I was brainstorming for scholarship/college app. essays, and I came across this question:
"If you were given the opportunity to change a specific government policy, what policy would you want changed and explain fully why you think the change is necessary?"
seriously, or not so seriously, what do you think?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
On the not-so-serious note, I wish we could change the fact that Congress can give itself a raise, and does so on a fairly regular basis.
Might upset the balance of power, though.
--j_k
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Let’s see…. First I’d make sure that its freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Meaning that we are a Christian nation which allows religious expression not one that misinterprets laws so that God is taken away. That should solve most problems.
I’d also have some sort of term limit added into the constitution for all publicly elected offices at any level. 12 years or two terms. Something like that.
And a balanced budget amendment.
Oh, and a requirement of a super ¾ majority for all tax increases and regular majority for all tax cuts.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A single change? Just one? Hm. Given that, I'd remove the commerce clause.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
We are NOT a Christian nation, regardless of what you believe.
Thank God.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I'd Like Jack Ryan (the fictional character of Tom Clancy's) to be our president. I really liked the way he rebuilt the government in Executive Orders.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's a lot easier to rebuild the government if you can kill it off first. That's why it's been the preferred method of reformers throughout history.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Switch out the income tax with a flat tax.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The first item that I'd put on my list of candidates (possible changes) would be the elimination of legal abortion.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would take a hard look at where and how the government is spending money.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
<sigh> Everyone wants tax cuts, no one wants the money taken from the same places.
I'd like to abolish the two party system. They're both too entrenched, too deeply tied to money, too endeared to a system of their own design. Let's have a great big open ballot and give everyone a first and second choice, and see if we get some Greens, Libertarians, Socialists... Hell, anything to get a few more points of view in the mix. I don't think the established platform of either party really corresponds to even a large minority of voters anymore, so every choice is a "lesser of two evils" approach.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Congress can give itself a raise, and does so on a fairly regular basis."
People don't hope to be elected so they can get rich off their salaries. EVERYONE is supposed to get a raise every year, why shouldn't Congress? They have to use that money to maintain two residences, one in Washington and one in their home district or state. Unless they were wealthy before they got there, they aren't rolling in money from their salaries.
I would change the two party system. There should be multiple parties that HAVE to work together to get things done. As it is, it's one party bullying the other around, and the minority using stall tactics where it doesn't have the real power to oppose. We'd get more compromise, and more done.
I also think there should be provisions for a balanced budget. What's the point in having a debt ceiling anyway? All we ever do is raise it higher. There should be something stricter in place to MAKE them be responsible. Obviously they don't know how to do it themselves.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I would add term limits for all elected offices. Our society isn't so deviod of capable people that we need the same people sitting in office for decades at a time.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: Let’s see…. First I’d make sure that its freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Meaning that we are a Christian nation which allows religious expression not one that misinterprets laws so that God is taken away. That should solve most problems.
Sometimes freedom from religion is freedom of religion. My freedom not to have to pray at school and be ostracized for my belief is a perfect example.
I would create a flat tax for everyone. No person pays more or less that a certain amount, with no loop holes. If I had a second notion, I would take all money out of government, meaning no lobbyists or campaign donations. Instead, the government pays for campaigns with equal money given to each party. Yeah, good luck with that one.
Posted by Domasai (Member # 8739) on :
Seriously? I'd give the states back the powers they were supposed to have in the first place.
But on a more local level:
I don't like the fact that people who make 'ugly faces' at dogs may be fined and/or jailed where I live. I rather like the idea of giving 'em a glare on occasion, maybe even an angry snort. But I gotta rein that inclination in. Keep it inside, hidden.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Hm. Given that, I'd remove the commerce clause.
DO you mean abolish the federal government's power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, or remove the restrictions on federal power that requires a connection to interstate commerce before it can act?
If the former, then the following acts are right out:
Endangered species act Civil rights act ADA Mail Fraud RICO FDA and all drug approvals OSHA and all safety regulations All federal gun control laws Antitrust laws Labor Relations Laws
I can't even think of them all, there are so many.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
when states had that kind of power some of them get the inclination to separate.
Dispite living in Canada however I live in Quebec as an english speaker and I refuse to believe that in any way Quebec deserves to be its own country, they're canadian and always will be canadian.
Posted by Domasai (Member # 8739) on :
Blayne:
That might have been an issue in the distant past, but I don't foresee any states attempting to leave the country. They weren't threatening to leave it when World War II came around, which is when most of the power was taken and placed in the federal arena -- for streamlining the war effort. It was just never given back. That's what I have a problem with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If the former, then the following acts are right out:
Yep. That's precisely what I mean. I no longer trust the federal government to properly oversee those essential elements of society; I believe that direct election of our representatives, coupled with an increasing need for specialization in order to understand the minutae of each issue, has created an environment in which career politicians are no longer capable of deciding those issues for an entire nation in an informed manner. People keep mistaking me for a leftist. *laugh*
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I would like to see reform in the House of Representatives and Senate. Specifically:
-A cap on the number of years a Senator or Representative can hold office.
-True representation of the people. People really should be able to vote on any issues, i.e. Roe V Wade and if their Representative or Senator does not vote in conjuction with their represented body, they should suffer disciniplary action and/or removal... We live in the 21st century and have the technological means to allow people to vote on the issues that matter to them. Sadly, our House and Senate are bombarded by multi-hundred page bills that even they don't read, so this hope for reform is futile. Why would Reps and Senators simplify things for Joe Average, only to be held accountable if they do not vote the way the people want their elected official to vote?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I'm with Jay. I would make it unquestionable that we are a Christian nation. Probably put that into the Constitution as a statement clause of position a little more than policy. I mean, regardless of your protestations Kwea, we are practically if not officially, a Christian nation already. Unless TomD's argument that Christians shouldn't have much to worry about is not true.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Alucard: its important to keep in mind that practicality/impracticality of counting everyone's votes was not the primary consideration when choosing a republican, representative style of government, and that the capability to do so does not override the (demonstrably still extant) other concerns.
For instance, think of how many bills you've seen horrendously misrepresented in the media.
Think of your own area of work, and imagine if the laws for it were not determined by a body of representatives who at least often consulted experts even if they didn't always pay attention, but a large body of people who had no frickin' idea what your work was like and voted based on bully pulpit grandstanding by polemicists.
Think how many laws are unavoidably complex -- many bills could, for sound reasons dealing with the fact that our country is freakin' big and complex, be interpreted to both support and oppose certain positions (this is unsurprising, as bills are almost always compromises). If representatives are now mandated to vote based on naively simplistic statements, who's going to determine if such a bill was more "for" or more "against" a particular position?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:People keep mistaking me for a leftist. *laugh*
Not all of them are leftist. And there are many others that aren't either.
It does seem to make customs problematic, though. Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
fugu you are so right.
I knew the impracticiality and many faults of my suggestions as I wrote them. Maybe I prefer a government of city-states instead of a federal one? But one thing for sure, I am not a political strategist and I am quite naive about most things political. Basically, I am out of my league in here!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It does seem to make customs problematic, though.
I imagine that many states would enact laws permitting free trade with other states. Those that didn't would probably lose enough trade that they'd change their minds.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I like the first suggestion you made, though balancing it right would be an issue.
As for the second, I do prefer a system that simplifies bills. Specifically, I'd like to create a two-tiered legislative process, with one, smaller body setting policy law, and a much larger, more complex body involving numerous committees and agencies undertaking the administration of that policy law (and the creation of administrative law to enact it). This is already done to a minor extent in some areas (FCC anyone?). Administrative law would be easier to make, but also easier to repeal or reject (if, for instance, an appropriately constituted body declared it to not be in support of any of the policy law in place).
Properly done, we'd have policies that were actually human readable and debated prior to enactment, but hard to change (like current laws are hard to change), whereas the detail stuff, which is complex, depends on changing circumstance, and far more area specific would be decided far more quickly relying largely on experts, but be easy to get rid of.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think he's thinking of international customs.
States are required by other clauses to engage in free trade with other states, iirc.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm surprised you didn't target the power to create a military, Tom.
Edit: and what fugu just said.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I'd make the separation of church and state ironclad. If you don't have a good solid non-faith-based reason for your legislation, it ain't happening. Period. No more attempts at creation of a theocracy.
There are so many people in this country who are not in any way Christian. What is it, exactly, that you think makes the country a "Christian nation"? Because it can't just be based solely on your desire for it to be true.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'd make the separation of church and state ironclad. If you don't have a good solid non-faith-based reason for your legislation, it ain't happening.
Who gets to decide if it's a good solid reason?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Well, therein lies the problem, doesn't it?
Me. Definitely me.
Edit: When I crown myself Queen of the World, of course.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I'd also like to see some way of forcing bills to only contain elements that are related to one another. I'm sick of seeing bills that go something along the lines of an education funding bill with funding for some senator's cousin's livestock show thrown in.
Not sure how such a restriction would actually be implimented, but it would be nice to see.
Of course, this still doesn't prevent wastefull pork barrel spending. At least it should prevent member of congress from being forced to voted against otherwise good bills to shoot down this type of waste.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I always thought the point of the Federal vs. State and county governments was that the majorit of issues, moral and menial, were supposed to be taken care of on a local level.
I conceed that there are certain issues that need to be adressed in a national forum, especially human rights issues; However, it seems to me the intention of the founding fathers was to prevent the fedral government from having some of the sweeping abilities it now posesses.
I think one of the major issues that has confuscated the percieved purpose of government is the graying out of the borders between the branches of government. The descrepancy between the original powers and purpose of the Judicial branch and its current leaning toward rulings unsupported by any act of congress or related laws is one of the major issues we face.
The source of the problem is not fully in the court of the judges.(pun not intended) Laws regarding moral dillemas are hard to pass because of the job security related concerns our law makers face while also (hopefully) trying to determine what is right legally and morally. This seems to be why amny moral decisions often end up being taken care of at the judical level.
Some openly welcome this method of "legislation". Some only welcome it subjectively, applauding it when supporting a particular view, and condemning it if they do not. If I were to hope for a specific change in the government it would be an end to such practices. Even if I didn't like some of the resulting laws.
I'm not holding my breath. State and Federal Congress often won't decide so it seems the Judges have to.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hm. The question is very narrow. A specific U.S. government policy? Just one? I'm torn between a few, but I think I'd go with campaign finance reform: Each canadidate running for federal office gets $X from the government, with no supplementary funding of any sort permitted. Support your candidate with your vote, not your dollars. In a system with more than two parties, my preference would be something similar to what's done here in Canada -- each party gets $Y per vote received. This way even if you vote for a losing candidate, your vote was not wasted. I don't think this works in a two-party system, though.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by calaban: However, it seems to me the intention of the founding fathers was to prevent the fedral government from having some of the sweeping abilities it now posesses. [/QB]
Is the intention of the founding fathers necessarily binding?
I don't mean this as rebutel to your points calaban. I'm asking because I have seen this argument used by a lot of people lately, and I'm not convinced that it is even a valid.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think it is Important, but given that the world changes, how much it has changed, and how much the authors of the Constitution were aware of this fact, not overridingly so.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Jay wrote: First I’d make sure that its freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Meaning that we are a Christian nation which allows religious expression not one that misinterprets laws so that God is taken away. That should solve most problems.
I don't think it would solve "most" problems, but you might be interested to know that Commonwealth nations don't have the same church/state dichotomy that you have. I'll use Canada as an example, since that's where I live. First, since the Queen is still technically the ruler of Canada, Canada must be a Christian nation -- specifically, an Anglican nation, as the Queen is also the head of the Anglican church. This is true for all Commonwealth nations. Second, our Constitution states "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law," it's written plain as day in the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (we have two Constitution Acts, the first in 1867, when Canada was founded, and the second in 1982, when the Constitution was formally patriated from the United Kingdom).
As an aside, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is probably my favourite legal document ever. "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms" is such a wonderful phrase.
So Canada is unquestionably a Christian nation... but somehow I get the feeling you wouldn't be happy living here. Our taxation system is strongly progressive (in the "graduated" sense of the term, not the "forward-looking" sense). Our health care system is public and universal. Same-sex marriage is explicitly allowed here by law; the legal definition of marriage refers to people, not men and women. We do not explicitly have any Charter right to own or carry firearms, though many parts of Canada have a strong hunting culture and firearms are hardly uncommon.
Based on the Commonwealth example, it doesn't really seem like a Christian nation would be your kind of country.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Indeed fugu, there are many situations that we face that they could never forsee. I think the founding fathers issue is only valid when dealing with certain areas. One primary issue is states rights. I think the intention was that although The Unites States was a group of states under one governing body, each state held certain autonomous rights. Additionally the trilateral structure of our government and the guidelines they set out for seperation of powers are extremely important and will never be eclipsed by any specific issue.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I would like to do something to take away much of the power that the federal government has taken over since the constitution was ratified, and give it back to the state.
And yet, no solutions I can think of are satisfying -- they all throw out too many babies with the bathwater.
As I think about it, I want the federal government to stay out of things that I want them to stay out of, but step in and take charge when I want them to.
Which in essence means that I want to be king, just like Megan.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have the same problem with Liberatarianism. I really like a lot of what they say, but some of the conclusions/results of liberatarianism are extremely distasteful to me.
In reality, I want liberatarianism that follows my agenda. Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I'd like term limits for senators and representatives. Of course I say this because I very much want new people in Utah's Legislative seats (I'm especially not fond of Bennet and Hatch.) With a brand new set, I could get annoyed with politics in whole new and exciting ways.
But ultimately if I had to change one thing, I would want the school systems to be revamped. However impratical, I think that a free quality education (not the watered down version we have now) is essential for our progress as a nation. I would like to see teachers paid and treated as if their degree actually means something, our federal govenment quit trying to manage education, and our society quit viewing public school as a babysitting service.
Financially, of course, this would be a nightmare for the state and the federal government, but the question didn't say it had to be practical.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I would abolish the armed forces as such, keeping the National Guard, Air National Guard and Coast Guard to protect the nation. I would then spend all that money on schools and hospitals.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Occasional- You're Mormon, right? You do realize how completely screwed you would be if America became a Christian nation? Most of the conservative Christians I know hate Mormons much more than they hate atheists or homosexuals, they just can't do anything about it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alucard...: -True representation of the people. People really should be able to vote on any issues, i.e. Roe V Wade and if their Representative or Senator does not vote in conjuction with their represented body, they should suffer disciniplary action and/or removal... We live in the 21st century and have the technological means to allow people to vote on the issues that matter to them. Sadly, our House and Senate are bombarded by multi-hundred page bills that even they don't read, so this hope for reform is futile. Why would Reps and Senators simplify things for Joe Average, only to be held accountable if they do not vote the way the people want their elected official to vote?
I once said that the paradox of representative democracy is that we elect people expecting them to be smarter than us, more disciplined than us, more virtuous than us, more educated and informed than us... And then expect them to make the same choices _we_ would.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
First I'd remind them that we have bathrooms with which to go potty in. Then grab a new pair of pants and, y'know, the usual.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think we're a Christian nation. Frankly, I think that's a good thing, because it would make government even more hypocritical than it already is. I mean, the USA (and all governments) act in pretty darn unChristlike ways all the time. That's pretty bad, some would say necessary, but I think it'd be worse (even more hypocritical) if we were a Christian nation. -----
Megan,
quote:I'd make the separation of church and state ironclad. If you don't have a good solid non-faith-based reason for your legislation, it ain't happening. Period. No more attempts at creation of a theocracy.
This goes quite a distance beyond just seperation of church and state, you know. In essence it outlaws religion. It does not outlaw the practice of religion...in daily life. But don't try to do anything important with religion, like influence the world around you, because the Wise Secularists know better.
Which is a pretty intolerant and offensive way of thinking, if you're a secularist and some religious nut tries to tell you how to live your life. But not, apparently, the other way around.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The specific government policy I'd change is the one that says "Rakeesh isn't the Dictator for Life of America just because he says so".
Other changes would follow Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Which is a pretty intolerant and offensive way of thinking, if you're a secularist and some religious nut tries to tell you how to live your life. But not, apparently, the other way around.
And yet, somehow, people of faith can do this all the time and it's perfectly ok? That, to me, is what laws with solely religious bases are. It's an attempt to "influence the world," as you put it, by forcing everyone under that law to live under that religion.
Notice, I don't say that the law should have NO faith-based reasons. I just think faith-based reasons shouldn't be the ONLY one. Why? Because there are a whole lot of people in this country who aren't Christian and who don't want to live under laws with solely Christian bases. These laws make no sense to me.
Take blue laws, for example. Why should it be illegal to buy alcohol on Sundays? What, precisely, is the reason for that? It's solely tied up in religious traditions. Why should this apply to people who believe it's just fine and dandy to drink on Sundays?
I DON'T think anyone should be prevented from practicing their religion. I just don't think they should be allowed to force it on others through legislation either.
Edit: What does an entirely secular basis for legislation cause those of faith to lose? How is your religious freedom hindered by not putting your religious beliefs into law, but instead creating law from a more generic point of view?
It seems to me that the ONLY thing having an entirely secular basis for legislation does is prevent those of faith from forcing that faith on others.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The United States? hmm... thats a tough one since I don't actually live their.... I'ld say surrender to the Chinese that'll fix ALL your problems. And subsequently fix all of their problems.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'd say surrender to the Chinese that'll fix ALL your problems.
Blayne, you have a really, really bizarre and unhealthy affection for Chinese tyranny. Why?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Since when is America in a position to surrender to China?
I have no idea what I'd change about America specifically or what out of the hundreds of things I don't think work as well as they could. However, I rather prefer the way Canada is so I supposed I'd lean towards making it more like Canada- although that might be more of a policy change than a change in government structure- I'm not sure which we are talking about.
Megan- are there actually still places in the US where you can't buy alcohol on Sundays?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*waves hand* Right here! I cannot buy alcohol on Sundays! Unless I drive to Wisconsin.
Hence why I make sure to have a full stock and wide range of alcohol on hand at all times, in case I wish to drink on a Sunday. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Chinese tyranny? Confused.... I think China's human rights record has been steadily improving.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I haven't read the rest of this thread yet but my change woul dbe to get rid of the electoral college. I just don't feel like my vote really count the way it is now.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Chinese tyranny? Confused.... I think China's human rights record has been steadily improving.
"Improving" does not mean it's anywhere near being good.
Posted by EndofEternity (Member # 7466) on :
Speaking of china... do you think it would've been ok to let the chinese purchase that us oil company?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I would put in place policies to place enviromental interests above business interests.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
ok is subjective, buisness is buisness.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ok is subjective, buisness is buisness.
Actually, when it comes to human rights, OK is fairly objective. You may also be interested to know that the principal author of the document I just linked to is a Canadian.
Added:
Blayne, let me ask you a related question: How do you feel about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Added 2: Oops, I just realized your post above isn't directed at me. Still, the question stands. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: Switch out the income tax with a flat tax.
Not a flat tax. The FairTax. A flat tax is still a tax on income, which is just amazingly counterproductive.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The first item that I'd put on my list of candidates (possible changes) would be the elimination of legal abortion.
What about people whose religion obligates them to have an abortion? Would you make an exception for that, or are you willing to force people to commit murder?
