Pepper Spray

[PinkyPie]

I understand police like to keep the peace. I understand that college tuition is too high. I'm only 16 and may not understand the situation. But I think anybody at any age would agree with me that pepper spraying protesters, who are not being violent is going a little too far. They were not messing around, they were not fighting, they were simply protesting high tuition rates. Then the police think it's okay to use force by pepper spraying them; not once, not twice, but three times!!!! That is absolutely ridiculous!!!
I believe that people protest to let others hear their voice. But when others don't listen and just force them to shut up. It defeats the purpose of protesting.
Just like the protesters on Wall Street. What gives police the right to abuse and kick these people out without caring about why they're there.
I am very upset with these situations. It scares me to think about what my future holds. I'm currently reading 1984, and I really do not want that happening in my lifetime. Or any lifetime for that:frown5::leaving: matter! But with all of the current events going on, it seems to me that what happens in 1984 might come true.

[togre]

I'm afraid your post is very one-sided. To help you understand other aspects of the situation I am going to post viewing only the other side.

I understand protesters being angry and upset. Times are tough and there are people in both public and private sectors who have no problem taking advantage of people for their own gain. But what do they think they are accomplishing with their shouting and marching? Write to the newspaper, Write to your representatives. Vote! Run for office! If tuition is high go somewhere else or get the regents removed or take courses through the mail.

And what gives with how they treat the police? The police are there to keep the peace. Why do they think they have the right to disobey orders to disperse or to block public access to roads and buildings? If I did it by myself its a crime, but if I do it with 100 friends its political express?! Bull. And that doesn't even cover the ones that actually attack the police. And what's with these stupid masks? If you are obeying the law show your face. It totally undermines the claims of "non-violence" when you all show up ready to rumble and then "presto" a rumble breaks out. If you ask me they should be glad police take such pains to use non-lethal methods, even if they endanger their own safety, the cops bend over backwards to avoid injuries and they catch all the grief if something goes wrong.


/Rant

In all actuality I know nothing of the specific instance with which you are concerned. Police are humans and can mess up, sometimes badly. But don't confuse a mob with democracy or protesting with accomplishing something.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

He's referring to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vjNc5P-I60). Completely unjustifiable.

[cafolini]

He's referring to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vjNc5P-I60). Completely unjustifiable.

Thanks for the video. I have a hard time with that. That cop is such an ***. And the others saying nothing? Hope they demode him or fire him.
To protect and to serve, eh?

[OrphanPip]

But don't confuse a mob with democracy or protesting with accomplishing something.

Because, as we all know, organized resistance has never accomplished anything ever, and the right to voice free speech isn't the cornerstone of modern democracy at all.

[Charles Darnay]

I will agree with Togre in one respect: people can be really one-sided when it comes to something like this, and there are those who are taking advantage of an already fractured movement (I guess that's two respects). But the notion of "shut up, go home and write a letter" or even worse "if there's something wrong your tuition, leave" - that's not right.

The act of gathering and protesting has its value and has/can accomplish change. Unfortunately I don't think the Occupy movements are doing that any longer: what change they inspired hit its peak weeks ago,

As for the pepper spray itself - I can't justify or support what happened in this instance but only say that it does not represent the totality of what is happening, and when it comes down to it, the majority of officers being harassed by protesters are not attacking or pepper-spraying anyone.

But then you see things like this and know that this particular officer will get way with minimal or no penalties and it becomes difficult to be objective.

[OrphanPip]

It's a different matter though, this is Berkeley students protesting at Berkley about California tuition hikes. It doesn't have anything to do with the Occupy protests, which lack clear objectives.

(although they are using the name of the Occupy movement)

[BienvenuJDC]

He's referring to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vjNc5P-I60). Completely unjustifiable.

It does seem that this police officer is being a jerk, however, this is only less than one minute that is shown. We have no idea from this video whether there were warnings that these students were to relocate to another area. We don't know if they were trespassing. Just because someone is not being violent doesn't mean that they have the right to be in this particular location at this time. Any one of these students could have just gotten up and left. They chose to remain sitting at this location. The police could have forcefully moved these people, maybe that is the next step. Maybe this man (who has been given the job to keep order) doesn't want to be here dealing with students who refuse to comply to a set of rules. Maybe he'd rather just tell these students to continue their protest in another area...and maybe he's spent the last hour doing that. He hasn't gotten out the tear gas, or the batons, they haven't beaten anyone, or shot anyone with rubber bullets. They are chanting, "Don't shoot students!" But these police officers don't seem to be exhibiting any kind of behavior that they want to hurt anyone. This man is very calm in what he's doing.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's likely that we don't have the whole story.

[OrphanPip]

Pepper spray is only supposed to be used in the case of a riot, when someone's body or property is threatened, neither of those were happening at Berkeley. They were doing a sit in, which is a standard protest tactic, it makes it more difficult to handcuff them for removal, but that is what should have been done. Pepper spraying them to disperse them is an abuse and misuse of power. It is not a light matter to be pepper sprayed, it requires medical attention immediately after, people have been killed by it.

[Jack of Hearts]

For the pepper spray: this wasn't Berkeley. This was UC Davis... in the quad where this poster eats his lunch every day.

The vibe around here right now is not great.







J

[Paulclem]

Disgraceful and somewhat wanton. I wonder if that policeman has kids himself. I can never understand the police using unnecessary force on their own citizens. During the miners' strike here in the UK in the 1980's, the governement got round the local sympathy the police had with the people of their community by bringing in police from different areas. It escalated the violence.

Were you in the video Jack?

[cafolini]

I will agree with Togre in one respect: people can be really one-sided when it comes to something like this, and there are those who are taking advantage of an already fractured movement (I guess that's two respects). But the notion of "shut up, go home and write a letter" or even worse "if there's something wrong your tuition, leave" - that's not right.

The act of gathering and protesting has its value and has/can accomplish change. Unfortunately I don't think the Occupy movements are doing that any longer: what change they inspired hit its peak weeks ago,

As for the pepper spray itself - I can't justify or support what happened in this instance but only say that it does not represent the totality of what is happening, and when it comes down to it, the majority of officers being harassed by protesters are not attacking or pepper-spraying anyone.

But then you see things like this and know that this particular officer will get way with minimal or no penalties and it becomes difficult to be objective.

I agree. And in particular, the mayority of officers are not like that, and they themselves recognize that manifestation has been useful in achieving changes. The police force we have today is far from being the assinine studs of Ohio State in 68.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It does seem that this police officer is being a jerk, however, this is only less than one minute that is shown. We have no idea from this video whether there were warnings that these students were to relocate to another area. We don't know if they were trespassing. Just because someone is not being violent doesn't mean that they have the right to be in this particular location at this time. Any one of these students could have just gotten up and left. They chose to remain sitting at this location. The police could have forcefully moved these people, maybe that is the next step. Maybe this man (who has been given the job to keep order) doesn't want to be here dealing with students who refuse to comply to a set of rules. Maybe he'd rather just tell these students to continue their protest in another area...and maybe he's spent the last hour doing that. He hasn't gotten out the tear gas, or the batons, they haven't beaten anyone, or shot anyone with rubber bullets. They are chanting, "Don't shoot students!" But these police officers don't seem to be exhibiting any kind of behavior that they want to hurt anyone. This man is very calm in what he's doing.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's likely that we don't have the whole story.

Thanks for supplying the largest amount of bull**** I've seen in a LONG time.

And, of course, it would be the boards resident ultra-pious Christian who defends the cop who is assaulting the completely non-threatening students. :rolleyes:

[Buh4Bee]

I watched the video. I want to know why those kids were lined up like that. They had their heads down and even covered with hats and hoods. It was a very orderly procedure. What police protocol justifies spraying protesters more than once?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

They were protesting tuition hikes at their university by sitting across the walkway. They weren't lined up like that so the policeman could better spray them, if that was your question. That was how they were peacefully protesting.

[Buh4Bee]

Here's an article:
http://www.mercurynews.com/occupy/ci_19384988

Here is a quote:
Meanwhile, UC Davis police Chief Annette Spicuzza and two officers were placed on administrative leave.

Yeah, I just went and read an article. Thanks MM. It's upsetting.

[Jack of Hearts]

Disgraceful and somewhat wanton. I wonder if that policeman has kids himself. I can never understand the police using unnecessary force on their own citizens. During the miners' strike here in the UK in the 1980's, the governement got round the local sympathy the police had with the people of their community by bringing in police from different areas. It escalated the violence.

Were you in the video Jack?

No. Played hooky on Friday.










J


Here is a picture from the UC Davis quad today.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1192&pictureid=9284



This is where the students were sitting when the police officer used the pepper spray. Those flowers were there first- this poster first saw them at about 9:50am. The quad was still sleepy then. Nobody messed with the flowers, which looked like they had been sitting alone for a long time. Around 11:30am it became the sight of the largest rally in UC Davis history (so this reader is told). The flowers were surrounded with more... stuff. The metal wires in the middle are twisted up to resemble tents (which, ostensibly, was what the whole ordeal started over). There was a sign that said 'Make a tent' and then you were supposed to put it in there as a show of solidarity.

[BienvenuJDC]

Thanks for supplying the largest amount of bull**** I've seen in a LONG time.

And, of course, it would be the boards resident ultra-pious Christian who defends the cop who is assaulting the completely non-threatening students. :rolleyes:

Ultra-pious? Now who spewing the BS? How exactly am I the board's "ultra-pious Christian"? That seems to be a very prejudice comment. Of course it goes unchecked, but I wouldn't expect that to be moderated.

And I wasn't defending anyone. I wasn't just asking questions that no one else was asking.

[JuniperWoolf]

I was standing next to a guy who got pepper sprayed by a cop with bad aim once. FYI: it's much more painful than you'd think. I was debilitated for at least a half hour. My dad, being a prison guard, has been pepper sprayed a dozen times. He's a tough guy and it brings him to his knees. People who have never have it done to them talk about pepper spray like it's a harmless way to keep people under control like putting them in cuffs or something, but pepper spraying kids who aren't a direct threat to anyone is a violent act in itself. It bloody hurts.

The pepper spray footage was pretty bad, but personally I cringed more at the billy clubing.

[Charles Darnay]

The pepper spray footage was pretty bad, but personally I cringed more at the billy clubing.


A quick Google search of billy club[b]ing returned this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyPxXy6AmqM

I don't think this is what you meant.....in short, I have no idea what the billy clubing video is.

[JuniperWoolf]

This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ). I don't know why it says that it's an occupy protest, as far as I know it was a tuition protest. The kids are chanting about tuition costs before they start getting clubs to the belly. It's nauseating, that one cop who's whacking that asian girl looks like he's churning butter.

Also, I know a few cops. People seem to think that they're all infallable authority figures, but the ones that I know were the 60%-70% students in my grade. They watch porn at work, they smoke weed, they chose to become cops for the benefits and prestige, they're normal. They aren't infallable, they're usually not even smart. They're just like the rest of us. They need to be regulated and monitored, not automatically respected and trusted for the career choice that they just-so-happened to make. When you see stuff like this, it's sheepish to say "well, I'm sure they had a good reason."

[OrphanPip]

This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ). I don't know why it says that it's an occupy protest, as far as I know it was a tuition protest. The kids are chanting about tuition costs before they start getting clubs to the belly. It's nauseating, that one cop who's whacking that asian girl looks like he's churning butter.

Also, I know a few cops. People seem to think that they're all infallable authority figures, but the ones that I know were the 60%-70% students in my grade. They watch porn at work, they smoke weed, they chose to become cops for the benefits and prestige, they're normal. They aren't infallable, they're usually not even smart. They're just like the rest of us. They need to be regulated and monitored, not automatically respected and trusted for the career choice that they just-so-happened to make. When you see stuff like this, it's sheepish to say "well, I'm sure they had a good reason."

Right, that's the Berkeley protest, I got it confused with UC Davis.

[Buh4Bee]

Here's another quote from the article:

The protest Friday was held in support of the overall Occupy Wall Street movement and in solidarity with protesters at the University of California, Berkeley who were rammed by police with batons on Nov. 9.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Ultra-pious? Now who spewing the BS? How exactly am I the board's "ultra-pious Christian"? That seems to be a very prejudice comment. Of course it goes unchecked, but I wouldn't expect that to be moderated.
I've seen your posts, which made me make my admittedly prejudicial comment. I don't get the "Of course it goes unchecked" comment. Most stuff does if it isn't reported . . . so, you have the power!

I was standing next to a guy who got pepper sprayed by a cop with bad aim once. FYI: it's much more painful than you'd think. I was debilitated for at least a half hour. My dad, being a prison guard, has been pepper sprayed a dozen times. He's a tough guy and it brings him to his knees. People who have never have it done to them talk about pepper spray like it's a harmless way to keep people under control like putting them in cuffs or something, but pepper spraying kids who aren't a direct threat to anyone is a violent act in itself. It bloody hurts.

The pepper spray footage was pretty bad, but personally I cringed more at the billy clubing.
Yeah, the billy-clubbing is hard to watch.

This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ). I don't know why it says that it's an occupy protest, as far as I know it was a tuition protest. The kids are chanting about tuition costs before they start getting clubs to the belly. It's nauseating, that one cop who's whacking that asian girl looks like he's churning butter.

Also, I know a few cops. People seem to think that they're all infallable authority figures, but the ones that I know were the 60%-70% students in my grade. They watch porn at work, they smoke weed, they chose to become cops for the benefits and prestige, they're normal. They aren't infallable, they're usually not even smart. They're just like the rest of us. They need to be regulated and monitored, not automatically respected and trusted for the career choice that they just-so-happened to make. When you see stuff like this, it's sheepish to say "well, I'm sure they had a good reason."
I've come to the conclusion that when it comes to cops, at least around here, there seems to be a pretty even, 50/50 split between cops who are good people that actually try to protect and serve, and cops who are dicks that get off on the authority trip. The latter stick out more, of course, so it's probably better than 50/50.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't take up for police officers that go beyond their authority. There ought to be disciplinary actions for these people.

But it's funny that the real villains here are the school administrators and educators who are sending these blue collar civil servants out to do the dirty work. yes...that would be those pious professors who are driving tuition rates to the unimaginative levels. But it's a whole lot easier to take shots at the police officers. Let's consider those who cowardly sit up in the offices peering down at it all. Or do we not want to mention them?

[Charles Darnay]

I don't take up for police officers that go beyond their authority. There ought to be disciplinary actions for these people.

But it's funny that the real villains here are the school administrators and educators who are sending these blue collar civil servants out to do the dirty work. yes...that would be those pious professors who are driving tuition rates to the unimaginative levels. But it's a whole lot easier to take shots at the police officers. Let's consider those who cowardly sit up in the offices peering down at it all. Or do we not want to mention them?

In the case of UC Davis at least, the administration (the Chancellor) is receiving a lot of criticism (from students and faculty) and calls for resignation. Whether it will amount to anything, I don't know, the cynical part of me says "probably not"

[OrphanPip]

If the case in the US is anything like Canada, public universities have seen cuts in the number of faculty, and cuts in the pay they receive. At the same time there have been skyrocketing increases in administrative salaries and increases in class sizes. The fault isn't with the professors.

Investigations into education funding in Quebec have found that only 2/3 of tuition money collected from students actually gets invested into the schools. On top of that the provincial government receives money for education funding from the federal government, which they again misappropriated and spent elsewhere. They then decided this year to raise tuition to help fund the school again. But that's not the real purpose of tuition hikes, they're really just a hidden tax masquerading as a user fee. The money rarely goes into funding their education, it goes into paying for other government spending and waste. And then at the level of the university the money they collect goes disproportionately into advertising and industrial research (which should be funded separately from tuition fees since it doesn't actually impact on classroom education). The faculty to student ratio at Berkeley is 1 to 15, and that is a pretty low ratio for most universities. At a tuition rate of roughly 7000 for residents, and 18,000 for non residents. The average salary of a full-time professor in the US, according to wiki, is 73,000 a year (most profs these days aren't full time). What does that tell us? Even if the student body at Berkeley was composed entirely of California residents, tuition likely covers salaries easily, which leaves infrastructure and administrative costs to be covered. Should not the cost of infrastructure and administration be covered by those that also enjoy the benefits of those services, like industry and research funding institutions. In fact, students are being expected to fund, often for profit, research on top of their education. When we consider that these schools also raise money through athletics, donations, and receive government funding, we should probably be sceptical about why education costs need to be increased.

[Jack of Hearts]

Is that USD? Because the tuition for UC Berkeley is roughly $13,000 a year for California residents. For nonresidents, it's $23,000 (compared with UC Davis, which has raised tuition starting this year to $15,000 a year for residents and $25,000 a year for nonresidents).






J



EDIT: This is not the total estimated cost of attendance, which in the UC system, seems to hover around $32,000 per year for residents and $55,000 per year for nonresidents.

Here's some video that this poster found particularly harrowing:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkX08YTLnm8








J

[Charles Darnay]

First thing I thought of was the ending of "The Birds".

[OrphanPip]

Is that USD? Because the tuition for UC Berkeley is roughly $13,000 a year for California residents. For nonresidents, it's $23,000 (compared with UC Davis, which has raised tuition starting this year to $15,000 a year for residents and $25,000 a year for nonresidents).


You're right, I took the per semester fees, in which case, according to their website (http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Default.aspx?PageID=feesched.html), it would actually be around $14,000 and $37,000.

I'll tell you that's not even a good deal for a public university, I paid 3,200 a year when I did my undergrad, and that's from a school competitive with American universities in international rankings. The funding of American higher education is broken.

[Jack of Hearts]

You'd have to be sick to pay it. But then again, look at academia.



http://100rsns.blogspot.com/







J

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If the case in the US is anything like Canada, public universities have seen cuts in the number of faculty, and cuts in the pay they receive. At the same time there have been skyrocketing increases in administrative salaries and increases in class sizes. The fault isn't with the professors.

In this case, no one is blaming the professors in any way. They're calling for the resignation of the chancellor, who I was surprised to learn when hearing her give a speech can barely speak English . . . which seems weird.

And our university situation is pretty much the same. Professors are getting fired, sometimes whole departments are being done away with, while tuition and class size goes up, with an increase in adjunct and GA teachers, also.

[Darcy88]

In this case, no one is blaming the professors in any way. They're calling for the resignation of the chancellor, who I was surprised to learn when hearing her give a speech can barely speak English . . . which seems weird.

And our university situation is pretty much the same. Professors are getting fired, sometimes whole departments are being done away with, while tuition and class size goes up, with an increase in adjunct and GA teachers, also.

I think every nation could take a page out of Germany's book, an economic powerhouse where post-secondary education is in most cases provided free of charge.

[BienvenuJDC]

I think every nation could take a page out of Germany's book, an economic powerhouse where post-secondary education is in most cases provided free of charge.

And with most every socialist country in economic turmoil, who would be paying for it? It's easy to ask for the government to pay for everything, but it's really the people who are paying for it.

[Vonny]

And with most every socialist country in economic turmoil, who would be paying for it? It's easy to ask for the government to pay for everything, but it's really the people who are paying for it.

Why can't the ultra rich pay for it?

And there's no way an education can cost that much. Somebody is getting much richer through the school scam.

[stlukesguild]

Investigations into education funding in Quebec have found that only 2/3 of tuition money collected from students actually gets invested into the schools. On top of that the provincial government receives money for education funding from the federal government, which they again misappropriated and spent elsewhere. They then decided this year to raise tuition to help fund the school again. But that's not the real purpose of tuition hikes, they're really just a hidden tax masquerading as a user fee. The money rarely goes into funding their education, it goes into paying for other government spending and waste. And then at the level of the university the money they collect goes disproportionately into advertising and industrial research (which should be funded separately from tuition fees since it doesn't actually impact on classroom education). The faculty to student ratio at Berkeley is 1 to 15, and that is a pretty low ratio for most universities. At a tuition rate of roughly 7000 for residents, and 18,000 for non residents. The average salary of a full-time professor in the US, according to wiki, is 73,000 a year (most profs these days aren't full time). What does that tell us? Even if the student body at Berkeley was composed entirely of California residents, tuition likely covers salaries easily, which leaves infrastructure and administrative costs to be covered. Should not the cost of infrastructure and administration be covered by those that also enjoy the benefits of those services, like industry and research funding institutions. In fact, students are being expected to fund, often for profit, research on top of their education. When we consider that these schools also raise money through athletics, donations, and receive government funding, we should probably be sceptical about why education costs need to be increased.

Orphan Pip- Yes... I quite suspect a lot of the old business as usual diversion of tuition is beginning to come under closer scrutiny as a result of the economy. I attended one of the best art schools in the nation a little over 15 years ago. In my final year at school, the tuition at this private institution hit $10,000. It had been just under $7000 when I was a Freshman. Last year the tuition ran $48,000+ in spite of the fact that the school's reputation has been in decline for years. The school is largely a haven for rich kids with fantasies of being the next art star.

When I returned to college to take the require education classes for my teaching license, I was able to pay my tuition out of my meager salary working various peon jobs... and still pay for an apartment, car, my art studio, etc... Currently the tuition at the state universities has risen to the point where it frequently far surpasses what I paid my final year at a private art school. An article in the newspaper here frequently touched upon just one of the hidden costs of tuition. Students in state universities in Ohio paid on average $750+ in increased tuition costs simply to underwrite the expenses of university football and basketball teams. Students paid this even if they never attended a single game and had no interest in sports.

I have little doubt that there are far more hidden costs within these obscenely inflated tuition price tags. In my own profession, teachers are required to take continual college classes to maintain their license. The classes frequently run $1000-$1500 or more (plus the costs of books). In return for this money the students can expect 2 hours in a crowded classroom once a week for 3-4 months with a PhD. candidate in education who has never been in a classroom and hasn't a clue passing out xerox copied handouts.

[BienvenuJDC]

Why can't the ultra rich pay for it?

And there's no way an education can cost that much. Somebody is getting much richer through the school scam.

Why should they? And who are the ultra rich...oh, you mean like Oprah Winfrey?

[Vonny]

Why should they? And who are the ultra rich...oh, you mean like Oprah Winfrey?

Wait, this entire post is an edit. This is like talking to my mother, so I'll just stop.

Why should they? :lol:

[LadyLuck]

Why can't the ultra rich pay for it?


Just out of curiosity, why should the ultra rich have to pay for it? Most of them are not inherently wealthy, and many of them already give large sums to charities and foundations that they support. Why should they be further required to supplement the income who are less successful or less wise in their choice of degree? Education costs are very high, and I have my own burden of student loans to pay. It isn't right to demand that someone else pay them for me. If I had chosen to go with my "dream" vocation I would have three times as much in student loans. I didn't do this because of the costs to this would have been so high, I settled on a more practical business degree. We all have choices to make, and we should have to live with them. When did it become acceptable to look at what another has worked for and acquired and say "you're better off than me and I want some. Give it to me, and if you don't, I'll cry to the government and demand that they make you give it to me".

I tend to be of the opinion that my generation needs to grow up, accept responsibility for our decisions, and realize that hard work is what pays off. It is not the responsibility of people who have worked and been wildly successful to supplement the incomes of people who are less. I believe in supporting people who are mentally ill or physically disabled (legitimately on both, not some made up garbage), but it is not their responsibility to pay for everyone to go to whatever school they wish for whatever they wish. If you want to go to Yale or Duke, either get a scholarship or be prepared to pay for it. If you are not able or willing to do either of these things, begin to compromise until your are at a level you can either afford to pay off or obtain a scholarship to attend. It is time that people start to live in the real world and not the world we were taught about. You can not be anything you wish to be, and sometimes the people who are truly capable of this can't afford to pay for it. You must compromise on your dreams. If you wish to be an academic and so do 2,500 other people of equal intelligence and you are all competing for the same 25 jobs, a LOT of you will be out of luck. This is reality, and because it didn't happen to work out for you is not a reason to demand that someone who it did work out for pick up the tab.

[Vonny]

Well, take Oprah for instance. I don't believe she earned her billions of dollars. She figured out a way to channel the wealth created by hard working people into her pocket.

[LadyLuck]

Well, take Oprah for instance. I don't believe she earned her billions of dollars. She figured out a way to channel the wealth created by hard working people into her pocket.

That in itself takes a certain amount of skill, talent, etc. Take her as an example, and think about the fact that she also does not work 8 hour days. Most of these people are a slave to their business as opposed to the other way around. There is something that has made it possible to be where they are at. This may be talent, hard work, superior cunning and intelligence, a predisposition to attractiveness or whatever. Regardless, they still work, and at the end of the day they have the largest amount invested in their business in terms of capital. It stands to reason that they should see the greatest return. Also keep in mind, that Oprah has donated millions of dollars to social causes. Given that it is HER money, she should be able to choose those that she wishes to fund. It isn't up to government to demand that they contribute to the education of people who simply don't wish to pay for their own or compromise on finding a more affordable school or a more open and/or lucrative field.

