quote:It's not like they're asked their political affiliations when they're interviewed for the job.
I have heard stories of candidates at universities being asked questions which reveal their poltitcal views. Of course, in some fields it would be almost impossible to talk about that field without revealing some political views.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I believe posts should be well thought out and well written.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Am I alone in being tired of it? Why is there no middle ground? Society, in my eyes needs conservative values as its foundation and liberal values to shape and challenge it. To me, the two cannot exist without each other. There needs to be some sort of balance, but these days I rarely see it.
To answer the start of this thread, I used to believe as well that there should be a Moderate Party, but having read Empire (BTW I LOVE the book Mr. Card...very well done) I now am frightened by that same idea. Polls very clearly show that most Americans are quite moderate (if you don't believe it look at Lieberman), of course with a slight lean to either side, if such a party were formed it would be the end of the Republican and Democrat parties within a decade. The problem...to me that looks like a fast track to the events of Empire. With a further polarized Left and Right, both of which are dejected from their humiliating losses to the Moderates (obviously there will always be a few extreme areas that would remain Dem or GOP).
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: One thing I have to ask...
Card talks about the liberal establishment at American universities. My question is: Why do the vast majority of university professors lean to the left? It's not like they're asked their political affiliations when they're interviewed for the job. The only thing looked at is their credentials and accomplishments, right?
I have to disagree with the "establishment" view of my professors because they listen to everyone and keep a critical-thinking open mind. Most of them are also liberal. Were they indoctrinated themselves by this firmly entrenched liberal establishment, and I, in turn, am being indoctrinated by them too? I have to say no, because they're the ones that teach me to question, research, and think critically about all situations in life.
Sadly Mr Card's point is in your own comments, they are teaching you how to think...its not just how to think critically, but to think the way they want you to think, as Major Malich showed in Empire your thoughts can be trained both subtly and by wearing you down. And let me ask have you ever tried to tell them they are wrong...even if you score major points in a mock debate he will probably yell something about proof, and when you don't have any off the top of your head you are completely wrong, now and forever in his eyes. Now I may have exaggerated a lot in that, but there are many places where it is like that.
As far as you being indoctrinated, if you can examine what is being said, and what was meant by what was said, then I believe it is possible to remain mostly unchanged...it also helps if you know who you are
as an aside I'd like to say that the end of Empire scares me worse then when N. Korea announced its Nuke program...why...well because the treat of a civil war is many times worse, if either side seized power...and the thought of an American Empire is oddly terrifying (although i loved studying the Romans)...Bravo Mr. Card you have succeeded in evoking new thoughts an emotions in me
Posts: 3 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:. . . they believe the "other side" is actually lying about what they want to see happen and/or the reasons they give for why they want those things to happen.
I think this is spot-on.
Both sides think they want what is best for America, and believe the other guys want what is best for themselves. The other guys are just "spinning" to find excuses for their policies that the public will buy.
Because both teams truly believe that they want what is best for America, they can justify anything they do. They don't really see themselves as spinning or lying, even if a little of that has to go on in order to make their case, because they truly believe that they do want what is best for America and all they're doing is showing it.
In many cases, both sides are fully aware that they're doing things for themselves. But while their opponents see that as their true motivation, and the driving force behind all their other decisions, they see it as a secondary motivation, a means to the other end. (eg "I have to do this to get re-elected (or get this lobbyist's contribution), otherwise I can't pass all that other great legislation I have planned for.")
Is it self-deception? Maybe, in some cases. But politicians are as diverse as every other group of people. Some are probably extremely self-deceiving, and others are likely almost as sincere as they think they are.
In the meantime, the other guys, who truly believe that the other guys are in it for themselves, point out all the reasons why their "opponents" are going to benifit from the action (or how it shows their viewpoint is skewed, or how it shows they think it's all about them, etc).
Ultimately, this is what's led to the breakdown in "discourse" in American politics.
Both sides truly believe the other person's motivations are misplaced. So there's no more attempt to persuade the other guy.
Instead, politicians have come to play the survial card, and simply try to convince the American people to be mad at their opponent, in the hopes it will make the opponent cow and defer to public opinion.