In Judaism, if a woman's life is in danger and the only way to save her life is to abort the fetus, you must do so. If you prevent this, and the mother dies, you have committed murder.
What makes your standards more important than ours? Is this more "Christian nation" stuff?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Let’s see…. First I’d make sure that its freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Meaning that we are a Christian nation which allows religious expression not one that misinterprets laws so that God is taken away. That should solve most problems.
Except that I'd fight to the death against it. And so would many, many, many other people. Including, mind you, not a small number of Christians.
This is not a Christian nation. It never has been, and it never will be. Christians have no special status here, and I repeat that I would fight to the death (mine or anyone else's) to keep that from changing.
I'm deadly serious.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: I would create a flat tax for everyone. No person pays more or less that a certain amount, with no loop holes.
That's not called a flat tax. It's called a head tax. Believe it or not, a flat tax is what they call it when you only take the same percentage of earnings away from everyone.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I'm with Jay. I would make it unquestionable that we are a Christian nation. Probably put that into the Constitution as a statement clause of position a little more than policy. I mean, regardless of your protestations Kwea, we are practically if not officially, a Christian nation already. Unless TomD's argument that Christians shouldn't have much to worry about is not true.
You want a Christian nation, go off and make one. You aren't touching mine.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
We enjoy a fairly good economy, the Chinese try their best to maintain stability so that they can maintain they're rapidly accelerated growth, as it stands China's economy is doing afr better then Soviet Russia's ever was.
To them stability = growth and they have a largely cunfucian influenced whereas the individual was not as important as the West stressed individuallity.
They are as it stands slowly integrating grass roots democracy upwards to avoid what happened with Russia.
Some things they may do may be wrong to our standards but do we really consider ourselves so high and mighty that we have to force it onto other people? Its the Chinese people ultimately who will decide what is right for them and what is wrong, not some Yang gui zi. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Blayne, you have a really, really bizarre and unhealthy affection for Chinese tyranny. Why?
It is part of his charm.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I'd make the separation of church and state ironclad. If you don't have a good solid non-faith-based reason for your legislation, it ain't happening.
Who gets to decide if it's a good solid reason?
Personally, I'd be willing to take your word for it. If you say that you have a reason other than a faith based one, you should be able to propose your law. As a religious person, I'm sure you wouldn't lie about such a thing. And if it is faith based, it should not be valid even as a proposal. Because if that's the reason, you are forcing your faith on others.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Its the Chinese people ultimately who will decide what is right for them and what is wrong...
If I felt that the Chinese people had much of a say in the matter, I wouldn't be so disdainful of China.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Some things they may do may be wrong to our standards but do we really consider ourselves so high and mighty that we have to force it onto other people? Its the Chinese people ultimately who will decide what is right for them and what is wrong, not some Yang gui zi.
Under their present system, no, the Chinese people won't decide much of anything, given that suppression of dissent and censorship are still as strong as ever over there. Basic human rights are not a question of "our standards," they are a question of universal standards. "Everyone is entitled to the following fundamental freedoms," not just us.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: I'd also like to see some way of forcing bills to only contain elements that are related to one another. I'm sick of seeing bills that go something along the lines of an education funding bill with funding for some senator's cousin's livestock show thrown in.
Not sure how such a restriction would actually be implimented, but it would be nice to see.
Of course, this still doesn't prevent wastefull pork barrel spending. At least it should prevent member of congress from being forced to voted against otherwise good bills to shoot down this type of waste.
Amen. I once made a list of no-brainers:
Expiration dates For any law to be passed, it must have an expiration date no later than 25 years from the date the law is passed. After all, if there isn't solid support for a law any more, why should it be a law?
All existing laws would expire according to a gradual scale over the next 25 years, based on their age, so that they don't all die at once.
Preambles For any law to be passed, it must contain a preamble which gives the reason for the law and the intent behind the law. And laws will have to be enforced according to the stated intent, even if a loophole may have been found in the verbiage of the law.
Single issue The whole issue with the line-item veto is that laws can contain numerous unrelated topics. This will no longer be allowed.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I would like to do something to take away much of the power that the federal government has taken over since the constitution was ratified, and give it back to the state.
The problem is that the 14th Amendment effectively repealed the 9th and 10th Amendments. You'd pretty much need to reinstate the 9th and 10th. And that could cause all sorts of nastiness.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Just out of curiosity, which Christianity of the many variants would get the nod? How would Americans of other faiths be treated? Would politicians be forced to pass a religious test to be elected? How would this affect schools? Social programs? Scientific research?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I would change two things about this country in order to promote justice, equality and quality of life for our citizenry.
First, I would make education the responsibility of the Federal government. Right now there are different standards, curricula, and quality of education based on where you live. Children who live in municipalities that have wealthy residents and a rich tax base get a good quality education while those who don't, don't. A national standard, paid for by federal taxes would make for a well-educated public, would prepare our citizens for the working world that they will enter after school, and can make us more competitive overall. While federal taxes would rise to pay for this, municipal taxes would plummet (because the bulk of municipal taxes pays for schools). By having a centralized Board of Education, expenses associated with the current redundancy would fall, as well.
The other change I would make would be to make access to basic and emergency healthcare the right of all citizens (and what the heck -- non-citizen residents, as well. Who needs a bunch of sick foreigners among us?) The constitution affords us the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How does that not include the right to healthcare? The current system is a rapidly fraying patchwork, leaving access to healthcare pretty much up to chance and luck. If you are unlucky enough to lose your job, you can lose your health insurance and your ability to pay for your family's healthcare. A healthy citizenry would, of course, be an asset to our country.
Other nations have seen the wisdom of adopting these policies. When it is something important that the nation values, we will find the money for it.
So far, the only thing that we seem to be able to find unlimited funds to pursue as a national goal is war.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't think we're a Christian nation. Frankly, I think that's a good thing, because it would make government even more hypocritical than it already is. I mean, the USA (and all governments) act in pretty darn unChristlike ways all the time. That's pretty bad, some would say necessary, but I think it'd be worse (even more hypocritical) if we were a Christian nation. -----
Megan,
quote:I'd make the separation of church and state ironclad. If you don't have a good solid non-faith-based reason for your legislation, it ain't happening. Period. No more attempts at creation of a theocracy.
This goes quite a distance beyond just seperation of church and state, you know. In essence it outlaws religion. It does not outlaw the practice of religion...in daily life. But don't try to do anything important with religion, like influence the world around you, because the Wise Secularists know better.
Which is a pretty intolerant and offensive way of thinking, if you're a secularist and some religious nut tries to tell you how to live your life. But not, apparently, the other way around.
I totally disagree. I'm a religious fanatic, by most standards. I know that Orthodox Judaism is the only true religion, that Christianity is just a breakaway sect that got totally out of hand, and don't even get me started on Hinduism.
And it is not okay for me to force my religion down your throats, just as it is not okay for you to force yours down my throat.
I resent the implication that there's just Christianity and secularists. We were serving God back when you guys were painting yourselves blue and worshipping trees.
Come to Israel, and I'll assert Judaism legislatively. If you want to assert your religion legislatively, go and create a country for your religion. You can't have this one.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My own suggestion - and it's one that is technically possible right now - is to make the whole thing transparent. All of it.
OK, I'd exempt information on current troop movements and such. But all of the documents, all of the files, every e-mail a politician sends or receives should be accessible by every American. If a bill is submitted I want the names of the authors on it whether they're senators, congressman, aides, assistants, or lobbyists. Especially if they're lobbyists. If it is amended I want the names of the people doing the amending. No more midnight bill rewrites that no one will admit to later. If you work for me (the people) I want immediate online access to your payroll, your contracts, your bidding process, and your communications.
When the Patriot Act was passed one of the arguments was "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." You know, I agree. Do the people's business where the people can see you.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I would change two things about this country in order to promote justice, equality and quality of life for out citizenry.
First, I would make education the responsibility of the Federal government.
Wow. I'd abolish the entire public school system, personally. It was never a good idea, and it's only gotten worse.
I don't have any problem with a refusal to educate your children being considered child abuse and dealt with as such, but any criteria regarding this should be as broad as possible.
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: The other change I would make would be to make access to basic and emergency healthcare the right of all citizens (and what the heck -- non-citizen residents, as well. Who needs a bunch of sick foreigners among us?) The constitution affords us the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How does that not include the right to healthcare?
Um... because we can have life without others giving us life. All they have to do is not kill us. We can have liberty without others giving us liberty. All they have to do is not enslave us. And we can pursue happiness without others granting us happiness. All they have to do is stay our of our way.
But healthcare is a bit different. You can't have healthcare unless healthcare professionals administer it. So guaranteeing anyone a "right" to healthcare automatically means restricting the liberty of healthcare professionals.
Is there a reason that someone should become the property of the state simply because they've trained for a profession that the state finds useful?
I know what you do for a living, Esther. But you can't volunteer everyone. This just isn't an area where government should be involved.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: This just isn't an area where government should be involved.
Ah, Lisa, I have to heartily disagree with you. Education and health are important. Along with liberty and security, they are about the most important things I can think of.
But you know what, Lisa? You are so much better at debating than I am (years of practice, I'm sure), that you have the ability to argue circles around me. And I love that about you. But I'm going to refrain from the debate, and go along merrily, just knowing with every fiber of my being that I am absolutely correct (as usual), and that nothing that anyone says can change that.
Ah, the self-satisfied harmony of it all! Drives you nuts, doesn't it?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: This just isn't an area where government should be involved.
Ah, Lisa, I have to heartily disagree with you. Education and health are important. Along with liberty and security, they are about the most important things I can think of.
I agree about them being vitally important. That's why I think the government should be kept out of it. I mean... eating is important on the same level, no? Have you ever read this essay?
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: But you know what, Lisa? You are so much better at debating than I am (years of practice, I'm sure),
And a contrary nature. Never forget the contrary nature. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: that you have the ability to argue circles around me. And I love that about you. But I'm going to refrain from the debate, and go along merrily, just knowing with every fiber of my being that I am absolutely correct (as usual), and that nothing that anyone says can change that.
Ah, the self-satisfied harmony of it all! Drives you nuts, doesn't it?
<sigh> Totally. But fortunately, this is Hatrack River. I suspect that there'll be people so incensed by my reason and logic that they'll have no choice but to hop into the ring. <grin>
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If I could only make one change, it would be to model one or more of the following on the way we use the FED to establish our monetary policy. That is, I'd take the following out of the realm of politics and political appointees and set up organizations of unbiased technocrats who, at the very least, would be responsible for recommending policy and coming up with long-term plans.
The candidate areas that would be vastly better under a Fed-like system are: - Defense - Justice - Energy - Education - Immigration - Transportation
Oh heck, let's just make the whole Federal government over into a technocracy and give the President and Congress the benefit of hearing from real experts instead of lobbyists, cronies, and hand-picked representatives from only "their" side of the issue.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'd also like to post an idea that a good friend of mine has made an interesting argument in favor of. Instead of elections for Congress, we should treat it like jury duty -- a civic duty that could be assigned to ANYONE. When selected, you serve for one term and one term only. Then it's someone else's turn.
Selection is completely at random and the person given the job has to serve the term, barring illness or a small list of other exclusions.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:So guaranteeing anyone a "right" to healthcare automatically means restricting the liberty of healthcare professionals.
Might well be worth distinguishing between funding and direct provision.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Megan- are there actually still places in the US where you can't buy alcohol on Sundays?
I've actually never lived anywhere were you COULD buy alcohol on Sundays.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually China is fairly democratic on the village and town level and they are integrating it upwards. Essentially they're aiming for a way to allow the people to vote on moral issues while having a strong centralized authority at the same time, something that Mao had originally wanted.
Next of course the Chinese people have control if they didn't want the CPC in power they would've been overthrown long ago, the lives of the average Chinese ren is far greater now then it was pre 1949 and that is undenyable fact and for as long as they're lives keep improving the people will be and have been generally content to allow the CPC/CCP to make the final decisions.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Blayne, I just have to ask if you've looked at sources other than the Chinese Government to back up the claims in that document. Everything I hear of how they treated the people affected by the latest dam/hydroelectric project, and the graft and corruption that seem rampant at every level of government makes me wonder if anything they say is to be believed.
A recent report on NPR talked about the only way for peasants to get justice in one recent spate of incidents was the basically take over the local government by force (with farm implements as weapons).
Just doesn't seem to match the story you're telling us.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
quote:I resent the implication that there's just Christianity and secularists. We were serving God back when you guys were painting yourselves blue and worshipping trees.
Please, please, please, if you don't like being generalized, lead by example.
On the original topic, what I'd change if I were American would probably be public healthcare as well. I have no desire to get into the real debates in this thread, so I shall stop there.
Posted by Domasai (Member # 8739) on :
Initially speaking, I believe the founding fathers intended the federal government to be involved very little with social issues. It dealt primarily with intersate commerce, national security, international relations, and warfare. Otherwise, the vast majority of the social issues were meant to be handled at the state level.
As for whether the founding fathers were right in regards to this bit of legislation ... who knows? But it seems to me the reason why the country was able to galvanize such a strong amount of support for the 2nd World War was the fact that things at the state-level were already running uniformly well.
Think of it this way: There are 535 congressmen & women in the legislative branch trying to make decisions that impact practically every level of our lives -- running from one end (social issues) to another (international relations & warfare). With the amount of things they're being forced to deal with, is it any wonder that things are done half-assed sometimes or that a hammer costs, per the famous example, $10,000 for the government at times? They simply are dealing with too much. Take the social politics and state-level financial issues from their docket, see how much easier their job becomes. But the problem is, the federal government likes having that much power.
So I don't expect that to ever happen.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What about people whose religion obligates them to have an abortion? Would you make an exception for that, or are you willing to force people to commit murder?
In Judaism, if a woman's life is in danger and the only way to save her life is to abort the fetus, you must do so. If you prevent this, and the mother dies, you have committed murder.
What makes your standards more important than ours? Is this more "Christian nation" stuff?
sL, why even bother asking questions if you've already decided you know what the answers are?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Ok, this is really bugging me.
This:
quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Is from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, none of the rights mentioned in it are ones we are guaranteed by law. And thank the founders for that. The legal tangles that would result from "the pursuit of happiness" being in the Bill of Rights make me want to run and hide just thinking about them.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Domasai: Initially speaking, I believe the founding fathers intended the federal government to be involved very little with social issues. It dealt primarily with intersate commerce, national security, international relations, and warfare. Otherwise, the vast majority of the social issues were meant to be handled at the state level.
Actually, the founders were pretty much split on this issue. If I remember correctly, this gave rise to the first two party system in America.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astaril: Originally posted by starLisa?
quote:I resent the implication that there's just Christianity and secularists. We were serving God back when you guys were painting yourselves blue and worshipping trees.
Please, please, please, if you don't like being generalized, lead by example.
Hey, everybody generalizes from one example--at least, I do.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Hey, everybody generalizes from one example--at least, I do.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"Blayne, I just have to ask if you've looked at sources other than the Chinese Government to back up the claims in that document. Everything I hear of how they treated the people affected by the latest dam/hydroelectric project, and the graft and corruption that seem rampant at every level of government makes me wonder if anything they say is to be believed.
A recent report on NPR talked about the only way for peasants to get justice in one recent spate of incidents was the basically take over the local government by force (with farm implements as weapons).
Just doesn't seem to match the story you're telling us."
Mao: A Life; by Philip Short printed in London by Hodder and Stoughton copyright 1999
China! Inside the People's Republic; compiled by Committrr of Concerned Asian Scholars copyright 19 1972 simultaniously in both Canada and USA.
and finally The Rise and Fall of the Great Power: From 1500-2000 by Paul Kennedy.
and and don't forget the CIA world fact book and wikipedia.org.
Remember that when China switched to a market economy all the usual side effects of capitolism came with it aka corruption and a wealth gap.
However the CPC spent 200 billion dollars over the last 10 years on developing western china (the poorer part) as well as massive infastructure developments to help the poor.
Then you have to remember that China has 800 MILLION rural farmers developing an effective grass roots democracy is needed in China to ensure contentment and to promote productivity among the farmers. The CPC knows this and it is avaliable in over a million villages and towns.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Remember that when China switched to a market economy all the usual side effects of capitolism came with it aka corruption and a wealth gap.
Blayne, I know you might be too young to remember a time before China switched to a market economy, but trust me: it had corruption and a wealth gap before it switched, too.
----------
Actually, starLisa reminded me of a change I've always supported which, while by no means the only thing that could fix the federal government, would go a long way: mandatory expiration dates on laws. I really can't see a downside.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BB, the thing you're constantly ignoring is just because things are better now than <1949 does not mean that the current Chinese government is good. It just means progress.
Life for the African-American in the USA was better in 1900 than in 1860, but that doesn't mean it was good, or that the American government merited as constant a defense as you give it.
Just because people haven't risen up and made bloody revolution over a government that would kill them in massive numbers doesn't mean they're satisfied.
The Chinese government spends the lives of its citizens like no other nation on earth, or in history.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, starLisa reminded me of a change I've always supported which, while by no means the only thing that could fix the federal government, would go a long way: mandatory expiration dates on laws. I really can't see a downside.
Large amounts of work for lawyers and legislators? Or is that not a downside? Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:So guaranteeing anyone a "right" to healthcare automatically means restricting the liberty of healthcare professionals.
Might well be worth distinguishing between funding and direct provision.
But you can't. The moment the government has to pay doctors' fees, for instance, it has to also dictate what the doctors are allowed to charge for their services.
If there's one doctor who is the best at a certain procedure, they can essentially draft him. And they would.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:What about people whose religion obligates them to have an abortion? Would you make an exception for that, or are you willing to force people to commit murder?
In Judaism, if a woman's life is in danger and the only way to save her life is to abort the fetus, you must do so. If you prevent this, and the mother dies, you have committed murder.
What makes your standards more important than ours? Is this more "Christian nation" stuff?
sL, why even bother asking questions if you've already decided you know what the answers are?
Um... because you stated outright that abortion should be illegal. You didn't say "most". You didn't say anything about exceptions.
This is the problem with legislating your religious beliefs on others. Sometimes it's not just a matter of you think it's immoral and I don't. Sometimes it's a clash between what you think is immoral and what I think is immoral.
But would you care to answer the question anyway? Or will you use your objection to the way I phrased it as an excuse for not addressing the issue?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, starLisa reminded me of a change I've always supported which, while by no means the only thing that could fix the federal government, would go a long way: mandatory expiration dates on laws. I really can't see a downside.
Large amounts of work for lawyers and legislators? Or is that not a downside?
It'd give them something productive to do. Keep them off the streets, so to speak. And it would prevent antiquated laws from accumulating.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:But you can't. The moment the government has to pay doctors' fees, for instance, it has to also dictate what the doctors are allowed to charge for their services.
If there's one doctor who is the best at a certain procedure, they can essentially draft him. And they would.
Interesting, then, that this is not the way it actually works in systems which do have nationalized health insurance. [Here I am thinking of Canada in particular, although it holds for New Zealand and others as well.]
Sometimes reality resists our preconceptions in the most unexpected ways.
[ October 23, 2005, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But would you care to answer the question anyway? Or will you use your objection to the way I phrased it as an excuse for not addressing the issue?
