Peace prize

[Shaggy Hiker]

There are a couple moderators who are older than the rest, though I won't name any names.

For the average person, 80% of your lifetime medical costs will be incurred in the last two years of your life. If you think about that, you'll realize that makes a fair amount of sense, especially these days. The costs are incurred dealing with the issue that ultimately kills you.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

When it comes to prostrate cancer, I would want to know much more about the study. As you probably know, that is in the future for most men in the US, but will kill very few. In fact, for many people, it isn't even treated, as it is not going to be the cause of death.

Shaggy makes a very good point here Xanith, and just picking on one very narrow form of illness such a Prostate cancer isn't really helpful.

I am not sure how this constitutes a biased view unless of course statistics have been skewed, and patient surveys about their dissatisfaction with the NHS are biased, or the stories in the BBC are incorrect (which I suppose can be true).

The NHS is a very political issue over here in the UK so of course statistics are skewed it depends on who is compiling the statistics and this goes both ways.

The only studies I was looking at was survivability rates for 5 years after initial diagnosis/treatment (which is typical for cancer studies)

1 of the problems in comparing this kind of data is in the US you definitely have earlier detection rates than in the UK so from the point of detection, those in the US have longer to live, but not necessarily from the point they contracted the Cancer.

As for your comment about UK defending the NHS. That's pretty insightful. We, as a species, tend to resist change and cling to what has worked.

Yep this is fair comment to some extent, however i would never claim that the NHS is a perfect organisation that doesn't need change, it does.

What i would defend it against is the bashing it sometime gets in the UK & US Media which isn't really fair or accurate.

Which means for most people they have gotten treated for colds or a broken limb or some other minor incidents in their life and the NHS has performed those tasks well. However they haven’t had to personally deal with cancer or other major health crisis yet

Well that's a bit of a naive statement, i have stated earlier in this very thread, my partner has been diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis, which is a pretty serious disease, she is currently being treated on the NHS and treated well.

My Grandma also had a stroke several years ago from which she has made a full recovery, again treated & operated on by the NHS.

On top of this my nephew was hit on the head with a Cricket ball 2 years ago and got a major blood clot about the size of a ping-pong ball pressing against his brain, again he was operated on perfectly successfully by the NHS and they did a great job.

There are 3 examples right there.

One persons experience shouldn’t constitute either an indictment or acceptance of the status quo.

Maybe it shouldn't but it often does, someone personal experience of something will always colour there judgement. If you go to a Restaurant that is highly recommended and yet when you go you have a terrible meal you will form a judgement based upon your experience it is human nature.

from what I have read about the NHS in the UK it’s not the first place I would want to be if I had to deal with a major illness.

From what i have read i would not want to go to New York because i have heard people crash planes into buildings there !!! (i am obviously making a point here)

We can all read a few articles about something and rush to judgement, basically the NHS is not nearly as bad as it is sometime made out in the press, and often those knocking it have a distinct political agenda.

We all know that it is not perfect and there are definitely thing it could do better, there are newer more effective drugs that are difficult to get due to there cost for instance.

A question to you though Xanith, what do those in the US do who haven't got or cannot get Health Insurance which would tend to be the poorest amongst us?

[Xanith]

A question to you though Xanith, what do those in the US do who haven't got or cannot get Health Insurance which would tend to be the poorest amongst us?

Well the poorest in the US have access to many types of health care, on the Federal level they have access to Medicaid, which is available to the poorest of people to provide them health insurance. Poor children on the federal level also have access to programs like SCHIP which provide health care to poor children, this program was recently expanded to those families making around 80k a year (which isn’t exactly poor but hey the government loves spending our money). Also on the state level most states have their own health insurance programs that cover the poor, my state does.

So the poorest amongst us in the US does have access to health care coverage if they apply for it. If all else fails however and someone cannot obtain any health insurance through the programs from the state and federal government they can walk into any emergency room in the country and get treated. Federal law prohibits refusal of treatment based on any individual’s ability to pay.

X

[homer13j]

There are 3 examples right there.

There are plenty of anecdotal stories on both sides of the argument. There are quite more than a few horror stories about the NHS as well. None of these stories prove anything.

A question to you though Xanith, what do those in the US do who haven't got or cannot get Health Insurance which would tend to be the poorest amongst us?

Most of the uninsured here are uninsured by choice. They are young, healthy and see no need to spend exorbitant sums on something they probably won't use for many, many years.

These are the people specifically targeted for prison time by the house bill. Yes, prison. There will be no more choice if this bill becomes law.

As I stated before, the "poorest among us" already get free health care. And as I also stated before, this bill is nothing more than another giant government power grab that does little to solve our problems except to create yet another giant, powerful, and completely unaccountable government bureaucracy that is solely responsible for them.

I'm curious as to why foreigners (particularly Brits) who will not be affected one bit by this bill want so desperately to see it become law. Why do you care? What is in it for you?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

There are plenty of anecdotal stories on both sides of the argument. There are quite more than a few horror stories about the NHS as well. None of these stories prove anything.

Yes i agree, that was part of my point, i could probably recount as many good things about the NHS as Xanith could bad things neither my experiences nor Xanith reading a few articles proves anything.

I'm curious as to why foreigners (particularly Brits) who will not be affected one bit by this bill want so desperately to see it become law. Why do you care? What is in it for you?

Personally i couldn't care less whether the bill comes into law or not it really up you Americans what kind of Health care system you want, they all have there flaws.

I believe mainly in my posts that i have been sticking up for the NHS which several posters have been knocking, or using as evidence as to why a national health bill or service or anything of the sort is a bad idea.

All i am saying is the a government run health service in itself is not a bad idea, the implementation of such an idea maybe but that is a different argument.

Also i like to Argue :0)

[demotivater]

Also i like to Argue :0)

The government has trouble running cash for clunkers, social security, passport program, etc etc etc (the multitude of other government programs that are fubar escape me). Running something as complex as health care? You've got to be kidding me. And mandating it under penalty of jail time and fines? A friend of mine refuses to get health insurance because "he doesn't need it". I disagree, but if all this bs comes to fruition, he'd face jail time and a fine he can't afford (forcing him to get other government assistance no doubt). For a party that espouses freedom of choice (at least when it comes to killing babies), I wonder why they're so against choice in this issue?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, the postal service was a total failure. Air traffic control...what a mess. Rural electrification, we all know how terribly that worked out. Interstate highways...don't we wish. Social security...hasn't kept the old folks from the home. The multitude of other government programs that are fubar escapes me, too.

The point about not needing health care is this: The insurance industry is based on the premise that the lucky pay for the unlucky against the probability that the lucky will BECOME the unlucky. When it comes to health care, we are all unlucky. It's just a question of when. Eventually, the costs for the majority of the population over the course of their lifetimes, will be FAR greater than their contribution over the course of their lifetimes. This is inevitable unless the rate of cost increase was to drop considerably. Eventually, our health will be the single biggest expense in any of our lives. For many people, this is already the case. Perhaps for most of us this is already the case, we just don't know it yet.

I have a friend who's wife had a baby with some severe complications. A decade or two back and they would have died. Now all are alive and well, but they have spent more on that baby than they will make in their lives.

