-
Capitalist Conservative (political not religionwise)I believe in the capitalist power to the individual system. Free enterprise. I also believe in the conservative low taxes notion.66% Voted for by Xelgaroth, crosscountry07.
REASON BEING:
Capitalism grants every individual the ability to reap only that which he has sewn. If he has the will to succeed, even a poor man can earn a living and become as rich as he wants with no cap on his wealth. Unlike socialism in which everyone does unequal work for equal pay, I would prefer capitalism with its individualised and open water system of economics. I would opt for a conservative low taxes system as well. If taxes are too high (and I think they are in the U.S. already), then the people are drained and no longer have enough money to support themselves. In desperation, they turn to the government to provide for them. They no longer have the freedom to follow their own individual dreams. A pre-socialist governmental system would eventually form. I am not a political scientist, but this is my opinion and would be more than happy to expand or elaborate on it and BESEECH you to prove me wrong. Show me a better system. Argue with me. HOWEVER you must be respectful.
-
AnarchyMy answer is plain and simple.Why do people continue to think that some complete stranger(s) should have the right to control the lives of millions? "Well they were voted in by the people"right. I'm sure every one of them had a complete unanimous vote from the people. Well apparently I'm not one of the people cause they never got my approval.Voted for by M.Ridgway.Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
My friend, imagine for a moment that your anarchial vision of government came true. Either global Human government ceased to exist, or there are very small and weak governmental bodies loosely organized (to prevent monopolization of power, of course) I'm not saying it CAN'T be done, but seeing if you can defend your idea. Here are some questions. I want people to really THINK OUT what a political system should be, not just a basic generalization. I want details, people, details!
1: How would the people feed themselves?
2: What would prevent competition for this food (and/or shelter, other necessaries)?
3: In times of crises and/or turmoil, what would be the standard protocal or directive in response to it (i.e. hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, rogue governments, other disasters, man made or otherwise)?
Oh and by the way in response to this:
"Well they were voted in by the people"right. I'm sure every one of them had a complete unanimous vote from the people. Well apparently I'm not one of the people cause they never got my approval.
The idea behind the voting system is that the people hold the power. The majority controls what happens. Why? Because you are going by the logic that the general group knows best. That doesn't mean that the majority is always right, but just that more people want one thing over the other. It would be better to please five hundred than to please two hundred. This doesn't mean that the other two hundred are in any way less important or inferior or that their idea is of any less validity. It's merely that THEIR particular opinion was not shared by everyone. You must understand the sheer impossibility of it all to have a UNANIMOUS vote of a population of over 300,000,000. Three hundred million people to all vote the same way. How would you do this? Please, elaborate on the subject. I'm not trying to bash your opinion I'd simply like to learn more about your ideas.
-
Well
I'm glad you at least ask questions instead of instantly dismissing the idea. True in the beginning violence may occur but sooner or later the people would have to learn to stand for themselves. That's the problem today,everyone depends on the government because elsewise they'd be forced to use their own minds. One the other side government is fully aware of this and can take any advantages that it wishes so long as they make it look like it's helping this blind republic that they "serve". -
-
You're right everyone does whine to their government to take care of them and THAT in and of itself will cause the government to get too much power. But one needn't eliminate government COMPLETELY from the picture. In Franklin's theory, governments are set up to be under the power of the people. The people control the government. All the government's there for is to ensure that the basic human rights of all men are always observed. And it is the duty of the people to abolish that government if it gets too powerful. Unfortunately, many people no longer WANT to keep an eye on their government. They want the government to keep track of THEM. "those who would choose security over liberty deserve neither." -Benjamin Franklin I agree with you insofar as your idea that people want the government to do everything for them. This I agree with. But I see no reason to totally eliminate government. It does serve a good purpose. What would happen if a hurricane the likes of which had never been seen since Katrina were to hit again, and hit New Orleans DIRECTLY? Who would respond? In an anarchy, NO ONE would. In a perfect world, you're right, no one would need government because everyone's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were always observed. The only problem is that humans are, well, humans, and it's in our nature to NOT observe other people's rights. And that's why the government's there, to always ensure that the people's rights are maintained. Nothing more, nothing less. It shouldn't be Big Brother is Watching. We need Little Brother watching. That's why I don't agree with Anarchy. Could you possibly give me a complete outline of what your system would look like? That would give me a better idea of your opinions.
