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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, I swoon. There is nothing I find to be more attractive and appealing than someone who is in complete agreement with me.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 )
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 178 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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!
Posts: 19 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may not have reduced crime, but I'll certainly sleep better knowing you can't shoot grenades at me.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That'll mean you're close enough that I can kick them back at you. I like my chances a lot better that way.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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 )
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 178 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 178 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
I never would.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Wha... Gasp!
