And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?
As a matter of fact, yes. Nicomedes III, the last king of Bithynia (wherein was located the relatively unimportant city of Byzantium), left his kingdom to Rome in 74 B.C., largely in gratitude for Rome's having saved Bithynia from foreign invasion in 82.<hr></blockquote>
I didn't know that. In light of macoracle's question that's kind of funny.
I think the two party system needs to be gotten rid of. We need to vote for a person not the party. Not to mention it would open up more choices. What if a President that is running is for BOTH abortion AND Capitol Punishment. Or Against both? Can't happen in a system we have now.
<strong>What if a President that is running is for BOTH abortion AND Capitol Punishment... Can't happen in a system we have now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not? That was basically Gore's position last time around. Granted, Democrats were too busy portraying Dubya as the "happy executioner" to notice but still...
Why not? That was basically Gore's position last time around. Granted, Democrats were too busy portraying Dubya as the "happy executioner" to notice but still...
<strong>Tell me, how might you go about redistributing wealth without government intervention?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said something along the lines of "the government staying out of our [personal] lives," meaning the government not abridging or prohibiting that which the constitution allows us (rights that don't overlap others' rights), as well as taking actions that invade our privacy.
There is no connection between the kind of privacy I'm talking about and redistribution of wealth, groverats.
If you're asking how redistribution of wealth would/could/should work, in my opinion, try to imagine a more successful implementation of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare, funded by local, state, and federal taxation based on your income, purchasing, and possibly property. There's a really rough comparison for you. Think you could possibly piece together how something like that might work? Don't strain yourself.
<strong>that which the constitution allows us (rights that don't overlap others' rights), as well as taking actions that invade our privacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The United States Constitution does not "allow" United States citizens any rights. It explicitly recognizes fundamental human rights which already exist and gives the federal government notice that it is forbidden from infringing upon them. This is an extremely important difference. It means that the Constitution recognizes higher authority than itself.
A federal statute, on the other hand, can create new 'rights', such as the right to ask that federal trial procedure work in one way or another, or the right to demand certain pieces of information from the government. These are not fundamental rights on par with those recognized in the Constitution; they are merely created by government.
[quote]I said something along the lines of "the government staying out of our [personal] lives," meaning the government not abridging or prohibiting ...<hr></blockquote>
Scribam brad:
"Anyhoo, I'm an individualist in that I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules, as well as the government staying out of my personal life."
[quote]There is no connection between the kind of privacy I'm talking about and redistribution of wealth, groverats.<hr></blockquote>
Redistribution of wealth is a giant invasion of privacy.
[quote]try to imagine a more successful implementation of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare, funded by local, state, and federal taxation based on your income, purchasing, and possibly property.<hr></blockquote>
A successful implementation on all those things would have nothing to do with individualism since they are socialist ideas.
Socialism is inherently contrary to individualism, you should see that.
<strong>Don't believe the media's lies. They're covering up the greatest hijack of democracy that's ever taken place. George Bush did not win that election. He is not our legitimate president.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gore conceded the election, remember? Bush won by default. That's generally how it works. We don't go around meticulously counting each and every single vote, we just keep counting more and more of them until one guy says to the other guy, "Ok you win, see you again in four years." Which happens to be what happened in Florida (minus a few details) as well. See? The system was followed and the system worked
Oh, I'm from America and generally conservative. Please don't confuse conservative with republican, I'm really fed up with both parties right now.
[quote] If you're asking how redistribution of wealth would/could/should work, in my opinion, try to imagine a more successful implementation of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare... <hr></blockquote>
It seems to me that all of those have a very direct impact on a person's life. Redistribution by definition means taking something from one place and giving it to another. Certainly if something is taken away from someone the government is having a direct impact on that person's life-- being forced to do something. Well, since we can conclude someone is forced to do something, I think we can also safely conclude that that limits one's capasity to be an individual. Right?
(Statements about some having plenty are not relavent to this arguement since the starting basic assumption was that ALL should be allowed to be individuals-- not ALL except for the rich.)
Anyone know what the unemployment rate in France is right now? SYN, you know? Another question of SYN, is it worth it? I'm just curious. Even if a socialist government leads to greater unemployment, one can argue that the trade-offs are well worth it. (But you could kiss world super power goodbye)
<strong>Socialism is inherently contrary to individualism, you should see that.</strong><hr></blockquote>You could be a civil libertarian (very pro-Bill-of Rights, pro-choice on abortion, etc.) and still believe in heavy economic regulation.
I think that's what many old-fashioned US liberals are all about.