-
And they would find their resolution in the reformation of some form of government and organization, those that no longer want to stand alone and in such anarchy, which means yet another reformation of the anarchial controlling body, to destroy organization. It would just happen too often, and the reasons as to why would be lost in the destruction of the ideal as they move away from it but still attaining it, for reasons that eventually become unknown. Anarchy would seem to cause too many problems. Of late I have been thinking much like Xelgaroth, although I propose a move towards absolute capitalism. However, problems too arise from such a system.
-
-
my only thing is, it is a proven fact that people have a need to be lead and some have a need to lead. Anarchy is impossible.
-
...I don't want to lead or be led. My wish is only that people could learn to think and live for themselves,not because some upper authority told them to.
-
-
I understand what you're saying, but the original purpose behind government was not to "lead" the people or to be an "authority" it was simply a citizen-controlled organization that simply ensured the people's rights were observed. Whether or not they still do that to this day is another matter. I believe that for the most part, government officials and such do work to maintain our rights. But I'm no fool, and won't say that ALL of them do. Many, MANY of them aren't statesmen, they're politicians. They're in it for the power and prestige.
Somewhere along the line, the people just stopped caring. I don't know what happened, but somewhere between world war two, the Korean War, and The Vietnam war, somewhere in there, the people just... lost any care for anything... not just for defending themselves, but defending their rights. They just... sort of let things slip away. I don't know if it was the grief after the atrocities of the war or what, but whatever the reason, the American people simply stopped caring. Apathy became the name of the game. Just discussing politics was considered "boring" and "for the smart people with no lives." And that was where we failed. It's not the system's fault, because the system itself is sound. It's not the government's fault, because the government automatically has a tendency to take over when left unattended.
The blood of Civilizations lies on the hands of the people.
Civilizations die of suicide, not murder. Government is always going to take over when no one cares to stop it. It's human nature. That's why we must always remain vigilant. What chance do any of us have when the good people do nothing? No one wants to be "led" or "controlled" or have some kind of "upper authority." But that wasn't the original purpose of government.
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
-Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
The system only lasts, only thrives, as long as the citizens keep track of its course.
-
-
exactly,the "original" intention. Tell me, just how old is our constitution? We try to lead the lives of other countries while living in the past of our own. Elsewise,bravo.
-
-
Yes, but this debate is about whether the system ITSELF, not those who run it or those who help it along, is sound or not. The actual governmental system, I believe, is sound. It's the people letting government take over. I'm not one of those American is an Evil Empire guys or "overthrow government" guys but I do think that when the citizens do nothing, government will ALWAYS take over. You can't blame the government. Throughout human history, governments always take over once the country stopped caring. The debate/thinktank here is a discussion on whether or not the PREMISE BEHIND the government works or not, not whether or not the government is there for us or not. People don't recognize the incredible power they actually have. They just hold up their hands and surrender the power they have to the government, sacrificing their freedoms and their liberties for a feeling of safety and security.
"Live free or die. Death is not the worst of Evils."
-General John Stark
It's true, we often get caught up in the past. There's evidence of that in our social habits as well. Many people are still convinced that there is still black and white predjudice everywhere. I'm not saying there isn't some here and there but it's not the predominate opinion anymore, but we are so wrapped up in our past we fail to look forward.
We are so frightened by the future that we won't dare look at it, rather to look at our past; our future is unpredictable, and we have lost our American Spirit of independence and discovery for forging our own future, our own destiny. We decided we were too old for dreaming American Dreams anymore. So, we gave up. We didn't WANT to defend ourselves anymore. We didn't WANT to keep the government in line. The only ones I blame for any fall America takes will be those who chose not to vote.