My grandmother has managed to incurr costs that dwarf her total life time income just by living a long, though healthy, life. Suppose I was to live as long. My major expense, currently, is a mortgage payment, which dwarfs all my other routine expenses. That payment will be made for 20 years or so, and in the end I will own a house. The cost of that house would cover a decade (perhaps) in a nursing home (it's not an expensive house, as they go). How many years should I be paying these fat payments to cover my end of life care? Well, none, I suppose, because the govenment will cover me through medi-whichever (I can't keep them straight). How much have I paid into that? A trivial monthly amount deducted from my fictional gross pay. Since I live on my net salary rather than my gross, I perceive that I have paid nothing. Of course, that means that all y'all (at least the US contingent) have paid for my health care via your taxes. It would make more sense that we paid into the fund early and often, because very few of us will avoid a MAJOR medical bill at some point in our lives. Fortunately, the fact that the bill will likely come due in the last year or two of our lives, and the fact that if it isn't paid, we won't be responsible for it (you might have to think that one over a bit), means that we can ignore it for now. We do tend to ignore expenses that will occur in a distant future, even if the magnitude is roughly known. The bill is forcing people to deal with their imminent cost to society. Sure, some will die quickly and therefore will be cheated out of that money, but most won't, and those who are will not care.

[demotivater]

Is that the same postal system that is about bankrupt? And social security, are you kidding me? Do you think you'll collect? At least they had the foresight to not increase the amount received by recipients since the cost of living didn't go up this year.

Support of this debacle is directly proportionate to how far your head is stuck up your rear end.

[homer13j]

Yeah, it's always entertaining to hear someone hold up Social Security as something the gov't does right.

It's nothing but a giant pyramid scheme. And it will collapse eventually as all pyramid schemes do. When this was addressed by congress several years ago the Dems claimed nothing was wrong and it was all a nefarious Republican plot to "cheat granny out of her retirement." And so the debate ended leaving the next generation to clean up the mess - if they are even able to.

If something like SS was attempted by private individuals they would be rightfully imprisoned for fraud.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Is that the same postal system that is about bankrupt?

Yeah, it's always entertaining to hear someone hold up Social Security as something the gov't does right.

Is there anything your government does right ? is government in America just institutionally corrupt or something ? This is a serious question ?

And what about the other government programs that Shaggy mentioned ?

I know in the UK when we have privatised major Public services for instance the Railways the Private companies have generally made a pigs ear of it, and the cost of using the service has gone up massively, and competition does not seem to be regulating fairs.

Gas & Water services which have also been privatised have had again failed to introduce competition into the Market. Maybe it is these perceived failures of Private enterprise to run major public services which at least in my country makes government run services more popular (at least than in America).

[Shaggy Hiker]

The postal system is going bankrupt because of a change in the way we use it. It was a viable and successful organization for a couple hundred years, but you could say the same about all the village blacksmiths, too. Times change. Technology changes. What once made sense, makes sense no more. However, the postal system isn't dead, it's just transitioning to a new model for the new age.

As for Social Security, the concept was good, the law was good, but politicians were given the keys to the lockbox, and can't stop raiding it. This actually happens to every similar system that I am aware of. When some revenue is dedicated to a certain objective, the politicians can't stop dipping into it for other projects. Doesn't matter which party, either. However, in the case of Social Security, to answer your question: Yes, I think I will collect. Perhaps I am older than you think, but Social Security will not be allowed to collapse before I have collected. The piggy bank was raided by the piggys on both parties, but they left IOUs that they will feel obligated to repay for the same reason we pay on the national debt: The alternative is unthinkable to the politicians. The only way that Social Security will be abandoned, and all the seniors who count on it cut off, is if the Rs do it, and they won't.

On the other hand, this is just another case where everybody discussing the issue is too young to have a personal memory of the situation before Social Security. Just like the anti-vaccine people who link vaccination to all kinds of other issues, it's a worry they can fret over because the greater worry that vaccination solved is no longer a concern. In this case, however, most of you know somebody who receives Social Security. Sit down with a group of those people and discuss how their finances would look if the program were to end tomorrow. Then consider what this country would be like without it. If that alternative looks good to you, then either they lied to you, you didn't actually talk to them, or your medication is a bit too strong.

[homer13j]

As for Social Security, the concept was good, the law was good,

Both the concept and the law were flawed from the very beginning since SS relies on a constantly growing population. Once that ended it became just a matter of time before the system faced collapse. Yes, both parties raided the SS surplus when it existed, but only one party so far has attempted to reform this mess. The other party has done nothing but stonewall and do their best Frank Drebin impersonation: "nothing to see here, folks. Move along..."

The only way that Social Security will be abandoned, and all the seniors who count on it cut off, is if the Rs do it, and they won't.

Perhaps now, but I am hopeful that someday we may elect politicians with some backbone to do something to solve the problem. But I'm certainly not holding my breath. And like anyone with any sense should do I'm not relying on SS to be there when I retire.

Government entitlements never die. They knew this perfectly well when SS was implemented in 1935.

Then consider what this country would be like without it.

Ah, yes... A country where people actually rely on themselves instead of government entitlements. Where our government does what is constitutionally required and not one bit more and never panders to the populace with handouts and entitlements in order to gain and hold political power. Where people are free to earn and invest as much as they can without interference. Where the burden of big government becomes more important than the handouts received from it. It's quite a wonderful thing to contemplate, actually. It would also mean the end of the Democrat party as we know it.

It'll never happen. Our population has become too addicted to suckling on the teat of big government.

Is there anything your government does right ?

Well, Shaggy mentioned the highway system which does pretty well despite the occasional catastrophic bridge failure. As long as participating states don't decide to spend all that gas tax money on their own pet projects designed to create more dependence and political power.

is government in America just institutionally corrupt or something ?

Ding, ding ding! You've nailed it right there. And it's not just Washington that's hopeless. Entire cities like Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, St. Louis, San Fransisco or any city in Ohio, New Jersey, Michigan, New York, etc. have become synonymous with corruption.

In other words any state or city government has been dominated by Democrats for more than two decades or so is more than likely institutionally corrupt.

[zaza]

...which, of course, is completely different to taking your armed forces into an unnamed Middle Eastern country on the pretext of WMD whilst really looking to justify your exorbitant military budget to your own people and hand some fat reconstruction projects to select domestic corporations at the expense of the taxpayer, perhaps with a view to sitting in one or more boardrooms a few years down the line.
Oh, and getting an opportunity to get some good old-fashioned revenge in at the same time.



Both sides are at it, and you know it.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

The postal system is going bankrupt because of a change in the way we use it. It was a viable and successful organization for a couple hundred years

A similar thing is happening to the Royal Mail in the UK. email & other forms of electronic messaging have decimated its business, and although it is not yet going bankrupt it losing a lot of money and the government for good or bad are looking to part privatise it.

Both the concept and the law were flawed from the very beginning since SS relies on a constantly growing population

Two questions here, why does it require a constantly growing population ? and has the population of the USA stopped growing ? serious questions both.

firstly i know what system we have over here but not the US system, and secondly i know that the UK population is still expanding and is projected to Grow by another 10 million in the next 20 years, so is the US population growth static ?