<strong>Gore conceded the election, remember? Bush won by default. That's generally how it works. We don't go around meticulously counting each and every single vote, we just keep counting more and more of them until one guy says to the other guy, "Ok you win, see you again in four years."</strong><hr></blockquote>No, what the candidates say have no bearing on who becomes president. Show me in the constitution where it says "when one candidate concedes, the other becomes president."
Gore did not make Bush president. He doesn't have that power.
(Statements about some having plenty are not relavent to this arguement since the starting basic assumption was that ALL should be allowed to be individuals-- not ALL except for the rich.)
Anyone know what the unemployment rate in France is right now? SYN, you know? Another question of SYN, is it worth it? I'm just curious. Even if a socialist government leads to greater unemployment, one can argue that the trade-offs are well worth it. (But you could kiss world super power goodbye)</strong><hr></blockquote>
- on the contrary, this seems like an extremely relavent component of this argument: because the question in a capitalist system becomes "how can one be an individual if they are not rich?" if the rich keep such an astonishing percentage of the wealth in this country, how can you possibly account for the disparity in the situations that people make their beginnings in? -
- Right, because, being a world super power is so incredibly important right? and who is to say that france is not a specific example with extenuating circumstances? Germany has a much more proportionally representative system than we do....but this delves more into the two-party system which could always be an interesting topic of conversation.
...obviously on the more liberal side of the political question, vote democrat, but do i honestly have a party?...
This isn't fun anymore, so I'll just say it outright: this entire thread is a joke if you're looking to argue about these things seriously, and in going with that I said all of those things which are OBVIOUSLY contradictory just to show, as I said (heh), arguing about labels is completely idiotic. Don't know what I mean? Read anything coming out of groverat's oriface. Well, that and to rile you angsty lot.
Your political stances aren't just evasive of categories, they are evasive of basic logic.
You didn't realize the contradiction at first because, as is typical of your lot, you see no need to question the thoughts you've cobbled together after hearing idealists spew their lines.
There can be no pursuit of happiness with socialism, it's just impossible. In a pretty vaccuum maybe, but those of us dealing in the real world and analyzing true human motivation it becomes quite obvious that socialism is inherently against the idea of self-realization and motivational behaviors.
Take Germany for example:
You have a country with very few jobs because the working laws are so socialist no company desiring profit would ever build there.
Germany had a 3% increase in GNP last year and you know why? Tax cuts. Anti-socialist reform is what MIGHT save it from the downward spiral it's in. Anti-socialist reform MIGHT keep it going in the right direction.
You cannot call a man free while taking from him what he has worked for. It is hypocrisy.
There is case after case after case after case of failing socialism. And these European socialist societies gasping for air, how do they stay alive? From the capitalist U.S.'s capital influx.
It's like a religion to some people, it makes sense in a fairy world but it just doesn't translate to real life.
There can be no pursuit of happiness with socialism, it's just impossible. In a pretty vaccuum maybe, but those of us dealing in the real world and analyzing true human motivation it becomes quite obvious that socialism is inherently against the idea of self-realization and motivational behaviors.
Take Germany for example:
You have a country with very few jobs because the working laws are so socialist no company desiring profit would ever build there.
Germany had a 3% increase in GNP last year and you know why? Tax cuts. Anti-socialist reform is what MIGHT save it from the downward spiral it's in. Anti-socialist reform MIGHT keep it going in the right direction.
You cannot call a man free while taking from him what he has worked for. It is hypocrisy.
There is case after case after case after case of failing socialism. And these European socialist societies gasping for air, how do they stay alive? From the capitalist U.S.'s capital influx.
It's like a religion to some people, it makes sense in a fairy world but it just doesn't translate to real life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would think a registered green would take a more pro-socialist stance?
[quote] You cannot call a man free while taking from him what he has worked for. It is hypocrisy.<hr></blockquote>
<regurgitation_of_AP_government_class>
That depends on whether one believes that the work one does should benefit the whole, or the individual. The united states has traditionally been very individualist. The first people who travelled here from europe were generally on equal footing, and all had the same opportunity to succeed. Great value was placed on personal achievement and personal success. This was due to religious beliefs (protestant work ethic) and the availability of land. That could be a reason for the low taxes in the United States. If you look at taxes as a redistribution of wealth (money that goes to the government to pay for programs to benefit the people), you will see that the american system leaves large quantities of money to the people who made them. That's why you see such disparity between the incomes of the worker and the CEO in the united states (<a href="http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Social_Sciences/Economics/Consumption_and_Wealth/Inequality/"; target="_blank">http://directory.google.com/Top/S cience/Social_Sciences/Economics/Consumption_and_Wealth/Inequality/</a>) as opposed to countries in western europe, which tend to have higher taxes, equalising income between working folk and business leaders. I'm not saying one system is better than the other or anything. I'm just trying to clarify the difference between high tax / low tax philosophy.