After all, when your opponent is bad, what other recourse do you have but to try to expose his badness? Whaddya gonna do, try to make him good?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
> Why are college professors usually on the left.
It's an interesting question. I understand why journalists are usually on the left: liberals think what government does is really important, so they'd naturally be more drawn to talking about it a lot. But these aren't the only affiliations, even at the university. We expect more conservatives in departments of business, economics, engineering, and the hard sciences. We expect more liberals in communications, English, and above all in sociology and fill-in-the-blank studies. I'm not sure what it all means.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Left and Right is an outdated distinction. First of all, there is actually Left, Right and Liberal (Liberals are neither Left nor Right). But neither U.S. Party is any of those. Both are roughly Populist.
I know I have pointed this out before and been ignored or ridiculed, but it is an important point.
Leftist and Liberal were synonyms before Marx but diverged in meaning afterwards.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
P.S. I don't want what is "best for America." The idea sickens me.
I want what is best for the world. Often the two coincide, which is nice. But when they don't, I will not side with U.S. interests at the expense of people anywhere.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By that logic, you can never do anything to advantage your family because it would be at the expense of someone else. While thinking globally is a wonderful concept, loyalty to your home is also important.
I think we need to do for what is best for the U.S. -- when that does not harm others unnecessarily -- for several reasons. -- It's where I live, and for purely selfish reasons I want my home to be a good one. -- I admire the ideals the country was founded on and I want to be able to take pride in my home. -- I think in many ways the U.S. sets the standard for other countries and I think it's vitally important that we recognize our responsibility to be a role model.
Improving our country does help the rest of the world, in the same way that raising a happy, healthy, responsible family also improves the society you live in.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For an accident of birth you might have been born into another family, and then your loyalty and affection would belong there. So?
I don't think you should blindly give your loyalty away or follow the government line no matter what, but I do think that national patriotism is an important virtue.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ideology works best on a grid. Economic interdependence versus economic dependence, civic liberties versus civic control. Plot it out on an X and Y axis.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Ideology works best on a grid. Economic interdependence versus economic dependence, civic liberties versus civic control. Plot it out on an X and Y axis.
Use the Z-axis as a measure of the corruptness/corruptibility of the government, create a free-body diagram, and take the sum of the forces and positive moments about the origin in the X, Y and z directions. Yourresultant force is your ideology!
I love mechanics. Actually I don't.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is dangerous on both a personal and collective level.
Seriously? You're not just making an arguement here for the sake of arguement? You think looking out for yourself, personally, is dangerous?
Because if you're serious, life is going to be very, very difficult to do while living.
Because all of those jobs you're planning to have in all those countries around the world? When you get those jobs, you're bumping somebody else out of it. Who can say who deserved the job, more, really? Isn't it selfish of you to assume you deserve the job, just because they hired you for it?
I think your problem is that you're confusing "Doing your best to provide for you and yours, guided by a strict moral compass" with "Barrelling through the world like a pillaging maurader with a mace, stealing everything and killing everyone you see." There are subtle degrees of nuance in between there.
People have been known to do well for themselves and be generous. Even Bill Gates gives insane amounts of money away. Is the charity he gives a less-than-adequate attempt to make up for what he's stolen from me and you by causing those dollars to flow to him instead of us? Or is it a powerful force for good, that he is only able to weild because he first found a way to amass it?
Of course people can go too far in looking out for themselves, and commit immoral acts. My previous post suggested I agree there's some degree of that in American politics.
But it's a bit premature to say that looking out for one's own is therefore inherently wrong. A bit like saying science fiction is boring and hacky because it is so easy for somebody to sit down and write a boring and hacky science fiction novel.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
Because, look. Eventually the time comes where you have to make a decision, even though one person has to suffer because of it.
If it comes down to a choice between you and the guy who was born in the Ukraine, who do you pick? Him, because it would be immoral to pick yourself? But then what about him? How can he be moral when you're letting him pick himself?