Our constitution is over two hundred years old. It's passed through ages, time untold. We are the longest lasting stable democracy whose government never changed hands at any point in its history. Two hundred years. We did something right. Life. Liberty. The Pursuit of Happiness. These truths are self evident, no? They are basic freedoms that all human beings on earth hold and should have. It's our Sacred Honor to ensure that humanity around the world has these three basic freedoms.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to put them in a state of absolute despotism, it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security."
Those who can do something MUST do something or they are bad human beings. It's basic humanity. Basic freedom.
The system is sound, my friend, at least I will keep thinking it is until proven otherwise, something no one has suceeded in doing thus far.
Could you PLEASE show me an idea of your government, or lack thereof? Like a basic outline? Everyone's doing exactly what I said not to do. They're pointing our what's wrong but really not giving many ideas for improvement.
Could you be the first? 
-
-
You're right,completely right. The problem is that the people have given up. The few left such as myself have nowhere to turn to.Now I ask you this,what exactly can a 17 year old such as myself do in a situation such as this? I can't vote yet.Actually voting is pointless anyway because they have to agree with whatever it is you ask for(if memory serves it's 2/3s vote of house and senate to pass a new amendment.Oh,and what are the house and senate?the GOVERNMENT!)
As you basically said before,the people need to stand for themselves,regardless of the governments approval. What else do you think anarchy is? -
-
When I think of anarchy, I think of outright zero government, zero order. When trouble strikes, the people have no central pillar of support to fall back on. They're left to their own devices. Now one could say that this is good because it makes us responsible for ourselves, and to a degree I agree with them. But sometimes you need that extra air power and sea power to help out. No government, and this support system is gone. Also, an anarchy wouldn't work unless all the other countries in the world decided to be anarchy as well, otherwise you'd be sitting ducks for attack and conquer from other countries.
The reason it's so difficult to make your vote count is because there are so many people in this country that it requres a phenomenal amount of people to sway the government.
The best advice for a seventeen year old, or anyone under voting age (I'm fourteen years old) would be to STAY ACTIVE. Monitor the news, keep track of senatorial bills and legislature, most ESPECIALLY keep an eye on the Suprem Court (I personally would prefer to simply abolis h the entire U.S. Supreme Court and incorporate it into congress-- I can elaborate if you'd like). The president really doesn't have much power, though you should watch him too. I really don't have many problems with our current president, though I think he, like me, realized that the American People have given up, not just on him, but on everything. They just don't care anymore. But lemme ask this: If we don't support the president, how can we expect him to support us? Whether you agree with him or not, he is still your president, is still the Commander In Chief, the face of the country, and he needs all the support he can get. It's not about politics. It's about what's right for the country.
I agree, it does sometimes seem pretty bleak indeed. The prospect of saving you country is a daunting one, especially when those who have the ability to take action won't.
Voting isn't pointless. In choosing to do nothing for your country, you have chosen to do everything bad to it. To disagree... Our country was founded on the principle that you could disagree with your government.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism..."
-Thomas Jefferson
The best anyone can do is SOMETHING. To do something for your country is far better than to do nothing.
Voting isn't pointless. See, it's not COMPLETELY about making changes, it's about taking a stand for what you know is right, whether you suceed or not. To stand, even when you stand alone. That's what voting is.
Anarchy, to me, is to take resposibility for yourself to an extreme. one can't be totally independent. We do need a support system of some sort. We need a backbone that connnects us and unites us in our common goal of freedom for all. E Pluribus Unum. -
-
Yeah good work, your arguments are well-written and your knowledge is broad for any age, let alone 14...
-
-
Thank you! My name's Dan by the way. What's yours? *puts out hand cordially* I suppose I've like politics and/or philosophy for some time now. My love for books helped fuel further interest. I listented to radio whenever I was with my dad in his truck (he always had it on) and I listened, and I learned, and I broke off and formed more of my own ideas and opinions. I watched the news and discovered how agenda and politics oriented they are, particularly CNN and MSNBC and See BS (CBS). I developed a post 1776 conservative ideology similar to those of Thomas Jefferson and in particular Ben Franklin. I suppose I'm weird, being as I like politics and am fourteen. I argue (civilly, of course) with my Civics teacher all the time. Ah well. All the same I wouldn't trade my interest in politics for anything. I'm glad to not be TOO ignorant. It saddens and frightens me to a degree the level of ignorance in our children. They think politics is a nerd's realm and yawn and the very mention of the word. I just think of the fact that it's these kinds of people who will be running our country in another twenty years or so. God I hope something changes between then and there. But we need everyone.