</regurgitation_of_AP_government_class>
(i'll probably edit this thing for clarity one of these days, but for now, i'm sleepy)
[quote]I would think a registered green would take a more pro-socialist stance?<hr></blockquote>
You would, wouldn't you?
I would, too.
I'm confusing sometimes, sorry.
My literal political allegiance (Dem, Repub, blah) is fickle. I liked Nader as a person, I like people offering real alternative ideas. I like intelligent leaders. Bore and Gush sucked.
[quote]That depends on whether one believes that the work one does should benefit the whole, or the individual.<hr></blockquote>
Well human nature answers that question. You act for self, always. Even when you act for others it is usually mainly for yourself.
[quote]The united states has traditionally been very individualist.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]I'm not saying one system is better than the other or anything.<hr></blockquote>
I am. Ours is better.
[quote] I'm just trying to clarify the difference between high tax / low tax philosophy.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, I understand the philosophies and agree with the basic premises of both, but I think it's just obvious that one translates to real world success while the other translates to happy feelings in coffeshop discussions.
And? They didn't conquer it in the name of Christianity. What's your point?</strong>
The point is that they conquered it. The Arabs and the Turks didn't conquer Europe in name of the Islam either. They conquered it in name of their own Empire. The Islam was the main religion in that part of the world way before the Romans decided to become Christian. They were a bunch of pagans like the rest of us at first.
Anyways, the main point is that they conquered it and forced their religion down those people's throat. They took it, the Arabs took it back, the crusaders tried to take it but failed. You make it sound like western civilizations have some sort of God given right to that area.
<strong>And it's a silly point to think that the President or a Presidential candidate should know the names of all the heads of state. I'm not the one who brought this subject up.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's not. These are the people that he is supposed to work together with to make this world less of a shitehole than it is at the moment. Maybe if he did know their names he could talk to them rather than bomb them as soon as they don't jump when he tells them to.
The western world has never done anything for the Muslims in the middle east. So why should they help us or feel sorry for us? In the last two decades our politics have been to hate and despise everything we don't understand and bomb it if it doesn't change.
The Islam is not to blame for people like Bin Laden or Sadam Hussein. Communism wasn't to blame for the KGB or Stalin. So maybe we should get our facts straigth.
For the record, I'm a catholic and an Irish republican. I just don't believe in condemning everything that's different. Being what I am works for me, it doesn't work for everyone and that's why it's a good thing that there are other options.
Just because bad things have happened in the name of the Islam doesn't make everyone who believes in it a rotten apple.
Comments
And how, pray tell, do you think Byzantium/Constantinopel/Istanbul became part of the Roman Empire? The Romans asked for it nicely?
As a matter of fact, yes. Nicomedes III, the last king of Bithynia (wherein was located the relatively unimportant city of Byzantium), left his kingdom to Rome in 74 B.C., largely in gratitude for Rome's having saved Bithynia from foreign invasion in 82.<hr></blockquote>
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>What if a President that is running is for BOTH abortion AND Capitol Punishment... Can't happen in a system we have now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually Bill tried to play this ride the fence card during the elections too. It changed once he was in office.
<strong>Tell me, how might you go about redistributing wealth without government intervention?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said something along the lines of "the government staying out of our [personal] lives," meaning the government not abridging or prohibiting that which the constitution allows us (rights that don't overlap others' rights), as well as taking actions that invade our privacy.
There is no connection between the kind of privacy I'm talking about and redistribution of wealth, groverats.
If you're asking how redistribution of wealth would/could/should work, in my opinion, try to imagine a more successful implementation of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare, funded by local, state, and federal taxation based on your income, purchasing, and possibly property. There's a really rough comparison for you. Think you could possibly piece together how something like that might work? Don't strain yourself.
<strong>that which the constitution allows us (rights that don't overlap others' rights), as well as taking actions that invade our privacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The United States Constitution does not "allow" United States citizens any rights. It explicitly recognizes fundamental human rights which already exist and gives the federal government notice that it is forbidden from infringing upon them. This is an extremely important difference. It means that the Constitution recognizes higher authority than itself.
A federal statute, on the other hand, can create new 'rights', such as the right to ask that federal trial procedure work in one way or another, or the right to demand certain pieces of information from the government. These are not fundamental rights on par with those recognized in the Constitution; they are merely created by government.
Scribam brad:
"Anyhoo, I'm an individualist in that I feel the government should, for the most part, stay out of business economics rules, as well as the government staying out of my personal life."
