poor to die for being poor. can you tell me that is right?

It "dooms" everybody to take responsibility for their own life. It "dooms" people to not be able to do the moral equivalent of pointing a gun at their neighbours and demanding money. It "dooms" people to have to make their own choices, and to either succeed or not by their own ability.

If someone has cancer 100 miles away from me, it is NOT my responsibility unless I voluntarily choose to accept it.

But what's the use? Self-respect, self-worth, self-responsibility, and integrity are concepts lost in this forum.

i see you didn't deny the fact that private health care just means killing off the poor.

and it is your responsibilty. it is known as human duty.

Cloud, you know its law, that if someone can't pay for medical services, they are to be treated if hospitalization is required. Esspeccially if they are pregnant. From what I understand, the hospital fills out paperwork on these types of incidents, and then recieves subsadies from the gov't.

While I would support a crap level of healthcare on a national level (nothing too lavish: clinics(in tems of bi yearly checkups), prescriptions, emergency) there are so many others whom hold differenet beliefs. I respect thier beleifs, as they do stand on a logical leg. Our argument towards this is pure sediment, with prolly one factual argument - that having widespread basic healthcare would in general, help slow and contain the spread of desieses and possible eppidemics. We do also have free clinics in many cities. So don't think that we are a careless country. The public still does run the governmnet, and such issues of humanities are taken care of here.

I guess, I am partly socialist on some terms, but I would never want to be in a socialistic country. I just think that people should have a leg to stand on and start out with; from there - it's life. Make your decisions and do whatever you want, as you can. Buy a one bedroom appartment, and work 2 days a week at a gas station. Take out mass lioans and become a Doctor then live more labishly. Its a great thing, being free.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i see you didn't deny the fact that private health care just means killing off the poor.

and it is your responsibilty. it is known as human duty.

---

What is duty? How do I have a duty to you?

These are ideas that I think are nice but have been mutilated beyond compare. I love to help people, because I believe in the sanctity of life - and, as a result, the people decided that they have a claim on me because I offered it, once. "The poor", at least, the welfare-check poor, are just like the bums on the street - they ask you for a dime, and if you give them one (in good will) they will continue to come back and demand another from you.

Uh, no.

If you want health care for everyone, then get the hell out of our way, and let us work to full capacity, according to the laws of supply and demand, and we'll have the cheapest damn medicine you'll ever find!

you have a duty to me and everyone else because i am human, just like you, and you are not above me. as a species it is even a genetic duty. as a society it is a social duty to make sure that people don't die stupid deaths.

and alot of people are on welfare due to recovewring from injury or illness, redundancy, personal grieve and problems etc.

Yes, there are people who are legitimately on welfare who would lose out because of this. But within a few years people would learn that they actually have to take responsibility for their actions. For example: Not to have a child without having the resources to take care of them. To put money in the bank instead of buying a new 55" TV, until you actually have some aside in case you lose your job. Being intelligent. And sadly, some people who genuinely can't help their situation will be hurt by this. And those people happen to be poor. If it happened to be the rich who were hurt by this, I'd still support it. It really doesn't matter, because it's right.

i think the problem with american society is that it has and never will learn from the story of the good samaritan. it will continue to walk by and say "not my fault he's starving and i want a new suv so why should i help?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i think the problem with american society is that it has and never will learn from the story of the good samaritan. it will continue to walk by and say "not my fault he's starving and i want a new suv so why should i help?"

---

Then let people choose when to give to charity. The Good Samaritan helped the man out of his own generosity and kindness. What you're proposing is forcing everyone to do such - in which case they'd only be following orders rather than giving out of generosity and kindness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i think the problem with american society is that it has and never will learn from the story of the good samaritan. it will continue to walk by and say "not my fault he's starving and i want a new suv so why should i help?"

---

What if the man is bald and wants hair? Should I shave off my hair, knowing it'll grow back, and give it to him? What if he doesn't have a watch and takes a liking to mine? Should I give it to him, knowing that I can buy another? What if he doesn't have a house? Should I say "Well, I'm more healthy than he is so I could probably survive sleeping rough longer than he could." and give him my house? It's the same principle.

the thing is it works, so why do people moan? it's fair, reasonable and not biast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i think the problem with american society is that it has and never will learn from the story of the good samaritan. it will continue to walk by and say "not my fault he's starving and i want a new suv so why should i help?"

---

Do you remember my story, Cloud, in which I showed why I would be more willing to help someone in a free society as opposed to a socialist regime? Need I point it out again, just to go over it?

WE ARE WILLING TO HELP PEOPLE. You have still missed that point. Anyone who agrees with me is willing to help people. What we don't like is the poor holding a gun on our heads on the basis of our being rich. That we should give it up because someone else has less than us. Every dollar more that I own than someone else does not make me a criminal. I am not getting rich "off of human blood". I am getting rich off of my own personal effort - and whatever government interference gets in the way of that and uses my honest effort for evil is their problem.

I mean, you have to see that we think it's funny how you hate what western civilization is doing to Africa (what with trade barriers and whatnot) and yet fully support another (possibly more brutal) form of governmental interference? At least with Africa, it's open and honest (if not good) - with a socialized health system, all rights will be thrown out in the name of good will.

Sounds disturbing.

I dunno, I see all of this and I still am for a welfare system. Do I think the system we currently impliment is working? no. It needs to be revamped, at least in some states as most welfare is indeed at state level. The thing is, once a person gets down (looses a job, or goes through any other financial harship) it is not just a matter of saying "Oh! mabey I should get a good job" These things take time. I feel that saying that one would donate to charities if they had the free will to do so, over being forced to do so, is a great concept. I just feel that it lacks integrity, and if one wants to help, they would only have the reasources to help at a hardly.

I know, if somthing is free, why work? Why would a bum want to get a job. Well, on a smart system, the welfare would be working to get the man out of his rut, and get him into the workforce reliably. At the moment, most welfare is just handed out in the form of checks, stamps, electronic credit, etc. If there was a government sort of job placement, that was implimented and enforced, I believe this would solve a lot more problems.

On the economical side of things, if a man learns to save and spend, he is a better asset to the economy than if we just let him rot and die. It is a fact that we are importing foreing people to assume jobs that us 'higher standard' Americans are unwilling to do. These people then usually end up working 40+ hours a week AND have to live off welfare. That is what pisses me off. If we are gonna have a welfare system, it should also take care of companies whom do not care for thier employees in the areas of pay and benefits. I do think that any company, with a sufficiant workforce, should liable to at least provide resources to thier employees to find insurance and othe basic safe gaurds.

On that note, we would homless shelters and free clinics are needed to stop the possible accurance of famine in the poor population. A large group of people whom do not have the resources to care for thier health, become a liability to society in the simple fact that they could easily house a staging feild for what could turn out to be an epidemic.

Also, our economy is one that lives on the edge as I see it. Libing on the far edge of credit, as most Americans do, will do nothing but back fire in our face when a recession hits. As it just did, what was supposed to be a small recession, was a quite large one. Its logical, when you think about it. We take into consideration how we are doing at that moment, and project a house loan for 30 years. That is a very bold thing to do, but it is now necessity. That is why I do not belive in large ammounts of credit when they are applied to the laws of supply and demand.

What does this have to do with our discussion? Well now credit is indeed a larger than ever factor in the price of so many things. Yes it is easier to sell an item for more, when it is broken into payments. You can look at the people on welfare, and obviously they won't have much credit going for them at these rough points (might I add that a lot of decent jobs out there run credit checks when they concider hiring you), so that will limit thier ability to get a house, car, or any other moderate need when they do start heading somewhere.

Also with our supply and demand chain, it would not be feasable to just let 'donations to charity' basically replace welfare. Due to the tight fiscal life styles that people live, they would have more money to spend, thus more (basic need and luxury) items would get more expensive thus actually backfireing any need to help people. I mean, if the average person saved 5000 dollars a year, they would obviously spend it on things they either need or don't. Either way, the ammount of money in thier pocketbook would be higher, and a smart buisness man would learn that he has that much more potential for earning a larger profit on his goods. Enter more inflation.

In closing, I just think that it is VERY important that we try making ourselves, and others better. By making those whom are 'poorer' than ourselves, we gain a sence of humainty, and also will eventually reap the profits of a better society, and economy. I hope my point of view doesn't have too many cavets in it, and that it sheds a little bit of a different prespective on things.

Bipper

You're absolutely right when our system needs to be revamped. I'm talking, however, about changing the entire system altogether, not just making it into some social nonsense.

I will note, that I do not advocate "donating to charity". I think you should be free to do so, if you so wish. However, I am referring to loosening up everywhere. People need to learn how to save and spend? Stop making getting a job difficult, back away, and let people find a job easier. I mean, I just got a job at a damn fast food restaraunt, and I can tell you I've been going through hell; I need to sign papers stating this and that, verify this and that over and over again, etc.

People tell me that I am overly idealistic, and I admit that my ideas aren't as concrete as I would like, but then, I don't know how to fill all of the "cavaets" and whatnot. But I can tell you this: you do not fix a destroyed building by toppling it. We cannot help "our society", or more importantly, the free individual by giving them money looted from others. We need to create a system where he is free to work - that's our problem, as of now. We don't fix what government intervention is screwing up by plunging more government intervention into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

I will note, that I do not advocate "donating to charity". I think you should be free to do so, if you so wish. However, I am referring to loosening up everywhere. People need to learn how to save and spend? Stop making getting a job difficult, back away, and let people find a job easier. I mean, I just got a job at a damn fast food restaraunt, and I can tell you I've been going through hell; I need to sign papers stating this and that, verify this and that over and over again, etc.

---

/signed

There needs to be far less concern about documentation and beaurocracy. Additionally, if there are going to be any forms of governmental interference in getting people into work, how about helping people get into their first jobs? Without at least some experience it's hard to get pretty much anything.

socialised health care is not a form of democracy. and in fact it touches the wealth of noone as all implenting it would do is remove the purpose of health insurance. and if people started having less money then inflation slows down anyway and people catch up.

watching america and the eu starve africa is not comparable.

and psychotic. comparing hair to death is not the same. it is not a want. it is a right and need.

Which Democracy?

American or British?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

socialised health care is not a form of democracy. and in fact it touches the wealth of noone as all implenting it would do is remove the purpose of health insurance. and if people started having less money then inflation slows down anyway and people catch up.

---

It is my choice to have or not to have a healthcare insurance plan. It's not your choice, it's not my mother's choice, it's not my friend's choice. It is affected, of course, by my partner and by children, but the ultimate decisions remain mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

socialised health care is not a form of democracy.

---

yes, but it does have to be voted in by the public. If it is implemented in our government, it is a form of democracy.

Quote:

---

and in fact it touches the wealth of noone as all implenting it would do is remove the purpose of health insurance. and if people started having less money then inflation slows down anyway and people catch up.

---

Made no sence to me really. Touches the wealth of no one? So if we pay the gov't to care for our medical needs it becomes free? It is taken out of taxes. It also affect the health insurance industry I would say. As well as having government involved, health care would prolly be under stricter guidlines.

Quote:

---

watching america and the eu starve africa is not comparable.

---

You make me care about Africa less. I know it is an issue, and I am sorry I have not fixed it yet (what was i thinking!) I do agree with you, there is not a reason to compare this to that.

as for...

Quote:

---

and psychotic. comparing hair to death is not the same. it is not a want. it is a right and need.