[stlukesguild]

Just out of curiosity, why should the ultra rich have to pay for it? Most of them are not inherently wealthy, and many of them already give large sums to charities and foundations that they support. Why should they be further required to supplement the income who are less successful or less wise in their choice of degree? Education costs are very high, and I have my own burden of student loans to pay. It isn't right to demand that someone else pay them for me. If I had chosen to go with my "dream" vocation I would have three times as much in student loans. I didn't do this because of the costs to this would have been so high, I settled on a more practical business degree. We all have choices to make, and we should have to live with them. When did it become acceptable to look at what another has worked for and acquired and say "you're better off than me and I want some. Give it to me, and if you don't, I'll cry to the government and demand that they make you give it to me".

I tend to be of the opinion that my generation needs to grow up, accept responsibility for our decisions, and realize that hard work is what pays off. It is not the responsibility of people who have worked and been wildly successful to supplement the incomes of people who are less. I believe in supporting people who are mentally ill or physically disabled (legitimately on both, not some made up garbage), but it is not their responsibility to pay for everyone to go to whatever school they wish for whatever they wish. If you want to go to Yale or Duke, either get a scholarship or be prepared to pay for it. If you are not able or willing to do either of these things, begin to compromise until your are at a level you can either afford to pay off or obtain a scholarship to attend. It is time that people start to live in the real world and not the world we were taught about. You can not be anything you wish to be, and sometimes the people who are truly capable of this can't afford to pay for it. You must compromise on your dreams. If you wish to be an academic and so do 2,500 other people of equal intelligence and you are all competing for the same 25 jobs, a LOT of you will be out of luck. This is reality, and because it didn't happen to work out for you is not a reason to demand that someone who it did work out for pick up the tab.

This dispute touches on the issue of social responsibility vs self-reliance. The United States embraces the notion of the self-reliance and the rugged individual... but even so we have decided to employ a broad array of "Socialist" ideas and programs. At some point during our development as a society it was decided that for the betterment of society as a whole we would establish a police force and a fire department and sanitation and sewer workers and public education and a highway department, etc... in the belief that everyone deserves a degree of protection from fire and crime, and every child deserves an education etc... We eventually came to the point where it was agreed upon that everyone deserves an access to housing and minimal sustenance... and so subsidized housing and food stamps programs were established. At some point it was decided for the good of society that children not be exploited by being allowed to work prior to a given age, nor that workers be exploited by being required to work beyond a certain number of hours a day... or beyond a certain age.

At what point did it become acceptable to actually seriously contemplate reactionary and regressive approaches to how we think of society? We are still debating universal health care as if it should not be a given right of every citizen to be afforded proper medical care. Public schools are in the cross-hairs with many calling for teacher accountability where the real goal is the elimination of public schools in those poorest neighborhoods where it is seen as not being worth the investment (as if the increased costs of Welfare, food stamps, and prison for those uneducated and unemployable will be cheaper).

The issue of public-funded post-secondary education is one more question of where our values and priorities lie. You speak of the earnings of the wealthy as if this were something achieved solely as a result of their own efforts... as if they were not also part of the largely society as a whole. I agree that there are limits to what we (as a society) can expect from our government. I personally think we need to rethink Welfare and Food Stamps and eliminate generations living off the public by establishing limitations, work requirements (as in the old WPA), and required job-training/education in order to maintain eligibility. At the same time... I think we need to look at what is happening when college tuition continues to increase to the point where only the wealthy can afford an education. If we acknowledge that our most intelligent and most studious are likely to be among the greatest contributors to our society (in monetary terms and otherwise) it seems only commonsense to support public funded university education... to a certain extent. No... we can't be expected to fund every student's desire to major in basket-weaving, French philosophy, or ancient Indian theology... but are we simply going to accept the notion that only those who can afford it... only those born into wealthier families are deserving of a higher education... and are we to accept the notion that funding for higher education should be limited solely to the practical and pragmatic?

[Vonny]

How can we afford to give the ultra rich social security retirement income and medicare?

[LadyLuck]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
The issue of public-funded post-secondary education is one more question of where our values and priorities lie. You speak of the earnings of the wealthy as if this were something achieved solely as a result of their own efforts... as if they were not also part of the largely society as a whole.

As always, I love to read your responses, I truly do :)

Before getting to the above, I would like to talk a bit about the rest. I am a believer in social responsibility, but I do not believe that it should be government mandated social responsibility. It is up to the individual or the corporation to determine the social causes they wish to support. The idea that everyone is entitled to a minimum standard of living is not something that I would dispute. I will dispute what this standard of living should entail. At which point does it become necessary to provide an entire nation with a middle class lifestyle whether they have earned it or not?

Many things have become necessary to people in the US. Is internet access in their home part of the necessary care? Should all people have access to the latest and greatest medical advancements despite their ability to afford them? Should people receive subsidized housing, food, cell phone, free medical, school, internet, school lunches and the above for their children etc? These are things that I must work and sacrifice for. Should someone just receive the same simply because their are others who have more than them? My point is that I believe people should have reasonable clothing, housing, food, and medical. I'm not saying they should not be able to receive antibiotics as needed or formula for their baby. No one should freeze on a cold night, and no child should go hungry or die from a treatable infection. That said, these same people are not entitled to knee replacement surgery and other luxury medical care. They are entitled to a high school education and I believe in the availability of scholarships, but they are not entitled to go to Yale and expect someone else to pay for it. The reasonable standard of living in our country should not include luxury items. Needs are what should be met, and luxury medical and other luxury items are not what should be provided.

Now for the above. The earnings of the wealthy are, and should be, their own. These people are paying those who work for them far more than what it is that they earn in a year. Additionally, much of their wealth is tied up in the intangible value of a company or their stock that is held to maintain their controlling interest. They are part of a larger society, but they employ numerous people both directly and indirectly. They pay taxes already. Many of them are already donating large sums to causes. What right do people have to demand more? If each person with a million dollar a year income has to return half of it to pay for the wants of others, what do you think will happen to prices? Sure, education may be free now and minimum wage may be $10, but now a gallon of milk is $7. What was once the dollar menu at McDonalds now is the $3 menu because of the rise in operating and food costs. After all, suppliers will have increased costs so they'll charge more, and it will all trickle back down. The same people who are demanding more for less with end up with less for more, and then where will the people who just work hard and try to do their best to do well in their careers and by their families be? Me personally, I'm a salary employee, and because of cost increases, there has been no money to increase my wage, so in effect I make less now than I did a year ago. Now amplify that... I'm not a minimum wage employee so I don't benefit from that increase, I'm not receiving medical from the state so I have no cost savings there, and I will be faced to foot the bill for rising costs across the board. Sure, the 20 something at McDonalds will benefit by raised wages and going to school for free, but for people who are not doing the bare minimum and working at success there will be pressure from all sides. My taxes go up, after all I make good money and can afford it. Costs go up because businesses must still run at a profit. They're not a charity organization. They are there to make money. Finally, my wage stagnates because my CEO in a small business can not afford to meet the rising costs and taxes impressed on him so he can not afford to give raises. Who really does this benefit?

You ask where priorities lie, and mine are focused on what was once a cornerstone of our culture, hard work. Why should people be penalized for success and rewarded for poor decisions and underachievement?


How can we afford to give the ultra rich social security retirement income and medicare?

How can we afford to pay out ten times in medical for people who wish to have every elective procedure (I know and love a number of them dearly) when there was never enough money put away to support this? It's all about living within your means, and not demanding someone else pick up the difference because you wish to buy a Ferrari at the price of a Rabbit.

[Vonny]

How can we afford to pay out ten times in medical for people who wish to have every elective procedure (I know and love a number of them dearly) when there was never enough money put away to support this? It's all about living within your means, and not demanding someone else pick up the difference because you wish to buy a Ferrari at the price of a Rabbit.

But there's old ladies with no transportation at all, who worked very hard their entire lives, in some job that wasn't properly valued by society, and now they can't afford dentures, and you've got very rich people who didn't work at all, (or not what I define as work), who are drawing much larger social security checks than the old lady with no car and no dentures.

If this is a country of many Christians, did no one read the book of Acts?

[Darcy88]

As always, I love to read your responses, I truly do :)

Before getting to the above, I would like to talk a bit about the rest. I am a believer in social responsibility, but I do not believe that it should be government mandated social responsibility. It is up to the individual or the corporation to determine the social causes they wish to support. The idea that everyone is entitled to a minimum standard of living is not something that I would dispute. I will dispute what this standard of living should entail. At which point does it become necessary to provide an entire nation with a middle class lifestyle whether they have earned it or not?

Many things have become necessary to people in the US. Is internet access in their home part of the necessary care? Should all people have access to the latest and greatest medical advancements despite their ability to afford them? Should people receive subsidized housing, food, cell phone, free medical, school, internet, school lunches and the above for their children etc? These are things that I must work and sacrifice for. Should someone just receive the same simply because their are others who have more than them? My point is that I believe people should have reasonable clothing, housing, food, and medical. I'm not saying they should not be able to receive antibiotics as needed or formula for their baby. No one should freeze on a cold night, and no child should go hungry or die from a treatable infection. That said, these same people are not entitled to knee replacement surgery and other luxury medical care. They are entitled to a high school education and I believe in the availability of scholarships, but they are not entitled to go to Yale and expect someone else to pay for it. The reasonable standard of living in our country should not include luxury items. Needs are what should be met, and luxury medical and other luxury items are not what should be provided.

Now for the above. The earnings of the wealthy are, and should be, their own. These people are paying those who work for them far more than what it is that they earn in a year. Additionally, much of their wealth is tied up in the intangible value of a company or their stock that is held to maintain their controlling interest. They are part of a larger society, but they employ numerous people both directly and indirectly. They pay taxes already. Many of them are already donating large sums to causes. What right do people have to demand more? If each person with a million dollar a year income has to return half of it to pay for the wants of others, what do you think will happen to prices? Sure, education may be free now and minimum wage may be $10, but now a gallon of milk is $7. What was once the dollar menu at McDonalds now is the $3 menu because of the rise in operating and food costs. After all, suppliers will have increased costs so they'll charge more, and it will all trickle back down. The same people who are demanding more for less with end up with less for more, and then where will the people who just work hard and try to do their best to do well in their careers and by their families be? Me personally, I'm a salary employee, and because of cost increases, there has been no money to increase my wage, so in effect I make less now than I did a year ago. Now amplify that... I'm not a minimum wage employee so I don't benefit from that increase, I'm not receiving medical from the state so I have no cost savings there, and I will be faced to foot the bill for rising costs across the board. Sure, the 20 something at McDonalds will benefit by raised wages and going to school for free, but for people who are not doing the bare minimum and working at success there will be pressure from all sides. My taxes go up, after all I make good money and can afford it. Costs go up because businesses must still run at a profit. They're not a charity organization. They are there to make money. Finally, my wage stagnates because my CEO in a small business can not afford to meet the rising costs and taxes impressed on him so he can not afford to give raises. Who really does this benefit?

You ask where priorities lie, and mine are focused on what was once a cornerstone of our culture, hard work. Why should people be penalized for success and rewarded for poor decisions and underachievement?

In the 1950s and 1960s the top tax rate was over 90% and the American economy grew at a rate double that at which it grew over the past decade. Also those fears you speak of here failed to materialize.

[LadyLuck]

But there's old ladies with no transportation at all, who worked very hard their entire lives, in some job that wasn't properly valued by society, and now they can't afford dentures, and you've got very rich people who didn't work at all, (or not what I define as work), who are drawing much larger social security checks than the old lady with no car and no dentures.

If this is a Christian country, did no one read the book of Acts?

These people paid in much more. Also, it is very rare that someone is just rich. People who are inherently rich still work many times running foundations and such to benefit others. Should they be punished for being born into the right family? Running a business or foundation or just seeing to the many charities the rich already contribute too is still work. Much of my job is sending e-mails and reading over numbers. Is my contribution less because it is perceived as easier? I just don't understand why people should be punished for being successful when most would quite willing give generously. What incentive does this leave for people to just be kind and generous of their own free will if people who have less feel that they should just be able to take at their own desire what they have not earned themselves?


In the 1950s and 1960s the top tax rate was over 90% and the American economy grew at a rate double that at which it grew over the past decade. Also those fears you speak of here failed to materialize.

Not for me. I live those fears every day since that is my situation. I am well to do enough to receive no aid and must pay out to others, but I can not keep up with the rising costs of medical, food, gas and the like any more than the next person. Should I be required to pay for someone to have better medical than I can provide for my own children simple because I make a decent salary? Ultimately it isn't the rich who find themselves paying, and it isn't the people who are drawing the funding out either.

[Darcy88]

Not for me. I live those fears every day since that is my situation. I am well to do enough to receive no aid and must pay out to others, but I can not keep up with the rising costs of medical, food, gas and the like any more than the next person. Should I be required to pay for someone to have better medical than I can provide for my own children simple because I make a decent salary? Ultimately it isn't the rich who find themselves paying, and it isn't the people who are drawing the funding out either.

When people talk of taxing the rich they are talking about taxing the 400 richest Americans who together possess more wealth than the bottom 150 000 000 Americans.

The economy benefits when they are taxed heavily, as I pointed out in my previous post.

[Vonny]

These people paid in much more. Also, it is very rare that someone is just rich. People who are inherently rich still work many times running foundations and such to benefit others. Should they be punished for being born into the right family? Running a business or foundation or just seeing to the many charities the rich already contribute too is still work. Much of my job is sending e-mails and reading over numbers. Is my contribution less because it is perceived as easier? I just don't understand why people should be punished for being successful when most would quite willing give generously. What incentive does this leave for people to just be kind and generous of their own free will if people who have less feel that they should just be able to take at their own desire what they have not earned themselves?

Punished? :lol:




Just out of curiosity, why should the ultra rich have to pay for it? Most of them are not inherently wealthy, and many of them already give large sums to charities and foundations that they support. Why should they be further required to supplement the income who are less successful or less wise in their choice of degree? Education costs are very high, and I have my own burden of student loans to pay. It isn't right to demand that someone else pay them for me. If I had chosen to go with my "dream" vocation I would have three times as much in student loans. I didn't do this because of the costs to this would have been so high, I settled on a more practical business degree. We all have choices to make, and we should have to live with them. When did it become acceptable to look at what another has worked for and acquired and say "you're better off than me and I want some. Give it to me, and if you don't, I'll cry to the government and demand that they make you give it to me".

I tend to be of the opinion that my generation needs to grow up, accept responsibility for our decisions, and realize that hard work is what pays off. It is not the responsibility of people who have worked and been wildly successful to supplement the incomes of people who are less. I believe in supporting people who are mentally ill or physically disabled (legitimately on both, not some made up garbage), but it is not their responsibility to pay for everyone to go to whatever school they wish for whatever they wish. If you want to go to Yale or Duke, either get a scholarship or be prepared to pay for it. If you are not able or willing to do either of these things, begin to compromise until your are at a level you can either afford to pay off or obtain a scholarship to attend. It is time that people start to live in the real world and not the world we were taught about. You can not be anything you wish to be, and sometimes the people who are truly capable of this can't afford to pay for it. You must compromise on your dreams. If you wish to be an academic and so do 2,500 other people of equal intelligence and you are all competing for the same 25 jobs, a LOT of you will be out of luck. This is reality, and because it didn't happen to work out for you is not a reason to demand that someone who it did work out for pick up the tab.

This dispute touches on the issue of social responsibility vs self-reliance. The United States embraces the notion of the self-reliance and the rugged individual... but even so we have decided to employ a broad array of "Socialist" ideas and programs. At some point during our development as a society it was decided that for the betterment of society as a whole we would establish a police force and a fire department and sanitation and sewer workers and public education and a highway department, etc... in the belief that everyone deserves a degree of protection from fire and crime, and every child deserves an education etc... We eventually came to the point where it was agreed upon that everyone deserves an access to housing and minimal sustenance... and so subsidized housing and food stamps programs were established. At some point it was decided for the good of society that children not be exploited by being allowed to work prior to a given age, nor that workers be exploited by being required to work beyond a certain number of hours a day... or beyond a certain age.

At what point did it become acceptable to actually seriously contemplate reactionary and regressive approaches to how we think of society? We are still debating universal health care as if it should not be a given right of every citizen to be afforded proper medical care. Public schools are in the cross-hairs with many calling for teacher accountability where the real goal is the elimination of public schools in those poorest neighborhoods where it is seen as not being worth the investment (as if the increased costs of Welfare, food stamps, and prison for those uneducated and unemployable will be cheaper).

The issue of public-funded post-secondary education is one more question of where our values and priorities lie. You speak of the earnings of the wealthy as if this were something achieved solely as a result of their own efforts... as if they were not also part of the largely society as a whole. I agree that there are limits to what we (as a society) can expect from our government. I personally think we need to rethink Welfare and Food Stamps and eliminate generations living off the public by establishing limitations, work requirements (as in the old WPA), and required job-training/education in order to maintain eligibility. At the same time... I think we need to look at what is happening when college tuition continues to increase to the point where only the wealthy can afford an education. If we acknowledge that our most intelligent and most studious are likely to be among the greatest contributors to our society (in monetary terms and otherwise) it seems only commonsense to support public funded university education... to a certain extent. No... we can't be expected to fund every student's desire to major in basket-weaving, French philosophy, or ancient Indian theology... but are we simply going to accept the notion that only those who can afford it... only those born into wealthier families are deserving of a higher education... and are we to accept the notion that funding for higher education should be limited solely to the practical and pragmatic?

Back on topic - maybe

[Varenne Rodin]

So aptly stated, stlukesguild.

[stlukesguild]

Before getting to the above, I would like to talk a bit about the rest. I am a believer in social responsibility, but I do not believe that it should be government mandated social responsibility. It is up to the individual or the corporation to determine the social causes they wish to support. The idea that everyone is entitled to a minimum standard of living is not something that I would dispute. I will dispute what this standard of living should entail. At which point does it become necessary to provide an entire nation with a middle class lifestyle whether they have earned it or not?

And there are legitimate areas of debate as to how much is too much. At the founding of the US, the Congress rejected the most modest proposals for state funded public education. We currently accept the notion that all children deserve a public education through the 12th grade regardless of their financial status. As our society has evolved, the high-school diploma has become virtually worthless. Where my father could leave school before graduation and find employment working in a factory that paid a solid middle-class wage, this is no longer a reality. Most areas of employment have become increasingly specialized and demand degrees and certifications to even be considered. Much of this is due to lobbying by the colleges and universities for "professional standards".

For example, in my own field of art education, I was required to take a set number of courses established by the state Department of Education in response to recommendations of the universities before I could apply for a license to teach art. These classes were a sheer waste of time and money. I already had a degree in art from one of the top art schools in the nation; none of the required art classes even met up to the standards of what I had already learned or mastered in my art school degree, and nothing I gleaned in the education classes prepared me for the reality of working in an inner-city school. It would have made far more sense to have recognized my prior education and employment history, and placed me within some type of mentoring program with an experienced mentoring teacher for a period of time in a real classroom situation... but the state and the colleges have established a criteria having nothing to do with reality that must be met prior to being allowed to work in this field.

This is true in many other careers. A college degree has become the necessary prerequisite to even get your foot inside the door. It only seems logical that if the government is partly responsible for the fact that a college degree has become a necessity in most walks of life... and if there are few options outside this degree... then there is a certain responsibility to assist the student population in attaining this degree.

Many things have become necessary to people in the US. Is internet access in their home part of the necessary care? Should all people have access to the latest and greatest medical advancements despite their ability to afford them? Should people receive subsidized housing, food, cell phone, free medical, school, internet, school lunches and the above for their children etc? These are things that I must work and sacrifice for. Should someone just receive the same simply because their are others who have more than them? My point is that I believe people should have reasonable clothing, housing, food, and medical. I'm not saying they should not be able to receive antibiotics as needed or formula for their baby. No one should freeze on a cold night, and no child should go hungry or die from a treatable infection. That said, these same people are not entitled to knee replacement surgery and other luxury medical care. They are entitled to a high school education and I believe in the availability of scholarships, but they are not entitled to go to Yale and expect someone else to pay for it. The reasonable standard of living in our country should not include luxury items. Needs are what should be met, and luxury medical and other luxury items are not what should be provided.

I am in full agreement with regard to certain luxuries. I resent the fact that my phone and computer bill includes a "Universal Access Tax" that is used to make sure the poor students I teach are able to walk around with better cell phones than I can afford and go home to high-speed cable. I also resent the fact that "entitlements" such as food stamps, subsidized housing, Welfare, etc... are not tied to an expectation that the recipient put in a minimal number of hours of labor and a minimal number of hours in job-training or education in order to qualify. Those on public assistance often live better than the "working poor" who struggle to make the rent, utilities, health-care, etc... and this is something that must change. I suspect the intention, however, is in using the current system as a means of keeping individuals within the class structure they are born into.

I agree that a free ride to Yale or Harvard should not be a given... unless through scholarships that are both merit- and need-based, but we are approaching a time when the state public universities are becoming prohibitive in terms of cost. Perhaps these government subsidized institutions need to trim the luxuries and focus on education. Like our healthcare, we can proclaim that we have the greatest university system in the world... but one that only the wealthy can afford.

As for "luxury medical procedures"... what qualifies? You would not pay for a knee replacement... ensuring that the individual would need to then go onto Social Security Disability? Who decides what procedures are to be counted as "luxuries"? Certainly, I wouldn't support public money being used for a nose job or a boob job... but where do we draw the line... and with what results?

Now for the above. The earnings of the wealthy are, and should be, their own. These people are paying those who work for them far more than what it is that they earn in a year. Additionally, much of their wealth is tied up in the intangible value of a company or their stock that is held to maintain their controlling interest. They are part of a larger society, but they employ numerous people both directly and indirectly. They pay taxes already. Many of them are already donating large sums to causes. What right do people have to demand more?

The problem lies in how the taxes are paid. First of all, if you look into the taxes paid according to economic demographics you will find that the top 20% of Americans earn something like 80% of all the income in the US... and pay a tax at an equivalent rate. This sounds fair. However we are then faced with the fact that the poorest 20% of Americans pay virtually no taxes at all... which leaves the Middle-Class scrambling to pick up the tab for both themselves and the poor. Again, I greatly suspect this is intentional. It results in increased hatred of the "lazy poor" by the middle-class who never get around to redirecting their anger toward the wealthy... or toward the politicians who have perpetuated this system. What of a flat rate and no loopholes. Everyone pays a share based upon their income. Why do I need to subsidize the wealthy's decision to donate a million to the orchestra, or to invest more in their business? Why do I or the many middle-class and working poor who put off having children until they can afford them, need to subsidize someone else's decision to have 5 children through tax cuts

Your portrayal of the noble rich employing the masses and donating to charities ignores a number of facts: 1. Tax Loopholes and Deductions- The rich donate heavily to favored charities and causes in in return receive valuable tax breaks. Most of us don't have this option. My tax dollars are "wasted" upon a great many things that I don't support: subsidizing sports stadiums, funding the continued US military presence in the Middle-East, giving financial aid to Israel, etc... I don't have the option to donate X-dollars to the local orchestra or art museum with the understanding that I will be able to write these off my taxes. Such loopholes are problematic in that they allow the wealthy to decide where to put that portion of their money that should have been earmarked to the government to be placed where they (and essentially WE... as voters/citizens) deem most necessary.

2. Trickle Down Economics... or the notion that the wealthy create jobs is nonsense. Jobs are created by demand and need. If I start a business and there is no demand for my products, I will not be able to hire employees, and soon I will be out of business. This is a basic fact of economics that Henry Ford recognized. By making his cars inexpensive enough and paying his employees a solid wage, he spurred on demand for his own product. If the rich are given tax breaks while the middle class struggle to make ends meet, there will be little demand for products beyond the necessities... and little growth of the economy as a whole. It is not the small population of wealthy who are the driving force behind the economy... behind demand.

If each person with a million dollar a year income has to return half of it to pay for the wants of others, what do you think will happen to prices?

You tell me. Has Great Britain imploded in spite of a far higher tax rate than that upon millionaires? According to the IRS, households with incomes over $1 million paid income tax equal to 22.1 percent of their adjusted gross income in 2007. This is down from 23.4 percent in 2004. And from 30.8 percent in 1996. If you recall... the economy in the late 1990s was humming along quite a bit better than it is now... in spite of all the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Sure, education may be free now and minimum wage may be $10, but now a gallon of milk is $7.

$7? I think we pay about $3- $3.50... usually near the price of gasoline.

What was once the dollar menu at McDonalds now is the $3 menu...

Where do you live? I still buy off the $1 menu. I'll grant you that the double cheeseburger (the one with two slides of cheese) now costs $1.29... but I still get dollar fries, dollar chicken sandwiches, dollar chicken nuggets, etc...