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
-Mahatma Ghandi
-
-
-
-
You're only 14?!,wow*standing ovation*you put up a good fight,earned my respect.
-
-
Thank you! My name's Dan, by the way. *puts out his hand cordially* What's yours?
-
-
*shakes it*Mason...ah, Ghandi,now your starting to understand where my ideas are from. Try throwing a little H.D.Thourou(I know it's spelled wrong)in with it.
-
-
I enjoy the ideas Ghandi presents to humanity. You've seen my quote on your philosophy:
When Ghandi got off the boat from his journey, a man asked him, "So what do you think of Modern Civilizationn, Sir?" He replied, "When I see it I will tell you."
Ghandi is one of many people I draw ideas from:
W.E.B. DuBois ("Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate but rather that we are powerful beyond imagination"
Albert Einstein ("Imagination is more powerful than knowledge. Knowledge is limited; imagination encircles the world.")
Friedrich Nietzche ("There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.")
C.S. Lewis ("A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship him than a madman can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.")
Benjamin Franklin ("Those who would choose liberty over security deserve neither.")
Winston Churchill ("The truth is so precious that she must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.")
Jesus Christ ("All who live by the sword will perish by the sword.")
Aristotle ("We make war that we may live in peace.")
William Shakespeare ("I think, therefore I am.")
and many more.
I draw sometimes from two very different sources, (Friedrich Nietzche, an avid atheist, author of the highly provocative atheist novel "The Gay Science", and C.S. Lewis, author of "The Screwtape Letters", a fascinating god-believing book).
I'm what you call a philosophy collector. I'm always asking people their thoughts on certain things and I chew on them for a long while and then form my own ideas. Sometimes they agree and sometimes not. I've been described as an intellectual. Deep thinking, I'm sometimes described as a rather eccentric person as well. I don't lack in spontaneity anyway; my artwork (I do quite a bit of art and sketches and painting) can be quite random and seemingly meaningless to those the narrow minded and cynical. I write quite a bit as well. if you'd like to see more of my philosophy, see my most recent two stories on StoryWrite. The first one I wrote isn't philosophical but the other two are.
-
-
Sorry to be pedantic but 'I think, therefore I am' was not Shakespeare but Rene Descartes. The 'cream- faced loon' come out with some cracking poetry and plays however.
-
-
Oh good Lord I did say Shakespeare didn't I? Ugh, sorry about that.
I've been working with playwrights and authors and poets in my school right now and one of the many stories I've been reading is Hamlet and I'm boggling them together. You're right, it wasn't Shakespeare. What's your name, by the way, or is it just as your name suggests, Pete? Sigh, two star-crossed lovers have me confusing philosophers.
-
-
Yes it is Pete or Peter if you like, no worries about the Shakespeare thing, im not sure many people of your age would know who Rene Descartes is, let alone quote him.
Its also nice to meet you Dan...
-
-
-
lol,You've got a solid future ahead of you X. I can already see you being a professor or something of the sort..Im still in shock at your intellect for your age.
-
-
Thank you Mason, but I'd be a professor perhaps in my waning work years, mayhaps in the last few years before I retire. I'm actually hoping to be an independent graphic design consultant for awhile, do some screenplay and satirical fictio novels on the sidelines, then be a government or political science professor later if I choose.
-
-
Romeo and Juliet..bit too mushy for my tastes. A Midsummer Night's Dream wasn't bad.lol,this is getting a bit off topic.
-
-
lol Indeed it is! But all the same i think it's too mushy as well though I find the language exquisite. Midsummer Night's Dream is good along with Hamlet ("Ay, where's the rub?")
ANYWAY I have another question for you about your anarchist ideals, Mason.
