If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
your 3 guys promote socialized health care. more will suffer under that scheme than any of this other crap your posting. last i checked, the state gov'ts are the ones that do not infringe rights of abortion, same sex marriage, and stem cell research.
i think you may be confused by what "federal" and "state" mean.
At least you're trying to make an argument instead of just flinging insults.
How exactly would people suffer because they get heath care? Seems like not having it would cause a bit more suffering. Care to elaborate on that?
Um state governments have already been infringing on abortion and gay rights and the stem cell issue is a matter of federal funding. You don't keep up with the news much do you? Here's another link for you.
I am fully aware of the difference between federal and state. Why don't you go read up on Ron Paul and state's rights? I even provided a link in the OP.
Edit: Have a look at this and then scroll to the very bottom and look at the other rankings. Looks like Europe is better off than the US in many ways. And no, I haven't been to Europe. I can't afford that unfortunately or I'd already be out of here. I see no reason to not believe any of these sources though.
Now that I think of it -- if I was a born rich, greedy bastard maybe I would love this country. As it is, I would prefer some more corporate control.
Hmm, it looks like the original post disappeared. Here it is again.
The Internet community in general was being somewhat rational until this whole Ron Paul situation exploded. People are acting like he's some sort of freedom fighter. Reality is, he provides the opposite.
Many think his views about homosexuals, abortion, etcetera don't matter since none of the above affect them, but that says a lot about his overall personality. If you don't mind others suffering so you can have Ron Paul and his economic freedom, that speaks volumes of you as well.
State's rights are also bullshit. Imagine what a hellhole many of the southeastern states would be if they were given free reign. Cases such as Roe v. Wade should not be voidable by the unwashed masses.
I used to be a Libertarian (and Ron Paul doesn't qualify imo) so I know where you guys are coming from. Economic AND personal freedom sounds great right? Well it's not as simple as it appears. After a lot of thought I saw the errors in Libertarianism. Personal freedom doesn't cause any major problems. Economic freedom, on the other hand, does. The end result is the ruthless few dominating the benevolent many. Greed and the freedom to do what you wish to pursue more money can cause rather disgusting behavior. Sad as it may be, we must be protected from ourselves. Or more accurately, the ethical must be protected from the unethical.
I'm hoping Guiliani wins the Republican primary, personally. That way there is no way in hell a republican will end up in the white house. That bumbling fool could never make it all the way. He's leading in the Republican polls right now though so that's awesome lol.
Wikipedia entry on Ron Paul
Before going on I should mention that I am not a democrat. I don't believe political parties do us any good at all. All the party system does is let us pick a party and vote for whatever tool wins the primaries. That makes it too simple. We would be better off if the lazy sheep had to do some research to pick a favorite, thereby causing many of them to not vote at all.
I can't say I totally agree with any one of them but I can come damn close with Gravel. Too bad he got brushed aside when the Ron Paul frenzy started. Some think he's crazy, but it's just passion. I get the same way if not worse. A bit odd that it made people uncomfortable with him. It showed that he actually cared as opposed to the rest. I suppose I will have to deal with a government run by puppets as long as I live in the US.
I close this post with funfacts about neo-cons and the war on terror.
Khet, I don't believe anybody here believes in absolute freedom (i.e. anarchy). We all know that wouldn't work.
From my perspective I would like to see as little federal government as possible. i.e. the fed should protect the entire country from foreign attack...i.e. the military.
States should be allowed to manage their internal affairs via their local constitutions. Having a fed-state hierarchy like this allows great flexibility for people to decide what kind of life they want. i.e. if Kalifornia and Kalifornians would like to have a completely socialized european system of government, great! And if Nevada would like to have all the pot smoking, gun toting, anal sexed out men, sweet!
Keep federal government *overhead* extremely low and allow states to manage their own localized affairs.
The effect he would have is both direct and indirect. He would not move to prevent state governments from infringing on our right(for lack of a better word) to have abortions, marry the same sex, or any other activity fundies see fit to outlaw. The direct problems he would cause are: lack of stem cell research funding, preventing both members of a same-sex couple from adopting a child, and less separation between church and state.
I'm not gay, I don't have a disease for stem cells to help cure, I've never needed to have a baby aborted, and I've never had religious nonsense shoved down my throat by the public school system; but that doesn't mean I shouldn't care about those who do have these problems. It all boils down to religious oppression to me. The government should serve everyone, not just Christians.
Ok then, we're on a similar belieif system.
Although i dont trust politicians and have no faith in any of them until i see an athiest libertarian. Someone who's right in the middle and not influenced by voices in their head.
If only a humanist could run for office and actually have a chance. I keep hoping superstition will make a sharp decline, but I'm beginning to doubt we will ever be rid of it. For now, I am opposed to any overtly religious politicians as I value personal freedom above all else.