In other words any state or city government has been dominated by Democrats for more than two decades or so is more than likely institutionally corrupt.

While i didn't agree with it all i actually thought your last post was quite a good post but that's were you lost me, corruption is never limited to 1 side, if i look up Republican corruption in google it returns loads of results on;

Rod Blagojevich
George Ryan
John Rowland
Bob Taft
Ted Stevens

Just to name a few, now i have only ever even heard of 2 of these (ted stevens & blagojevich) but it seems to me that corruption swings both ways.

(i am sure looking up Democrat corruption would yield a similar number of results)

Also how does the love of small government go hand in hand with under George W Bush spending massive amounts on Defence and having 1 of the largest defence departments and (according to Shaggy in a previous post, who am sure is impeccable with his facts :0) ) largest governments in recent years ?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Both the concept and the law were flawed from the very beginning since SS relies on a constantly growing population. Once that ended it became just a matter of time before the system faced collapse.

Not true. The intention was to spend the interest rather than the capital. By raiding the capital the situation has been turned into what you describe, but it wasn't set up that way.

Yes, both parties raided the SS surplus when it existed, but only one party so far has attempted to reform this mess.

You thought their idea of reform was good? Put it all in the market was the idea, which is based on market performance that has only been seen in our lifetimes (well, mine anyways, I'm not sure how old you are). Putting your life savings into stocks is not advised for any but the young because you need a long perspective to avoid losses. For the middle aged and older, stocks should be a declining percentage of investment holdings.

Perhaps now, but I am hopeful that someday we may elect politicians with some backbone to do something to solve the problem. But I'm certainly not holding my breath.

Good thing, as you'd die first if you did. Politicians follow game theory like everybody else. The problems that they actually have to solve are not the theoretical problems that we would like them to solve. As it turns out, it takes lots more than backbone to make decisions that end your career when painless (for you) alternatives exist.

And like anyone with any sense should do I'm not relying on SS to be there when I retire.

Government entitlements never die. They knew this perfectly well when SS was implemented in 1935.

Nice pair of statements. You say that it will never die, but you expect it to die before you retire. I applaud your sense of longevity, but doubt that you can put it into practice.

Ah, yes... A country where people actually rely on themselves instead of government entitlements.

Yeah, go back and look at the quality of life post retirement prior to SS. Don't look too hard, though, as there was no retirement for the majority. You worked until you couldn't work anymore. Then you lived off charity of family or community until you died, which tended to happen pretty quickly as there wasn't effective health care (let alone insurance). Part of the issue today is that people don't expect to die within five years of retirement as they used to.

Where our government does what is constitutionally required and not one bit more and never panders to the populace with handouts and entitlements in order to gain and hold political power.

Right, no roads, no rural electrification, no military to speak of, forget about clean water, food inspection, clean air, or safe and effective drugs. Of course, you covered that. The politicians do what gets them elected, which includes not ignoring the demands of the people.

Where people are free to earn and invest as much as they can without interference.

And that includes any quack, snake oil salesman, or shady investment pusher that wants to work.

Where the burden of big government becomes more important than the handouts received from it. It's quite a wonderful thing to contemplate, actually. It would also mean the end of the Democrat party as we know it.

And even faster an end to the Republicans, as they have built government faster than the Democrats for the last few times they've been in power.

Well, Shaggy mentioned the highway system which does pretty well despite the occasional catastrophic bridge failure. As long as participating states don't decide to spend all that gas tax money on their own pet projects designed to create more dependence and political power.

Mostly, I would agree. The bridges are generally woefully beyond expiration, and are only slowly being replaced. In this state, that is because the Rs have failed to follow the demands of the R governor, but there isn't enough money to replace more than a fraction of the aging infrastructure. Federal gas tax isn't very high, and state gas tax...funds whatever.

[homer13j]

Just to name a few, now i have only ever even heard of 2 of these (ted stevens & blagojevich) but it seems to me that corruption swings both ways.

Uh... Blago is a Democrat very closely associated with Obama. He was busted trying to sell Obama's open senate seat to the highest bidder.

(i am sure looking up Democrat corruption would yield a similar number of results)

I think you would get quite a bit more than five (four legit) names.

Also how does the love of small government go hand in hand with under George W Bush spending massive amounts on Defence and having 1 of the largest defence departments and (according to Shaggy in a previous post, who am sure is impeccable with his facts :0) ) largest governments in recent years ?

The main reason the Republicans lost power was because they insisted on acting like Democrats. True conservatives stayed home last election when they gave us more of the same with McCain.

Oh, and conservative != Republican.

Nice pair of statements. You say that it will never die, but you expect it to die before you retire.

No, I said I was hopeful. Big difference.

Don't look too hard, though, as there was no retirement for the majority. You worked until you couldn't work anymore. Then you lived off charity of family or community until you died

People used to save and invest for their retirement. The 1929 stock market crash wiped out many people's investments (although the Dow average returned to it's Sept. 1929 levels by the following spring) opening the door for implementation of SS.

And that includes any quack, snake oil salesman, or shady investment pusher that wants to work.

It's not the government's job to protect people from their own stupidity.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I think you would get quite a bit more than five (four legit) names.

Even if there are more than 4 it doesn't really matter it still shows that corruption is party independent it depends on the man or woman not the party they support.

People used to save and invest for their retirement.

Did they, i know that my grandparents (on my mothers side) worked until they were 65 and then drew a state pension (which isn't a lot) they never had enough money to save anything, they had 4 kids to bring up. You have to remember post war was a lot more austere in Europe than the US.

The stock market is a fairly recent invention what did people do before that ?

It's not the government's job to protect people from their own stupidity.

But it is their job to look after the vulnerable, according to the UK governments own figures - The typical victim of doorstep crime is aged 81, female and living alone

[Xanith]

You thought their idea of reform was good? Put it all in the market was the idea, which is based on market performance that has only been seen in our lifetimes (well, mine anyways, I'm not sure how old you are). Putting your life savings into stocks is not advised for any but the young because you need a long perspective to avoid losses. For the middle aged and older, stocks should be a declining percentage of investment holdings.

Actually it wasn’t all in the Stock Market. It was only 10% from what I remember. And you didn’t have to put it in the stock market, much the same way as 401k’s allow several different investment options so would have the retirement plan. You can put the money in a simple CD or even in real estate, you didn’t have to put the money in stocks.
In my 401k as I get closer to retirement I am going to take more and more money out of stocks and put them in safer short term investments like CD’s that earn a more stable return, but generally have a lower return rate. Anyone who is at retirement age and still has all of their money in stocks is an idiot.

The rate of return on SS is only around 1-2%. Where the method of adding money to the market (privatized system) has been tried in such States as Texas and in countries like Peru the rate of return has been much higher. In other words it worked. The problem with a privatized system is that it takes control and power out of the hands of government and gives it to the individual, something which those in power have a hard time giving up.

X

[tome10]

This guy Writes better than me. ;-)
http://www.whoisjohngalt.com/2009/11...servatism.html

a liberal on conservatism
Note: This is the third of four posts about my exchange with Justin.
Also see Part 1, Part 2 and Part 4.

