I don't mean to pick at you Daetrinn, and I share your vision of a world where food and shelter are givens.

But... (you knew there's be a but...)

That world is very very far away, and the economic issues involved in any kind of free program are overwhelming. In your free food example, why would anyone not just get their food from these free stores? You'd do serious damage to the food industry in general with a set up like this. Also you'd have to pay out major subsidies to the providers for these stores, where is that money going to come from?

The housing issue is also an interesting one. Its easy to say build the housing a better area, but how do you actually do that? Again its economics, land costs more in better areas, construction typically costs more as well, how do you pay for this additional cost?

Better (law) enforcement is also a nice idea, but again, at what cost? Its all economics, and throwing more money at problems like this isn't the answer in my mind anyway. There has to be a fundamental change in the attitude of the people recieving these freebies, that attitude has to be that they can do better if they contribute back to society (typically this would be by working). To reach whatever level of lifestyle they want they need to understand that an education is key. So lets throw our money into better educations, and employment opportunities rather than freebies and see how things play out.

Don't delude yourself. If liberals had their way they'd be telling us what to wear everyday. Liberals truly are the 'Thought Police'. Now, I know some of you are from other countries, and I just want to clarify that I am speaking of U.S. liberal attitudes. I do not know what liberals are or are not like in your lands.

And BTW, if you try to take away my gun or my SUV I'll shoot ya and then I'll run over ya.

That was a joke...

Travis Seeber wrote:
"Don't delude yourself. If liberals had their way they'd be telling us what to wear everyday. Liberals truly are the 'Thought Police'."

I'd have to disagree with that statement. I consider myself a liberal, and I'm against anything remotely related to Thought Police. Just because there happens to be a large group of liberals who would like to control what we say and do, does not mean that all of us fall into the same trap.

~SDC~

"As for the US disregarding the UN on the war in Iraq, how many more years and resolutions would it have taken to the UN to accomplish what the US did in weeks?"

What exactly needed to be accomplished? Is this just American chest thumping? How was Iraq a threat to your lifestyle or mine?

~SDC~

As a followup, the Monkeydent Bush is more of a threat to Americans than anyone.

~SDC~

Iraq was a threat to lives, not lifestyles, because of the terrorists is supported, housed and produced. And your wrong about Bush, but thanks for playing. Monkeydent, how cheesy.

~SDC~

sixtoes,

Boy oh boy!

When you fail a saving throw you really, really, really do.

Elrikk


~SDC~

Well, I helped start this mess, so I guess I got to wade in a bit. There are so many interesting subjects touched upon here that it is hard for me to pick just which one I have time for, so here it goes.

Let us discuss the issue of earning versus entitlement or, more exactly, the means in which to distribute wealth. The essential mechanism for all of civilization is the artificial redistribution of wealth - shared resources. No society can exist without transfering goods from one place to another. Only subsistence farming families who harvest all of their own personal resources can exist in a social vacuum. That means no villages, no cities, no armies, no set standards. Anarchy, where your family has their little plot of paradise and has to defend it from all comers. Now, whether we individually believe that people have to earn their keep or are entitled to some level of basic ammenities (food, shelter, education, employment, health care, things like that) is trickier, but we should all agree on the fact that for people to live together in communities they must share resources somehow! Right?

The key difference between a theoretical pure capitalist state, a state of near total private ownership of resources where the government provides security, law enforcement, and a set monetary standard, and a pure communist state, where the government controls all resources and there is no private ownership, is to whom the common citizen relies in order to "earn" his living.

In a pure capitalist society, the citizen works for an employer who pays a wage and/or some benefits. It is then the responsibility of the citizen to procure his own basic needs: to buy his food, to pay his rent, to contract services such as cable TV, to pay for his own health care, the list goes on and on. The point being is that a myriad of private contractors (merchants, landlords, doctors, so forth) fulfill these requests. This myriad of private contractors provide for immense consumer choice. If the citizen has no employment, then he cannot procure these services and must rely on whatever charity is willing to provide until new employment is gained. This means that the citizen could be in dire trouble and die on the side of the road in a ditch from hunger or neglect and the pure capitalist government cares not. Hope you got folks like family or friends to help you out, because there is no government social safety net.

In the pure communist form of government, the citizen's "employer" IS the government. The government feeds you, houses you, educates you, treats your illnesses, gives you a job. In return for all this wonderful social support, choice is lost. The government dictates who you work for and what services will be available to you. Want to be a lawyer? Tough, the State has decided that since you are a farmer's son who has mechanical experience you are destined to be a tractor mechanic. Need a quadruple bypass? Tough again, the State has decided that no mere factory worker is worth such an advanced and expensive procedure. Want satellite TV? So sad. The State offers basic broadcast in the country side and cable in the capital. You get everything you need for basic survival, but no choices.

