What are Your Politics?

[Klostrophobic]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Because I can...... God said I could....

..... a real reason is commin,... I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

I respect your right to disagree, I just wanted to know why you disagreed.

Who is God?

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by danoff
I
I just outlined the way in which Communism is perhaps one of the most unfair systems of government in existance. One person produces 4 times more for the country as another and gets nothing more in return. That's about as unfair as it gets.

HUH,. I could sworn you said that everyone got the same thing if they contributed the same,.. sounds awfuly fair to me........

 

[Klostrophobic]

I'd consider myself lower middle class. Maybe. I don't complain like a **** about how rich people have money and I don't. I'll go out and do something about it.

Anyone can go out and make money if they are so inclined. Obviously if you are born into a rich family you're going to be given more opposrtunity. That's the way it works, and I like it like that. Money is distributed unevenly, but not unfairly.

If I make it big, I'd like to be able to give my family and kids (assuming I will have kids) the best opportunity to make something out of themselves.

I care for the fellow man, but he has to help himself before I'd even think about helping him. I don't think I could be more against laws that force me to care for someone else, though. If you want to help some, go ahead, but I'm not going to force you to, or look down on you if you don't.

 

[Duke]

No, under a Communist system - and to a somewhat lesser degree, a Socialist system - everyone is rewarded equally regardless of productive ability.

So if a tractor factory lineworker makes $10 an hour, they all make $10 an hour regardless of whether they install 1 wheel or 100 wheels.

There's no incentive to work under that system. If you are a willing and capable worker, then you are effectively billed in order to support your lazy and incompetent coworkers.

Do you want to work over your lunch hour to support the fat slob who goes out for 20 cigarette breaks every day? I sure don't.

 

[Klostrophobic]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
HUH,. I could sworn you said that everyone got the same thing if they contributed the same,.. sounds awfuly fair to me........

How is it fair? A doctor who saves lives all day gets the same as the grocery store bagger.

It couldn't be more unfair.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic
I'd consider myself lower middle class. Maybe. I don't complain like a **** about how rich people have money and I don't. I'll go out and do something about it.

Anyone can go out and make money if they are so inclined. Obviously if you are born into a rich family you're going to be given more opposrtunity. That's the way it works, and I like it like that. Money is distributed unevenly, but not unfairly.

If I make it big, I'd like to be able to give my family and kids (assuming I will have kids) the best opportunity to make something out of themselves.

I care for the fellow man, but he has to help himself before I'd even think about helping him. I don't think I could be more against laws that force me to care for someone else, though. If you want to help some, go ahead, but I'm not going to force you to, or look down on you if you don't.

I respect that,.. but, I dont agree with the statement below..... too to explain in the time I have remaining in my day here though sorry.

Originally posted by Klostrophobic
Anyone can go out and make money if they are so inclined.

 

[Duke]

No, Klos, reread the way RER was interpreting the original post. He read it as same work = same pay.

 

[Danoff]

HUH,. I could sworn you said that everyone got the same thing if they contributed the same,.. sounds awfuly fair to me........

Everyone gets the same thing regardless of what they contribute. That's a recipe for unfairness.

 

[Talentless]

It's impossible for everyone to contribute the same.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by neon_duke
No, under a Communist system - and to a somewhat lesser degree, a Socialist system - everyone is rewarded equally regardless of productive ability.

So if a tractor factory lineworker makes $10 an hour, they all make $10 an hour regardless of whether they install 1 wheel or 100 wheels.

There's no incentive to work under that system. If you are a willing and capable worker, then you are effectively billed in order to support your lazy and incompetent coworkers.

Do you want to work over your lunch hour to support the fat slob who goes out for 20 cigarette breaks every day? I sure don't.

Originally posted by KLOS

How is it fair? A doctor who saves lives all day gets the same as the grocery store bagger.

It couldn't be more unfair.

Sure, in the mind of the selfish. Whats wrong with properly training the individual who cant keep up or even relocating them to an applicable job?

