On November 05 2010 23:12 Qzy wrote: My main problem with US (and most danish people i talk with) is the 2 party system. Most other countries has multiple parties since opinions aren't black or white.
And 1 more thing: While running for president you can receive very big support from organizations - how can this be allowed? Money shouldn't be a HUGE factor when running for anything. In Denmark (probably all EU countries?) it's not allowed to support with more than 20,000 dkr (4,000$). And EVERY single amount of money needs to be written down and accounted for. This helps to counter the possibility of firms supporting an elected president (we don't have a president, but say candidate for counselor, or whatever ours is called in English), with the INTENT to have the market changed in THEIR favor.
Meh, why am I even trying =) No one listens on a board anyhow.
Go starcraft!
But even if corporations don't influence candidates running for office, don't they send waves of lobbyists to the government in your country?
You need 30.000 signatures to even run (i believe that's the correct number).
On November 06 2010 00:05 Deadlyfish wrote:
On November 05 2010 23:12 Qzy wrote: My main problem with US (and most danish people i talk with) is the 2 party system. Most other countries has multiple parties since opinions aren't black or white.
And 1 more thing: While running for president you can receive very big support from organizations - how can this be allowed? Money shouldn't be a HUGE factor when running for anything. In Denmark (probably all EU countries?) it's not allowed to support with more than 20,000 dkr (4,000$). And EVERY single amount of money needs to be written down and accounted for. This helps to counter the possibility of firms supporting an elected president (we don't have a president, but say candidate for counselor, or whatever ours is called in English), with the INTENT to have the market changed in THEIR favor.
Meh, why am I even trying =) No one listens on a board anyhow.
Go starcraft!
2 party system? Same as in Denmark. There are different small parties, but they are all centered around either Social Democrats or Venstre, and they all have the same opinions anyways. In Denmark i cant vote for a liberal party, it's all socialists. In America you cant vote for Socialists either though, the countries could learn something from eachother.
But in Denmark you have the possibility to create a new party, as liberal or conservative as you want. You can't do that in the US.
You can create as many parties as you want. There are actually a lot of political parties other then democrats or republicans.
They are much much MUCH smaller and get less votes, so everyone says if you vote for them you are throwing your vote away so people don't vote for them, they get less votes, and the cycle continues.
The government run media has a little bit to do with this problem IMO.
On November 06 2010 00:06 sleepingdog wrote: Small report on Austrian Health Care System on CNN:
Here you will learn, that the Austrian system is indeed CHEAPER simply because the US system is so inefficient!
Don't wanna seem like a smug, but I've really been into insurance law and economics a lot, have studied both law with focus on law concerning "medicine" and economics with focus on microeconomics, moral hazard, adverse selection etc. - let me tell you this:
From an law and economics point of view there is NO answer to the problem of health care that does not heavily involve the state. It goes this way: Insurance companies set a certain price level for health insurance. For the healthiest people this price will be too high, they are "too healthy" to buy even standard-priced insurance. Therefore only those who are more "risky" to get sick buy insurance, which means insurance companies have to pay more often than they want to. This screws up their pricing scheme and the prices rise. Then the "next group" of people won't buy insurance, because they don't feel like affording the insurance because they are also "quite" healthy. This leads to even higher prices, and so on until only the "very sick" people buy insurance for an insanely high price - classic adverse selection. The outcome...and now please this is important....is not ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL, this is one of the many examples, where it is scientifically proven that "free market" doesn't provide the result that is desired from a viewpoint of the whole society.
The best (and therefore: only) solution is to FORCE everybody to buy insurance, because only then the price can be kept on an optimal, desirable low level.
Many stubborn politicians in the US don't seem to understand even this simple scheme and try to argue against well-accepted economic reasoning, which is just plain stupid.
Hi, resident libertarian and Austrian Economist here. What you said isn't "well-accepted economic reasoning". I dare say it's not economical reasoning at all. 1- Insurance companies initially offer insurance at a lower, optimal rate x 2- The healthy don't buy it, but the sick do 3- The insurance realizes this increased risk and has to increase premiums or go bankrupt later 4- Rates now are higher. Answer is, government needs to force the healthy into buying insurance to keep rates lower. Is this a fair representation of your view? If so, your theory is anti-economical from the very first step. Why is the optimal rate the lower rate? You have accomplished what is called "begging the question", for the conclusion you reached is the exact premise you started with - that your subjective evaluation of optimality... is optimal. This isn't economics. In fact, the market has determined that the rate was too low, not that the stabilizing rate is too high, and the insurance company is correct in raising premiums. If anything, it is not your personal or a bureaucrat's evaluation that is optimal, it is the intersubjective price settlements carried out by voluntarily assembling market agents.
