Politics Discussion

[RavynousHunter]

...Psp, you seem like an intelligent dude, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on one major thing: people aren't poor because they refuse to work harder. My mother often works 12-hour days, when the hospital will allow her to do so because OT is the Great Corporate Satan, and is almost literally working herself to death just to keep food on the table and a roof over the heads of my family back home. If your ideals were anywhere near reality, she'd have more money than Bill Gates. Alas, even though my dad gets a fair amount of money from disability, they still have problems making ends meet, some months. Back when I was living with them, I couldn't find a job at a freaking gas station or even effing McDonald's. We had at least one incident per year where we were honestly on the verge of living out on the street. Its not because any of us were lazy, especially not my mother. The system fucks us over because we aren't "connected." We don't know important people, we can't bargain influence or trade favours. We aren't part of the elite. I have been obscenely lucky in getting in the living situation I'm currently in, my family is just barely worming their way into a semi-liveable situation. Even then, my mother is slowly dying due to a combination of rheumatism, fucking lupus, and an ungodly amount of stress from her jobs, both her paid job and the job of being the head of my family's household, and that situation doesn't look to be ending on a happy note any time soon; if it ends, its likely because she finally died due to a stress-induced combination stroke/heart attack.

If we had an actual social safety net, not just the laughable joke of one we have now, she wouldn't have to worry as much. She could have time to relax, time to de-stress from her demanding full-time job. Poor people don't get welfare and such because they're lazy; the "welfare queen" is a myth, just like the Greek pantheon or Superman. A lot of people don't get opportunities for a lot of reasons: they weren't born into the right family, they're not white, they happen to not have a penis, they're introverted, or they simply make a mistake somewhere. Our society still has this savage ideology of "punishing" those that we deem worthy of othering, even if they haven't done anything worth punishment. My mother sure as hell doesn't deserve to be punished, she worked her ass off to make sure my brother and I had enough to eat and had a roof over our heads. Yet, the white collar elite that run her hospital almost universally treat her like shit. Why? Because she doesn't wear the latest fashions, because she isn't conventionally attractive, because she isn't loaded, because she dared to be one of those filthy poors.

Make no mistake, America is a third world country with a lot of money and not much brains. When we share the dubious company of countries like Somalia in not being party to such things as the UN's Rights of the Child thing, you shouldn't be proud of that. Something is glaringly wrong in this country, and its painfully obvious that its the pricks at the top. No, we don't need a pure socialist state, any pure ideology is doomed to failure from the word "go." However, we are nowhere near anything remotely resembling socialism. You want a truly (mixed) socialist state? One that offers its people such horrible things like free healthcare and free access to college-level education? Look no further than Finland. Oh, and they happen to be one of the most prosperous, well-educated countries on the planet. While we sit here in our gilded towers in the midst of a festering swamp. My generation will have a lot to put right by the time we're allowed to get into office. I only hope that we're allowed to do so. If we don't the troglodytes could drag the entire country down to Dixieland-level. I don't know about you, but I want the likes of Texas and Oklahoma contained.

 

[Someone Else 37]

Just gonna put this here...

True, but fundamentally you are trading A for C and using B as an intermediary. Therefore if we are to be more efficient we would trade A for C without using B. The problem with this is someone not wanting A but wanting something of equal value. Thus we use B. In a universal marketplace there are so many types of money that money has the same problem as what you were originally trading. Therefore if we valued knowledge above all else we would have a perfect currency because

• You can obtain it yourself
• It does not have to be managed by a central bank
• It's value can be evaluated by looking at how well it represents what it is trying to represent
• More knowledge could be produced by individuals or companies through hard work.

This would lead to a society where research is the most valued thing, thus new technologies would be made constantly. Then, we could live in a world with even more luxuries then this one

The problem with the currency of knowledge is it requires people to value it above all else. Something which I already do, but I realize others do not.

 

[RavynousHunter]

Just gonna put this here...

Yup. I've encountered enough morons in my life who were the stereotypical "HURR, NURDZ DUM" type to fill at least a dozen lifetimes. This is what happens when your "heroes" are vacuous celebrities who couldn't tell you the name of our first President or "sports heroes" who get paid to get brain damage of various and sundry degrees.

 

[Pyure]

No, it wouldn't apply to that.

Everyone comes together and helps eachother. That's what socialism is about. You get help when you need it, and in return, you give when you can.

Yes it most certainly does apply to that. Its directly connected to your comment. You said "its good because it applies to everyone." I demonstrated an error in that logic: a positive benefit for everyone does not in and of itself imply a benefit to the community.

