JustinW

Phi,

 

Yes, but you seemed to think the views you shared about "culling the herd" and such were more than that, otherwise why bring them up?

Because I was trying to prove the point that one persons view of right and wrong may be different from another, and for that reason right and wrong are not set in stone.

 

My views on abortion are NOT shared by the majority of people with whom I associate.

And they are also not shared by the majority in the US. Your views on abortion spur from rational reasoning. That I get. Let me ask you this: Did you get in the habit of using rational thought to make your decisions on your own, or do you think you might have been influenced to do so by a person or event in your life? Also, do most of those that you associate with have high standards where viewpoints based on rationality are conscerned? What I'm getting at is that this rational thought that you base your views on are more than likely shared (if not a specific viewpoint) by a majority of those you associate with. I don't know...It was just a thought, and the further I take it, the less sense it makes. I hate it when that happens. I think I had a notion that the way people think about the decisions they make might work in the same way as behaviors are learned from those around you. Anyway...maybe, maybe not.

 

I'm reminded of a recent post from a creationist where he asked why we don't all have wings by now if evolution was true.

Did you tell him it was because you can't find a cupcake in the sky?

 

 

At just flattened at!,

One thing is for certain though I think we need more natural selection in our current society, half the people I meet should be left outside in the cold or eaten by a bear.

If there wasn't any truth to this statement so many people wouldn't think it all the time. It does seem like we're making it easier and easier for the dreggs of society to be more comfortable. Almost to the point of being just as comfortable as the middle class people that work there ass off just to get by. If it gets too much worse I may have to jump in with the dreggs just out of spite.

Just hope people aren't evading the question....

Phi,

 

People, real people, want security and longevity for their hard work, not short-sighted executives who will sell them out to leverage a quick sale that makes them billions NOW but leaves destitute all the workers who were willing to sweat to make them hundreds of billions in the long run.

It's wierd how an individual would willing work for someone like that. It seems to me that they are free to work where they choose. I know, I know, the economy is in a state that makes it difficult for people to make that kind of choice. But the freedom of choice is still there.

 

 

I don't believe in too-big-to-fail and bailouts, and I also don't believe in too big to prosecute either, but Wall street wants to have their cake and eat it too.

I don't either. I believe in no bailouts what-so-ever, and prosecuting ANY one who breaks the law. There are no ifs ands or buts about that. It should be cut and dry.

 

 

Both of us seem to love our country, but I think things are pretty shitty right now and you don't.

I don't think we disagree about things being shitty either. I just think we disagree about how to go about fixing them.

 

 

I really think you're conflating some of the businesses you've worked for

Maybe to some degree.

 

 

with these mega-corporations that can buy political influence and change laws for profit no matter what the cost is to We, the People.

And I've already agreed that this practice shouldn't go on. I've already stated that business shouldn't manipulate policy. I feel that if there is a real issue affecting business, they can take that up the way us regular citezens do.

Phi,

 

An attitude that blinds you to the fact that I wasn't objecting to how much cash they had, I was objecting to their gripes that the restrictions were stifling their business, WHILE in reality they're sitting on more cash than ever before. It's a two-faced lie, just to make even more money by whining. You're the one who says business isn't about fair, but apparently businesses can whine about it and that's OK by you.

Ignoring people that whine is a daily obstacle for me.

 

 

But the regulations in question weren't designed to grow jobs, so it's not "the flip side" of anything. It was a broken promise that relaxed regs would create jobs, nothing more.

I'm not so sure it's that cut and dry. I think we would have to look at what industry that was deregulated and look at job growth in that specific industry. Just because people lost jobs and boosted the unemployment rate doesn't necessarily mean that deregulation didn't boost job growth in the businesses that were deregulated.

 

Then we'll be free to concentrate on other things that should matter to our freedom.

This kind of falls in line with a question I asked in post #22 that went unanswered.

 

Here's the question

Some who argue for government to run certain things say that if the government can take care of something, you no longer need to worry about it, which leaves you more freedom to do other things. I beg to hear some examples of where this is true. Do people in more socialistic countries make more of themselves than those in capitalist countries?