Ultimately, what you do is try to get as much for yourself as you can, while still being fair to the other guy. That's not just moral, but it would be immoral to your family and the other people you've commited to care for not to do that.
You have a moral obligation to him not to violate any of his rights, take away any of his property, or hurt him in any way. It would be even more moral to go without food so he could eat.
But it would be, I think, very immoral to take food out of your child's mouth so he could eat. He has some degree of responsibility for himself, and ultimately your first commitment is to your child, who you accepted full responsibility for the moment you brought them into the world. You have a moral responsibility to that child that is unique to you, and it must take priority.
You have the same type of unique responsiblity in regards to your spouse, because of promises and vows you've made to them. Those promises naturally have greater weight than the general moral obligations one man has to another.
This extends into family, community, nation, and yes, ultimately, into the world. But they have to extend in that order of priority, with gradiations of importance that are similar to Hari Seldon's Laws of Robotics. I serve the community inasmuch as I can do that and still serve my family. I serve my nation insasmuch as I can still serve my family and community. And I serve my world inasmuch as I can still serve my family, my community, and my nation.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that both some members of my "side" and some of the other side want what is best for the country, and also that many members of both want what is best for themselves, and also that many want what is best for the country but are tempted and corrupted by power and sell out their principles. However, I also think that my "side", when they think about what is best for America (or the world) is right far more often than the other side. Obviously, or they wouldn't be my side. I think that the other side's principles are, on some issues counter-productive, and on some issues deeply dangerous, and on some issues immoral.
So I think that argueing and persuading in politics is deeply important, but at the same time I can recognize that the "opponents" are not (most of them) mean or evil, and that many who might claim to represent my values might be jerks or sell-outs.
Tangent:
quote:My country has little claim to me, but for an accident of birth might I not be Ukranian?
And after that accident, how would your life have been different? Not at all? Same opportunities, same liberties?
America has a claim on me because it has earned it. Unlike most ethnic nationalism, American nationalism is based on ideas, not blood. And those ideas are superior to any other wasy of running a society, and the country has stayed true to those ideas over its course. With mistakes, dismal ones, recognized as failures to live up to it's ideas, lamented and corrected.
America offers anyone oppurtunity and freedom, firstly it's own citizens and immigrants. But this country will also shed blood for the liberties of strangers, and pours out it's treasure to enrichen the world. So what is best for America IS best for the world, and paradoxically, a weakening of this country will have dire consequences for the rest of the world. (acknowleding that others may disagree, but I believe this entirely.)
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes you have to question your side and not just agree with them because they share the same ideology.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Ideology works best on a grid. Economic interdependence versus economic dependence, civic liberties versus civic control. Plot it out on an X and Y axis.
Use the Z-axis as a measure of the corruptness/corruptibility of the government, create a free-body diagram, and take the sum of the forces and positive moments about the origin in the X, Y and z directions. Yourresultant force is your ideology!
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Sometimes you have to question your side and not just agree with them because they share the same ideology.
I don't understand this statement. Do you mean question their sincerity or fealty to their ideology? If so, then yeah, totally, "Throw the bums out!" etc.
If you mean question the ideology itself, well, I don't hold an "ideology" per se, but I do have opinions on most issues. This opinions tend more often then not (pretty much always) to agree with one side. But that doesn't mean that I look for some one's label and wait for them to tell me what to think if they share the label I've arbitrarily chosen. It means I've made up my mind on issues by thinking them through and looking to reality, then chosen the label that matches most of them.
Sharing an ideology with my side means I've already questioned them; how else would I know we share an ideology?
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, question whether or not they are right. It can be hard to do, it's so easy to just adhere to one side and not question their motives.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a new party in America that combines the economic positions of the left with the social and moral positions of the right. It is called the Falconist Party. The movement also has a group on myspace.
The Falconist Party calls for increased public investment in education, health care, rebuilding America, law enforcement, research and development, as well as in military spending. The party also calls for policies that protect the family unit and restore traditional values. The Falconist Party also supports the battles of Iraq and Afghanistan in the Global War on Terror.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There is a new party in America that combines the economic positions of the left with the social and moral positions of the right. It is called the Falconist Party."