To say that your insurance rate is the optimal one, is equivalent to me saying the price of BMWs are subotimal, and therefore everyone should be forced to buy a BMW, so its prices can go down. It makes 0 sense a-priori. That prices are higher than you would like them to be doesn't prove that they are suboptimal, that is only your subjective assessment...
With that out of the way, I'm also obliged to say that the government solution doesn't make anything cheaper. It is just a reallocation scheme, like any other government scheme. Stealing money from the productive, healthy members of society, to pay for the sick and unproductive, at the state's criteria. Needless to say this also suffers from the calculation problem, where the bureaucrat most likely doesn't know what the optimal rate should be, any better than the insurers themselves, so any additional regulation is just going to stifle the market further.
It has been empirically observed that the opposite is true - when government regulates a sector, prices go Up, not down, and there are many aprioristic reasons for that. The first one I think of is, yes, the subsidized companies *could* lower prices, but *why* would them, now that they are assured an influx of customers either by force or reduced competition? Answer is, that while they could, they won't, because they don't have to. Any big insurance company in a regulated sector can only be glad that government forces people to buy into their overpriced plans.
Anyway, this is hardly a settled issue, and I will pm you links for your enjoyment. We can talk there too if you want.
To sleepingdog: I dont think you understand that microeconomics is just a bunch of assumptions that has no or little value in the real world.
And btw insurances are fine, since people are risk averse, and since insurance company are able to differentiate between customers. PRoblem of US insurance system is not that its private, but that its not private enough, but too heavily regulated.
On November 05 2010 03:48 simme123 wrote:We may have 40% taxes here in Sweden but at least we take care of the people I don't give a shit if my money goes to helping a non educated druggy they are still human and deserve a decent life.
Bolded the main point I'm commenting
I think it's interesting. Americans are already the most charitable people in the world, + Show Spoiler +
but we stop at socialism because we don't like the idea of 'forced charitableness.' If the government were more efficient at actual aid than most private donations, I would bet people would be willing to offer more of their money to the government if it went to healthcare(or what not, using that as example) for the poor/uninsured, if most of it was guaranteed to reach the poor person rather than going through so much bureaucracy that only 5 cents on the dollar(random number) actually goes to his needs.
On November 05 2010 03:48 simme123 wrote:We may have 40% taxes here in Sweden but at least we take care of the people I don't give a shit if my money goes to helping a non educated druggy they are still human and deserve a decent life.
Bolded the main point I'm commenting
I think it's interesting. Americans are already the most charitable people in the world, + Show Spoiler +
but we stop at socialism because we don't like the idea of 'forced charitableness.' If the government were more efficient at actual aid than most private donations, I would bet people would be willing to offer more of their money to the government if it went to healthcare(or what not, using that as example) for the poor/uninsured, if most of it was guaranteed to reach the poor person rather than going through so much bureaucracy that only 5 cents on the dollar(random number) actually goes to his needs.
Socialism here has become the mental opposition to the capitalistic idealism which purports to idealize greed, rational self-interest and the profit motive. It approaches the criticism in an unimaginative way. It accepts fundamentally the same premises about the economic man, only inverts his value as an evil rather than as a good. Socialism's spiritual side is also the redemption of man from sin, but it treats sin and redemption from a purely materialistic angle.
The word Charity is derived from Caritas. It's only through Caritas that anyone has a right to claim to care for others. There is the fine line from Corinthians:
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
True charity is not giving what you can spare (that is no different from gratification) but giving what you cannot spare. It is sharing the burdens of affliction and sorrow. The real poverty in the Western world is no longer the poverty of hunger or cold. It is the poverty of being ignored, unseen, unheard, and unwanted. These are real afflictions, and socialism can no more cure these ills than capitalism can.
On November 05 2010 23:12 Qzy wrote: My main problem with US (and most danish people i talk with) is the 2 party system. Most other countries has multiple parties since opinions aren't black or white.