 

Can you answer this with any amount of certainty?

But doesn't killing leave the strong and get rid of the weak?

Not necessarily. Different people have different strengths. A rocket scientist may get offed by a brute that's dumber than mud. I think with all the different attributes of a species that murder is overall detrimental to it's growth.

Phi,

 

This is a pretty common misconception. In reality though, many economists think it was pressure on the SEC in 2004 to relax the rules that allowed investment banks to increase the level of debt they took on, which in turn increased the number of mortgage-backed securities supporting those toxic mortgages which lead to the financial crisis.

Yeah, while those same people blame that on the very people that were shouting that we had a problem. As far as I recall.

 

 

How can you call this a one-way street? Business is always going to exploit what they are able to, that's just the nature of the game. They're always going to complain that it's not enough, because they've proven that they can make a profit this way. Spend some money on lobbying to relax the rules, and get a nice hefty ROI on the investment.

Sure. I believe we agree on the lobbying issue. Which is a real issue and I believe leans towards criminality in some instances.

 

If you relax the rules too much, you get problems. Look at the insane amounts of profit and cash most of the big corporations are sitting on and then tell me we have a problem with too much restriction of business.

You'll never get me to agree to an argument based on how much cash someone has.

 

 

Look at unemployment and tell me their promises that less restriction means more jobs is true.

The flip side is just as good an argument. Further restrictions wouldn't ensure job growth, and it is known that companies have been known to pick up and move over restrictions, and that's just one example.

 

There is enough for everyone in an economy as big as ours, but we need to be able to help each other out, that's what Americans do.

Yes there is enough for those who are willing to work for it. And Americans do help out, but I would think that help is limited to those who truly need it, and not helping just for the sake of helping.

 

 

Social programs and government-backed regulations that keep us free from excessive exploitation are absolutely necessary if we're to stand together as the great nation we want to be.

This as a generality I can see your point, but would have to look at it situation by situation in order to make any decision on.

Phi,

 

Those are still justifications.

Anything that anyone says that support their views of right and wrong are justifications.

 

 

For instance, aborting an unborn child repulses me personally. For me, I would have to say it would be the wrong thing to do. But I can rationally allow that giving a woman the right to do as she chooses with her own body, including the potential for life she is harboring, is the right thing to do. Abortion at a predetermined stage in a pregnancy is not murder to me. I override my "feelings" and permit rational thought to support the freedoms and strengths that make my society function.

I would have to say that this is still not a feeling that the majority have. So this couldn't be an influence to you by majority feeling. This would have to be an influence of a majority of those who you associate with. I think that would be more accurate. Which is understandable when talking about how someone can be influenced by a majority. It is not the majority as a whole, but rather a majority of those that are interacted with.

 

 

At just flattened at!,

Can you give me a reason why abortion or any crime for that matter is wrong? And I mean without taking a perspective at all.

Yes, murder for that matter can be looked at in a way that is subjectively wrong. Because, it is detrimental to the growth of a species. Things that can be looked at subjectively, I think can be determined to be right or wrong. But you'll find in most cases that feelings enter into peoples minds when making decisions. Not to bring politics in the mix, but this is what always get's me about politics. People want to argue a change that is based off of their feelings of right and wrong, but they want to do so from a subjective viewpoint. It's kind of contradicting in my mind at times.

Phi,

 

So you approve of some of the tricks Romney used to make money for his investors, like buying a company that employs thousands of Americans, then bleeding off its cash and forcing it to take on the debts of some of his other holdings, then taking a big tax write-off when it's forced to close its doors and kick those workers to the curb? Is that your idea of free-market capitalism? I think it's horrible when the real heroes of the American economy, those businesses that not only play by the rules but also by the spirit of the rules, are getting hedged out by these mega-corporations that just pay to re-write the rules when it suits them.