[quote]There is no connection between the kind of privacy I'm talking about and redistribution of wealth, groverats.<hr></blockquote>
Redistribution of wealth is a giant invasion of privacy.
[quote]try to imagine a more successful implementation of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare, funded by local, state, and federal taxation based on your income, purchasing, and possibly property.<hr></blockquote>
A successful implementation on all those things would have nothing to do with individualism since they are socialist ideas.
Socialism is inherently contrary to individualism, you should see that.
<strong>Don't believe the media's lies. They're covering up the greatest hijack of democracy that's ever taken place. George Bush did not win that election. He is not our legitimate president.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gore conceded the election, remember? Bush won by default. That's generally how it works. We don't go around meticulously counting each and every single vote, we just keep counting more and more of them until one guy says to the other guy, "Ok you win, see you again in four years." Which happens to be what happened in Florida (minus a few details) as well. See? The system was followed and the system worked
Oh, I'm from America and generally conservative. Please don't confuse conservative with republican, I'm really fed up with both parties right now.
It seems to me that all of those have a very direct impact on a person's life. Redistribution by definition means taking something from one place and giving it to another. Certainly if something is taken away from someone the government is having a direct impact on that person's life-- being forced to do something. Well, since we can conclude someone is forced to do something, I think we can also safely conclude that that limits one's capasity to be an individual. Right?
(Statements about some having plenty are not relavent to this arguement since the starting basic assumption was that ALL should be allowed to be individuals-- not ALL except for the rich.)
Anyone know what the unemployment rate in France is right now? SYN, you know? Another question of SYN, is it worth it? I'm just curious. Even if a socialist government leads to greater unemployment, one can argue that the trade-offs are well worth it. (But you could kiss world super power goodbye)
<strong>Socialism is inherently contrary to individualism, you should see that.</strong><hr></blockquote>You could be a civil libertarian (very pro-Bill-of Rights, pro-choice on abortion, etc.) and still believe in heavy economic regulation.
I think that's what many old-fashioned US liberals are all about.
Individualism need not be just economic.
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
<strong>Gore conceded the election, remember? Bush won by default. That's generally how it works. We don't go around meticulously counting each and every single vote, we just keep counting more and more of them until one guy says to the other guy, "Ok you win, see you again in four years."</strong><hr></blockquote>No, what the candidates say have no bearing on who becomes president. Show me in the constitution where it says "when one candidate concedes, the other becomes president."
Gore did not make Bush president. He doesn't have that power.
<strong>
(Statements about some having plenty are not relavent to this arguement since the starting basic assumption was that ALL should be allowed to be individuals-- not ALL except for the rich.)
Anyone know what the unemployment rate in France is right now? SYN, you know? Another question of SYN, is it worth it? I'm just curious. Even if a socialist government leads to greater unemployment, one can argue that the trade-offs are well worth it. (But you could kiss world super power goodbye)</strong><hr></blockquote>
- on the contrary, this seems like an extremely relavent component of this argument: because the question in a capitalist system becomes "how can one be an individual if they are not rich?" if the rich keep such an astonishing percentage of the wealth in this country, how can you possibly account for the disparity in the situations that people make their beginnings in? -
- Right, because, being a world super power is so incredibly important right? and who is to say that france is not a specific example with extenuating circumstances? Germany has a much more proportionally representative system than we do....but this delves more into the two-party system which could always be an interesting topic of conversation.
...obviously on the more liberal side of the political question, vote democrat, but do i honestly have a party?...
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: MmeSerena ]</p>
You didn't realize the contradiction at first because, as is typical of your lot, you see no need to question the thoughts you've cobbled together after hearing idealists spew their lines.
There can be no pursuit of happiness with socialism, it's just impossible. In a pretty vaccuum maybe, but those of us dealing in the real world and analyzing true human motivation it becomes quite obvious that socialism is inherently against the idea of self-realization and motivational behaviors.
Take Germany for example:
You have a country with very few jobs because the working laws are so socialist no company desiring profit would ever build there.
Germany had a 3% increase in GNP last year and you know why? Tax cuts. Anti-socialist reform is what MIGHT save it from the downward spiral it's in. Anti-socialist reform MIGHT keep it going in the right direction.
You cannot call a man free while taking from him what he has worked for. It is hypocrisy.
There is case after case after case after case of failing socialism. And these European socialist societies gasping for air, how do they stay alive? From the capitalist U.S.'s capital influx.
It's like a religion to some people, it makes sense in a fairy world but it just doesn't translate to real life.