And 1 more thing: While running for president you can receive very big support from organizations - how can this be allowed? Money shouldn't be a HUGE factor when running for anything. In Denmark (probably all EU countries?) it's not allowed to support with more than 20,000 dkr (4,000$). And EVERY single amount of money needs to be written down and accounted for. This helps to counter the possibility of firms supporting an elected president (we don't have a president, but say candidate for counselor, or whatever ours is called in English), with the INTENT to have the market changed in THEIR favor.
Meh, why am I even trying =) No one listens on a board anyhow.
Go starcraft!
But even if corporations don't influence candidates running for office, don't they send waves of lobbyists to the government in your country?
You need 30.000 signatures to even run (i believe that's the correct number).
On November 06 2010 00:05 Deadlyfish wrote:
On November 05 2010 23:12 Qzy wrote: My main problem with US (and most danish people i talk with) is the 2 party system. Most other countries has multiple parties since opinions aren't black or white.
And 1 more thing: While running for president you can receive very big support from organizations - how can this be allowed? Money shouldn't be a HUGE factor when running for anything. In Denmark (probably all EU countries?) it's not allowed to support with more than 20,000 dkr (4,000$). And EVERY single amount of money needs to be written down and accounted for. This helps to counter the possibility of firms supporting an elected president (we don't have a president, but say candidate for counselor, or whatever ours is called in English), with the INTENT to have the market changed in THEIR favor.
Meh, why am I even trying =) No one listens on a board anyhow.
Go starcraft!
2 party system? Same as in Denmark. There are different small parties, but they are all centered around either Social Democrats or Venstre, and they all have the same opinions anyways. In Denmark i cant vote for a liberal party, it's all socialists. In America you cant vote for Socialists either though, the countries could learn something from eachother.
But in Denmark you have the possibility to create a new party, as liberal or conservative as you want. You can't do that in the US.
You can create as many parties as you want. There are actually a lot of political parties other then democrats or republicans.
They are much much MUCH smaller and get less votes, so everyone says if you vote for them you are throwing your vote away so people don't vote for them, they get less votes, and the cycle continues.
The government run media has a little bit to do with this problem IMO.
The government doesn't run the media at all. The CEO's and what not of the media companies have their own interests to look out for, so they use their companies as a way of getting their ideas out to the world, but that is very different then the government trying to convince people to only vote for the two major parties.
On November 05 2010 23:12 Qzy wrote: My main problem with US (and most danish people i talk with) is the 2 party system. Most other countries has multiple parties since opinions aren't black or white.
And 1 more thing: While running for president you can receive very big support from organizations - how can this be allowed? Money shouldn't be a HUGE factor when running for anything. In Denmark (probably all EU countries?) it's not allowed to support with more than 20,000 dkr (4,000$). And EVERY single amount of money needs to be written down and accounted for. This helps to counter the possibility of firms supporting an elected president (we don't have a president, but say candidate for counselor, or whatever ours is called in English), with the INTENT to have the market changed in THEIR favor.
Meh, why am I even trying =) No one listens on a board anyhow.
Go starcraft!
But even if corporations don't influence candidates running for office, don't they send waves of lobbyists to the government in your country?
You need 30.000 signatures to even run (i believe that's the correct number).
On November 06 2010 00:05 Deadlyfish wrote:
On November 05 2010 23:12 Qzy wrote: My main problem with US (and most danish people i talk with) is the 2 party system. Most other countries has multiple parties since opinions aren't black or white.
And 1 more thing: While running for president you can receive very big support from organizations - how can this be allowed? Money shouldn't be a HUGE factor when running for anything. In Denmark (probably all EU countries?) it's not allowed to support with more than 20,000 dkr (4,000$). And EVERY single amount of money needs to be written down and accounted for. This helps to counter the possibility of firms supporting an elected president (we don't have a president, but say candidate for counselor, or whatever ours is called in English), with the INTENT to have the market changed in THEIR favor.
Meh, why am I even trying =) No one listens on a board anyhow.
Go starcraft!
2 party system? Same as in Denmark. There are different small parties, but they are all centered around either Social Democrats or Venstre, and they all have the same opinions anyways. In Denmark i cant vote for a liberal party, it's all socialists. In America you cant vote for Socialists either though, the countries could learn something from eachother.