After all, suppliers will have increased costs so they'll charge more, and it will all trickle back down. The same people who are demanding more for less with end up with less for more, and then where will the people who just work hard and try to do their best to do well in their careers and by their families be? Me personally, I'm a salary employee, and because of cost increases, there has been no money to increase my wage, so in effect I make less now than I did a year ago. Now amplify that... I'm not a minimum wage employee so I don't benefit from that increase, I'm not receiving medical from the state so I have no cost savings there, and I will be faced to foot the bill for rising costs across the board.

Sure, the 20 something at McDonalds will benefit by raised wages and going to school for free, but for people who are not doing the bare minimum and working at success there will be pressure from all sides. My taxes go up, after all I make good money and can afford it. Costs go up because businesses must still run at a profit. They're not a charity organization. They are there to make money. Finally, my wage stagnates because my CEO in a small business can not afford to meet the rising costs and taxes impressed on him so he can not afford to give raises. Who really does this benefit?

I haven't had a raise in nearly 10 years due to the stagnant economy. Indeed, last year I took a sizable salary cut. I can moan that minimum wage and the ability of the poor to own their own home doesn't effect me, but in this society we are all interconnected. As the economy failed here a great many lost their homes to foreclosure. No skin of my nose, right? But those foreclosures resulted in a drastic decline in demand for new houses (carpenters, electricians, plumbers all out of work) This led to a drastic decline in the tax-base... a decline in property values... which essentially funds public education... where I work. It has resulted in lost income for restaurants, theaters... anywhere where these people might have spent their money before. It has resulted in cut-backs in the police, and fire, and road crews, and sanitation, etc... The idea that our jobs and our standards of living are safe... but screw the poor and the man working for minimum wage ignores the interconnectedness of our economy.

You ask where priorities lie, and mine are focused on what was once a cornerstone of our culture, hard work. Why should people be penalized for success and rewarded for poor decisions and underachievement?

Ah... the Protestant Work Ethic. So do you believe that the poor inner city single mother working two different house cleaning jobs (which she has to take the bus to because she cannot afford a car, insurance, and gasoline) in order to make ends meet is somehow less hard-working than the bankers who led us to our current financial state due to excessive dependence upon sub-prime loans (as a result of deregulation)? Is she lazier than the corporate lawyers who will keep them from ever facing any legal consequences for their actions? Is she less deserving than the pro-basketball players who used to entertain said lawyers until they went on strike because $180,000 per day to play with a ball just wasn't good enough? How hard does Paris Hilton or Lady Gaga work for their money? How many millionaires and billionaires inherited their wealth? Is there really a link between how hard an individual works and how highly they are paid? I honestly work less and yet earn more than many who work far harder than I in other careers, and I work far harder than many who make more. How hard does the US soldier in Iraq, facing death on a day to day basis work? Based upon his near minimum wage salary you would think he or she ranks among the laziest and least useful workers to our society.

[JuniperWoolf]

I've heard that in Quebec, the provincial government shoulders half of the tuition. That would be fantastic. Stupid Alberta with it's stupid conservative government...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What StLukes said . . .

[Ragnar Freund]

In the 1950s and 1960s the top tax rate was over 90% and the American economy grew at a rate double that at which it grew over the past decade. Also those fears you speak of here failed to materialize.

Good point. Don't forget to mention that the number of teams in the NBA was smaller, that the population of Memphis, as a share of the total US population, was larger, that Americans ate more vegetables, and that fewer women were named Nicole.

I should get a T-shirt made so I can use it whenever I hear nonsense like that in conversation. Then, instead of saying it, I could just point to my chest, which would read:


Correlation does not imply causation!


{EDIT}

[OrphanPip]

I've heard that in Quebec, the provincial government shoulders half of the tuition. That would be fantastic. Stupid Alberta with it's stupid conservative government...

Well we have public junior colleges that cost the same as high schools, they do those professional college courses, like nursing assistants and such. It's also standard in Quebec to get a 2 year pre-university college diploma before moving on to university, which I did at a private college that cost around 1,500 a semester.

In Quebec the all tuition fees are fixed by the government with an understanding that the education is subsidized for Quebec residents (it is also subsidized for other Canadians to a lesser extent). University funding in Quebec is a mess because it

[Vonny]

What StLukes said . . .

again, what StLukes said.


Well we have public junior colleges that cost the same as high schools, they do those professional college courses, like nursing assistants and such. It's also standard in Quebec to get a 2 year pre-university college diploma before moving on to university, which I did at a private college that cost around 1,500 a semester.

In Quebec the all tuition fees are fixed by the government with an understanding that the education is subsidized for Quebec residents (it is also subsidized for other Canadians to a lesser extent). University funding in Quebec is a mess because it

Hmm, Canada always looks good from here.

[Varenne Rodin]

Hmm, Canada always looks good from here.

We should go and be neighbors, Vonny!

[Vonny]

We should go and be neighbors, Vonny!

hehe, I'm always happy not to have close neighbors, but it would be great fun if we were neighbors - we could go skating, and biking!

[Varenne Rodin]

Absolutely!

[OrphanPip]

Well we have public junior colleges that cost the same as high schools, they do those professional college courses, like nursing assistants and such. It's also standard in Quebec to get a 2 year pre-university college diploma before moving on to university, which I did at a private college that cost around 1,500 a semester.

In Quebec the all tuition fees are fixed by the government with an understanding that the education is subsidized for Quebec residents (it is also subsidized for other Canadians to a lesser extent). University funding in Quebec is a mess because it

Sorry, this got cut off mid sentence.

I was going to say it is a mess because of how politicized it is, with politicians determining fees and where the money is spent. Particularly a problem in Quebec where English universities are constantly under attack by the separatists.

[Vonny]

Sorry, this got cut off mid sentence.

I was going to say it is a mess because of how politicized it is, with politicians determining fees and where the money is spent. Particularly a problem in Quebec where English universities are constantly under attack by the separatists.

I was wondering about this. Well, just give me an education in French then, sounds good to me. :)

[Alexander III]

If this is a country of many Christians, did no one read the book of Acts?

No America is not a Christian country. The majority of it's citizens are christian but that does not make it a christian country, anymore than we can say America is a White country becaus the majority of americans are white.

None of the founding fathers were christian, they were for the most part Deists or Agnostics or materialists. In fact here are a few quotes:

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

-Banjamin Franklin

"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith."

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

- Thomas Paine


"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

John Adams


"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication ."

Thomas Jefferson

I could go on, but I trust you get the point...



As to the question on hand, that the "super rich" ought to pay for everything, I think it infantile, why should I, who have my fathers and ancestors hard worked at money, have to give my money to the poor who are to lazy and stupid to work and live on goverment handouts and then hate me bacause I have money and they don't.

Imagine a poor boy, intelligent and harworking, he realizes he will work extreemly hard all his youth while his idiot firends **** about and never work, and when he has made it somewhere in life trough sheer determination and hardwork, he will have to support all those others who were to lazy to work like him yet expect to live a good life just like him.

I think if a poor person can accept handouts from the rich he is merley saying " I am your slave, and I accept that because I am to much of a coward to change, I would rather be your slave than have to work myself"

But then again, I wouldnt know, I have a heavy bias, Maybe were I born poor and with stupid and lazy inclinations I too would not give a fig about my dignity as long as I got money.


I think every nation could take a page out of Germany's book, an economic powerhouse where post-secondary education is in most cases provided free of charge.

Bull ****e, Germans pay for university - In fact a lot of Germans do university in Austria because it is free there.

[billl]

Alex, a more careful reading of Vonny's post (the bit you quoted in your post) would reveal that she wasn't specifically referring to the founders. Your lazy formatting of their quotes, however, is a nice addition to the discussion.

I'll just breeze by the rest of the post you made, except to point out that it isn't being suggested by anyone else here that the rich would "pay for everything". Also, you are being quite open-minded to pause and think for a moment about what it might've been like if you were born poor. however, it almost seems like you are asserting that you are, yourself, free of lazy and stupid inclinations, and care a fig for your dignity. I seem to recall you confessing that you are a habitual drunk driver who can't manage to correct the habit. You are also the author of a rather brief portrait of yourself in which you lie down in a sofa and smoke a cigarette. Some sort of celebration of indolence or something.

[Vonny]

No America is not a Christian country.

You haven't listened to talk radio lately, I guess.

Why do the ultra rich take Medicare, and then the plan won't provide dentures for an old woman who worked as a cleaning woman all of her life, so she has no teeth, and she tithes the church 10% of her social security income. And she's very uneducated, so she believes people like you.

And the wealthy all accept their SS income. It's to provide security for those who lack it. And the rich didn't pay in a lot more into the plan than other people because there is a cap regarding how much of income is taxed for it. Even if they did pay in more, why do they need to take what they don't need at all?

Yeah, most of the Founding Fathers saw this as a land where they could get rich - George Washington for sure. Love those Georges (okay, a bit of sarcasm intended there)

[papayahed]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic or inflammatory posts will be removed without further reminder.

~

[Ragnar Freund]

Education is not free of charge, in Germany or in any other country. To think that it is is to believe that something can come out of nothing. Germans pay for education - dearly. They pay for it in very high taxes, in high prices on everything, in $8/gallon gas, in BMWs that cost more in Leipzig, where they are made, than in New York. They pay for it in a restricted economy, in fewer opportunities to grow and develop, and in other intangible ways.

Enough with the myths of "free" education, "free" healthcare, and other utopian fantasies!

[Vonny]

Education is not free of charge, in Germany or in any other country. To think that it is is to believe that something can come out of nothing. Germans pay for education - dearly. They pay for it in very high taxes, in high prices on everything, in $8/gallon gas, in BMWs that cost more in Leipzig, where they are made, than in New York. They pay for it in a restricted economy, in fewer opportunities to grow and develop, and in other intangible ways.

Enough with the myths of "free" education, "free" healthcare, and other utopian fantasies!

But why do the ultra rich need free healthcare paid for by the middle class?

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Vonny;1091680]You haven't listened to talk radio lately, I guess.

Why do the ultra rich take Medicare, and then the plan won't provide dentures for an old woman who worked as a cleaning woman all of her life, so she has no teeth, and she tithes the church 10% of her social security income. And she's very uneducated, so she believes people like you.

And the wealthy all accept their SS income. It's to provide security for those who lack it. And the rich didn't pay in a lot more into the plan than other people because there is a cap regarding how much of income is taxed for it. Even if they did pay in more, why do they need to take what they don't need at all? QUOTE]

There may be exceptional circumstances (there usually are) where the claims are justified but otherwise it seems to be a question of greed. The same greed displayed by Lehman brothers, Goldman Sachs, Citibank and other financial institutions that has brought America to its knees and by extension much of Europe as well.
By persuading congress to abandon the Glass Steagall act 1933, they removed the main obstacle to unfettered capitalism and turned the financial system into a casino in which they could gamble on a scale unknown since the Wall Street crash of 1929. President Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagall was the greatest act of financial irresponsibility since WW11. So the answer to your question Vonny is greed.

[Vonny]

You haven't listened to talk radio lately, I guess.

Why do the ultra rich take Medicare, and then the plan won't provide dentures for an old woman who worked as a cleaning woman all of her life, so she has no teeth, and she tithes the church 10% of her social security income. And she's very uneducated, so she believes people like you.

And the wealthy all accept their SS income. It's to provide security for those who lack it. And the rich didn't pay in a lot more into the plan than other people because there is a cap regarding how much of income is taxed for it. Even if they did pay in more, why do they need to take what they don't need at all?


There may be exceptional circumstances (there usually are) where the claims are justified but otherwise it seems to be a question of greed. The same greed displayed by Lehman brothers, Goldman Sachs, Citibank and other financial institutions that has brought America to its knees and by extension much of Europe as well.
By persuading congress to abandon the Glass Steagall act 1933, they removed the main obstacle to unfettered capitalism and turned the financial system into a casino in which they could gamble on a scale unknown since the Wall Street crash of 1929. President Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagall was the greatest act of financial irresponsibility since WW11. So the answer to your question Vonny is greed.

Thanks Emil. I had an idea it was greed, but you say it better than I do, given my education.

What I can do better than you is quote. :wink5:

[Alexander III]

Alex, a more careful reading of Vonny's post (the bit you quoted in your post) would reveal that she wasn't specifically referring to the founders. Your lazy formatting of their quotes, however, is a nice addition to the discussion.

I'll just breeze by the rest of the post you made, except to point out that it isn't being suggested by anyone else here that the rich would "pay for everything". Also, you are being quite open-minded to pause and think for a moment about what it might've been like if you were born poor. however, it almost seems like you are asserting that you are, yourself, free of lazy and stupid inclinations, and care a fig for your dignity. I seem to recall you confessing that you are a habitual drunk driver who can't manage to correct the habit. You are also the author of a rather brief portrait of yourself in which you lie down in a sofa and smoke a cigarette. Some sort of celebration of indolence or something.

In my previous post I was rash and heated, let me explain more cooly.

I wont deny, I was born priveleged (financialy) and I am stupid and lazy. But I can be stupid and lazy, no matter what I do (unlike the majority of people) I have a safetey net to catch me. Had I been born poor, I might have been different as witouth a saftey net things become different.

There is a huge irony in all this "we are the 99%" thing, in that if you have food enough not to feel hunger, and a house and clothes in your closet, then you are amongst the top 30% richest of the world. Yet some Goverment is gonna come to me and say give me your money we need to give these richest 30% help, why? They can't find jobs? I was in Nice for a summer and I found a job in a restaurant in 2 days - simply by goign to every bar and caffe and restaurant and asking and pleading, and I have to hear mutiple lazy idiots on the tv tell me there are no jobs, that they have not found a job in 8 years and so they need money? I found one in 2 days without a cv and prior work experiance and in a country were I only partly speack the native language , and you can't find one in 8 years? Lazy, pretentious bastard...

I do not object to giving money to help, but I wont give any to the richest 30% of which near everyone in the west is. I will give to those in Affrica and south America and India, who have no food and no home and no hope, I wont give it to some lazy western idiot because he "Can't find no job" yet he Needs and I-phone.

Look at Oprhan Pip, from what I gather he grew up in a very poor neighbourhood with crackhouses being a part of his neigboorhood and such. Not only that he is gay too (which, lets be honest is a handicap in this world)

Had he been born in a well off family in ancient greece it would have been perfect, but that was not the lot dealt to him. But look at him now, he worked hard and got a university degree and now he works as a reasercher. if he did it, it means the doors are open to everyone, it is on the individual to fight for his well-being.

If you are not willing to fight for yourself, why should you expect others to fight for you? In this life no one gives a dam about you, so you better start taking care of yourself.

Lord Byron was one of the richest men in england, yet look at his life, he was full of pain and sadness, why? Because of the lot he was dealt. We are all given a lot at birth, and we all do with it what we will.

I too was born rich, but in general the lot I was born with is not that great, yet I do not look at others and say, your family loves you, and If I can't have that why should you have that? I accept the lot dealt to me and I make the best of it.

I would do everything to help that poor boy in india, with no food and home and hope, and yet I hear a voice in my ear of a westerner who is part of the worlds richest 30% and has all doors available to him, and I hear him cry that he is poor and needs my help, and all I feel is contempt. I pity the those 70% of the world, but the the 30% who complain about their poverty I only feel contempt.

I have learnt that no one gives a dam about me, so why should I give a dam about others. That is the way of the world. You so called "99%" dont give a dam about the real poor 70% of the world, so why should I give a dam about the rich 30% of the world, who are rich but can;t see that they are rich because there is a 1% amongst them which is richer.

I might as well as the Rockerfellars for money, why? Because they are richer than me obviously!

As to banks I agree with Emil, that act of 1933, was one of the worst things that could hapen to capitalism, and banks need to be put under control, and to those who have been ****ed by the banks, I agree it sucks, but the rich have suffered just as much from the banks as the poor, in fact the rich more - but goverment giving a man a welfare check for hi entire life because for his entire life he "can't find no job" and then to hear him complain, when I know the true poverty in the world, as can be seen in Africa pr India, well that just pisses me off.


But why do the ultra rich need free healthcare paid for by the middle class?

That is just a myth, those who can afford it dont ever use free medical care provided by the state because:

1) private doctors are better

2) It is much quicker to get treated privatley than by state


Education is not free of charge, in Germany or in any other country. To think that it is is to believe that something can come out of nothing. Germans pay for education - dearly. They pay for it in very high taxes, in high prices on everything, in $8/gallon gas, in BMWs that cost more in Leipzig, where they are made, than in New York. They pay for it in a restricted economy, in fewer opportunities to grow and develop, and in other intangible ways.

Enough with the myths of "free" education, "free" healthcare, and other utopian fantasies!

Well put. Notice how it is only the Americans which praise so much the German system, no European who actualy knows it gives it this fantasy praise.

The average german blue collar worker, half of his paycheck goes to suporting the lazy Italians and greeks and the rest of that lazy europe which "cant find no job" and want evreything without doing anything.

[Vonny]

Well put. Notice how it is only the Americans which praise so much the German system, no European who actualy knows it gives it this fantasy praise.

The average german blue collar worker, half of his paycheck goes to suporting the lazy Italians and greeks and the rest of that lazy europe which "cant find no job" and want evreything without doing anything.


Truth be told, I'm not sure I'd want to be taxed in Canada. :wink5:

I know a family in Canada who are entirely on welfare and live very well. They already had 3 small children and doctors advised them not to have more children because the woman's uterus had become too thin to support another pregnancy. (I think that was the complication, though I don't really understand all that.) She believed that the lord had told her she would have 4 children, so she intentionally became pregnant again. She spent her third trimester in a hospital lying in bed until the baby was delivered, all at taxpayers' expense.

I don't want to pay for that when there's no way I'd have a child unless I could well afford it.

[OrphanPip]

All this discussion of welfare is besides the point. Public post-secondary education is a necessity for any modern economy, that's simply a fact. If one wants to be competitive in this day and age, in a post-manufacturing economy, one needs a large pool of skilled, educated labour. The alternative is that only the rich can get an education, and you end up with not enough skilled labour, or too expensive skilled labour, to maintain a modern economy. It becomes worse when you start looking at how overpriced private education is for what people get out of it. The universities should be cheap, because a university education is not that expensive to provide. I can tell you that the millions being collected in tuition are not being spent primarily on the education. While an adjunct professor in the US makes around 25,000 for a year, the football coach is getting in the millions. The American university system is broken in many ways. Even worse for the Americans is that the university system is entirely unregulated, such that anyone with the money to set up a school can start issuing degrees, which results in an abundance of degree mills alongside the top schools in the world. And even in the best schools, in terms of research at least, they have the problem of grade inflation. School has simply become too easy, they have dumbed it down. Some studies have found that around 40% of the grades given out in US universities are A, that's outrageous. I attended an award ceremony at school once for the top 1% of students in the Arts and Science faculty, of about 15,000 students, and not everyone there had 4.0 averages. This is what a university should be like, it should be hard to get good grades, it should be difficult and not something that can be bought. The US is destroying the value of education while continually increasing prices. Something needs to be done.

Western economies simply can't afford to not have educated populations, and because of that it makes no sense for education to cost as much as a house. The government must ensure that prices of tuition are not a matter of market forces, but a matter of actual cost of service. Superfluous aspects of academia, like athletics need to be cut and returned to being a matter of amateur sportmanship rather than anything commercial.

And while we're all talking about the lazy and stupid, the fact of the matter is that we're speaking of young adults when we speak of university students. I don't know anyone fresh out of high school at 18 who is making a six figure income on their own. Such a person would be exceptionally rare. So, while it is all nice and good to speak of hard work, we are talking about something that is completely unaffordable for the average person working 3 jobs while going to school (which I did to help pay for school and I had much lower tuition and the added help of family). Without parent's contribution, or incurring massive debt, it isn't possible for some of the best and most hard working to afford post-secondary education. It doesn't matter how smart or hard working you are then, but who your parents are.



Truth be told, I'm not sure I'd want to be taxed in Canada. :wink5:

I know a family in Canada who are entirely on welfare and live very well. They already had 3 small children and doctors advised them not to have more children because the woman's uterus had become too thin to support another pregnancy. (I think that was the complication, though I don't really understand all that.) She believed that the lord had told her she would have 4 children, so she intentionally became pregnant again. She spent her third trimester in a hospital lying in bed until the baby was delivered, all at taxpayers' expense.


Child payments are high in Canada, but the general welfare is not, of course people exploit this, but the alternative is children suffering. The current welfare in Quebec for an unmarried person without children is $586 a month, or equivalent to about 2 weeks of full-time work at minimum wage after taxes (which you would get back anyway and have about 850 after 2 weeks). I don't know who would take that rather than working. (that's not even that low, in New Brunswick they only get a little over 3000 dollars a year)

[Vonny]

Wow! You said it! :thumbsup:

And you're right, children shouldn't suffer because their parents are dumb.

[Buh4Bee]

Western economies simply can't afford to not have educated populations, and because of that it makes no sense for education to cost as much as a house. The government must ensure that prices of tuition are not a matter of market forces, but a matter of actual cost of service.


I agree with you Pip, but it's not the way things can be currently with some much financial crisis. This is why they are protesting, because there is less and less state funding to pay for the state colleges. Part of the issue is California is broke as a state. They are going to cut here, before cutting more pressing programs. What can people do, but voice dissent. Maybe this will turn some of the politician's heads.

[BienvenuJDC]

Public post-secondary education is a necessity for any modern economy, that's simply a fact. If one wants to be competitive in this day and age, in a post-manufacturing economy, one needs a large pool of skilled, educated labour.

No sir, that is not a fact. That is your opinion. I think that most of the "educated" people these days are being filled with someone opinions and philosophies. People can be educated without a university. Most of what I've learned did NOT come from my college education. Our professors are not doing what is expected. People learn how to do their jobs...ON THE JOB. We need to stop sinking all our money into these schools that are not earning their pay.

[Varenne Rodin]

There are so many stupid things that could be cut before hurting the public by cutting public programs. Strange excess subsidies, things implemented in war times to give corporations boosts. Now those corporations are mega wealthy, yet we continue to throw billions at them each year with no benefit to society. These things rarely come up when it comes time to make cuts. Better to rip off the American people first.

Let's attack our poor and disabled. They have nothing, so if we take the little they have, while leaving our precious rich people alone, surely all of our money troubles will be solved and it will be super happy fun time for all. It's not like the already poor people will resort to crime, looting, and bandit militia mobbing in order to save themselves and their families. No, I'm sure they'll gleefully crawl into hidden away corners to die their unimportant deaths with little trouble to the rest of us. Perhaps they'll even whore themselves around to cover the costs of their corpse disposal. It's the least they could do after all of their greed and handout seeking. Sure would be nice!

Avarice.

[Vonny]

Couldn't have said that better myself, Varenne. :wink5:

[Varenne Rodin]

Thank you, Vonny. I love your signature about bitey dogs!

[Vonny]

Thank you, Vonny. I love your signature about bitey dogs!

No Varenne, it's "dog," not dogs! haha!

[Varenne Rodin]

Haha. I agonized over my sentence. I thought to myself "Should I say "a bitey dog" here? This makes me think of all bitey dogs, but Vonny's signature is clearly talking about a singular dog." Then I went ahead anyway. I can only surmise that I have gone quite daft as of this evening.

[Vonny]

Haha. I agonized over my sentence. I thought to myself "Should I say "a bitey dog" here? This makes me think of all bitey dogs, but Vonny's signature is clearly talking about a singular dog." Then I went ahead anyway. I can only surmise that I have gone quite daft as of this evening.

hehe, yes that would be a singular, particular dog! :)

[stlukesguild]

OrphanPip- Public post-secondary education is a necessity for any modern economy, that's simply a fact. If one wants to be competitive in this day and age, in a post-manufacturing economy, one needs a large pool of skilled, educated labour.

BienvenuJDC--No sir, that is not a fact. That is your opinion. I think that most of the "educated" people these days are being filled with someone opinions and philosophies. People can be educated without a university.

Certainly a formal college education is not the sole road to an education. I don't think anybody would deny this.

Most of what I've learned did NOT come from my college education.

And who would dispute this? Most of what I know with regard to my job and to my personal efforts as an artist have not come through my formal college education.

Our professors are not doing what is expected. People learn how to do their jobs...ON THE JOB.

Who decides what is "expected"? First of all it seems as you are equating "education" solely with job preparedness as if that were the sole role of education. Let's face it, the employers, whether they be private or public enforce what is being taught (and how) though lobbying, established professional license procedures, and hiring processes. If engineering students from University X are found consistently wanting in the basic abilities expected to do the job, the employers will stop hiring graduates from that school and students will stop attending that school in response to job placement numbers.

If we continue with the example of the engineering student it is obvious that no school can be expected to prepare students for just every possible engineering problem that will be faced by employees across a vast array of industries nor for how each individual company will carry out the day to day procedures. As such, all companies spend a degree of time and effort in training new employees and in updating and in-servicing existing employees.