I guess I just think of other peole before myself,.. I've said it a million times in my head,..... if I see a bus barreling at ANYONE, and I have the opportunity to push them out of the way,.. I'd do it...... thats my perspecive on life......

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by neon_duke
No, Klos, reread the way RER was interpreting the original post. He read it as same work = same pay.

Yes,.. thats is how I interpreted it....

 

[Red Eye Racer]

And I'm not purposely playin Devils Advocate here,.. I'm seriously interested in being enlightened.

 

[Danoff]

Now, to bring this dicussion back home to political parties....


Democrats take some stands on social issues that sound a little like communism.

For example, if someone is doing badly - not producing and not making any money. The democrats would have the rich (people who produce) pay for that person. That's unfair. It says that if you are successful you will be hindered and if you are unsuccessful, you will be helped. Totally completely unfair in light of productivity.

Of course, the republicans aren't saints either. But they screw up issues like gay rights and church and state.

Both parties stand for government growth in thier own way.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by danoff

For example, if someone is doing badly - not producing and not making any money. The democrats would have the rich (people who produce) pay for that person. That's unfair. It says that if you are successful you will be hindered and if you are unsuccessful, you will be helped. Totally completely unfair in light of productivity.

Unfair in light of productivity,.. but productivity is a fundimental definition. What happened to the good 'ol feeling you get from helping the underprivelaged? (please dont confuse underprivilaged with "lazy")


Sorry if this is off-topic,. I guess Im stil trying to find all the differences in the parties. Hell,... I'm stil trying to narrow down what "I" actually believe...

 

[Danoff]

I guess I just think of other peole before myself,.. I've said it a million times in my head,..... if I see a bus barreling at ANYONE, and I have the opportunity to push them out of the way,.. I'd do it...... thats my perspecive on life......

That's a great attitude. Care for your fellow man. But what about your fellow man who works hard a produces a lot? Do you care about him? He's working hard, he doing things right and you'd have him pay to train or relocate a slacker.

Sure, in the mind of the selfish. Whats wrong with properly training the individual who cant keep up or even relocating them to an applicable job?

It's human nature to be selfish. You can't fight that. An individual who wants to get through life doing nothing can't be motivated by relocation and training. They'll be motivated by one thing, quality of living.

 

[Talentless]

There are different forms of communism and socalism.

 

[Duke]

Nothing. If you want to help the underpriveleged, that's your right. It's your money to dispose of as you see fit.

But what you are talking about is forcing people to "help" the underpriveleged, and not giving them any choice about how that is done. So where's the warm, fuzzy feeling now?

 

[///M-Spec]

My fundamental issue with democracy is if enough people believe something, they can vote it true, no matter how bad an idea it is. I am deeply skeptical of the bottom-feeding politi-critters grubbing on TV for votes but I hold even graver concerns about average Joe's ability to make educated choices about which critter will screw the least amount of people over while passing the benefits of his office to his constituants and rich friends who put him in office.

Don't get me wrong, its still better than a dictatorship (where one person votes anything he wants true) or some derivation of communism (where a small group votes for everyone else) or some derivation of anarchy (where people vote with their guns).

But I guess you could say I'm a little disillusioned with our political system. Bitter, even.

Let's take this issue of trade economics everyone's in an up-roar over. Out-sourcing is bad right? I mean, no one can question that giving Sally or Mike's job away to Ahmed or Venkatesh because he can work for a quarter on the dollar is just a un-American thing to do, right? And NAFTA is even worse, because it means even more of our manufactuering jobs go to Mexico and that means Harry is left in the un-employment line with 2 kids on their way to college, right? By god, we should put an end to this before we're all out of jobs!

So what happens? Sally, Mike and Harry all vote for the guy who wants to "save their jobs and (insert empty promise here)", even though if they took the time to think things through, they'd realize that anything which helps make the economy more efficient will help everyone in the long run. They don't think that maybe ultimately these cost savings return to them in the form of less expensive goods and services or that eventually Ahmed and Venkatesh will want to buy some goods and services from an American company.