But in Denmark you have the possibility to create a new party, as liberal or conservative as you want. You can't do that in the US.
You can create as many parties as you want. There are actually a lot of political parties other then democrats or republicans.
They are much much MUCH smaller and get less votes, so everyone says if you vote for them you are throwing your vote away so people don't vote for them, they get less votes, and the cycle continues.
The government run media has a little bit to do with this problem IMO.
The government doesn't run the media at all. The CEO's and what not of the media companies have their own interests to look out for, so they use their companies as a way of getting their ideas out to the world, but that is very different then the government trying to convince people to only vote for the two major parties.
Yeah and none of those corporations have ex board of director members sitting in congress, or have lobbies in congress, or anything like that, and you don't have to go through the FCC to even get on the air...
Just be honest, the two party situation is a win-win for government/media corporations and a lose/lose for anyone that actually wants a better society.
Status quo ALWAYS best serves those with the most money and power, and they will use that money and power to help MAINTAIN the status quo instead of letting ideas out that could drastically change things. It's completely natural and incentive based when you think about it.
On November 05 2010 23:47 Promises wrote: I'm usually actually pretty surprised at how the more right-wing part seems to portray "Socialism" (the brackets are there because what they call Socialism a major part of the rest of the world just views as fairly normal society) as some kind of hellish, diabolical system and a pool of drugs, violence etc. The Democratic party in America is actually pretty right-wing in comparison to almost every party in the Netherlands, and it's not exactly as if our crimerates (or drug-abuse etc) are higher then those of America.
Apart from that the main thing that amazes me is the amount of shit-throwing and completely unfounded bashes the parties throw at eachother (from what I've seen more the Republicans then the Democrats but I might not know the full story), altho I do notice a trend in Dutch politics for this to happen aswell, altho unfounded dung-flinging is punished quite badly; making unfounded statements is a big loss in credibility.
There's one thing I hate about American politics and thats the influence of Religion. While there is an constitutional law that Religion and Government should be seperate, in I think 6 states you cant get into office if your not Christian? Still quabling about gay marriage and abortion? That sort of stuff belongs in another century, its amazing it's still holding on in the US.
America was founded on religious freedom, so religion is still somewhat important.
i'm not really sure what that sentence is supposed to mean. you here often that america was founded as christian, which actually is totally wrong. you guys were born as a completely secular country.
Jefferson himself was an atheist. at least tehre are plenty of quotes that leads one to believe he was.
I think it's thought that Madison (the guy who drafted the Constitution) was an atheist as well.
Edit: I think what Scruffy was trying to say is that people originally came here for religious freedom, so it's kind of a big deal. Sorry if I was wrong, Scruffy D:
You sir, are correct. I was referring to the original Puritans, breaking away from the Anglican Church. I know my American History, damnit Jefferson considered himself a deist, as did Ben Franklin and other important figures in the US founding. Deists (i think) believe that God is like a watchmaker. He set the earth and time in motion, and let everything work itself out. On Wikipedia, it says James Madison's religion is unknown, possible meaning he had no religion (or he didn't profess faith publicly).
Madison was most certainly a Christian who professed his Christianity ardently.
The Pilgrims did not break away from the Anglican Church, they accepted the Anglican Church but rejected the conservatism of its reformation. In other words, they were English Calvinists who rejected the Elizabethan settlement. It was the Pilgrims who broke away from the Anglican Church and settled in New England. It would be too far to say that they conducted the expedition for sake of "religious freedom;" they were not in danger in England. It would be more accurate to say that they rejected the religious compromise in England, and therefore left to establish their own ideal society. The Pilgrims were not pluralists; they permitted no dissent from their ranks.
Religious pluralism in America was an unconscious evolution of history, not a founding doctrine.
On November 05 2010 23:12 Qzy wrote: My main problem with US (and most danish people i talk with) is the 2 party system. Most other countries has multiple parties since opinions aren't black or white.
And 1 more thing: While running for president you can receive very big support from organizations - how can this be allowed? Money shouldn't be a HUGE factor when running for anything. In Denmark (probably all EU countries?) it's not allowed to support with more than 20,000 dkr (4,000$). And EVERY single amount of money needs to be written down and accounted for. This helps to counter the possibility of firms supporting an elected president (we don't have a president, but say candidate for counselor, or whatever ours is called in English), with the INTENT to have the market changed in THEIR favor.