---

It is a closer metephor, but yes, I agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

It is my choice to have or not to have a healthcare insurance plan. It's not your choice, it's not my mother's choice, it's not my friend's choice. It is affected, of course, by my partner and by children, but the ultimate decisions remain mine.

---

I do agree, it is your choice. I just think that it is a null choice. Why say no? I think that if you asked everyone if they would want health insurracne, they would prolly say yes.

I think it should be openly available, at least a low level of it. Sure I don't want to see every little doctor visit covered, but I belive in yearly checkups, and bi-yearly physicals. Dental coverage, as they are finding so much of you health is corrilated to your jaw. Eye care and emergency services should be covered as well. Anything further than that (and I don't mean just that, but i was just listing several basics) should be covered under privte policies.

I say all this Milf, is very related to your thread on you little question. Where you ask somthing to the extent on making decisions for people. I see this as a simpler question, because its not like we would FORCE a person to go get healed (some Amish and such usually don't go for hosptials). However, the offer would be on the table. I do say to support it because of my belief in your same question; If it affects others. Haveing some unhealthy person (homless or not) who cannot afford health care causes a public health hazzard. A person who cannot see well does this as well.

Though I think there is a fine line on what we do for people whom could be hazardous, I beleive that the humanity of the subject is enough to doubly warrent a minimal socialized health care system. Much like a lot of American cities host, as far as free clinics etc. go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Made no sence to me really. Touches the wealth of no one? So if we pay the gov't to care for our medical needs it becomes free? It is taken out of taxes. It also affect the health insurance industry I would say. As well as having government involved, health care would prolly be under stricter guidlines.

---

Well I dunno if it is actually due to being socialised (More likely the Nanny State, a close friend of Socialism.), but over in England we can't buy half the medication you can here (The USA), and several things which are taken for granted here are entirely illegal there. This is especially horrid when one is at the dentists.
as for...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

It is my choice to have or not to have a healthcare insurance plan. It's not your choice, it's not my mother's choice, it's not my friend's choice. It is affected, of course, by my partner and by children, but the ultimate decisions remain mine.

---

I do agree, it is your choice. I just think that it is a null choice. Why say no? I think that if you asked everyone if they would want health insurracne, they would prolly say yes.

---

Ah, let me add something: The people I get health insurance from is my choice, as are the people I go to healthcare for. The government doesn't answer to anyone half the time, and look at the NHS in the UK. It's a shoddy mess.

Quote:

---

I think it should be openly available, at least a low level of it. Sure I don't want to see every little doctor visit covered, but I belive in yearly checkups, and bi-yearly physicals. Dental coverage, as they are finding so much of you health is corrilated to your jaw. Eye care and emergency services should be covered as well. Anything further than that (and I don't mean just that, but i was just listing several basics) should be covered under privte policies.

---

But see, I don't have any objection to any particular amount of free healthcare, that's not the issue. It's simply that private systems work better than state-owned ones.

the british government and the eu doesn't like people buying drugs which are stupid and they don't need. like prozac or other ssri's. it is not good to have them widely available. which is why we don't advertise script only meds either.

my point about social health care affecting noone. okay lets say taxes went up and you lose £20 a month. but now you have social health care. so why have health insurance? so you can stop your $20 a month health insurance plan. and if overall the country is poorer because some people don't have insurance then inflation slows down because it is harder for inflation to rise when people don't have money to keep up.

and cuba and many eu countries have lovely nhs schemes.

and bipper what did you do for africa before i made you care less?

and when it comes to live, death and disease the ultimate responsibility is the states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the british government and the eu doesn't like people buying drugs which are stupid and they don't need. like prozac or other ssri's. it is not good to have them widely available. which is why we don't advertise script only meds either.

---

Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that part where I gave them the power to decide what I do with my own body. I certainly don't remember telling them to go ahead and decide what I need. Hey, Cloud. What happens when the government decides society's problems need fixed by killing all the Jews?

Quote:

---

my point about social health care affecting noone. okay lets say taxes went up and you lose £20 a month. but now you have social health care. so why have health insurance? so you can stop your $20 a month health insurance plan. and if overall the country is poorer because some people don't have insurance then inflation slows down because it is harder for inflation to rise when people don't have money to keep up.

---

Or that's 20 quid I might want to spend elsewhere. Like investing in a doctor I actually have faith in. Or maybe not investing in a doctor at all because it's my right not to.

Quote:

---

and cuba and many eu countries have lovely nhs schemes.

---

And it's already been shown what that cost Cuba. The EU is a joke, too. If laws don't change the EU will not be first-world for more than another 20 years or so.

Quote:

---

and when it comes to live, death and disease the ultimate responsibility is the states.

---

When it comes to protecting those from other forces, I agree. So that's why I support a police force and a system for national defense. Those are uses of governmental power I agree with and can happily give money to.

so you want to be protected against the nasty muslims but not cholera?

and cuba is in fact hampered by sanctions because of it's economic system. not because of it's economic system.

and milf what happens when the government decides that starving africa is a great policy? or starting an aggressive illegal war? or has it's leaders wanting world control?

a state's duty is to stop death not to cause it.

Cloud, the whole argument is frivilous. The econmy would be minimally effected at best. That is, if people were spendin $20 on health insuracnce, and the gov't took it over, logic would sugges thtat taxes would increase. As I said before, it all depends on implimentations.

Quote:

---

and bipper what did you do for africa before i made you care less?

---

Why must you instigate so? I may not know everything about this situation, but the general unfair trade has been an issue on my plate for a while. Here is a news flash for you, it is not just Africa getting screwd. Here constant whining about it is actually having the adverse effect.

Placing blood on my hands, when you really don't know much about me is entirly wrong, and hypocritical. You are basically saying that you know I hate people in Africa because I alone cannot get my government to run the way you want it to. sad.

Milf, while I really do respect your outlook, I honestly think that this is one thing that would take a lot of trust for the government. Its one cavet. I guess this could easily be avoided by a credit system, where the health cares stays on private systems, but the government funds minimal plans. Implimentation.

Quote:

---

It is my choice to have or not to have a healthcare insurance plan. It's not your choice, it's not my mother's choice, it's not my friend's choice. It is affected, of course, by my partner and by children, but the ultimate decisions remain mine.

---

Yeah, it's my choice to have quality healthcare. It's also my choice to be rich, beutiful, and living in Hawaii and going to a prestigious university. Instead, I'm at a community college in the meth capitol of california, with less than five dollars to my name. And soon to be off Medi-cal due to age.:mad:

darklady. take heart that you if you die it will because you are poor and have less right to live then the rich. you will die for their tax dollar. smile. feel proud in that.

and yes bipper america and the eu also screw over asia and south america. this is a good thing?

there is no adverse effect in making those who refeuse to help refuse to help. and the blood is on the hands of people who stand back and watch people die. political might or money can both help. failing to do either is taking part in genocide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and yes bipper america and the eu also screw over asia and south america. this is a good thing?

there is no adverse effect in making those who refeuse to help refuse to help. and the blood is on the hands of people who stand back and watch people die. political might or money can both help. failing to do either is taking part in genocide.

---

I never said that it is a good thing, I just mean why dwell on Africa, and coninually make people feel like hell for it? I do my part to represend fair trade, and a stable global economy. My stress is more towards sweatshops, but I agree with your stance.

africa is best to dwell on as it is bigger and people know it better. and making them feel like hell constantly and brining up the issue keeps it in their mind. if you keep telling the public it is their fault 30,000 children died today everyday then one day they will see the problem in that.

Quote:

---

darklady. take heart that you if you die it will because you are poor and have less right to live then the rich. you will die for their tax dollar. smile. feel proud in that.

---

Remind me to use that sometime. :D

Quote:

---

there is no adverse effect in making those who refeuse to help refuse to help. and the blood is on the hands of people who stand back and watch people die. political might or money can both help. failing to do either is taking part in genocide.

---

So true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

so you want to be protected against the nasty muslims but not cholera?

---

What a loaded question. Due to its crude nature, I can only respond: Yes.

Quote:

---

take heart that you if you die it will because you are poor and have less right to live then the rich. you will die for their tax dollar. smile. feel proud in that.

---

More propaganda.

Darklady, take heart in knowing that you never held a gun to the rich and demanded to live in exchange for their prosperity. Smile, feel proud, know that you lived your life according to your own ability, not need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and cuba is in fact hampered by sanctions because of it's economic system. not because of it's economic system.

---

Cuba doesn't exist in a vacuum. Isolationism is not a possibility. Ergo, if a system is one which other nations do not wish to concern themselves with then one needs to either have a system strong enough to survive on its own or to change one's system. (Of course, I do actually disagree with sanctions and such, so I have to concede that point.)

Quote:

---

and milf what happens when the government decides that starving africa is a great policy? or starting an aggressive illegal war? or has it's leaders wanting world control?

---

Read my signature (Or hey, the actual UN documents.), the war was legal, only propoganda has told you otherwise.

And that is the flaw with the state. That is exactly why we don't like big government.

Quote:

---

a state's duty is to stop death not to cause it.

---

A state's duty is to protect the people within its borders from any infringement on their right to self-jurisdiction, with the sole exception of this same objective, which takes precedence through necessity. Believe me, if I thought it'd actually work for a second, I'd be an anarchist all the way.

the war was not legal. it was not in defence of america or an ally. it was not about genocide and it was not sanctioned by the UN. therefore it is illegal.

The war was legal according to UN law. The UN failed to consistently enforce its doctrine, and this is definitely not the first time (Rwanda, 1994, anyone?). I disagree strongly with the war, but it wasn't "omg bush is teh war criminal!" that everyone says it is.

un law is international law. much like the human rights act. or is that void too? and that's why america is allowed to have a part of cuba dedicated to torturing people?

and rwanda failed mainly because of the countries in the UN. and that actually is america also. america failed rwanda as much as any other country. sat back and watched a million people cut down in 100 days. by far not the only country to blame. but up there with the rest of them. the UN is only as strong as it's members. and it's members including the US decided to watch a genocide.

and by breaking international law. not only is bush a war criminal but so is every us serviceman in iraq.

I don't recognize the UN. Nor should any rational person.

the un protects your fundamental human rights....... then again your country ignores them anyway and seems to enjoy torturing people. so meh ignore them because our country doesn't give a damn anyway.

Quote:

---

un law is international law.

---

Absolutely. The UN inconsistently applied its own law to Iraq, and failed to do anything about it. What the UN says now has become a

Quote:

---

much like the human rights act. or is that void too? and that's why america is allowed to have a part of cuba dedicated to torturing people?

---

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Quote:

---

and by breaking international law. not only is bush a war criminal but so is every us serviceman in iraq.

---

Ahahahahaha

the un human rights act governs your human rights. ignore the un you ignore that. it has alot to do with whether you think the un has the right to judge. because when it comes down to it and you are tied to that chair in quantanamo or baghram the people that decide whether that is right or wrong is the un. the people that will try the men doing it to you is the un. the men supposed to protect you is the un. without them the human rights act fails (america ignores it and tortures people anyway).

iraq committed as many wrongs when it came to the un as america. wanna bomb manhattan for that?


and following orders is not an excuse when it comes to being a war criminal. taken part in an illegal action can be tried for illegal or not. it's part of the nuremburg principles.

Quote:

---

Darklady, take heart in knowing that you never held a gun to the rich and demanded to live in exchange for their prosperity. Smile, feel proud, know that you lived your life according to your own ability, not need.