Justin writes:

Conservatives are so attached to their precious tradition that when a better idea comes along, they can't see it for what it is simply because it's different from what they already know. I understand the value of tradition, but we cannot continue to use it as a substitute for governance.

The false premise here is that "tradition" is either arbitrary or antiquated when in fact it is neither.

A progressive should recognize that "traditional" American values are highly evolved, originating in a philosophical quantum leap known as the Age of Enlightenment. The lifestyle Americans enjoy is nothing less than Darwin on display: survival of the fittest. Not some zero sum game nonsense of Americans surviving while everyone else perishes, but evolution in the sense that our enlightened freedom displaces the natural poverty that other social and political structures just can't seem to eradicate.

The liberal laments that our prosperity is shackled by so much tradition (property rights, anyone?) without ever recognizing traditional values as the very source of that prosperity.

Every authoritarian government in history has been an experiment in all the same principles of liberalism. Progressives have new theories, but their ideas are neither better nor new.

Progressive income taxation did not work when the king took all the money for himself, and it does not work any better when the elites give it away to their favored interests. Prosperity isn't bound by whether there's a law against poverty -- the problem is that less gets produced when there are laws against wealth. And that's exactly what all liberal policies are, whether imposed by medieval nobility or modern-day elites.

Conservatism is not an impediment to progress; it is the source of progress. America is not what it is because of where it's going -- it's great because of where it's coming from. The individual liberty that "progressives" want to suppress in fact was, and still is, the most progressive idea in the history of human government. It was conservatism, not liberalism, that made America great.


If you want to see what liberalism has brought us, consider the $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that would be necessary to sustain progressive sacred cows like Social Security and Medicare. Or the subprime housing mess, which is a direct result of liberals tampering with the mortgage market.
Justin also says:

...You seem to fear science, which is hilarious to me.

I have no fear of science. Like economics, which I refer to all the time for explanations of why liberal policies don't actually work.

It's religious cults like liberalism that scare me. And rightly so, considering that leftism in all its various forms has killed over a hundred million people in the last century alone.

In fact, if liberals had ever applied the scientific method to their own ideas as they've been tried across history, liberalism would have been declared a failed experiment decades ago.

But liberals continue to hope and believe. That's faith; not science at all.

[tome10]

The Video of Reagan on Healthcare he talked about everywhere else exchanging one set of rules for another. But here Our Constitution was written by the Original Radicals. That Based our Society on Individual Freedom and the Rights Endowed by Our Creator "GOD" Not "GOV". Europe has always had Kings and Monarks, and Ruling Elitists. I just don't think you Progressives have totally thought this through. I think we're heading for trouble, and since you guys were unable to take away our guns, and the Military is nothing more than a bunch of Crazies that Pledge to defend the Constitution. Not Dem Not Rep. Constitution. I think you guys need to abandon the Marxist ship.
Ohh and if you say that Marx guy. Who I might add is not an American. So I doubt his ideas truly belong here. But say I allow the premise. So from what you say about his beliefs. He would in fact be against the Gov Takeover of our Medical System. He would be for states rights. I hope he would be against the Demonization of the Rich because they start all these Not for Profit Organizations who help the Community. He would be for Religious Organizations providing Healthcare for the Needy in their Community. Good people Volunteering their Time and Money to the people who need it the most. But that happens only when the GOV isn't taking their money and redistributing it to people who are living better than they are. With that said, I realized you can take your Secular Society and shove it. I prefer our Civil Society, but keep this path and it won't be Civil much longer.

[tome10]

Sorry, one more.. This one is good and sarcastic. I love Sarcasm. ;-)

http://www.whoisjohngalt.com/2009/11...a-liberal.html

[Shaggy Hiker]

Smoke and emotion, with not enough substance to give it weight.

However, I want to talk about something different. I've been in this world for several decades at this point. At one time, I thought there was a normal arc to the average life, and I didn't really want much more than that. Now that the arc has likely peaked, and I am not likely to live as many more days as I have lived to this point, my view has changed a bit. Whether in small business, government, idealistic non-profit, or anywhere else I have ever been, there seems to be a common thread: Humans seek religion.

I'm not talking about a large organization bent on the worship of a theoretical being, but the adherence to ritual. In the small case, that comes down to doing things because "we've always done them that way." That can be as simple and personal as a morning cup of coffee, or as large as federal regulations. If you think over your day, minute by minute, you will probably realize that the majority of the actions you take are part of a ritual, though you might have dozens, or even thousands, of rituals that you participate in over the course of a single day. The similarity between them all is that you don't think about doing them, you just do them. Nor am I suggesting that they are all, or even mostly, bad.

However, look at large systems like the government. The federal government is the biggest single entity in this country. How many rituals exist within it? The number is uncountable. Since Reagan, conservatives have largely stated that government IS the problem....except for the military, because conservatives have been strong supporters of the military since long before Reagan. Yet, anybody who has been in the military knows that it has more bungling than any other organization out there. Despite that, much gets accomplished, and it generally comes down to one individual taking a specific action to contravene established ritual. Basically, somebody who lacks the explicit authority to do so, "takes charge". I've seen this happen at all levels of society, from small towns to large organizations. The common thread is that somebody makes a decision and either acts on it, or gets others to act on it, despite not having the explicit authority to make that decision. Inertia comes from obeying the ritual.

The thing is, we are all highly trained as social organisms to obey the ritual. To keep our actions within the proscribed boundaries of the social order, whatever the order happens to be for the specific situation. People who stick their necks out expect their heads to be struck (if not removed altogether). In some situations, that is exactly what happens.

I am coming to see that there are leaders, enforcers, and other, with people fitting into different categories at different times, depending on the specific ritual involved, and the individuals perspective on the ritual. The leaders simply break the ritual and try to set up a new one (there is ALWAYS a ritual, even a ritual for how and when to break an existing ritual, the only exception, if you follow cartoons, is Calvin Ball). The enforcers are the ones who beat people down for breaking the ritual. The 'other' category is the vast majority of people who either don't know, or don't care, about the ritual, or the fact that it is being broken.

Under that scenario, change comes only when the enforcers are too weak to prevent the change. They may be weak because they can't actually oppose the leader, or they may be weak because they are too apathetic about the ritual to effectively enforce the rules.

You see this at the national scale because progressives are not always leaders (trying to change established ritual), nor are conservatives always enforcers (trying to maintain existing ritual). Both parties switch roles, or even share roles, depending on the ritual in question. However, I am more interested in this at the local level. I am currently working on a project that has been attempted for twenty years, with almost consistent failure. The only success, and it was partial, was something I did ten years ago, and it was largely successful because nobody knew I was doing it, except my boss, who was a leader. For my part, I was in the role of 'other', mostly, as I simply didn't understand or recognize the greater context that I was taking part in (and the people who DID understand, other than my boss, didn't know what I was doing, either, with the exception of a pair of enforcers who were entirely apathetic). In the case of the current project, my boss (a different guy) is pretty much a leader, as am I, while the enforcers are my user group, who are all people I like quite a bit. It makes for an interesting situation. I realize that success will largely come by thwarting the enforcers, which means doing a job without actually letting the users know that the job is being done until it is too late, yet doing the job without hiding it from them. Kind of an interesting situation.