Meh, why am I even trying =) No one listens on a board anyhow.
Go starcraft!
But even if corporations don't influence candidates running for office, don't they send waves of lobbyists to the government in your country?
You need 30.000 signatures to even run (i believe that's the correct number).
On November 06 2010 00:05 Deadlyfish wrote:
On November 05 2010 23:12 Qzy wrote: My main problem with US (and most danish people i talk with) is the 2 party system. Most other countries has multiple parties since opinions aren't black or white.
And 1 more thing: While running for president you can receive very big support from organizations - how can this be allowed? Money shouldn't be a HUGE factor when running for anything. In Denmark (probably all EU countries?) it's not allowed to support with more than 20,000 dkr (4,000$). And EVERY single amount of money needs to be written down and accounted for. This helps to counter the possibility of firms supporting an elected president (we don't have a president, but say candidate for counselor, or whatever ours is called in English), with the INTENT to have the market changed in THEIR favor.
Meh, why am I even trying =) No one listens on a board anyhow.
Go starcraft!
2 party system? Same as in Denmark. There are different small parties, but they are all centered around either Social Democrats or Venstre, and they all have the same opinions anyways. In Denmark i cant vote for a liberal party, it's all socialists. In America you cant vote for Socialists either though, the countries could learn something from eachother.
But in Denmark you have the possibility to create a new party, as liberal or conservative as you want. You can't do that in the US.
You can create as many parties as you want. There are actually a lot of political parties other then democrats or republicans.
They are much much MUCH smaller and get less votes, so everyone says if you vote for them you are throwing your vote away so people don't vote for them, they get less votes, and the cycle continues.
The government run media has a little bit to do with this problem IMO.
The government doesn't run the media at all. The CEO's and what not of the media companies have their own interests to look out for, so they use their companies as a way of getting their ideas out to the world, but that is very different then the government trying to convince people to only vote for the two major parties.
Yeah and none of those corporations have ex board of director members sitting in congress, or have lobbies in congress, or anything like that, and you don't have to go through the FCC to even get on the air...
Just be honest, the two party situation is a win-win for government/media corporations and a lose/lose for anyone that actually wants a better society.
Status quo ALWAYS best serves those with the most money and power, and they will use that money and power to help MAINTAIN the status quo instead of letting ideas out that could drastically change things. It's completely natural and incentive based when you think about it.
I never said that corporations do not try and affect change(or lack of change) in the government. Actually I said that they do try to do exactly that.
The CEO's and what not of the media companies have their own interests to look out for, so they use their companies as a way of getting their ideas out to the world
However there is a big difference between the government, using public money(taxes), to try and convince people there are only two parties, and some private citizen spending his private money to say the same thing. The end result might be the same, but in one case you are saying the government is actively trying to maintain the status quo, and isn't a government "for the people, by the people" and in the other case its a private citizen, who is one of the people, who is using his disproportionately large amount of money/power to keep the current climate, which is favorable to them, as it is.
The US actually has very little state control on the media, we aren't the best in the world, but its far from the worst.
Status quo ALWAYS best serves those with the most money and power, and they will use that money and power to help MAINTAIN the status quo instead of letting ideas out that could drastically change things. It's completely natural and incentive based when you think about it.
Open a history book. You'll notice that those who suffer the most from "drastic change" are not those with money and power (who generally have the capability of cushioning any blow) but rather poor people. In general, all Western governments and institutions are "conservative" in the sense that it is very, very difficult to make "drastic changes," because drastic change means change without concern for the consequences. In fact, given how utterly rich the entire Western world is (even poor people in Western society are extremely rich by historical standards), any call for "drastic change" is foolhardy.
The American bi-cameral system is slightly more conservative than the Parliamentary system. It was designed that way on purpose. On the margins, it can be a little frustrating when policy moves so slow, but overall, it has tended to work fairly well.
Status quo ALWAYS best serves those with the most money and power, and they will use that money and power to help MAINTAIN the status quo instead of letting ideas out that could drastically change things. It's completely natural and incentive based when you think about it.