---

Ah, yes. Smile, feel proud that despite working full time, some people can barley feed their families. Take heart that people get screwed and no one has an obligation to help them.
Frankly, if it comes down to my (or anyone elses) survival, and someones right to have more money than they could hope to spend, I'm gonna go with life. Aren't conservatives all about "sanctity of life". Or does that just apply to fetuses?

I wouldn't know. I'm not a conservative.

And those people brought that on themselves. They should either get a new job - or not have a big family. And I'm not delusional about the term "rights" - I know that when people begin to tell me that I have an obligation to help others at my loss by right to run.

Aren't liberals all about human rights? Or does that only apply to the poor?

get a better job?

so if you're born into a poor family in a council estate with ignorant parents and surrounded by drugs and gangs. the schools not much better bad areas have bad schools. the education is worse the teachers aren't good and it is far harder. you can't gain extra help because your parents are too poor to buy extra tuition or study books. if your parents are divorced then it's a worse situation again. or if thy have alcohol, drug, mental or physical problems.

have bad parents and you are almost doomed to failure. the above doesn't apply to the rich. better schools, teachers, books and extra tuition = better grades = better job.

the rich have an easier time before they are even born. a foot up not brought on by skill or intelligence but their parents wallet.

most poor people round here don't have a big family. but they are destined to failure. and have no chance of getting a new job.

It's true that some people have luck on their side. However, in a free society (note: America doesn't necessarily fit the rule) a child would be fit to move up on his own ability. Don't put too much stock into socialization, either. I mean, sure, if you have bad parents you might not have the greatest aspirations right away, but only a fool wouldn't recognize that work (and working hard) can help your situation.

There is a giant difference between people who are down on their luck (in which case voluntary charity should go to) and the undeserving poor (such as those you described).

That's not a lack of compassion; that's reality. I'd be willing to help, but not at the point of a gun.

Another thing is that blaming a free society based on poverty is ridiculous; it neither augments it nor stops it. It allows the poor to move up if they are able, but does not put a dolt into a job he could not have gotten to based on ability. Do not attempt to change reality. There will always be lazy people who choose to be poor, and there will always be kids who are born into bad situations. Short of actual threats to them (such as abusive parents or drug abuse or places where the government should step in), they are free to rise as well. That's freedom. That's letting people live without Big Brother behind them. And that's the only just way a society can run.

AND DAMN YOU LIBERALS I'M NOT A CONSERVATIVE I'M LIBERTARIAN Y0 GET IT RIGHT

they are not free to move up the ladder without a good education. and poor kids parents aren't able to pay for that. so there are two choices. let the kids education stagnate no matter what his ability. or pay for it. one educated kid will pay for himself in the end as he will end up earning more and paying more taxes (returning what has been paid to him).

the other choice is to leave him in poorly funded education and watch as his ability stagnates and he leaves still part of the poverty cycle.

same with health.

I don't really see how governments should cure people from being poor. I merely say that let people be housed and healthy. Doing this will save us in multple ways imo. That is the only part of this conversation I am interested in.

As for people being poor, and unable to provide, that is BS. Unless you are disabled, one full time job at mininum wage is enough money to raise a family on. The trick is learning how to budget, and learn to find all the resources you need. *Children easily can obtain WIC, and health insurance in most states. I don't see being poor as a bad thing. America's standard of poor still allows you to have a full stomach, and an apartment. It can always be worse.

The only huge expence that I know screws a lot of people over, are cars. There are tons of resources out there to help you out in car crisis. Besides all this, I must also say budget your welfare. Learn more about it, and how long you will have it etc. That is what we have social workers for. (Granted I have heard/know of a few whom are obviously job coasters)

Bottom line is simply keeping citizens sheltered, fed, and healthy is a great thing for a government to do (as per my beliefs). Again, I do not mean anything lavish, or too sub standard. Simply the resources to get them on thier feet again, or to start with.

but that view bipper just feeds the poverty cycle. if all you can achieve is minimum wage then you aren't acheiving the american dream. and it's not a question of ability or laziness it's a question of education. quality free education at that.

this way what matters most in what you can achieve is not the education that you're parents can afford. but by your ability and intelligence.

Quote:

---

America doesn't necessarily fit the rule)

---

So, if america doesn't fit, then your point is invalid.

Quote:

---

if all you can achieve is minimum wage then you aren't acheiving the american dream.

---

Not only that, but minimum wage isn't always enough to live on.

Quote:

---

Bottom line is simply keeping citizens sheltered, fed, and healthy is a great thing for a government to do

---

I agree. Unfortunatly, our government doesn't always do that. It's fine to say "get a job," but what if there are no jobs available? What if you have young kids, and cant afford child care? What if you have a job, and an education, but still don't have enough? I don't want the government to give me a free ride. I just want a chance at a decent life. And I'm not willing to suffer because some people think I don't deserve anything better.

Again, Free education should simply be generals. To get the specific training to be a Doctor, Chef, RN, Fast Food worker you should have to pay. I think there should be hurdles on the way to achiving your dream. That and it would hinder people whom are in it for simply money from becomming doctors and such. People whom are doctros for the money, are usually shatty doctrors whom just don't care too much about the patient.

The poverty cycle is fine. I encourage it. As long as poverty is a high class poverty as it is here in the states. A full stomach, a roof, and your health. Its been said, we have the richest poor people, but we do have those with out a prayer as well. Thusly, I belive the system needs a huge revamping.

Bipper

If all education were privatized, we'd see higher quality education at lower prices.

Check Economics 101, please.

I don't believe that for a second Hachifusa. Sides, stateside we have public and private schools. I personnaly rally towards the public schools system myself. I believe it teaches kids more socialistic values, and offers them a whole lot more freedom than most private schools. Though the education may not be as high to standards, parents can take a more active role in thier childs educations and help thier child grow. Again, public school is just a starting block, a place to get your head up and stick your neck out. If that is not good enough for some, there are always privatised schools.

I would say that taking education away from the public would greatly hinder America, and drive it's economy into the dirt. The children of people who could (theroetically) afford education are not necessarily the best people in the world. This would cause America a greater loss in nearly every area I am concerned with.

Schools also provide more than just education. Though, that is thier primary reason for eistance. A public school hosts a lot of public events, and acts as a stage for many different activites. Thusly, making it more of a public place. I am sure many of these functions would be killed off if private schools took over.

Lastley, let me end with a good personal example.

When I started college, I went to a community college. Cheap as hell, but the education was questionable. I dropped out, and went to a private school where I proceeded to get my Associates Degree. I would easily say that the private school taught me so much more than I could have learned at a community college, and others whom went to State Universities then transfered to private schools, say about the same thing. The point is, although Community College and State U's are not entirely free, there is still another level of schooling brought into play by the privat sector.

While the Government has its price advantage, the private schools have other advantages as well. I think it gives those willing to spend the dough to go to a private school, a heads up personally. I have met some very intellegent types from Universites (most of em going for masters or docrtrates) and I am not ripping on them in anyway. It is just my own experience that leads me to belive this way. On that note, there have been some very crappy privatised schools as well. Schools that seem to be in it for the quick buck. This is where some product research comes into play.

Bottom line; options > all :D

Bipper

The problem with having public education (besides that we are taxing people - even if they don't use the school system - to keep it running poorly) is that with public education that makes the market much smaller for private universities, which jacks the price up. I believe in better education, and if all education was privatized, prices would drop (rather necessarily) or else the "business" (in this case, education) would fail. The reason why you are against all private education is because you are still seeing private education as it is now: high-end, usually specialized (for example, Catholic) institutions for the wealthy.

Private institutions teach social value as well; in fact, that's a moot argument (I'm talking now as if there was no public schools).

Public education is another brand of socialism that unfortunately comes about; the moment we question just how secure freedom is (and I answer: as secure as you make it) we begin to put safety nets in place. The problem with safety nets is that we begin to lose the productivity from before (and likewise, our freedoms).

Make all education private, and we'd have a whole range of schools. Our taxes would drop, as would the prices of schools (don't believe that it will be thousands of dollars to go to school; hardly) and the education quality would shoot up, and with less bureaucracy, the money being poured into an individual school - from the students - would more directly benefit the students.

There are very few things that a government can do better than an individual concern can.

People who like to scare others into socialism (usually with quotes like, "That'd make school only for the rich! The poor have a right to learn!") are working under the failed premise of being unable to see past the present. They see the way it is now (another failed attempt; another socialized mistake) and make the mistake of thinking that if all schools were privatized, then all schools would be expensive and breed stuck-up brats who have no respect for knowledge.

(To go off-topic for a minute: this is a common problem. When I suggested that welfare systems be abolished to help the poor, a rather innocent, yet grossly uninformed individual of the stereotypical liberal
school of thought responded, "But the welfare system is barely working now as it is, and you wish to take it away?" The idea that the system itself is flawed never struck her - nor most people who believe in it. Rather, they think that we aren't sacrificing enough to keep them running. It is the same with public education; if the system is losing a lot of money and the education quality isn't the greatest, most people assume that it's the people that are flawed, not the system. To make that error is one of the costliest - and most dangerous - errors one can make in this field. It never can occur to a lot of these people that there is a possible world where the current "private" option would be reformed, too. )

The only way to live in a free society with liberty and justice for all is to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy, avoid involuntary taxation for services one wouldn't want, and increase productivity by putting the power back in the people's hands. The only way, therefore, education can exist in a free society is through privatization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

The problem with having public education (besides that we are taxing people - even if they don't use the school system - to keep it running poorly)

---

well, I don't want to ignore the parenthasies, as it raises a great point. I do think that the school system needs to be revamped. Revamped to run more efficiantly that is. The school is really synominous to our government, a hundred hands in it, all getting what they want. The government can run anything better than a private institution simply because they are not in it for the money... well, shouldn't be. I know hands dip in the pots, but like I said, they need to be revamped. Much like 90% of our government.

Quote:

---

is that with public education that makes the market much smaller for private universities, which jacks the price up. I believe in better education, and if all education was privatized, prices would drop (rather necessarily) or else the "business" (in this case, education) would fail. The reason why you are against all private education is because you are still seeing private education as it is now: high-end, usually specialized (for example, Catholic) institutions for the wealthy.

---

I agree with this theory, but you would basically get different schools. A Wal-mart type school, a Sears type school, etc. All with verying views on educational standards. Sears might like to provide quality education, but the price would be high. Allowing only the kids with money to attend. The wal-mart school would offer the cheapest prices, but the worst education. This would widen the education gap via economic standards. If a kid is born poor, he deserves a chance.

Quote:

---

Private institutions teach social value as well; in fact, that's a moot argument (I'm talking now as if there was no public schools).

---

Yes, I am mainly pointing towards learning centers, and very privitized studies here.

Quote:

---

Public education is another brand of socialism that unfortunately comes about; the moment we question just how secure freedom is (and I answer: as secure as you make it) we begin to put safety nets in place. The problem with safety nets is that we begin to lose the productivity from before (and likewise, our freedoms).

---

I don't think that socialism is all bad. It is on points, but the freedom to rise above others (while still paying your part to society) is invaluable. Everyone benefits from society, and there for should pay for it. This is what I was getting at, where people would complain about paying for schools, even whent the schools often provide a stage for many other public events. I know there are mass restrictions on this kind of activity, but they should definatley be lightened, and allow the public to utilze what they pay for even more efficiantly.

Quote:

---

Make all education private, and we'd have a whole range of schools. Our taxes would drop, as would the prices of schools (don't believe that it will be thousands of dollars to go to school; hardly) and the education quality would shoot up, and with less bureaucracy, the money being poured into an individual school - from the students - would more directly benefit the students.