Also known as the "Nanny" party.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well they have some good ideas, but the ones I don't like are enough to outweigh the ones I do like. No vote from me on that platform.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Leader: There is a new party in America that combines the economic positions of the left with the social and moral positions of the right. It is called the Falconist Party. The movement also has a group on myspace.
The Falconist Party calls for increased public investment in education, health care, rebuilding America, law enforcement, research and development, as well as in military spending. The party also calls for policies that protect the family unit and restore traditional values. The Falconist Party also supports the battles of Iraq and Afghanistan in the Global War on Terror.
So pretty much the worst of both worlds, hmm? It sounds like they could just call themselves the Anti-Liberty party. <shudder>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm all for increasing public investment in health care and education. I'm not so sure about the other items.
While the idea of protecting the family and restoring traditional values sounds nice, I'm leery of the methods that would be used to accomplish those things.
It's kind of like a reverso version of Libertarianism, isn't it? It's not quite what I'm looking for in a political party...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the Falconist Party is the total opposite of Libertarianism. However, just as the Libertarians don't go as far as the anarchists, the Falconists don't go as far as totalitarianism.
And there is no party in America that features this particular combination of left and right ideas. The USA has two major centrist parties, a few minor centrist parties, several Conservative and religious right parties, a few liberal and Green parties, a score of Socialist Parties, several Nazi and Fascist Parties, and a Libertarian Party. Why not a party that is economicall left yet socially and culturally right?
What kind of party are most of you looking for?
Posts: 14 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
1. We call for the enactment of laws that would increase voter participation; reform campaign financing; and even the “playing field” for all political parties in the USA.
2. We call for a series of Constitutional amendments that will reform Presidential elections; that will allow minor parties more of a say in our government while making it possible for any party to attain a majority; as well as allow the people to make and invalidate laws, amend the Constitution, and set aside Supreme Court decisions in national referendums
3. We call for the reform of the financial sector which would include replacing the Federal Reserve with a government-owned and operated Bank of the United States.
4. We call for real tax reform including replacing the income and payroll tax with a Progressive Consumption Tax.
5. We call for the largest rebuilding program in American history to be implemented to expedite the movement of goods and services; relieve traffic congestion, provide excellent health care; provide excellent educational services; refine and distribute drinking water from our oceans; to meet America’s growing energy demands; and to put millions of people to work at living wages.
6. We call for the reservation of welfare for those who are elderly, infirm, and those who need a temporary helping hand. All those who can work shall work in the private sector if possible, in public service if necessary.
7. We call for the consolidation and reorganization of federal agencies and offices across the board to make government more efficient as well as more effective.
8. We call for the consolidation cities and counties across America to reduce the cost and graft of municipal government as well as handle problems that transcend current municipal boundaries such as urban sprawl.
9. We call for all employers and employees to be represented in a US Chamber of Commerce (USCC) which will work with the US Government in formulating economic policy.
10. We call for the replacement of meticulous economic regulation with national broad ranged economic goals and creating a system of incentives for industry to meet national economic goals.
11. We call for the democratization of transnational corporations through expanded customer and employee stock-ownership programs.
12. We call for policies that would preserve and revitalize family farms as well as small town America.
13. We call for a real energy policy which will include the conversion of America’s economy from a fossil fuel based economy to a solar-nuclear-hydrogen economy.
14. We call for the implementation of Universal Military Training and Mandatory National Service (civil and military).
15. We call for increased benefits for veterans and increased pay of career military personnel.
16. We call for the expansion and reform of the US Military.
17. We call for the issuing of weapons to all law-abiding citizens as well as training all citizens in personal protection and homeland defense.
18. We call for the unification of all federal law enforcement agencies into a U.S. Police Force.
19. We call for reform of the judicial system and for justice that fair, swift, and if necessary, harsh.
20. We call for reform of the corrections system to rehabilitate as well as punish offenders; segregate the violent from the nonviolent offenders; and to reduce recidivism.
21. We call for the recruitment, hiring, training, and deployment of a more police officers on America’s streets, arming them to the teeth, and increasing the pay and benefits of law enforcement officers.
