waitforufo

I have no problem with *mandatory* community service as long as any employment requiring the employed to fill out a W-4 form is considered community service. So if a teen or college student takes a job working at the car wash, super market, McDonalds, or any other tax paying job is considered to be providing the community with a service by contributing to the nations GDP, I have no problem. This seems but a small concession to those that think work should be paid for.

The whole procreation argument has to do with survival of the clan or state. The ancient Greeks required all citizens to procreate regardless of their sexual orientation, and they had no problem with same sex orientation. So a citizen may have been married to an opposite sex spouse, they may also have had a same sex partner. Something our puritan culture would not accept. Today our populations are big enough that heterosexuals within a state can easily sustain the clan or culture. Whether they choose to do so is a different matter. Some in Europe claim that they choose not to. One argument I have heard from those apposed to gay marriage, is along the lines of opposition to political correctness. They argue that the word "marriage" has a meaning and that meaning should not be changed because some find offense in the definition. Everyone knows this meaning, and changing this meaning is nothing but Orwellian newspeak. Most of these people claim to have no problem with gays having legal "Domestic Partnerships" with rights defined identically to "Marriage." In fact, they claim that they would have no problem with a law that said the rights of legal domestic partners shall not be differentiated with those of legally married couples. I guess they don't understand that "separate but equal" never really works out.

I was obviously talking about the choice of getting married. I don't believe gays choose to be homosexual. But if they did the same rule applies. How does that choice impact my liberty? It doesn't so choose away. I think it was September 12, 1967. Something about the Mary Ann Summers (Dawn Wells) on Gilligan's Island. I still think it is surprising that a population so familiar with discrimination would jump at the chance to do it themselves.

Our country was founded on the principal that everyone has the liberty to do what they choose as long as their choices do not infringe on the liberty of others. I don't see how a gay couple marrying infringes on the liberty of heterosexuals marrying. Since it does not, stopping gay marriage is immoral. So why are the Mormons interested in stopping gay marriage? I'm sure it is because they don't want their tax dollars supporting something they think is immoral. Just like the Catholics don't want tax supported abortion. Take that reasoning to its extreme however, and the government can't do anything. There are lots of Mormons in California. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act Which is a strange law indeed. I find it interesting that Prop 8 passed during this election cycle. Obama received 61% of the vote in California. Prop 8 received 52.5%. Lots of Obama voters must have voted for Prop 8. Lots of minority voters must have voted for Prop 8. I would have thought that Obama's coattails would have defeated Prop 8.

I get the IEEE Vehicular Technology journal because I work in wireless and as I mentioned this journal covers mobile wireless topics as well as automated cars. I read the automated car articles because it is an interesting engineering problem. I hope you did not get the impression that I am against this idea. I am not. As I mentioned, several years ago many automated car articles were on the topic of radars. The ones I read, and I read many, always seemed to find more problems than solutions. Many of these problems involved objects that humans could easily identify as harmless, caused radar based vehicle control system to stop the vehicle or at least disengage the automatic system. One I did not mention in my previous post was oncoming traffic particularly on curved roads. Such oncoming traffic would easily pass but would appear as a quickly approaching potential accident. One also has to consider the liability of system failure to the manufacturer. If GM or Toyota built such a system and an accident occurs with the system on, will they be willing to accept the liability? In recent years great strides have been made location services. GPS is but one. Roadside tags and vehicle to vehicle communications systems will move this technology ahead quickly. Combining these systems with radar should provide a means to overcome many of the radar only system problems of the past. As I said however, I don't see articles on this topic. On a positive note, the IEEE Vehicular Technology society journal continues to publish articles in this field. The research is well funded. The corporations investing in this area must see some promise, or they would not continue funding. I expect in a few years advanced cruse control systems that incorporate location services and vehicle to vehicle communications. I don't see a day when you can take your hands off the wheel.