The example should clearly illustrate the FLOW of wealth in these theoretical forms of government. The pure capitalist form has wealth and resources flowing sideways through interconnecting layers of producers and consumers. (All producers are also consumers, and all consumers are producers. This is why it is interconnected. Think about it.) The pure communist form has wealth flowing only from the top. (The producers give everything to the government first, which redistributes it to the consumer in a manner of the government's choosing.)

Now, in every society there is an elite class that skims the goods. This is partly why Soviet Communism failed: the party cronies kept taking the creme and letting the rest of the milk sour. This is also why cutthroat capitalism of the late 19th century in America also failed: corporate barons where trying to own all the means of production so that the interconnected flow of wealth between producers and consumers was trying to be funnelled to the baron on top as he bought the other companies out and therefore was reshaping the web of connectivity by limiting choices.

It is human greed that throws the monkey wrench into things. Because of that, we can have neither a pure communist or a pure capitalist state. There cannot be a true "People's Republic" as long as cronies at the top interfere with the flow of goods down to the masses by siphoning off way more than their share. There cannot be a true "free market economy" as long as megacorporations seek to deliberately restrict consumer choice. So both camps try to have something in the middle.

And to think I did not even get into international policy issues such as farm subsidies and tariffs. Merely talking about internal national policy theory can be quite thought provoking, I think. :notsure:

Norin,

Fair enough. There are reasonable liberals, I know. I Have friends all over the spectrum. But as you said there is a large, radical liberal movement as well. Ah well.

Peace.

"I read it several times in fact, so there is no need for me to reread it. I don't think it's acceptable to say something like that, even with a winky eye or smiley face after it. I would have been equally offended if the comment had been aimed at liberals."

Dude, I think you wouldn't. I read through several jokes earilier on that offended me, but I didn't mention it. I don't like the fact that it isn't OKay to say somthing along the lines of "Lets kill em all" a characteristically unliberal thing to say, and thus humerous. The other we're poking fun at liberals.

I am a person in pursuit of Social Justice, Does that bestow right to ridicule my beliefs? Not really. Since it was a joke, I relise it and take no offense, althought I was not amused in the slightest.

Okay, this is moving at a fast pace and I'll respond later. I have a lot I must do before 23 hours is up and well Sixtoes is quite long-winded (which isn't a bad thing)

I applaud my oppentents for their swift and resolute replies, and my comrades ( ) for their staunch defense.

~SDC~

You know what? It's practically irrelevant weather Saddam or Iraq was a threat to the US or not. His time was up, his toying with the UN and its impotent resolutions had become more than tireing. The fact that the UN is too useless to actually accomplish is original charter has forced other countries (this wasn't solely a US operation after all) to occasionally take charge of situations as they occur.

What is the real problem with the ousting of Saddam anyway? What was the alternative? More useless sanctions? More blather by redundant diplomats? What? I ask you, what?

"Dude, I think you wouldn't. I read through several jokes earilier on that offended me, but I didn't mention it. I don't like the fact that it isn't OKay to say somthing along the lines of "Lets kill em all" a characteristically unliberal thing to say, and thus humerous. The other we're poking fun at liberals."

Poking fun at liberals and conservatives is not that same as saying some should be put to death. There is a massive difference, IMO. Secondly, you argument here is flawed. You think I wouldn't do something, because you didn't do the same thing? I'm not you, dude.

However, you are clarifying that it was a joke, so as poor as joke as it was, I'll take you for your word that you weren't serious. But in fostering dialogue with your opponents, it might be wise to avoid comments like that. Obviously, I wouldn't and can't censor you, but the credibility that I and others give you (or me) is based on the content of what you say, and sometimes the method of delivery.


~SDC~

vernmeister2u:

Which terrorists was Iraq supporting? I still haven't seen any evidence of that.

_I'm_ more scared of the thread of Bush in office than i was about Saddam being in power in Iraq. Saddam was a nasty guy, and i'm glad to see him go, although i disagree with with the reasons we got rid of him and the way in which we went about it.

Bush however is more of a direct threat to me than Saddam was. Bush has the ability to take away my rights, has the ability to make life here like life in Iraq was. I don't know if it will get that bad, but judging from the actions he's already taken it's heading in that direction.

Heh, well I guess if you lived in Iraq maybe you'd have a different opinion?