People are going to take issue with the way you phrase your statements, starLisa, because you appear consistently to phrase your statements in deliberately abrasive and rude ways.
Whether or not you intend to be abrasive and rude so frequently, that's how you appear to many people. Possibly the problem is not with the rest of the world.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:First, I would make education the responsibility of the Federal government. Right now there are different standards, curricula, and quality of education based on where you live. Children who live in municipalities that have wealthy residents and a rich tax base get a good quality education while those who don't, don't. A national standard, paid for by federal taxes would make for a well-educated public, would prepare our citizens for the working world that they will enter after school, and can make us more competitive overall. While federal taxes would rise to pay for this, municipal taxes would plummet (because the bulk of municipal taxes pays for schools). By having a centralized Board of Education, expenses associated with the current redundancy would fall, as well. The other change I would make would be to make access to basic and emergency healthcare the right of all citizens (and what the heck -- non-citizen residents, as well. Who needs a bunch of sick foreigners among us?) The constitution affords us the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How does that not include the right to healthcare? The current system is a rapidly fraying patchwork, leaving access to healthcare pretty much up to chance and luck. If you are unlucky enough to lose your job, you can lose your health insurance and your ability to pay for your family's healthcare. A healthy citizenry would, of course, be an asset to our country.
My biggest preference right now would be to flip state/federal taxes around. I'd be much less resistant to social programs if they were truly controlled by people I can even hope to hold accountable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
starLisa,
Well! I've finally been subjected to that which most have been objecting to quite strenuously. I have to say your tone doesn't bother me very much, even though it is way out of line.
quote:I totally disagree. I'm a religious fanatic, by most standards. I know that Orthodox Judaism is the only true religion, that Christianity is just a breakaway sect that got totally out of hand, and don't even get me started on Hinduism.
Pretty much everyone knows that most other people think that they're right and other people are wrong. It's taken as a given. It gets to be even more so when discussing religion. Most people are aware that religious people think that they have a lock on the Truth, and that other people are mistaken. There are some exceptions, and degrees to that reality, but it's there.
More specifically, we all know that you think your religion is right, and everyone else is a bunch of deluded nuts when it comes to religion. Why is it so important to reiterate this so constantly? We know that's what you think. We're aware of the belief, starLisa. And so I'm straining to think of reasons why you keep saying it when you know doing so upsets people, and I can only come up with 'she doesn't care if she upsets people, and goes out of her way to create upset'. Please, let me know of some other reason. I would like there to be another reason. But that reason = Internet troll.
quote:And it is not okay for me to force my religion down your throats, just as it is not okay for you to force yours down my throat.
Goody for you. I feel the same way. Is this part of your apparent belief that it's necessary to restate the known constantly? Because we (or at the very least I, I'm guessing but I'm pretty convinced I'm right about everyone else)know you think this way, starLisa.
quote:I resent the implication that there's just Christianity and secularists. We were serving God back when you guys were painting yourselves blue and worshipping trees.
That implication wasn't made by me. I realize that you didn't say
quote:Rakeesh,
post post post post post
but I saw my name at the top, and so that's how I'm responding. I was replying to someone else who was stating that it was obvious that we are a Christian nation, and I was disagreeing with them.
Furthermore, I believe that a certain level of hypocrisy is possibly necessary for government and international relations. Diplomacy, business, military, all that rot. But the reason I feel it would be worse for us as Americans if we were a Christian nation is that such hypocrisy is quite intolerable from a Christian standpoint. I made no mention of other religions, because the person I was addressing was talking about us being a Christian nation.
It would be worse for us because we would be adding another layer of hypocrisy to ourselves. It would be worse because our government does not behave in a Christlike fashion, and has not, ever. That's all.
The offense you took, you took by sticking your foot out into a crowded hallway and getting pissed off when it got stepped on. At least, as far as I'm concerned. Because I didn't imply that at all.
Oh, and as for your spiteful and bigoted remarks about Christianity...I lack restraint. So I'll just point out what should be obvious to you who makes claim by tone and by direct statement to such knowledge on religion: Christians come from many, many different backgrounds. Some peoples who would become Christians were painting themselves blue and worshiping trees. Some people who would become Christians were, you guessed it, serving the Hewbrew G-d. Some people who would become Christians were grinding Hebrews under their boots for a long, long time. Some Christians are emptying their wallets on top of Israel as we speak, protecting it from the 'sons-of-camels' that neighbor that fortunate nation.
Yes, fortunate.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and for the record: the people who created Israel in the modern day were not Jews. They were British. So no, you can't equate Israel with a state created by Jews to live by religious law. G-d in the past, and either the British (and others) and a combination of British, G-d, etc., did that in the modern day.
Oh, and as for what 'I' can have...I can have what I can take, in a democracy. Even, G-d help us, especially in a government that responds ultimately to the people's will.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But healthcare is a bit different. You can't have healthcare unless healthcare professionals administer it. So guaranteeing anyone a "right" to healthcare automatically means restricting the liberty of healthcare professionals.
Nonsense. Well, actually you're technically correct-their liberty is restricted-but a healthcare professional is no more the 'property' of the state than is a city councilman.
Because it's an act of violence to withhold aid or medicine from an injured man as surely as it is an act of violence to committ the act that injured him. Because the emergency healthcare of all communities in the country are founded in part on taxpayer dollars.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, and for the record: the people who created Israel in the modern day were not Jews. They were British. So no, you can't equate Israel with a state created by Jews to live by religious law. G-d in the past, and either the British (and others) and a combination of British, G-d, etc., did that in the modern day.
Which would be why many Jews make a distinction between the secular State of Israel and Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I knew that (well, not the specific name, but I knew the distinction was made). Just didn't appear to be made in this discussion, that's all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Granularity gives more accountability to the voters. This can have both positive and negative effects on policies, although I think it's a huge net plus overall.
It can also heighten the effects of wealth distribution. For example, if Northern Virginia split off, it would take maybe half the state's income with it (maybe less, Tidewater is pretty propserous). It would seriously reduce the funds available to the rest of the state for sure.
Assuming one thinks this is bad, or at least something to be mitigated, then the amount of granularity must be set low enough to ensure accountability and high enough to ensure a large enough population to get a "normal" distribution of income and wealth.
I think NY state could survive easily enough without NYC's resources, but could NYC survive on just its own tax base?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, likely. People send large sums of money into New York for financial services alone, which are then taxed in New York. In fact, I'd bet NYC is such a surplus that the state would suffer a serious loss of revenue if they left, even if they did survive.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Here's part of the picture: somewhat less than half of tax cut benefits for NY go into the city http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_43.htm . That's a close enough estimate for the percentage of tax revenues from each area.
All thats left is figuring out what proportion the expenditures fall in.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I would change two things about this country in order to promote justice, equality and quality of life for our citizenry.
First, I would make education the responsibility of the Federal government.
...
The other change I would make would be to make access to basic and emergency healthcare the right of all citizens (and what the heck -- non-citizen residents, as well.
Amen, Tante. I agree heartily.
...And I'm not about to get into a debate with StarLisa either. Not because I'm incapable, or even that I find her manner abrasive, but because it would promptly triple the size of this forum.
Oh, by the way, StarLisa, I agree with Tante about your debating abilities. Don't ever change.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Sterling, I swoon. There is nothing I find to be more attractive and appealing than someone who is in complete agreement with me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, and for the record: the people who created Israel in the modern day were not Jews. They were British. So no, you can't equate Israel with a state created by Jews to live by religious law. G-d in the past, and either the British (and others) and a combination of British, G-d, etc., did that in the modern day.
Check your facts. The British fought for most of the Mandatory people to keep Jews out, or at least in small numbers. When they handed the Mandate back to the UN, Israel did not yet exist. And although the UN did vote to partition the land into two states, Ben Gurion declared the State of Israel a day before the Mandate came to an end officially.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"BB, the thing you're constantly ignoring is just because things are better now than < 1949 does not mean that the current Chinese government is good. It just means progress.
Life for the African-American in the USA was better in 1900 than in 1860, but that doesn't mean it was good, or that the American government merited as constant a defense as you give it.
Just because people haven't risen up and made bloody revolution over a government that would kill them in massive numbers doesn't mean they're satisfied.
The Chinese government spends the lives of its citizens like no other nation on earth, or in history."
Just because you think that the government isn't good now doesn't mean the alternative could be possibly better, Chiang only gave up power under US pressure.
The Chinese did not have a compariable situation as the African-Americans, they had worse they were treated badly by foreign nations, force to undergo unequal treaties, starving and suffering because of the indifference of warlords and the fake republican government the CPC led the Chinese to revolution and since 1949 did what they considered was best for China. You can't complain about the Chinese government if you don't have a better solution to a problem.
Also the Chinese government does not kill them in massive numbers, Chinese haven't died in massive numbers since the Cultural Revolution which if I'm correct the policy of the CR changed province to province leaving the Central Government with actually little to know power on how it went out.
Next, the Chinese people see results, they see their lives as being better now then ever before and by cause and effect know that its thanks to the CPC or CCP that they now have todays standard of living and economic propserity.
Equality under the law, rights of mobility, rights to buy and sell property, rights to a free education and universal sufferage at 18, and to a lesser degree the ability to express dissent.
If the Chinese aren't happy with their lives then they struggle for a better one, they go back to school to learn a new trade, they find a new job, they elect different politicians to the National People's congress etc.
True they are an authoritan system but they are making good desicions in regards to diplomacy and the economy and for as long as they don't screw up the people will and have been continueing to support the CPC.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But healthcare is a bit different. You can't have healthcare unless healthcare professionals administer it. So guaranteeing anyone a "right" to healthcare automatically means restricting the liberty of healthcare professionals.
Nonsense. Well, actually you're technically correct-their liberty is restricted-but a healthcare professional is no more the 'property' of the state than is a city councilman.
A city councilman works for the government. A doctor need not. If you force him to, that's slavery. Perhaps not full slavery, but slavery nonetheless.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because it's an act of violence to withhold aid or medicine from an injured man as surely as it is an act of violence to committ the act that injured him.
No, it isn't. Getting a degree doesn't cause a forfeiture of freedom. I agree that someone who can help should help, but I don't agree that it's legitimate to force them to do so.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because the emergency healthcare of all communities in the country are founded in part on taxpayer dollars.
That's part of the problem. But you don't solve a problem by making it worse.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Oh, by the way, StarLisa, I agree with Tante about your debating abilities. Don't ever change.
I never would.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I would make all misdemeanors punishable by Indian Burns.
I think that would really shake things up.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Lisa, you wacky Objectivist, you!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I would make all misdemeanors punishable by Indian Burns.
Ahem. I do believe that the politically correct term is "Native American Burns".
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Jay: Let’s see…. First I’d make sure that its freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Meaning that we are a Christian nation which allows religious expression not one that misinterprets laws so that God is taken away. That should solve most problems. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that I'd fight to the death against it. And so would many, many, many other people. Including, mind you, not a small number of Christians.
And I'm one of them. The kind of nation I envision when I hear about a "Christian Nation" is one that makes me, as a lberal Christian, shudder.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Wait, I wanna change mine.
I want to outlaw political correctness.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:First, I would make education the responsibility of the Federal government. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. I'd abolish the entire public school system, personally. It was never a good idea, and it's only gotten worse.
I don't have any problem with a refusal to educate your children being considered child abuse and dealt with as such, but any criteria regarding this should be as broad as possible.
Who decides what constitutes "refusal to educate your children"? How is that defined? Scary notion.
(sL, loving the "homefeeding" article )
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Not to mention the fact that whenever Christianity does manage to get a large amount of political power, it is often detrimental to Christianity.
In my opinion, keeping the state out of religion is every bit as important as keeping religion out of the state.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
theocracy == bad
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the CPC led the Chinese to revolution and since 1949 did what they considered was best for China
You may be the only human being alive who believes this. Even the Chinese I know don't believe this.
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
Remove those pesky anti-assualt weapons laws. This way individuals can defend themselves with military-style assault weapons in the event of a riot of the magnitude of the LA riots of 1992. Sometimes the police and national gaurd can't defend everyone.
People could form militias and para-military organizations and go galavanting around the world themselves screwing around in other nation's civil wars and giving pro-bono aid. Terrorists could attack those individual organizations if they don't like what they're doing instead of the whole United States leaving the rest of us in peace.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jacob, please tell me that's satire. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
StarLisa, when you were addressing the points that people had made to you, you must have missed ClaudiaTherese's. So that you don't have to go back a page and dig it out, here it is again:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:But you can't. The moment the government has to pay doctors' fees, for instance, it has to also dictate what the doctors are allowed to charge for their services.
If there's one doctor who is the best at a certain procedure, they can essentially draft him. And they would.
Interesting, then, that this is not the way it actually works in systems which do have nationalized health insurance. [Here I am thinking of Canada in particular, although it holds for New Zealand and others as well.]
Sometimes reality resists our preconceptions in the most unexpected ways.
Posted by EndofEternity (Member # 7466) on :
quote:Remove those pesky anti-assualt weapons laws. This way individuals can defend themselves with military-style assault weapons in the event of a riot of the magnitude of the LA riots of 1992. Sometimes the police and national gaurd can't defend everyone.
wait... didn't this expire recently? I remember there being some debate as to its expiration a while ago, but i dont know what came of it.
seriously though, its a really crappy law, through and through. it bans weapons with these qualifications:
quote:"a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher"
well great. i can't shoot my rifle that has a pistol grip and a grenade launcher (which i can't buy nades for anyways). wooo hoo. you just reduced crime by OODLES!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It may not have reduced crime, but I'll certainly sleep better knowing you can't shoot grenades at me.
Posted by EndofEternity (Member # 7466) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It may not have reduced crime, but I'll certainly sleep better knowing you can't shoot grenades at me.
i'll just throw them instead. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That'll mean you're close enough that I can kick them back at you. I like my chances a lot better that way.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
What if you're sleeping too soundly to hear the grenades bouncing around?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Nothing bad can happen to you while you're sleeping!
Jeesh. You people don't know anything.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nothing bad can happen to you while you're sleeping!
Only if no part is peeking out from under the blanket.
Posted by EndofEternity (Member # 7466) on :
anywho, back on topic...
with the issue of seperation of church and state, the problem is letting your religious leaders also be your political leaders. If this happens, morals and laws get all mixed into each other and things go crazy wrong. Think Dune Messiah. Still, I personally believe there's nothing wrong with a little religion in everyday life (pledge of allegiance anyone?). I say we dont fix whats not broken, and leave things as they are.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Lisa, you wacky Objectivist, you!
Post-Objectivist, actually. If you want to see a wacky Objectivist, I refer you to Jacob Porter's post further down this page.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: I don't have any problem with a refusal to educate your children being considered child abuse and dealt with as such, but any criteria regarding this should be as broad as possible.
Who decides what constitutes "refusal to educate your children"? How is that defined? Scary notion.
I agree. That's why I said it should have as broad as possible a definition. But a parent deciding that they'd rather buy a plasma TV than give their child the opportunity to learn how to read is, I'd contend, harming that child.
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: (sL, loving the "homefeeding" article )
<grin> It's good, no?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Jacob, please tell me that's satire.
Do a search on his other posts. Unfortunately, it's not satire.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: StarLisa, when you were addressing the points that people had made to you, you must have missed ClaudiaTherese's. So that you don't have to go back a page and dig it out, here it is again:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:But you can't. The moment the government has to pay doctors' fees, for instance, it has to also dictate what the doctors are allowed to charge for their services.
If there's one doctor who is the best at a certain procedure, they can essentially draft him. And they would.
Interesting, then, that this is not the way it actually works in systems which do have nationalized health insurance. [Here I am thinking of Canada in particular, although it holds for New Zealand and others as well.]
Sometimes reality resists our preconceptions in the most unexpected ways.
You have your examples and I have mine. Israel, for one. And I believe doctors are not allowed to charge what they want in Canada either, but I may be wrong about that.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote: But a parent deciding that they'd rather buy a plasma TV than give their child the opportunity to learn how to read is, I'd contend, harming that child.
I fail to see how buying a TV and teaching your child to read are mutually exclusive.
Did I miss an analogy or example somewhere?
Posted by Ser Bronn Stone (Member # 8759) on :
Hi!
First I would like to introduce myself. You may guess from my handle that I am a fan of the works of George RR Martin, though I am also a big fan of much of the work of OSC. I have been nudged into first lurking and now posting by a couple of my friends from the biggest Martin forum.
On topic, I find it horribly frightening that anyone of sound mind suggests that American leadership would be improved by random chance selection. I understand the frustration with many career politicians, but the reality is that if you want to reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests, the last thing in the world you want is to throw a bunch of inexperienced and mayhaps unwilling folks. Our experience in California has been that term limits have often removed from key committees the only elected officials who had any hope of making counter-arguments to industry and labor officials - their vast years of experience having heard arguments from both sides giving them the ability to note when an expert said the opposite of what he or she had said five years earlier.
I don't know what the answer is, but dumbing down the Legislature is NOT it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The terrifying reality is that Bronn is right. The current legislature is more competent -- if only barely -- than a random selection of U.S. citizens.
Posted by EndofEternity (Member # 7466) on :
quote:The terrifying reality is that Bronn is right. The current legislature is more competent -- if only barely -- than a random selection of U.S. citizens.
so... instead of a random selection of citizens, you use a stratified sample of people, seperated by say... tax bracket and area, or something.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, it's more than that. It takes SKILL to understand issues and negotiate the very, very complicated environment of Washington. A complete neophyte thrown into that ring would be swallowed almost immediately by "experts" to advise him -- because without advice, it would be impossible for him to keep up. And at that point, the government would be run by unelected experts.
Of course, you can make the argument that this is ALREADY true. Certainly the feds don't display an overwhelming understanding of medical, technical, or other specialized fields when they're writing law; they concentrate on putting out useful soundbytes crafted by the various lobbies who've actually drafted the appropriate legislation. But I can't think of a mechanism that would fix this particular problem.
Posted by EndofEternity (Member # 7466) on :
It is a sad state of affairs.
I think politics has way too much focus on it's obsession over satisfying voters. Because of this, we get those flip-flopping politicians who change their opinions along with public opinion. Term limits might help, but people could just hop back and forth between different positions as they please.
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
So far no one has given any reason why my proposal shouldn't be accepted. I seriously doubt that assault weapons are used in much crime. Making them illegal ignores whatever benefits can be gained by them from the law-abiding and punishes people for otherwise doing no wrong. According to a t-shirt that I saw, Ghandi was a gun nut.
For the record, I am not an Objectivist. Objectivism is a rigid and doctrinaire (moralistic) moral philosophy with a disagreeable aesthetics; however, it does provide a reasoned defense of enlightened self-interest and individual liberty.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacob Porter: According to a t-shirt that I saw, Ghandi was a gun nut.
Wha... Gasp!
Jake, you WIN the title of Hatrack Nut! It was some tough competition, because we have some pretty nutty nuts here, but you take the prize!
Posted by EndofEternity (Member # 7466) on :
Guns should no more be outlawed than fast cars, in my opinion.
The desire both stem from the human affinity for power and, well, masculinity.
And I must say, fast cars do kill a lot of people too...
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
Here is the Ghandi quote: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Jake, you WIN the title of Hatrack Nut! It was some tough competition, because we have some pretty nutty nuts here, but you take the prize!