This does not mean that the majority of companies are likely to hire the student just out of high-school lacking the formal education credentials or on-the-job experience. A specific degree is often prerequisite to even gaining an interview. Some companies may consider professional experience, but even then, for many positions the degree or license or certification is required. This is especially true of the younger worker first entering into the job market who will not likely have a great deal of professional experience.

I fully agree that for many careers the necessary education or training could be attained without the requirement of a four year college degree and all the added expense of the university sports programs, medical research department, etc... tagged onto the cost of tuition. But the key word is COULD. As long as the piece of paper certifying that a student completed a four-year college degree is required over any quality vocational training and education programs, college will continue to be a prerequisite for a great majority of career options.

We need to stop sinking all our money into these schools that are not earning their pay.

This is simply nothing more than an ignorant reiteration of the usual Neo-Con babble. The teachers... the professors do not decide what will be taught in a university or how. It is far more complex than that. What is taught depends upon a vast array of elements including the demands of students, parents, employers, alumni, politicians, fundraisers, etc... Pip spoke of grade inflation. Is this the fault of the professors... or more so the fault of lazy students (and their parents) used to the methods of the public schools in which they were entitled to good grades in spite of sub-par work? Who is to blame for dumbed-down courses: the history of comic books, heavy metal, and pornographic films? Again, it seems that student and parent demands are more to blame than some imagined Liberal conspiracy of academia.

As I noted in an earlier post, many parents, and others, are beginning to question the inflated costs of tuition as a result of costly sports programs, research departments, etc... that are unnecessary. many smaller schools and community colleges are catching on to the demands of a student body that often includes as many many older students as "traditional students. These "non-traditional" students are more likely to be looking at what they actually receive for their money, have little interest in supporting sports or the glee club, need hours that fit within their working schedule and don't expect to spend endless hours in courses unnecessary to what they need to further their degree.

[Gladys]

But why do the ultra rich need free healthcare paid for by the middle class?

Why not make free healthcare universal?

Why worry about handouts to the rich and the middle class? There are, relatively speaking, so few of them and less every year - at least in the West.
The administration and policing of a universal healthcare system would be simpler and cheaper. And a mere 1% increase in taxation of the ultra-rich would pay not only for their healthcare but for that of the entire middle class as well.

But if we are genuinely concerned about the present over taxation of the rich, why not divert free healthcare funding to provide free hospices for the poor?

[Vonny]

Why not make free healthcare universal?

Why worry about handouts to the rich and the middle class? There are, relatively speaking, so few of them and less every year - at least in the West.
The administration and policing of a universal healthcare system would be simpler and cheaper. And a mere 1% increase in taxation of the ultra-rich would pay not only for their healthcare but for that of the entire middle class as well.

But if we are genuinely concerned about the present over taxation of the rich, why not divert free healthcare funding to provide free hospices for the poor?


The reason I asked about handouts to the rich is that I just wonder how, in principle, people can defend it and justify it in their minds - because you're right, the individuals, in numbers, are few.

I was curious about this one point because if you mention universal healthcare, people have all sorts of grounds for coming off the spool, but I just wondered how people think in priniciple that it's right to give free healthcare to the rich.

(don't you mean under-taxation of the rich?)

[JuniperWoolf]

I was going to say it is a mess because of how politicized it is, with politicians determining fees and where the money is spent. Particularly a problem in Quebec where English universities are constantly under attack by the separatists.

I knew it. Quebec has such great policies and the predominant ideals resemble my own, I'd like to go to school there, but they won't let us Anglo kids play any of their reindeer games. I guess it's sort of my fault for being so damn slow on learning French. I've learned more Japanese than French since I started my interest in languages last year.

I'm always feeling so overwhelmed by having to balance out tuition costs with living expenses, as well as balancing out study time and work time. Story of our lives. We protested the tuition hike from $5400 to $6500 in August, but it was useless. I guess we'll either have to be unskilled and formally uneducated or in debt. Ugh.

[Buh4Bee]

There are so many stupid things that could be cut before hurting the public by cutting public programs. Strange excess subsidies, things implemented in war times to give corporations boosts. Now those corporations are mega wealthy, yet we continue to throw billions at them each year with no benefit to society. These things rarely come up when it comes time to make cuts. Better to rip off the American people first.

I heard on the news yesterday that the pentagon's budget will not increase, if that has any solace in it.

[Emil Miller]

Education is not free of charge, in Germany or in any other country. To think that it is is to believe that something can come out of nothing. Germans pay for education - dearly. They pay for it in very high taxes, in high prices on everything, in $8/gallon gas, in BMWs that cost more in Leipzig, where they are made, than in New York. They pay for it in a restricted economy, in fewer opportunities to grow and develop, and in other intangible ways.

Enough with the myths of "free" education, "free" healthcare, and other utopian fantasies!

I agree entirely with this and the same goes for any other economy. There are NO free services. Where does the money come from to build schools and pay teachers? Obviously from general taxation and whatever governments are able to borrow on the currency markets. Unfortunately a myth has been fostered that basic services are actually free, as though the money for them has been conjured out of thin air and, because it's such an attractive idea, millions of people are gulled in to believing it's true.
Instead of encouraging the idea of free services, basic economics should be taught in schools so that people grow up with an understanding of the true value of money rather than the dangerously misguided conception of something for nothing.

[Ragnar Freund]

But why do the ultra rich need free healthcare paid for by the middle class?

Ha? What? What does have to do with what I wrote? The rich neither deserve nor need "free" healthcare, and neither does the middle class.

[cafolini]

I agree entirely with this and the same goes for any other economy. There are NO free services. Where does the money come from to build schools and pay teachers? Obviously from general taxation and whatever governments are able to borrow on the currency markets. Unfortunately a myth has been fostered that basic services are actually free, as though the money for them has been conjured out of thin air and, because it's such an attractive idea, millions of people are gulled in to believing it's true.
Instead of encouraging the idea of free services, basic economics should be taught in schools so that people grow up with an understanding of the true value of money rather than the dangerously misguided conception of something for nothing.

Where does the money come from for the money to come from is a better question?

[Varenne Rodin]

I heard on the news yesterday that the pentagon's budget will not increase, if that has any solace in it.

Thanks, BB. I'm hopeful that things will get better.


Where does the money come from for the money to come from is a better question?

You're so smart, cafolini. I say this all the time! We contracted out to the federal reserve bank to print and control our money, but why?

Money is an illusion. Why can't we just provide for everyone? I guess millions have to be suffering to make some people feel like winners.

[cafolini]

You're so smart, cafolini. I say this all the time! We contracted out to the federal reserve bank to print and control our money, but why?

Money is an illusion. Why can't we just provide for everyone? I guess millions have to be suffering to make some people feel like winners.

That money as viewed by many people is an illusion as much as accounting is an illusion in the same way, there is no doubt. We are a very rich nation and to redistribute wealth has always been the aim and will continue to be. But we always have had mongers infusing paranoia and benefiting from it. Gold at 2000 an aunce? Telling people that our economy is doomed? Harping on 1929 at a time when it is an impossibility? Well, that's America. It has always been that way in the bipartisan system.
But regardless of what anyone might say and the illusions they might suffer, we are moving stronger than ever towards redistribution of wealth and the increase of resources.
My younger relatives have done well in the middle of this so called crisis. The Salvation Army keeps receiving more donations than ever. Thrift shops are all over the place where you can dress from head to toes with $20. In contrast to the downward spiral of house prices, the assistance programs are in place and functioning well for the occassion. Assistance for the needy is in place. And it is because we are still redistributing well.
The people that pay attention to the mongers will be surprised when the latter short gold and exaggerated stock prices and rip them off galore. As an older man, I have lived through this cycles again and again. Money is indeed an illusion but it is the only exchange we have to achieve a higher civilization and that's precisely what's happening behind the illusive ups and downs.

[Darcy88]

What some of the rich seem to be forgetting is that maintaining a robust social safety net serves their own interests as well. Modest progressive reforms are the surest way of heading off socialism and safe-guarding the capitalist status quo.

[stlukesguild]

I agree entirely with this and the same goes for any other economy. There are NO free services. Where does the money come from to build schools and pay teachers? Obviously from general taxation and whatever governments are able to borrow on the currency markets. Unfortunately a myth has been fostered that basic services are actually free, as though the money for them has been conjured out of thin air and, because it's such an attractive idea, millions of people are gulled in to believing it's true.
Instead of encouraging the idea of free services, basic economics should be taught in schools so that people grow up with an understanding of the true value of money rather than the dangerously misguided conception of something for nothing.

Brian, I don't believe anybody in their right mind (or with half a mind) believes that public services are free. It is fully understood that taxes fund that which to population deems to be a necessary operation of the government. I work in the inner city and I see both sides of the debate. In no way am I for some blanket bail-out for the poor who are unwilling to work. I personally think our Welfare system is broken in that it currently makes more sense to go on the public dollar than it does to work at some minimum wage job. The Welfare recipient receives X-dollars per month which probably amount to something to what Pip spoke of with the Canadian system, around 50% of minimum wage. If this were all, then there would be a great push to get off Welfare ASAP. But this is not all. Welfare recipients also often receive food stamps (so many dollars per dependent). If the recipient has very young children (I believe the under the age of 2) they also receive WICK dollars which fund milk, cheese, baby formula, fruit juice, and other necessities for the child. Then there is subsidized housing, free medical care through Medicaid, programs that help subsidize utilities, universal access programs for cell phones and internet connections. Hell if I didn't have to pay for my food, my housing, my utilities, my cell phone, my computer, etc... I could surely get along quite well on less than minimum wage... and then we have the issue of fraud. We have endless Welfare recipients working "under the table" and collecting money on top of Welfare. We have situations in which the daughter lives with Mom (who has a different last name). She gets subsidized housing which is paid to Mom (the landlord) who then signs most of it back over to the child who pockets this on top of Welfare, Food Stamps, etc... As a result we have "generational Welfare" in which entire generations of a family have never gotten off the public dollar, where the intention was to provide a temporary assistance.

Alternatives include returning to a WPA-type program in which Welfare recipients are required to work at least half-time (20 hours) and attend school and/or job-training programs at least 20 hours to continue to receive assistance. During the 1930s the USA infrastructure was built with a good many WPA workers. If the recipient is already required to get off his or her duff and apply himself/herself 40 hours a week, it is less likely they are going to want to stay on this program indefinitely. If the recipient is given proper job-training and education needed to compete in the marketplace, there is less chance they will return to the Welfare system. Unfortunately, we have those who feel such programs are an "entitlement"... something deserved without any giving or responsibilities on their part.

While there are areas, such as Welfare and the manner in which it and subsidized housing and food is doled out, which could be cut and show substantial savings for the government, as a society we assign the government the responsibility of providing certain basic services for all citizens regardless of their ability to pay. Among these are public education, maintenance of streets and highways, sanitation and sewers, clean water, fire and police departments, the military, courts, emergency services, state and federal parks, various regulatory departments to oversee standards in food, drugs, pollution, etc... We, in the US, remain one of the last remaining nations that lacks universal health care and mandated vacation time for all employees.

Facing a tight economy we must make decisions as to what to cut... or we must increase our tax intake. Considering that the huge tax cuts upon the wealthy, and the modest breaks for the middle class have not proven to have had the impact that the Conservatives stated they would, it would seem logical to attempt a return to the Clinton-era tax brackets rather than continuing down a road that obviously isn't working. But at the same time, there need to be spending cuts made. Considering that the military followed by Medicare/Medicaid and Welfare programs represent the largest portion of the budget, we need to implement cuts there. I (and many others) have suggested possibilities to slashing the Welfare/Subsidies programs. We need to have a long look at the cost of the military and ask ourselves if we can really afford to continue acting as the world police force and Imperial guard. With regard to Medicaid/Medicare the cost is largely rooted in the for-profit nature of the American medical system. We seriously need to look at the socialized medical programs of those European nations that are a success and stop with our infantile fear of Socialism as the great boogeyman. All governments employ a degree of Socialism.

[Vonny]

Our design is entirely for lawyers, to make them rich.

[Alexander III]

What some of the rich seem to be forgetting is that maintaining a robust social safety net serves their own interests as well. Modest progressive reforms are the surest way of heading off socialism and safe-guarding the capitalist status quo.

The ones who get most screwed over from comunism are always the poor, just look at russia and china.

But yes the it behooves the rich to help out, but that is all to help, not to become babysitters and keep entire comunities which dont want to work on welfare. As is the case in most of europe. Pretty much all european goverments right now are right wing, that is because the people are tired of a messed up socialism which europe has been under for 30 years.




Brian, I don't believe anybody in their right mind (or with half a mind) believes that public services are free.

You would be surprised...very suprised about how the average european (Italian, french, Greek) thinks. I assure you Italian leftist politics consists of making the mass think that everything is owed to them, and everything should be free, there are so many literaly convinced that health care and all other institutions come out and work out of thin air.

[Vonny]

I think the lawyers ought to help out. My doc says they are one of our worst problems - or maybe our worst problem.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;1091926Brian, I don't believe anybody in their right mind (or with half a mind) believes that public services are free. It is fully understood that taxes fund that which to population deems to be a necessary operation of the government. .[/QUOTE]

Then why are there three references in this thread to FREE healthcare? In the thread about Frank Chalk's book, 'It's Your Time You Are Wasting', there are a similar number of references to FREE education. The word free is often bandied about in the British media in relation to a number of public services and it's a misnomer because, in spite of the fact that these things are presented as being free, they obviously have to be funded by somebody. In order to avoid increased taxation governments have increasingly resorted to funding public services through borrowing; hence the 15 trillion US dollar government debt and proportionately similar amounts elsewhere. But they never escape payback time which simply underlines the fact that nothing is free and should never be referred to as such.

[Varenne Rodin]

Wouldn't it make sense to raise minimum wage? It would be an incentive for people to work, and it might keep corporations from hoarding so much wealth. Cost of living has gone way up. Minimum wage has not. It just doesn't pay rent. Thoughts on this?

[Ragnar Freund]

Brian, I don't believe anybody in their right mind (or with half a mind) believes that public services are free.

Alexander III and Emil Miller have said it already, but I'll reiterate: you'd be surprised. The terms "free healthcare" and "free education" are used incessantly, whereas "taxpayer-funded education/healthcare" is rarely used. There are even the zany terms "universal healthcare" and "single-payer healthcare". Who is that single payer, anyway?

Language reflects values and beliefs. When we no longer use the term free to mean "at someone else's expense", then you could say that no one believes these services are really free.

[Darcy88]

Alexander III and Emil Miller have said it already, but I'll reiterate: you'd be surprised. The terms "free healthcare" and "free education" are used incessantly, whereas "taxpayer-funded education/healthcare" is rarely used. There are even the zany terms "universal healthcare" and "single-payer healthcare". Who is that single payer, anyway?

Language reflects values and beliefs. When we no longer use the term free to mean "at someone else's expense", then you could say that no one believes these services are really free.

The government is the single payer, if I am not mistaken.

[tonywalt]

Alexander III and Emil Miller have said it already, but I'll reiterate: you'd be surprised. The terms "free healthcare" and "free education" are used incessantly, whereas "taxpayer-funded education/healthcare" is rarely used. There are even the zany terms "universal healthcare" and "single-payer healthcare". Who is that single payer, anyway?

Language reflects values and beliefs. When we no longer use the term free to mean "at someone else's expense", then you could say that no one believes these services are really free.

The media entities that use the terms "free" have a not so subtle agenda. Words are important in marketing an idea. I do hear that word "free" bandied about so much in the UK and whether I am for the subsidy or against the subisidy, it's an inaccuracy. The media got the idea going and the general populace adopted it.

"Global warming" is very quickly moving to "Climate Change", and it's a beautiful move in semantics because it hedges either way the temperature moves (up or down). And additionally any extreme weather can be blamed on industrialisation, emissions, or name the sin. And I am pro-environment to be sure, but I do not like to see manipulation, even if it's a beneficial manipulation.

[Ragnar Freund]

The government is the single payer, if I am not mistaken.

And government takes its money from the ________

[Vonny]

The media entities that use the terms "free" have a not so subtle agenda. Words are important in marketing an idea. I do hear that word "free" bandied about so much in the UK and whether I am for the subsidy or against the subisidy, it's an inaccuracy. The media got the idea going and the general populace adopted it.

"Global warming" is very quickly moving to "Climate Change", and it's a beautiful move in semantics because it hedges either way the temperature moves (up or down). And additionally any extreme weather can be blamed on industrialisation, emissions, or name the sin. And I am pro-environment to be sure, but I do not like to see manipulation, even if it's a beneficial manipulation.

Ack, I just now looked here and saw this username on the thread, and thought "Oh No" after my comment about lawyers!

[tonywalt]

Ack, I just now looked here and saw this username on the thread, and thought "Oh No" after my comment about lawyers!

Lol, it's ok Vonny, I do not work on the litigation side. I work with trusts, foundations and wills. I am no fan of the type of lawyers you dislike.

[stlukesguild]

Then why are there three references in this thread to FREE healthcare? In the thread about Frank Chalk's book, 'It's Your Time You Are Wasting', there are a similar number of references to FREE education. The word free is often bandied about in the British media in relation to a number of public services and it's a misnomer because, in spite of the fact that these things are presented as being free, they obviously have to be funded by somebody. In order to avoid increased taxation governments have increasingly resorted to funding public services through borrowing; hence the 15 trillion US dollar government debt and proportionately similar amounts elsewhere. But they never escape payback time which simply underlines the fact that nothing is free and should never be referred to as such.

Yes... those who don't have half-a-brain... or are simply naive may believe that public education, universal healthcare, Welfare, etc... are "free". I would assume that any taxpayer, rich or middle-class, is aware of where the money is coming from.

The question again is where do we draw the line on social-services... what is an acceptable standard of living for everyone? Do we eliminate public education and limit education only to the rich and upper-middle class? can we even feasibly survive economically against increasing global competition under such a system? Do we eliminate the police and fire departments and limit police and fire services to only those willing to pay? What would be the result there? Fires such as the great Chicago fire as entire neighborhoods go up in flames until the fire unstoppable. The proliferation of gangs and Mafia-like organizations? Again there are aspects of the system that are broken and wasteful and can be cut... but we must weigh the consequences... and we must be realistic when speaking of the "lazy poor"when coming from a class that has never faced poverty. We must be realistic and recognize that there are those who are struggling because they lost their jobs as the result of a changing economy or the collapse of a given industry, or because of an long-term illness that left them under a crushing debt... not because they are lazy... and there are those who lack the education to break free from the cycle of poverty they were born into. Are we to blame and penalize the children for the sins of the parents not even offering them a way out?

[B. Laumness]

As to the question on hand, that the "super rich" ought to pay for everything, I think it infantile, why should I, who have my fathers and ancestors hard worked at money, have to give my money to the poor who are to lazy and stupid to work and live on goverment handouts and then hate me bacause I have money and they don't.


You’re absolutely right. The rich deserve it. They worked so hard, they’re so brilliant, so talented, they have values so high that it’s a complete absurdity to think that all the individuals are equal. That’s a shame to believe that wealth would not be the infallible sign of a great spirit. Simple minds claim that being an heir has nothing to do with the personal merit. They say it would be fair to have the same chances, no matters the ancestry. These simple minds call themselves democrats. But let’s be honest: they are awful socialists, and some of them, in their foolishness, even believe that Christ’s teaching is not entirely wrong.


You would be surprised...very suprised about how the average european (Italian, french, Greek) thinks. I assure you Italian leftist politics consists of making the mass think that everything is owed to them, and everything should be free, there are so many literaly convinced that health care and all other institutions come out and work out of thin air.

Funny enough, this afternoon I spoke with poor and uneducated guys, who said: “Have you heard the news? They caught a rich man who did not pay his taxes. – He’s not alone. Those people know how to place their money without paying too many taxes. And if they can pay no taxes, it’s perfect. – But we, modest workers, we pay our bills. Without taxes, there would be no schools, no police, no roads, no healthcare, etc.” I’m just translating.


At the university, I paid around 200 euros per year, and I had no grant. But the teachers were very bad: I have not been taught to become trader, bankster, etc. They taught me literature, these fools!

[cafolini]

What some of the rich seem to be forgetting is that maintaining a robust social safety net serves their own interests as well. Modest progressive reforms are the surest way of heading off socialism and safe-guarding the capitalist status quo.

Guarding capitalism, yes. But heading off socialism? Ridiculous. The USA is today the most socialistic country in the world. And it has all been achieved through capitalism.

[Emil Miller]

The question again is where do we draw the line on social-services... what is an acceptable standard of living for everyone?

This is indeed the question that arises when public expenditure is under discussion but by its very nature it is divisive and the word acceptable will always be subject to the economic conditions of the day regardless of what may be desired. Both sides of the economic divide have a point but neither can escape the need to tailor their cloth to suit their pocket. The problem for the USA is that it came into existence with an abundance of material wealth that, with the passage of time, seemed limitless and which encouraged a belief in a never ending destiny of onwards and upwards. With the current crisis, more and more people are abandoning this belief as their homes are repossessed or they lose their jobs. I am in frequent contact with someone in New York who tells me repeatedly that everything's OK and she isn't worried for the future. I'm sure there are many like her, but those who take a close interest in the world economy know that from Washington to Berlin the western financial edifice i.e those whose finances revolve around the $US is beginning to buckle under the weight of outstanding debt.
French banks are owed money by Greece which is bankrupt, the USA is owed huge amounts by French banks which may fail at any moment: hence Sarkozy's desperate attempt to get Germany to bail out French banks via the issuance of newly created Eurobonds, which the Germans won't sanction as they know that they will end up bailing out all and sundry because theirs is the strongest economy. Throw into the mix the failing economies of Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy and the writing is clearly on the wall.
In this scenario, the debate about public expenditure seems somewhat irrelevant.

[Ragnar Freund]

Without taxes, there would be no schools, no police, no roads, no healthcare, etc.


What makes you think that? Is there any evidence to suggest that this is true? Is there no ample evidence to suggest that this is false, e.g. the existence of private hospitals and universities?

Where do people get the idea that if government didn't fund it, it wouldn't exist? Alternatively, if government doesn't fund it and it disappears, doesn't that mean that it shouldn't have existed in the first place?

[cafolini]

The question again is where do we draw the line on social-services... what is an acceptable standard of living for everyone?

This is indeed the question that that arises when public expenditure is under discussion but by its very nature it is divisive and the word acceptable will always be subject to the economic conditions of the day regardless of what may be desired. Both sides of the economic divide have a point but neither can escape the need to tailor their cloth to suit their pocket. The problem for the USA is that it came into existence with an abundance of material wealth that, with the passage of time, seemed limitless and which encouraged a belief in a never ending destiny of onwards and upwards. With the current crisis, more and more people are abandoning this belief as their homes are repossessed or they lose their jobs. I am in frequent contact with someone in New York who tells me repeatedly that everything's OK and she isn't worried for the future. I'm sure there are many like her, but those who take a close interest in the world economy know that from Washington to Berlin the western financial edifice i.e those whose finances revolve around the $US is beginning to buckle under the weight of outstanding debt.
French banks are owed money by Greece which is bankrupt, the USA is owed huge amounts by French banks which may fail at any moment: hence Sarkozy's desperate attempt to get Germany to bail out French banks via the issuance of newly created Eurobonds, which the Germans won't sanction as they know that they will end up bailing out all and sundry because theirs is the strongest economy. Throw into the mix the failing economies of Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy and the writing is clearly on the wall.
In this scenario, the debate about public expenditure seems somewhat irrelevant.

Why do you think so many people want to come to live in America? Why do you think Castro, one of the shrewdest politicians in Latin America confesses to Atlantic Magazine that the Cuban model no longer works and that it was a mistake for him to allow the Russians to install missiles in Cuba? There is no accounting definition in America because we don't need it according to the value of human resources we have achieved. When you are talking about Spain, Portugal, etc., you are talking about worlds that are just getting out of fascism and are very primitive in their assesments and resources.
Look at the waste of resources in America. It's always been this way after 1960 and it's not going to fall because of the complication in actually defining what will fall. You don't have anything specific to focus on, because there isn't anything that cannot recuperate with a little stimulation. We have achieved a civiloization never seen before.
Look at the military. All volunteer. Look at the American soldier and how he/she is being trained in military.com. Look at the arsenal. Look at the technology. Your friend in New York is correct.

[Emil Miller]

Why do you think so many people want to come to live in America? Why do you think Castro, one of the shrewdest politicians in Latin America confesses to Atlantic Magazine that the Cuban model no longer works and that it was a mistake for him to allow the Russians to install missiles in Cuba? There is no accounting definition in America because we don't need it according to the value of human resources we have achieved. When you are talking about Spain, Portugal, etc., you are talking about worlds that are just getting out of fascism and are very primitive in their assesments and resources.
Look at the waste of resources in America. It's always been this way after 1960 and it's not going to fall because of the complication in actually defining what will fall. You don't have anything specific to focus on, because there isn't anything that cannot recuperate with a little stimulation. We have achieved a civiloization never seen before.
Look at the military. All volunteer. Look at the American soldier and how he/she is being trained in military.com. Look at the arsenal. Look at the technology. Your friend in New York is correct.

