Eat the Rich

[Danoff]

isn't it called democracy? isn't it a best system humanity invented? or shall we go back to dark ages or 3rd reich? or communism?

Even in democracy some basic rules exist that government must follow. One of those rules should be that citizens must be taxed without discrimination - everyone pays the same taxes.

i dont know all that programs and what they do, but aren't there millions of people who use them?

Some of the ones I mentioned are used by many and some are not of any use to anyone. It wouldn't be right to just shut off medicare immediately - it would take some transition to eliminate it.

as i see it, hospitals are needed. if you only allow people who have money to use them, you will have piles of dead bodies everywhere after some years and noone will clean them, because we dont pay for this form our taxes anymore

I think hospitals are needed too, but that doesn't mean they must be government run. Apply your same analogy to food. Food is needed, but not provided by the government. We only allow people with money to have access to food but that doesn't lead to dead people everywhere.

 

[Swift]

isn't it called democracy? isn't it a best system humanity invented? or shall we go back to dark ages or 3rd reich? or communism?

It is a good system. However, uneducated voters can be worse then the systems you mentioned.

People need to understand the effects that their representives decisions will have on more then just their personal lives in the next 4-10 years. It's amazing how people can get elected on promises in the the short term when it's the long term that matters.

 

[DemonSeed]

I think hospitals are needed too, but that doesn't mean they must be government run. Apply your same analogy to food. Food is needed, but not provided by the government. We only allow people with money to have access to food but that doesn't lead to dead people everywhere.

it is easier to gather or grow food than perform surgery, isnt it? i think goverment programs are things that have to be organized on huge scale and are not possible to do in 1 household. you can feed yourself if you want, but you need experts to put you together after car crash. and if after that crash you cant work, you may need your social welfare or you'll finish 6 feet under.

It is a good system. However, uneducated voters can be worse then the systems you mentioned.

well, after taking out public schools, we would have more uneducated voters, no? and having only 2 parties AFAIK, you dont have much choice there, so how exactly stupid are those people that can't see the difference between only 2 political programs? i mean, they must offer 2 different things, and the choice is pretty simple with only two options.
sidenote: i grew up in a communist country. we didnt worry about taxes, everyone had a job and place to live, access to free education and healthcare. it wasnt that bad

 

[Danoff]

we didnt worry about taxes, everyone had a job and place to live, access to free education and healthcare. it wasnt that bad

But you didn't have a choice where to live or what job you had or what healthcare you got or where you went to school right? No freedom. How is that not bad?

it is easier to gather or grow food than perform surgery, isnt it?

Yes. But food is more critical that surgery.

well, after taking out public schools, we would have more uneducated voters, no?

No. I never said take out schools altogether, just public ones.

 

[skicrush]

isn't it called democracy? isn't it a best system humanity invented? or shall we go back to dark ages or 3rd reich? or communism?

I think you'll notice that it IS communism we're leaning towards all the time. That's the reason we're bugged--the redistribution of wealth. Every new gov't pgm is another step in that direction. It's worst on mainland europe, but its also plenty bad in the US too. And the real problem is that once you create a program, it NEVER GOES AWAY. When private parties take care of those things, when they are no longer needed, they go away on their own.

 

[Swift]

well, after taking out public schools, we would have more uneducated voters, no? and having only 2 parties AFAIK, you dont have much choice there, so how exactly stupid are those people that can't see the difference between only 2 political programs? i mean, they must offer 2 different things, and the choice is pretty simple with only two options.
sidenote: i grew up in a communist country. we didnt worry about taxes, everyone had a job and place to live, access to free education and healthcare. it wasnt that bad

You just proved my point of voters needing to be educated quite well. Thank you

 

[Duke]

isn't it called democracy? isn't it a best system humanity invented? or shall we go back to dark ages or 3rd reich? or communism?

No, it's not called 'democracy'. It's called 'the dictatorship of the majority', which is just what I called it.

In a democracy, the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority.

 

[DemonSeed]

But you didn't have a choice where to live or what job you had or what healthcare you got or where you went to school right? No freedom. How is that not bad?

Yes. But food is more critical that surgery

No. I never said take out schools altogether, just public ones.

you had the choice, you could move from city to city. you had a job you were educated to do and usually you went to school closest to your house but you could go elswhere. true that you were assigned your local clinic for your everyday health problems, but if you were away you could go to any.
the only freedom that wasn't there - you werent allowed to speak against the party. and if you were in the party, you couldnt openly practice your religion. thats all.

food is more important, and? you gave me an analogy to food. and im just saying thats it is easier to grow/make food on your own, without gov help than it is to perform surgery. and with no public health service, people would be forced to help themselves. which is far more difficult than cultivating the garden and having a cow.

about schools - i said 'public' as well. also, i was just answering Swift there . without public schools, i reckon, there would be more uneducated people than now. also, paying for education would merit kids with cash, not with brains.