Aw Tante, should you really be authorized to hand out that particular award? That's like Enron awarding Tyco with the "Worst Accounting Practices" Award.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I once saw a t-shirt that perfectly addresses your concerns:
"Takes one to know one"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacob Porter: According to a t-shirt that I saw, Ghandi was a gun nut.
Wha... Gasp!
Jake, you WIN the title of Hatrack Nut! It was some tough competition, because we have some pretty nutty nuts here, but you take the prize!
I bow to Jacob's nuttiness. I am but an egg.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Of course, you can make the argument that this is ALREADY true. Certainly the feds don't display an overwhelming understanding of medical, technical, or other specialized fields when they're writing law; they concentrate on putting out useful soundbytes crafted by the various lobbies who've actually drafted the appropriate legislation. But I can't think of a mechanism that would fix this particular problem.
I call to your attention my suggestion of a few pages back. Make government as transparent as possible. Let the people see exactly who is writing the laws, who is paying whom, what pressure is being applied to which outcome, and who benefits.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I call to your attention my suggestion of a few pages back. Make government as transparent as possible. Let the people see exactly who is writing the laws, who is paying whom, what pressure is being applied to which outcome, and who benefits.
You have more faith in the people than I do. I think the people, faced with this information, will wait for the media to summarize it for them.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:
quote:Interesting, then, that this is not the way it actually works in systems which do have nationalized health insurance. [Here I am thinking of Canada in particular, although it holds for New Zealand and others as well.]
Sometimes reality resists our preconceptions in the most unexpected ways.
You have your examples and I have mine. Israel, for one. And I believe doctors are not allowed to charge what they want in Canada either, but I may be wrong about that.
I was under the impression that the physicians and nurses union in Israel negotiates salaries as a unit with the Israeli government (i.e., the four "sick funds" and the government hospitals).
That is, as a union, they have a very powerful bargaining position. Rather than the government dictating where they go and what they make, the physicians work collectively to ensure adequate compensation. Additionally, Israel has several functioning HMOs, and there is separate negotiation for that compensation.
Is my understanding incorrect? I have not actually practiced in Israel (as I have in Canada), so my information is secondhand.
However, I am quite familiar with the literature regarding international comparisons of healthcare systems, as the details and outcomes measures of such is a major area of my professional research. If my understanding is incorrect, I would much appreciate clarification. Thanks!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(once we get that part tidied up, I can exlain my understanding of the difference in physician choice and autonomy between paracticing in the US and in Canada, if anyone is interested )
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm interested, CT, but that might merit another thread here or elsewhere. Anyway, however you'd like to post it, I'll read it. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Certainly! I'm still away at conference, but I'll have more free time as the week progresses, and I'll set something up then. I've been wanting to get some links and other information all together in one place, anyway. I presented on some of this stuff recently, and I had to really dig through my memory to pull back up the Canadian Health Services Research website. I'd love to archive this all somewhere that it can be easily corrected and updated as the years pass.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:
quote:Interesting, then, that this is not the way it actually works in systems which do have nationalized health insurance. [Here I am thinking of Canada in particular, although it holds for New Zealand and others as well.]
Sometimes reality resists our preconceptions in the most unexpected ways.
You have your examples and I have mine. Israel, for one. And I believe doctors are not allowed to charge what they want in Canada either, but I may be wrong about that.
I was under the impression that the physicians and nurses union in Israel negotiates salaries as a unit with the Israeli government (i.e., the four "sick funds" and the government hospitals).
That is, as a union, they have a very powerful bargaining position. Rather than the government dictating where they go and what they make, the physicians work collectively to ensure adequate compensation. Additionally, Israel has several functioning HMOs, and there is separate negotiation for that compensation.
Is my understanding incorrect? I have not actually practiced in Israel (as I have in Canada), so my information is secondhand.
However, I am quite familiar with the literature regarding international comparisons of healthcare systems, as the details and outcomes measures of such is a major area of my professional research. If my understanding is incorrect, I would much appreciate clarification. Thanks!
As far as I've been told, you can't be licensed to practice medicine in Israel unless you agree to work for one of the four health funds. You can have a private practice, but they'll tax the hell out of you, and you still have to work for one of the health funds as well.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I bow to Jacob's nuttiness. I am but an egg.
I grok that. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: As far as I've been told, you can't be licensed to practice medicine in Israel unless you agree to work for one of the four health funds. You can have a private practice, but they'll tax the hell out of you, and you still have to work for one of the health funds as well.
I can't confirm that yet, but I'll definitely look it up and ask around.
Regardless, it seems that, as a union, they have a very powerful bargaining position. Rather than the government dictating where they go and what they make, the physicians work collectively to ensure adequate compensation.
How does this translate into the government telling physicians where to work and how much they will get paid? (I think I may be missing a step in your logic here. I do that a lot. )
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I'd send them all home.(those who work for the US government, I mean)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You have more faith in the people than I do. I think the people, faced with this information, will wait for the media to summarize it for them.
Sure. But anything that makes it easier for money connections to be seen is a Good Thing. I don't pretend this suggestion, or any suggestion, will suddenly give us a perfect government. But the atmosphere needs to change. Politicians and those who would profit from owning one need to get used to the idea that the people can see everything they do, and might object a bit to profiteering mechinations that cause more harm than good.
What I want to see is accountability. We deserve to see exactly who is writing our legislation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I bow to Jacob's nuttiness. I am but an egg.
I grok that.
<smile>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: As far as I've been told, you can't be licensed to practice medicine in Israel unless you agree to work for one of the four health funds. You can have a private practice, but they'll tax the hell out of you, and you still have to work for one of the health funds as well.
I can't confirm that yet, but I'll definitely look it up and ask around.
Regardless, it seems that, as a union, they have a very powerful bargaining position. Rather than the government dictating where they go and what they make, the physicians work collectively to ensure adequate compensation.
How does this translate into the government telling physicians where to work and how much they will get paid? (I think I may be missing a step in your logic here. I do that a lot. )
Maybe you're used to the idea of a union being the same thing as the members of a union. For one thing, one shouldn't have to join a union. Particularly in Israel, where at least one of the healthfunds is owned by its union. That means that the union is both employer and -- supposedly -- the advocate for the employers.
Why should a skilled individual be bound by the agreements made by some union? Why does the existence of a union all of a sudden make it okay for an individual to be denied the right to charge as he sees fit for his services? I'm not sure I see your reasoning.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually the Chinese I correspond with express mostly a dissatistfaction mostly with the education system, particularily about how the education policy is not really clear cut and an effective system hasn't really been created to their satisfaction though they also say that the government is trying their best and they see a steadily increasing amount of homework so they hope for the better.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I've actually never lived anywhere were you COULD buy alcohol on Sundays
Interestingly, although America seems so advanced in many ways in many other ways it's pretty medieval. It's weird. Sunday is (read: should be in a non-theocratic country- see below) no different than any other day.
About a Christian America:
England is theoretically an Anglican country, I suppose, but the amount of religion that exists within the state, the government, the schooling, is actually minimal, much less than America. I agree that America only goes through the motions of being "not Christian" but don't think that means at all that it should just go ahead and make it official.
I would be very uncomfortable with a proclaimed theocracy next door, especially if that theocracy was presently the sole world superpower. I would be even more worried if I was any other religion.
About the "Worshipping Trees" comment:
Also- maybe if people "worshipped trees" a bit more rather than various other things we'd have kept more trees around. Would that be such a bad thing?
Also; just because the various "paganisms" are older religions doesn't make them invalid ones. You have to remember that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Blayne: you do realize the Chinese government monitors electronic communication in and out of China, and does not hesitate to review private records and sieze computer systems in order to chase down dissent?
That is, nobody you're corresponding with is likely to say anything that could be misconstrued by those in power.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[I have deleted the text of this post because it no longer seemed germane to the trend of this particular discussion. Were it not the fact that full deletion of posts in ongoing discussions seems to be distressing to a significant number of people here, I would just have deleted the whole thing. Rather, I'll just leave it at "Nothing to see here! " and then delete once the thread is no longer active.]
[ October 25, 2005, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
starLisa,
quote:Particularly in Israel, where at least one of the healthfunds is owned by its union. That means that the union is both employer and -- supposedly -- the advocate for the employers.
I fail to see how this addresses your earlier stance about how the government is telling physicians what to do and what not to, what to charge and what not to charge. Furthermore, this is one healthcare fund, is it not?
And a union need not be oriented in the way you're suggesting. They could be the advocate for the employees in defense against the government.
I don't see how you've addressed CT's point at all.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Teshi, I point you to my post on page one.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Again?
Well, I didn't say exactly what you said, only kind of. I even used a different country as an example! And I swear I read this entire thread before posting. I really did!
Although, I think from now on in these political threads I'll just skip to the end and write "What twinky said." It'll save time.
Also: You didn't say anything about worshipping trees. That bit is all mine! Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yes, hence the winky and the grin. I was mostly teasing. Plus, we don't agree on everything.
...at least, I don't think we do. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ok, it kills the very purpose of having an open discussion if you automatically assume that the target of the conversation is brain washed or afriad to speak the truth etc.
Its like me and a friend talking about a third guy and about how he got a girl pregnant, if the guy comes around and says he didn't get the girl pregnant the equivilent would be we dismiss him of trying to cover up what we already consider fact. And remember that in this situation me and the other guy don't actually know if guy #3 actually got a girl pregnant we simply judged him ahead of time and refuse to consider his part of the discussion.
That is the same thing as discounting the testimony of Chinese Nationals if we talk about the living conditions in China.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Ok, it kills the very purpose of having an open discussion if you automatically assume that the target of the conversation is brain washed or afriad to speak the truth etc.
Blayne, there is an ENORMOUS flap right now about the fact that the Chinese government recently forced Yahoo to reveal the name and address of a Chinese national who had obtained an anonymous Yahoo email account and had mentioned on a site that, as a member of the Chinese news media, he had been contacted by the government and specifically told not to make a big deal about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. When Yahoo gave up that info, they arrested him -- and sentenced him to ten years in a maximum-security prison.
I think there's a very legitimate argument to be made that Chinese citizens should be afraid to speak the truth on the Internet. China monitors Internet traffic very, very carefully, and does not step lightly on its own people.
China is the single biggest threat to liberty -- liberty of ANY kind -- in the world today. It pales in comparison to the terrorist threat. That your sympathies might lie with China baffles me, to be honest.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Don't you mean "the terrorist thread pales in comparison to China?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah. Except of course that Davidson's Rule again applies to your post -- unless you meant "thread."
I tell you, I'll be up there with Godwin someday.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No, I just habe a code.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually in IMHO the USA is the greatest threat to world liberty and has been since the 1950's.
*cough* gautelmala, Panana, El salvadore, Chile, Cuba, Argentina, Venuzela, Iraq, Mexico, Vietnam, Russia (1920), niagagura, and then there's their own human rights abuses in the bay of ghitmo, the torturing of foreign nationals (including european citizens) etc etc. */cough*
At least China does their stuff for the purpose of economic stability and accelerated economic growth, AND behind their own borders. Considering China has never invaded another nation. They've had border wars but with nations with the aility to defend themselves, the USA picking on say Gautamala does not constitute picking on someone your own size.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Even if one were to accept all of your accusations, China still "wins" on sheer numbers.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
wins what? Its one thing to accuse a government of doing something wrong and quite another to actually have a valid alternative.
China has one of the world's most populas nation, in fact it is the most populus nation. With 1.3 Billion people how do you govern them?
China has been abused by the west ever since the First Opium wars in the 1840's, the powerlessness of the Manchu's, the military defeats at the hands of fellow asians who have adopted the ideals in practive of the west.
So the Chinese nationalist movement under Sun Yat-Sen overthrew the Manchu's and tried to establish a democratic republic, but the warlordism inherant in china's outer provinces, the sheer backwardsness of the country, and foreign interfearance prevented the republic of being any sort of meaningful liberal democracy.
The result was that after Sun Yat-Sen's death Chiang Kai-Shek only cooperated with the Communists and other Leftists groups in China becuase of the pressure from Moscow and at the first oppurtunity fired upon protesting Shanghai workers and turned about the CCP. The struggle for the fate of China began and for years of struggle against overwhelming odds the Communists dispite celebrated setbacks such as the Long March won out and drove Chiang to the mainland.
If anything Chiang was even more oppresive and deliberatly corrupt then the CCP beaurocracy could ever be. The fact that Taiwan became a multiparty state in 1996 doesn't change the fact that the KMT was by far a worse alternative then the CCP.
After Liberation in 1949 using Maoist doctrine of "mobilizing the peasant masses" a determined and systematic campaign to eliminate STD's, drug use, and ignorance began climaxing with the institution of simplyfied Chinese allowing the MAJORITY of Zhongguo remin to be literate for the first time in history as the Imperial Education system of pre 1949 was meant to keep education in the hands of the nobility and the rich.
The Great Leap forward did in fact accomplish a massive increase in heavy industry, light industry, and other massive infastructure development dispite setbacks such as the smelting of steal in everyone's backyard (which I haven't quite confirmed yet).
Next if you consider the Cultural Revolution, it was indeed in fact an honest attmept by Mao to increase the democratic participation of the masses to decide important issues for the nation (such as when he said "let a hundred flowers bloom and let a hundred schools of thought contend" this ended early when instead of debating socialist thought they debated the monopoly of power within the CCP). But the party can't control everything and the actual policy of the TGPCR changed province to province according to the decisions of the various Party and Revolutionary commisions/commitees. After Mao's death the Gang of Four were tried for the excesses of the revolution, and the CCP admitted that it was a mistake, even considering the massive reduction of the corruption and the beaurocracy.
Shortly afterwards Deng Xiaoping instituted Market Oriented reforms to allow for the switching of China from a sluggish central planned economy to a more flexible market economy controlled by supply and demand. Along with these reforms came various political reforms and that increase political freedoms, freedoms that KEEP on increasing as democrasy is instituted from a bottom top method. Such as the earlier grass roots democracy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: At least China does their stuff for the purpose of economic stability and accelerated economic growth, AND behind their own borders.
Blayne, I honestly don't get how you can be an avowed communist and still constantly cite economic growth as a justification for mass homicide and systematic repression of one's own people.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Considering China has never invaded another nation.
There are some Tibetans who might take issue with this.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And Tibet had been historically China's since the mongol invasions 700 years ago. See "succestion of states theory" in the UN international code of laws thingy.
"Blayne, I honestly don't get how you can be an avowed communist and still constantly cite economic growth as a justification for mass homicide and systematic repression of one's own people."
You do realize that "mass homocides" never happend right? The millions of deaths during the cultural revolution was not any kind of "official" order by the CCP but a side effect of the system disorders during the revolution.
Then again on the other hand you must realize that millions died in China a yearly basis before 1949 too right? Now China is at peace with itself and its neighbours, the Cultural Revolution was an ADMITTED mistake, you can keep critizising someone for a mistake they already honestly apologized for. Continueing to lecture them won't bring the dead back.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And Tibet had been historically China's since the mongol invasions 700 years ago. See "succestion of states theory" in the UN international code of laws thingy.
Wow! Who knew the solution to so many territorial conflicts was so easy. If it was yours once, it's yours forever!
Well it's nice to piss away the lives of those Tibetans in the name of your fawning love for the PRC, but it doesn't wash. Even setting aside the naked land-grabbing aggression inherent in grabbing Tibet, they still ground those people under their freaking boots and are doing it still.
quote:You do realize that "mass homocides" never happend right? The millions of deaths during the cultural revolution was not any kind of "official" order by the CCP but a side effect of the system disorders during the revolution.
Sure they did. Maybe they weren't intentional, but they happened. Murder by negligence, by stupidity that could easily have been avoided. In the name of more money for the Man.
China is not in a stance of good peace with its neighbors. Tibet and Taiwan being the most obvious examples, but you could easily throw in South Korea, Japan, India, and Russia.
Your stance is absurd. If the PRC-OWNED media reports it, it's true! If a privately owned independant media outlet reports it, and its contrary to PRC boot-licking, well then it's just anti-China rhetoric.
That guy who got run over by that tank that time...well, it was necessary. And he had it coming anyway, for not kneeling down in front of China. So did all those others who get locked up, executed, sent to labor camps, starved to death, or 'disappeared' by the Chinese government.
PRC thinks that because its got such a massive population, it gets to spend it like currency. So do you.
You're wrong.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"Wow! Who knew the solution to so many territorial conflicts was so easy. If it was yours once, it's yours forever!
Well it's nice to piss away the lives of those Tibetans in the name of your fawning love for the PRC, but it doesn't wash. Even setting aside the naked land-grabbing aggression inherent in grabbing Tibet, they still ground those people under their freaking boots and are doing it still."
So you individually can think you can change international law and realpolitik for the last 300 years? WoW!
Seriously it is by international law China's if China had been controlled by Chiang Kai-Shek and he reoccupied Tibet forcefully we wouldn't be talking about it because China would have been one of America's "Allies".
"On the other hand, the PRC claims to rule Tibet legitimately, by claiming that Tibet has been an indivisible part of China de jure since Mongol (Yuan) conquest 700 years ago, comparable to other states such as the Kingdom of Dali and the Tangut Empire that were also incorporated into the Mongol Empire at the time and have remained in China ever since. The PRC contends that all subsequent Chinese governments onwards up till the PRC to have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising de jure sovereignty and some level of de facto power over Tibet in accordance with the succession of states theory, despite periods of autonomy, such as between 1912 and 1951. Moreover, the PRC contends that even during this period (1912-1951) commonly held to be the last period of Tibetan independence, China continued to maintain sovereignty over Tibet; no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition; and other signs of Tibetan acknowledgement of Chinese sovereignty were present, e.g. the presence of Tibetan delegates in 1947 in Nanjing to take part in the drafting of a new constitution for the Republic of China."
quote:China is not in a stance of good peace with its neighbors. Tibet and Taiwan being the most obvious examples, but you could easily throw in South Korea, Japan, India, and Russia.
Tibet and Taiwan have always since around 700 and 400 years ago respectively been part of China and legally still do, regardless of the economic or political systems of the two. Afterall noone disputes the return of Hong Kong to China and its been away from China even longer then Taiwan.
Next, South Korea and Japan are China's main trading partners after America if they weren't at peace then they wouldn't be doing so well in trade. Russia and China have just completed "Peace Mission 2005" which were military excersizes involving some 10,000 troops and various aircraft in order to improve ties between China and Russia in the war on terror.
India? You really haven't been paying attention to the news, China and India have been discussing new trade contracts and other economic and territorial treaties, in fact China is even willing to give back some of the land it took and to cede claims on other areas on the border to help the process.
So thus China is at peace with its neighbours and once more about Taiwan is putting a GARGATUAN amount of effort to improve cross straight relations to encourage peaceful unification under two systems. Like Hong-Kong.
quote:Your stance is absurd. If the PRC-OWNED media reports it, it's true! If a privately owned independant media outlet reports it, and its contrary to PRC boot-licking, well then it's just anti-China rhetoric.