No, the average person has an understanding of wealth like it is a pizza; and if Pablo, Chan or Shreedhar have too many slices, then they're left holding an empty Domino's box. So they vote trade barriers into place and give the economy a swift kick in the crotch while its trying to get up. Then they feel all warm and fuzzy because they think they're doing the right thing.

Its damn annoying and I feel like a grumpy old man everytime I start in on it. Don't even let me get into health care reform.

EDIT: Its not just the random masses that frustrate me. It's people I know and otherwise respect. My wife is a registered Democrat. She's Southern and southerners by and large have always been democrats. No matter how hard I try to convince her that Democrats vote bad stuff she would not agree with in principle if she thought things through into existance, she stubbornly refuses to change her position. And this is someone I consider a very intelligent person too. I know lots of people like this. It is sad to me to find a person who holds a Master's Degree would think killing NAFTA is actually a good idea.

I'm not registered at all, btw. For years I've felt that voting would be giving legitimacy to a farce that it doesn't deserve. But I suppose if you give people the freedom to choose, you also have to put up with them making bad choices. How I wish there was a "Freedom from Stupidity Party."


M

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by danoff
That's a great attitude. Care for your fellow man. But what about your fellow man who works hard a produces a lot? Do you care about him? He's working hard, he doing things right and you'd have him pay to train or relocate a slacker.



It's human nature to be selfish. You can't fight that. An individual who wants to get through life doing nothing can't be motivated by relocation and training. They'll be motivated by one thing, quality of living.

Ok,. I've brought us far enough off-topic to be done. I completely agree with the above analization on some levels.....

.. I guess the old saying is right,... it looks great on paper(if you care about everyones well being, not just your own) by is shyte in the real-world.

Thanx,.. I'm done now. You guy's throw me in whatever catagory you see fit,... I guess "Indepentant" is just too loose of a term for my taste.

 

[Duke]

Brian: here's a repost of something I wrote to milefile in a thread about universal health care. You'll have to read between the lines, but it applies here - just read "universal care" as "communism". I may have more similar posts I can follow with.
*****************************

Originally posted by milefile In America, food essentially is universal. If you have no food you can get food stamps or go to a soup kitchen.

But why should that be so?

You're perspective here is self-centered.

And I'm just fine with that. By the same token, I fully expect your perspective to be self-centered, too; just centered around your self, not mine. What a nice system.

"Universal" health care requires a different opinion on the value of life.

No, it requires a different opinion on the primacy of the Individual versus the primacy of the State. Danoff and I see the individual as supreme - each and every one of them. Others see the collective - call it "makind", call it "society", call it "the government", call it "life" - as supreme. Which, paradoxically, places no value whatsoever on the individual person. All are only seen by what they can give to others - others who are only valued by how much they need.

Personally I'd just like to see decent affordable insurance.

It exists. We've got it through our employers. The paperwork is a serious PITA, but the insurance itself is reasonably affordable - enough to be cost effective, anyway - and fairly comprehensive.

Government intervention is notoriously inept. Everybody knows that. But I'm not willing to stand there in front of a dying person and say, "You're disease is just to exotic and rare and expensive to treat. That's it."

But you are perfectly willing to stand there and say: "OK, you've earned $100,000 this year? Give me $40,000 of it in taxes - or else." Why is that?

It's a complicated problem. I can't and won't solve it.

Perhaps, then, you should reconsider your premises. It's only made complicated by the sacred cow of socialization. If I'm responsible for myself - and those I willingly accept responsibility for, like my family and some friends - then it becomes clear as a bell. I hold the hand of cards I was dealt. I continue to play it to the best of my ability. Sometimes I have good enough cards to win the round, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I make mistakes or have bad luck. I can live with that - so long as I know everybody else is doing the same.

And my opinion on it changes from time to time. I want to be some kid of hard-ass and say, "too bad... you, and you, and you, will die because you're poor and it's your own damn fault."

Maybe it is their fault, maybe it is just bad luck. See my comment above. Why would I expect the government to be my insurance and my insulation against every possible bad occurance?

And it doesn't seem right. But I will say that comparing health care to plumbing and auto repair ridiculous.