On the national scale, the bulk of the debate is enforcers trying to pummel people for breaking a ritual dear to them. The arguments are all silly, in the end, because we have an N of 1 in a chaotic system. It is demonstrably invalid to say how the world would have turned out with or without any social policy whether right or left, yet we attempt to do it all the time. The one general constant is compassion, as the industrialized nations have generally moved towards greater social compassion, but we don't have a single example, that I know of, where a society has moved steadily away from social services without also suffering a simultaneous change in an equally significant ritual. Therefore, we can't say whether the results of that change are the result of breaking one ritual, the other, or a combination of both. In the case of adding social services, we are also breaking an existing ritual, but we CAN say how we are right now: And we are mighty fine, thank you very much. We whine about our situation, but that is also a ritual, and one which is rarely, and only temporarily, broken in all of recorded history.

[FunkyDexter]

Our Constitution was written by the Original Radicals. That Based our Society on Individual Freedom and the Rights Endowed by Our Creator "GOD" Not "GOV".

Hardly radicals I'm afraid. It was based entirely on ideas that came out of Europe, particularly French enlightenists and English radicals. The only revolutionary thing about the American revolution was the revolution itself, not the ideas that sparked it. It's no accident that the American and French revolutions were only 20 years apart, revolutionary ideas were abounding in the whole of the Western World throughout the 17th century and about the only major nation that didn't have some sort of revolution was Great Britain - mainly because we had a pretty equitable and democratic society (we've been consistently ahead of the curve on that one since about the 15th century).

Europe has always had Kings and Monarks, and Ruling Elitists.

Not really. England had a government that could hold the king to account to a greater or lesser degree since the 13th century. The Holy Roman Empire was electing it's Emperors from long before that. The Romans had a democratic system that mandated plebian representation in the senate about 500 years before Jesus was or wasn't born (depending on your religious beliefs). They pinched the idea from the Athenians who are generally credited with coming up with the whole democracy wheeze in the first place (though there is some evidence that they nicked it from the Achaemenid Persians (yep, that's right, democracy is probably an Iranian idea originally)). I don't know what it is about some Americans that makes you think you came up with the ideas of personal freedom and democracy in a world populated by evil European tyrants but it's total garbage, I'm afraid. I suspect it's because you have a very definite milestone (Independence) you can point to whereas Europe staggerred towards in fits and starts over two and a half millenia. Mind you, since that independence milestone didn't abolish slavery or emancipate women and the fact that the Great Britain you gained independence from had long since transferred legislative powers from the monarch to the government I'm not sure it's really such a perfect milestone at all.

that Marx guy. Who I might add is not an American

Really?! I had no idea

So I doubt his ideas truly belong here.

Are you saying that the America has nothing to learn from the rest of the world? That would be either incredibly arrogant or just plain idiotic... or possibly both.

He would in fact be against the Gov Takeover of our Medical System

Your centralised government's takeover, absolutley. He certainly wouldn't have advocated privatisation of it, though, because he recognised that the market is, at best, morally neutral.

I hope he would be against the Demonization of the Rich

The answer to that one's actually quite complex. He believed that the existence of the very rich was indicative of a fundamentally flawed society. He wasn't against people being rewarded for their efforts and he didn't advocate a society in which we all lived in uniform tenements eating government prescripted meals. On the other hand he did recognise a society in which the gap between rich and poor had reached the levels it had in late 19th/early 20th century Europe was not healthy. He would probably have reached the same conclusion about a present day America in which some starve while others live in luxury and in which an indivdual's state is rarely predicated upon their worth to society.

because they start all these Not for Profit Organizations who help the Community

I really don't think he'd have believed that and neither do I. Certainly many wealthy individuals do a great deal for society and the US's altruistic tradition (which is probably the finest in the world) is something I think he would have admired. But to directly link altruism to wealth is demonstrably fallacious. Not all charitable work is done by the wealthy and not all the wealthy do charitable work. In the UK, at least, charitable giving as a percentage of income is generally higher for those on a lower income than those on a higher income. I have no idea whether that's also true in the US but I'm fairly sure, at least, that the percentage will not be significantly higher for the rich than the poor.

To link the above two points, though, I think he'd probably have argued that, from top to bottom, none of us (or very, very few) do as much as we could. Rather, we do as much as we feel we should. That's why he felt there was a place for government in redistributing wealth. The important point, though, is that that government would be local to and directly influencable by the individual. Meaning it's not about some huge and remote beuracracy harvesting off your hard earned pay check. It's about your local community pooling its resources and deciding how to best use them to benefit that local community.

He would be for Religious Organizations providing Healthcare for the Needy in their Community

He wouldn't have been for religious organisations, full stop. He famously hated religion. Surely you must have heard the quote "Religion is the opiate of the masses", well that's Marx. He would, though, have been very much for Organisation in general doing so.

But that happens only when the GOV isn't taking their money and redistributing it to people who are living better than they are

Clearly that's not true. All governments redistribute wealth to a greater or lesser degree (the debate is about the scale and mechanism, not the concept) and yet we do still carry out our altruistic works. He most certainly would have been against redistribution of wealth to "people who are living better than they are" but I really don't think any current Western Government advocates or practices that either. There's a debate about how much should be redistributed downward but nobody seriously advocates redistributing upwards and in suggesting that they do you're really just spouting rhetoric. For the record, though, at the time when Marx was around, Germany (along with many other European Countries) were actually taxing the poor at a higher rate than the rich. I very much doubt you would advocate the sort of system he was criticising.

In truth, if you took the time to learn about his (or any of the enlightenists, really) beliefs I think you'd find that they are actually probably very close to your own with two fundamental differences:-
1. You're obviously religious while he felt religion was harmful to society. I'm closer to agreeing with you than Marx on that point as I personally think more good than evil is done in the name of religion but there's a whole other thread about that in the chit chat section already.
2. You believe (and if I've got you wrong here it's because I'm missreading you rather than missrepresenting you) that a free market leads to a fair society and those who benefit by the labour of others (it being the basis of a capitalist society that some will and, in doing so, improve the lot of those they benefit from) will be naturally inclined to give back to it. He'd have argued that it doesn't neccessarily lead to a fair society and that those who benefit most may be inclined to give back to society but this is by no means guaranteed and they should be made to do so if unwilling. Personally I'm with Marx on this one and will continue to be until nurses and teachers are paid as much as CEOs.

All your beliefs about state rights, small government and the importance of community are entirely in line with Marx's. I'm pointing this out, not because I think your beliefs are wrong, but rather that alot of them are right. I suspect that's true of a great many right wing/republican/conservative (apologies, none of these terms is really adequate but I don't know one that is) Americans. I'd urge you to read his work because I think you'd find it his fundamental moral standpoint is very close to your own and the differences are in the mechanisms he advocates. The problem is that most people equate Marxism with Stalinism and never bother to discover that that equation couldn't be more wrong.