That is hardly fair or mature, anyone will know that hardly any media is unbiased mostly european medias do a better job at being neutral sources but they will still support a particular view, CNN and other news outlets can be easily considered as propoganda machines for the Bush/NeoCon administration, and besides I read the people's daily to get a better idea of what happens on their side of the ocean, I still read CNN, and the Montreal Gazette.
As for Anti China rhetoric, well I've seen only 2 and thats the Taipei Times and the Epoch times and the majority of other people on an other forum I debate on agree with me that they're extremist and would support the economic collapse of the world if it meant hurting china too.
quote:That guy who got run over by that tank that time...well, it was necessary. And he had it coming anyway, for not kneeling down in front of China. So did all those others who get locked up, executed, sent to labor camps, starved to death, or 'disappeared' by the Chinese government.
If I recal correctly the student that stood infront of that Tank got ushered away by his friends, and as for people who get to labour camps and etc. *shrug* I didn't say everything they do is right or perfect but plenty of people who are sent to said camps are criminals and if they can contribute to society rather then rot away in prison I think its would be a better system.
quote:So did all those others who get locked up, executed, sent to labor camps, starved to death, or 'disappeared' by the Chinese government.
Can you quote actual cases that happened recently? Political freedoms in China have been increasing and should be encouraged, not critisized for what already happened. Those events happened far more often in Russia then in China and look up the Bay of Ghitmo, America is doing far more often now and they are increasing its use, China on the other hand is decreasing it.
FYI ALL NATIONS spend their people like currency, its all a matter of degree and of how obvious it is.
quote:Your Wrong
Wow, you win the prize for maturity.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Seriously guys, everybody knows China is l33t!
I have a new suggestion for changing the US gov't.
Make all future national monuments out of chocolate.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'ld agree to that but don't expect me not to nibble on the manuments.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'ld agree to that but don't expect me not to nibble on the manuments.
I'm sorry, that's just too choice. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Out of context thread, here we come.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:FYI ALL NATIONS spend their people like currency, its all a matter of degree and of how obvious it is.
And there is just one small but all-important difference between our government and that of a totalitarian regime:
The government here is of the people, by the people and for the people. Thus, when we choose so "spend our people" we THE PEOPLE have some say in it.
You might consider that only a matter of degree, or in the level of "obviousness" but my only suggestion is that you should try living under both systems and pick whichever one you like best.
I, for one, have already picked democracy in an open society that values individual freedom and will fight any change that lessons any aspect of that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
By the way, any society that doesn't let its people leave freely or move freely about the country cannot possibly pass the laugh test when it calls itself a democracy.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This thread has been one of the most enlightening, yet terrifying, threads I've ever seen.
For myself, I'd just settle for getting rid of the 19th amendment. Ever since it passed, the country's gone straight to hell.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I'd just settle for getting rid of the 19th amendment. Ever since it passed, the country's gone straight to hell.
Hey! I heard that! Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No, I just habe a code.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: *cough*...
I think it's contagious.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:The government here is of the people, by the people and for the people. Thus, when we choose so "spend our people" we THE PEOPLE have some say in it.
You might consider that only a matter of degree, or in the level of "obviousness" but my only suggestion is that you should try living under both systems and pick whichever one you like best.
I, for one, have already picked democracy in an open society that values individual freedom and will fight any change that lessons any aspect of that.
Bull.
If that was true you wouldn't be overthrowing democratically elected governments left and right, you wouldn't be abducting citizens OFF THE STREET and imprisoning them in a military base in Iraq and the Carribian.
You wouldn't have arrested 800 US citizens and deported them without due process, if it was true your very institutions would not have conspired to murder John F. Kennedy, if it was true a governer in Ohio wouldn't have ordered the Kent Ohio Shootings.
Your government wouldn't have prevented thousands of black people in florida from voting in the 2000 elections, hell those elections along with the 2004 elections wouldn't have been rigged if your government was as free as you think it is.
You also wouldn't have an electorial college which makes your votes meaningless, and finally, if it was by the people and for the people, more then 20% of your country would actually bother to vote.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah Tante I'm allergic to chalk dust me thinks. Since i sit in front of my class and I sneez alot, usually 4-5 times in a row.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I sneez alot, usually 4-5 times in a row.
Hmm. Try another row.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: your very institutions would not have conspired to murder John F. Kennedy
Professor Hicks does present a compelling arguement that the only way Oswald could have made that shot from the book depository would have been if a bunch of pigeons had come in the window, grabbed onto him, and flown him over the expressway. In fact, there were sightings of anti-Castro pigeons in bars the night before. They were overheard saying "Coup! Coup!"
--Enigmatic
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If I recal correctly the student that stood infront of that Tank got ushered away by his friends, and as for people who get to labour camps and etc. *shrug* I didn't say everything they do is right or perfect but plenty of people who are sent to said camps are criminals and if they can contribute to society rather then rot away in prison I think its would be a better system.
Do you hear yourself? "Plenty" of the people interred in labor camps are criminals, and it's better to be sent to a labor camp than rot away in prison? How can you even say that with a straight face?
quote: If that was true you wouldn't be overthrowing democratically elected governments left and right, you wouldn't be abducting citizens OFF THE STREET and imprisoning them in a military base in Iraq and the Carribian.
Big difference between us and China, Blayne: when we do this, our press reports it and we can criticize it in public. A lot of us Americans are pretty darn upset about this, and make it clear. How many Chinese get that chance?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They also have a legal system as well, there usually is a trial in China, and the people who you think are sent to labour camps ARE criminals, murderers rapists, etc.
I think that reasoning is that its much better to have criminals working to help society to pay their debt to it then for society to pay for them to have a home and 3 meals a day.
So what if your press reports it? Your press is INGNORED that is the worth of democracy in America, a hinderance for the quest of your leaders to make money.
In China the people that are arrested for dissent are ones who are organizing dissent to a degree that threatens stability, the personal opinions of individuals is not interfeared with, individual critizism is tolerated esp if its directed at aspects of failed policy and not at the legitimacy of the government itself.
But do I say its right? No, did I say that the PRC is perfect? No, however I do agree that it is justifiable on a certain level and for as long as America is the one belligerant power in the world I'ld prefer that the faster that China can rise to balance America the better.
But remember the rates in China of said arrests is decreasing, democracy year by year is growing more potent as Maoist thought keeps evolving, as I said over 1,000,000 villages are democratic and is moving up to the town level, democracy is coming to China and China has come to terms, they know that something horrible had happened and they apologized for it and have done their best to give the average chinese better lives as possible since a prosperous China is a rich and powerful China.
The reason why I accept said civil rights abuses is because I know they happen everywhere and I know that in the case of China they are exaggerated because it serves a purpose, it serves the purpose of trying to mentally prepare America for any future clash with China, I know that these abuses will one day soon end and the faster that China can reach economic parity with the west is also the faster that the abuses decrease in number.
Accept what China is and strive to make it better, because the alternative would've been far worse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: They also have a legal system as well, there usually is a trial in China, and the people who you think are sent to labour camps ARE criminals, murderers rapists, etc.
They're found guilty of being criminals, murderers and rapists, which isn't always the same thing. And when criticizing the government makes you a criminal, being a criminal isn't even all that bad.
quote: So what if your press reports it? Your press is INGNORED that is the worth of democracy in America, a hinderance for the quest of your leaders to make money.
I don't necessarily disagree, Blayne. The press in this country is often irrelevant and ignored by the public. But it's rarely persecuted by the government (although it's often misled). And as you've observed, the Chinese government is ALSO all about making money; that particular motivation is hardly exclusive to American leadership.
quote: Accept what China is and strive to make it better, because the alternative would've been far worse.
Why do we believe there could only have been one alternative? A China that didn't randomly arrest, torture, and brainwash its critics would be a nice start, don't you agree?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Blayne,
You haven't addressed my point about freedom of movement and freedom to leave the country.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
Irradicate minimum wage. Minimum wage prevents homeless from working and earning an income.
No one will hire an unskilled person if they are forced to pay them more money than their work is worth. Once someone gets a job, they learn rudimentary job skills, like how to fill out forms and how to show up to work on time. They can use these job skills to market their work, possibly to another employee, for more pay. This makes the homeless man that couldn't get a job before richer both in skill and in income.
The fact is, employers will stop hiring employees when an employee's value is less than the cost of employing them. Without minimum wage, there will be less unemployment because more people will be working. This clearly benefits the individual because the individual earns income and gains job skills. This benefits society by keeping people working (people can't and do not commit as much crime if they are occupied by work).
What about earning a livable wage? What about earning more income? Get a new job. Market your skills to someone that will pay you more for it. Or, get a raise (or other benefits like safety or health care) from your existing employer that is afraid of losing a good worker.
The truth is, minimum wage really only helps those that are already working keep the wage that they are already getting and prevents creation of new jobs and a skilled workforce by keeping people at the very bottom skill level from getting jobs.
In a free-market capitalist economy, you just have to get used to finding new jobs sometimes or having your existing job canned. Protecting jobs is an illusion. That is a fact of life in the U.S. Best adapt to it as you can.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
What a terrible idea.
Maybe CEOs should get used to not making hundreds of times more than their workers while their jobs are protected by golden parachute schemes.
Maybe countries with economic clout should use that clout to improve the lives of sweatshop workers in countries to which work is now exported so the overall common standard of life improves, rather than lunging endlessly for the lowest common denominator in pursuit of a profit on paper.
Of the 9.2 million working families in the United States who are low-income, 74 percent work full time. People making minimum wage often have to struggle just to make rent and put food on the table, and you want to eliminate that tiniest of buffers? Why? So we can have our poorest working citizens living in tin shacks, like other countries?
The notion that the minimum wage eliminates jobs is a fabrication. Setting wages below a livable standard will inevitably destroy an economy that is based on profits derived from cheap overseas labor by eliminating the market that purchases those inexpensive goods in the first place.
I didnt feel I needed to answer that considering that even Taiwanese citizens enter and leave China at will it should be obvious what the rules on movement are.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne,
quote:Tibet and Taiwan have always since around 700 and 400 years ago respectively been part of China and legally still do, regardless of the economic or political systems of the two.
If you have to take a nation by force away from its current inhabitants, then arguably it isn't yours. If the population despises you and would if they could throw you out, it's not yours legitimately, you're an oppresser. Just like China. Tibet and Taiwan don't want to be a part of China.
But that doesn't matter. Hail China!
quote:India? You really haven't been paying attention to the news, China and India have been discussing new trade contracts and other economic and territorial treaties, in fact China is even willing to give back some of the land it took and to cede claims on other areas on the border to help the process.
Wow, China is giving back territory it stole? Shocking! And yes, I'm aware that CHina trades with its neighbors. We conducted trade with the Soviet Union. France was Germany's biggest trading partner in the 30s.
quote:So thus China is at peace with its neighbours and once more about Taiwan is putting a GARGATUAN amount of effort to improve cross straight relations to encourage peaceful unification under two systems. Like Hong-Kong.
Not like Hong Kong. PRC regularly clamps down on freedoms formerly enjoyed by Hong Kong, and the people there aren't happy about it.
Anyway...I'm done arguing about this. Its pointless, and I'm tired just reading all the apologies and excuses.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tibet was liberated from the autocratic rule of the Dalai Lama, Tibet preliberation was a semi feudal society with a slave class, patriachal society with unequal division of land.
When the PRC liberated them slavery was abolished, equal rights given to all citizens, the land was divided equally among the peasants and a civilian secular government installed.
"Not like Hong Kong. PRC regularly clamps down on freedoms formerly enjoyed by Hong Kong, and the people there aren't happy about it."
And Hong Kong does a good job at challenging those laws, in fact there's been another recent democracy movement originating from HK and HK prodemocracy politicians have been meeting with top CCP leaders.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"Wow, China is giving back territory it stole? Shocking! And yes, I'm aware that CHina trades with its neighbors. We conducted trade with the Soviet Union. France was Germany's biggest trading partner in the 30s."
That land had been historically part of the Han Dynasty centuries before, I don't recal the exact chain f events but both sides are equally responcible for the Indian-Sino war of 1962. Quite frankly the US stole parts of Texas and california off of Mexico will the US give back that land they stole?
Also, international trade and foreign exchange students are key to improving national relations. Canada was America's MFN for a while does that mean we'll go to war?
"Anyway...I'm done arguing about this. Its pointless, and I'm tired just reading all the apologies and excuses."
Only because you know you can't win the arguement as one sided as you thought you could. I have enough facts and evidence to support my viewpoint that I can argue this successfuly to a detent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: When the PRC liberated them slavery was abolished, equal rights given to all citizens...
Blayne, do you believe this? Do you really, truly, believe that China has given "equal rights" to its people?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hail China!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Rakeesh you are hardly being open minded or mature in this discussion.
Tom, yes I do. They are a secular nation that allows its citizens under the reforms of 1978 to own, purchase and sell property. It is a market oriented economy with socalist/Maoist leanings.
Every citizen of the People's Republic is equal in theory under the law, just as every citizen in the USA is theoretically equal under the law, but of course they're certains where that in practice doesn't work so good.
If you seriously expect China to be perfect and follow the American example of "democracy" then you are naive.
Can you trully say beyond a doubt that they aren't equal under the law? Have you been there? I'm willing enough to give the benefit f the doubt, I'm politically saive enough to recognize that things are getting better, but to expect them overnight to convert to full democracy dispite being Maoist for decades, disite being Confusious for centuries, and dispite having known Imperial rule for centuries as well....
They now have a governmet that did more for the people then every other government and dynasty since the First Emperor Q'ing Unified China.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:"Anyway...I'm done arguing about this. Its pointless, and I'm tired just reading all the apologies and excuses."
Only because you know you can't win the arguement as one sided as you thought you could. I have enough facts and evidence to support my viewpoint that I can argue this successfuly to a detent.
You may be over-estimating the pursuasiveness of your arguments, Blayne. You certainly haven't convinced me, but I don't really have the time or the inclination to really get down and wrestle this one to the ground with you.
Anyone know if Ted is still as staunch a supporter of China as he was 3 or 4 years ago, when he was arguing from the same general position that Blayne is now?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I geuss your too close minded to liston to my arguements and I'm too stubburn to drop it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
What are 1.3 billion people doing in my china cabinet, is what I want to know.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
quote: Maybe CEOs should get used to not making hundreds of times more than their workers while their jobs are protected by golden parachute schemes.
This is what consumers are willing to pay for the position by buying the companies products and services. Presumably, the CEO saves most of his money because rich people usually horde their money. This money can be used to invest in new products for the company, improving performance, causing profit to increase, which in turn causes workers wages to increase because the company will pay them to keep working at the company. Or, the CEO puts his money in the bank or in stocks. This gives the bank the ability to loan money so that other companies can do the same thing – invest in new methods to improve performance and thus profit for everyone. Or stocks give the money to those companies that do the same thing.
quote:The notion that the minimum wage eliminates jobs is a fabrication. Setting wages below a livable standard will inevitably destroy an economy that is based on profits derived from cheap overseas labor by eliminating the market that purchases those inexpensive goods in the first place.
"In general, there is no valid, research-based rationale for believing that state minimum wages cause measurable job losses."
I would probably agree with you, but you miss the point of my argument. Minimum wage prevents the creation of new jobs. It’s a selfish way for those that have jobs to drive out cheap labor so that they can keep their jobs.
quote:Maybe countries with economic clout should use that clout to improve the lives of sweatshop workers in countries …
Here is my plan: We can get those countries to pass $5 minimum wage laws, and then magically poverty and hunger will simply vanish.
I'm more curious as to how Hatrackers (of all people!) are completely ignoring the pun at the top of this page! /disgruntled
--Enigmatic (it was stolen anyway) Edit: this was supposed to be right after Tante's post.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I saw it, it was funny.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:This is what consumers are willing to pay for the position by buying the companies products and services.
Really? Are consumers on the board of directors?
quote: Presumably, the CEO saves most of his money because rich people usually horde their money. This money can be used to invest in new products for the company, improving performance, causing profit to increase, which in turn causes workers wages to increase because the company will pay them to keep working at the company. Or, the CEO puts his money in the bank or in stocks. This gives the bank the ability to loan money so that other companies can do the same thing – invest in new methods to improve performance and thus profit for everyone. Or stocks give the money to those companies that do the same thing.
...Or the CEO puts the money into an offshore account, and never does a thing with it except keep it out of the reach of tax investigators, until he or she passes the funds off to his or her heirs, who do, if possible, less with it.
...Or the company just churns through lower level employees like kindling, since there's no lack of the unskilled and ignorant to fill the old positions, and the bean-counters feel the cost of the minimal start-up and training is exceeded by the benefit of having a chronically insecure workbase where no one can claim anything resembling seniority or demand cost-of-living adjustments for veterancy. Also works on a slightly smaller scale for new college graduates.
...Or the money just gets wiped clean off the books by crooked book-keeping and "socializing" debts.
quote: Minimum wage prevents the creation of new jobs. It’s a selfish way for those that have jobs to drive out cheap labor so that they can keep their jobs.
If it's selfish to want to be able to hold onto a job that pays enough to feed oneself and possibly one's family, then yes, it's selfish. If it's selfish only in the sense that it prevents the job in question from being done for a quarter an hour in Mexico or less in Bangladesh or Indonesia and prevents the company from being able to report a higher rate of profit, the term becomes somewhat moot.
quote:Here is my plan: We can get those countries to pass $5 minimum wage laws, and then magically poverty and hunger will simply vanish.
I'm not saying anything of the sort. The U.S. isn't competing with people who are making five dollars an hour, or four dollars an hour, or even two dollars an hour. It's competing in many cases with countries where teenagers work fourteen hour days for less than a dollar an hour in factories with no safety or environmental standards. We could try to change that, or we could call that an enviably employer-friendly marketplace. Frankly, I think the latter is the province of weasels.
We're in the process of destroying the market for the very products that we're having manufactured overseas. Products made at home can and do find a market at prices that are affordable and still allow their producers to pay their employees a fair living wage. Lunging after the trailing edge of the lowest common denominator will only bring an illusory sort of profit in the short term. In the long term, you're left with economists mumbling vaguely about service-based economies where ninety-nine people "magically" find enough work to perform in doing services for the hundredth person. It's like the internet bubble all over again: everyone reports revenue that only comes from banner-clicks, and the same nickel gets passed around over and over again, reported as a profit each time.
The money that goes to the top 1% has a way of staying there. Turning one job that pays starvation wages into two jobs that pay sub-starvation wages may look good in someone's books, but that someone isn't looking at working either of those jobs.
Y'know how we hear every twenty years or so that [assembly line production, automation, computers, the Internet Economy] are going to make everything so efficient that people are hardly going to work at all?
Notice it hasn't happened?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I geuss your too close minded to liston to my arguements and I'm too stubburn to drop it.
::nods::
That's really the only possible explanation, isn't it?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Blayne,
Surely you understood my question to apply to the "citizens" of the PRC, not those from Taiwan.
Can a citizen who is a resident of Beijing move to any other province if he or she desires, without getting prior approval?
Can such a person leave China and come to the US without asking the Government's permission first?
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
The CEO probably cooks the books or invests in an offshore account because of government regulation and taxation. Maybe they would be more likely to invest in stocks, etc. in the US without so much government interference.