Don't dispute facts with "No." Back it up with something.

Now that that's settled: socialism in and of itself isn't bad at all. We can't have a perfectly cold and pragmatic approach to everything because we're dealing with human elements. Its too easy to say we could save millions of people's lives per year if we simply euthanized the most useless segments of society, because nobody would stand for it. The result would be worse than the solution. But socialism does need to be tailored, otherwise its simply passing a problem on to subsequent generations who may or may not be able to pay the bill without simply pissing off their neighbors and having their countries pillaged in retaliation for unpaid bills.

The common misconception is that this sort of thing can't happen anymore, but it still happens all the time. It happened to the US of 2000 years ago (Rome), and its going to happen again and again to subsequent power nations. We...don't really learn that well sometimes.

 

[RavynousHunter]

I wish to summarize my rant a bit. Basically, I'm an ardent believer in the social contract, but I apply it to society at large instead of simply to the government. Society has an obligation to all its members: to prop them up, to provide for the general well-being in all aspects of life, to promote security and safety, and to ensure that all have an equal chance to succeed. We, as individuals, have an obligation to society at large to provide said society with what it needs to fulfill its duty, which typically comes in the form of money. Its not a stretch to say that the world well and truly runs on money; we all need it in our everyday lives to survive, this is an indisputable fact. That there are those who are forced to live without should be an affront to any civilized person's sense of morality. Those at the top, the ones with the most, should use their wealth to help prop those at the bottom up and to provide a strong, stable foundation from which our society, and by extension, humanity, can prosper. If they will not do it willingly, then it should be done by a mandate from the masses; that is the cost of being part of a civilized society. I would happily pay half my income in taxes if it would mean that those who are worse off than me can be brought to a better standard of living.

Humanity is a single, living organism. We can ill afford rampant selfishness, it is anathema to our survival as a species. Selfishness and stupidity nearly brought our global civilization to the edge of failure during the Cold War. In the words of Carl Sagan: we speak for Earth. We're the only ones that can. We all want utopia, we all want a better world for ourselves and those about whom we care. However, we can't achieve that if we capitulate to greed and selfish desire. We are all part of a single machine, a single organism, struggling to survive. National boundaries, languages, cultural differences, they all mean nothing when faced with the enormity of what we are: a way for the universe to understand itself. We may be on a single mote of dust in the cosmic wind, but we have so much potential. But, to give in to greed and selfishness is to assist in squandering that vast potential. We must all work for the benefit of eachother if we are to move on to the next stage in our evolution as a species. "An organism at war with itself is doomed to failure."

 

[keybounce]

Personally, I like the idea that the quality of the life I can make for myself is proportional to the energy I put into the economic system.

Those who work earn. Those who work hard earn well.
Those who don't work don't earn. But those who can't work get help.

And to both of you: If the work that you do is hard; if the energy that you put into the economic system is high; then why should your payout be based, not on the work you did, but on what the person you did it for is able to pay you?

This argument applies to "everyone gets $1,000 from the government in their mailbox every day" as well, which would be bad for the community over any reasonable period of time. So there must be more to it than that.

And if it was, say, $50 per day? $100 per day? $25 per day? Varied based on the current economic conditions?

To you, I ask this question: Why is "pork" a necessity of the current economic system/structure of the USA? I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's bad; I'm arguing the thesis that, given the current status of the rest of the economic system in the USA, port projects are a must, a necessarily part (and I'm not calling it good or evil).

===

Let me extend that last hypothetical a bit, and address everyone. What if a lawsuit on behalf of the entire population of citizens of the united states were filed against the government, and won. Would not the proper way to pay that "fine" out be to pay each person a stipend every day until the total was paid? What is wrong with that, if anything, and what would need to be done with it in order to make it work?

===

Fundamental here, and hidden in all the above: What is inflation? (Hint: trick question)

 

[PhoenixSmith]

Few rules that should probably be added to the OP:
1) If you aren't going to say something constructive, just leave.
2) This thread isn't a place for flame-baiting!
3) You cannot try to change another member's political persuasion, even if you do not agree with the party(s) they support (this is a criminal offence in England, and I assume it's the same elsewhere in the world)
4) If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk about it; this includes not knowing the current political situations in a person's state/country
5) Be nice!


These rules seem a little strict, but politics is a very touchy subject, some people are very passionate about it, and some people don't agree with how their country/another country is run. So these rules NEED to be followed, otherwise it is likely that your post will get removed, as it probably will be going against the forum rules; and may get you a good amount of warning points... especially if you partake in a debate.