---

Buraccuracy, you raised a good point here. Schools need less of this, but I think when people are working for money, there will be more buraccuracy than ever. More letters to sign, more school 'plans' etc etc.

On this point also, a school is most certainly NOT cheap to run. A school needs to be kept up, heated (expensive here in Wisconsin), secure, roomy, and obey so many strict government issued codes, that I don't see a school being able to be paid for (cheaply) by 500 students. Bottom line is profit with priviatization. To make profit, schools have to run very clear of the red. There are a lot of expences in running a school, more than the parents of a handfull of kids could prolly afford. (I am talking the middle low class under $40K a year.

Quote:

---

There are very few things that a government can do better than an individual concern can.

---

There are also a lot of things a government can do better. The best way to work things is having individual concern work hand in hand with the gov't.

Quote:

---

People who like to scare others into socialism (usually with quotes like, "That'd make school only for the rich! The poor have a right to learn!") are working under the failed premise of being unable to see past the present. They see the way it is now (another failed attempt; another socialized mistake) and make the mistake of thinking that if all schools were privatized, then all schools would be expensive and breed stuck-up brats who have no respect for knowledge.

---

While I can tend to agree with you here, I must say that privatized students would care more for thier educations, simply because the parents want to see thier money well spent. If only parents got so involved in their children's affairs in a public school. The cause may be the privitization here, but the direct (motor) cause, is the parents involvemnet (even if it is simply in the form of pressure).

Quote:

---

(To go off-topic for a minute: this is a common problem. When I suggested that welfare systems be abolished to help the poor, a rather innocent, yet grossly uninformed individual of the stereotypical liberal
school of thought responded, "But the welfare system is barely working now as it is, and you wish to take it away?" The idea that the system itself is flawed never struck her - nor most people who believe in it. Rather, they think that we aren't sacrificing enough to keep them running. It is the same with public education; if the system is losing a lot of money and the education quality isn't the greatest, most people assume that it's the people that are flawed, not the system. To make that error is one of the costliest - and most dangerous - errors one can make in this field. It never can occur to a lot of these people that there is a possible world where the current "private" option would be reformed, too. )

---

The strangest part of that story is that people are the ones making all the generalizations and false assumptions. The same individuals you would pin the aspirations of thier children on. The same individual whom could make any mistake, and die for it, at least in a unsocialsitic (Minimal) world. This is why I would have faith in the balance of Individuals vs Society. In your example, the individual make some crudley uninformed assumtuptions. You claim to kill the beast, I claim we should train it.

Quote:

---

The only way to live in a free society with liberty and justice for all is to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy, avoid involuntary taxation for services one wouldn't want, and increase productivity by putting the power back in the people's hands. The only way, therefore, education can exist in a free society is through privatization.

---

Or to exorsize these libierties, and get involved deeper. People here can live like sheep, or can be like yourself ()and I included) and jump into the mess. I merely watch, disect, and talk about it here and there. That small spark though can cause a fire well enough to challenge others to get involved.

I think involvment ins key. We are to watch the government, and remember that we are thier bosses. We need LESS counter-pruductive media involved in polotics, and more prodcutive, fact-based, non-biased overviews of canidates and job possitions available. What better stage than the internet?

I think we both agree, Hachi, that they government has become a thorn in our sides in one way or another. I agree that welfare, education, and even health systems, can be prone to so much abuse. Like I said earlier, instead of killing the beast, we should tame it. The government offers a huge platfrom in wich we can creat a society that allows better equality, while allowing people to arise above the mediocrasy that is offered, and become greater due to thier fiscal situations. Therefore, we are not as socialistic as it would seem, but we are more than we should be. My step back is simply less drastic.

On these same premise, I am sure if we quit paying taxes, and had money to spend on education, other needs would arise, and basic prices would go up as greed came into play. $10 dollar gas? 5 dollar bread. Wouldn't suprise me. You see, companies look at the available funds of an area through market reasearch. Incredibly effective, and an honorable tool indeed. It becomes unballanced, when they propose an amount for food that takes in account those without children, or with out a care in the world, and inflates thier prices based on these numbers. The resulting view of this would be that children are now a Luxury Item. Don't have children, unless your willing to cut (possibly like mad) to pay for thier schooling, healthcare, and every other need they have. This is where this idea looses me. Fiscally loosening up taxes will break the chains of greed and allow people whom live for themselves, to hinder others greatly. Simply put, the government supported education and other socialistic systems, allow us to easily set aside money through taxes (in which we must pay). This money is no longer market applicable, and therefore will keep other prices lower, as the effect that we actually have less money to spend hits.

As for a label, I am currious as to where I would fall. I don't claim to be a socialist, but I belive that society needs to care minimally for those whom need it. The lowest standard of living should be the effect of socialism.

Anyways, I am very tired right now, gotta hit the sack.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

The government can run anything better than a private institution simply because they are not in it for the money...

---

But what makes that wrong? When people are in it "for the money" then they realize that they have to offer a valuable service. I'm not talking about you here, but a lot of people, I think, don't have a firm knowledge of running a business. I mean, clearly, if a school is out for profit at the expense of students, that's bad. But that simply doesn't happen (or, if it does, it cannot last). You're seeing people as sheep, here, who'll pay whatever people demand. I'm telling you; good customer service is key. If a school wants to stay alive, it has to either improve the quality or lower its prices.

Quote:

---

I agree with this theory, but you would basically get different schools. A Wal-mart type school, a Sears type school, etc. All with verying views on educational standards. Sears might like to provide quality education, but the price would be high. Allowing only the kids with money to attend. The wal-mart school would offer the cheapest prices, but the worst education. This would widen the education gap via economic standards. If a kid is born poor, he deserves a chance.

---

I don't see how this is any different than how it is now (private schooling being the "Sears" and public schooling being the "Wal-Mart).

Quote:

---

I don't think that socialism is all bad. It is on points, but the freedom to rise above others (while still paying your part to society) is invaluable. Everyone benefits from society, and there for should pay for it.

---

They pay for it by pursuing their interests. Such as a school aiming for money. If they want more money, they'll offer better education, which is a benefit for society.

Quote:

---

Schools need less of this, but I think when people are working for money, there will be more buraccuracy than ever. More letters to sign, more school 'plans' etc etc.

---

I don't see individually-run schools having more bureaucracy. I go to a private university because the public universities has benchmarks and guidelines that I simply couldn't meet. After meeting with an official from the current private university, I was in. A hell of a lot less bureaucracy.

Quote:

---

On this point also, a school is most certainly NOT cheap to run. A school needs to be kept up, heated (expensive here in Wisconsin), secure, roomy, and obey so many strict government issued codes, that I don't see a school being able to be paid for (cheaply) by 500 students. Bottom line is profit with priviatization. To make profit, schools have to run very clear of the red. There are a lot of expences in running a school, more than the parents of a handfull of kids could prolly afford. (I am talking the middle low class under $40K a year.)

---

Impossible if we are going to run a school fit for three thousand, but if you make a proportionately-sized school, it works.

Trust me, it's not the only industry that accounts for this. Running an airline isn't cheap, as well, but they manage to give affordable prices considering the costs.

Quote:

---

There are also a lot of things a government can do better.

---

Other than the protection of individual rights, I can't think of anything.

Quote:

---

The strangest part of that story is that people are the ones making all the generalizations and false assumptions. The same individuals you would pin the aspirations of thier children on. The same individual whom could make any mistake, and die for it, at least in a unsocialsitic (Minimal) world. This is why I would have faith in the balance of Individuals vs Society. In your example, the individual make some crudley uninformed assumtuptions. You claim to kill the beast, I claim we should train it.

---

I don't care what mistake people could die for, as long as society stays the hell out of my way and allows me to live. That's where the government steps in - any action taken by an individual that hinders him would only take down those who voluntarily joined him.

Quote:

---

Fiscally loosening up taxes will break the chains of greed and allow people whom live for themselves, to hinder others greatly.

---

I won't repeat what I have been repeating, but I will repeat that this is virtually impossible.

American democracy? It's not real democracy when you only have a choice between two people.

Yeah, so what, I am still awake and lurking :D

Several good points, the best being that I am tired and needed to stay on focus and support my ideals better! :D lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

But what makes that wrong? When people are in it "for the money" then they realize that they have to offer a valuable service. I'm not talking about you here, but a lot of people, I think, don't have a firm knowledge of running a business. I mean, clearly, if a school is out for profit at the expense of students, that's bad. But that simply doesn't happen (or, if it does, it cannot last). You're seeing people as sheep, here, who'll pay whatever people demand. I'm telling you; good customer service is key. If a school wants to stay alive, it has to either improve the quality or lower its prices.

---

It is about customer satisfaction, granted. Prices can only go so low, is my main point. When you have a man on top collecting whatever percentage he can, that simply inflates the price a bit. The buisness model you propse is a great model in its virginity, but so many things happen to screw it up. So many different industries just change overnight. Look at the department store rumble. While different song and dances are being done to get people to enroll, the quality of education would suffer for advirtisement, expansion, and other questionable expendetures. Sure, a kid would just have to change schools when the company downsizes, or goes under all toghether.

I think growing up in such termoil would make it harder on kids to get what they need out of education.


I went to a private university, much like yourself. While there was less beruacacy to a point, there was even more when they would kick kids around to make thier numbers 'look' better. A huge mistake I see here is in the job placement areas. A lot of people graduate, and are forced to sign a peice of paper saying that they are "privatly employed" thus not a liability of the college. The college then boasts larger numbers, and creates a falsified positive statistic to hand out.

I trust the government more in these aspects :p . Damn Awkward I know. At least the political figures are in it for the vote, somthing they can loose, where as private school owners are in it for the money. In that, you have no insurrance when you leave. I agree that carful consuming would help alleviate this problem, but I think those energies and resources would be better spent on working on somthing that we already have.

Quote:

---

I don't see how this is any different than how it is now (private schooling being the "Sears" and public schooling being the "Wal-Mart).

Exactly. I am saying that our government should offer a good stable form of education. If someone does not want "wal-mart education" they can enroll at SEARS. The only trick is, the have to pay to keep wal-mart running. This is for a damn good reason in my book, as if only public students would pay the public schools taxes, it would degrade (duh!) but this would give the private sector a chance to make a bloated income, reap the benefits of stocks, loans, and etc to cause the government schools to go under ( or loose out significantly), on the false premesis that they are (that much) better than public schools.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think that socialism is all bad. It is on points, but the freedom to rise above others (while still paying your part to society) is invaluable. Everyone benefits from society, and there for should pay for it.

---

They pay for it by pursuing their interests. Such as a school aiming for money. If they want more money, they'll offer better education, which is a benefit for society.[/quote]

Fair enough, but there are other ways to make money than simply raising customer satisfaction levels. I just don't have enough faith in buisness running schools. Period.

Quote:

---

I don't see individually-run schools having more bureaucracy. I go to a private university because the public universities has benchmarks and guidelines that I simply couldn't meet. After meeting with an official from the current private university, I was in. A hell of a lot less bureaucracy.

---

I do not nessesarily mean student -> school bureaucracy, but mainly such bureaucracy pertaining to the schools from inter school standards, and transfering (Which there would HAVE to be transfers in the event of schools going bankrupt, closing... I would hate to see the effect of a senior having to jump into a new school system with no bearing.)