While I can see your point on this, and even though I think it sucks, I still don't think the solution is government control. Could it be argued that those companies were not as profitable as people think and that the dismantleing of those companies was the best solution from a profit perspective if not inevitable sometime in the future? Seeing a company lose it's workers is hard, but that has been the way of business from the beginning. It seems that you present your argument from a perspective of fairness, without objectively looking at the situation. Anyone that loses their job would look upon it as unfair, as would the eople who empathize with them. But if we start arguing right and wrong from that perspective then no company will ever go under or dismantle. This was one big issue with me during the bailouts. I was strictly against such an act and felt that it would have cleansed the economy rather than boost it.(which there hasn't been much boosting as a result has there?)

 

 

Do you think any Clear Channel news editor would ever run a story about a Bain Capital holding that laid off a thousand workers and sent their jobs overseas right at Christmas time? Owning 850 radio stations means no one who counts on you for news is ever going to hear a bad word about your other companies.

I think to support your statement, it would have to be shown that clearchannel stations were pounding other companies on a certain subject while ignoring Bain Capitol of commiting the same offenses. Is that happening?

 

Do you think they would ever run an op-ed piece on how strange it is that the GOP is backing a candidate who is one of the Wall Street kingpin crowd that the majority of economists on the planet says was instrumental in causing the 2008 financial crisis that cost 8,000,000 American jobs adn plunged the whole world into turmoil? They don't have to lie to misuse the power of the press. They can simply not report things they think will harm their employer's other businesses.

 

From a list of their companies: The firm was founded in 1984 by partners from the consulting firm Bain & Company. Since inception it has invested in or acquired hundreds of companies including such notable companies as AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.

 

It doesn't seem like THIS wall street kingpin had anything to do with the financial crisis. Why make the connection?

 

Information is power and the media shapes public opinion which elects our legislators. Tell me you see how reducing competition and allowing these companies unbridled access to our lawmakers is a huge conflict of interest, PLEASE!

Yes, I do see your point. I just don't think that government control over who says what is any better. These companies may have reduced owners, but they have also managed to prosper in the employment of thousands of more people. Plus I think you're blowing the level of media coverage out of portion. The majority of media that catches my attention is that which opposes conservatives more than promotes them. Now I have absolutely no proof that this is the case, but that is just my perspective when I think about it.

 

Is that what you think, that once a regulation is in place that "they are hardly ever given any relief"?! What about the people those regs protect? What happens when politicians gut the regulations like Bush II did, to give these corporations some "relief"? Did that end up solving any problems for anybody but the guys at the top? How has that worked out for us?

You're going to have to be more specific. I'm clear on exactly what angle of business we are arguing with this statement.

I want to talk a little bit about a more socialized government, how I think that stiffles freedom, and maybe get some reaction (which I know is coming) on why some think I'm wrong.

 

The way I view a government encroaching on a capitalist state is basicly the same as how a proponent of democratic socialism views capitalism encroaching a socialistic government. In a paper produced by the Democratic Socialists of America, they stated, "with the globalization of capitalism, the old social democratic model becomes ever harder to maintain." If this was flipped, it would apply to the fears that proponents of capitalism share. With the growing social movement that has been building in recent years, the model of America's past that has been a source of hope, pride, and historical prosperity is at risk of becoming extinct. People look at the problems we face within our current system and turn to other models for a solution. In most examples of this, those who compare two different models often do so without first considering what is different about the two models being compared. Also, the problems of those "better" models are often overlooked or dismissed as being lesser problems. You can see examples of this anywhere from Europe to the United States. In recent years it seems as though Europe is leaning a little more towards Capitalism, while here in the US the movement has leaned more towards a form of democratic socialism. Now I'm not saying these two ways of thinking haven't been a part of governments in the past, It is just that it seems as though they have been more pronounced in recent years as they were in the past.

 

The way I think social entitlements, regulations, mandates, and ets..., stiffle freedom has to do with subtlety. Once a government restricts action they hardly ever let loose their grip. So the path seems to be a one way street as far as government control is conscerned. When a government has control over economic applications it has the economy in a stranglehold. We can see this here in the US with the manipulation of interest rates, inflation, and so on. One example is the government's involvement in the housing crisis by issuing mandates on companies to provide a certain number of people, that were well below qualifying, loans that they couldn't possibly pay back. We know that that wasn't the full cause of that crisis, but I think we can agree that that certainly didn't help.