You never did answer how the people would feed themselves, how they'd prevent competition for food, and what the protocol of response to disaster?
I'd just love to see a total outline of system.
-
-
The same way they fed themselves before government.
Competition isn't a bad thing, in the words of Slipknot "what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger" About the only actually "disasters" that could occur with a world anarchy would be natural disasters,and those would be taken care of as usual. -
-
ah ye old 'Pulse of the Maggots'
-
-
i like cheese
-Jonah E. -
As usual? In what way? The current "as usual" that we use In the U.S. right now is whine to the government to help us and then complain when they do. With no government there would be nothing but a bunch of whining people stuck in an existential cauldron of chaos and misery after disasters that would take decades to pick up from.
Please elaborate on this "as usual".
Oh yes and the way they feed themselves is currently done by imports and exports of food from other countries. But of course, global anarchy would eliminate any organized communication with the countries, making import and export of food virtually impossible.
No basic human competition isn't a bad thing but unlike SlipKnot the kind of competition on the incredibly large scale you'd have with anarchy would be incalculable.
There is enough food in the world to feed the entire global population and an additional three billion others, and yet in countries that produce plenty of food, eight out of ten children are starving.
The minute government was lifted, a floodgate of violence and misery the likes of which have never been seen since the dawn of mankind would pour out on humanity and potentially wipe it out. No government, no control over violence. We would revert to the primordial slime from whence we came and swallow ourselves up in our own fight for survival. Farms would be raided in the night, and of course no laws to stop it from happening.
Then of course you have natural disasters. Hurricanes hit, and no one would stop looters and raiders from stealing. I believe in the inherent good of human beings, but I'm not so stupid that I'd eliminate laws. And you can't say we could have laws without government. What would enforce the laws? Cause and effect, I will keep repeating, cause and effect. You get rid of one thing, these consequences will result. No government, no connection with the outside world for anything. Economy would shut down. Nothing could stop chaos from setting in.
I recant: Please elaborate.
-
I yield,seems nothing is going to alter your mind.
-
-
Oh something could alter my mind. A well thought out, explained, and presented arguement with facts to support it would certainly alter my opinion. As of yet I have seen no reason to change my mind.
-
-
An anarcho-capitalist would simply argue that the markets are self - regulating. That food will be dispensed as the markets decide and because of this (doing away with the current protectionist policies and dictators) Third world countries will benefit. Essentially anarcho-capitalism has laws, but these laws are set byt the market.
It depends on how inherently good you believe Humans to be. An anarcho-capitalist would believe the human race to be innherently good which can be trusted on the whole to look after itself. Crime can be stopped by other innherently good individuals who wish to protect others from harm acting themselves without laws, people could be defended using the same resources they use now. It could be argued that having laws and regulations encourages rebellion, and that much crime is simply crime because of these rules.
My view is that the common conception of anarchy is an ugly distortion of the concept that most anarchists invision. However anarchy in my view is no perfect solution, i believe that most humans are innherently good but they also innherently desire and are attracted to leadership. Animals adopt a leadership system in many cases and we are not totally dissimilar from animals. I believe most Utopian dreams end up falling short of the promises. -
-
Thank you Pete! You've given me the most concise and thought out answers among the people who have posted here!
Yes I can understand that anarchists envision a utopian style system in which every member of society looks out for the good of his fellow man. To be an anarchist is to put blind faith into the inherent good of human beings and disregard their natural tendency to, as you said, desire power. Granted there are many people, particularly when a society is in its fledgling stages who put their devotion and their love into serving their fellow statesmen. However, complacency sets in all societies. It is inevitable, irregardless of what political and economic system you put into place. The goal of a political system is not to perfect a society but rather to gain the most productivity out of the society from the imperfections.
I am a Lincoln conservative capitalist. I think a society can function wih a minimum of restrictions on the economy, and for the social benefit of the populus some rudimentary social restraints. I don't want control over our actions but basic things such as legal limits on alcohol consumption, drug laws, etc. I believe in a strong but not overbearing national defense that can swiftly and effectively deal with conflicts with other countries as quickly as possible, but only of course when diplomacy fails.