Why? My car breaks down - my bad luck, or maybe I neglected it. Either way, I need it to get to work and the grocery store.

Why on earth would I consider it my mechanic's duty to fix it for me, regardless of my ability to pay him, just because I need it?

It's a perfect parallel. You are just not able to get past the idea that every person is somehow responsible for every other person on the planet. That opens the door to a lot of the internal conflict that you seem to suffer from time to time. You're not alone in that.

 

[Danoff]

Unfair in light of productivity,.. but productivity is a fundimental definition. What happened to the good 'ol feeling you get from helping the underprivelaged? (please dont confuse underprivilaged with "lazy")

It's great that you want to help the underprivilaged, but you can't force other people to want to help them. It wouldn't do them any good anyway. They have to help themselves to make it work.

The good feeling you get is fine when you do it out of charity. I don't get any good feeling when I pay my taxes though. I get a nasty feeling because my money is being taken away from me and reallocated in a way that I can't determine.

If you want me to want to help the underprivelaged, you have to let me chose which underprivelaged are worthy of my hard earned dollars.

In otherwords, leave it to charity.

Just to prove that charity can work. I remember in hearing on the news that someone contributed over a billion dollars to the salvation army. Imagine how many more contributions rich people would make to charities if they didn't feel like the poor people were stealing thier money - which is what it is, when you have the government threaten to put you in jail if you don't pay up.

I'm not advocating that all taxes are bad, but redistribution of wealth - communism - doesn't work and I've been asked to explain why.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Nothing. If you want to help the underpriveleged, that's your right. It's your money to dispose of as you see fit.

But what you are talking about is forcing people to "help" the underpriveleged, and not giving them any choice about how that is done. So where's the warm, fuzzy feeling now?

The warm fuzzy fealing is only present when I think about the entire world caring about one-and-other,.. obviously thast impossible, therefore, so it the theory. IThat warm, fuzzy fealing will never leave me though, I will always care,.. it just pisses me off to know that I cant do shyte about it. Sure, quit my job and join green peace or some crap,... I guess I'm a prefect example of the person who wants everyhting but can do nothing.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Thanx for your insight guys,.. I realize that what I ask is only in a perfect world. Danoff's TAX comment is a good example of how I'm living in a fantasy world,.. anyhow, those are my thoughts,... put me in the "dont give a f about myslef, I'd rather see everyone happy all at the same time" group....

 

[Duke]

Here's another post from later in that thread that I dredged up:
*****************************

Honestly, I do not understand what the given wealth of a nation on the average has to do with it. Certainly if we took all of Australia's money, and divided it equally among the citizens, there would probably be enough for everybody to have decent housing (for a while), enough to eat (for a while), and reasonable health care (for a while). But why does that make it right to do so?

I'm leaving out the idea of temporary "insurance"-style public assistance. When I discuss socialization here, I mean chronic, systematic forms of government and society.

The fact of socialism in any form means that those who can afford to meet their own needs are required to also meet the needs of those who can't. There is no choice about it. The earned money of one person is taken away by threat of force - legal action - and used to subsidize the existence of another person or persons.

Personally I do not find that acceptable. I have no desire to live at the expense of someone else. Similarly, I don't wish to see my earned money used to support others who are not of my free choosing. Many people will say that is too black and white; that the real world doesn't operate that way. I do not apologize for believing it to be that simple. To me the real world could be that simple, and should be.

Socialization removes responsibility from the individual. It instead places need as the primary measure of a person's worth. Each and every human being is born needing. That is no measure of achievement or worthiness at all. The laziest, dumbest individual on the planet needs just as much food, shelter, and medicine as the most intelligent, productive person.

Socialism equates those two people, because in the eyes of need they are both the same.

When you shift the burden of responsibility onto society, then the only motivation for productive people is their own guilt or their own pride. I am too proud to accept the money of others except by earning it, so I work for a living rather than going on the dole. Nothing prevents me from doing so, except my own personal desire to meet my own needs for myself. So my best aspect - my desire and ability to provide for myself - becomes my greatest liability. It becomes the weapon by which I am forced to also provide for all of my fellow men.