<strong>
(snip)
There can be no pursuit of happiness with socialism, it's just impossible. In a pretty vaccuum maybe, but those of us dealing in the real world and analyzing true human motivation it becomes quite obvious that socialism is inherently against the idea of self-realization and motivational behaviors.
Take Germany for example:
You have a country with very few jobs because the working laws are so socialist no company desiring profit would ever build there.
Germany had a 3% increase in GNP last year and you know why? Tax cuts. Anti-socialist reform is what MIGHT save it from the downward spiral it's in. Anti-socialist reform MIGHT keep it going in the right direction.
You cannot call a man free while taking from him what he has worked for. It is hypocrisy.
There is case after case after case after case of failing socialism. And these European socialist societies gasping for air, how do they stay alive? From the capitalist U.S.'s capital influx.
It's like a religion to some people, it makes sense in a fairy world but it just doesn't translate to real life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would think a registered green would take a more pro-socialist stance?
[quote] You cannot call a man free while taking from him what he has worked for. It is hypocrisy.<hr></blockquote>
<regurgitation_of_AP_government_class>
That depends on whether one believes that the work one does should benefit the whole, or the individual. The united states has traditionally been very individualist. The first people who travelled here from europe were generally on equal footing, and all had the same opportunity to succeed. Great value was placed on personal achievement and personal success. This was due to religious beliefs (protestant work ethic) and the availability of land. That could be a reason for the low taxes in the United States. If you look at taxes as a redistribution of wealth (money that goes to the government to pay for programs to benefit the people), you will see that the american system leaves large quantities of money to the people who made them. That's why you see such disparity between the incomes of the worker and the CEO in the united states (<a href="http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Social_Sciences/Economics/Consumption_and_Wealth/Inequality/"; target="_blank">http://directory.google.com/Top/S cience/Social_Sciences/Economics/Consumption_and_Wealth/Inequality/</a>) as opposed to countries in western europe, which tend to have higher taxes, equalising income between working folk and business leaders. I'm not saying one system is better than the other or anything. I'm just trying to clarify the difference between high tax / low tax philosophy.
</regurgitation_of_AP_government_class>
(i'll probably edit this thing for clarity one of these days, but for now, i'm sleepy)
[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: owenc ]</p>
You would, wouldn't you?
I would, too.
I'm confusing sometimes, sorry.
My literal political allegiance (Dem, Repub, blah) is fickle. I liked Nader as a person, I like people offering real alternative ideas. I like intelligent leaders. Bore and Gush sucked.
[quote]That depends on whether one believes that the work one does should benefit the whole, or the individual.<hr></blockquote>
Well human nature answers that question. You act for self, always. Even when you act for others it is usually mainly for yourself.
[quote]The united states has traditionally been very individualist.<hr></blockquote>
Amen. That is why we are #1.
Let's keep it that way.
[quote]I'm not saying one system is better than the other or anything.<hr></blockquote>
I am. Ours is better.
[quote] I'm just trying to clarify the difference between high tax / low tax philosophy.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, I understand the philosophies and agree with the basic premises of both, but I think it's just obvious that one translates to real world success while the other translates to happy feelings in coffeshop discussions.
<strong>
And? They didn't conquer it in the name of Christianity. What's your point?</strong>
The point is that they conquered it. The Arabs and the Turks didn't conquer Europe in name of the Islam either. They conquered it in name of their own Empire. The Islam was the main religion in that part of the world way before the Romans decided to become Christian. They were a bunch of pagans like the rest of us at first.
Anyways, the main point is that they conquered it and forced their religion down those people's throat. They took it, the Arabs took it back, the crusaders tried to take it but failed. You make it sound like western civilizations have some sort of God given right to that area.
<strong>And it's a silly point to think that the President or a Presidential candidate should know the names of all the heads of state. I'm not the one who brought this subject up.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's not. These are the people that he is supposed to work together with to make this world less of a shitehole than it is at the moment. Maybe if he did know their names he could talk to them rather than bomb them as soon as they don't jump when he tells them to.
The western world has never done anything for the Muslims in the middle east. So why should they help us or feel sorry for us? In the last two decades our politics have been to hate and despise everything we don't understand and bomb it if it doesn't change.
The Islam is not to blame for people like Bin Laden or Sadam Hussein. Communism wasn't to blame for the KGB or Stalin. So maybe we should get our facts straigth.
For the record, I'm a catholic and an Irish republican. I just don't believe in condemning everything that's different. Being what I am works for me, it doesn't work for everyone and that's why it's a good thing that there are other options.
Just because bad things have happened in the name of the Islam doesn't make everyone who believes in it a rotten apple.
I think I'm done now....