Probably for the same reason they are pouring into the UK, because they are better off than staying in the primitive conditions of their homeland.
Castro couldn't say otherwise considering that the USSR collapsed in 1991. It has taken him 22 years to realise that communism doesn't work.
As for Spain and Portugal just emerging from fascism, it's over 40 years since Dr Salazar and General Franco died.
The USA, like any other power, is subject to economic decline regardless of what some of its citizens may think.
The US military abandoned the draft following defeat in Vietnam when, like the UK, it realised that professional troops are more capable than conscripts.
The arsenal and technology are fine for the time being.

[cafolini]

Wouldn't it make sense to raise minimum wage? It would be an incentive for people to work, and it might keep corporations from hoarding so much wealth. Cost of living has gone way up. Minimum wage has not. It just doesn't pay rent. Thoughts on this?

Yes, minimum wage doesn't pay decent rent. No doubt. But there is housing for people in that situation if they apply. We rob Peter to pay Paul. But that's the way it always worked in America. It's a form of redistribution.

[Varenne Rodin]

Yes, minimum wage doesn't pay decent rent. No doubt. But there is housing for people in that situation if they apply. We rob Peter to pay Paul. But that's the way it always worked in America. It's a form of redistribution.

I agree with you. Some people seem to be saying we should abolish those types of housing programs because they think people are lazy and should work. My point was that more people would work if they had reason to. If people don't want taxes to go to housing programs for the poor, employers are going to have to pay their employees a lot more to keep them out of housing programs and to attract American workers in the first place.

[Darcy88]

Guarding capitalism, yes. But heading off socialism? Ridiculous. The USA is today the most socialistic country in the world. And it has all been achieved through capitalism.

Okay I'll bite. How is America the most socialist country in the world? I'm sure better examples abound, but how is it even more socialist than my own country of Canada?

[Buh4Bee]

I was just going to site Canada.

[cafolini]

Okay I'll bite. How is America the most socialist country in the world? I'm sure better examples abound, but how is it even more socialist than my own country of Canada?

Canada is a reflection of USA. It is also very socialistic but it doesn't have one tenth of the resourses we have here. Think of what happened when Nortel went down from $40 a share to 42c. And do you think for a minute the USA was going to let it sink? And the Canadian dollar? Who rescued it? When the US sneezes, Canada gets a flu, but we wouldn't let it down because it is one of the best allies. What happened with the Boeing crisis?

[JuniperWoolf]

Canada is a reflection of USA.

Actually, Culturally we're more of a reflection of Britain. We were part of Britain up until early in the twentieth century. We still have to deal with the queen's ugly head on our money. Economically and politically, we most closely resemble other Northern countries (like Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, ect.).


It is also very socialistic but it doesn't have one tenth of the resourses we have here.

Actually we have more. We don't have nearly as many people, but my own province of Alberta is overflowing with oil, we have one of the largest fresh water supplies in the world (much larger than America's), my town is built on the coal industry and things are going well since the 90's, and Canada's logging and farming industry is booming (again, especially in my own province). We're an independant country and we have our own things going on. You're just not aware of that because it seems like no one is really aware of Canada except Canadians (which is fine with me).


When the US sneezes, Canada gets a flu.

That's funny, because America is in the middle of a heavy recession right now and Canada is one of the only countries in the world that seems to be doing just fine. Sure we have problems, but they aren't America's problems, and in spite of what's happening in America right now Canada is staying afloat.

Also, we really are much more socialistic than America. A Canadian invented the idea of universal healthcare, and almost all of us are very proud of that (he was voted the #1 greatest Canadian in history when CBC did a special a few years ago - Canadian citizens voted, and the guy who invented universal health care beat the guy who invented insulin). As well as Canada, there is no doubt that the Northern European countries are way, way more socialistic than America (again, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, ect.), and like us, they seem to be weathering the global recession quite well. Maybe it's something in the snow.

[cafolini]

I agree with you. Some people seem to be saying we should abolish those types of housing programs because they think people are lazy and should work. My point was that more people would work if they had reason to. If people don't want taxes to go to housing programs for the poor, employers are going to have to pay their employees a lot more to keep them out of housing programs and to attract American workers in the first place.

I agree, but it is more convenient to keep the minimum low to promote business across the board and that's why they do it that way. When it comes to the housing, the big ones pay for it. The whole system is managed with that kind of fragmentation.
The interesting thing is that if you look at depressions in America, when there is a crisis it is specific not only to industry but also to localities, while in less sophisticated countries, non-fragmented (non-segmented) economies, crisis is general. Greece is a European extreme.


Actually, we're more of a reflection of Britain. We were part of Britain up until early in the twentieth century.



Actually we have more. We don't have nearly as many people, but my own province of Alberta is overflowing with oil, we have the one of the largest fresh water supplies in the world (much larger than America's), my town is built on the coal industry and things are going well since the 90's, and Canada's logging and farming industry is booming (again, especially in my own province). We're an independant country and we have our own things going on. You're just not aware of that because it seems like no one is really aware of Canada except Canadians.



That's funny, because America is in the middle of a heavy recession right now and Canada is one of the only countries in the world that seems to be doing just fine. Sure we have problems, but they aren't America's problems, and in spite of what's happening in America right now Canada is staying afloat.

Also, we really are much more socialistic than America. A Canadian invented the idea of universal healthcare, and almost all of us are very proud of that (he was voted the #1 greatest Canadian in history when CBC did a special a few years ago - Canadian citizens voted, and the guy who invented universal health care beat the guy who invented insulin). As well as Canada, I'd say that the Northern European countries are way, way more socialistic than America (Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, ect.), and like us, they seem to be weathering the global recession quite well. Maybe it's something in the snow.

Country GNP Per Capita
USA $10,533 $38
Japan $4,852 $38
Germany $2,242 $27
Britain $1,544 $26
France $1,543 $26
China $1,329 $1
Italy $1,260 $22
Canada $760 $24
Brazil $715 $4
Spain $651 $16
Mexico $578 $6
South Korea $515 $11
India $510 $0.5
Australia $444 $24
Netherlands $429 $27
Taiwan $363 $16
Argentina $300 $8
Switzerland $286 $39
Sweden $275 $31
Belgium $264 $26
Russia $252 $2
Austria $226 $27
Turkey $212 $3
Poland $188 $5
Indonesia $174 $0.8
Thailand $132 $2

[JuniperWoolf]

According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_livi ng_in_poverty), 12% of Americans are impovrished. Canada didn't even make the list.




Then there's this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png
The higher the GINI coefficient, the bigger the gap between rich and poor, ie. the higher the number, the richer the rich, the poorer the poor.




And then, of course, the list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt) of countries by external debt:

1. United States (and remember, this is world-wide) at $15,041,163,000,000

After that comes the entire EU, at $13,720,000,000,000, then proceeding with countries we have:

2. United Kingdom at $8,981,000,000,000
3. Germany, at $4,713,000,000,000
4. France, at $4,698,000,000,000
5. Japan, at $4,698,000,000,000
6. Ireland, at $2,378,000,000,000
7. Italy, at $ 2,223,000,000,000
8. Spain, at $2,166,000,000,000
9. Luxembourg, at $1,892,000,000,000
10. Belgium, at $1,241,000,000,000
11. Switzerland, at $1,200,000,000,000
12. Australia, at $1,169,000,000,000
13. Canada, at $1,009,000,000,000

So, even though you assert that Canada will "get a cold if America sneezes," America owes $14 032 153 000 000 more than Canada in external debt.

[tonywalt]

Canada is a productive country, but a combination of natural resources/commodities and a highly regulated banking system(bravo) awarded them shelter from the recession. And kudos to them.

But, and it's an important But, in the long run the laissez- faire system in the US is ironically the thing that spawned and spawns such creativity, to this very day. They invented Google, software as we know it, Facebook, Ipod, Ipad..... and mass production of the car, the airplane, well I will list a cut and paste job. It has been through more recessions than you could count, and more than a handful of the depressions. Booms, busts, booms, busts, all part of a certain exceptionalism that makes for a hell of a bumpy ride...anyway here is list. And after you read it, picture a world without the below. All private, with the internet as the exception, invented for the most part by the US military.


1. Airplane
2. Anesthesia
3. Mass production of the car.
4. The ATM
5. Color Film
6. Cotton Gin
7. E-mail
8. FM Radio
9. THE INTERNET (AHEM) that we are on right now.
10. Kevlar
11. The Microprocessor
12. Microwave Oven
13. The Motion Picture
14. The MRI
15. Novocaine
16. The Nuclear Power Plant
17. The Personal Computer
18. The Phonograph
19. Polaroid Instant Photography
20. The Polio Vaccine
21. The Rocket
22. The Sewing Machine
23. The Skyscraper
24. Sneakers
25. Typewriter

[Darcy88]

Country GNP Per Capita
USA $10,533 $38
Japan $4,852 $38
Germany $2,242 $27
Britain $1,544 $26
France $1,543 $26
China $1,329 $1
Italy $1,260 $22
Canada $760 $24
Brazil $715 $4
Spain $651 $16
Mexico $578 $6
South Korea $515 $11
India $510 $0.5
Australia $444 $24
Netherlands $429 $27
Taiwan $363 $16
Argentina $300 $8
Switzerland $286 $39
Sweden $275 $31
Belgium $264 $26
Russia $252 $2
Austria $226 $27
Turkey $212 $3
Poland $188 $5
Indonesia $174 $0.8
Thailand $132 $2

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107980/countries-with-the-biggest-gaps-between-rich-and-poor

America ranks third amongst countries with the greatest level of economic inequality. So calling it the most socialist country in the world might be uncalled for.

[JuniperWoolf]

Canada is a productive country, but a combination of natural resources/commodities and a highly regulated banking system(bravo) awarded them shelter from the recession. And kudos to them.

But, and it's an important But, in the long run the laissez- faire system in the US is ironically the thing that spawned and spawns such creativity, to this very day. They invented Google, software as we know it, Facebook, Ipod, Ipad..... and mass production of the car, the airplane, well I will list a cut and paste job. It has been through more recessions than you could count, and more than a handful of the depressions. Booms, busts, booms, busts, all part of a certain exceptionalism that makes for a hell of a bumpy ride...anyway here is list. And after you read it, picture a world without the below. All private, with the internet as the exception, invented for the most part by the US military.


1. Airplane
2. Anesthesia
3. Mass production of the car.
4. The ATM
5. Color Film
6. Cotton Gin
7. E-mail
8. FM Radio
9. THE INTERNET (AHEM) that we are on right now.
10. Kevlar
11. The Microprocessor
12. Microwave Oven
13. The Motion Picture
14. The MRI
15. Novocaine
16. The Nuclear Power Plant
17. The Personal Computer
18. The Phonograph
19. Polaroid Instant Photography
20. The Polio Vaccine
21. The Rocket
22. The Sewing Machine
23. The Skyscraper
24. Sneakers
25. Typewriter

Oh, no one is denying that America has produced some of the best minds in history, I'm just making the point that cafolini is wrong in assuming that we're so dependant on the United States that we're suffering simply because they're suffering. I'm also making the point that cafolini is wrong when he says that America is the most socialist country in the world with my little income disparity map there and my reference to Tommy Douglas, inventor of universal healthcare and most valued Canadian in history. We're the more socialist country, as well as the other Northern European countries (the other ones shaded in green in my map above).

[Varenne Rodin]

Is speaking French a requirement for Canadien citizenship?

[Darcy88]

Cafolini, maybe you meant the richest country? Because America is most certainly that.

[cafolini]

Canada is a productive country, but a combination of natural resources/commodities and a highly regulated banking system(bravo) awarded them shelter from the recession. And kudos to them.

But, and it's an important But, in the long run the laissez- faire system in the US is ironically the thing that spawned and spawns such creativity, to this very day. They invented Google, software as we know it, Facebook, Ipod, Ipad..... and mass production of the car, the airplane, well I will list a cut and paste job. It has been through more recessions than you could count, and more than a handful of the depressions. Booms, busts, booms, busts, all part of a certain exceptionalism that makes for a hell of a bumpy ride...anyway here is list. And after you read it, picture a world without the below. All private, with the internet as the exception, invented for the most part by the US military.


1. Airplane
2. Anesthesia
3. Mass production of the car.
4. The ATM
5. Color Film
6. Cotton Gin
7. E-mail
8. FM Radio
9. THE INTERNET (AHEM) that we are on right now.
10. Kevlar
11. The Microprocessor
12. Microwave Oven
13. The Motion Picture
14. The MRI
15. Novocaine
16. The Nuclear Power Plant
17. The Personal Computer
18. The Phonograph
19. Polaroid Instant Photography
20. The Polio Vaccine
21. The Rocket
22. The Sewing Machine
23. The Skyscraper
24. Sneakers
25. Typewriter

No doubt. People fail to understand that the health of a nation is measured by Gross Product. As a consequence, they fail to understand that a purchasing power of say 1,000,000 is not just 10 times that of 100,000. It's an exponential relationship.

[Darcy88]

Is speaking French a requirement for Canadien citizenship?

Maybe if you plan on immigrating to Quebec, but here in English Canada hardly anyone speaks French. Its actually quite embarassing as after 8 years of elementary and middle school french classes and then another two years of it at university I struggle to get through the most basic of conversations in that language. And I got good marks!

[JuniperWoolf]

No doubt. People fail to understand that the health of a nation is measured by Gross Product.

I think that it might be better to measure the health of a nation by the health and well-being of it's citizens.

[cafolini]

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107980/countries-with-the-biggest-gaps-between-rich-and-poor

America ranks third amongst countries with the greatest level of economic inequality. So calling it the most socialist country in the world might be uncalled for.

Actually a superficial thought on your part. Let's say that I make 38,000/yr while the richest man in my country makes 100,000,000,000. You on the other hand make 24,000 and the richest man in your country 100,000,000. Who is actually poorer, you or I? The answer is obvious.

Also you talked about healthcare in Canada and call it universal. You do not care to specify what that amounts to. You might be on a list for a heart operation long enough to die without it. In fact, many many thousands of Canadian citizens cross the border each year to get taken care of health problems in due time.
How many Americans go to Canada to get taken care?

Finally, if you give an immigrant a choice of US or Canadian residency, which one do you think he'd take?

[Darcy88]

Canada is a productive country, but a combination of natural resources/commodities and a highly regulated banking system(bravo) awarded them shelter from the recession. And kudos to them.

But, and it's an important But, in the long run the laissez- faire system in the US is ironically the thing that spawned and spawns such creativity, to this very day. They invented Google, software as we know it, Facebook, Ipod, Ipad..... and mass production of the car, the airplane, well I will list a cut and paste job. It has been through more recessions than you could count, and more than a handful of the depressions. Booms, busts, booms, busts, all part of a certain exceptionalism that makes for a hell of a bumpy ride...anyway here is list. And after you read it, picture a world without the below. All private, with the internet as the exception, invented for the most part by the US military.


1. Airplane
2. Anesthesia
3. Mass production of the car.
4. The ATM
5. Color Film
6. Cotton Gin
7. E-mail
8. FM Radio
9. THE INTERNET (AHEM) that we are on right now.
10. Kevlar
11. The Microprocessor
12. Microwave Oven
13. The Motion Picture
14. The MRI
15. Novocaine
16. The Nuclear Power Plant
17. The Personal Computer
18. The Phonograph
19. Polaroid Instant Photography
20. The Polio Vaccine
21. The Rocket
22. The Sewing Machine
23. The Skyscraper
24. Sneakers
25. Typewriter

You left off your list a few essential examples of American genius and exceptionalism:

The Big Mac
Jersey Shore
The Atomic Bomb
Sarah Palin
Miley Cyrus
Derivatives
Twilight
Agent Orange
Hair in a Can

[cafolini]

I think that it might be better to measure the health of a nation by the health and well-being of it's citizens.

Oh, please. Enough pepper spray.:wave:

[JuniperWoolf]

Actually a superficial thought on your part. Let's say that I make 38,000/yr while the richest man in my country makes 100,000,000,000. You on the other hand make 24,000 and the richest man in your country 100,000,000. Who is actually poorer, you or I? The answer is obvious.

That's not how things are, though. America's income disparity is internationally renowned. Your rich are VERY rich, and your poor are VERY poor. 12% in poverty by UN standards.


Also you talked about healthcare in Canada and call it universal. You do not care to specify what that amounts to.

Heathcare provided for everyone regardless of their income. Every sick and injured person is cared for. Those who can pay for health coverage or, as is more usual, have their insurance covered by their school or employer, are in the vast majority. Those very few people who can't afford it are covered if they ever need it. NO ONE is turned away.


You might be on a list for a heart operation long enough to die without it. In fact, many many thousands of Canadian citizens cross the border each year to get taken care of health problems in due time.

This seems to be a common myth that I've seen on American documentaries and television, and it totally doesn't fit with how things actually are. My boyfriend was born with a severe heart condition in the 80's and both of his parents were very poor at the time (teenagers). He survived because he was born in Canada. The government sent him to San Francisco the day he was born to get the best treatment in North America. His parents didn't have to pay a cent. If Dave were born in the United States, he'd be dead right now. He got treated immediately because his situation was life or death. That's how it works. No one dies in a waiting room.

I can afford to pay health care costs, and so I do, but I've never had to fork over money to a hospital before they'd treat me. The hospital simply gets my number and that's that. No fuss. No worry about what will happen if I get sick or break an arm, no medical debt, none of that. We who have jobs pay a little bit or our employers pay it for us, or our school covers it, and everyone is cared for if they get sick or injured. Some people can't afford to pay healthcare because they don't have jobs, and I don't mind that some of what I pay ensures that they'll get treatment if they ever suffer a terrible injury or life-threatening illness. Medical professionals are payed by the government and they make a sh*t ton and also never have to tell someone with a terrible injury "sorry, you can't afford for me to make you stop bleeding, get out." It's just a better system of doing things.


How many Americans go to Canada to get taken care?

They aren't Canadian citizens so they don't get Canadian health coverage. I have, however, seen a number of protest-style American men and women advertising themselves for marriage to Canadians so that they themselves can become Canadians and get health coverage. It's a media-style awareness thing to draw attention to the poor state of the American healthcare system. It usually goes like this:

"Hi, I'm Mark. I'm 21, I'm very handy around the house, I'm an anthropology student, I have cancer and I'm looking for a Canadian wife (or husband, whatever) so that I can attain Canadian citizenship and get treatment. Please respond, I promise I'll do all the washing up, cooking and driving. Better call before October 23rd though."

[Darcy88]

Actually a superficial thought on your part. Let's say that I make 38,000/yr while the richest man in my country makes 100,000,000,000. You on the other hand make 24,000 and the richest man in your country 100,000,000. Who is actually poorer, you or I? The answer is obvious.

Also you talked about healthcare in Canada and call it universal. You do not care to specify what that amounts to. You might be on a list for a heart operation long enough to die without it. In fact, many many thousands of Canadian citizens cross the border each year to get taken care of health problems in due time.
How many Americans go to Canada to get taken care?

Finally, if you give an immigrant a choice of US or Canadian residency, which one do you think he'd take?

I don't know a single person who has ever had reason to complain about the state of health care in this country, not even any of my many elderly relatives who have received operation after operation. Assuredly the system is not perfect but neither does it permit 50 000 people a year to die due to lack of coverage as does the system down there in the US.

The 400 richest Americans possess more wealth than the poorest 150 000 000 combined. The country is not socialist.

[tonywalt]

An ideal country is defined in many different ways. Some here may talk quite a bit about a sort of relative equality, that seems to be very important. But, I do not think the US ever promoted or promotes itself that way. It promotes itself as a land of opportunity-always did.

People came to the US to make money, it was not really for most a political escape(though many exceptions). A little know statistic (and it varies and is was hard to track) was that about 35% of Italians and Irish went back to their home countries after they had enough for a house or business.

When the UN lists the 'best countries' to live the US is never in the top 10, as the UN is composed of all sorts of countries and Equality seems to be the riding theme.

At this point, I can appreciate the various models, US, Canada, Germany, Singapore, Hongkong, or Sweden. All different, and what is the best and how to measure it is completely subjective.

[JuniperWoolf]

At this point, I can appreciate the various models, US, Canada, Germany, Singapore, Hongkong, or Sweden. All different, and what is the best and how to measure it is completely subjective.

Hmm, most business students that I know consider themselves "citizens of the world" rather than of one particular country or ideology.

[Revolte]

That in itself takes a certain amount of skill, talent, etc. Take her as an example, and think about the fact that she also does not work 8 hour days. Most of these people are a slave to their business as opposed to the other way around. There is something that has made it possible to be where they are at. This may be talent, hard work, superior cunning and intelligence, a predisposition to attractiveness or whatever. Regardless, they still work, and at the end of the day they have the largest amount invested in their business in terms of capital. It stands to reason that they should see the greatest return. Also keep in mind, that Oprah has donated millions of dollars to social causes. Given that it is HER money, she should be able to choose those that she wishes to fund. It isn't up to government to demand that they contribute to the education of people who simply don't wish to pay for their own or compromise on finding a more affordable school or a more open and/or lucrative field.

I agree with you and vonny.

But really, oprah is just way too full of herself to take anything she does too seriously. As much as I enjoy her network for whatever weird reason. I would not feel bad about throwing coffee on her crotch. oh wait coffee, crap almsot forgot!

[tonywalt]

Hmm, most business students that I know consider themselves "citizens of the world" rather than of one particular country or ideology.

I would imagine business students and business people pledge allegiance to capital, wherever it may be.

[OrphanPip]

Actually a superficial thought on your part. Let's say that I make 38,000/yr while the richest man in my country makes 100,000,000,000. You on the other hand make 24,000 and the richest man in your country 100,000,000. Who is actually poorer, you or I? The answer is obvious.

Also you talked about healthcare in Canada and call it universal. You do not care to specify what that amounts to. You might be on a list for a heart operation long enough to die without it. In fact, many many thousands of Canadian citizens cross the border each year to get taken care of health problems in due time.
How many Americans go to Canada to get taken care?

Finally, if you give an immigrant a choice of US or Canadian residency, which one do you think he'd take?

Nonsense, my father feinted while doing some housework a month ago, three days after entering the hospital he received a valve replacement surgery and had a double bypass.

What also gets ignored in the Canadians using US healthcare statistic, when a specialist is sought in a large American urban centre, your treatment is still paid for by Health Canada. Also, the actual data, not the Republican spin on it, shows that the vast majority of Canadians who received health care in the US, did so because of incidents while on vacation, or because they are Canadian citizens with American residency. Also, a number of Canadian communities along the border have the nearest medical facilities in the US. This is also true in the reverse, as it is common from people in upstate New York or Vermont to end up in Montreal for certain care.

Also, the incidence of 65,000 (out of a population of 33 million, which often visit the doctor on average 3 times more often per year than Americans) accounts for less than 0.5% of Canadian visits to doctors.

The Canadian health care system is far from perfect, one it suffers from regional inequalities, because it is provincially regulated. Also, it underwent heavy funding cuts in the 90s and this caused major infrastructure problems. It also has a cost issue, with servicing very large areas, so it has trouble with achieving the efficiency in Europe. Much of the problems with the current healthcare system are a result of the funding freezes of the 90s preventing the system from keeping up with an ageing population. Despite this, Canadians see doctors much more often than Americans. Canadians live longer on average than Americans. Canada has much lower rates of neonatal death. And Canadians are overwhelmingly satisfied with the universal healthcare system, although some complain about the current management of it, the idea of getting rid of it is very unpopular.

You don't know what you're talking about.


Is speaking French a requirement for Canadien citizenship?

Only if you're applying for direct entry into Quebec. Although, once one has landed immigrant status, you can relocate to any province. It should be noted that Quebec law prohibits the children of immigrants to the province from being educated in English public schools, which is a right that is only constitutionally guaranteed to the "historic" Anglo minority.

[Varenne Rodin]

Thank you, Pip and Darcy. You have been very helpful.

I have to agree that while America has some socialist programs, we are nowhere near to being a socialist country. I'm an American democratic socialist. The greed and individualism here make me feel physically ill. I used to love this place with all of my heart. I don't know that it can be fixed.

[Buh4Bee]

Varrenne- what does this mean to be an American democratic socialist? You are for universal healthcare? What other socialist programs are you for?


I don't know a single person who has ever had reason to complain about the state of health care in this country, not even any of my many elderly relatives who have received operation after operation. Assuredly the system is not perfect but neither does it permit 50 000 people a year to die due to lack of coverage as does the system down there in the US.

The 400 richest Americans possess more wealth than the poorest 150 000 000 combined. The country is not socialist.

Yet, the American healthcare system is legitimately criticized for it's repeated failure to cover sick people with pre-existing conditions.

I can't understand why America does not have universal healthcare, when you compare it to Europe, South Ameria, Australia (yes, it's a country and continent), and Asia.