 

We also see this in other arguments on many different topics. It usually boils down to either a socialistic problem with a capitalist solution, or a capitalistic problem with a proposed socialistic solution. My view usually doesn't lean towards a socialistic solution for two simple facts. First, I am a strong believer that people should be able to stand on their own and provide for themselves and their families. Anywhere that this is the case, I believe that it would be easier to tell those that are truly in need from those that are not. And secondly, I also believe that once you give the government control of something, there is no going back short of massive public outrage. Why knowingly put ourselves in that position? It seems that the public already get outraged enough without the mass hysteria that you see in places that do have socialistic governments.

 

I chose my signature with a certain amount of deliberation. I was thinking about how I viewed the politics of today when I chose it. It seems like a socialistic agenda means to provide equality through taxation, mandating, supplementation, and regulation all in the name of being for your own good. While a proponent of capitalism would say "you're on your own" for your own good, but will still not let the truly needy go uncared for. They believe that people are what they make of themselves. Some who argue for government to run certain things say that if the government can take care of something, you no longer need to worry about it, which leaves you more freedom to do other things. I beg to hear some examples of where this is true. Do people in more socialistic countries make more of themselves than those in capitalist countries?

 

Also why is it that people who wish to tax the rich unproportianately not consider themselves as proposing class warfare? It seems to me that that is exactly what it is. You're taxing one class of people just because they earn a higher CLASS of income. Hence "class warfare". I just wondered why they don't just come on out a say it.

 

Anyway, I'll go ahead and conclude my post with that. I hope I've satisfied Villain on presenting this as a political discussion.

Phi,

 

Thanks to President Clinton, corporations can now own media outlets AND other business sectors as well. By giving vastly wealthy businesses the right to use their control of media to influence federal elections, the SCOTUS' decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission has completely undermined what little confidence the voter can have that the popular vote is being handled with integrity. Campaign finance reform has been kicked to the curb once more.

I'm not saying you did make it up. And the name does make sense from the freedom of speech view point. But on this issue I believe we might disagree a little. I think that this current conflict of interest may be just a coinsidental fluke. If this matter didn't involve the head of a corporation that is running for president, there would be nothing wrong with a corporation owning media outlets. Like I've said before, I have a straight forward idea of what businesses should and shouldn't do. Holding to that principle, I don't believe we should start deciding who is able to buy what. If a corporation wants to invest in a business they should have that right as long as the business is legal and conducted in a legal manner.

I can see your point on this current conflict of interest, but have these media outlets been flooding the air waves with onesided support for Romney? I haven't heard that there was any missuse of these outlets. Bain Capital owns Clearchannel doesn't it? Just so I'm not confusing one outlet for another?

 

 

The joke just points up how politicians and corporate CEOs are colluding to give them the best of both worlds and a power base that We the People may never be able to survive.

How so? I didn't get that at all from the joke. My previous point still holds water. We would have to get rid of media across the board where groups of people are involved. Such as community organization groups, unions, superpacks, etc...if we were to limit corporations as well. I believe if we did this a campaign would be more legite as far as the candidate speaking for themselves. But I also don't agree with that, since no matter what a persons message is, or how many it reaches, or who is doing the speaking...speach is still free in this country and I don't believe we should start regulating it.

Looking at the big picture and not just free speach, or healthcare, or gun rights, or etc..., why does it seem like a one way street for the most part? Once things are restricted they are hardly ever given any relief, and I'm beginning to understand why some people are paranoid about a soicialized government. It makes sense from both perspectives most of the time, but I guess it's just a matter of how much you value freedom over security that decides you on how you'll view a subject. I partly blame our comfort in life for people lacking that pride of freedom that I think we used to enjoy. I don't know...I'm just thinking out loud I suppose.

iNow,

What do you think predisposes us to learn from our parents and tribal elders and adhere to social norms if not our genetics?