Edit>Something I would point out to my fellow Euros who believe that a nationalised health service would be the perfect fit for the US: We tend to forget that the US is very big. VERY big. Any given state is about the same size as one of our nations and, since that's the level they generally set up and charge for their health programs their system as it stands is actually very like our own. I'm sure most of us Brits would baulk at the thought of giving up our NHS for a brand spanking new European Health Service - nobody wants to share a ward with a Frenchman!

That said, I do find Americans arguing over whether mandatory contributions should be introduced (that is fundamentally what is being proposed) amusing. You're paying them anyway. Whether it's coming out of your state tax, a separate contribution or a mandation to hold a private policy doesn't change that.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That said, I do find Americans arguing over whether mandatory contributions should be introduced (that is fundamentally what is being proposed) amusing. You're paying them anyway. Whether it's coming out of your state tax, a separate contribution or a mandation to hold a private policy doesn't change that.

We are, of course, and most people understand that at some level. If they didn't, there wouldn't be the complaints about paying for illegal aliens. Whether for reform or not, or for one type or another, everyone here recognizes that they are paying for health care currently. We often don't know what portion of our payments account for what portion of the bill, nor do I think anybody can tease it apart, but we do know we are paying. The mistake that I see is a belief that everybody gets equivalent care whether insured or not.

[FunkyDexter]

We often don't know what portion of our payments account for what portion of the bill, nor do I think anybody can tease it apart, but we do know we are paying

Yeah, that's probably at the root of most peoples objections to a government run/mandated system. It's impossible to tell that your getting the benefit you're paying for and the breeds a suspicion that the government is either wasting your money or actively ripping you off. A distrust of the government does seem to be a theme amongst the people that object to the reforms.

I found your stuff on our tendancy to obey the ritual to be right on the money by the way. As a natural squeaky wheel I've noticed it in my working life (oh boy have I noticed it ) but I've never really thought much about how it applies to society. Considering the number of times I got beat up for having long hair as a teenager you would've thought it might have occurred to me, wouldn't you?

Thankfully I'm finally at a point in my career where people have to listen to me when I challenge the ritual because that's very much part of my remit. The challenge for me now is going to be to resist becoming indoctrinated into the company culture myself.

[tome10]

It seems to me The Caesars were dictators, and Rome's Problem was Mob Rule. Which seems to be what the progressives want to get to Quick Fast and In a Hurry for some reason. I am not religious, but I do believe Jesus at worse was a good teacher "Give a man bread and he will eat for a day. Teach a Man to Fish and he will eat for a Lifetime." Until of course the libs outlaw fishing. In my mind Democracy ceases to exist when the masses learn they can vote themselves Bread. Which is exactly what the progressives want to do. It's like they want to destroy this Country. Speaking of Marx, and Liberals in general, it isn't the policies that are failures, it is the Implementor. In this Case Stalin. In our current communist president (Obama). To me it seems you guys are missing something Called "Common Sense". Rational Thought? As far as teachers go. How much should they make? How much should you have to Pay for your education? What should the Min Wage be set to? What is it now? 7 something? Why not 20? 50? 100? Hell give everyone a CEO'S Salary. Thats the problem not enough sense to know that will only cause things around to cost more, and drive business' out of business, or out of the country. Not helpful. But I know the dems do it just for votes. Or am I wrong and they are really that dumb? Ohh and when you lose your train of thought please refrain from bloviating. I find it annoying when libs Ramble on trying to find a clue.

[FunkyDexter]

The Caesars were dictators

They were. I was referring to the republic. Have you ever read a history book?

Until of course the libs outlaw fishing

I'm not aware of the policy.

it isn't the policies that are failures, it is the Implementor. In this Case Stalin.

Agreed. Did you actually read my post?

In my mind Democracy ceases to exist when the masses learn they can vote themselves Bread.

Really?! In my mind it ceases to exist when they aren't allowed to.

our current communist president (Obama)

He really isn't a communist and you're once again just spouting rhetoric.

To me it seems you guys are missing something Called "Common Sense".

It's mutual

As far as teachers go. How much should they make?

Whatever is in line with their contribution to society

What should the Min Wage be set to?

Enough to prevent exploitation

Hell give everyone a CEO'S Salary.

Not neccessary, just pay teachers a little bit more and CEOs a whole lot less.

Or am I wrong

Yes

please refrain from bloviating

Job done?

[tome10]

They were. I was referring to the republic. Have you ever read a history book?

No, I can't say I have actually sit down and read a History Book. What would it tell me? A Republic and Dictator can Coexist?
Mob Rule doesn't lead to a Nations Destruction? What would it tell me about Pandering to the masses with Money a Nation does not have? Of Political Promises a Nation can't afford to make. What I know of History is that it is the Liberals who love Dictators, and Mob rule.

Quote:
What should the Min Wage be set to?

Enough to prevent exploitation

If I am a Free man doing my thing. And I Choose to work for 2 bucks an hour. Maybe in order to prove to my Boss I am worth 50. Who is being exploited? Me or my Boss? Why do you worry of such things?

Quote:
In my mind Democracy ceases to exist when the masses learn they can vote themselves Bread.

Really?! In my mind it ceases to exist when they aren't allowed to.

We should explore this.. Because it should not be the Govs place to provide. They should not be allowed to acquire the means of production.
I give you Capitalism. I give you My Philosopher. Ayn Rand.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Quote:
please refrain from bloviating
Job done?

What job?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Bloviating is a good word. It might also be younger than you, as it was created fairly recently.

Rambling on isn't always bad. I'm currently working on a robotic brain using some AI concepts I developed over the last few decades. This leads me to contemplate how we actually go about thinking. I have long been fairly cynical about the concept of humans being a sentient race, but we are the only ones handing out prizes, so there is little wonder that we give ourselves the top honors.

Still, thinking about how a robot interacts with its sensors, and the world around it, leads a person to think about how they interact with the world around them. If you actually look at your actions during the course of a single day, broken down into segments of as little as ten seconds a piece, you will be forced to recognize that you actually think about what you are doing only very rarely. If you itch, you scratch, without any conscious involvement. Therefore, it shouldn't be necessary for an AI to think about all of its actions, just as we don't think about all of ours. In fact, we think about only a fraction of a percent of our actions until after we have already performed them (and usually not even then). The vast majority of sensory input is actually discarded by our minds before we even become aware of it. Nor do we (normally) get to say which filter we apply to the sensory input. The input is filtered at a level below our consciousness, and only a small percentage is allowed through to where the brain contemplates it.

I am doing a similar thing with the robot brain, as some of the responses, and much of the input, is filtered out, with only certain items being passed up to the layered neural nets that make up the higher brain. Yet, when we look at all of the actions that we take over the course of a day, and examine the number that were made with conscious thought before hand, and compare that to the number that were made without any conscious thought, it appears that humans have only the most tenuous claim to intelligence, even for the smartest amongst us. At most, we live up to the claim of intelligence for a fraction of a percent of our waking lives.