The GOP complaints that it violates constitutional rights, such as if people do not take the insurance, they will have to pay a fine. However, of the five courts litigating this, three find it constitutional. 45 million Americans do not have insurance and do not go to the doctor, even if they should.

But back to the idea of private insurance companies not covering a new patient, because of a pre-existing condition is within their legal business practice. This is a form of discrimination.

Everyone wants to know where the money is going to come from. I think the .01% of the wealthiest Americans should pay the bill.

[Alexander III]

I think that it might be better to measure the health of a nation by the health and well-being of it's citizens.

Yes good point.

There have been many attempted surveyesto find the most happiest people in the world. (difficuluts as happiness must be quantified yet thye have tried) And they have found out that After one has a house and abundance in food and basics, happiness is no longer dependant on money, they two become completley indipendant from each other.

Also Cafolini calling America the world most socilaist state probably just means he has never been out of his country and only knows of the external world trough biased media.

[Emil Miller]

You left off your list a few essential examples of American genius and exceptionalism:

The Big Mac
Jersey Shore
The Atomic Bomb
Sarah Palin
Miley Cyrus
Derivatives
Twilight
Agent Orange
Hair in a Can

Here in the UK we are not so intellectually attuned as the US, so I had to look up Jersey Shore and Miley Cyrus whose clones are no doubt to be found in what passes for entertainment in Britain. But although the rest of the list was known to me, the final item is of an amazing crassness even by US standards. I mean...Hair in a Can????

:D........:lol:................:smilielol5:

[tonywalt]

But why stop at just nationalised healthcare? The US can tax themselves into further prosperity with nationalising-

Basic Housing. Is it right to see homeless people in a wealthy country?The US public housing system is dismal, more money could be pumped in here.
Basic Transportation. How can people get to work without it?
Education. So necessary for a nation to prosper
Food. Nothing more to be said here
Subsidised vacation. We all deserve them and don't they contribute mental health of a country. Very important.


Perhaps making a strong man weaker does indeed make a weak man stronger?

[cafolini]

I don't know a single person who has ever had reason to complain about the state of health care in this country, not even any of my many elderly relatives who have received operation after operation. Assuredly the system is not perfect but neither does it permit 50 000 people a year to die due to lack of coverage as does the system down there in the US.

The 400 richest Americans possess more wealth than the poorest 150 000 000 combined. The country is not socialist.

We measure socialism differently. I measure it by resources available to people; empirical. You measure it by differences in earnings; conceptual.

There is another myth floating around here. By law in USA, no hospital, private or not, can deny emergency treatment to anyone, citizen or not, insured or not.

[Ragnar Freund]

Actually a superficial thought on your part. Let's say that I make 38,000/yr while the richest man in my country makes 100,000,000,000. You on the other hand make 24,000 and the richest man in your country 100,000,000. Who is actually poorer, you or I? The answer is obvious.


cafolini,

You bring up a very interesting issue that deserves a discussion. Let me begin by saying that I completely agree with you, and that the person making $38,000 a year should consider himself wealthier. However, many studies have shown (there was a very interesting Scientific American article on that; I'll see if I can find the citation) that people care much less for their well-being than they do for what they consider fairness. If the person making $38,000 in your scenario feels (justifiably or not) that he lives in an unfair economy, or that the person making 100,000,000,000 is too rich, or that he himself is making too little, or whatever, he will indeed feel less well-off. This is utterly irrational and unjustified, but this is how people think.

And this, in a nutshell, is the secret of socialism's appeal: it exploits people's feeling of injustice, so that a well-off American would envy a far less well-off Swede, for example.

[Varenne Rodin]

There is another myth floating around here. By law in USA, no hospital, private or not, can deny emergency treatment to anyone, citizen or not, insured or not.

Yeah. That's not true. When I moved back to California from Florida my insurance lapsed and I had none. I got injured. I was turned away from three hospitals with hardly any people in their ER waiting rooms. I offered to pay the bill myself out of pocket on the spot. The third hospital directed me to a fourth hospital. The fourth "hospital" was a filthy one room clinic stuffed full of families with deathly ill children. I waited more than 8 hours.

As bad as that was, medical facilities were much worse in South Florida. Live chickens were running around the waiting rooms. The floors were nearly black with long uncleaned grime.

But that no person turned away law, that's false.

[tonywalt]

cafolini,

You bring up a very interesting issue that deserves a discussion. Let me begin by saying that I completely agree with you, and that the person making $38,000 a year should consider himself wealthier. However, many studies have shown (there was a very interesting Scientific American article on that; I'll see if I can find the citation) that people care much less for their well-being than they do for what they consider fairness. If the person making $38,000 in your scenario feels (justifiably or not) that he lives in an unfair economy, or that the person making 100,000,000,000 is too rich, or that he himself is making too little, or whatever, he will indeed feel less well-off. This is utterly irrational and unjustified, but this is how people think.

And this, in a nutshell, the secret of socialism's appeal: it exploits people's feeling of injustice, so that a well-off American would envy a far less well-off Swede, for example.

Yes, if you take a community of what I would call genteel poverty, they could and would be quite happy and content. But, when people of greater economic means move in next to them creating a relative sense of insjstuce, they will be hopeless discontent and unhappy with that situation.

[Varenne Rodin]

People in Canada, with their socialized healthcare, are living longer than people in the US these days. Life expectancy is way up there, and down here. We can say America uses some kinds of socialism, but it's misused and underfunded. This is a corporate country. Money is far more important to people than people, even if community and society completely break down, wealthy individuals will keep stroking those greenbacks.

The only reason I might still say quality of life is good in America is because our weather is excellent in many areas, and that has nothing to do with our government, last I checked.

[tonywalt]

People in Canada, with their socialized healthcare, are living longer than people in the US these days. Life expectancy is way up there, and down here. We can say America uses some kinds of socialism, but it's misused and underfunded. This is a corporate country. Money is far more important to people than people, even if community and society completely break down, wealthy individuals will keep stroking those greenbacks.

The only reason I might still say quality of life is good in America is because our weather is excellent in many areas, and that has nothing to do with our government, last I checked.

The thing that strikes me most about Americans is so few, and I mean a miniscule few, emmigrate. That speaks volumes and it has to be more than their mindset or patriotism or idealism. I know how difficult it is to recruit Americans to another country. Canadians will leave much quicker, Europeans, same thing(warm south and cold north, same way). And it's not the weather, otherwise I could recruit from Montana and Maine and Minnesota, but they rarely want to leave-no matter what demographic they fit, it's across the board. They must like living there, because the concept of leaving is very different for them.

[cafolini]

Yeah. That's not true. When I moved back to California from Florida my insurance lapsed and I had none. I got injured. I was turned away from three hospitals with hardly any people in their ER waiting rooms. I offered to pay the bill myself out of pocket on the spot. The third hospital directed me to a fourth hospital. The fourth "hospital" was a filthy one room clinic stuffed full of families with deathly ill children. I waited more than 8 hours.

As bad as that was, medical facilities were much worse in South Florida. Live chickens were running around the waiting rooms. The floors were nearly black with long uncleaned grime.

But that no person turned away law, that's false.

Hahaha. In this case, you don't know what you are talking about. If you enter emergency without an emergency you will be directed to some clinic, whether or not you have insurance. They still don't do that with chickens because they didn't learn the language.


People in Canada, with their socialized healthcare, are living longer than people in the US these days. Life expectancy is way up there, and down here. We can say America uses some kinds of socialism, but it's misused and underfunded. This is a corporate country. Money is far more important to people than people, even if community and society completely break down, wealthy individuals will keep stroking those greenbacks.

The only reason I might still say quality of life is good in America is because our weather is excellent in many areas, and that has nothing to do with our government, last I checked.


Can't derive life expectancy strictly from healthcare. That's ridiculous. Ludicrous, like you say. There are so many factors involved in that. It's impossible to talk about it in a comment like this.

[Varenne Rodin]

Hahaha. In this case, you don't know what you are talking about. If you enter emergency without an emergency you will be directed to some clinic, whether or not you have insurance. They still don't do that with chickens because they didn't learn the language.

Please don't laugh at me and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I did have an emergency. I slipped on ice and fell on jagged rocks. My leg broke in three places and my knee was sliced open to the bone. I was still bleeding profusely when I reached the fourth place. The blood soaked through three t-shirts (that was all we could use until someone helped us). I lost consciousness and had to be revived. I brought up the very law you are talking about to hospital staff early on. They said the law only requires that a DESIGNATED hospital in the region admit uninsured patients to the ER IF the designated hospital has space to do so.

I haven't just invented an opinion. This freaking happened, caf.


Can't derive life expectancy strictly from healthcare. That's ridiculous. Ludicrous, like you say. There are so many factors involved in that. It's impossible to talk about it in a comment like this.

I wasn't deriving life expectancy strictly from healthcare. Pick on someone else for a while.

[cafolini]

cafolini,

You bring up a very interesting issue that deserves a discussion. Let me begin by saying that I completely agree with you, and that the person making $38,000 a year should consider himself wealthier. However, many studies have shown (there was a very interesting Scientific American article on that; I'll see if I can find the citation) that people care much less for their well-being than they do for what they consider fairness. If the person making $38,000 in your scenario feels (justifiably or not) that he lives in an unfair economy, or that the person making 100,000,000,000 is too rich, or that he himself is making too little, or whatever, he will indeed feel less well-off. This is utterly irrational and unjustified, but this is how people think.

And this, in a nutshell, is the secret of socialism's appeal: it exploits people's feeling of injustice, so that a well-off American would envy a far less well-off Swede, for example.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Thanks for expanding.
Regarding socialism there is something else. It's sometimes a form of evolutionary communism that started in England. It was once called Fabianism. Bernard Shaw spoke openly about it. But it is much older. Started when the Spanish armada was defeated and the bankers moved to London. You could say that Masons had a lot of affinity with Fabianism. But this is conceptual.
It is interesting that a well-off American would envy a far less well-off Swede, but it is the case, and when you examine it close, you realize that the American is always open to propaganda because freedom of speech is extremely important to him. So he never misses and oportunity for autocriticism and gets easily entangled momentarily. That entanglement of course can't but flow through the media.


Please don't laugh at me and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I did have an emergency. I slipped on ice and fell on jagged rocks. My leg broke in three places and my knee was sliced open to the bone. I was still bleeding profusely when I reached the fourth place. The blood soaked through three t-shirts (that was all we could use until someone helped us). I lost consciousness and had to be revived. I brought up the very law you are talking about to hospital staff early on. They said the law only requires that a DESIGNATED hospital in the region admit uninsured patients to the ER IF the designated hospital has space to do so.

I haven't just invented an opinion. This freaking happened, caf.

Well, when did it happen? Maybe the law didn't yet pass. But today, they would be very afraid of being sued. Of course bureaucracies have a tendency to rule by policy-making until they are shown otherwise. In very small cities it's still going on.

[Alexander III]

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Thanks for expanding.
Regarding socialism there is something else. It's sometimes a form of evolutionary communism that started in England. It was once called Fabianism. Bernard Shaw spoke openly about it. But it is much older. Started when the Spanish armada was defeated and the bankers moved to London. You could say that Masons had a lot of affinity with Fabianism. But this is conceptual.
It is interesting that a well-off American would envy a far less well-off Swede, but it is the case, and when you examine it close, you realize that the American is always open to propaganda because freedom of speech is extremely important to him. So he never misses and oportunity for autocriticism and gets easily entangled momentarily. That entanglement of course can't but flow through the media.

Naturaly because America is the only country in the entire world with this "freedom of speech" you speak of. Here in Europe I am liable to get my head chopped of any day for critisising the king.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well, when did it happened? Maybe the law didn't yet pass. But today, they would be very afraid of being sue. Of course bureaucracies have a tendency to rule by policy-making until they are shown otherwise. In very small cities it's still going on.

It happened last year. This is the interpretation of the law. An ER has to be made available. It's not likely to be one you would want to go to, and they can say they're too busy to admit you.

Also, I don't live in a small city. I live in the largest city on the west coast. They had no concern over being sued. I feel bad delivering this news, but this is not a rare thing. The room I was in was crammed full of uninsured people. More were crowded outside the door in the cold.

[B. Laumness]

Funny enough, this afternoon I spoke with poor and uneducated guys, who said: “Have you heard the news? They caught a rich man who did not pay his taxes. – He’s not alone. Those people know how to place their money without paying too many taxes. And if they can pay no taxes, it’s perfect. – But we, modest workers, we pay our bills. Without taxes, there would be no schools, no police, no roads, no healthcare, etc.” I’m just translating.



What makes you think that? Is there any evidence to suggest that this is true? Is there no ample evidence to suggest that this is false, e.g. the existence of private hospitals and universities?

Where do people get the idea that if government didn't fund it, it wouldn't exist? Alternatively, if government doesn't fund it and it disappears, doesn't that mean that it shouldn't have existed in the first place?

Around 10,000 years ago, the birth of agriculture brought more food, and the populations became sedentary, so that the alimentary supplies could be made only by a part of the group and not by the whole group as before. So began a specialization of the tasks and a hierarchy within the community. The work of the farmers and craftsmen allowed subsistence for the warriors and the priests, whereas the warriors were devoted to the protection of all the members, and the priests to ideologies or mythologies by which the organization of this world was explained. Plato and Menenius Agrippa had the same views: the society is divided into members and meanwhile it is united as a body. The Romans were rational enough to build a system of laws that precisely determined what was public or private. It is a fact that some functions were and are still public, especially human justice and the protection of the territory and its inhabitants. In the modern times, the State took charge of many social spheres, considering for instance that it was its duty to give a basic then solid education to all the children and to provide health care to everybody, because it was beneficial for the whole society and the human kind. But for that, people must pay taxes.

Imagine a world without taxes… Without public services… Wouldn’t it be wonderful? Only rich children would receive education; the poor would start working earlier and would never be able to understand the philosophers who would highlight their miserable existence. The rich would build roads on which they would be the ones to drive. They would have access to doctors whom the poor could never see. They would be protected by special agents, in their gated communities. Imagine a world where the concept of public, or community, or people, or nation, or universality, has disappeared… Where the streets would be the propriety of billionaires… Where you would have to pay if you want to breathe… Wouldn’t it be wonderful?

The latin word socius means “partner”, “associate”, “comrade”, “fellow”, and even “ally”. As StLuke said: “All governments employ a degree of Socialism.” But now, some consider that they have nothing or so little in common with the others. They say: I don’t want to pay for so-called fellow-citizens. Anyway, in my country, I have noticed that the politicians stopped to shout at the people by the term “citizens”. I see in France and in Europe that the public services are unravelled and that the inequalities are increasing. I see that selfishness undermines the will to live together and to have a shared destiny. It seems that deregulation and privatization destroy our laws and our links, and that Money and Technology are our new masters. But with such masters, no need of a citizenship: the man becomes a means devoted to these deities. And, for the individual, reason and freedom are not necessary anymore; otherwise, they would help to build a rational system of laws, as the Romans did, and to see an ally in other’s eyes.



Also Cafolini calling America the world most socilaist state probably just means he has never been out of his country and only knows of the external world trough biased media.

Indeed. But probably he also meant that all the poor Americans who cannot afford healthcare should be happy to live in the wealthiest nation in the world and very proud of a country having so great a military technology.

[OrphanPip]

The thing that strikes me most about Americans is so few, and I mean a miniscule few, emmigrate. That speaks volumes and it has to be more than their mindset or patriotism or idealism. I know how difficult it is to recruit Americans to another country. Canadians will leave much quicker, Europeans, same thing(warm south and cold north, same way). And it's not the weather, otherwise I could recruit from Montana and Maine and Minnesota, but they rarely want to leave-no matter what demographic they fit, it's across the board. They must like living there, because the concept of leaving is very different for them.

I don't know, Americans make up the largest foreign born group in Canada, there are approximately 1 million American born residents of Canada. The immigration rate has varied historically, at times the number of US emigrants to Canada exceeds the Canadian number to the US, and vice-versa. The highest it ever reached in Canada was during the depression and the highest the emigration rate for Americans reached was during the Vietnam war. I think now the number of Canadians who go to the US is about equivalent to the number of Americans entering Canada.

There are also other factors to consider, for example, the US is the only country that collects taxes on citizens living abroad, while countries like Canada tend to allow Canadian citizens to pay local taxes while living abroad. Americans also don't emigrate much because they generally lack language skills, they only speak English. While many Europeans have the language abilities, usually second language skills in English, which allow them to relocate for jobs much easier.

So, the American tax system and education system actually limits their ability to emigrate even if they wanted to.

The US is also very large, with enough regional difference that it allows economic disparity to vary widely in the country. So, you see a much larger trend of relocating within the US. It is much less paper work to relocate from Florida to Nebraska than from Florida to the UK.

[cafolini]

Around 10,000 years ago, the birth of agriculture brought more food, and the populations became sedentary, so that the alimentary supplies could be made only by a part of the group and not by the whole group as before. So began a specialization of the tasks and a hierarchy within the community. The work of the farmers and craftsmen allowed subsistence for the warriors and the priests, whereas the warriors were devoted to the protection of all the members, and the priests to ideologies or mythologies by which the organization of this world was explained. Plato and Menenius Agrippa had the same views: the society is divided into members and meanwhile it is united as a body. The Romans were rational enough to build a system of laws that precisely determined what was public or private. It is a fact that some functions were and are still public, especially human justice and the protection of the territory and its inhabitants. In the modern times, the State took charge of many social spheres, considering for instance that it was its duty to give a basic then solid education to all the children and to provide health care to everybody, because it was beneficial for the whole society and the human kind. But for that, people must pay taxes.

Imagine a world without taxes… Without public services… Wouldn’t it be wonderful? Only rich children would receive education; the poor would start working earlier and would never be able to understand the philosophers who would highlight their miserable existence. The rich would build roads on which they would be the ones to drive. They would have access to doctors whom the poor could never see. They would be protected by special agents, in their gated communities. Imagine a world where the concept of public, or community, or people, or nation, or universality, has disappeared… Where the streets would be the propriety of billionaires… Where you would have to pay if you want to breathe… Wouldn’t it be wonderful?

The latin word socius means “partner”, “associate”, “comrade”, “fellow”, and even “ally”. As StLuke said: “All governments employ a degree of Socialism.” But now, some consider that they have nothing or so little in common with the others. They say: I don’t want to pay for so-called fellow-citizens. Anyway, in my country, I have noticed that the politicians stopped to shout at the people by the term “citizens”. I see in France and in Europe that the public services are unravelled and that the inequalities are increasing. I see that selfishness undermines the will to live together and to have a shared destiny. It seems that deregulation and privatization destroy our laws and our links, and that Money and Technology are our new masters. But with such masters, no need of a citizenship: the man becomes a means devoted to these deities. And, for the individual, reason and freedom are not necessary anymore; otherwise, they would help to build a rational system of laws, as the Romans did, and to see an ally in other’s eyes.



Indeed. But probably he also meant that all the poor Americans who cannot afford healthcare should be happy to live in the wealthiest nation in the world and very proud of a country having so great a military technology.

Caesar was no deity? Of course not. He just tried. And the Slaughterhouse I in the Gaules and Spain did not display any great military technology?
Pricking piece you sent. Vatican press release? Would you like a New Rome? Ask Charlton Heston to play it for you. Mussolini is past tense.


I don't know, Americans make up the largest foreign born group in Canada, there are approximately 1 million American born residents of Canada. The immigration rate has varied historically, at times the number of US emigrants to Canada exceeds the Canadian number to the US, and vice-versa. The highest it ever reached in Canada was during the depression and the highest the emigration rate for Americans reached was during the Vietnam war. I think now the number of Canadians who go to the US is about equivalent to the number of Americans entering Canada.

There are also other factors to consider, for example, the US is the only country that collects taxes on citizens living abroad, while countries like Canada tend to allow Canadian citizens to pay local taxes while living abroad. Americans also don't emigrate much because they generally lack language skills, they only speak English. While many Europeans have the language abilities, usually second language skills in English, which allow them to relocate for jobs much easier.

So, the American tax system and education system actually limits their ability to emigrate even if they wanted to.

The US is also very large, with enough regional difference that it allows economic disparity to vary widely in the country. So, you see a much larger trend of relocating within the US. It is much less paper work to relocate from Florida to Nebraska than from Florida to the UK.

Americans lacking language skills? America is a land of emigrants of many nations. A large number speak at least two languages. They don't migrate because it's a great place to live, as demonstrated by how many people want residency in America and how they cross the borders legally or illegally. Your data is wrong.

[OrphanPip]

Americans lacking language skills? America is a land of emigrants of many nations. A large number speak at least two languages. They don't migrate because it's a great place to live, as demonstrated by how many people want residency in America and how they cross the borders legally or illegally. Your data is wrong.

The immigrant rate to the US is not significantly different from that of any Western developed nation, it is actually lower than some others, which is however counterbalanced by illegal entry, but that happens in all places as well.

Those who emigrate from 1st world countries are overwhelming from the middle class, the American middle class is predominantly English speaking. Most of the multilingual population in the US is recent immigrants. This is in contrast to many European countries where second language skills are much more common amongst the middle class.

[Varenne Rodin]

Are you from America, caf? I live here and it's becoming less and less enjoyable. Dirtier, decaying. Entertainment venues are going out of business or jacking their prices up so high that only the mega wealthy elite can afford to participate. Crime is up. Education is down. I would leave the country right now if I were prepared to pass citizenship tests for other places. I have heard the sentiment from many other people as well. Friends of mine would go now if they could afford to, but they have to work 13 hour days to avoid dying homeless in the street. Many of them have visited Canada. It just seemed like a happier place to be in general. I loved this country. It had a lot to offer. Its virtues have been squandered quickly. Feel free to offer opposing opinions, but try to avoid calling opinions wrong.

Is quality of life better in America than in Central or South America? Most likely. Better than in Africa or the middle east? From all known accounts, yes. I've seen no evidence that things are better in America than in Britain, France, Canada, Iceland or Australia. The decline of our society is pretty disturbing. Mexico is in a worse state now. Will that always be the case? Not if things continue the way they have been.

[BienvenuJDC]

Are you from America, caf? I live here and it's becoming less and less enjoyable. Dirtier, decaying. Entertainment venues are going out of business or jacking their prices up so high that only the mega wealthy elite can afford to participate. Crime is up. Education is down. I would leave the country right now if I were prepared to pass citizenship tests for other places. I have heard the sentiment from many other people as well. Friends of mine would go now if they could afford to, but they have to work 13 hour days to avoid dying homeless in the street. Many of them have visited Canada. It just seemed like a happier place to be in general. I loved this country. It had a lot to offer. Its virtues have been squandered quickly. Feel free to offer opposing opinions, but try to avoid calling opinions wrong.

I do live in this country. I've visited other countries as well. You're description, while it might be true for some areas, is not accurate for MOST of America.

[Varenne Rodin]

Enlighten me, Bien. Which are the best areas of America? I've been to nearly half of the states. They all failed to live up to the splendor of California, and California is in crisis. Where is the affordable entertainment, the exceptional medical care, the properly updated buildings, the lowest income gaps, the best schools, the ease of travel without dependence on gasoline, and the greatest quality of life? I would like to know so I can visit and possibly move to one of those places. Thank you.

[Emil Miller]

Enlighten me, Bien. Which are the best areas of America? I've been to nearly half of the states. They all failed to live up to the splendor of California, and California is in crisis. Where is the affordable entertainment, the exceptional medical care, the properly updated buildings, the lowest income gaps, the best schools, the ease of travel without dependence on gasoline, and the greatest quality of life? I would like to know so I can visit and possibly move to one of those places. Thank you.

How about Philadelphia ? :biggrin5:

[JuniperWoolf]

But why stop at just nationalised healthcare? The US can tax themselves into further prosperity with nationalising-

Basic Housing. Is it right to see homeless people in a wealthy country?The US public housing system is dismal, more money could be pumped in here.
Basic Transportation. How can people get to work without it?
Education. So necessary for a nation to prosper
Food. Nothing more to be said here
Subsidised vacation. We all deserve them and don't they contribute mental health of a country. Very important.


Perhaps making a strong man weaker does indeed make a weak man stronger?


The difference is, what do people need (NEED NEED NEED) right now in order to live? Can they live on the streets? Sure, many people do. Can they live if we don't sew up that gaping abdomen wound? Nope, not even through one night. Once we settle keeping people alive when they NEED it, we can look in to improving the housing and transportation situation.

Canada does provide food for those who are starving. I believe that they do the same in America, they're called "soup kitchens."