Like I said earlier, I was in a private U, and I like it a hell of a lot better than government subsidized schools too! I really liked the fact that I had the choice. Take a freedom here, to give a freedom there. /shrug
I seen a lot of beruacracy, as I am sure you may, post graduation. Remember, to these schools, people are paying customers, once your contract with them is done, you are crap. There are a few smart exceptions out there of course, but a lot of the cheaper routes act this way as I have found out from persoanl experience, and from many, many stories.

In this aspect, yes people are sheep

Quote:

---

Impossible if we are going to run a school fit for three thousand, but if you make a proportionately-sized school, it works.

Trust me, it's not the only industry that accounts for this. Running an airline isn't cheap, as well, but they manage to give affordable prices considering the costs.

---

Funny you should bring this highly unstable example into this debate! :D I don't mean any disrespect to that, but lets go with this and look at the airlines. Like airlines, schools would be subject to a lot of standardisation. Some schools will fail to comply, some schools will be stuck in the ruts, and not have the commercial pressence to pull themselves out. These schools would close, and students would prolly be lost.

We have many, many airlines with so many problems. Northwest used a bloated campain to make them look very lavish, but now they are filing bankrupsies left and right. What would happen to the students in this school?

I mean this, when I say that several self serving types will look at these childre, and build a get rich and retire young empire off of them. They will live in the short term, and then leave as so many other buisnesses have done. If they really all worried about making a company that would last, this idea would hold more merit.

I don't care what mistake people could die for, as long as society stays the hell out of my way and allows me to live. That's where the government steps in - any action taken by an individual that hinders him would only take down those who voluntarily joined him. [/quote]

I see your point, I guess. It seems very cold, but it is a point none the less. If you want to live, you can. That is the very point of my beliefs. If you were born into a low income family whom lived in a one bedroom apartment, and could not afford health care. education, or anything else to get your foot up; how would that be fair?

I think turning your back to people's stupidity is one thing, but turning your back to the helpless whom find themselves in that boat because of another's stupidity, what exactly makes thier individual rights less important than your own?

Quote:

---

I won't repeat what I have been repeating, but I will repeat that this is virtually impossible.

---

You should, I don't think I have seen a sufficiant argument go against this. I got into it more in depth in my last post. I have written several papers on this through out my economy classes in college, I don't speak out my ass when I say these things. Its pure logic that I am sure you can respect. If there is more money instantainiously in one area, marketing and good buisness will suck up every dime they can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Light Mage

American democracy? It's not real democracy when you only have a choice between two people.

---

You ccould have written in nader, or mickey mouse if you wanted too -_- and we are... a democradic republic.
Bipper

"To get the specific training to be a Doctor, Chef, RN, Fast Food worker you should have to pay. I think there should be hurdles on the way to achiving your dream."

that makes no sense. it just means the poor remain in the poorest jobs and so will their children be and thir children's children. no matter what their ability if they can't get an education to use it then they are screwed and so are their children.

no private university's exist in scotland. and you still get good and bad ones. glasgow (the one i am at) is one of the finest university's in britain. comes consistantly on top for science and especially computing. it is one of the finest universities in europe and attracts a huge amount of foreign students for that reason. and how is this great institution paid for? taxes. not a private organisation. in 5 years time i hope to leave here with a Msci in computing science from the best university from which i could have gained it. and when i leave society will reap the benefits of my education. i will pay more taxes because i will have a better job, paying back the money required for me to do this, and more. i will provide services beyond what i could have acheived before.

and this without being judged from my monetary wealth. but from purely my ability and intelligence. as education and jobs should be.

and hachifuse is it not wierd that you ask about freedom when your government tortures foreign nationals in guantanamo?

It is the mere though of testing someone with life to get them to fufill thier dream cloud. If everything was just merly handed to you, there would be less specualtion and searching for that perfect career you want.

I don't belive in simply giveing people everything, just a heads up. A doctor would require a hell of a lot more training than most other professions out there. Should the people pay for this? no. That would be a poor and unwise investment, as the person who is willing to sacrifice what is needed to obtain the job, will outshine others. People who want everything given to them, do not deserve everything, but they do deserve life.

In otherwords, give moderatley, and the ones who want to shine, will.
Bipper

it's a test which the poor cannot pass. there is no way a poor person can pay to go to medical school even if he does have the ability.

it is a test limited purely to the poor. and why is that? the rich will not have a problem passing the test.

poor doctors cannot exist if you do not put them on equal grounds of education of the rich. i know myself that i could not have got to univeristy with my fees being paid for. and even then for my first year i need to spend £300 on books and £2500 on accomadation, £1000 on a laptop and ocr scanner needed because of my disability. for this i am given a £830 loan. my parents are not rich and they have sacrificed alot to get me here.

if my parents were less rich i would have not gotten here. even with my grades. so bipper can you tell me why i am less deserving than the rich for my education?

No, read my post again. It says in black and white that I would idealy provide the same platform for the rich and poor to start on. All the money in the world does not buy heart, which gauges people better than raw education anyways. Granted you need both.

A rich person can pay a private institution to teach thier children, I don't care about that. Its life, I don't say that we should hand out the same resources to everyone, and make sure everyone is 100% equal. I just say that we should give everyone a bottom line, which they can fall back on. I do support paid education up to high school standards. In America, you can become whatever you want, Doctor, preiset, ninja, whatever. It may be hard to get into the best schools and such, but perseverance will get you into a school that will teach you what you need.

Half of what you said is covered in my earlier posts. Please read them, before you rephraise what I say to pick a fight, or troll or whatever.

People ARE NOT EQUAL Cloud, I merley stand for the better treatment of the poor, so that they can get and education, and yes, work toward becomming a doctor, or captain of the freaking uss enterprise if they really wanted to. That is why I support the mix of public and private educational sectors!
Bipper

all people are equal and are entitled to the same chances. to grant these chances based on wealth is the problem with american society and private education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and hachifuse is it not weird that you ask about freedom when your government tortures foreign nationals in guantanamo?

---

lol no

Considering I'm not America, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

all people are equal and are entitled to the same chances. to grant these chances based on wealth is the problem with american society and private education.

---

First off:

All people are "created" equal, that is, people have equal chance. That does not make them equal. There are heroes, and there are drug addicts; there are doctors, and there are fast food workers; there are libertarians, and there are the rest (heh).

Chances are based on wealth, actually - that is very true. Do you know what that entails? Do you still work on the false premise that welath is something to be stolen, taken by force, plowed, inherited? American society - no, rational society, which includes any free nation - is based off of some invaluable economic premise: to make money. Making money means to offer valuable services to society. Is American society perfect? Not by a long shot - we need to make people have equal chances. We do that through money - while it doesn't work everywhere, we do not do it by enslaving people.

Money is the root of all good, when it is used correctly.

Yes cloud, people are not created equal
Black != white
Desiease != Healthy
Retarded != Fully Compitent

These things all suck, but we can't poor resources into supplying perfect life to all these people I am a severe asthmatic. I never could do much in the form of sports, I could, but it would require a lot more work on my part. Which I feel is just fine.

I know a man named Davis. He grew up dirt poor, living off patatos and gravy for nearly every meal. He worked hard, holding down a full time job through High School, while still playing three sports. The man really worked hard, and when it came to college, he put his all into it. He seemed to have a lot more respect for the fact he was in college, and always kept his hard working ways. He now has a great job, and a great family. In hindsight, he stongly belives that if he did not grow up in such a harsh enviroment, he would of never gotten the motivation to work so hard. He did, and that demeanor stuck with him to this day.

Thats the great thing about people, they can adjust, and play the cards they have if they really want to. Nothing really is impossible, if you would buckle down and just do it.

The bottom line is simply that saying we are all equal, and deserve equal chances is very counter prodcutive. If we were all given the same treatment, the same chances, and everything we needed, we would become synominous to machines. Life is defined by how a man does things, and why he perseveres through hardships. Giving a person all the tools they need is a noble thing, but the smaller (more importnat) lessons would remain unlearned.

Bipper

people still earn money in a socialist society. it is just harder to grow because as well as helping yourself you help society. the rich still exist in socialist countries. richard branson isn't exactly starving due to labour's tax laws. and the ikea man isn't living on the streets of sweden.

lets take two people. bill and ben. bill is intelligent and is of very good ability. his father is a lawyer and his mother a doctor. bill wants to go to vetinary college to be a vet (a well qualified job). he can do this because a. he has the ability. b. his parents have the money.

ben could be bill's twin. he has the exact same IQ received the exact same grades in the exact same classes. but ben has a problem. his father disappeared when he was 3 and his mother suffers from mental problems and hasn't worked in years. but through that ben managed to achieve excellent grades. and with these grades ben wants to become a vet. but he can't do this. he has the ability and intelligence but the one thing holding him back is his parent's wealth.

so here we have an example where we have to exact equals except for wealth and that is the defining trait which means these people will succeed or fail in live. and this wealth isn't their fault or gain. but circumstance that has nothing to do with them.

they do not have an equal chance. ben never had one.

In America, Ben could still do it. I agree with a lot of the interworkings of the American Government for this reason. Now when you talk about our foreing policy, and Military, I am quite appauled.

America is not exactly socialistic, and it is not one to leave the screwed, well... screwed. At least, that seems to be the notions. Ther are som very prude practices going on that are questionable; but for the most part, America retians a good balance in my eyes.

Bipper

and how could ben still do it? gain an education he can't afford but is able to do?

and why are you appualed when i talk about american foreign policy? because of what i say? or what america does?

No no no cloud; I am not happy with our forien policy either. The more I find out, the more angry I get. There is some good out there, but so much more bad.

Anyways, to get the same education in America Ben would be able to get a lot of grants from the Government, and private institutions. This is almost a guarentee. Plus the government offers Creditless Financial Aid. Basically a long term loan, that does not take payments until 6 months after you are out of school. Making it VERY much possible for any Joe to make it into college. It is very cool imo.

Bipper

so all he needs to do is put himself into huge debt at 18? hardly an equal footing for two equal people.

Cloud, It's fine with me. The debt is not huge, and very manageable. Esspecially with someone whom now has a college degree. If you give everything to people, they will simply be ugreatful and want more. You are proving this to me.


Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

people still earn money in a socialist society. it is just harder to grow because as well as helping yourself you help society. the rich still exist in socialist countries. richard branson isn't exactly starving due to labour's tax laws. and the ikea man isn't living on the streets of sweden.

---

Yeah, he's not living in Sweden at all, because Sweden's taxes are so high that running a profitable enterprise of any size is not viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

so all he needs to do is put himself into huge debt at 18? hardly an equal footing for two equal people.

---

Which is why I'm not going to university yet. I'm going to get a less impressive, shiny job for awhile and be sensible with my money so that I can mitigate the cost when I do go to university. You have to make sacrifices. The answer is not for me to complain about how people aer stealing my jobs, not for me to complain about how some lucky git has the money for college and I don't, it's not for me to complain about how whatever profression I'm trying to get into (In my instance, writing) is obtuse and rigid. The answer is for me to work hard, spend wisely, and reach a position of strength and prestige so that my opinion actually matters (Because I've put two decades of work in.). Change doesn't happen instantly. Improvement doesn't happen instantly. It has to be earned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

But what's the use? Self-respect, self-worth, self-responsibility, and integrity are concepts lost in this forum.

---

Capitalism kicks ass, and so does judging stuff based on merit instead of need.

"Capitalism kicks ass, and so does judging stuff based on merit instead of need." since when was the amount your parents earn your merit?

i earned my place here at university. i worked through disability and a shoddy ned filled school. and for that i will not wait 20 years scrimping a wage in some dead end job and waste a quarter of my life trying to make something of myself. i and everyone else here earned there place based purely on intelligence and ability.

and sweden has plenty of businesses. founded, ran and working in the country and making a healthy profit.