Is it the same thing that some learn to rebel against parents, tribal elders, social norms, etc...? Learning is the predisposition. You will learn no matter what. Your genetics have no bearing on whether you will believe a certain situation is wrong or right. That has more to do with your social interaction than a genetic predisposition to learning. Sure the predisposition is the cause, but like I said before, your opinion of right and wrong is merely a by-product of that predisposition.

 

 

Add to that our innate sense of empathy for other living things

Hmmm, I haven't seen too many toddlers express empathy for something, unless it was a facial expression or certain action copied from others. Do you not think this is also learned?

 

Why so cut and dry? We learn from those around us, but there are those who grow up in the same environments but still have different opinions of what is right or wrong. Still a learned behavior from something subtle that impacted one and not the other? I believe so.

I only came into the thread to address a question about when the personhood thing started. Didn't realize you didn't want an answer to that question you'd asked, so my apologies.

Naw it was really just an offhanded comment to show that my sanity was slipping.

 

 

 

edit:as afterthought.

Surely there has to be a way to judge levels of corruption and accountability. As to say who did what, when. Then judge them seperately based on their individual actions.

My point was that I would like to see corporations become more like people where liability is conserned. I have a problem with calling it "corporate personhood". If a corporation goes bankrupt and is up to there nose in debt, do those who make the decisions for those corporations have any stake in the game other than their jobs? No. Every other type of business owner does though. If a smaller business owner gets sued, their personal assets are on the line if their business isn't big enough to cover it. For what reason can't a corporation be the same? They are made up of people are they not? If we treated corporations like tools then where would liability fall? Nowhere. We don't hold a tool responsible when the operator of that tool uses it incorrectly. We blame the person using that tool. If we treated corporations like people, then those who make the decisions would be responsible for those decisions. Whether it be a CEO or a board of trustees it makes no difference. As it stands now corporations are above personhood.(hence the comment about calling it, corporate "above" personhood) And my comment about "when did we start believing in this corporate personhood crap" was to reflect that corporations have always been above personhood when it comes to personal liability and legal responsibility, at least to some degree higher than the person. So the outrage towards such an event, as corporations getting away with murder, is somewhat over the top. I wish they did have the same rights. That at least might keep them in better check than having to have a judge "break the veil" once HE DECIDES that someone is taking advantage of a corporations limited liability. So no, don't call it personhood, call it "Corporate toolhood" because that is exactly how and why they get away with more than an individual would had they been running a business without shareholders.

 

Like I said, I haven't been up on the intricacies of corporate structure and responsibility, but this is my grasp of the situation so far even if it's a flawed reasoning. Does anyone feel that this assertion is wrong? If so, then how, because I might have easily overlooked something.

michael123456,

 

You are confusing right/wrong with legal/illegal

Not that I was aware of. Legal and illegal have nothing to do with a persons perspective on what they consider right or wrong. By public I was referring to political correctness and how people differ in their opinions of what is right and wrong. What someone can consider wrong may not be interpreted that way by someone else. And what the public views as wrong may differ drasticly from an individuals perspective.

 

 

But you must always be able to recognize right from wrong.

And people do that differently. Right and wrong is not set in stone but rather a matter of justifiable reasoning. Which by one person can be a normal reasoning, while by another may seem totally irrational.

 

 

iNow,

 

Sure. Social modeling begins at infancy.

When you said genetics I was thinking you were talking about a set predispotion being ingrained in your genetic makeup. Learning right from wrong is just a by-product of our social skills and a consequence of interaction and observation. It's not like we are born with a specific attribute towards such thinking.

iNow,

 

Since 1819 in Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Again in 1823 via Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet. Once more in 1877 under Munn v. Illinois. It was then reinforced in 1886 by Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. More in 1906 by Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs. It was then upheld yet again in 2010 by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (also in a few other related).

You sure take things literaly don't ya? However you seem to have skipped over my entire point, but I am coming to realize that that is to be expected.