The IEEE has a Vehicular Technology Society which publishes a peer reviewed journal on this topic. (This journal also covers wireless technology back from the days when wireless phones were called "mobile phones.") Recent trends in this area include vehicle positioning and wireless vehicle-to-vehicle communication. Positioning is done by GPS, Wireless (vehicle location relative to base stations), and location RF tags. Location RF tags seem to be the hot item at the moment. At one time people considered imbedding these in the roadway lane centers, but today they talk more about positioning them periodically or pseudo randomly along the roadway. This simplifies servicing. Wireless vehicle-to-vehicle communication would be done with something like Bluetooth or Zigbee (but faster) creating an ad hoc mesh network amongst vehicle neighbors. That way if someone many vehicles ahead of you does something, your vehicle knows about it. Control systems are then built to maintain speed, keep safe distances between vehicles, and keep everyone on the road. Problems? Well, if someone doesn't have the equipment or their system is broken, they are not part of the mesh. Unexpected obstacles are unknown to the system. Vehicle reactions could be recorded by roadside mesh systems and information could be provided to later vehicles but this means roadside RF tags need to be more than just "tags." RF tag and vehicle system maintenance can be an issue. Finally people need to be able to over ride the system for various reasons most of which are safety. This however also means people will exploit the over ride for their own selfish interests. In the past, quite a bit of research was performed on radar systems for road based vehicles. I don't think any of this worked out. One of the big problems was curves in the road. Poles supporting signs and guardrails look like road obstacles when the vehicle is going around a curve. If brakes were included in the control system, vehicles were always stopping quickly on curves. Combining radar with the newer concepts? Perhaps, but I don't see many papers on this topic. I'm not sure why. Perhaps they don't provide enough benefit to offset the cost.

I agree with you completely. My argument is that by doing these things the government is not necessarily socialistic, or to some degree socialistic. Such arguments are simply lazy or deceptive.

I was quoting iNow's post 51. iNow was quoting G. Will. For their domestic economies, fascist in the 30's did all the things you and iNow claim as socialistic. They subsidized farmers, they supported public education, they had public works projects and so on. In fact, much of what the fascists did, like they continue to do today, is support those with wealth through government policy. It is through that path that they stay in power. I would argue that the why it is done, is more important than the how it's done.

How is socialism for the strong" not better described as fascism?

My favorite part of wardrobe-gate is when people talk about how only a loophole in the law allows republicans to purchase Palin clothes for campaign appearances. The "loophole" is that Palin must give the clothes to charity after the campaign. Well last I checked, loopholes such as these have a name. They are called following the law. Also, campaign collectables such as clothing always fetch high prices at auction. Why people buy crap like that, I have no idea, but they do. My guess is they will raise quite a bit of money for charity after the election. Particularly if the unlikely happens, and McCain is elected. (I don't recall, but how much did Bill Clinton claim his warn out boxer shorts were worth?) Remind me again, why are people even talking about this?

I did not mean to offend you. The word "exploit" in my opinion has pejorative connotations.

Okay I'll play your little game, but perhaps you could give a bit more definition. In a previous post I mentioned that I thought defining all aspects of government altruism as socialistic was simply a convenience. If you take such convenience too far it is just lazy. Let me give a few examples. Fascist in the 30's favored price supports and farm subsidies. They also had significant public works projects. So I ask you, what percentage of Fascism is socialistic? The whole concept seems to be an oxymoron. The Roman Empire provided bread and circuses for its citizens. These benefits were paid for by exploiting conquered peoples and nations. Slavery existing in the Roman Empire to the extent that watching slaves being murdered was considered public entertainment. Can such a system be described as partially socialist? I think if you are not careful, you will decide that all systems are mostly socialist. Regardless of the amount of pubic supported altruism they have, most in fact are not socialistic.

McCain's policies and his VP choice are real issues. So yes, lets talk about real issues.