[Varenne Rodin]

How about Philadelphia ? :biggrin5:

I don't know much about what it's like to live there. A friend of mine says it's awful. He then goes on to say that all of Pennsylvania is disgusting and terrible. You did name a place I haven't been to, though. Points for that. :)

[Vonny]

I don't know much about what it's like to live there. A friend of mine says it's awful. He then goes on to say that all of Pennsylvania is disgusting and terrible. You did name a place I haven't been to, though. Points for that. :)

Central Pennsylvania is incredibly hot and humid in summer and full of bugs. It's also very cold in winter. The Amish live there, and their area is beautiful to look at, but my brother says that they must live there as a means of doing penance, because it so miserable, especially in summer. It's also full of hillbillies because of the Appalachians.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't know much about what it's like to live there. A friend of mine says it's awful. He then goes on to say that all of Pennsylvania is disgusting and terrible. You did name a place I haven't been to, though. Points for that. :)

I live in PA. It's not disgusting and terrible.

[Vonny]

I live in PA. It's not disgusting and terrible.

But it's extemely hot and humid, and full of bugs in summer. The humidity is suffocating.

Another thing about Central PA is that it's not uncommon to go into a restaurant there and see a family of several children, and the young mother sitting there without a tooth in her head - and no dentures either. When I was at the dentist's office, I read an article about those areas of the country, such as surrounding the Appalachians, where there are people whose nutrition is so poor their teeth just rot and crumble because of malnutrition.

[Varenne Rodin]

Yikes. Heavy humidity is not for me. I was born and raised on the cool, dry California coast. We have some light rain in the autumn and spring. The mountain ranges get some snow, but nothing major. I like feeling the transitions for all four seasons. Mosquitoes are a big no for me too. They're the only insect I'm allergic to. Lucky for me, there are none in California. I can cross PA off the house hunting list. Thanks, everyone! :)

[BienvenuJDC]

Enlighten me, Bien. Which are the best areas of America? I've been to nearly half of the states. They all failed to live up to the splendor of California, and California is in crisis. Where is the affordable entertainment, the exceptional medical care, the properly updated buildings, the lowest income gaps, the best schools, the ease of travel without dependence on gasoline, and the greatest quality of life? I would like to know so I can visit and possibly move to one of those places. Thank you.

What is it exactly that you're looking for? If you're looking for someone to supply everything that you want, then you're not going to find that anywhere. That is why California is in such peril...they've been trying to give to many things away. The idea of "ultra" rich people being able to supply all the needs of all the people (which typically is all the wants) is total fantasy. The idea of America is the "opportunity" for people to achieve for themselves prosperity. It's not a means to party all the time without putting forth the hard work to pay for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch...SOMEONE has to pay for it.

[Vonny]

Yikes. Heavy humidity is not for me. I was born and raised on the cool, dry California coast. We have some light rain in the autumn and spring. The mountain ranges get some snow, but nothing major. I like feeling the transitions for all four seasons. Mosquitoes are a big no for me too. They're the only insect I'm allergic to. Lucky for me, there are none in California. I can cross PA off the house hunting list. Thanks, everyone! :)

It's depressing to see so many very, very, poor people. Where I live, I have never seen a young mother with no teeth, but it's not uncommon in Central PA.

[Varenne Rodin]

What is it exactly that you're looking for? If you're looking for someone to supply everything that you want, then you're not going to find that anywhere. That is why California is in such peril...they've been trying to give to many things away. The idea of "ultra" rich people being able to supply all the needs of all the people (which typically is all the wants) is total fantasy. The idea of America is the "opportunity" for people to achieve for themselves prosperity. It's not a means to party all the time without putting forth the hard work to pay for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch...SOMEONE has to pay for it.

Haha. Bien, I'm well off. I've never needed a free lunch. I know some people do and I'm happy to help any community I choose to live in.

What am I looking for in a place to live? A place where people are nice to each other and the weather is good. A place that pays its taxes to keep streets and buildings from becoming dilapidated eye sores, and the city and state officials actually care about maintaining the city and state or province or whatever. Somewhere where healthcare is not a total hassle, and insurance companies are either restricted or don't exist. Sure, it's kind of a fantasy, but places in Canada seem to think they've got it. Some places in the UK too, where landscapes are well manicured and people are often clean and sophisticated.

I don't want to have to worry every time I leave the house that I might get stabbed or shot or raped (which was a genuine concern in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, and Maryland). Like I said, California, though broke, is the best state I have been to. If there's a better state or country, I would love to know about it.

[BienvenuJDC]

Haha. Bien, I'm well off. I've never needed a free lunch. I know some people do and I'm happy to help any community I choose to live in.

What am I looking for in a place to live? A place where people are nice to each other and the weather is good. A place that pays its taxes to keep streets and buildings from becoming dilapidated eye sores, and the city and state officials actually care about maintaining the city and state or province or whatever. Somewhere where healthcare is not a total hassle, and insurance companies are either restricted or don't exist. Sure, it's kind of a fantasy, but places in Canada seem to think they've got it. Some places in the UK too, where landscapes are well manicured and people are often clean and sophisticated.

I don't want to have to worry every time I leave the house that I might get stabbed or shot or raped (which was a genuine concern in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, and Maryland). Like I said, California, though broke, is the best state I have been to. If there's a better state or country, I would love to know about it.

Oh....then you want the "country" life....

[Vonny]

:blush5: Well, I'm partial to the Northwest: Oregon and Washington, which are very different from where I live.

But North Idaho suits me, personally - although it's not for everyone. We have the very rich, but not the tragically poor. And it's clean here, as much as anywhere.

But we don't have much public transportation, or entertainment, other than sports.

The people aren't very nice, but there are fewer here than most places, which is all I really care about.

[BienvenuJDC]

:blush5: Well, I'm partial to the Northwest: Oregon and Washington, which are very different from where I live.

But North Idaho suits me, personally - although it's not for everyone. We have the very rich, but not the tragically poor. And it's clean here, as much as anywhere.

But we don't have much public transportation, or entertainment, other than sports.

Sounds like a great part of America. I enjoy the rural parts of PA. I don't need the riches, nor do I like the bustle of the cities. America offers just about any lifestyle that one could ask for.

The poverty, crime and dilapidated living conditions is usually because people aren't taking care of what they have been given (many times public housing is abused by its own residents) and/or because corrupt government is stealing away tax money/stimulus money that is intended to be used to boast the economy and repair the infra structure.

[Varenne Rodin]

Oh....then you want the "country" life....

Country life? No. I was a visitor to those places. At times visiting family. At times traveling for business reasons. I did live in Miami, which is not country at all, it's nasty though. I prefer to live in well functioning metros.

[JuniperWoolf]

The idea of "ultra" rich people being able to supply all the needs of all the people (which typically is all the wants) is total fantasy.

No one is asking for a handout from the ultra rich (are you ultra rich, Bien?). The point is that everyone with a job helps by paying a little bit. Then those who would ordinarily be crushed under overwhelming medical/school/whatever debt could actually have a breather to get their **** together and get a job so that they themselves can begin to contribute. That's why Canada's unemployment rate is so low.

[BienvenuJDC]

Country life? No. I was a visitor to those places. At times visiting family. At times traveling for business reasons. I did live in Miami, which is not country at all, it's nasty though. I prefer to live in well functioning metros.

I don't want to be down on mankind, but whenever you have more people you have more corrupt lifestyles. It's the greed of people (not necessarily corporate or government greed), but the greed of ALL. For there are those in power and those with only the power of their own fists that want to take away from those who have earned/created their own wealth. That is what makes any place an unfortunate place to live...and that exists in every part of the world. BUT when you find a place filled with those who are honest and selfless, that will be a place that is a wonderful place to live.

[JuniperWoolf]

It's the greed of people (not necessarily corporate or government greed), but the greed of ALL.


You don't seem to have a very positive view of humanity. People are pushed by pride and ambition, you don't need to use starvation, homelessness or death (due to lack of medical care) to motivate them further.

[Varenne Rodin]

:blush5: Well, I'm partial to the Northwest: Oregon and Washington, which are very different from where I live.

But North Idaho suits me, personally - although it's not for everyone. We have the very rich, but not the tragically poor. And it's clean here, as much as anywhere.

But we don't have much public transportation, or entertainment, other than sports.

The people aren't very nice, but there are fewer here than most places, which is all I really care about.

I've never been to Idaho. Clean is very important to me. The last two years I have lived on a secluded mountain top. Beautiful environment, but there aren't opportunities to grow here and the internet is so slow that it's crippling my job. I'm moving downtown in the spring. After that I want to try another country.

[BienvenuJDC]

You don't seem to have a very positive view of humanity. People are pushed by pride and ambition, you don't need to use starvation, homelessness or death (due to lack of medical care) to motivate them further.

You need to explain...I have no idea what you're referring to. I don't have a very positive outlook on this particular generation. They have not been taught (or not accepted the instruction) of honesty and integrity. I've mostly seen young people who have been self serving without a strong work ethic. That even starts at my own generation. The generation of WWII was a special generation of hardworking individuals that came together to overcome many obstacles. They were a very impressive generation...and this generation has much to prove before they can be anywhere close.

It's not "pride and ambition" that will make us great as a generation, but selflessness and compassion. If those who were "occupying" Wall St were concerned, they would stop petitioning and start helping one another.

[Vonny]

After that I want to try another country.

Canada :) I love Canada.

[JuniperWoolf]

You need to explain...I have no idea what you're referring to.

We've been talking about one subject for two and a half pages.


I don't have a very positive outlook on this particular generation. They have not been taught (or not accepted the instruction) of honesty and integrity.

I would say that this particular generation might not look very favorably on the "honesty and integrity" that many of the older generations have shown, and for good reason.


I've mostly seen young people who have been self serving without a strong work ethic.

I've seen the opposite. I've seen people holding full time jobs while going to school full time as well, with still enough time left over to have enough fun that they don't go insane. Kids do a lot.


It's not "pride and ambition" that will make us great as a generation, but selflessness and compassion.

It's hard to be compassionate when you can't afford to pay your medical bills. A compassionate person might agree to allow the government to take a very small percentage of their paycheque in order to help cover the bills of those who can't afford it, like we do in Canada.

[Varenne Rodin]

You need to explain...I have no idea what you're referring to. I don't have a very positive outlook on this particular generation. They have not been taught (or not accepted the instruction) of honesty and integrity. I've mostly seen young people who have been self serving without a strong work ethic. That even starts at my own generation. The generation of WWII was a special generation of hardworking individuals that came together to overcome many obstacles. They were a very impressive generation...and this generation has much to prove before they can be anywhere close.

It's not "pride and ambition" that will make us great as a generation, but selflessness and compassion. If those who were "occupying" Wall St were concerned, they would stop petitioning and start helping one another.

They are helping each other. They stay in shifts. Many of them are still working regular jobs. They bring food and blankets. The problem is not laziness. When people can't afford the cost of living by working full time jobs, of course they aren't going to work just so they can lose everything. Minimum wage needs to be increased. Employee benefits need to be improved. There is no incentive to work and be in debt. No incentive to go to school, go into debt, and come out of it with a degree that still won't buy a lucrative job. What is anyone offering these days in exchange for labor? Some people luck out. That's all there is to it. I'm a hard worker, but I really lucked into being a successful sculptor. A lot of people will never catch a break. The opportunities aren't there anymore because of the greed at the top. If you don't make at least several million a year, you are not one of the greedy rich fat cats everyone is so upset with. It's not all rich people either. Many give their fortunes away and ask that they be taxed more. Every man for himself is not a society. No man is an island. They can't just sit alone on their money piles forever. It has to circulate or everyone loses.

[stlukesguild]

But why stop at just nationalised healthcare? The US can tax themselves into further prosperity with nationalising-

Basic Housing. Is it right to see homeless people in a wealthy country?The US public housing system is dismal, more money could be pumped in here.

Ummm... we do have subsidized housing.

Basic Transportation. How can people get to work without it?

Most larger cities have some form of public transportation. It may not be free, but it is cheaper than the costs of owning and operating a car. Considering the monopolistic actions of the auto industry earlier last century in buying up and shutting down many of the forms of public transportation, maybe there is just cause to invest more here.

Education. So necessary for a nation to prosper

Public Education

Food. Nothing more to be said here

There are various programs that subsidize food costs, including food stamps. Again there are elements that could be fine-tuned that would lead to a decrease in cost. It seems questionable, for example, that those on food stamps should be using this to purchase high-end products, expensive pre-packaged and processed foods, etc... When I was the usual struggling student or just out of school I simply learned that steak and lobster and expensive breakfast cereal or frozen meals were outside of my budget, and I learned to purchase that which was nutritious... and went a long way.

Subsidised vacation. We all deserve them and don't they contribute mental health of a country. Very important.

Obviously you intend this in a mocking manner, but let's face it, we are all given so many hours off work each day and anything over 40 hours a week is considered "overtime" and paid accordingly. These are some of the benefits gained over time. We no longer accept 12 or 15 hour work days, 6 day work weeks, etc... Every nation in the world, including many that we might scoff at at being far less civilized than ourselves in the US, are allocated mandatory days of work. Most Western nations are guaranteed a decent number of days off work. The US alone guarantees not a single vacation day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_coun try

[Emil Miller]

I don't know much about what it's like to live there. A friend of mine says it's awful. He then goes on to say that all of Pennsylvania is disgusting and terrible. You did name a place I haven't been to, though. Points for that. :)

Well I was referring to the remark by WC Fields.

It is said that Fields wanted "I'd rather be in Philadelphia" on his gravestone because of the old vaudeville joke among comedians, "I would rather be dead than play Philadelphia".

.

[Buh4Bee]

Darn, St. Luke, I had my list sitting on my desk and I was going to write something this morning. But the main point is, these are programs that most modern countries have. This does not define America socialist by any means.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well I was referring to the remark by WC Fields.

It is said that Fields wanted "I'd rather be in Philadelphia" on his gravestone because of the old vaudeville joke among comedians, "I would rather be dead than play Philadelphia".

.

Haha, Emil. That's too clever. I love it! I will be saving that one.

[Emil Miller]

Haha, Emil. That's too clever. I love it! I will be saving that one.

The really amusing thing is that when President Reagan was shot, his security guards immediately piled on top of him to prevent him being hit again by the would-be assassin. When they all straightened up, there was Reagan lying on the ground looking bemused. One of the guards asked if he was alright and he replied: "I'd rather be in Philadelphia".

[Varenne Rodin]

The really amusing thing is that when President Reagan was shot, his security guards immediately piled on top of him to prevent him being hit again by the would-be assassin. When they all straightened up, there was Reagan lying on the ground looking bemused. One of the guards asked if he was alright and he replied: "I'd rather be in Philadelphia".

Good timing, on his part. That Reagan was quite a character.

[Ragnar Freund]

Imagine a world without taxes… Without public services… Wouldn’t it be wonderful? Only rich children would receive education; the poor would start working earlier and would never be able to understand the philosophers who would highlight their miserable existence. The rich would build roads on which they would be the ones to drive. They would have access to doctors whom the poor could never see. They would be protected by special agents, in their gated communities. Imagine a world where the concept of public, or community, or people, or nation, or universality, has disappeared… Where the streets would be the propriety of billionaires… Where you would have to pay if you want to breathe… Wouldn’t it be wonderful?


Where is the evidence for, or reasoning behind, any of these statements? These are all based on the old fallacy that if the state didn't provide it, then it wouldn't exist. Why would you think that? Everything that the state provides can be provided by private sources, only better. You seem to see the state as a deity that can provide solutions that nothing and no one else can.

[EDIT] The question, What will the poor do without [enter name of state-provided service], is a very common one, but it makes one false assumption: that the existence and number of poor people is a fixture, something that will exist in any economy. But there is no reason to believe that. In a truly free economy, the number of poor people will be far smaller than it is now, as the incentives to be lazy, irresponsible, and to have children one cannot afford will be removed. The small number of poor who will exist in a free economy will easily be provided for by private charities.

I know I'm wasting pixels here, but for the minute chance that you want to read more about these issues I can recommend:
For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard
Social Statics by Herbert Spencer
The Law by F. Bastiat
Economics in One Lesson by H. Hazlitt
No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority by L. Spooner
Anything by Walter Block

[cafolini]

Good timing, on his part. That Reagan was quite a character.

Reagan had a lot of good humor and did not go unperceived. One of the best republicans ever. So few actually wanted to be in Philadelfia.

[Emil Miller]

Good timing, on his part. That Reagan was quite a character.

He was but he was often lampooned in the UK media. One radio sketch had Prince Charles visiting him in the White House.

Reagan: "How are ya Prince?

Charles: "I'm fine Mr President. This is my first time in the US and I'm going on a visit to Australia with my girlfriend Diana next week.".

Reagan: Well I wouldn't delay the engagement. Why with an attractive girl like that I'd make a grab for her down under.

Charles: "What? What? I can't believe my ears.

Reagan: "And I can't believe your ears".

Nancy Reagan: "Ronieeeeee....".

Reagan: "Well these limeys always take things the wrong way".

[Varenne Rodin]

He was but he was often lampooned in the UK media. One radio sketch had Prince Charles visiting him in the White House.

Oh, the classic fun of mocking political figures. Always a good time.

[B. Laumness]

Where is the evidence for, or reasoning behind, any of these statements? These are all based on the old fallacy that if the state didn't provide it, then it wouldn't exist. Why would you think that? Everything that the state provides can be provided by private sources, only better. You seem to see the state as a deity that can provide solutions that nothing and no one else can.

[EDIT] The question, What will the poor do without [enter name of state-provided service], is a very common one, but it makes one false assumption: that the existence and number of poor people is a fixture, something that will exist in any economy. But there is no reason to believe that. In a truly free economy, the number of poor people will be far smaller than it is now, as the incentives to be lazy, irresponsible, and to have children one cannot afford will be removed. The small number of poor who will exist in a free economy will easily be provided for by private charities.

I know I'm wasting pixels here, but for the minute chance that you want to read more about these issues I can recommend:
For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard
Social Statics by Herbert Spencer
The Law by F. Bastiat
Economics in One Lesson by H. Hazlitt
No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority by L. Spooner
Anything by Walter Block

You did not understand my reasoning. Read my whole reply again, not only this paragraph. Read it till you get the meaning. After that, maybe you will understand that you have no lesson to give me in the matter. I was ashamed to have to recall these common ideas, but evidently they are not that obvious for everybody. How can we discuss if you don’t even grasp the concept of society? Ah, pardon me, you grasp it, but through your libertarianism, which is a very dangerous utopia praised by corrupted and illogical minds. Indeed, the inability to see how this ideology is absurd is the sign of an intellectual deficiency. No laws, no state = the jungle. Charity doesn’t exist in the jungle. The strong is the master, the weak is dead or slave.

[Ragnar Freund]

Obviously you intend this in a mocking manner, but let's face it, we are all given so many hours off work each day and anything over 40 hours a week is considered "overtime" and paid accordingly. These are some of the benefits gained over time. We no longer accept 12 or 15 hour work days, 6 day work weeks, etc... Every nation in the world, including many that we might scoff at at being far less civilized than ourselves in the US, are allocated mandatory days of work. Most Western nations are guaranteed a decent number of days off work. The US alone guarantees not a single vacation day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statutory_minimum_employment_leave_by_coun try

Well, you're on to something. The US does not have a federal (or state) guarantee of paid leave, but the large majority of American employees do indeed get paid leave. What does that tell you about the efficiency of the free markets? What does that say about the standard claim, If the state doesn't provide for it, it won't exist?

[Varenne Rodin]

I have to agree with Laumness. If you're the king of a ruined, neglected society, you're the king of nothing.

[Ragnar Freund]

You did not understand my reasoning. Read my whole reply again, not only this paragraph. Read it till you get the meaning. After that, maybe you will understand that you have no lesson to give me in the matter. I was ashamed to have to recall these common ideas, but evidently they are not that obvious for everybody. How can we discuss if you don’t even grasp the concept of society? Ah, pardon me, you grasp it, but through your libertarianism, which is a very dangerous utopia praised by corrupted and illogical minds. Indeed, the inability to see how this ideology is absurd is the sign of an intellectual deficiency. No laws, no state = the jungle. Charity doesn’t exist in the jungle. The strong is the master, the weak is dead or slave.

You're hysterical. Calm down. Now, answer a simple question: How many of the works I listed have you read? How many other works about libertarianism have you read? If the answer is zero, as I imagine it is, then how can you criticize a theory about which you know nothing? Where does your knowledge of libertarianism come from?


No laws, no state = the jungle
You have proven that you don't understand that which you criticize, as libertarianism does not mean no laws; it means no state. The two are not equivalent. You need to educate yourself before you scream.


Charity doesn’t exist in the jungle.

Doesn't charity, be definition, imply voluntary giving? Well, then if there is one place in which charity cannot exist, it's a state institution funded by taxation. Charity can exist only where people are free, not coerced, to give and help.


The strong is the master, the weak is dead or slave.

Deep thought, indeed. We can agree on one thing, I think: The USA is much more powerful militarily the Iceland, right? Why doesn't the US invade and conquer Iceland? The strong must by necessity destroy the weak, right? Why does that principle fail in this case?

[Varenne Rodin]

If we attacked Iceland without cause other than to "conquer" them, we would provoke the wrath of a lot of countries. They also don't have resources for us to steal. They're using regional geothermal. We can't rip it off the way we rip off oil. I get your point, but we're not stronger than the large opposition we would face if we attacked Iceland, so the strong against weak argument doesn't really apply. Iceland's pretty self contained. I don't think they're interested in using terrorism against us, so I doubt we'll have reason to make war with them any time soon.

Another point, our leaders thought we were bigger and badder than Iraq and Afghanistan, and that situation majorly crippled us. I don't know of many people who would call it a success, except maybe for a few big oil companies.

[Ragnar Freund]

If we attacked Iceland without cause other than to "conquer" them, we would provoke the wrath of a lot of countries. [...] I get your point, but we're not stronger than the large opposition we would face if we attacked Iceland, so the strong against weak argument doesn't really apply.

Precisely! The strong (US) doesn't not attack the weak (Iceland) because it fears the wrath of other nations. Therefore, strength is not a sufficient condition for unjustified aggression against others.

Now, take that same reasoning and apply it to individuals. Assume there is no state, and we are in a jungle, as the other commenter suggested. I am stronger than you are, but does that mean that I will necessarily attack you, even if I wanted to? Won't I fear intervention from other members of society? Does the absence of a state mean that there will be no repercussions for my act of aggression?

[Darcy88]

Where is the evidence for, or reasoning behind, any of these statements? These are all based on the old fallacy that if the state didn't provide it, then it wouldn't exist. Why would you think that? Everything that the state provides can be provided by private sources, only better. You seem to see the state as a deity that can provide solutions that nothing and no one else can.

[EDIT] The question, What will the poor do without [enter name of state-provided service], is a very common one, but it makes one false assumption: that the existence and number of poor people is a fixture, something that will exist in any economy. But there is no reason to believe that. In a truly free economy, the number of poor people will be far smaller than it is now, as the incentives to be lazy, irresponsible, and to have children one cannot afford will be removed. The small number of poor who will exist in a free economy will easily be provided for by private charities.

I know I'm wasting pixels here, but for the minute chance that you want to read more about these issues I can recommend:
For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard
Social Statics by Herbert Spencer
The Law by F. Bastiat
Economics in One Lesson by H. Hazlitt
No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority by L. Spooner
Anything by Walter Block

See all you say here can be refuted by merely looking back on history. Before there were state programs and before workers earned concessions from employers the conditions of those on the bottom was wretched. Take away the influence of government and of unions and the majority of people lose their power and become a cheap resource for big business.

All libertarianism does is strip power from the majority of the people and place it in the hands of the elite wealthy few.

[cafolini]

See all you say here can be refuted by merely looking back on history. Before there were state programs and before workers earned concessions from employers the conditions of those on the bottom was wretched. Take away the influence of government and of unions and the majority of people lose their power and become a cheap resource for big business.

All libertarianism does is strip power from the majority of the people and place it in the hands of the elite wealthy few.

Agree with that one, Darcy. Fully.

[Vonny]

Deep thought, indeed. We can agree on one thing, I think: The USA is much more powerful militarily the Iceland, right? Why doesn't the US invade and conquer Iceland? The strong must by necessity destroy the weak, right? Why does that principle fail in this case?

We've invaded Iceland by selling them our crap. What more effective way is there than that? And that's all a capitalist country is interested in anyway.

[Varenne Rodin]

Hahaha. I love Vonny.

[Vonny]

Hahaha. I love Vonny.

I love lovely Varenne :)

[cafolini]

I love lovely Varenne :)

I always loved all girls and what they have to offer. Icelandics are superb. Just to put a little meaning into this.

[Varenne Rodin]

I always loved all girls and what they have to offer. Icelandics are superb. Just to put a little meaning into this.

Maybe we should war with them to take their girls. Kidding!

[Vonny]

Maybe we should war with them to take their girls. Kidding!

Vikings were conquered with Christianity and later with selling them crap.

An Icelandic woman said that many in her country call it "lil America" now, but she doesn't think so.

I think we should move to Iceland, we'd fit in better there.

[Varenne Rodin]

Vikings were conquered with Christianity and later with selling them crap.