Open a history book. You'll notice that those who suffer the most from "drastic change" are not those with money and power (who generally have the capability of cushioning any blow) but rather poor people. In general, all Western governments and institutions are "conservative" in the sense that it is very, very difficult to make "drastic changes," because drastic change means change without concern for the consequences. In fact, given how utterly rich the entire Western world is (even poor people in Western society are extremely rich by historical standards), any call for "drastic change" is foolhardy.
The American bi-cameral system is slightly more conservative than the Parliamentary system. It was designed that way on purpose.
It doesn't matter who suffer's the most, the point is they do not want to suffer AT ALL (living "modestly" on $500,000 a year would be suffering to these people, we are talking about the wealthiest people in the world) and they have the money and power to make it happen most of the time. As far is who is suffering the most, that is ALWAYS happening, not in times of drastic change. The drastic change is usually just a flip of who is causing it all. Look around the world, you don't need a history book, groups of people have their entire way of life destroyed on a constant basis. Look at the wealth of western society and look at the suffering it causes to ensure it maintains that wealth, a call for drastic change is completely sane if you care about humanity.
Seriously get real, works really well for who?? The people at the far end of US bombs, that's who.
I don't even want to get started about US wealth either, because it is going downhill fast and the ingenuity that created it is long gone.
Status quo ALWAYS best serves those with the most money and power, and they will use that money and power to help MAINTAIN the status quo instead of letting ideas out that could drastically change things. It's completely natural and incentive based when you think about it.
Open a history book. You'll notice that those who suffer the most from "drastic change" are not those with money and power (who generally have the capability of cushioning any blow) but rather poor people. In general, all Western governments and institutions are "conservative" in the sense that it is very, very difficult to make "drastic changes," because drastic change means change without concern for the consequences. In fact, given how utterly rich the entire Western world is (even poor people in Western society are extremely rich by historical standards), any call for "drastic change" is foolhardy.
The American bi-cameral system is slightly more conservative than the Parliamentary system. It was designed that way on purpose.
It doesn't matter who suffer's the most, the point is they do not want to suffer AT ALL (living "modestly" on $500,000 a year would be suffering to these people, we are talking about the wealthiest people in the world) and they have the money and power to make it happen most of the time. As far is who is suffering the most, that is ALWAYS happening, not in times of drastic change. The drastic change is usually just a flip of who is causing it all. Look around the world, you don't need a history book, groups of people have their entire way of life destroyed on a constant basis. Look at the wealth of western society and look at the suffering it causes to ensure it maintains that wealth, a call for drastic change is completely sane if you care about humanity.
Seriously get real, works really well for who?? The people at the far end of US bombs, that's who.
I don't even want to get started about US wealth either, because it is going downhill fast and the ingenuity that created it is long gone.
What are you talking about? American wealth doesn't strictly "come at the cost" of other countries. And it should be said that America gives lots of money to developing nations to help out. This is ludicrous. This is just demonizing America and western wealth in general.
No, you don't need to take money from others to make money. That's not the way economics works. Everyone can make wealth at the same time. Everyone can lose wealth at the same time. It's not zero sum.
Well, i have molyneux's view on politics in generall; voting booth = the suggestion box for slaves. All politicians are a complete joke, no exceptions. SO yes American politics are a failure but its not like the rest of the world is any different.
Democracy is the ideology where you get to vote on your dictator. And yes im an anarchist.
Status quo ALWAYS best serves those with the most money and power, and they will use that money and power to help MAINTAIN the status quo instead of letting ideas out that could drastically change things. It's completely natural and incentive based when you think about it.
Open a history book. You'll notice that those who suffer the most from "drastic change" are not those with money and power (who generally have the capability of cushioning any blow) but rather poor people. In general, all Western governments and institutions are "conservative" in the sense that it is very, very difficult to make "drastic changes," because drastic change means change without concern for the consequences. In fact, given how utterly rich the entire Western world is (even poor people in Western society are extremely rich by historical standards), any call for "drastic change" is foolhardy.
The American bi-cameral system is slightly more conservative than the Parliamentary system. It was designed that way on purpose.
It doesn't matter who suffer's the most, the point is they do not want to suffer AT ALL (living "modestly" on $500,000 a year would be suffering to these people, we are talking about the wealthiest people in the world) and they have the money and power to make it happen most of the time. As far is who is suffering the most, that is ALWAYS happening, not in times of drastic change. The drastic change is usually just a flip of who is causing it all. Look around the world, you don't need a history book, groups of people have their entire way of life destroyed on a constant basis. Look at the wealth of western society and look at the suffering it causes to ensure it maintains that wealth, a call for drastic change is completely sane if you care about humanity.