I believe in low taxes. The Founding Fathers of the country fought England over a tax that was barely one percent of their income, and we feel satisfied with a nearly fifty percent overall tax rate. I am against the particularly wishy washy namby pamby welfare programs such as head start. Theses welfare programs are the reason why we need these high taxes (and yes, along with the War, although if you look at statistics, the economy, contrary to popular belief, is roaring, with the exception of the deficit, which I believe will diminish after the war).
I believe that liberty is the freedom to be responsible for yourself.
Utopian dreams do tend to fall short of their promises. This is unavoidable. However, I do think that the objective is not to obtain perfection, but rather the greatest net productivity for the longest period of time that is possible to extract from a society before vice and complacency set in. I fear this complacency is upon us, though I haven't given up hope yet. All the same, I think if something isn't done to divert our current course soon, we may find ourselves in one of two places:
The Chinese Republic of America
The United Arab Emirates of America
I recently read a book by Mark Steyn entitled America Alone. Interesting book illustrating how Islam is already very deeply rooted in Europe, and still growing.
Anyways, once again thank you for your well made point Pete!
-
-
Sorry for the lateness of my reply, there is not much to reply to, but a few issues I thought require some discussion.
The tax placed on America, was viewed as unjust by most Americans due to the fact that nearly all went towards a country on the other-side of the world, which was viewed to unfairly control them. Most expenditure of taxes is viewed as justified or at least bearable (possibly not the Iraq war).
You make claims about Liberty but you support prohibition? In your oft repeated words- please elaborate...
What form of Welfare do you suggest? At the moment America utilises a liberal model similar to UK but less coverage.
If you don't already I suggest you go on the website www.nationstates.net a political simulation game where you create a nation based on your political ideals- it can be a little extreme at points however. -
-
Thank you for pointing out my mistakes, and I shall be happy to elaborate.
I don't consider liberty to be pure, unadulterated lasseiz faire. For the most part, particularly economically speaking, yes. But you have to take into account the human factor.
Prohibition of what, exactly? For the most part I don't believe in prohibitions, though there are a few things that I do feel should be if not eliminated, at the very least limited. For instance, I believe we should have (note the WE, not the government's arbitrary decision, but on decisis of the populus) some limitations on certain drugs, namely marijuana, cocaine, meth, and the like. For one thing, these substances are not only harmful to oneself but also to others, namely impressionable teenagers and youths.
I think it's wise to have a legal limit on alcohol consumption. It can vary by state but I feel there should be some sort of limit imposed. For one thing, after a certain amount of alcohol intake, one's judgement is muddled, and one may take in more alcohol than they had intended, and could potenitially become hostile, suicidal, crash their car on the highway, and a great many other things that could not only harm themselves but also others around them. For this, I think there should be a legal limit (and age limit) for alcohol consumption.
Those two, drugs and alcohol, are my main concerns. I certainly wouldn't want to totally eliminate alcohol. It can have certain medicinal and stress relieving properties in moderation, and many people simply find it enjoyable to drink, and they needn't have it taken from them. I simply think that it would be wise to put a simple limitation to it.
However, I am not for gun control laws. Sure, we don't need automatic weapons to be sold to the public or hand grenades and whatnot unless they have some sort of permit but in general, I see no reason to eliminate guns. For one thing it's silly. To take a way guns does not eliminate the problem, it simply eliminates one avenue through which the problem can affect you. Just because they can't BUY guns doesn't mean they can't steal them, make them themselves, or just use one of a vast plethora of other devices to kill or harm someone or something. And besides, the majority of people aren't planning on murdering anyone, and deserve the right to use guns for whatever non-harmful purpose or passtime they enjoy pursuing.