I know of few major companies that do churn through new employees like you say. At any rate, churning through new employees gives employees work skills and references. They tend to want (or should want) to hold on to productive employees because productive employees make them money. Seniority and veterancy shouldn’t be worth much to an employer because an employer gains value from an employee from its job skills. An experienced employee could still be lazy or incompetent. Seniority and veterancy are false measures of value. Merit is a better measure of value.
quote:We could try to change that [working in factories with no safety or environmental standards], or we could call that an enviably employer-friendly marketplace.
How, I wonder, do you propose that we try to change that? How are we going to force employers to pay employees a higher wage when presumably they don’t have enough money to do so to begin with? Have you considered asking the employees whether or not they mind working for a quarter of an hour? Maybe that is the best job that they can get. If we destroy that, we put them out of their life. Preventing these jobs from happening probably just forces the employees into worse jobs (like child prostitution).
Offshoring things like programming projects makes the cost of developing a program less. This savings can be passed on to people that buy it, and since it is less more people will buy it. More people benefit from the productivity gains that it entails. Or, the company pockets the difference and uses it to invest in more equipment. At any rate, we gain by more productivity. In the meantime, the offshored workers improve their quality of living by making more than they could otherwise, and the offshored countries industries improve with the additional capital.
I don’t see the evidence supporting why profits will be false in the long-term and why this is relevant.
quote:Turning one job that pays starvation wages into two jobs that pay sub-starvation wages may look good in someone's books, but that someone isn't looking at working either of those jobs.
You’re forgetting that people gain from working rather than not working, and they can market their skills elsewhere and possibly earn more. I don’t see the evidence that eliminating minimum wage entails the simple substitution that you propose: one starvation wage for two sub-starvation wage.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote: The CEO probably cooks the books or invests in an offshore account because of government regulation and taxation. Maybe they would be more likely to invest in stocks, etc. in the US without so much government interference.
That's one hypothesis. Of course, most of the headliner corporate crimes of the day have occurred after major patches of deregulation. And current tax laws are so full of loopholes that there are major accounting firms who make massive piles of money by jiggering things so multi-millionares pay no taxes at all and writing letters attesting to the legality of their bookkeeping. But, yes, it's possible that someone is saying "Sure, I'm making twenty million dollars a year. But if I just broke the law, I could make fifty million dollars a year."
Of course, it's also arguable that the illegalization of cocaine makes people more likely to sell crack.
quote:I know of few major companies that do churn through new employees like you say. At any rate, churning through new employees gives employees work skills and references. They tend to want (or should want) to hold on to productive employees because productive employees make them money. Seniority and veterancy shouldn’t be worth much to an employer because an employer gains value from an employee from its job skills. An experienced employee could still be lazy or incompetent. Seniority and veterancy are false measures of value. Merit is a better measure of value.
I see you're not reading the Wal-Mart segment of the forum. Are you aware that in some sectors their annual turnover is over 100%?
Have you also noticed that one of the fastest growing employers in the United States is temp agencies?
You're absolutely correct that seniority and veterancy aren't accurate predictors of an employee's efficiency or skill. But they are, in some cases, the _only_ recorded factors to differentiate employees. And they are in many cases the first factors to be considered when lay-offs are planned.
And while we're on the subject of false measures of worth, _money_ is a false measure of worth, though it's one of the most commonly used. How often do you read of movie-star CEOs who come in for eighteen months with seven and eight figure salaries, make enormous blunders, cost investors millions and thousands of people their jobs, and then leave with a nice retirement package?
Money as a measure of worth says you can poison the groundwater of a thousand people and make a million dollars. The problems that will be caused by the thousand poisoned people can be written off as unmeasurable or non-financial factors.
Money as a measure of worth says you can cut school spending to the point where the only available textbooks are useless, school maintenence falls to the point where school buildings are virtually uninhabitable, and finding qualified teachers is impossible. The problems that might be caused by students who never learned anything useful can be written off.
Money as a measure of worth says that for the benefit of short-term profit, you can reduce the ability of your consumer base to buy the product you produce over the long term. Of course, with your increased profit, you're going to put money into R&D and advertising, and expand operations, and hire more people at lower wages, which will make even more profit, which will...
"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death..."
If you're lucky, that profit actually does get spent on company infrastructure rather than one of those superstar CEO's retirement or some VP's yacht, or just vanishing one way or another. But that trend can go on forever without actually benefitting the consumers or the lower level workers.
quote:How, I wonder, do you propose that we try to change that? How are we going to force employers to pay employees a higher wage when presumably they don’t have enough money to do so to begin with? Have you considered asking the employees whether or not they mind working for a quarter of an hour? Maybe that is the best job that they can get. If we destroy that, we put them out of their life. Preventing these jobs from happening probably just forces the employees into worse jobs (like child prostitution).
This sort of argument has been used to advocate against child labor laws as well...
A sweatshop doesn't rise out of a vacuum. It comes from a string of people trying to raise various levels or profit, usually in a situation where a small, monopolistic group controls the actual purchasing power and drives the buying cost lower and lower to increase their returns. Move operations over a border, increase profit a little, move it overseas, increase it more; make the workers work in an area that's boiling hot or freezing cold and has no temperature control, increase it a little more; skip the monthly equipment maintence exam, increase it a little more; hire teenagers rather than adults, pay them less, and coerce them with threats and violence, increase profits a little more...
A motto of "if we can increase profit we shall" leads to very dull profit/cost/loss graphs in one country, and one thug bragging to another that he's gotten _his_ workers working sixteen hour shifts and paying most of their salaries back to the factory to rent rooms to live in as he throws a teenager who's just been maimed by some odd piece of factory equipment out in the street in another. Don't tell me "they could be doing worse", of course they could be doing worse. Every human being has a capacity for enduring misery that ramps upward right up until their death. That doesn't mean you intentionally push it for the sake of profit. And it doesn't excuse anyone from saying "god-awful is good enough for these people, because it could be worse."
If companies are willing to decrease their profit margins just slightly- pay a dime for a product that sells for a dollar instead of a nickel- a tremendous amount of misery can be avoided. If companies make it clear that they _are_ paying attention to conditions in the factories where their products are produced and that they will take their business elsewhere if they receive reports of abuses, and are conversely willing to pay bounuses for reports of good worker treatment, things can get better. On the other hand, if companies make it clear that their one and only priority is their bottom line and expansion at the fastest rate possible, not only will things get worse and abuses be prevalent, but the company is likely to outgrow its ability to support itself.
Or the short version: How do I propose to change that? We pay them, and we tell them what we expect for that payment. Same as now, just a slight shift in priority.
quote:Offshoring things like programming projects makes the cost of developing a program less. This savings can be passed on to people that buy it, and since it is less more people will buy it. More people benefit from the productivity gains that it entails. Or, the company pockets the difference and uses it to invest in more equipment. At any rate, we gain by more productivity. In the meantime, the offshored workers improve their quality of living by making more than they could otherwise, and the offshored countries industries improve with the additional capital.
I don’t see the evidence supporting why profits will be false in the long-term and why this is relevant.
Because the free market is a blind fool. It has no moral judgement, and is perfectly capable of "enlightened" self-destruction. We have the resources to feed every person on Earth, but people starve. We have the resources to vaccinate every child on Earth, but people die every day of preventable diseases. We can make products that last beyond their warranties, and cars that get far greater gas mileage, but where's the financial incentive? We have made advance after advance in efficiency, as I noted at the end of my last message, but the gain is very high only for a very small percentage. The rest mostly find they need an increasingly advanced skill set in order to be slightly worse off than they were before.
The savings of offshoring CAN be passed on to consumers, or employees, but there is nothing in a free market that dictates that it will. And so, usually, it won't. Also, price is far from the only reason a product will or will not sell. But another joy of a profit-only motive is that the consumer usually gets to choose between a multitude of low-cost, inferior products on the market.
Companies don't move production to offer fabulous wages to the citizens there. Companies move production to offer jobs at the local rates, which are lower than their home rates. And when they leave, the places they leave are usually worse off than they were before. Agricultural communities lose their ability to produce food, small communities turn into sprawls.
People lose their jobs in the U.S., production is moved to Mexico: factories stand empty, towns turn into ghosts, basic infrastructures disintegrate, everyone suffers.
People lose their jobs in Mexico, production is moved to China: lather, rinse, repeat.
quote:You’re forgetting that people gain from working rather than not working, and they can market their skills elsewhere and possibly earn more. I don’t see the evidence that eliminating minimum wage entails the simple substitution that you propose: one starvation wage for two sub-starvation wage.
People work in order to gain the ability to provide for themselves and their families. Gaining skills is secondary, and poor compensation. Many jobs at the lowest levels provide very few transferrable skills, because the jobs themselves have been designed from the ground up to require very few skills so a new employee can be slapped into the position on a moment's notice. As for "marketing one's skills elsewhere", that assumes all manner of things including the mobility to go out and seek jobs and enough of a financial buffer to hold out long enough to pick and choose without skipping meals or rent checks. None of these qualities are guaranteed to even the minimum-wage earner, let alone someone not allowed a minimum wage. It also assumes the existence of other jobs, which that sweatshop worker in East Asia may render moot. The scenario you describe doesn't lend itself to "marketing one's skills"; it lends itself to leaping headlong at the first job someone offers you at any wage whatsoever, and kissing their feet that they've offered you anything at all.
A minimum wage isn't some trivial contrivance, some random piece of regulation, a number someone pulled out of a hat to frustrate management. It is people saying "This is what we consider the minimum amount of money on which someone can get by in our community." And given the struggles proponents have to go through to ever get it raised, it often isn't even enough for that.
So, here's a question: If in Country X you can buy enough food to keep alive on $0.25 a day, do you really think workers in the United States should conform to that wage level for the sake of contrived notions of competition and profit? And how many people are likely to starve before market forces cause food prices in the United States to become symmetrical to those in Country X which make that $0.25 a day survivable?
Drive a mile in any given mid-size city, and you can see the businesses that are flourishing in this climate: temp agencies, payday loan offices, and dollar stores.
This is not a good trend.
[ October 28, 2005, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: "This is what we consider the minimum amount of money on which someone can get by in our community
And they often can't. This is just for my area, it may differ in areas with lower housing costs:
quote: In King County, it found that 44 percent of renters are unable to afford rent for a two-bedroom unit. To afford a two-bedroom unit, renters must earn an hourly wage of $15.56. On average, minimum wage workers must work 96 hours per week to afford a two-bedroom unit. In Washington State, 35 percent of renters are unable to afford rent for a two-bedroom unit.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The CEO probably cooks the books or invests in an offshore account because of government regulation and taxation. Maybe they would be more likely to invest in stocks, etc. in the US without so much government interference.
I know that I turned to car theft because my taxes were too high.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
romany, I followed some links to the report those numbers came from, and it's really scary.
quote:Once again, this year there is not a single jurisdiction in the country where a person working full time earning the prevailing minimum wage can afford a two bedroom rental home.
Moreover, there are only four counties in the country - Wayne, Crawford, and Lawrence counties in Illinois and Washington County, Florida - where a person or a household working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year at the prevailing minimum wage can afford even a one bedroom apartment.
In 70% of the metropolitan areas in the country, the Housing Wage is at least twice the prevailing minimum wage. In 56 metropolitan areas the Housing Wage is over three times the minimum wage. This is illustrated in Out of Reach by the number of work hours per week per household necessary at minimum wage to afford a two bedroom home at the Fair Market Rent. This number allows the reader to focus on the differential between the minimum wage and the Housing Wage, but it also allows an appreciation of the challenges low income households face. In the first instance, the more hours necessary, the higher the cost of housing relative to the minimum wage. In the second instance, by considering this number relative to the standard 40 hour work week, it becomes clear that households that have multiple minimum wage earners contributing to the rent, earn higher wages, and or work overtime are still likely to have significant problems finding a safe decent apartment in the community where they work.
Renter households in 991 counties, home to almost 79% of all renter households in the nation, must work over 80 hours a week at the local minimum wage to afford a two bedroom apartment at the Fair Market Rent. In Pitkin County, CO, where the Housing Wage is nearly five times greater than the minimum wage, it would take nearly five minimum wage earners or two earners earning two and a half times the minimum wage working full time for a household to afford a modest two bedroom apartment.
I knew we had problems affording a place to live. I never knew so many other people had the same problem.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jake,
I can only speak for myself, but the arguments I had with Ted about China (and they lasted awhile) were relating to that spy plane incident at about that time. And so Ted's 'defense' of the PRC, to my recollection, had more to do with Chinese-American military relations than it did with Chinese human rights records (which he took a pretty dim view of, but as I recall felt had little to no bearing on the spy-plane issue).
That's what I remember anyway. I'd love for Ted to post more though and correct me
J4
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I expect that that's probably what I was thinking of, Rakeesh. I only dimly remembered the arguments, not having taken an active role in them.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The housing/wage disparity exists throughout the entire country.
Read those and tell me again that the solution is to do away with the minimum wage. The solution is to raise it. Significantly.
I have a hard time being sympathetic with the argument that businesses simply couldn't afford paying their workers a livable wage. (That's what I usually hear when people speak against raising it.) Maybe they're charging too little for their product. Maybe they need to be more efficient. Maybe maybe maybe... but the solution should be found elsewhere--and not in underpaying workers.
We struggle to make ends meet, and I would probably be considered rich to those people who are stuck in minumum wage jobs.
Minumum wage is shameful.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
companies who already cheat and cook the books shouldn't be compalining if they can't raise wages a little.
"OH NO! Now I can't afford my second boat damn those pesky minimum wage laws."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Inflation rates are generally tied to food prices, which haven't changed that much, instead of the cost of housing, which definitely has.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Blayne,
You still haven't answered my question. Seriously, if you are going to just ignore the inconvenient facts about China's repression of it's own citizens, why do you bother posting at all about it?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Chinese citizens go abroad for educational reasons and tourism. Requires permission before hand but is not particularily special nor out of the ordinatry for most nations.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Blayne,
You know as well as I that emigrating from China is not possible.
Any country that forces its people to stay whether they want to or not has some serious control issues.
I'm not exactly sure why Communist nations are the ones that do this on a routine basis. Other than a fear that the place would simply empty out because nobody wants to live like that.
Is there a reason you keep hedging on this?
And, by the way, you haven't answered about moving INSIDE the country either. If someone doesn't want to move into the housing provided by the state after the state flooded their old homes to build a new dam, what choice were they given? If they wanted to move out of China, were they allowed to? If they wanted to move to the big city and get a job, did they have that option?
C'mon. Just admit it. China controls the movement of its people to an extent that is not at all similar to what the world's major democracies do. It isn't a free society in that sense. And the reasons for it seem pretty clear -- the state controls people's lives.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
"Tibet was liberated from the autocratic rule of the Dalai Lama, Tibet preliberation was a semi feudal society with a slave class, patriachal society with unequal division of land.
When the PRC liberated them slavery was abolished, equal rights given to all citizens, the land was divided equally among the peasants and a civilian secular government installed."
Are you insane!?
Have you been to Tibet?
Have you met elderly monks who had most of the bones in their body broken and all of their teeth shattered while spending time in Chinese internment camps? Have you met people who witnessed the slaughter that happened during the invasion? Are you familiar with the people, such as the Panchen Lama, who were kidnapped as children because they were supposedly incarnations of powerful religious figures? Children who have been held for fifteen, twenty years without being seen by anyone?
And I am utterly flabbergasted that no one is addressing your long list of apparent complaints against the US... half of which are utterly ludicrous conspiracy theories which by their very nature are unproven and cannot be proven.
I don't even understand how someone can live as immersed in fantasy as you are. It's mind boggling. My mind has been boggled in ways I didn't even know existed.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I'm nor sure if paying someone $15 an hour to work in a diner or something similar will fix anything? The cheap, but good, meals will have to dramatically go up in cost just to cover the increased cost of labor. I have read many comments about how 'business' should just shell out more and more money because they are so rich. Well, the rules that apply to them will also apply to the local Mom & Pop stores, the small businesses. The only way to survive will to be part of a huge corporation, small busineses will not make it. Raising prices was one solution to cover the costs but doesn't that just start spiraling upward? Everything is then more expensive so the minimum wage is still not enough to cover the expenses.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I'm not sure if paying someone $15 an hour to work in a diner or something similar will fix anything? The cheap, but good, meals will have to dramatically go up in cost just to cover the increased cost of labor. I have read many comments about how 'business' should just shell out more and more money because they are so rich. Well, the rules that apply to them will also apply to the local Mom & Pop stores, the small businesses. The only way to survive will to be part of a huge corporation, small busineses will not make it. Raising prices was one solution to cover the costs but doesn't that just start spiraling upward? Everything is then more expensive so the minimum wage is still not enough to cover the expenses.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Professor Hicks does present a compelling arguement that the only way Oswald could have made that shot from the book depository would have been if a bunch of pigeons had come in the window, grabbed onto him, and flown him over the expressway. In fact, there were sightings of anti-Castro pigeons in bars the night before. They were overheard saying "Coup! Coup!"
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I'm not sure if paying someone $15 an hour to work in a diner or something similar will fix anything? The cheap, but good, meals will have to dramatically go up in cost just to cover the increased cost of labor. I have read many comments about how 'business' should just shell out more and more money because they are so rich. Well, the rules that apply to them will also apply to the local Mom & Pop stores, the small businesses. The only way to survive will to be part of a huge corporation, small busineses will not make it. Raising prices was one solution to cover the costs but doesn't that just start spiraling upward? Everything is then more expensive so the minimum wage is still not enough to cover the expenses.
Maybe if we're not able to make it so that the person who serves us our food can also afford to eat and have place to live then we don't deserve to have our food served to us.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"And I am utterly flabbergasted that no one is addressing your long list of apparent complaints against the US... half of which are utterly ludicrous conspiracy theories which by their very nature are unproven and cannot be proven."
Read Noam Chansky he provides sources, then there's Bowling for Columbine that provides the figures of how many died in America's little games with the people of south America.
Zhao says that yes they can move from province to province. Though she had to go back to work before I could ask if special permission was required.
"Are you insane!?"
No.
"Have you been to Tibet?"
Have you?
"Have you met elderly monks who had most of the bones in their body broken and all of their teeth shattered while spending time in Chinese internment camps? Have you met people who witnessed the slaughter that happened during the invasion? Are you familiar with the people, such as the Panchen Lama, who were kidnapped as children because they were supposedly incarnations of powerful religious figures? Children who have been held for fifteen, twenty years without being seen by anyone?"
Have you?
Next, what happened to them had happened mostly to religious people/bhuddist monks/nuns. It has nothing to do with what may or may not have happened to the Tibetan people, you yourself have not provided evidence to contradict my and wikipedia's assertion that Tibet was a slave based economic system, that it was roled by a theocratic aristocracy, that the people were dirt poor and with little future.
And you also have yet to refute that the lives of the Tibetan people now, the government in Beijing had finished construction of the worlds highest railway and other infastructure garanteeing Tibets economic future, monestaries are being reopened and nuns and monks are being trained.
You cannot to any reasonably proove that the lives of the chinese people would be better any other way nore can you disprove that their lives are improving as fast as the economy can allow.
"You know as well as I that emigrating from China is not possible."
Yes it is, I know plenty of Chinese people from Hong Kong and Canton who came here from China.