22. We call for the recruitment, hiring, training, and deployment of more firefighters and rescue workers as well as increasing their pay and benefits.
23. We call for the increased funding of education overall, increased pay of teachers; national education standards; allowing real choice between public, private, charter, nonprofit, or home schooling; and reforming education to produce a population that is employable, productive, literate, and possesses civic virtue.
24. We call for making a university education attainable for all through an expanded GI Bill, increased ROTC and Police Corps scholarships, and increased appointments to the military colleges.
25. We call for increased financial aid for those seeking graduate degrees.
26. We call for increased legal immigration; however, we also call for the thorough assimilation of those immigrants into American society as well as the fortification of America’s borders to deter illegal immigration as well as drug smuggling, terrorism and human trafficking.
27. We call for the reform of our health care system to reduce the cost of health care to American society; to provide access to health care for all; to preserve citizen’s choice of doctor, treatment, and payment for health care; and to promote research and development into medical cures, treatments, and technologies,.
28. We call for the enactment of pro-family policies such as annual tax credits for children; encouraging the adoption of older and at-risk children; and the outlawing of abortion in the USA.
29. We call for laws that will restore public morality and discourage smoking, drinking, gambling, and pornography.
30. We call for both secular and faith-based institutions be eligible for public funding
31. We call for laws and programs that will extend formal equality and equality of opportunity for all people of color and background.
32. We call for the repeal of laws and policies that restrict people of faith from practicing their beliefs.
33. We call for the rebuilding of all cities, including our nation’s capital to eliminate slums, reduce crime, create vibrant, prosperous and vibrant communities, and to provide affordable housing.
34. We call for withdraw of the USA from the WTO, NAFTA and GATT and for unilateral foreign policies. The UN will become a tool of the USA in its pursuit of Manifest Destiny.
35. We call for military action against all regimes worldwide engaged in terrorism, tyranny, drug and human trafficking, atrocity, and genocide.
36. We call for the overhaul and expansion of the US Peace Corps and the US Foreign Service to make it more able to handle nation-building roles.
37. We call for the expansion of the borders of the USA to admit sovereign nations into our union as states and territories.
38. We call for the colonization of the oceans to provide new resources for the people of America and the world.
39. We call for the development of a mature space transportation system; the colonization of the Moon, Mars, and other planets; and the establishment of space colonies in low Earth orbit.
40. We call for the abolition of home rule in Washington D.C.; for DC to be administered by the US Government; for the expansion of Washington DC into Maryland and Virginia; and for Washington DC to be rebuilt as the most glorious, prosperous, cleanest, and safest in the world.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem with this left-right business is that we have at least three definitions going right now, and one can be left on one while being right (or moderate or who-cares) on the other, or one can consider one set of issues important and the others not. There's the culture war definition, the economic definition, and the foreign affairs definition.
By the culture war definition, to be liberal means you want abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, and separation of church and state. By the economic definition, it means you want living wages, fair (not "free") trade, environmental protection, and regulation of business for these purposes. By the foreign affairs definition, it means you are skeptical about calls for war, and want international cooperation whenever possible as a way to solve problems.
The problem w/r/t American politics is that there are powerful corporate interests who are "conservative" by the economic definition and usually, although not always, by the foreign affairs definition, but couldn't care less one way or the other by the culture war definition. Those interests set the parameters of our politics through campaign contributions. As a result, the two main parties are both conservative by the economic definition and both mostly conservative by the foreign affairs definition. The only difference they're allowed to have is in terms of the culture war definition. So the Democrats are a corporatist party that pushes for abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, and separation of church and state, while the Republicans are a corporatist party that pushes for abortion restrictions, amendments defining marriage, gun rights, and public religion. Thus the illusion of meaningful political discourse is created.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the Falconist Party would be liberal in the economic sense and conservative in the culture war sense.
I don't think there is a conservative or liberal sense in foriegn policy. Liberals would call for internationalist foriegn policy where we are working with the world system. Conservatives seem divided between either a unilateral foriegn policy or an isolationist foriegn policy such as what the Constitution Party would advocate.