Wait, what! I cant try to try to talk a democrat into becoming a republican on the internet? I don't believe that. Or what is political persuasion referring too?

 

[Strikingwolf]

*whistles* what about what @Someone Else 37 quoted *whistles*

Also, there is no such thing as a perfect economy. Socialism, pure capitalism, or pure communism none of them are perfect. And they never will be as long as humans are the ones within their systems.

It's like an insurance. You give when you can, and get when you need it. Capitalism is the opposite. You claim as much as you can while you can, but the day something fatal occurs in your economy, you lose everything.

That doesn't mean it is a positive benefit for the community. If we were to prioritize the entire community then we would put everything we own into the hands of the smartest and brightest, but that system would be terrible to the layman. Also, insurances are terrible, but that's another story. Oh and you don't lose everything, not if you're smart with your money.

 

[Strikingwolf]

A community where people get rewarded for how hard they work is certainly a good community. A community where people get rewarded for knowing how to trick the system, is not.

The good for the entire community in the long run would be a way to make a post-scarcity economy, where work and all else is not needed at all because we have infinite materials. This type of economy is possible, but only if we have really smart people with a lot of money and doing a lot of research. And people can trick the system in any system you make, that is irrelevant

And yes, many people do lose all their money, as they simply can't save enough to handle losing their job because some capitalistic CEO feels like firing them.

1. It isn't all their money, it may be a significant portion
2. CEOs don't fire people on a whim, they have a reason. That may be because they need to lay people off to balance increased cost of materials, but there is a reason
3. Saving isn't the only way you can protect your funds, assets are much more reliable because inflation and banks being shit. Especially if you can get assets in a stable market.

Be it noted that I prefer none of these economies :3

 

[jordsta95]

Wait, what! I cant try to try to talk a democrat into becoming a republican on the internet? I don't believe that. Or what is political persuasion referring too?

http://www.electoralcommission.org....le/0005/149729/List-of-electoral-offences.pdf
Just trying to keep with laws in countries.
If you have changed someone's vote for the party you want to win, especially in America's backwards 2-party system...

I don't know what America's laws are, but I would much rather not have people that support one party ganging up on someone who supports another.

 

[jordsta95]

There's nothing on that page preventing you from saying "vote Labour!".

If you just say "Vote Labour!" I doubt anyone would pay attention to you.
If I you say "Vote Labour because they are better than everyone else..." and only give the crap that the other parties are going to do, then you are influencing a vote, not through violence, or anything like that, but you aren't giving the other parties a chance to actually seem good.

Lets say you move to England next year, and I REALLY wanted SNP to win (I am going for something I obviously don't support), so I tell you all the reasons why Scotland should gain independence, and all the bad things which England do to hold them back. Now because you are new to British politics, how likely are you to know the ins and outs of what SNP and other parties do, and what the pros/cons of them are as a party?
Highly unlikely, unless you get off on politics.
And because we are all in different countries, and don't know 100% that in 5-10 years that we could be in one of the countries talked about here, we can't potentially make them enter the country with a political persuasion.

 

[Padfoote]

I don't know what America's laws are, but I would much rather not have people that support one party ganging up on someone who supports another.

So long as it doesn't turn into blackmail or threats of violence it is completely allowed. Even if it falls under the category of blackmail / threats there's a damn good chance it won't be stopped.

 

[Pyure]

It's like an insurance. You give when you can, and get when you need it. Capitalism is the opposite. You claim as much as you can while you can, but the day something fatal occurs in your economy, you lose everything.

Right. Although fatal things can happen to your economy as well, and since the socialist economy is created on an artificial market, its going to happen more often.

The only way a pure socialist economy works is if its perfectly closed (there's no access whatsoever to non-socialist markets) and everyone gets lobotomized to remove their natural inclination to compete. Then it would work far better than capitalism. We'd live in a pleasant agrarian society for a long time I imagine.

 

[Pyure]

And if it was, say, $50 per day? $100 per day? $25 per day? Varied based on the current economic conditions?
To you, I ask this question: Why is "pork" a necessity of the current economic system/structure of the USA? I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's bad; I'm arguing the thesis that, given the current status of the rest of the economic system in the USA, port projects are a must, a necessarily part (and I'm not calling it good or evil).

I'm not American. I'm not sure what you're referring to by pork or port or whatever.