"I'm not exactly sure why Communist nations are the ones that do this on a routine basis. Other than a fear that the place would simply empty out because nobody wants to live like that."
Actually that isn't technically true, the iron curtain only came in place in the late forties, communism in russia had been around for years and years and the restrictions on emmigration were nowhere near as strict as they were later on.
Also I remember one notable case where soon to be Comedian Boris Yakov left the USSR in his youth to live a life in America. and this i think was in the 70's-80's.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
China has made some remarkable accomplishments, and in as much as the Chinese government manages to govern so large and diverse a group of people at all, it is a remarkable accomplishment as well.
However.
The "one nation" attitude of China towards Taiwan should not be ignored.
The treatment of Tibetans and members of the Falun Gong sect should not be condoned simply because they are religious practitioners,
and the reaction to the non-violent democracy assemblies at Tianmen square should not be lightly forgotten or forgiven.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Read Noam Chansky he provides sources, then there's Bowling for Columbine that provides the figures of how many died in America's little games with the people of south America.
If your ideas of reliable sources are Noam Chomsky and Michael freakin' Moore, then there's absolutely no point in continuing this angle of the discussion. Chomsky is a hack, and Moore is a hundred times worse than a hack.
"Are you insane!?"
No.
I'm glad.
"Have you been to Tibet?"
Have you?
Nope, although several relatives and many of my friends have.
"Have you met elderly monks who had most of the bones in their body broken and all of their teeth shattered while spending time in Chinese internment camps? Have you met people who witnessed the slaughter that happened during the invasion? Are you familiar with the people, such as the Panchen Lama, who were kidnapped as children because they were supposedly incarnations of powerful religious figures? Children who have been held for fifteen, twenty years without being seen by anyone?"
Have you?
I have indeed. Well, I haven't met the Panchen Lama, but that's because he is in all likelihood dead, and if not he's at least being held without trial in an undisclosed location. Still.
I've also spoken with an ex-drug smuggler, who spent several years smuggling religious texts and other religious materials across the border into Tibet. Had he been captured he would have been imprisoned indefinitely or killed, as some of his friends were. For smuggling the equivalent of a crucifix or maybe a few passages of the bible.
Next, what happened to them had happened mostly to religious people/bhuddist monks/nuns.
Oh of course. So torturing and murdering people is okay, if they're monks and nuns. I'll remember that.
It has nothing to do with what may or may not have happened to the Tibetan people, you yourself have not provided evidence to contradict my and wikipedia's assertion that Tibet was a slave based economic system, that it was roled by a theocratic aristocracy, that the people were dirt poor and with little future.
Not sure how you got that from Wikipedia. Saying that Tibet was slave based is simply false. Yes, it was ruled by a theocracy, and I would have fully supported a change in that rule, if the people wanted it. But the difference between Tibet and, say, Iraq (or China), is that the Dalai Lama didn't torture and slaughter anyone who might try to change the government. It underwent many changes before China invaded, and would no doubt have gone through many more.
And you also have yet to refute that the lives of the Tibetan people now, the government in Beijing had finished construction of the worlds highest railway and other infastructure garanteeing Tibets economic future, monestaries are being reopened and nuns and monks are being trained.
Yes, China's influence has helped their economy, specifically increased tourism. Not much to do there but support tourists or raise yaks, and now I suppose less people need to raise yaks.
Is reducing the number of yak farmers really worth slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people?
I guess the answer to that question would be where we differ.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Yes it is, I know plenty of Chinese people from Hong Kong and Canton who came here from China.
Um...so, under what circumstances did they leave China? And under what circumstances did they decide to stay?
Blayne, the fact of their presence here doesn't mean anything. Maybe they escaped, maybe they came before Hong Kong was returned to Chinese rule.
I asked you about an average citizen from Beijing wanting to leave the country. Yet you STILL haven't answered.
If you choose to ignore the question, just say so. But 1/2 truths and skirting the question is just annoying.
So answer this:
If an average citizen in the countryside wants to move to Beijing, can they just do it, or is there a process of official approval that has to happen first? When they do it, have they got the same rights as everyone else or are they treated as illegals? currently this problem is under "consideration"
And, if an average citizen of Beijing wants to visit another country, can they just march down to that country's embassy, apply for a visa and once they get it, then drive over to the airport and depart?
Like people can do in a FREE country?
Let's use a trip to America as the example.
Tell us precisely what you believe the process to be.
And don't be a worm and wriggle around the question. Just answer the question.
[ November 02, 2005, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:then there's Bowling for Columbine that provides the figures of how many died in America's little games with the people of south America.
Anyone who uses Michael Moore for a source is delusional, at best.
Listen Blayne, I don't pretend to be an expert in this. But even knowing nothing I can tell that you're spouting total b.s. Michael Moore and people you've met online who claim to be chinese are not the sources you want to base your whole philosophy on. It seems you really are interested in the region. In fact, infatuation would probably be a better word. But before you try to pass yourself off as an expert I have some advice: Get thee to a library! Read books, newspapers, and trade journals. Any reputable firsthand sources will do. Read them once, make up you mind, and then read them again to extract all the relevant sources, quotes, and footnotes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Mao: A life, by Philip Short,
China! Inside the People's Republic! By the committee of concerned North American scholars.
Great Leaders of the 20th Century: Mao Tse-tung
I forget the auther but it was published by penguin books, london ,england.
"After 1907, a treaty between Britain, China, and Russia recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet."
"Neither the Nationalist government of the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China has ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet. In 1950 the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet, crushing the largely ceremonial Tibetan army and destroying as many as 6,000 Tibetan temples. In 1951 the Plan for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, a treaty signed under Chinese pressure by representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, provided for rule by a joint Chinese-Tibetan authority. Most of the population of Tibet at that time were peasants, working lands owned by the estate holders. Any attempt at land reform or the redistribution of wealth would have proved unpopular with the government. This agreement was initially put into effect in Tibet proper. However, Eastern Kham and Amdo were outside the administration of the government of Tibet, and were thus treated like any other Chinese province with land reform implemented in full. As a result, a rebellion broke out in Amdo and eastern Kham in June of 1956. The rebellion, supported by the American CIA, eventually spread to Lhasa. It was crushed by 1959, during which campaign tens of thousands of Tibetans were killed. The 14th Dalai Lama and other government principals fled to exile in India, but isolated resistance continued in Tibet until 1969."
Ok when a people rebel, expect some casualties.
As for Bowling For Columbine its been often regarded as his BETTER documentary by most people here.
While I think Noam's views in regards to Israel is extreme, nevertheless I see nothing made up about his sources or figures in regards to America's international terrorism in various south and central American countries, and I'm pretty sure its common knowledge as well, that you may never have heard of it tells that you probly never reserched the matter yourself.
"And, if an average citizen of Beijing wants to visit another country, can they just march down to that country's embassy, apply for a visa and once they get it, then drive over to the airport and depart?"
Yes, I know several who are hear receiving a education at my very college, 1 or 2 is even from Vietnam.
"Like people can do in a FREE country?" I haven't found yet whether is this is true or not yet I'll answer once I find out.
As for whats under consideration with migrants the fact that their own system is going through the moves of considering it shows that they are like most other governments, they set up a certain policy for X reasons and when decades later it's nolonger feasible they go about and rather democratically discussing if it should be changed and if it has to be changed they change it.
"Anyone who uses Michael Moore for a source is delusional, at best." I'm just saying that it gave quick figures about ow many south american's died in the regimes that America set up to overthrow democratically elected governments. I can provide another source as soon as its convenient.
"Saying that Tibet was slave based is simply false." How so? May I see a link please.
And I don't pass my self off as an expert, have I ever said so?
What I get tired of seeing everyday is seeing people gang up and critisize China unfairly, I did my reserch and try my best to provide a counter to do so.
But quit frankly you can't argue about ethical or moral standards in regards to geopolitics, each nation does its best to act towards their best interests, England had massacred the Irish on occasion, American's took away the land from the Indians and the Spandiards killed millions of people in South America and enslaved them.
Canada even has enacted laws to make it illegal for Quebec to separate, where's the denounciation of Canada? Chechnya wants to separate but Russia isn't letting them, but now oh, I c, they're allies now so we better not bother them.
The reason why people critisize China is because China is a developing nation that can and will rival the USA in the region and the USA has been doing what it can to limit or detract it without actually starting a war.
Washington's stance on these issues is trasparent, they're keeping these issues in the grey so that if war ever coems around they can use it as propoganda, if China was to suddenly become America's ally I can sure tell you that these discussions will disappear and be replaced by America's next enemy #1.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: if China was to suddenly become America's ally I can sure tell you that these discussions will disappear and be replaced by America's next enemy #1.
I don't see China becoming America's ally any time soon. Do you?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Canada even has enacted laws to make it illegal for Quebec to separate, where's the denounciation of Canada?
That's a gross mischaracterization.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
what do you mean? I read on an offical canadian government site, that laws were recently changed to make it as difficult as possible for quebec t sepaate now it takes a 90% majroity plus weeks if not years of negotiations for even a possibility for Quebec to separate.
"I don't see China becoming America's ally any time soon. Do you?"
Doesn't change the fact that if they were a ally we wouldn't be complaining.
If ROC had one they would've still have reclaimed Tibet ad they're wouldnt be an issue with Taiwan.
Also actually there are two possible ways in which Sino-US relations could go. Ever since the One China policy and the 1978 economic reforms relations have been improving dispite ups and downs, HoS for both nations have seen each other recently, think tanks from west point and the beijing academy of sciences have visited each other.
Politics is a complicated thing.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Making a law that says "If you're going to have a separation referendum, you have to word the question unambiguously" isn't the same thing as making it illegal to separate. It's fine to oppose the law itself, but don't call it something it isn't.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It's essentially making it illegal because the government knows that the PQ will never be able ot get 90% saying "OUI! VIVRE LA REPUBLIQUE DU QUEBEC!"
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't know where you got that 90% number, but as far as I'm aware that isn't the case. I don't know of any significant changes to federal laws regarding secession of provinces since the Clarity Act. Nonetheless, "essentially" making it illegal is not making it illegal.
I think what you're talking about is interpreting the Clarity Act (which does say "clear majority") to mean 90%+. It doesn't say that.
Added:
Look, you wrote:
quote:Canada even has enacted laws to make it illegal for Quebec to separate, where's the denounciation of Canada?
This is simply not true.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
hmmm. so many things to choose from.
I would have to say if there was only one thing that I could change it would be to make Congress accountable for the money that it spends. If Congress is held responsible for all of the money it wastes, things would be very different indeed. Do we really need to pay for airline tickets that never get used? 139,000+ tickets have been purchased and unused since 2001 alone.... think of how much money that is in reimbursements...that can still be claimed, but have not been as of yet. Why is tax payer money paying for "diplomatic trips" (for a family of 5) on a Carribean cruise, or to Rio De Janeiro? Things like this are written off as "important diplomatic ventures". I can't afford that kind of a trip, why should my tax dollars be used to send someone else ( and their family) on a trip! Why are millions of dollars being spent on roadways that no one travels in rural West Virginia, yet those that are heavily traveled in the Northeast have potholes the size of Texas and nothing is done? I can't stand pork barrel spending.
Next gripe: I think those representing the people should read every darned page of every bill that they are voting on. Most of the time they don't see the asinine things that are added to the bill after the first 10 pages. (Like Alaska's rep naming the bill after his wife and then demanding that one of the so called "bridges to nowhere" be named after himself!)
The current voting system was set up because back in the days of our Founding Fathers most people couldn't read or write...the Founding Fathers thought them ignorant and didn't want ignorant people ( being the majority) making important decisions. Thus the electoral college and all that came into being...that way the educated people would actually make the decisions... no matter what the ignorant population thought should be done, the Founding Fathers were saving the masses from themselves... I mean come on - everyone knows that people are sheep, they need someone to lead them and make all their decisions for them! (Completely tongue in cheek - please don't take offense.) Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ok when a people rebel, expect some casualties.
So wait, let me get this straight. After a completely immoral and illegitimate invasion, the oppressed peoples rebel. The invaders crush the rebellion, and slaughter tens of thousands of people. And you dismiss this as 'expected casualties'? China has no culpability in this whatsoever?
While I think Noam's views in regards to Israel is extreme, nevertheless I see nothing made up about his sources or figures in regards to America's international terrorism in various south and central American countries, and I'm pretty sure its common knowledge as well, that you may never have heard of it tells that you probly never reserched the matter yourself.
I grew up in Berkeley, CA. I've taken many, many classes at a community college just off the UC Berkeley Campus. It seems to me that the requirement for teaching there is that you be even more extremely leftist than the professors at the UC.
So yes, I am very familiar with Chomsky's beliefs. I grew up believing them. It took a good amount of experience before I realized how insane his worldview is. To share it, you must put an absurd amount of faith in the nefarious and duplicitous nature of everyone except the people who agree with Noam Chomsky. His conspiracy theories require that you adamantly refuse to believe any official report, dismissing them as government lies, and instead swallow whole every source that paints the US as machiavellian imperialists. No matter how ridiculous the source may be.
Which, come to think of it, explains rather well why you called US terrorism 'common knowledge.'
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But it is, its comon knwoledge that Saddam was a CIA asset, it was common knowledge that the US supplied him with weapons in the Iraq-Iran war, and also supplied him with the gas he used on the kurds.
Also the US told the kurds to rebel against iraq and did nothing to help except to say to Saddam "Don't use helicopters".
"So wait, let me get this straight. After a completely immoral and illegitimate invasion, the oppressed peoples rebel. The invaders crush the rebellion, and slaughter tens of thousands of people. And you dismiss this as 'expected casualties'? China has no culpability in this whatsoever?"
Assuming that its even close to being considered an invasion. The UN and International Courts of wars do not consider it as an invasion but the reoccupation of Soverign territory that has been a part of China 700 years ago.
Next, the rebel movement was spear headed BY the CIA just as they had spear headed a movement in Gautemala against a democratically elected socialist president... see the pattern?
And I don't even know why we're arguing this, China will NEVER ascent to give up Tibet, the Chinese people will never acsent to it, and even the KMT reactionaries have never given up claims to Tibet as well.
The CCP won the civil war thanks to the brilliance and adaptability of Mao and his subordinates and the support of the Chinese people and for good or ill still possess the support of the Chinese people because the new generation look around and see how bad things were in their great grand parents time and see how much better things are now... They know the CCP is doing dispite massive problems and some serious setbacks a genuinly good job at not only keep Chinese soverignty together but also at economic development of the country and at improving living standards.
And as for Fulon Gong they're founder declares himself God of the Known Universe on occasion and that they don't need to go to hospitols for cancer treatments. Not even worth debate or conversation.
"This is simply not true." What do you mean? If you don't consider this valid what about the "oppression" of the chechnyans? What about human rights issues in India or Pakistan? We never hear about those.
The only reason why people focus on China is because China is the next up and coming super power and America is scared that they're be another great power to challenge their hard won supremacy.
To my mind, if you can't work gard enough with good enough quality and people in a foreign country can do it better expect to lose one or two jobs, expect the torch to pass to them, if America wants to keep its position abolish the electorial college, reinvigoratre you infastructure and restore funding to welfare programs and triple the educational budget and get some good quality teachers for a bloody change.
If you can't do those and if China can I think its fairly self explaning.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"So yes, I am very familiar with Chomsky's beliefs. I grew up believing them. It took a good amount of experience before I realized how insane his worldview is. To share it, you must put an absurd amount of faith in the nefarious and duplicitous nature of everyone except the people who agree with Noam Chomsky. His conspiracy theories require that you adamantly refuse to believe any official report, dismissing them as government lies, and instead swallow whole every source that paints the US as machiavellian imperialists. No matter how ridiculous the source may be."
I ignore biased conspiracy theories when I see them, like when I heard that a teacher over in Alberta was teaching his students that Jews were planning to take over the world and put forward the Protocals of Zion (i think that was what he sighted) and used ass backwards logic that if academia said it was a fake then it meant that the conspiracy went farther then people realized; I was stunned and my first reaction that him and all others like him should've been shot.
Damn freedom of speach, if it gives people like that the ability to spew garbage.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And as for Fulon Gong they're founder declares himself God of the Known Universe on occasion and that they don't need to go to hospitols for cancer treatments. Not even worth debate or conversation.
Why not?
quote: I was stunned and my first reaction that him and all others like him should've been shot.
That's very Chinese of you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*bows*
xie xie.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, at least this isn't the same kind of tiresome as anime-worship.
Hail China!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
...... *whistles innocently*
AND STOP SAYING HAIL CHINA! You're only doing it to mock me. And I'm pretty sure it violates the user agreement somewhere.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Heil China!
Better? <grin>
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
starLisa... I don't think you'ld appreciate it if people went around and yelled "Sieg Heil!" or "Heil Hitler!" in reply to your posts would you?
But ya I understand that your intentions were meant in jest so its cool between us.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
I think that Italy should take the necessary steps to excercise their claims on Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Heathens hold the holy city of Constantinople. If some of them die in the reconquest, it can only be expected and encouraged.
Mongolia and Nationalist China can fight over Red China. Japan can have Korea. Spain and Portugal can carve up South America. Germany and Russia can partition Poland. If France beats off Italy they should launch an invasion of Normandy at once. A thousand years ago, Norway ruled over northern England, they need to renew their claim.
Mexico can seek to reclaim their losses from America. But America would probably just lop of another chunk of Mexico.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I'm mocking and helping you, Blayne. I mean, I'm basically condensing your views on the 'People's' Republic of China into a more easily said two-word catchy slogan.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If they invade and occupy canada then I might be inclined to yell it out, but for now I find it patronizing/condenscending.
think that Italy should take the necessary steps to excercise their claims on Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Heathens hold the holy city of Constantinople. If some of them die in the reconquest, it can only be expected and encouraged.
"Mongolia and Nationalist China can fight over Red China. Japan can have Korea. Spain and Portugal can carve up South America. Germany and Russia can partition Poland. If France beats off Italy they should launch an invasion of Normandy at once. A thousand years ago, Norway ruled over northern England, they need to renew their claim.
Mexico can seek to reclaim their losses from America. But America would probably just lop of another chunk of Mexico."
Ahh but hear's the thing, the only semi true one is the NAT Chi/Mongolia scenario, but in the case of the Mongols, they became Chinese and were absorbed and the only reason why they didn't become a part of China was because of Soviet pressure.
Next, NatChi/Republic of China still haven't officially given up claims on the mainland, they still consider themselves China officially, with both pro-independance and pro-unification movements happening at the same time.
Next, Poland was already particianed after WWII when the border was moved westwards and Konigsburg passed to Russian administration.
Next, you forgot to add Poland's past 16th century claims on eastern europe and russia.
But the point is that China has claims on Area's that weren't just historicaly part of China, but were legally part of China, no one recognized Tibets sovereignty, and since Richard nixon's administration and recently the late 90's now Taiwan isn't recognized as well.
The other main difference between those cases is that Frenchmen are not italians, neither are romanians etc. Taiwan is 98% Han Chinese mainland China is 92% INCLUDING Tibet.
The lands China had reclaimed were historically part of China, legally part of China and thus China.