With such a negative world view, it must be difficult to get up in the morning. I have never considered myself exploited by my offspring, wife, or parents. These people have always been loving and supporting. When my offspring were children and adolescents they needed more support then they do today as young adults, but since I chose to have them, and love them very much, I never felt exploited. Since I, like most, work voluntarily and have changed jobs to suite my own needs, I don't know how such a situation can be called exploitive. (Yes, I do have to work to provide the necessities of life for me and my family.) Employers in a capitalist economy, in my opinion, provide opportunities. I don't see how that would be much different in a Socialist economy. At least in the Socialist economy to which iNow's question is directed. What's wrong with Socialism? In this topic several opinions have been given. 1) I produces dependence, not independence 2) It produces mistrust and animosity between members of society. 3) Perhaps it fosters depression in individuals as well.

Again, all about Joe. Little about Obama's answer.

But why was the information leaked, and who did it benefit? Why is it so important to discredit "Joe?" A candidate came to his street uninvited seeking questions from real people. Is this how such a person should be treated? His question was no big a deal. The candidate's answer is why "Joe's" information was leaked. Everyone should be repulsed by how this common citizen is being treated.

$150k is chump change in this political season. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/15/ad.spending/ I can't believe anyone is even talking about this.

The link in my post works fine for me:confused: In this political season there has been much discussion about what people yell out at stump speaches. I think commenting on govenment workers leaking private citizen information is fair game.

Government computers used to find information on Joe the Plumber http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101 speaks for itself.

iNow began this topic by asking "what's wrong with socialism" and is socialism "inherently bad" as it is often described or implied. ParanoiA suggests that the coercive altruism of socialism produces an indifference to societal problems. Societal problems are no longer personal but governmental. (iNow and ParanoiA, please correct me if I am not paraphrasing you incorrectly.) I believe the point ParanoiA is making is in the same vain as my own. Socialism seems to break the natural order of human relationships and human community. Instead of binding us closer together, as it is intended, it seems to make us, at best indifferent, and at worst mistrustful. If this is indeed the case, then Socialism is inherently bad. If Socialism does indeed produce the results I mention above, a good question to ask would be why? I have argued that it has to do with some basic aspect of human nature. Government cannot undo millions of years of evolution by enacting a law. Asking humans to live under socialism is then akin to expecting a fresh water fish to live in saltwater. Attempting to do so would be inherently bad. Finally, in this topic there has been a discussion of the degree of Socialism, with the maximum being 100%. I have engaged in this myself. I think however its wrong to describe all forms of government provided altruism as a degree or percentage of Socialism. Such descriptions, in my opinion, are done simply for convenience.

So the purpose of government is to pay people not to rob us?

This is a very good point. My understanding from working with people in more socialistic systems (like Sweden) is that very few people give money to charity. Several Swedes I work with claim that charitable giving is Sweden is very low.

These people are admired because their sacrifices are their own. Under socialism there is no sacrifice. Socialism produces an abundance of non staving misunderstood artists. "From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs" always produces an abundance of needy people without abilities. Don't get me wrong. I do believe that all humans depend on a proper level societal altruism to flourish. Socialism errors on the side of too much. If you look at most western democracies with capitalistic economies the level seems about appropriate. The young, old, and infirm are the primary benefactors of altruism. Productive people who experience some form of unexpected catastrophe are also helped. The level of support however is always kept to the bear minimum to prevent producing dependence.

Even with socialism light (<20 % ?) human altruism has a time limit for the able bodied. You say… With respect to education, even children have to work to achieve an educated status. With respect to medicine and food, particularly for those yet to reach adulthood, these people can be considered less than able bodied. If you are an adult in good health and capable of becoming educated you better be contributing or you will be shunned. It's just human nature.

Very well put. Without a profit motive, there is much less incentive to create wealth. You can't spread it if you don't make it. Going out on a limb, it goes against human nature. Humans are wary of parasites. Those that don't contribute are shunned. If there is no incentive to contribute, fewer do, and animosity builds within the community. Human altruism has a time limit for able bodied people. That's why most of the hippy communes failed.