Phi,

 

I don't know if I'm up for a discussion on this topic due to my lack of knowledge in the corporate world. That being said I have a fairly straight forward opinion of what a business should and should not be able to do. For instance, I don't know why you call it corporate personhood. The fact of the matter is that corporations have less liability than a person outside of the veil. So I think you could start calling it corporate above personhood. And really this all depends on what type of corporation you are talking about. Some are easier for justice to break through the veil tha others. And this opinion piece by Stevens kind of strikes me weird. When did we start believing in this corporate personhood crap. If this is the case why aren't they treated like a person? Just because there may be alot of shareholders that don't make the decisions of a corporation doesn't mean that the CEOs and the board of trustees can't be held just as liable as a person who runs a smaller business. So in this respect they don't treat corporations like people. And also in this respect I would prefer that they would, because a person with no liability will more than likely go against moral/ethical behavior in order to gain more of what they want. (which in this case is money) I disagree with you about the nature of corporations. It is not the nature of corporations, rather it is the nature of man that has no personal liability or consequences to the actions that they make. Does that make any sense?

michael123456,

 

If you are under trial and you cannot recognize what is right from what is wrong, you will be considered irresponsible and conducted to the asylum. But maybe I am wrong on this.

By who's standards? Individual standards, which can differ drasticly, or the publics, which can also differ drasticly from an individuals? I think what the OP is getting at is that right and wrong is not set in stone. That it's only from which perspective you view a situation that determines your judgement.

 

 

iNow,

The concepts are definitely social constructs, but we do seem to have genetic predispositions away from such behaviors.

Can you give an example of genetic predispositions that contribute to a persons actions of right and wrong?

 

 

Phi,

We recognize that our strengths lie in our numbers, our communication and our cooperation. Some actions either support or are inimical to these strengths, and become fixed as "right" and "wrong". These may be learned responses but I don't think our "feelings" have as much to do with them as our intelligence. Killing other humans can be justified, but when it can't it's usually because it threatens to undermine the strengths we benefit from in our organized society. That's when it becomes murder instead of execution or defending ourselves.

But some others would feel differently about this. Let's say for instance someone might believe in "culling the herd", for lack of a better term, rather than calling it murder. Or some others might believe in geneticly manipulating the population with intelligence while killing off those who don't fit their criteria. Or I'm sure there may be many other examples of someone who doesn't believe that murder is wrong for their own reasons, so while what you say fits the realm of right and wrong, it seems that it only does from a public view.

Yeah I've heard that was happening too. Although not in my kneck of the woods yet. It definitely gives you something to think about and wonder how to go about fixing some of the possible problems that can come about as a result of frac-ing.

I would also like to bold what Ophiolite said because I think it bears repeating for those who wish to ignore it.

 

As previously noted, the exploited hydrocarbon reserves are found in porous and permeable rocks, typically sandstones and carbonates. Pore space typically constitutes between 5% and 20% of the rock.

Typically found in shale deposits where I'm located. Has anyone ever held shale and felt how brittal it is? It's hardly a structural material. This is why the pumping of sands and water into a hole are able to crack a fissure wider to allow the gas to seep through.

 

 

 

The one thought I have had about this didn't include subsidence but rather a mixing of water supplies. Not that that would even have much of an impact on anything, but some have noticed that the minerals found in our water table are changing in different places once gas wells locate in the area. One person I talked to just last week said he noticed sulfur in his water. Which is quite common for the area about 10-15 miles away, just not in that particular area until recently. I wonder what possible impact it would have if it was causing water supplies to mix? Just a thought.

Phi,

 

This is, to a large degree, the fault of this corporate personhood movement that gives them the power to flout the law and escape indictment. We know who caused our current financial crisis; why aren't these people on trial?

 

Did they break the law? Kinda hard to have a trial if it can't be determined what law was broken.

 

 

Before I reply and go further with some of my thoughts on this, why do you think this way? Is this just a general blanket your applying to corporations or is there some specific examples you can give that would target a specific area in corporations that are troubling to you?

 

 

ydoaPs,

 

Actually, they do.

So this is why, out of 3.2 million workers, in the largest teachers union there were only a little over 7500 votes counted to make the union decide to endorse Obama's re-election? That doesn't sound like a majority rule to me.