If only a humanist could run for office and actually have a chance. I keep hoping superstition will make a sharp decline, but I'm beginning to doubt we will ever be rid of it. For now, I am opposed to any overtly religious politicians as I value personal freedom above all else.
You know you can't have personal freedom without economic freedom, don't you? No, I guess you don't. I hope you'll learn it at some point.
PhilB
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
If only a humanist could run for office and actually have a chance. I keep hoping superstition will make a sharp decline, but I'm beginning to doubt we will ever be rid of it. For now, I am opposed to any overtly religious politicians as I value personal freedom above all else.
I wouldnt count on it. Stupid religions raise stupid kids to keep that stupid religion alive.
You know you can't have personal freedom without economic freedom, don't you? No, I guess you don't. I hope you'll learn it at some point.
PhilB
Maybe our definitions of the term are different. To me, personal freedom means the ability to do anything that does not infringe on someone else's liberty. Live and let live.
Economic freedom is self explanatory. The reason for restricting it is greed. I already explained my stance on this in the OP. I'd rather lose some economic freedom than get ass raped by the wealthy. Who would suffer from stricter corporate laws and socialized health care? Nobody that I'm aware of. The very rich might end up just rich. How awful lol.
Maybe our definitions of the term are different. To me, personal freedom means the ability to do anything that does not infringe on someone else's liberty. Live and let live.
Economic freedom is self explanatory. The reason for restricting it is greed. I already explained my stance on this in the OP. I'd rather lose some economic freedom than get ass raped by the wealthy. Who would suffer from stricter corporate laws and socialized health care? Nobody that I'm aware of. The very rich might end up just rich. How awful lol.
My definition of personal freedom is the same as yours. And doing "anything that does not infringe on someone else's liberty" includes such things as running a business, hiring who you want, keeping the money you earn, spending it how you like, and lots of other aspects of economic freedom. They are not separable.
Stricter corporate laws generally result in extra expenses of doing business, which reduces the ability of the company to grow, profit, hire people etc. So who suffers are (a) the consumer who pays higher prices, and (b) the worker who doesn't get employed because the company can't afford to hire more people.
Socialized health care results inevitably in rationing of care in some other fashion. And also results in less economic reward for innovation. So who suffers are (a) the people who wind up on long waiting lists for medical care, and (b) people who have diseases that are not yet curable, whose conditions may never become curable if the money to invest in a cure doesn't materialize because there's no profit in it. Take a look at how socialized health care actually works in the countries that have it. It's a nightmare for an awful lot of people. The rich do OK, because they can fly here and buy care (which kind of makes a mockery of the idea that it is an equalizer and a benefit for the poorer folks).
PhilB
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
My definition of personal freedom is the same as yours. And doing "anything that does not infringe on someone else's liberty" includes such things as running a business, hiring who you want, keeping the money you earn, spending it how you like, and lots of other aspects of economic freedom. They are not separable.
Stricter corporate laws generally result in extra expenses of doing business, which reduces the ability of the company to grow, profit, hire people etc. So who suffers are (a) the consumer who pays higher prices, and (b) the worker who doesn't get employed because the company can't afford to hire more people.
Socialized health care results inevitably in rationing of care in some other fashion. And also results in less economic reward for innovation. So who suffers are (a) the people who wind up on long waiting lists for medical care, and (b) people who have diseases that are not yet curable, whose conditions may never become curable if the money to invest in a cure doesn't materialize because there's no profit in it. Take a look at how socialized health care actually works in the countries that have it. It's a nightmare for an awful lot of people. The rich do OK, because they can fly here and buy care (which kind of makes a mockery of the idea that it is an equalizer and a benefit for the poorer folks).
PhilB
For corporate control I was thinking of something along the lines business ethics. Such as a setting a minimum wage one can live on (democrats have already passed this recently), limiting massive executive level wages and perks, auditing to prevent under-the-table workers, some other stuff I can't think of atm I don't advocate anything that would drive up prices. I just think that those who do all the actual work should get their share of the profits.
As far as socialist health care, it really depends on what sort of system is set up. If it was totally controlled by the government I can see how that would stifle innovation. As it is, medical bills are often absurdly high and insurance companies are conniving bastards. They operate for profit -- otherwise they wouldn't exist. I do see why drug companies charge what they do; they have to pay for research costs. The problem with prescription medication is the pharmacy markup on generics. A prescription I have been getting filled every month costs $75 (generic) at every pharmacy chain in the area. Then I found out Costco charges $17 for the same damn thing. Side effect for those with insurance: higher cost as well. Prescription markups are obscene. Some companies will behave ethically whether they are forced to or not. That is very commendable. As for the rest....
Do you see where some control here would benefit all? Excluding stockholders of course but I could care less about them anyway. I'm not talking about totally socialized medicine here. Research takes money. I'm all for that obviously. What I am not for is exec and shareholder max profit at the expense of everyone else.
I don't advocate anything that would drive up prices. I just think that those who do all the actual work should get their share of the profits.
Linear Mode