...So, you'll just make other people earn it for you? Nice.

in the same way with my better job with my masters degree i will earn money for their pension, their health treatment and their children's education.

You know, you still haven't given a convincing argument on why I should give the money that I earn to people who don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

so all he needs to do is put himself into huge debt at 18? hardly an equal footing for two equal people.

---

I'm doing it as we speak, and I'm not screaming at the rich to pay for it. I recognize that reality is reality and that just because there are people who are more fortunate does not mean that I have the right to point a gun at them and demand their wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

since when was the amount your parents earn your merit?

---

I explained that already.

Quote:

---

i earned my place here at university. i worked through disability and a shoddy ned filled school. and for that i will not wait 20 years scrimping a wage in some dead end job and waste a quarter of my life trying to make something of myself. i and everyone else here earned there place based purely on intelligence and ability.

---

And blood, the livelihood of the very poor and the very rich.

actually hachifusa you never did explain why the rich by circumstance deserve more than the poor by circumstance.

and hachifusa as education is a founding human right then you have every right to demand it.

and since the very poor don't pay taxes (except vat which goes mostly into the army) i take nothing from them. just the rich who people like me fund by working for. think of it as a step up on the minimum wage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

actually hachifusa you never did explain why the rich by circumstance deserve more than the poor by circumstance.

---

Not deserve. They merely have it. There is no changing that fact, even if you pry it from their dead hands. I don't cry that others have more than me. I don't think comparatively. I work for my own personal effort.

Quote:

---

and hachifusa as education is a founding human right then you have every right to demand it.

---

It's not a right. Read up on eighteenth-century philosophy of natural law - receiving an education is not a right. It's definately a luxury, and I would consider it incredibly important. Why, I'd take loans out for it (I am now, actually). But I don't demand it by right and then look for victims - I mean, progressive educators - to render their services free for me. Or a thug mob (i.e. statist government) to do it for me.

Quote:

---

and since the very poor don't pay taxes (except vat which goes mostly into the army) i take nothing from them. just the rich who people like me fund by working for.

---

Do you believe you are more necessary than your employer to his business?

education is defined in all human rights acts post 1945.

education is not a better car, caviar, or a nice yacht. it is something that is required, needed by all people. and must be given in order to achieve that great american dream. no money, no education, no rise in anything.

without educated people like the people in this university many employers would not be able to gain employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

education is defined in all human rights acts post 1945.

---

Then I do not recognize it. The Democratic Party said that work is a right. Sure.

Quote:

---

education is not a better car, caviar, or a nice yacht. it is something that is required, needed by all people.

---

Oh? Really? It's necessary, hrm? How so?

Quote:

---

and must be given in order to achieve that great american dream. no money, no education, no rise in anything.

---

True enough. Still not a right. What victims does that require?

Quote:

---

without educated people like the people in this university many employers would not be able to gain employees.

---

You are misunderstanding me, and misunderstanding the term "right". A "right" means unnatural, unalienable, something that the government can't take or give. To pursue happiness is a right, but not happiness itself; you will be sad, sometimes, but you will always have the option to be happy. Life is a right. Liberty is a right - despite what the conservatives say. Your property is a right - despite what the liberals say. But education is not a right, because that would require that there be a group of educators giving education despite what they want. You have the right to pursue education, certainly - in fact, it's encouraged. But receiving it is not a right. You do not have to - by right, you can choose to not be educated.

but is not a choice for the poor. it is not a decision to be made if you cannot afford it. but is a right with a cost. and is one of the few that carry. but is a right which cannot be ignored. it is not the place of any person to not recognise the human rights of others. it is set in stone. the right to education is up there with the rest of the rights and to deny it carries the same charge.

it is also a right which benefits everyone both directly and indirectly. a higher educated population brings a better economy, more wealth and a greater country. it is not immediate but give children a better education and a basis for higher and further education then everyone reaps the rewards of a better, more intelligent, greater abled work force.

to live in ignorance is not to live at all.

Quote:

---

so here we have an example where we have to exact equals except for wealth and that is the defining trait which means these people will succeed or fail in live. and this wealth isn't their fault or gain. but circumstance that has nothing to do with them.

they do not have an equal chance. ben never had one.

---

Hence financial aid and scholarships.

Quote:

---

education is not a better car, caviar, or a nice yacht. it is something that is required, needed by all people. and must be given in order to achieve that great american dream. no money, no education, no rise in anything.

---

Meh, although I feel everyone deserves a chance at basic education, you can live, and sometimes fairly well, without higher education.

but that is the problem. yes you can live without it. but you will never better yourself. if you are born into a family that can not afford higher education then you will become a family that cannot afford higher education and so your entire family from now to eternity will be stuck in the same status. and that is not the great american dream.

are financial aid and scholarships open to all who make the grade? or are the weighted in favour of the exceptional?

and fyi the right to work hachifusa is also in the human rights act (article 23). also so is social security (article 22). holidays are covered in article 24. free health care may actually be taken from article 25.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

education which we are discussing here is in 26. and the act specifically states that "higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." it also states it should be free for elementary and fundamental stages and in fact be compulsary at elementary level.

so there you go the 1948 human rights act is actually very socialist. and since the us signed it it should be bound to it.

to fail on the human rights act is a breach of human rights and is punishable in the hague.

Quote:

---

are financial aid and scholarships open to all who make the grade? or are the weighted in favour of the exceptional?

---

Financial aid is based on need, scholarships generally on ability.

are they debt free?

the problem comes in the bill and ben scenario i described before. really they should be able to have the same education even though one can't afford it. and to lay debt on for that is wrong. in the end a graduate benefits society as a whole and aids to the wealth of society.

and are scholarships based on the entry requirements or exceptional grades beyond?

Quote:

---

are they debt free?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

and are scholarships based on the entry requirements or exceptional grades beyond?

---

Depends on the scholarship.

I think we can sum this up with, college is easy as hell to get into in the US. You just have to be smart and find a good college. You can't just jump into some privitized rip your lungs out school, and expect much.

Scholarships are free money given to people whom meet certain criteria. There may be a scholorship out there for being a moron, or one for being Irish. Its all dependant on the private party giving out the scholarships.

Bipper

but the criteria are the problem.

setting a higher entry standard for the poor than the rich is wrong.

Doesn't bother me any. I grew up poor, not dirt poor, but lower income. I never had a dime saved for college, and I went. I got my Assosiates in Programming, and all the certs I need to be where I want to be. Especially in the area's of computer programming, most of the learning you do will be on your own time.

Personally, I think way too many people put way too much stock in college the way it is. Most of your learning will come on your own, and I have worked with so many whome have thier noses in the air because they recived a doctrine or masters in some area. Granted, I know of a few decorated people whom shoes I would gladly lick to get a taste of their knowlage, but all in all, it comes down to the person, not the degree.

On top of all this, My friend Timmy, is a freaking computer super hero. He has never leanred much from the quater of college he took. He knows his stuff though, and is a very intelligent, and has my whole harted trust. The man has more respect from me than half of the people I meet with a degree. It is sad, and entirely true; he makes more money than I.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and fyi the right to work hachifusa is also in the human rights act (article 23). also so is social security (article 22). holidays are covered in article 24. free health care may actually be taken from article 25.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

education which we are discussing here is in 26. and the act specifically states that "higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." it also states it should be free for elementary and fundamental stages and in fact be compulsary at elementary level.

so there you go the 1948 human rights act is actually very socialist. and since the us signed it it should be bound to it.

to fail on the human rights act is a breach of human rights and is punishable in the hague.

---

I completely disagree with their definitions of "human rights", because it is a slap in the face of the word "right", because they are not defining the word correctly.

The US should be bound by it; like I told you before, Cloud, there are a lot of problems with the US, and their signing a ridiculously undefined approximate like this is one of them.

If we define human rights by the number of victims we can find, then we probably deserve all of the problems with the world today associated with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Doesn't bother me any. I grew up poor, not dirt poor, but lower income. I never had a dime saved for college, and I went. I got my Assosiates in Programming, and all the certs I need to be where I want to be. Especially in the area's of computer programming, most of the learning you do will be on your own time.

Personally, I think way too many people put way too much stock in college the way it is. Most of your learning will come on your own, and I have worked with so many whome have thier noses in the air because they recived a doctrine or masters in some area. Granted, I know of a few decorated people whom shoes I would gladly lick to get a taste of their knowlage, but all in all, it comes down to the person, not the degree.

On top of all this, My friend Timmy, is a freaking computer super hero. He has never leanred much from the quater of college he took. He knows his stuff though, and is a very intelligent, and has my whole harted trust. The man has more respect from me than half of the people I meet with a degree. It is sad, and entirely true; he makes more money than I.

Bipper

---

An important thing to make here, so I place now in this post the abbreviation 'QFT'. There is just too much stock placed nowadays in college/university educations. They were never designed for the majority of people to go to, they were designed for the most intelligent to go to for the most skill-requiring jobs, such as doctors and scientists. Now we have Golf Studies. I know plenty of people who went through the system and got very little from it, and I know a fair few people who are smarter and savvier by far, but have a harder time because they figured four years getting a fairly pointless degree was a bad idea.

But pretty much everyone needs to learn to lighten up and take more chances. This counts as both an individual concern and a social one. *Shrugs* I've taken chances my whole life and I'm somewhere pretty great on the whole. The major improvements would come about through people taking a chance with me (For example, allowing me to move to another country.). The status quo would not benefit me (Is not; change is how my life will improve. Always has, likely will continue to for some years to come.).

why is the right to work or be educated a falsehood. on what grounds do you deny people these rights? race? gender? religion? in america it is wealth. america has became such a society that the only worth any individual has the money in his bank. less money = a lesser person. we say this last month with the hurricane. it wasn't about race. it was that these people don't matter in american society. their death is an end to an inconvienence.

arguing with the 1948 human rights convention is a great slap in the face to the 6 years of war which we fought to end the greatest human rights abuse (except africa). that is why the act was made. to prevent such an event happening again. america has just made wealth the factor now not race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

why is the right to work or be educated a falsehood. on what grounds do you deny people these rights? race? gender? religion? in america it is wealth. america has became such a society that the only worth any individual has the money in his bank. less money = a lesser person. we say this last month with the hurricane. it wasn't about race. it was that these people don't matter in american society. their death is an end to an inconvienence.

---

About the hurricane - that is such an obviously foreign viewpoint, because besides being an inhuman apprasial (our government didn't exactly look to kill the people), it's also wrong practically - we have lost a ton of "manpower" and productivity through the hurricane, so to say that inaction occured purposely is ridiculous.

I could explain the concept of rights here, but you're clearly not interested.

Quote:

---

arguing with the 1948 human rights convention is a great slap in the face to the 6 years of war which we fought to end the greatest human rights abuse (except africa).

---

Really? I didn't realize that your mob had a chokehold on what it deems as a human right. I'll remember to be a good citizen and mind the government at all times, because foreign countries know more about human rights than I do.