I find your question regarding the smaller amounts based on current economic conditions interesting. There's no way I could provide a quick answer to that without following the chain of thought further.

 

[RavynousHunter]

Pure capitalism does have many good spots (vertical socioeconomic mobility, etc), but it also has numerous bad spots (exploitation of labourers and the ruination of natural resources). So does socialism and communism. We shouldn't try adopting strictly one or strictly the other, it simply won't work. Its like trying to work with pure iron: sure, its got plenty of durability on its own and its fairly easy to acquire, but it has well-known limitations that can cause important structures to fail if they use pure iron. However, if you mix that iron with things like carbon and chromium, you get steel, and suddenly, you can make much more durable structures. Politics is much the same. If you have pure, unrestrained capitalism, then you end up in the secret end of Atlas Shrugged where everyone in Galt's Gulch or whatever starves to death because they drove off their labour force. But, mix into that capitalism some aspects of socialism (redistribution of some wealth to support the working class) and communism (state control of important infrastructure), and you have a society that's much more likely to survive. Take the best bits from each one and use the better bits from the others to fill in the incomplete gaps of their neighbour.

For whatever amount of time we must retain the necessary evil of economics, it is imperative that we experiment with new ideas to find the ones that work better than what we have now. If we do not, then we stagnate, and a stagnant organism is less likely to survive in the long run. So, yes, use some tax revenue to help prop up those less fortunate. If they have more money available, then they can spend more, thus helping improve the economy. Since there are more people at the bottom than there are at the top (by at least two orders of magnitude, methinks), then the more people at the bottom with more money, the bigger boost we'll have in the economy. Its just like fighting a battle: the more people you have, and the better equipment they got, the more likely you are to win.

 

[Hyperme]

If you just say "Vote Labour!" I doubt anyone would pay attention to you.
If I you say "Vote Labour because they are better than everyone else..." and only give the crap that the other parties are going to do, then you are influencing a vote, not through violence, or anything like that, but you aren't giving the other parties a chance to actually seem good.

Lets say you move to England next year, and I REALLY wanted SNP to win (I am going for something I obviously don't support), so I tell you all the reasons why Scotland should gain independence, and all the bad things which England do to hold them back. Now because you are new to British politics, how likely are you to know the ins and outs of what SNP and other parties do, and what the pros/cons of them are as a party?
Highly unlikely, unless you get off on politics.
And because we are all in different countries, and don't know 100% that in 5-10 years that we could be in one of the countries talked about here, we can't potentially make them enter the country with a political persuasion.

Can you actually provide a quote that supports any of this? The document provided basically states that provided I don't slander, libel or threaten anyone, I can say what I want about politics, when I want.

Also why do you even think that talking about politics is illegal? Do you even live in England!?

 

[Pyure]

Jord I'm a bit confused about your stance on influencing votes.

Politics/voting is based on influencing votes. The whole idea is trying to convince people that your ideas are better than someone else's ideas. The ultimate hope in democracy is that the best ideas float to the top because people as a whole are fundamentally (theoretically) good at making decisions for the whole.

 

[jordsta95]

Can you actually provide a quote that supports any of this? The document provided basically states that provided I don't slander, libel or threaten anyone, I can say what I want about politics, when I want.

Also why do you even think that talking about politics is illegal? Do you even live in England!?

I don't think talking about politics is illegal.
I just don't want to see 101 arguments a day, and have most of them be people who feel that they have every right to change someone's opinion.

 

[Pyure]

people who feel that they have every right to change someone's opinion.

People who feel they have every right to change someone's opinion are 100% correct. People who say different are wrong.

You're doing it right now. You can try to word it so it doesn't sound like it, but ultimately you're trying to convince me that your opinion on changing opinions is good.

 

[jordsta95]

Jord I'm a bit confused about your stance on influencing votes.

Politics/voting is based on influencing votes. The whole idea is trying to convince people that your ideas are better than someone else's ideas. The ultimate hope in democracy is that the best ideas float to the top because people as a whole are fundamentally (theoretically) good at making decisions for the whole.

Ok, I see where you are coming from. How about I go back and reword that to include the word "unjustly" at the end...
I see where my ignorance, could be perceieved as meaning NO OPINIONS! NOPE! NOT ONE! instead of "Don't change someone's opinions just because they don't agree with you"

If there's 2 people:
1 liberal
1 democrat
And the lib. just tries to change the dem. to lib. just because he is not a lib... That is wrong.
The dem. tries to change the lib. to dem. because the dem.s are doing <x> better than the lib.s... that is fine.