Seriously get real, works really well for who?? The people at the far end of US bombs, that's who.
I don't even want to get started about US wealth either, because it is going downhill fast and the ingenuity that created it is long gone.
What are you talking about? American wealth doesn't strictly "come at the cost" of other countries. And it should be said that America gives lots of money to developing nations to help out. This is ludicrous. This is just demonizing America and western wealth in general.
No, you don't need to take money from others to make money. That's not the way economics works. Everyone can make wealth at the same time. Everyone can lose wealth at the same time. It's not zero sum.
The US has military bases in over 170 different countries around the world. That is the cost of American wealth, it requires an empire. They told you it was a democracy in school (or maybe even republic lolz) but don't be fooled, it looks like an empire, it acts like an empire, it's an empire.
The money "America" (it's government) gives to "developing nations" (their government) to help out is nothing but bribes to foreign governments to get them to line up with American policy. It almost always hurts the common people of that country. It's basically a "we'll pay you this if you let us screw over your population...and if you say no we'll send in the military so you might as well say yes" type of deal. Oh and American taxpayer's have to pay for it too, so the common people get screwed on both ends while the government grows more powerful as usual.
Just look at the situation with Iran. For awhile they had been "offereing" to pay them money and let them run their nuclear power - that way Iran gets some chump change but becomes more and more dependent on the west at the same time. They say no, we want do it ourselves Then the US/Israel threatens with bombs. It's how they do business. It's obvious if you actually pay attention instead of trusting what they say.
It's not how economics "works", it's one of the ways it can work, and it's the way America has chosen to do business. They use their world wide prowess to setup "sanctions" and starve their opponents out, and when that doesn't work they send in the military. Story of Iraq for the past 15-20 years. It's how Keynesian economics works and it's what our financial system is based on.
This is just the demonizing of America? I just call things as they are, I'm not the one who did it, and the US government has been doing some horrible things nearly unchallenged for awhile now.
On November 06 2010 03:43 Celadan wrote: Well, i have molyneux's view on politics in generall; voting booth = the suggestion box for slaves. All politicians are a complete joke, no exceptions. SO yes American politics are a failure but its not like the rest of the world is any different.
Democracy is the ideology where you get to vote on your dictator. And yes im an anarchist.
Molyneux does have some pretty cool ideas, though I don't agree with him completely.
On November 06 2010 03:43 Celadan wrote: Well, i have molyneux's view on politics in generall; voting booth = the suggestion box for slaves. All politicians are a complete joke, no exceptions. SO yes American politics are a failure but its not like the rest of the world is any different.
Democracy is the ideology where you get to vote on your dictator. And yes im an anarchist.
That is one of the most silly things i have ever read. The definition of a dictator is that you cant vote for them. + a democracy isnt voting for a person, it's about empowering the people to decide how they want the country run, basically 100% power to the people.
Also, "All politicians are a complete joke, no exceptions" - do you know all politicians? Otherwise this makes no sense to say.
On November 06 2010 03:43 Celadan wrote: Well, i have molyneux's view on politics in generall; voting booth = the suggestion box for slaves. All politicians are a complete joke, no exceptions. SO yes American politics are a failure but its not like the rest of the world is any different.
Democracy is the ideology where you get to vote on your dictator. And yes im an anarchist.
That is one of the most silly things i have ever read. The definition of a dictator is that you cant vote for them. + a democracy isnt voting for a person, it's about empowering the people to decide how they want the country run, basically 100% power to the people.
Also, "All politicians are a complete joke, no exceptions" - do you know all politicians? Otherwise this makes no sense to say.
No, a dictator is someone who has power over you. If you're vote cannot directly alter their dominance over your life, and it can't, then they have absolute power over you.
If I told you all car thieves were jokes, would you ask me if I knew them all?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v4yUV.jpg)
Jefferson considered himself a deist, as did Ben Franklin and other important figures in the US founding. Deists (i think) believe that God is like a watchmaker. He set the earth and time in motion, and let everything work itself out. On Wikipedia, it says James Madison's religion is unknown, possible meaning he had no religion (or he didn't profess faith publicly).