The Falconist Party advocates a unilateral foriegn policy so I guess you might be able to call us Conservative on foriegn policy.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if you combine unilateral foreign policy, interventionist public-welfare economics, and strict controls on public morality, what you have is a leaning towards fascism. It can't really be fascism properly so called without suppressing free speech and democracy, but in all of its economic, foreign-policy, and law-and-order positions, the Falconist platform is virtually indistinguishable from Mussolini's.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I never learned my left from my right. I can only remember it with some kind of mnemonic, like visualizing a dashboard or holding up my hands and seeing which one makes an L."
I'm like that . I have to lift up my left hand to remember its the left. I think I had brain trauma as a baby, so I have excellent comprehension, but can't remember things like words. It's weird
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, somebody asked way back why we think professors tend to be liberal. Generally somebody from the right would say it's a vast conspiracy. Someone on the left would say it is because they are right . I doubt both. I think it has more to do with the nature of it. Once you dissect something enough, virtually casting off your predispositions (certain levels of ethics and morality) you tend to come up with interesting conclusions.
It's what happened to me to make me think abortion was okay. Same with socialized medical care. "Why is it bad?" "It makes people lazy, why should I have to pay for you?" "I'll be paying for you too. That was we hold eachother up through the good and the bad, improving quality of life."
(alright Ornery, you've got me this liberalized, now just explain how bad my wallets gonna be hurting!)
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I think about it, the more I don't wish to vote at all. I have to either support people who want to limit my humanity and look down upon me, or support people who advocate scientific stances I don't agree with.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brian, Free trade is a pillar of Liberalism. Most Liberal Democrats these days, want some degree of a safty-net. The Libertarians are generaly Liberals who split off over this issue.
Liberal economics are complex and often contradictory, since most Liberals have a love-hate relationship with Keynesianism.
As a general rule, most, but by no means all, Liberals believe in Keynesian economics during crises and looser regulation during good times.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Left and Right is an outdated distinction. First of all, there is actually Left, Right and Liberal (Liberals are neither Left nor Right). But neither U.S. Party is any of those. Both are roughly Populist.
I know I have pointed this out before and been ignored or ridiculed, but it is an important point.
Leftist and Liberal were synonyms before Marx but diverged in meaning afterwards.
And Libertarian which is a whole new kettle of fish!
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
left is better because if you're left behind at least you're in the right place where you left yourself right?
Posts: 38 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TommySama: It's what happened to me to make me think abortion was okay. Same with socialized medical care. "Why is it bad?" "It makes people lazy, why should I have to pay for you?" "I'll be paying for you too. That was we hold eachother up through the good and the bad, improving quality of life."
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. What you said can be paraphrased as "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities." History has shown us that this system quickly falls apart. Unless forced to work to earn their needs, people generally want more than what they generate through their work.
As far as abortion goes, the biggest hurdle is that the loudest people on both sides of the issue have vested interests in never reaching a common ground.
That's what no one ever looks at or talks about - is it better for the people in charge (whether left/right, conservative/liberal, pro-'Christmas Story'/anti-'Christmas Story') to solve problems or keep them to maintain their power while making "fixes" that do nothing to alleviate the crisis.
Looking at it that way, it becomes obvious why the Democrats and Republicans always have the same base agenda when the regain power. The Democrats always want to push those stuggling financially back to the bottom of the economic ladder and the Republicans always want to give tax breaks to the wealthy (whether to be greedy or for trickle down reasons is irrelevent). Both moves solidify their base.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd prefer moderate republicans democratize their fedaralists opinions of a capitilist community utilizing social programs.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republican base isn't the wealthy, it's the middle class. (Based on the average contribution size, that is.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. What you said can be paraphrased as "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities." History has shown us that this system quickly falls apart. Unless forced to work to earn their needs, people generally want more than what they generate through their work.
That's silly. Tommy was talking about a specific social program that is, in different incarnations, active and successful in other parts of the world. There is a huge difference between public funding of important social programs and sucking up everyone's money and putting it in a big pot for everyone to take.