 

[DemonSeed]

No, it's not called 'democracy'. It's called 'the dictatorship of the majority', which is just what I called it.

In a democracy, the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority.

democracy is the rule of the majority. isnt it? i dont know what are you talkin about with 'the dictatorship of the majority' - that is democracy after all. lets end it here because obviously we operate on two different definitions of democracy, although yours is correct, only you do not call it democracy but dictatorship of majority. and as it happens, if 6 out of 10 wants something, it has to happen in democratic world.

 

[DemonSeed]

You just proved my point of voters needing to be educated quite well. Thank you

well yes. but we talking here about aborting public education, and im saying it is not good, and danoff says it should be done. so i'll just take that you are pro public education

 

[Max_DC]

OMG another hardcore capitalism thread... *moves out of the thread immediately*

 

[Duke]

democracy is the rule of the majority. isnt it? i dont know what are you talkin about with 'the dictatorship of the majority' - that is democracy after all. lets end it here because obviously we operate on two different definitions of democracy, although yours is correct, only you do not call it democracy but dictatorship of majority. and as it happens, if 6 out of 10 wants something, it has to happen in democratic world.

What I'm talking about is whether the majority can vote away the minority's rights or not. In a real democracy, they cannot.

Think of it this way:

If "6 out of 10" voters decided that it would be beneficial to kill Bill Gates and distribute all of his money evenly across the United States, would DEMOCRACY say that was legal and acceptable?

 

[skicrush]

Did someone just say something about Yukos? I wasn't really paying attention, but I could have sworn...

 

[Swift]

well yes. but we talking here about aborting public education, and im saying it is not good, and danoff says it should be done. so i'll just take that you are pro public education

No, I'm a proponent of GOOD education. Look, everyone doesn't learn the same way. So why is everyone TAUGHT the same way?

Competition for schools would benifit the public in so many ways it's not funny. As it is, were just stuck with what we get unless you can afford the private schools. And most of them are too expensive for the "Average" parent.

 

[DemonSeed]

What I'm talking about is whether the majority can vote away the minority's rights or not. In a real democracy, they cannot.

Think of it this way:

If "6 out of 10" voters decided that it would be beneficial to kill Bill Gates and distribute all of his money evenly across the United States, would DEMOCRACY say that was legal and acceptable?

of course not because there are already agreed laws against it. but there may be quite a few that really want to do it. fortunately for bill gates, they are only a few, a minority, so it wont happen. but, if for some strange reason, most of the people would decide to take out microsoft and they would go to the streets with that, it would happen.gov would have to do it for its citizens.

i agree that minorities suffer in democratic system. but as i said before, what are the alternatives? not much, democracy is the best we could come up with. and all those rich people who are being shafted by democracy as you say, must love the system. after all, it made them rich. in any other system, they would never be that rich and free to do what they want. only in democracy, which takes 40% of their cash they can enjoy the 60% left. in other systems, without selling their souls and becoming a part of ruling elite, they would never be rich.

 

[DemonSeed]

No, I'm a proponent of GOOD education. Look, everyone doesn't learn the same way. So why is everyone TAUGHT the same way?

Competition for schools would benifit the public in so many ways it's not funny. As it is, were just stuck with what we get unless you can afford the private schools. And most of them are too expensive for the "Average" parent.

true. but isnt it better than nohting? i mean, at least everyone has a chance, some will use it, some won't. but without public schools, only those with money will be able to get some education. there are private schools for rich people. and there are public for the rest. and it has to be that way, even if paying for someone's education from my taxes is perceived as wrong, it is much better than having millions of poor teenagers getting their only education on the streets 'cos they can't afford anything else. without public schools most of them wouldnt be able to write or read maybe, is that good?

 

[Swift]

true. but isnt it better than nohting? i mean, at least everyone has a chance, some will use it, some won't. but without public schools, only those with money will be able to get some education. there are private schools for rich people. and there are public for the rest. and it has to be that way, even if paying for someone's education from my taxes is perceived as wrong, it is much better than having millions of poor teenagers getting their only education on the streets 'cos they can't afford anything else. without public schools most of them wouldnt be able to write or read maybe, is that good?

Well, you know that, depending on the state, as much as 50% of your tax dollar goes towards education? So, you take that out and POOF you have money to send your child to the school YOU want to instead of settling for the public school system.

It's amazing what happens when you stop taxing for public stuff like that. I mean roads and police are one thing, but history has shown that the gov't has no clue how to educate our young people.