That's what got me onto the rituals. Every society that I am aware of, has come up with a religion. It appears to be a common, underlying, theme for all of humanity. Yet the only true similarity of the religions is not their content, but their purpose. We readily perceive the chaos around us (technical chaos, following the mathematical definition, not the emotional concept), and our minds seek to organize and tame it. We seek to find patterns, and where true patterns don't exist, we seek to impose patterns on that world. If this drive to seek pattern (ritual is behavior following pattern) is the underlying cause of all the myriad religions, whether they worship the sun, an ephemeral god, or a million lesser gods, why would we not expect to see the same drive at all levels of our lives? And we do. We find some ritual that works for us based on a pattern that is convenient to our lives, and we follow that ritual. Why? Because we have to.

Once we determine that we like coffee, and determine how to satisfy that desire, it can become a ritual. By turning it into a ritual, we no longer need to engage the high brain in dealing with what to do about a particular need. The ritual takes over. In the case of religion, the high brain perceives the chaos of reality, and formulates a purpose. It isn't that we need a purpose, it is that without one, the brain can't proceed. Similarly, in the robot code, I couldn't simply toss all desire into a big pot and see what bubbled up (though I really wanted to). Instead, at any one instant, there has to be desires. Ritual can be formulated to meet the desires. Unfortunately, once ritual has become established, it is very hard to break out of it.

When it comes to politics, we are all driven by fundamental desires that are arguably only semi-rational, at best. We certainly aren't given to thinking through all of the ramifications of any particular position. Worse yet, for positions of any greater significance than choice of meal, or similar trivial views, it is demonstrably impossible to think through the ramifications. Conservatives argue strongly against some kinds of change (that would be the definition, though not always the practice, of a conservative view), while Progressives argue for some kinds of change. Right now, the conservatives in the US are trying to roll the clock back to a time that never was on the principle that every change made away from that time was done for no sound reason at all, and that all such changes have been disasters. They argue that position on computers, while sitting in comfortable chairs with the expectation of working until they can retire, then living for a couple decades in declining health, but with adequate food. It's a silly position, but no worse than any other. We live in a time when all but the poorest live in comfort and luxuries that would have been unthinkable for even the wealthiest of only a century back, and still we gripe. The conservatives gripe that if only we hadn't done X, we would be SO much better off. Prove it. The progressives gripe about a cold-hearted and destructive society that could be fixed if only we did X. Well, progress has been the way things have been for centuries, and the Progressives may eventually see their own X, but it will always fall short, or be sullied in some fashion, which means that if it isn't utopia, we'll always have somewhere to place the blame.

As much as we seek to simplify the reality around us into some form that is manageable to our brain, the signals we see in the chaos may be false. Unfortunately, we are so sold on the concept that we are intelligent, that we believe our own propaganda. The mantra of the right, or the mantra of the left becomes the ritual, and deviating from the ritual brings retribution. So we make our mistakes, and try to yell louder that our side is right, even when a person with Excel, an open mind, and a few minutes, can prove that such a statement can NEVER be known. Instead, we should be whispering that we "think" our position will produce superior results, while acknowledging that we have come a LONG ways, and live in a time of abundance which we may or may not bring to an end for reasons that we may or may not understand.

Meanwhile, my robot will try to take the chaos it sees with its limitted sensors, filter that through filters that can be tinkered with, to pass information to the higher brain, where it will learn to choose an optimal path to whatever it desires by dreaming robot dreams. The dreams will instill patterns onto the web of neural nets, each of which will produce something of a ritual behavior for a certain situation. The rituals can change, it just depends on the experiences of the bot being broad enough to cause a ritual to change when it is proven to be a bad idea, but the proof will come slowly, and the rituals will change only infrequently.

Anyways, I just wonder if I will understand what the robot is doing once it is running.

[Shaggy Hiker]

No, I can't say I have actually sit down and read a History Book. What would it tell me? A Republic and Dictator can Coexist?

Hmmm, Periclean Athens might just fit that perfectly.

Mob Rule doesn't lead to a Nations Destruction?

Probably it would show that whenever the mob gains sway, it is quickly co-opted by a few individuals who turn the mob towards personal gain. Robespierre and Napoleon are both probably better examples of this than Stalin.

If I am a Free man doing my thing. And I Choose to work for 2 bucks an hour. Maybe in order to prove to my Boss I am worth 50. Who is being exploited? Me or my Boss?

You are, but go ahead, I have no doubt that your boss will support you in your desire.

Why do you worry of such things?

Because history is riddled with examples of mass exploitation leading to bloody civil unrest, from the French Revolution, the mutiny at the Nore, Russian Revolution, the rise of Hitler (which was due to the punitive measures imposed on Germany after WW I), and the labor strife in the US in the 1800s and early 1900s. Some are big, some are small, all are violent, bloody, and unnecessary.

What job?

He meant that he answered your points with few words.

[tome10]

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.
-Karl Marx

I just have to conclude that Marx is a Moron. Why would I want to work if I can't keep the fruits of my Labor? The products of my Intellect? However small or Large that may be. So please, stop voting DemonRat on my behalf. My relationship between me and my boss is mine. There are no Slaves in America anymore. Least of not me. There is still a Plantation. The DemonRat Party is the last Plantation. With their Race Baiters, and their Poverty Pimps. It seems they want to Enslave me. Hell, you guys want to enslave me. No Property Rights? No rights to my Own Labor? Morons. And you question my Common Sense. Unbelievable.

[tome10]

Ohh and the Bloviating goes for you to Shaggy.

[zaza]

I just have to conclude that Marx is a Moron. Why would I want to work if I can't keep the fruits of my Labor? The products of my Intellect? However small or Large that may be. So please, stop voting DemonRat on my behalf. My relationship between me and my boss is mine. There are no Slaves in America anymore. Least of not me. There is still a Plantation. The DemonRat Party is the last Plantation. With their Race Baiters, and their Poverty Pimps. It seems they want to Enslave me. Hell, you guys want to enslave me. No Property Rights? No rights to my Own Labor? Morons. And you question my Common Sense. Unbelievable.

I think you'll find that Marxism is basically about playing the biggest team game around. What you call "keeping the fruits of your labours" he calls "trampling the less-fortunate under your heel in order to aid your own progress up the ladder". The fact that you want to own things mean that you invariably have to acquire them by means of the suffering of somebody else, whether it be cotton-pickers in the South or 500 Bengalis sewing cloth in a 50 sq m factory. The fact that you aren't confronted with the suffering that your rapacious greed causes just means that you get to avoid the consequences of your actions.
On the other hand, if everybody contributes everything to the communal pot, then you aren't working for the betterment of yourself, you're working for the betterment of the team as a whole, that team being human society. Your hard work pays you off, but also everybody around you at the same time. You still have the incentive to work hard, it's just that it's you and everybody else who benefit from it. And with everybody pulling together in this way, avoiding all the infighting and trampling that goes on in the battle for personal profit, that extra energy gets to be expended in improving society and the net outcome is much the better.




Of course, it doesn't actually work in practice, in no small part because it relies on an administration to distribute the pot and there is every incentive for those of a corrupt frame of mind to make sure that they are part of that administration. However, I would dispute that this is a moronic ideal. To the contrary, I would say it is noble. It just doesn't work, through every fault of our own.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Ohh and the Bloviating goes for you to Shaggy.