Do public roads make people lazy? Do people try to get more out of the roads than they put in? We fund certain things because they are important parts of our infrastructure and/or resource pool all the time and it doesn't seem to have the effects that you are describing.
In addition, while it's far less explicit than socialized medicine, the current American health care has people bearing the costs for others in myriad ways, from the more direct insurance costs and medicial service pricing to the incalculable costs of people not being able to afford adequate health care and a lack of focus on primary prevention.
There is a complex debate to be had about socialized health care, with many arguments pro and con. It doesn't serve us well to dismiss it with a tired piece of simplistic rhetoric.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's silly. Tommy was talking about a specific social program that is, in different incarnations, active and successful in other parts of the world. There is a huge difference between public funding of important social programs and sucking up everyone's money and putting it in a big pot for everyone to take.
I agree there's a difference. Unfortunately, what he's talking about is nothing more than sucking up everyone's money and putting it in a big pot for everyone to take.
Socialized medicine doesn't work. There's a reason why people who live in countries with socialized medicine try to come to the US for treatment - they don't want to die.
My wife had an employee from Canada. She (the employee) was from Canada and had some sort of rapidly growing growth on her neck under her skin. Because she was still insured in Canada she wanted/needed to return home for treatment (I don't know all the specifics. She was told it would be six months before a specialist could see her. When she asked, "What if it's cancerous?" she was told that they could move the appointment up by a month if absolutely necessary.
Should the system be improved? Absolutely. But the solution shouldn't involved lowering the ceiling of coverage it should involve raising the floor.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Do public roads make people lazy? Do people try to get more out of the roads than they put in? We fund certain things because they are important parts of our infrastructure and/or resource pool all the time and it doesn't seem to have the effects that you are describing.
Absolutely. I don't disagree with that. But any system that involves making care worse for anyone in order to make it better for others is a nonstarter.
Everyone says they would support improved healthcare for the poor at the expense of the wealthy, but the true test of fairness is to reverse the scenario and see if you still like it.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
See Ranked Voting Methods - for the ones which I think will represent what really the middle wants. Unfortunately - American electorat is considered too stupid by our government, to alow such changes to our voting system.
But Americans in general like to have clear sides it's either Black, or it's White, it's the badguys - or the good guys. Our team is a winner - or theirs.
No way for a truely democratic voting system to be chosen by the government, as both Democrat and Republican representatives and senators like the system they have been chosen by.
Why kill what already worked for them? No matter that the society has evolved for the last 100 years, and most of the people can sign their own names, and not just place an X sign on the doted line.
Think about this scenario: If some sort of ranked voting system was in use and you have 10 candidates for a representative from different parties (more than the current majority of 2) - You give your REAL favorite #1 (even if it is to the far-right or far left or far up or down, and you know that there is no way that they can win the election in the old style of voting system so you never bothered voting for them before) - You give your second favorite #3 (oh well - he is at least better than the OTHER guys) - You give their oponent #6 (lets give them some points - because they have the same name I do, or they just looked nice in the picture, or on the last TV debate) - You give your worst choice(s) nothing - leave it blank or choose # 10
There are many variations of this using points, percents, etc - ways to make it more simple and understandable, but keep the type.
You can see a lot of #3 choices, etc. winning the elections this way - representing what Americans really desire as a whole nation of individuals - rather than as separate, communities, blue states, red states, etc.
There are some very minor experiments with this, at community level in some states...
Adopting such system as a nation - in my dreams only...
Posts: 1 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Socialized medicine doesn't work. There's a reason why people who live in countries with socialized medicine try to come to the US for treatment
People from the US also rountinaly go to countries with socialized medicine. And I am far from sure that being Canadian or European lowers your life expextancy.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
. I have to lift up my left hand to remember its the left. I think I had brain trauma as a baby, so I have excellent comprehension, but can't remember things like words. It's weird
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. I doubt both. I think it has more to do with the nature of it. Once you dissect something enough, virtually casting off your predispositions (certain levels of ethics and morality) you tend to come up with interesting conclusions.