Remember, kids, America isn't supposed to do what it wants to do. America is supposed to do what the rest of the world wants it to do!

yes in the same way germany was meant to do what the rest of the world wanted and not go on a world conquering quest with a bit of genocide. the rest of the world wasn't too happy with that. in the same way the rest of the world isn't too happy with america's breach of human rights, african genocide and aggressive tendencies.

the government didn't look to kill people. it just cared less.

my mob? you mean the mob that fought against facism and established the declaration of human rights? yeah cos that was such a bad thing to do....... declaring the rights for which all people are subject to was an evil. though of course america laughs in the face of even the most basic human rights. so it makes no difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

yes in the same way germany was meant to do what the rest of the world wanted and not go on a world conquering quest with a bit of genocide. the rest of the world wasn't too happy with that. in the same way the rest of the world isn't too happy with america's breach of human rights, african genocide and aggressive tendencies.

---

Yes Cloud, the U.N. was quick to declare Darfur a genocide and has given the nations of the world the power and indeed duty to step in and put a halt to the situation.

To compare America to Nazi Germany, as you so commonly do, is a categorical insult to a number of groups. It is an insult to the people who dream of a better life in America (If it is so evil and terrible, why is it still the number one destination for immigrants on the planet?). It is an insult to all those who believe in America and who have faith in her, even those who feel she's on the wrong track now. It's an insult to all the people who fought against Nazi Germany. It's an insult to the millions who died because of Hitler. It's an insult to the millions of people in Eastern Europe who have spent the last decade and a half praising and thanking the US for finally ridding them of the USSR. It is an insult to every single American who just wants to go about their lives in peace - and that'll be a good 95% plus, I'll wager. It is an insult to the generations of people who have worked hard, and who have fought for their rights, who have fought or worked for their children and their children's children.

Quote:

---

the government didn't look to kill people. it just cared less.

---

The large portion of the blame lies with the state and local authorities. Yes, Bush could have done more. No, he's not evil for thinking the storm had passed New Orleans without doing too much harm. (Especially not when the BBC, ITV, and Channel 4 were all saying "This is not the disaster which had been feared Katrina would cause." the night Katrina hit.)

Quote:

---

my mob? you mean the mob that fought against facism and established the declaration of human rights? yeah cos that was such a bad thing to do....... declaring the rights for which all people are subject to was an evil. though of course america laughs in the face of even the most basic human rights. so it makes no difference.

---

Yet you rail against a nation of note which actually has an enumeration of Human rights, and a nation where these things are challenged in the courts on a regular basis. I'm in America right now. I know people throughout the country. I don't know of a single person who has been oppressed or tortured or illegally detained.

You forget - more likely don't care - that there are countless Americans who are against the war in Iraq. There are countless Americans who are trying to get the terrorists out of Gitmo and back to their homes. There are countless Americans who don't agree at all with how the country is going. America is not a neo-Nazi enterprise, but sometimes you look that way. You say 9-11 was the new Reichstag fire. But you also seem to say Americans are the new Jews and a new Final Solution is needed.

(Just to clarify, I'm not saying anything bad about Jews. I'm saying Cloud speaks of Americans as Hitler liked to speak of Jews.)

americans i have no problems with so don't dare say that i hate them and want to kill them.

the country i have problems with. and alot of it's soceity.

i would like to know how america has a good human rights record since it breaks a number of human rights laws. and for the record i will name the ones broken in camp x-ray alone. article 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14. such a lovely place is a country which breaks 9 out of 30 human rights laws. that is a huge 30%.

it is also a country which perpetuates the deaths of 50,000 people daily in sub saharan africa. you can say this isn't active genocide. but then you have to argue that the warsaw ghetto wasn't either.

i have nothing against you or any american. i have a problem with america. i do not call for a genocide in america. i call for it's system of government and the way america views itself to be changed.

now tell me why your country thinks that 50,000 people deserve to die for the sake of the american wallet.

Quote:

---

now tell me why your country thinks that 50,000 people deserve to die for the sake of the american wallet.

---

People, first and foremost care about themselves. It's human nature. That said, most Americans don't think in those terms.

don't think in what terms? that their country is partly responsible for 50,000 deaths a day? or about themselves?

many people benefit from death as the holocaust showed. doesn't mean it was right or justifiable in anyway.

A bit of advice, Cloud Number Nine... don't, and I mean DON'T compare the USA to Nazi Germany, or even something that would hint towards that direction, not while I'm registered on this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

americans i have no problems with so don't dare say that i hate them and want to kill them.

---

Then you ought to reconsider how you write about America, because it certainly seems that way.

Quote:

---

the country i have problems with. and alot of it's soceity.

---

Most of which you see through whatever lens foreign people see American society. I doubt even I have a concrete or definitive view, and I've spent a total of a good six months not in a motel, not in Vegas, but with a fairly normal American family in a fairly normal American suburb. So your only reasonable objections are those to do with America's foreign policy. Edit: And I know a great many people throughout America as well. Many of them complain as fiercely as people from outside the US do, if not more so, and much more validly seenig as they're actually IN America and KNOW America and the details of the issues.

Quote:

---

i would like to know how america has a good human rights record since it breaks a number of human rights laws. and for the record i will name the ones broken in camp x-ray alone. article 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14. such a lovely place is a country which breaks 9 out of 30 human rights laws. that is a huge 30%.

---

5 - There's little proof that any torture is going on. Indeed there is a 'terrorist handbook' (For want of a better term) which states it is the duty of any taken prisoner to spread as many rumors about mistreatment as possible. The Koran being flushed down the toilet? Never happened, but you didn't hear the media apologies because it doesn't suit their agenda.

6 - How is this being violated?

7 - Erm, anyone can make a claim of discrimination, but there's no evidence of it here. There are only individuals.

8 - Well if you agree with the rest of them, and then feel people should be getting broken out of prison, this one is valid.

9 - A common error to consider it arbitrary. Out of tens of thousands of combatants, only a few hundred are being held in Gitmo. Of those released, at least ten percent have since been killed or recaptured due to involvement in terrorist acts, and a further ten percent or so have been shown to be linked to terrorist activities but have eluded capture.

10 - I fully agree that this one is being violated and should be sorted out forthwith.

11.1 - So the concept of holding potentially dangerous people in prison until their trial is lost on you? Or should we just let murderers and rapists roam about the place for a couple of months before their trial?
11.2 - No grounds for claiming this has been broken.

13 - A broader issue, and unless you favor opening the borders of every nation on earth to every individual on earth, you have nothing worth hearing when comlpaining this is being breached.

14 - Apparently you have not read part two of the article.

Now if you want to complain about Human Rights being broken, complain about article 12, article 15, and 29.2. The last of these is badly phrased, but not a one of those three are observed even remotely by any nation on Earth.

Quote:

---

it is also a country which perpetuates the deaths of 50,000 people daily in sub saharan africa. you can say this isn't active genocide. but then you have to argue that the warsaw ghetto wasn't either.

---

Yes Cloud, and so are England and France. Now, once again I must point out that most of your most vociferous opponents here, myself included, are equally objecting to trade barriers of any sort. Finally, it is the very socialist measures you so dearly love which lead to the belief that your society is better than the other nations, and which lead to protectionism. These things are problems, but they don't make a nation evil. Trust in the power of massive corporations, they'll break the barriers down within a couple more decades.

Quote:

---

i have nothing against you or any american. i have a problem with america. i do not call for a genocide in america. i call for it's system of government and the way america views itself to be changed.

---

The whole world needs this, not just the USA. America is merely the most prominent of nations at this time.

Quote:

---

now tell me why your country thinks that 50,000 people deserve to die for the sake of the american wallet.

---

Because Britain is a very close friend of America and we support her in many things?

Quote:

---

don't think in what terms? that their country is partly responsible for 50,000 deaths a day? or about themselves?

---

Don't think in the terms of "50,000 people are dying in some distant country for the sake of my wallet".

Quote:

---

many people benefit from death as the holocaust showed. doesn't mean it was right or justifiable in anyway.

---

I didn't say it was justified. It's just a fact of life that people are selfish. And, by the way, America is not Nazi Germany.

I can't believe Cloud actually believes America resembles Nazi Germany, anyone. I think he just is saying that becuase it sounds poetic and he dislikes where America is headed. I mean, it's clearly not a very close resemblence.

lets looks closely at 1933 germany and modern day america. after the reichstag fire the german government put in a set of acts "for the protection of the people and the state" it was to crack down on communists. it included internment without trial, less freedom of speech, more power of the army and police for arrest without warrant or evidence.

in america after the attacks of 9-11 the patriot act was signed that did basicly the same thing except without ending political parties.

the enabling act was also signed in germany allowing hitler total rule due to the war with the commies. bush also tried this but failed. but it was an attempt.

the breach of human rights by both countries is also there. germany with the jews. america with foreign nationals in camp x-ray (this we will come to later)

germany became a little bit more agrressive after the nazis came to power. wanting to reunite all the germans and all that. they secretly wanted world control as was written in mein kamph.

bush wanted to rid the world of terror and so became more aggressive. it must be noted that his cabinet also want world control as written by the npac.

america is not nazio germany. it is 1933 germany. it is getting there. on the edge of a very slipper slope.

darklady. shouldn't people now be thinking in those terms?

the second point there was not about america resembling nazi germany it was about the west benefitting from the plight of africa in the same way many germans benefitted from a simialr scale of death.

now onto the 9 human righst breaches.

5. many people who came out of guantanamo (because they were held for 3 years and weren't guilty of anything) say they have been tortured. these are innocent men not mad raving terrorist. there is one still in guantanamo who was blinded there. and a british man who had his skull fractured and now suffers epilepsy. as well as the testimno of begg and many others as well as the qubark book in use.

the us government's downgrading of the term torture also hints at what is performed there.

6. these people do not receive legal status. so no lawyer or court and so are not equal in law.

7. the discrimination talked about is not racial or otherwise. it is due to the fact they are not given protection of the law as seen by their treatment.

8. they are held in these camps (not jail or prison) and do not receieve legal aid. america refuses to abide by the human rights or war crimes court either and so immediately violates this law.

9. we can relook at the people in quantanamo. including children. a cripple in pakistan at the time. begg also in pakistan. seems to me someone is doing this on a whim.

10. holding people for 4 years is a bit of a bastard really.

11 these men are deemed guilty before they are tried that is why the us excuses the treatment of these men as "terrorists" or "illegal fighters". torture presumes guilt.

13. this is actually in reference to cat stevens. he is no longer allowed back in the us. he is deemed guilty of terrorist offences and so is basicly exiled but has never be tried or found guilty or even arrested for these crimes. which clearly breaches this rule.

14. but as these men have never been found guilty. they are innocent of all charges. never been prosecuted.

i also greatly dislike the eu for subsidies and tarrifs. and it would be impossible to trust corporations which benefit from them or companies like macdonalds which destroy the environment, hamper fair trade and ruin the third world.

america right now needs to be very careful. it is in the same place germany was in 1933. it is angering alot of people. it's cooperation in genocide, it's human rights abuses, it's aggressive stance, it's arrogance are all getting on people's toes. and one day the world may decide that in order for america to be corrected it needs to be defeated. hopefully the future will not see a slide like germany saw and the world will be appease by america changing it's ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

5. many people who came out of guantanamo (because they were held for 3 years and weren't guilty of anything) say they have been tortured. these are innocent men not mad raving terrorist. there is one still in guantanamo who was blinded there. and a british man who had his skull fractured and now suffers epilepsy. as well as the testimno of begg and many others as well as the qubark book in use.

---

The testimony of Begg where he admitted to funding Al'Qaeda and visiting their training camps? Trustworthy fellow there. As I have said, the claims of torture are entirely unfounded and there is some evidence to suggest that lies are being told about it deliberately and with organization.

Quote:

---

6. these people do not receive legal status. so no lawyer or court and so are not equal in law.