To continue, you made a good point when you said that the tax went to a country thousands of miles away and they didn't get representation. However, my point still stands. Their tax was one percent to a country far far away, our tax is fifty percent to a country we live in. There's still a problem with both. To eliminate the tax, or at least the need for it, I'd get rid of some of the more unneccesary welfare programs that sap the government's money. I believe in the privatization of social security. Oh me oh my, run from the guy who believes in the privatization of social security, right? I simply think that, like life insurance, social security can be put into the hands of the people and it would take an immense burden off of the government. the WIC program should be eliminated. I'm not saying anything against Women, Infants, and Children by any means but I simply think it's a stray tag the government doesn't need taking their money. Head start ought to be done away with as well. I think that except in the more extreme circumstances, the welfare provided for people in quote unquote "low in come areas" should be eliminated.
I think the two main groups that should be financially HELPED, not completely provided for, but HELPED, by the government, should be veterans and retired persons. That's not to say that there wouldn't be more, but those would be the two MAIN ones.
I'm sure I've left out several highly worthy recipients of government welfare, and I'd appreciate it if you pointed them out. I'm drawing a blank right now.
-
-
Welfare...do you realize how much simpler things could be if we rid ourselves of this disease know as money? A simulation sounds interesting,have to check that out.
-
-
I wouldn't go THAT far, Mason. Currency was established for a good reason.
In the early times, man competed fiercely for food and resources. Eventually, bartering was established. "I'll give you this for that, and that for this." for awhile, this worked very well. But as man spread around the world, and territories and farmlands were established, man couldn't simply take something from just anywhere and trade it for something. Resources became more scarce. So, man began taking easily recognizable objects as universal tools for bartering, and the more of it you had, the more of something (or something of a better quality) you could have. Eventually as man started mining gold, silver, and other metals from the earth, they decided it was recognizable and precious enough that its worth could be compared to the thing it was traded for. Example, X number of gold nuggets and/or coins equals X amount of corn or feed or wood or brick. Eventually the gold was fashioned and customized for specific territories and countries.
So as seen, money wasn't established out of greed, but out of necessity.
-
-
here I figured this conversation was dead
-
-
Well it can be dead if you don't want to continue it, Mason. I just left it alone for awhile since no one responded on it anymore and then I came on a few weeks later just to see if anyone had done anything on it and they had. But if you'd rather not do this anymore we don't have to.
-
-
well,as said before,I havn't much more to say.
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
petethemeat
March 17, 2007
Xelgaroth
March 18, 2007
petethemeat
March 19, 2007
Edit | Reply
Flag burning does not really concern me- it would probably annoy me if it happened but i wouldn't consider it a crime. I also think if it was allowed it would lose that shock and rebellion factor that most people do it for and they would cease to use it as a form of protest.
Illegal Drug Law is a matter that interests me and I have greatly researched this topic . I support the legalisation of all drugs, not only because of liberal principles but I can see not one argument that stands to scrutiny that prohibition is better, comparing with the many benefits I believe legalisation would bring. If you wish to hear my argument for Legalisation then ask, but I believe it would be a little off-topic if I was to bring up this issue unasked.
War can be a necessary evil, I very rarely believe a country should go to war, but a country should be able to defend itself should invasion occur.
Brew Kline
March 17, 2007
George W. Bush. Need I say more? The trouble with capitalism is that WEALTH IS PRESERVED BY THE INSTITUTION OF FAMILY. Our president was born on third base, but he *thinks* he hit a triple. This is why he is so far removed from the reality of the non-privalaged. AND is why he can so blatantly walk all over them (response the Katrina, for example-- not to mention the murder of 300+ NYC firemen on 9/11). People to him are just numbers to be used as pawns for the protection of the KING.
This is why immigrants is crucial to freedom. People who rise from poor background can REMEMBER the plight of the disadvantaged. Even you, Xelgaroth, have lost the experience of starting from the beginning. You are privelaged. Are you black? Can you understand the plight of the American black man? Where are black men? At my job, 5% of my coleagues are black. FIVE PERCENT! My neighborhood is pretty affluent but I hardly ever see any black professionals living here. THERE'S A PROBLEM. It's not just capitalism. Capitalism is fine but the rules of inclusion in the capitalism game MUST be made fair. To start, the education system must provide an equal education. I have a kid going into kindergarten. You should see the competition to get into a good school in New York City. To get into a good public school the five year-olds HAVE TO TAKE AN IQ TEST!!! You can have 1,000 kids applying for 15 seats in a good school. I've attended numerous open houses. I've seen the quality of teachers and classrooms. The public school system (at least in new york) is appalling.