I could easily give up and simply offer my need as the only entitlement required to receive food, shelter, and health care. In the words of a great person, the socialist system requires the sanction of the victim.

Philosophically there is no difference between "universal health care" and socialism. It is not a matter of degree. It was mentioned that it is not acceptable for people to go untreated in a country "as wealthy as Australia or the US". Why then would it be acceptable for any person to go untreated on a planet as rich the Earth?

As such, socialism is an unstable and non-sustainable system. It requires the subsidy of capitalism to function - it requires the sanction of the victim. Wealth is not simply "found"; it must be created. Nothing within a socialist system creates wealth - it simply moves wealth around as need sees fit. Eventually that wealth is consumed and must be replaced. Socialism must be imposed on capitalism in order to function, and it cannot provide for itself without that continuous infusion.

I find that immoral and unacceptable. I choose to live with it because at current there are not enough other victims willing to withdraw their sanction to allow me to join or create a society more to my liking. If it were so I would happily join danoff, Sage, and others in a society where our obligations are willingly chosen and our rewards are honestly earned.

 

[Danoff]

The warm fuzzy fealing is only present when I think about the entire world caring about one-and-other,.. obviously thast impossible, therefore, so it the theory. IThat warm, fuzzy fealing will never leave me though, I will always care,.. it just pisses me off to know that I cant do shyte about it. Sure, quit my job and join green peace or some crap,... I guess I'm a prefect example of the person who wants everyhting but can do nothing.

I have exactly the same desire - for everyone in the world to care about one-another. I haven't given up on it as impossible. I want people to care about the rich and the poor alike. I want people to care about heteros and homos alike. I want people to care about blacks, whites and browns alike.

The reasons that I propose that communism doesn't work is because it refuses to care about the people that work hard. It screws them in favor of those who do not. I couldn't live with that - I care about people too much to let that go on.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by neon_duke
If it were so I would happily join danoff, Sage, and others in a society where our obligations are willingly chosen and our rewards are honestly earned.

May I suggest a small island in the south Pacific? I'll bring the Corona and IT infrastructure.


M

 

[Klostrophobic]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Sure, in the mind of the selfish. Whats wrong with properly training the individual who cant keep up or even relocating them to an applicable job?

I guess I just think of other peole before myself,.. I've said it a million times in my head,..... if I see a bus barreling at ANYONE, and I have the opportunity to push them out of the way,.. I'd do it...... thats my perspecive on life......

Nothing is wrong with properly training the individual if he can pay for the training and wants to be trained.

What's wrong with being selfish?

I don't think I could go onto welfare or the like simply because I can't take someone else's money. I'd live in a cardboard box before I took someone else's money. I wish others had similar values so my tax dollars didn't have go to generations of lazy people who exploit the welfare system.

I'd also like to abolish Social Security and Medicare. For the reason that I don't want to support anyone, because I wouldn't want someone to support me. I don't want to get a check from the government every month that is paid for by hardworking tax payers.

Regressive taxation doesn't sound like such a bad idea, either.

 

[Duke]

By "regressive" do you mean "flat"? Because that's the only fair taxation system.

 

[Klostrophobic]

No. Tax those who make less. It should motivate people to make more money. I know it would motivate me.

I don't know if it would work, though. Probably not, but it would be interesting to see if it would work.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic
No. Tax those who make less. It should motivate people to make more money. I know it would motivate me.

Tell that to the guy who grew up with a crack whore for a single-mother along with 7 younger siblings and he's on a waiting list to work at McDonalds becuase he wasnt motivated by his teachers in public school who were all pissed becuase they didnt end up teaching cute little white kids with pig-tails who get dopped off by their stay-at-home soccer mom who doesnt pay taxes becuase she was the daughter of the guy who owned the McDonalds that our initial patron is stil trying to get a job at....<-panting, out of breath->


That wasnt my finest work but I think you get the point. Over tax the poor,... reminds me of all the medieval movies you see with the tax collecter pounding down peoples doors to take thier last bread crumb.