Arguements over Tibetan soverignty are pointless, for good or ill it is a part of China and no chinese government will ever ever EVER give it up in another war without the thought of losing the support of the people.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The large reason Tibet is such a high percentage Han Chinese is because China settled vast numbers of Chinese there (for the obvious reason; they'd outgrown China proper).
It is true Tibet will not be free in any near future.
However, Tibet is hardly rightfully part of China. Not too long (in historical terms) before the successful invasion, in fact, Tibet had expelled all Chinese troops.
Our solid history of Tibet says it was independent from 120-some years BC to 842 AD or so, and likely for a good while before that. During the 8th century, Tibet even took the Chinese capital and seated a new, Tibetan-friendly Emperor.
Depending who you listen to, Tibet was either a friend of the Mongol horde, or a puppet nation. Notably, Tibetan monks converted (among others) Kublai Khan to Buddhism. Officially, Tibet was a sovereign nation ruled by a sovereign ruler, though they had little need for a military with the horde as friends. This as after a couple hundred tumultuous years after the fall of their very successful dynasty.
For a couple hundred years after that, China was the de-facto controller of Tibet, by proxy. In the mid-1600's, the Dalai Lama became ruler of Tibet and was recognized by the current Ming emperor in China. I should note that this right here severs any previous claim China may have had -- when you give up your claims, you don't get to continue their pursuit.
The Manchu dynasty invaded Tibet a bit after this, but only succeeded in putting a pseudo-puppet in place -- an ambassador with abundant influence. The distributed nature of Tibetan culture meant the puppet had little control, and he was attacked repeatedly (as in, by armies). Tibet retained a sovereign government, and while some of its rulers bowed significantly to Manchu influence, others defied it successfully.
China tried to allow the British into Tibet three times near the end of this period, but Tibet did not let them in.
Due to fears about Russian influence, Britain invaded Tibet at the turn of the twentieth century. China did not assert any rights over Tibet.
After this invasion, China invaded. Shortly after the Chinese invasion, though, a certain movement in China caused their forces to go into chaos. Tibet organized and kicked the Chinese out, and asserted full independence, which it exercised until the Communist invasion.
Yes, Tibet has often been dominated in part by China. It has historically enjoyed long periods of full sovereignty, though, was until the Communist invasion populated by a people who could be clearly identified as Tibetan and not Chinese, culturally, and has (had, perhaps, but we'll talk about up to the last Chinese invasion) as much a claim to independent existence as any nation in the history of the earth.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm sorry some if not all of your information is wrong.
The Chinese dynasties did not give the Dalai Lama soverignty they gave him basically vassal status, essentially an advisory position due to the holy nature of Tibet for buddism.
"After 1907, a treaty between Britain, China, and Russia recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet."
"as Chinese troops had to withdraw to their homeland to fight in the 1911 Revolution, giving the Dalai Lama the opportunity to re-establish control. In 1913, Tibet and Mongolia signed a treaty proclaiming mutual recognition and their independence from China. In 1914 a treaty was negotiated in India by representatives of China, Tibet and Britain: the Simla Convention. Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and Tibetan autonomy were both recognized and a boundary negotiated between British India and Tibet which was very generous to Britain. The treaty was privately signed by Britain and Tibet; however, the Chinese side refused to sign the agreement, viewing it as being too yielding. China has never recognized the agreement nor the boundary set by it, thus paving the way to the Arunachal Pradesh dispute between China and India today."
"The Mongols again invaded at the start of the 16th century, declaring the remaining religious lineage, that of the Dalai Lamas, to be the official government.
"By the early 18th century China established the right to have resident commissioners, called amban, in Lhasa. When the Tibetans rebelled against the Chinese in 1750 and killed the amban, a Chinese army entered the country and installed a new amban, but the Tibetan government continued to manage day-to-day affairs as before.
In 1904 the British sent a largely Indian military force and seized Lhasa, forcing Tibet to open a border crossing with British India. A 1906 treaty with China repeated these conditions, making Tibet a de facto British protectorate. There was also a Nepalese mission in Lhasa remaining from a similar invasion by Nepal in 1855."
I don't see where Britain invaded and got repulsed 3 times, I don't see when the Ming gave Tibet full soverignty and independance.
And I don't see how any Chinese government tried to let the British in, all I see were attempts by any Chinese government to keep the Brittish OUT.
"Due to fears about Russian influence, Britain invaded Tibet at the turn of the twentieth century. China did not assert any rights over Tibet."
"In 1904 the British sent a largely Indian military force and seized Lhasa, forcing Tibet to open a border crossing with British India. A 1906 treaty with China repeated these conditions, making Tibet a de facto British protectorate. There was also a Nepalese mission in Lhasa remaining from a similar invasion by Nepal in 1855.
After 1907, a treaty between Britain, China, and Russia recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The Chinese established direct rule for the first time in 1910."
As I'll state from this quote a second time the Chinese held sovereignty over Tibet and was thus recognized by the major powers. The British may have forced trade routes but they did not invade and establish a zone of control like in Africa, soverignty was still loosely in the hands of the Chinese Empire.
And later, the Republic of China and by succession of states thoery drafted in the late 90's the People's Republic.
"It has historically enjoyed long periods of full sovereignty, though, was until the Communist invasion populated by a people who could be clearly identified as Tibetan and not Chinese, culturally, and has (had, perhaps, but we'll talk about up to the last Chinese invasion) as much a claim to independent existence as any nation in the history of the earth."
So have the Indians, what about them? And it wasn't an invasion it was a reoccupation of land formally belonging to the Republic of China according to the 1921 Constitution of the ROC.
Also, it doesn't matter if they were independant pre-13th century, since their incorporation into the Yuan Dynasty they have always been a part of China, either de jure or de facto.
"despite periods of autonomy, such as between 1912 and 1951. Moreover, the PRC contends that even during this period (1912-1951) commonly held to be the last period of Tibetan independence, China continued to maintain sovereignty over Tibet; no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition; and other signs of Tibetan acknowledgement of Chinese sovereignty were present, e.g. the presence of Tibetan delegates in 1947 in Nanjing to take part in the drafting of a new constitution for the Republic of China."
"However, the PRC government does not view itself as an occupying power and has vehemently denied allegations of demographic swamping. The PRC also does not recognize the borders of Tibet as claimed by the government of Tibet in Exile, saying that it was devised to deliberately include non-Tibetan areas populated by non-Tibetans for generations (such as the Xining area and the Chaidam Basin) in order to enhance the perception that Tibetans are now outnumbered in Tibet. The PRC gives the number of Tibetans in Tibet Autonomous Region as 2.4 million, as opposed to 190,000 non-Tibetans, and the number of Tibetans in all Tibetan autonomous entities combined (slightly smaller than the Greater Tibet claimed by exiled Tibetans) as 5.0 million, as opposed to 2.3 million non-Tibetans. In the TAR itself, much of the Han Chinese population is to be found in Lhasa. Population control policies like the one-child policy only apply to Han Chinese, not to minorities such as Tibetans. The PRC says that it is dedicated to the protection of traditional Tibetan culture; it also groups the Qingzang Railway, renovation work at the Potala Palace, and other projects as part of the China Western Development Strategy, a costly effort by the wealthier, eastern half of China to develop the poorer, western regions."
This also disproves the allegations of Tibetans being outnumbered, but there is neevrthless a large enough Han Chinese minority that why should the PRC give up land with Han Chinese living in it?
"Our solid history of Tibet says it was independent from 120-some years BC to 842 AD or so, and likely for a good while before that. During the 8th century, Tibet even took the Chinese capital and seated a new, Tibetan-friendly Emperor."
"Little is known of Tibet before the 7th century, though the Tibetan language is generally considered to be a Tibeto-Burman language and related distantly to Chinese."
Also there is no mention of this ever happening wanna provide a source?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You seem to be a fan of wikipedia for references on everything. I guess HRW doesn't meet your standards of evaluation for the PRC?
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
This was on Yahoo, and I thought poeople might be interested:
Wikipedia is easy to access by everyone, compared to say a dusty and unkown book from a local village library.
Interesting article to say the least.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Wikipedia is easy to access by everyone, compared to say a dusty and unkown book from a local village library.
I'm trying to imagine a world in which these would be the only two alternatives.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You didn't even read all of the Wikipedia page, Blayne:
quote:The Chinese established direct rule for the first time in 1910. It was not to last long, however, as Chinese troops had to withdraw to their homeland to fight in the 1911 Revolution, giving the Dalai Lama the opportunity to re-establish control. In 1913, Tibet and Mongolia signed a treaty proclaiming mutual recognition and their independence from China.
quote:The subsequent outbreak of World War I and civil war in China caused the Western powers and China to lose interest in Tibet, and the 13th Dalai Lama ruled undisturbed. At that time the government of Tibet controlled all of Ü-Tsang (Dbus-gtsang) and western Kham (Khams), roughly coincident with the borders of Tibet Autonomous Region today.
As for the period starting a bit before 120 BC: http://www.haiweitrails.com/timeline_tibet.htm Note the reign of the 1000 year dynasty starts in 127 BC. Note in 753, well into known history, Tibet siezed the Chinese capital and forced China to pay tribute. Perhaps China should be a part of Tibet (note that I think this is as absurd as Tibet being rightfully a part of China. Whatever rights China has asserted over Tibet in the past due to its strength, Tibet had a strong national identity until China started dumping Chinese there and destroying Tibetan cultural institutions).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Human Rights Watch, BB. The organization that keeps track of human rights status all over the world (including most definitely America-read their website before you start complaining of anti-Chinese 'bias'), which includes the routine and flagrant violation of all sorts of rights which you as a Canadian live under today, but which aren't as important for PRC peasants.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
SHANGHAI, Nov. 5 -- Judicial authorities in Beijing have shut down the law firm of a prominent civil rights lawyer after he refused to withdraw an open letter urging President Hu Jintao to respect freedom of religion and stop persecuting members of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement.
Gao Zhisheng, among the most daring of a generation of self-trained lawyers who have been pushing the Chinese government to obey its own laws, said that the Beijing Bureau of Justice ordered his firm suspended for one year on Friday. The move came just hours after he filed an appeal on behalf of an underground Protestant pastor accused of illegally printing Bibles and other Christian literature.
According to Gao, the government said the firm was being suspended because it had failed to register with the authorities after moving into a new office this year. But he said the action followed his refusal to renounce the open letter to Hu and withdraw from politically sensitive cases as demanded by officials during a series of recent meetings.
Chinese authorities have blocked a pro-democracy Web log after it was nominated for a freedom of expression award by a German radio station, a press freedom group said yesterday.
The blog, titled Wang Yi's Microphone, dealt with "sensitive subjects" and was maintained by a teacher from Sichuan province, Paris-based Reporters Without Borders said in a statement.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If you reread what I put up I did read and quote it, but right to reestablish control is not the same thing as independance, and declarign independance when you still contribute to the countries soverighty ie: going to Nanjing to help draft a constitution for China kinda negates it.
As for the Human rights watch I'm well aware of what it is and that it critizes america as well.
But there are main cultural and historical differences between Canada and China, China had gown through civil wars, marauding warlords and power politics between provinces, then there's the foerign invasions, unequal treaties, and zones of control, China was being smothered by Western Imperialism and later Japanese Imperialism, acculminating with the 1985 Sino-Japanese war where Formosa ie: Taiwan was taken away as well as its influence in Korea and Manchuria.
Then came furthur civil wars, falied revolutions and farce democracies whose only purpose had been to increase the suffering of the people, and the West stood idly by and watched it all happen, even sent in troops to keep the Chinese people down in the Cities.
In 1937 Japan Invaded, still recovering from the Long March Mao Tse-tung, Zhou Enlai, and the rest of the Chinese Communist Party were able to utilizing guerilla tactics, and the national fervor against the Japanese to bring the Red Army's membership from barely 10,000 to 500,000 men, and they continued fighting on for years and successfuly maintained the Unified Front against the Japanese with the GMD and other groups.
After Japan surrendered and Russia let the Communists into Manchuria, talks began between Mao and Chiang Kai Shek for the establishment of a coalitition government to govern the people of China, essentially would've created a multiparty state right then, except Chiang refused and for the next few years Mao and the CCP fought against all odds, numbers, American aid to Chiang, etc.
The result was that Mao through utilizing the will of the people and the popular masses of the peasants and the stratagems of Sun Tzu to change the numical suporiority of Chiang to a inferiority, and through Chiang's alienation of so many people mass deserters joined the Red Army and even Chiang's own Transportation and Supply Corp gave most of the American equipment over to Mao throughtout the war.
Mao and the CCP won, while brilliance, adaptability, and the skill of the Red Army's commanders all had it effects, the deciding factor was the will of the people and the people wanted Mao not Chiang.
Within years of Liberation of 1949 and the declaration of the founding of the People's Republic of China, slavery was abolished, universal sufferage at age 18 was granted, the aids epidemic was curtailed and reduced to only .01% of the population.
Finally at peace with itself the Chinese econmy in heavy and light industry can prosper, even the GLF which if thought to have been a failure did record a 45% increase in steel production and the swelling of the urban populace to 15% of the total population.
Since 1978, China has known increasing prosperity, China is today the worlds fastest growing market and driven primarily by consumer demand can keep on growing.
Democracy has been spreading in China dispite setbacks such as Tiannemin, but China is coming out into the world stronger then ever before and within 50-100 years according to some will achieve super power status, other's place it at 20 years. Considering that optimistic sources put China's GDP at "exceeding 4 trillion by 2020" has exceeded 7-8 trillion today.
The Chinese are becomming more democratic and open at their own pace, complaining about them won't make it any faster.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Within years of Liberation of 1949 and the declaration of the founding of the People's Republic of China, slavery was abolished, universal sufferage at age 18 was granted, the aids epidemic was curtailed and reduced to only .01% of the population.
This sentence makes my brain hurt, Blayne. I think I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's frankly sickening that you label something like T Square a 'setback'.
It wasn't a 'setback', BB. It was a brutal, murderous, bloody-handed crackdown on publicly expressed (and NONVIOLENT) discontent with the PRC government.
You're an apologist for PRC atrocities. Everything it does badly you sluff aside with, "It's a different culture," or, "They're doing it at their own pace."
You are untroubled by that 'pace' because you're not stepping to it. It's not you holding onto the oar and rowing while some slave driver beats the drum, so it's OK. After all, it's a different culture.
I guess as long as they're not your eggs being broken, the saying, "You gotta break some eggs to make an omlette," is reasonable.
Hail China!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I guess as long as they're not your eggs being broken, the saying, "You gotta break some eggs to make an omlette," is reasonable.
Yes, I think he is clearly not a Rawlsian.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Wikipedia is easy to access by everyone, compared to say a dusty and unkown book from a local village library.
Hey! My local village librarians regularly dust all their books.
Posted by EndofEternity (Member # 7466) on :
China is an interesting paradox, moving towards democracy and capitalism while still claiming that they are still communist, creating a "market economy with socialist characteristics."
Does that work? Seems almost oxymoronic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's China. Barbarians like ourselves are ill equipped to understand the mysteries of governing the Middle Kingdom.
Hail China!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
indeed.
Its not oxymoronic, socialist characteristics focuses on the ability to change based on the 5 year plans, the ability to maintain a massive social welfare program, and attempts to equalize the wealth within the confines of a market driven economy.
The State still has alot of authority over how the industries are run, making sure that the corporations don't become the next power holders and making sure that the Government has the power over the corporate entity. Allowing for socialism that aids the people in comparrison to say corporations dominating the American way of life and doing its best to make a cheap buck.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I like voting for more than one set of choices, BB. Also a fan of being religious and speaking out in a free press against the government if I so choose. But let's ignore that and point out how corporations 'dominate' the American way of life.
Hail China!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If you keep saying "Hail China!" I will goto Papa Janitor, its insulting and belittleing to my arguements, how can I argue if the opposition doesn't respect me enough to listen?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
The only place this might violate the TOS is under "harassing", but that's painting with a pretty broad brush. I know you probably find it insulting, but it's on about the same level as, "I'm not touching you!".
I'm not sure tattling is the solution. Of course, in my experience, the best response to immaturity like this is to simply ignore it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ah, but if a a man starts to touch/stroke a girl even if not immediatly harassing, if the the girl asks him to stop and he refuses then it's harrassment.
I've asked him to stop, and he didn't know I'm REALLY asking him to stop, if he doesn't then the purpose of him continueing to do it is to harass.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Fine, BB. I'll stop saying, "Hail China!" I was wondering how long it would take for you to reach this point. Here's something to think about, though: were I saying something so scornful and mocking of the PRC government within the PRC, there's a good chance you wouldn't have to tattle to the moderator. The moderator would already be in my computer.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
It seems that Mr. Bradley's approach to speech is the same as that of the Chinese government.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and incidentally, if you really feel that your only response to my supposed rules violation is to make your case to the moderator, by all means, do so.
Doesn't change the fact, though, that your arguments are insulting and belittling to you, and that they don't merit respect. They basically amount to, "It's a different culture!" or "They're getting better!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, Avatar, BB's approach is subdued compared to the methods of the PRC government. And he knows it, too, but he doesn't care. He doesn't live there. The very rights he lives under and cherishes so much and would shriek if they were lost, are things only important for Chinese people to have later, not now.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Depends, what are you willing to sacrifice for greatness? Canada is a great nation to be in yes, but then again history and geography has sheltered us from the worst fate could throw at us.
And fate has really thrown alot at China and the Chinese people and are willing to sacrifice these personal freedoms that quite frankly they have never trully had (to a certain extent anyways) so that they can reach their goals faster.
But then again, they do have freedom of speach to a certain extent, may not be good enough for you but for people who know that life for their ancestors was ALOT and undeniably harder for them then it is now for themselves then they just work harder and are willing to sacrifice so that they're children can have a better life.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's sad that your defense of China is "it's better than it used to be." It used to be awful, and now it's merely miserable. In a few hundred years they'll be up to passable, then livable, and maybe one day, good.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That is stupid. They haven't been asked if they're willing to make the sacrifices you say they willingly make.
If they don't make those sacrifices, they're freaking LOCKED UP, BB!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In other words, you're not willing yourself to sacrifice your rights for national greatness.
But some other poor slob, it's OK with you if someone sacrifices his rights for another nation's greatness. Civil rights violations, human torture, sharply limited freedom of speech, press, religion, and voting rights, are all OK with you...as long as you're not the one losing those things. As long as it's across an ocean and happening to nearly a billion people who aren't you, it's OK.
In fact, it's commendable. Because China roxxors.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Still, "Hail China!" is childish and needlessly provocative. Might as well poke him with a stick.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it started out that way-even though it IS a reasonable distillment of all of his arguments. Eventually I wanted to make a point, that if I were in China, BB wouldn't have to have worried about it, because the government would've done it for him.
That point was made, so now I'll go back to poking.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Please not a seventh page.
*crosses fingers*
Posted by EndofEternity (Member # 7466) on :
whats wrong with seven pages??
ooh, what do you know.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
What a surprise, the thread creator swoops in to revive it.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
Well, it's simple. Give every politician a gun and one bullet in a glass case by their desk. The caption on the box reads, "break in case of mob lynching". Of course, with only one bullet there's only one thing they COULD do... We might see some results...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
I never would.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Wha... Gasp!![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)