The downfall of capitalism is that the rules are written by the one's who already hold the super majority of wealth. They keep it by not providing good educations to the nation's children.
Xelgaroth
March 18, 2007
Edit | Reply
We are equalized not by our abilities, not by our fathers, and not by where we started in life. We are equalized by the freedom to be who we are.
"To start, the education system must provide an equal education."
How would you do this, Brew Kline? With all due respect intended, how does one go about giving an equal education to a countrywide child population of over forty million, of course there will be competition. You would need a school for every fourth building in every city in every state in the country! And every one of these schools would need to house at least 200 children! The impossibility of it is astounding, no matter what political or economic system you put in place!
April 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
Sigh
Why do you people always slam the president of the country, bashing him with all sorts of names, and whole bunch of other jargon. Seriously, if you want to bring up the President into a debate and then slam him, inferring that hes a complete buffon, then you should probably just stop debating. I dont care if you agree with his policies or not but to slam a man or belittling his intelligence without any sort of proof or KNOWLEDGE, just reveals what kind of person you are and one with little intelligence. If you and others like you would get rid of the vitriol you have for the President of the United States then perhaps we can have more civil and knowledgeble debates across this nation and perhaps if the vitriol fades indeed I won't have to hear of more idiotic marches, riots, demostrations that get out of hand and end up on as the focal point of the evening news. Sigh.Brew Kline
March 19, 2007
Re: "With all due respect intended, how does one go about giving an equal education to a countrywide child population of over forty million, of course there will be competition."
Of course, education cannot compete with war. You are right. The war in Iraq will cost ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!Dude, 1,000,000,000,000 dollars!!! TO KILL.
Do you see where you're money is going? Why do you think the logistics is difficult in getting an excellent education system going in America?
It's not about "impossibility", it is about PRIORITIES.
Today, the first priority is satisfying WALL STREET (the stock market). That's what the war in Iraq is all about. It's about enriching stock holders.
The trouble with an educated population is that it would take an even more educated business class, and they are frightened of losing their wealth; better to keep the populace stupid.
petethemeat
March 19, 2007
Several prominent publications have already produced articles refuting the argument that Iraq was started for the oil (such as the economist) . It doesn't make economic sense whichever way you look at it.
Oil production has been lessened and taxes have been increased, not beneficial for oil companies. They also have increased risk to supply. Making oil very rare and costly in the short term is poor business strategy, as the market will make a concerted effort to move away from oil, or at the very least cut down on it's usage. The main thing that makes oil popular is its price, and expensive oil will force the development of alternatives.
Xelgaroth
March 19, 2007
Edit | Reply
financially benefit anyone except the alternative fuel industries. In that respect the idea that the war is simply for "money and power" seems illogical at this time.
Xelgaroth
March 19, 2007
1: Raise taxes
2: Conquer another country and force money out of them.
3: Elminate some of the more wishy washy and unecessary welfare programs that sap our money.
I would go with choice number three. But in any case, this debate/think tank is about a specific plan of governmental political/economic system. Mayhaps you could give me an outline of your proposed system?
petethemeat
March 19, 2007
Edit | Reply
A simple 'Golden Rule' about borrowing related to GDP and only for use in investment rather than paying for services, should suffice. Such a policy is being utilised by Britain as a result of Chancellor Gordon Brown and EU financial directives, and seems to be obtaining positive results.
Xelgaroth
March 19, 2007
Edit | Reply
The trouble with an educated population is that it would take an even more educated business class, and they are frightened of losing their wealth; better to keep the populace stupid.
Again, it would not be profitable for them to make the populus stupid. True, it would creat more business rivals to have a more educated business class, but the stock market possibilities would be tremendous. And also, while rivals would form, so would allies. Companies would give and share wealth quite easily. More people in the business field would only help the economy and businessmen alike.
M.Ridgway
March 19, 2007
Edit | Reply
March 19, 2007
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free