I wasn't confused as to the subject of your comments, I just lost interest.

[FunkyDexter]

We should explore this.. Because it should not be the Govs place to provide

Surely, if you believe in democracy, the government's place is whatever the majority of the people want it to be. Isn't that rather the point?

I'm also increasingly confused by your use of the word 'mob'. Who are the mob. Do you mean the people?

All in all I'm at a loss as to what you're position actually is. Looking at your posts you've said that your nation is based on rights given by our creator, God and you've said that Jesus was a learned teacher but you've also said that you're not religious. You've said that you've never read a history book (which should not be a badge of honour, by the way) and yet you've drawn conclusion about liberals from history. You've accused liberals (under a variety of insulting names) of wanting dictatorships and mob rule, but I'm not actually aware of a third option - the people either lead or are led. You've said that progressives 'haven't thought this through' but you condemn any attempt to expand on and interrogate ideas as oblivation. You've acknowledged failing (I'm assuming of communisn but I think you've missed how wide a spectrum that actually is) is not in the idea but in the implementor and then gone on to call the creator of that idea (widely acknowledged as one of the 20th century's greatest thinkers) a moron. In truth, all you've done is pour forth a torrent of political catch phrases while providing absolutely no indication that you've bothered to think about their meaning.

The closest you've come to expressing a position of your own is to quote Ayn Rand verbatim but you've not explored her ideas one bit. She argues that the only job of government is to protect it's citizens from physical violence. How? That will require a police force of some description and that must be paid for. That means taxation. And taxation requires a beuracracy to administrate it. How is that circle to be squared?

Her position of only protecting citizens from physical violence would not preclude someone from burgling your home while your away or stealing your car. Shoud those things be legal. If they're illegal but not to be enforced by the government then who are they to be enforced by? You? If so who is to judge whether the means you use to do so are fair and just?

Where do the congenitally sick fit into this system. Many people are born with conditions so severe that they are unable to look after themselves. Do we leave them to die?

What happens in cases of dispute over ownership. If the government cannot pass judgement then who does? A panel of peers? But is that not a form of government?

On her page one of the quotes you missed is that she believes the moral argument for capitalism is not that it achieves the common good but rather that it is the 'only system consonant with man’s rational nature'. Why? Why are other systems not consonant with man's rational nature? Given that they're a product of man's rational nature that statement needs some justification.

She goes on to say that capitalism does achieve the common good but as a secondary by product. How? How does it improve all of our lots?

What, really, is your position? Let's examine it. Let's see what lessons we can learn from it. At no point have I or Shaggy (we seem to be the two you're currently having a problem with) dismissed your ideas. We'd actually be quite keen to explore them if only we could get the faintest hint of what they were.


Zaza, great distillation of the ideals of communism. One thing I'd offer a bit of debate on is that the reason it wouldn't work is because it relies on a administrion that must inevitably become corrupt. I'm not sure that's true. It's just that every communist state the word has seen so far has relied on that. If you look at the marxist model the administration is at a very local level and is extremely democratic. He hated the idea of a remote centralised beuracracy (though he acknowledged a need for one in times of crisis) because he felt that it would lead to exactly the sort of corruption you talked about. On a local level where administrators are in constant contact with the people they're administrating for and can be easily replaced I imagine that corruption is actually far less likely to creep in than it is in the sort of remote democracies most of us live in today. The problem with remote administrations is that it's very easy for them to view people as numbers (Stalin famously said "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic", I think that pretty much sums up that effect) and that make's it far easier to be corrupt. I think if a full marxist model could be introduced (which is by no means certain) it might actually work for quite a long time.

That said, I agree it would probably ultimately be doomed to failure. Even Marx ackonowledged the need for a centralised beuracracy in times of crisis. I suspect that that administration would be very unwilling to give it's powers up again after the first crisis. Mind you, there have been a few examples in history of leaders doing just that, most notably Gorbachev

[Shaggy Hiker]

The bible gives us another example. The original Israelites didn't have a king, but had judges, instead. Basically, they chose a judge to lead them and make decisions in times of crisis. Eventually they appealed to Samuel to give them a king. He griped about it, then went out and chose Saul. And so forth.

There are a few other examples of civilizations that only chose leaders for times of crisis. I think one was Sumeria, but I can't quite remember. In all cases that I am aware of, there came a time when the leader chose to remain the leader after the time of crisis was over. This created monarchies.

[zaza]

The trouble with a more localised democracy is that it is not too far from tribalism. Sooner or later, people realise that they will be much better off by combining resources and effort with a group from a neighbouring "local democracy", whether that be done by force or by mutual cooperation. That new, enlarged "local democracy" then needs some form of administration to head it up...etc. Eventually you just end up with another country.

At what point does "local democracy" within the bounds of a nation-state actually function? We have local elections in the UK, and look how poorly represented they are, both in terms of quality of candidate and turnout. People don't like to be too involved in their democracy; that's why we elect people to do it for us. But even then, we struggle to turn out in significant numbers even for a General Election.
A further problem with too much local democracy is that it hampers redistibution of wealth. If people are sufficiently independent that they think they would be better off going it alone, then those subsidised parts of the nation may see little alternative but to go to war to preserve their share of the resources. The governing body of the nation needs to be strong enough to hold it all together, which means that the local democracies cannot be given too much power. They also cannot be given too much control over the funding; it needs to be paid centrally and then re-allocated. Hence you need a central beaurocracy to administer it....

etc.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

We have local elections in the UK, and look how poorly represented they are, both in terms of quality of candidate and turnout.

Is that not because in reality local councillors don't actually have a great deal of power in the UK and just follow the party policy. The public know this and generally are apathetic as any change at a local level probably won't make much difference.

But even then, we struggle to turn out in significant numbers even for a General Election.

I would say when there is a clear choice between the candidates you get greater turnouts, when it is unclear what the differences are between the parties policies you get lesser turnout because people don't feel they are being given a choice, and also they don't have anything to strongly vote against.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I would say when there is a clear choice between the candidates you get greater turnouts, when it is unclear what the differences are between the parties policies you get lesser turnout because people don't feel they are being given a choice, and also they don't have anything to strongly vote against.

That may account for the low turnout in local elections in the US. Few people are greatly impacted by the positions being filled, and few significant issues will be decided by those people. When you get somebody running who really does want to shake things up, the turnout increases.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

That may account for the low turnout in local elections in the US. Few people are greatly impacted by the positions being filled, and few significant issues will be decided by those people

That's the biggest problem with Local government, it rarely has the power to do anything about local issues that people care about, they normally straight jacketed by party politics.

Most local governments don't have much devolved power, they cant do anything with schools (for instance) in there area because Education is party politics and the party want their advocated approach to be used everywhere.

Schools are just 1 example, but you could apply that to virtually any area of policy were there is Big Party policy, so Crime, Education, Health, Environment e.t.c.

I believe that politics might be a better place with more devolution of power so different Cities or States / Counties don't have to all have the same approach to everything.

Obviously you still need central control of somethings, but i think a bit more devolution of power would be a good thing.

What does everyone else think ? would you prefer more devolution of power and if anything what power would you like local government to take on instead of central government.