---

Fair enough, point conceded.

Quote:

---

7. the discrimination talked about is not racial or otherwise. it is due to the fact they are not given protection of the law as seen by their treatment.

---

So as I said, it's not discrimination (Seeing as that actually requires a particular characteristic to discriminate against.), it's a set of individuals.

Quote:

---

8. they are held in these camps (not jail or prison) and do not receieve legal aid. america refuses to abide by the human rights or war crimes court either and so immediately violates this law.

---

Not even POWs get those, and these people are classed as... what was it again? Illegitimate combatants? Something like that. Anyway, point is, we didn't have a classification for arrested people who don't belong to an army, but who are also not arrested for domestic crimes.

Quote:

---

9. we can relook at the people in quantanamo. including children. a cripple in pakistan at the time. begg also in pakistan. seems to me someone is doing this on a whim.

---

And Begg has admitted on national British news that he's funded and been present at Al'Qaeda training camps. So let's not get into the question of whimsy when your strongest example is an admitted sympathiser at the absolute best.

Quote:

---

10. holding people for 4 years is a bit of a bastard really.

---

Yep, which is why I said I'm with you on this one.

Quote:

---

11 these men are deemed guilty before they are tried that is why the us excuses the treatment of these men as "terrorists" or "illegal fighters". torture presumes guilt.

---

Ordinarily I'd continue to contest this one, but due to the length of time they've been held I have to say I agree.

Quote:

---

13. this is actually in reference to cat stevens. he is no longer allowed back in the us. he is deemed guilty of terrorist offences and so is basicly exiled but has never be tried or found guilty or even arrested for these crimes. which clearly breaches this rule.

---

That's the way the US immigration system works. Any customs official can deny entry for any reason, or no reason, and the form you sign as part of getting in waives any right to appeal this decision. This is patently bull, but on the other hand you could say any nation has the right to keep out anybody it wants to keep out. I disagree with that, but again: Unless you think EVERY nation on earth should open its borders to EVERY individual on earth to come and go as they like as often as they like, for any purpose that they like (I'm loath to say any purpose which isn't criminal, largely because most nations have criminalised hundreds of things which aren't actually criminal at all.), then I don't want to hear one word of lecturing about it. Because if you support anything less than that, then you don't support Article 13 at all.

Quote:

---

14. but as these men have never been found guilty. they are innocent of all charges. never been prosecuted.

---

Back to point 10.

Quote:

---

i also greatly dislike the eu for subsidies and tarrifs. and it would be impossible to trust corporations which benefit from them or companies like macdonalds which destroy the environment, hamper fair trade and ruin the third world.

---

Why do you hate America for what Europe started, and what Europe has perpetuated? America is pretty much as close as any nation gets to a descendent of Europe. There is nothing America has done which rivals one tenth of the evils European nations have commited. It's because of European protectionism that these measures exist. It's the European 'intellectual' elite who've placed these crippling, dehumanising, and murderous socialist measures in place.

Corporations want open trade borders, it lets them buy and sell with more ease. Individuals should want them, because it makes the economy stronger, and allows them to get the best deals they can get. Fair trade (Which is to say; Free trade.) is how to bring the third world up. China and India have embraced capitalism and they're booming economically.

Quote:

---

america right now needs to be very careful. it is in the same place germany was in 1933. it is angering alot of people. it's cooperation in genocide, it's human rights abuses, it's aggressive stance, it's arrogance are all getting on people's toes. and one day the world may decide that in order for america to be corrected it needs to be defeated. hopefully the future will not see a slide like germany saw and the world will be appease by america changing it's ways.

---

America isn't going to be defeated by any external forces. America has hundreds and thousands of nuclear bombs. That's pretty much a perfect guarantee of defense until someone gets SDI - which if anyone, will be America.

America may have certain controversial rules that limit certain freedoms in exchange of protecting its citizens' lives. You could say ultimate and total freedom is more important than actually living (i.e, liberty or death), but some would disagree. But that's another argument.

What you're doing here, comparing the USA to Nazi Germany, is a disgusting and ruthlessly demagogues act. Nazi Germany started a war, murdered millions, and attempted world domination. Drawing lines of resemblence between it and roughly anything is appaling.

So, I suggest you stop. Really.

many people were present at al qaeda camps. he was there due to the bosnian war. a bit like the brits were in spain during their civil war with the international brigades.

and admitting to doing this makes him no less trustworthy.

discriminatgion does not need to be about race. i can discriminaye against and indivual happily. in the playground such an act is called bullying. treat someone adversely differently and it is discrimination.

actually the entire world has a set of rules by which it should treat you people. i just gave you 9 out of 30 of those laws.

as above for begg. and every piece of evidence says he was in pakistan. his family, visa, house, everything. and the other detainees include children. one as young as 10. and another was the taliban's ambassador to pakistan. he obviously was in pakistan at the time. and also is a cripple. i doubt he was rolling around the tora bora mountains.

and i do support article 13

actually america started subsidies and tarrifs before the eu did. in fact before the eu was formed. and the eu laws do not influence at all the us ones.

free trade is not fair trade. and right now free trade isn't just trade either.

america can be defeated. do not think that it can't. if america was to launch a nuke it would lead to it's own destruction and probably the rest of the world if MAD was implemented. everyone knows that and it would be a fool who first started a nuclear war. also there are other ways to defeat a country other than military force.

a scary fact in the world is the power of geurrilla warfare and terrorism. terrorism itself is highly immoral but large organisations have never been truly defeated. that is a scary fact. either they are negotiated with or win. geurrilla warfare has a less high success rate but is something i agree with. and is still feasible and would rule out any chance of a nuclear attack.

9-11 was committed by a small group of fanatic nutters. but recently the numbers of these people have grown. and with a growth in people comes a growth in chance. and with a growth in chance comes a growth in frequency. more and more people are willing not only to perform geurrilla warfare or terrorist attacks on america but there may be enough to make it a regular occurance. and on a huge scale. that is the doomsday scenario. in the same way as america slipping down this slope is another doomsday scenario.

If you actually think the US has no resemblince to the Third Reich. Then you should read this http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...mes;read=34829,

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html ,

http://watch.pair.com/reich.html.
Bush if he wants can become a Dictator. And he most likelly will.
And just so you know ,you actually think anyone in Eastern Europe loves you guys? %70 of Ukrainians wished they still lived under the Soviet Union, while %90 of Russians want to revert back to Socialism. And on top of that they've showed how thankfull they are to the us by protesting against you guys and burning and making a mockery out of your flag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FFGuevara

Bush if he wants can become a Dictator. And he most likelly will.

---

Uh, no he can't. That's constitutionally impossible.

Quote:

---

And just so you know ,you actually think anyone in Eastern Europe loves you guys? %70 of Ukrainians wished they still lived under the Soviet Union, while %90 of Russians want to revert back to Socialism. And on top of that they've showed how thankfull they are to the us by protesting against you guys and burning and making a mockery out of your flag.

---

We're not altruists. Most of us don't care what the rest of the world thinks about us, frankly. Let them rot in their Red Jailhouse, for all I care, if that's what they want.

it was also constitutionally impossible in germany.

and not caring about the rest of the world is far different from going round invading it an torturing civillians. which isn't very nice really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

it was also constitutionally impossible in germany.

---

The Wiemar Republic had been in force for about fourteen years before it was demolished by Hitler. Most people probably didn't know much about it, there was only going to be one small group of youths who were well-educated in it (And that's assuming it was part of the school system.), and being so young they wouldn't have had the power to do much about it anyway.

America, on the other hand, has a constition some two hundredm plus years of age. Every student who goes through school learns about it, and having been there for so long there are plenty of older, more powerful people who know about it and are now in a position to make a difference.

Incomparable situations.

considering how the patriot act breaks the constitution it obviously isn't working.

That's very true, Cloud. However, it is an incomparable situation. If Bush had another possible term and whatnot, it could be possible. However, he is going slowly, if his goal is dictatorship. He has taken some civil liberties and started an illegal war (but NOT for the reasons you like to advocate), but he doesn't really have the time left for dictator.

Besides that, more than half of Congress hates Bush, more than half of the population dislikes him as president, and a much, much higher percentage would not tolerate a dictator, especially Bush. I mean, the people of Germany wanted Hitler in office (more or less) and wanted him to become dictator; Bush wouldn't last two seconds here. I know a bunch of guys in our military who absolutely hate Bush, so don't pull some "military force" part.

all bush would need to gain a better acceptance is another terrorist attack. before 9-11 he was stuck around the 50% margin. the 12th of september he was up at 95%. now i highly doubt the us would orchesrate or allow a terrorist attack purely to gain a tighter grip on the population. but if one was to occour i'm sure the chance would be abused.

can i ask hachifusa why you say the war was illegal?

Quote:

---

all bush would need to gain a better acceptance is another terrorist attack. before 9-11 he was stuck around the 50% margin. the 12th of september he was up at 95%

---

At this point, another terrorist attack would do more harm to Bush than good. After 9-11, he promised to make us safer, but a second attack on US soil would likely show alot of people just how much of the war on terror is absolute B.S.

A second terrorist attack would actually prevent him from becoming a Dictator since everyone will lose faith in him. We cannot predict the future but the US is going down the same road the Third Reich went in the 30's and 40's. What destroyed Germany was that it underistimated Russia. If the US attacks a Country with a underistimated Military (Brazil, Iran, N.Korea and China) you'll get owned if you pull the same BS you did in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

can i ask hachifusa why you say the war was illegal?

---

Only Congress is allowed to declare war; the president has no such power. It was clear from the beginning that this was Bush's war, and it was also clear that he was using every tactic possible to get there. I mean, if they did have WMDs, it wasn't a big enough threat to merit the war. It's clear here, just as in the rest of the world, that this was revenge on his part.

It was not illegal, however, becuase other countries didn't support it. Frankly, I wouldn't care about that; America doesn't answer to the rest of the world, and nor does any country. It wasn't illegal because we invaded them first; we had weak reasoning, but ultimately they were a "criminal state" and any free society had the right to invade.

all countries answer to the rest of the world. that's why we have an internaational court and why we had the nuremburg trials and are currently trying milosevic.

no country has the right to invade another country unless it has real reason. "they blew up my radio station" is not a good reason.

"I enslave and torture my people" is a good reason, usually.

would we all be talking differently if iran had wandered across the border? if iraq was free for anyone to take would the world have cared just the same if iran had went to take baghdad.

and mugawbe enslaves and tortures his own people. but it ain't a good enough reason for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and mugawbe enslaves and tortures his own people. but it ain't a good enough reason for him.

---

Actually yes it is, I've said for some time now that if we are taking an interventionist policy, Mugabe should be among the first to go.

but the problem is americaq is taking a selectivelly interventionist policy.

Quote:

---

"I enslave and torture my people" is a good reason, usually.

---

Not for America. There are plenty of torturers and murderers that America has ignored or actually supported. Saddam (prior to invading Kuwait) being a prime example.

Exactly. I don't think America should go anywhere at all or everywhere. Clearly, it is not our problem how the rest of the world is dealing, and I fully support a semi-isolationist position in which the only time America deals with the rest of the world is when they want to trade with another free society.

If we're going to invade Iraq, let's start invading all of the rest of the countries that lack freedom and individual liberty.

And Cloud - if Iran invaded Iraq, it would clearly be for the wrong reasons, considering that Iran is chock-full of Islamo-Fascism as well, and we wouldn't see a much better government if the Iranians led the attack.