Bush has the ability to take away your rights? No actually he doesn't, its the congress that can do that, and if they try you still have the Supreme Court to check them. All Bush and the executive branch can do are enforce those new laws that take away your rights.

Though I wish you'd be a bit more explicit as to what rights you fear being taken away, and how you think those rights would make living in the US similar to living in Iraq under Saddam.

As an aside to my above comment, I let many jokes about conservatives go by as well, hence my comments earlier about making my resistance skill checks (which were attempts at humor as well). But I thought the one you made that I did comment on was over the top. My behavior has been consistent.

~SDC~

Gerakken:

Your analysis has at least one flaw in it that i picked up on. In a true comunist state, the government wouldn't decide what you do, you would have just as much choice as in a capitalist state if not more.

But agreed, greed throws in the monkey wrench in all cases. It's impossible to have a pure capitalist state because of it, and EXTREMELY difficult to have a pure comunist state. (The only reason for the slight difference between the two is that capitalism encourages monetary greed, while comunism discourages it. However given human nature that wouldn't have a huge impact.)

The closest to a pure capitalist state would still likely have some small amount of government control to make sure no monopoly or oligopoly effectively took over everything and became the government itself, and the closest to a true communist state would likely require a certain relatively small amount of your time be donated to needed jobs and services.

Daetrinn,

You have a right not to believe the news, or evidence put forth in front of you in terms of what Iraq has done in the past, and what it may or may not have been capable of doing in the future, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm not going summarize the volume of news accounts over the past decade that have pretty much been played ad naseum over the past several months. If you aren't convinced by now, I doubt I could change your mind. You are certainly not alone in your opinion. I just don't share your evaluation of the situation.

~SDC~

ubertaco:

That's the point, i _don't_ live in Iraq, which is why i have more personal concern about Bush than Saddam.

It's pretty likely that the majority of Iraqis didn't want Saddam in power, but that leaves us on slightly iffy moral grounds in terms of getting rid of Saddam for them, and even more so for the highly questionable reasons and methods in which we did so.

And yes, i'm exagerating a bit, Bush himself does not have the personal power to take away my rights, but bills that he has proposed (such as the "Patriot" Act) have flown through congress because of the insane level of puplic support for him and the support of the Republicans in congress. And he effectively got elected by the Supreme Court, so i have a somewhat pesimistic view on what limits they'll place upon him, especially if he gets the chance to apoint any judges.

What rights do i fear losing?

The right to privacy, reproductive rights, the right to a fair trial, the right to free speech. For starters.

Daetrinn,

The slight difference you give the possibility of success of Communism over Capitalism only takes greed into account. The slight edge you give Communism in succeeding is completely obliterated by how much Communism discourages innovation, creativity and striving to work hard on a personal level, something Capitalism has going for it. These are qualities that should not be so lightly dismmissed.

~SDC~

vernmeister2u:

I believe he's a nasty guy, and i'm glad he's out of power. I would certainly believe that he might have nasty intentions towards Isreal, although in the last war he seemed to favor inefective missiles rather than terrorist attacks. And i've seen zero evidence that he was training terrorists that were going to attack the US.

All claims by the US government that Saddam was in any way associated with bin Laden and the Al Queda have been completly unsubstantiated by any reasonable evidence. Bin Laden has previously ordered the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam and throw him out of power, while simultaneously fighting against the US. Just as the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, all our enemies are not necesarily friends with each other.

vernmeister2u:

How does communism, in theory, discourage innovation, creativity and striving to work hard on a personal level?

Any comments about the USSR or Cuba or China will be thrown out, because i don't even consider those serious attempts at communism.

Reproductive rights? People are free to reproduce as much as they want. I haven't seen a bill yet that limits people from humping like bunnies.

Oh wait. You must be referring to a women's right to murder her unborn baby. Yea, I guess it sounds better when referred to as "Reproductive rights".

~SDC~

You can throw out whatever evidence you want, based on whatever you "consider" to be communist states, but those are exactly the REAL LIVE examples that show why it doesn't work.

It's pretty creative to pre-load your argument by saying I'm not going to consider the existing evidence. I like that. Pretty original. Heck, you could never be wrong then.

~SDC~

Okay, as an attempt to lighten the conversation for a moment, if only for (or because of) me, I just had this vision flash through my mind.

Several people across the world, well perhaps only Daetrinn and me (or only me?), feverishly pressing their refresh buttons, waiting for the next loaded comment in the GalCiv Political Talkfest forum. "Grrrr. No Way, that's outlandish...what a moron!!"

Step away from the computer vernmeister, you have a family you are neglecting... LOL



~SDC~