I thought the point of this thread was to discuss pros and cons of other countries systems? If I am wrong then we have two threads about the same thing, right?

I'm going to comment on this against my better judgement.

 

First this, "I want society to be fair to its individuals". I have been known to claim that society isn't fair, nor should it be. But I will have to admitt that certain circumstances can imminate that require a fairness factor. Such as taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves, like your 15 on 5 year old scenario.

 

Again whenever I hear someone say they want fairness, I think of the old saying "want in one hand, s**t in the other and see which one fills up the fastest". A little crude I know, but the reality of it speaks for itself. This world is not fair and never will be. People are just going to have to accept that fact.

 

 

A cold-heart gains pleasure, humor, and happiness from misusing his/her power.

Wouldn't the pleasure, humor, and happiness from him/her misusing their power actually warm their heart renderring them warm-hearted? In my view a cold heart is indifferent.

 

 

And by your own views of cold heartedness, wouldn't your hatred be considered cold-hearted by an outsiders view? Unless you have some substantial justification for your outrage on society.

 

 

 

Also, what political connection does this have?

Phi,

 

You were the one who brought up not modeling any one country's system. Pre-existing conditions are an important sticking point with many people, so what's your problem with the introduction of some discussion on it?

Just the risk of not following the context of the thread. I had mentioned that I wouldn't prefer any one country's system alone over the US's, but then very clearly stated one system so as to keep in the hypothetical situation that was stated as being the boundaries of this thread. And since the rules of the thread were to choose then discuss hypothetical replacements of the US's current system, that any argument about the US system would be out of bounds. Because you know this thread will turn into another discussion of people boohooing about what's wrong with the current US system, instead of talking pros and cons of other systems. Does that sound like a sensable reason?

Phi,

 

Bad argument, Slippery Slope fallacy. Just because it could be stretched doesn't mean it would be.

It seems that has been happening already, if only little by little.

 

Vigilance to avoid going down that slippery slope is one of the responsibilities of freedom, imo.

Isn't that what we were talking about? It is best that we understand what we are being vigilant about isn't it? Freedom may be taken, but vigilance is yours alone. If only someone's vigilance is pointing in the right direction.

 

 

Environmental pollution is just the kind of thing I want government intervention for.

You are right to a point, but I see this sort of thing getting to where it could get out of hand. Especially with this whole social movement of the past several years. Where people are starting to want government more involved in their lives because they somehow think that government knows best, or can do a better job, or that a government will listen to the people once they have that control. That of which have been historically false in most cases.

Is it fair to say that we are leaning back in a direction that we fought a war to get away from?

John C,

 

Exactly whose arses are you trying to save in the Middle east?

Innocent people that have fallen under the tyranny of those who wish to rule them with brutal dictation.

 

 

 

"What is so unethical about putting yourself in a stable economic position?"

Nothing per se, but if you make money by exploiting others or, for example, invading their country and awarding yourself rights to all their oil, that is unethical.

Who exploited who? Who awarded theirself rights to who's oil? Is there anyone in particular you are thinking this example might be?

 

"I was talking about shooting of rockets breaking international treaties. "

What rockets?

Why North Korean rockets of course. I was talking about the testing of their armaments in direct and blatant violation of international treaty as a way to intimidate and threaten.

 

It was talked about on the first page of the thread, I was just late in replying.

 

John C,

 

Exactly whose arses are you trying to save in the Middle east?

Innocent people that have fallen under the tyranny of those who wish to rule them with brutal dictation.

 

 

 

"What is so unethical about putting yourself in a stable economic position?"

Nothing per se, but if you make money by exploiting others or, for example, invading their country and awarding yourself rights to all their oil, that is unethical.

Who exploited who? Who awarded theirself rights to who's oil? Is there anyone in particular you are thinking this example might be?

 

"I was talking about shooting of rockets breaking international treaties. "

What rockets?

Why North Korean rockets of course. I was talking about the testing of their armaments in direct and blatant violation of international treaty as a way to intimidate and threaten.

 

It was talked about on the first page of the thread, I was just late in replying.