An Icelandic woman said that many in her country call it "lil America" now, but she doesn't think so.

I think we should move to Iceland, we'd fit in better there.

I agree! I like their music too. Bjork, Emiliana Torrini. I can't remember if Mum is from there. Nice stuff. It sure would be great to never have to pay another electric bill.

[Vonny]

I agree! I like their music too. Bjork, Emiliana Torrini. I can't remember if Mum is from there. Nice stuff. It sure would be great to never have to pay another electric bill.

Yes, Iceland is the best country in the world, I've heard.

You may get soaked for tuition fees, I don't know about that, but at least they don't spray like a mosquito afterwards.

[Varenne Rodin]

The best bet is probably to complete an education first and cultivate a skill that would be of use to them. It's a tough country to get into.

Going back to the pepper spray topic, I just read about the woman who pepper sprayed other customers to get to discount Xbox consoles on black Friday. Apparently they didn't catch her and she purchased her Xboxes and left. I'm glad I avoid all crowded events.

[cafolini]

Maybe we should war with them to take their girls. Kidding!

No, not kidding. Operation free joy.


The best bet is probably to complete an education first and cultivate a skill that would be of use to them. It's a tough country to get into.s.
Yes vulcanology or involuntary rock'an'rolling.

[Varenne Rodin]

Yes vulcanology or involuntary rock'an'rolling.

Haha. I was thinking of something more along the lines of bio-medical engineering, or geothermal physics.

[cafolini]

Haha. I was thinking of something more along the lines of bio-medical engineering, or geothermal physics.

I was thinking of something more natural, with very little curriculum.

[Vonny]

I was thinking of something more natural, with very little curriculum.

I must admit that the thought of Iceland does the same to me. ...There's something about "geothermal"... that set's off my imagination!

[Varenne Rodin]

I would love it if art and imagination could buy a way in. They like scientists. Jobs that are in high demand. :)

[Vonny]

I would love it if art and imagination could buy a way in. They like scientists. Jobs that are in high demand. :)

True, and if a woman is untalented in this country, being blonde will keep her in some kind of job with benefits, but it probably wouldn't get her too far in Iceland.

edit: I said this wrong!

[Darcy88]

Didn't Iceland's economy tank it recently? I agree though, it does look like a neat place to live.

And America may have never invaded Iceland, but examples of it throwing its weight around militarily are numerous. From Southeast Asia to South and Central America and of course more recently in the Middle East.

[Vonny]

Where is the evidence for, or reasoning behind, any of these statements? These are all based on the old fallacy that if the state didn't provide it, then it wouldn't exist. Why would you think that? Everything that the state provides can be provided by private sources, only better. You seem to see the state as a deity that can provide solutions that nothing and no one else can.

[EDIT] The question, What will the poor do without [enter name of state-provided service], is a very common one, but it makes one false assumption: that the existence and number of poor people is a fixture, something that will exist in any economy. But there is no reason to believe that. In a truly free economy, the number of poor people will be far smaller than it is now, as the incentives to be lazy, irresponsible, and to have children one cannot afford will be removed. The small number of poor who will exist in a free economy will easily be provided for by private charities.

I know I'm wasting pixels here, but for the minute chance that you want to read more about these issues I can recommend:
For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard
Social Statics by Herbert Spencer
The Law by F. Bastiat
Economics in One Lesson by H. Hazlitt
No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority by L. Spooner
Anything by Walter Block


Anything government provides the state can provide better? Better for who? If you look at mental health services, for instance, it's privatized among small agencies and then these small businesses don't provide benefits to employees and the services are limited to what a small business can provide. Eventually one corporation will put the small agencies out and they will be accountable to no one. At least with government, we can vote. With private corporations we have no influence at all.



You're hysterical. Calm down. Now, answer a simple question: How many of the works I listed have you read? How many other works about libertarianism have you read? If the answer is zero, as I imagine it is, then how can you criticize a theory about which you know nothing? Where does your knowledge of libertarianism come from?


You have proven that you don't understand that which you criticize, as libertarianism does not mean no laws; it means no state. The two are not equivalent. You need to educate yourself before you scream.



Doesn't charity, be definition, imply voluntary giving? Well, then if there is one place in which charity cannot exist, it's a state institution funded by taxation. Charity can exist only where people are free, not coerced, to give and help.



Deep thought, indeed. We can agree on one thing, I think: The USA is much more powerful militarily the Iceland, right? Why doesn't the US invade and conquer Iceland? The strong must by necessity destroy the weak, right? Why does that principle fail in this case?


Just because someone hasn't read the books you think he should, doesn't mean he knows nothing! And a person can be plenty educated without thinking as you do.


Yes Darcy, Iceland took a hit because they got tied in with Western economies.

[Varenne Rodin]

The way I heard it, even though Iceland went bankrupt, it has accrued nowhere near the debt (by ratio) that the US has. So much is socialized there that they're close to self sustaining without a boisterous economy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, has cafolini answered how the USA is the most socialist country in the world? Haven't visited in a couple days, and I've looked at the last 6 pages and couldn't find it . . .

[Darcy88]

So, has cafolini answered how the USA is the most socialist country in the world? Haven't visited in a couple days, and I've looked at the last 6 pages and couldn't find it . . .

I don't think he did. I think Cafolini's argument is that since America is the richest country its people are collectively better off than those in other nations. If that's wrong then Cafolini can correct me.

Even if this is the case it does not mean America is socialist. Socialism has little to do with material prosperity. Its more about collective ownership of resources and the means of production, as well as the elimination of wealth disparity. America is a very privatized and very economically inequal nation and, therefore, not very socialist at all.

[BienvenuJDC]

The way I heard it, even though Iceland went bankrupt, it has accrued nowhere near the debt (by ratio) that the US has. So much is socialized there that they're close to self sustaining without a boisterous economy.

Yes, but much of the USAs debt is due to the politicians sending the foreign aid abroad (which is probably not near as much as) sending much of the the tax dollars to companies that are closely associated to those in office. We won't talk specifics about that lest we violate the rules of this site.

[Varenne Rodin]

Yes, but much of the USAs debt is due to the politicians sending the foreign aid abroad (which is probably not near as much as) sending much of the the tax dollars to companies that are closely associated to those in office. We won't talk specifics about that lest we violate the rules of this site.

Serious cat is watching me. I'll just say that I agree that special interest lobbying should be reformed. We need to aid our citizens before sending resources elsewhere. Mainly, people should stop getting pepper sprayed in their faces.

[B. Laumness]

You're hysterical. Calm down. Now, answer a simple question: How many of the works I listed have you read? How many other works about libertarianism have you read? If the answer is zero, as I imagine it is, then how can you criticize a theory about which you know nothing? Where does your knowledge of libertarianism come from?


You have proven that you don't understand that which you criticize, as libertarianism does not mean no laws; it means no state. The two are not equivalent. You need to educate yourself before you scream.



Doesn't charity, be definition, imply voluntary giving? Well, then if there is one place in which charity cannot exist, it's a state institution funded by taxation. Charity can exist only where people are free, not coerced, to give and help.



Deep thought, indeed. We can agree on one thing, I think: The USA is much more powerful militarily the Iceland, right? Why doesn't the US invade and conquer Iceland? The strong must by necessity destroy the weak, right? Why does that principle fail in this case?

Imagine a community without state. A member of this community killed somebody. What happens? Is the case heard by a court? Is the person imprisoned? Under which law? Is this law applicable to everyone? Is it intangible? Who makes the law? How is it carried into effect? Are there still judges? Are they independent? Are they paid? If so, by who? Same questions for the jailers. And if the murderer is imprisoned, what is the reason? The protection of the other members? The public interest? And in which interest do the police work? Do they still maintain the public order? In accordance with which laws? Is the etymology of this word police still valid? Or do they defend particular interests? In other terms, explain how justice, prison and police work without state.

Now, imagine that this community without state is attacked by the national army of a nearby country. What happens? Is there still an army? Is it made of professionals soldiers who fight in defense of the whole community? Who pays them? Or is the territory defended by each in a corner, protecting his or her own interests? But perhaps there are small groups of proprietors, governed by lords?

In this community without state, tell me who takes the decision to build the roads, who pays for that, and whether anybody can walk or drive on. Imagine that a highway is drawn and that its line should go through houses. Are the proprietors of these houses expropriated? Do they get compensation? Who takes the decisions in the matter?

I’m certainly naive and ignorant, but I can’t imagine a society without laws that rule and preserve it, that are decided and carried into effect by a form of government. It seems to me that libertarianists fail to see that the end of the state necessarily leads to the rebuilding of the state sooner or later. I don’t say that the state must take charge of everything; I just say that a society can’t live if institutions such as justice are not managed in a common goal by a public service, that is to say by a form of state.

As for charity, of course it is voluntary. But who can be charitable in a world where the dominant value is the propriety and where everybody protects their own interests? No matters the frame of the state: I talk about moral values, considering that libertarianism relies upon selfishness.

I confess it, I didn’t read any of the works you mentioned. Not my cup of tea. I didn’t know they were essential for a good education. I won’t suggest to you my readings: I fear you’ll find them worthless.

At last, about US attacking the Iceland, the strong attacking the weak, I’m not sure, but it’s possible it doesn’t happen precisely because there are national strategies that determine an international order.

[Ragnar Freund]

Imagine a community without state. A member of this community killed somebody. What happens? Is the case heard by a court? Is the person imprisoned? Under which law? Is this law applicable to everyone? Is it intangible? Who makes the law? How is it carried into effect? Are there still judges? Are they independent? Are they paid? If so, by who? Same questions for the jailers. And if the murderer is imprisoned, what is the reason? The protection of the other members? The public interest? And in which interest do the police work? Do they still maintain the public order? In accordance with which laws? Is the etymology of this word police still valid? Or do they defend particular interests? In other terms, explain how justice, prison and police work without state.

Now, imagine that this community without state is attacked by the national army of a nearby country. What happens? Is there still an army? Is it made of professionals soldiers who fight in defense of the whole community? Who pays them? Or is the territory defended by each in a corner, protecting his or her own interests? But perhaps there are small groups of proprietors, governed by lords?

In this community without state, tell me who takes the decision to build the roads, who pays for that, and whether anybody can walk or drive on. Imagine that a highway is drawn and that its line should go through houses. Are the proprietors of these houses expropriated? Do they get compensation? Who takes the decisions in the matter?

I’m certainly naive and ignorant, but I can’t imagine a society without laws that rule and preserve it, that are decided and carried into effect by a form of government. It seems to me that libertarianists fail to see that the end of the state necessarily leads to the rebuilding of the state sooner or later. I don’t say that the state must take charge of everything; I just say that a society can’t live if institutions such as justice are not managed in a common goal by a public service, that is to say by a form of state.

As for charity, of course it is voluntary. But who can be charitable in a world where the dominant value is the propriety and where everybody protects their own interests? No matters the frame of the state: I talk about moral values, considering that libertarianism relies upon selfishness.



All valid questions. Answering them would take too long. That's why I suggested you read some books, but apparently you're to closed-minded for that. You realize that reading a book does not require you to agree with its author, right?



I confess it, I didn’t read any of the works you mentioned. Not my cup of tea. I didn’t know they were essential for a good education. I won’t suggest to you my readings: I fear you’ll find them worthless.

Your readings are standard economic theory, as is taught in schools, the media, church, home, textbooks, and practically every conversation in the US and around the world. I've been imbued in these theories, as were all of us, since birth. I can spend a day reading the last Michael Moore drivel, but will this be significantly different from everything that everybody else is saying?

Now read Rothbard and tell me he's not an original thinker. You may think he's full of it (most do), but at least he thought for himself.

If these thinkers are too out of the way for you, then I suggest that at least you pick up a few books on the history of medieval Iceland and Ireland, as well as on the native American tribe of Yurok and the Northern Luzon tribe of Ifugao.


Anything government provides the state can provide better?

Ha? Is that a typo, or have you no idea what I wrote?


Just because someone hasn't read the books you think he should, doesn't mean he knows nothing! And a person can be plenty educated without thinking as you do.

No person can be educated when he closes his mind to ideas that seem offensive, or wrong, or out-of-the-way, or weird, or unconventional. Only an open mind can be educated.

[cafolini]

Ha? Is that a typo, or have you no idea what I wrote?



No person can be educated when he closes his mind to ideas that seem offensive, or wrong, or out-of-the-way, or weird, or unconventional. Only an open mind can be educated.

Often, I find the most educated the most narrow minded and prejudiced. Also open-minded doesn't mean you need to eat the whole breakfast when you find out that the eggs are rotten.

[Varenne Rodin]

Is the desire for people to go back to living like the pioneers? Or like the dark ages? Private enterprise is not going to bear the weight of a nation properly. I don't want private companies with monetary gain in mind to govern the country I live in. Now, it's already happening because we stick to the corporate minded two party system. Get rid of state, it will be all corporate greed sucking slaves dry. No thanks.

[Ragnar Freund]

I don't want private companies with monetary gain in mind to govern the country I live in.

Let's do some math, shall we? R.J. Rummel, who is anything but a libertarian, has written a very influential book (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM) in which he estimates that 169,202,000 civilians were murdered by governments in the twentieth century alone.

How many were murdered by corporations?

[BienvenuJDC]

Is the desire for people to go back to living like the pioneers? Or like the dark ages? Private enterprise is not going to bear the weight of a nation properly. I don't want private companies with monetary gain in mind to govern the country I live in. Now, it's already happening because we stick to the corporate minded two party system. Get rid of state, it will be all corporate greed sucking slaves dry. No thanks.

The only difference between capitalism and socialism is whether private companies or government is holding the power. Both can be very corrupt and will likely be.

[B. Laumness]

All valid questions. Answering them would take too long. That's why I suggested you read some books, but apparently you're to closed-minded for that. You realize that reading a book does not require you to agree with its author, right?


Your readings are standard economic theory, as is taught in schools, the media, church, home, textbooks, and practically every conversation in the US and around the world. I've been imbued in these theories, as were all of us, since birth. I can spend a day reading the last Michael Moore drivel, but will this be significantly different from everything that everybody else is saying?

Now read Rothbard and tell me he's not an original thinker. You may think he's full of it (most do), but at least he thought for himself.

If these thinkers are too out of the way for you, then I suggest that at least you pick up a few books on the history of medieval Iceland and Ireland, as well as on the native American tribe of Yurok and the Northern Luzon tribe of Ifugao.

I’ll follow your suggestions, hopefully I’ll have answers to my questions. Apparently, we don’t have the same readings. That doesn’t mean that I’m close-minded and unable to recognize original thoughts. Perhaps I read non-conformist thinkers you have never heard of. Perhaps I am myself non-conformist and well-read. Who knows on the Internet? And keep in mind that I write with much more ease and power in my native tongue.


Let's do some math, shall we? R.J. Rummel, who is anything but a libertarian, has written a very influential book (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM) in which he estimates that 169,202,000 civilians were murdered by governments in the twentieth century alone.

How many were murdered by corporations?

With the corporations, the people are not murdered, but their lives become more or less worthless.

[Ragnar Freund]

I forgot to add that the state has been attacked from the left as well. Not all who want to do away with the state are capitalists. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, M. Bakunin, P. Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and others have written devastating critiques of the state from socialist/communist/mutualist/cooperatist points of view. Those who fear and revile corporations should read these guys, who feared and hated them even more.

[EDIT] Add Nobel laureate and renowned logician, mathematician, and philosopher Bertrand Russell to that list. Also Oscar Wilde.

[B. Laumness]

Okay, but the socialist or communist anarchists are not really of the same kind than the capitalist anarchists. Some even say that these latter betray anarchism.

[Ragnar Freund]

Okay, but the socialist or communist anarchists are not really of the same kind of the capitalist anarchists. Some even say that these latter betray anarchism.

And some would say that the former betray anarchism! There are some similarities and some differences. The point is that those who scream Without the state, corporations will take over our lives! are just hysterical, and they have made no attempt to think about the subject.

[Varenne Rodin]

And some would say that the former betray anarchism! There are some similarities and some differences. The point is that those who scream Without the state, corporations will take over our lives! are just hysterical, and they have made no attempt to think about the subject.

I'm not hysterical. I give a lot of thought to this every day. I'm not saying corporations will take over our lives, exactly, but we're dependent on certain goods and services to live. Without government regulation, I doubt very much that corporations will care for the lives of the poor and disabled. The wealthy consumer will be the most important. I'm also not at all interested in paying tolls to use every road in the country. Talk about being taxed. Do you really think private citizens will charge less than the government for street maintenance and use?

[stlukesguild]

Well, you're on to something. The US does not have a federal (or state) guarantee of paid leave, but the large majority of American employees do indeed get paid leave. What does that tell you about the efficiency of the free markets? What does that say about the standard claim, If the state doesn't provide for it, it won't exist?

Such benefits are equally based upon supply and demand. When a company is in need of quality workers and such are in limited supply, companies will offer more benefits as a means in incentive to attract and maintain employees. When the economy is not humming along and there is a glut of talented, skilled, and educated individuals in need of employment, these incentives tend to disappear.

Let's do some math, shall we? R.J. Rummel, who is anything but a libertarian, has written a very influential book in which he estimates that 169,202,000 civilians were murdered by governments in the twentieth century alone.

How many were murdered by corporations?

So there was no corporate involvement behind the various wars this last century? Or their involvement doesn't count because the CEOs didn't actually pull the triggers?

[BienvenuJDC]

Let's do some math, shall we? R.J. Rummel, who is anything but a libertarian, has written a very influential book in which he estimates that 169,202,000 civilians were murdered by governments in the twentieth century alone.

How many were murdered by corporations?

So there was no corporate involvement behind the various wars this last century? Or their involvement doesn't count because the CEOs didn't actually pull the triggers?

I'm sorry, stlukes, but your logic doesn't work. I don't even know what they purpose is of throwing blame for war and political murders. Do you have a point?

[OrphanPip]

And some would say that the former betray anarchism! There are some similarities and some differences. The point is that those who scream Without the state, corporations will take over our lives! are just hysterical, and they have made no attempt to think about the subject.

We have historical examples of this happening in recent history though. It was common in frontier towns for a single business owner to monopolize all forms of income, and thus force pretty much everyone in his town to be indentured slaves to him. Such that he owned the mine that the town needed to survive, he owned the houses people paid rent on, he owned the stores they bought their food from, and he probably owned any form of education or health care they had access to.

Anarchism always has the problem of effectively dealing with the issue of small groups of individuals with a great deal of power, whether it be economic or military. How do you prevent the abuse of power without organizing, how do you organize effectively without developing a proto-state?

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm sorry, stlukes, but your logic doesn't work. I don't even know what they purpose is of throwing blame for war and political murders. Do you have a point?

Well, take BP oil, for example. They, and some of the other big oil corporations, had talks with leaders of the US and the UK before it was claimed that Iraq had WMDs. No WMDs were ever found. There was a mutually beneficial agreement to push that story after 9/11. All parties involved saw an opportunity and they seized it. Did corporations cause deaths in operation Iraqi freedom? Absolutely. They are continuing to benefit. Private contractors are repairing and replacing copper wiring in Iraq and will continue to do so for many years. It isn't cheap. Before the war these contractors contributed to media support of military retaliation. You can blame the government, sure, but at least for the time being the American people still have some recourse. We can vote to elect who we want and if we push hard enough we can hold our officials accountable. Who would hold corporations accountable without government?

[Ragnar Freund]

Well, you're on to something. The US does not have a federal (or state) guarantee of paid leave, but the large majority of American employees do indeed get paid leave. What does that tell you about the efficiency of the free markets? What does that say about the standard claim, If the state doesn't provide for it, it won't exist?

Such benefits are equally based upon supply and demand. When a company is in need of quality workers and such are in limited supply, companies will offer more benefits as a means in incentive to attract and maintain employees. When the economy is not humming along and there is a glut of talented, skilled, and educated individuals in need of employment, these incentives tend to disappear.

Do they? Is there any evidence that American employees are offered fewer paid days off during times of recession (say, now) than during times of prosperity (say, the nineties)? You used the word disappear. What has disappeared? How many full-time American employees today do not get paid days off? This whole issue of days off without a government mandate shows quite well how employees can achieve their goals without state coercion.


It was common in frontier towns for a single business owner to monopolize all forms of income, and thus force pretty much everyone in his town to be indentured slaves to him.

Force? Slave? Abuse the language like that, and you can make pretty much anything sound evil. A monopoly doesn't force anyone to do anything, and no one is a slave unless there's a gun to his head, and a warning in his ear: Try to leave, and I pull the trigger. Notice that quite a few commenters here used the word slave to describe people who are definitely not slaves.



Anarchism always has the problem of effectively dealing with the issue of small groups of individuals with a great deal of power, whether it be economic or military. How do you prevent the abuse of power without organizing, how do you organize effectively without developing a proto-state?

That's true. Hasn't statism the same problems? What's the difference? Why apply different standards to statism and to anarchism?



So there was no corporate involvement behind the various wars this last century? Or their involvement doesn't count because the CEOs didn't actually pull the triggers?

Sure there was involvement, but will you actually attempt to throw the blame for the holocaust and the gulags at corporations? This is ridiculous.


Well, take BP oil, for example

Who invaded Iraq??? Was it BP, or was it The US military? Your attempts to blame corporations for states' actions is laughable.


I'm also not at all interested in paying tolls to use every road in the country

Whether you're interested or not, you're paying. It's called taxes. Or do you believe in "free" transportation as well?

[cafolini]

Without government anyone could park anywhere, including the places reserved for the handicapped. That's the most awful thing in the whole wide world, says David Letterman.

[Varenne Rodin]

Oil companies were low on oil. Do you think they would not take oil by force if there was no government? Do you think our coasts would be protected from additional drilling? You act like it doesn't matter that companies bribe the government for personal gain at the expense of human beings. Would they suddenly become nice, selfless companies if given free rein? Doubtful.

[Darcy88]

I forgot to add that the state has been attacked from the left as well. Not all who want to do away with the state are capitalists. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, M. Bakunin, P. Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and others have written devastating critiques of the state from socialist/communist/mutualist/cooperatist points of view. Those who fear and revile corporations should read these guys, who feared and hated them even more.

[EDIT] Add Nobel laureate and renowned logician, mathematician, and philosopher Bertrand Russell to that list. Also Oscar Wilde.

Yes but left wing theories against the state are predicated on an eventual radical revolution taking place, one both spiritual and political. Anarchists envision an end to capitalism, an end to the profit motive being the main motivator. So there is a massive difference between libertarianism and anarchism. As silly and utopian as libertarianism is, Anarchism is ten-fold. I know, I used to be a self-proclaimed anarchist.

If you don't think that the dissolution of the state would lead to absolute corporate hegemony, then I don't know what to tell you. Its so obvious that this is the case. Not only would the human impact be calamitous, but the environmental effects of unchecked corporate activities would marr this earth and make life on it much more difficult.

[cafolini]

Oil companies were low on oil. Do you think they would not take oil by force if there was no government? Do you think our coasts would be protected from additional drilling? You act like it doesn't matter that companies bribe the government for personal gain at the expense of human beings. Would they suddenly become nice, selfless companies if given free rein? Doubtful.

If given free rein, the magnates will take it all from Texas and Alaska. All the Arabs and Venezuela will fall to misery because they haven't gotten anything else worth much.
We would have to put them to sleep to guard against them blaming us and temper tantrums of all kinds leading to serious terrorism. It would be the first time in history Allah will visit us in person.

[Darcy88]

``Who invaded Iraq??? Was it BP, or was it The US military? Your attempts to blame corporations for states' actions is laughable.``

An administration with a former Halliburton executive at its top, that`s Halliburton, the company which received billions in no-bid contracts during Iraq`s reconstruction.

[cafolini]

``Who invaded Iraq??? Was it BP, or was it The US military? Your attempts to blame corporations for states' actions is laughable.``

An administration with a former Halliburton executive at its top, that`s Halliburton, the company which received billions in no-bid contracts during Iraq`s reconstruction.

The Ace in the Hole should have paid for all of that. But by the time he was found he had already spent 9.999 tenths of the tenth cattle trucks he took full of greenbacks before he was expelled. Costs of protection, Jihad and miscellaneous bribing.He had only 750,000 dollars left and he said, "I am the president of Iraq and I'm willing to negotiate. Is this the mother of all peace?"

[stlukesguild]

I'm sorry, stlukes, but your logic doesn't work. I don't even know what they purpose is of throwing blame for war and political murders. Do you have a point?

Let me get this strait, my "logic" doesn't work (or simply goes over your head?) because it is contrary to your Candyland fantasies of the benevolent corporations who would never have the least thing to do with the horrors and wars of the 20th century.

Zaibatsu (財閥?, literally financial clique) is a Japanese term referring to industrial and financial business conglomerates in the Empire of Japan, whose influence and size allowed for control over significant parts of the Japanese economy from the Meiji period until the end of World War II.

These companies were directly involved in Japanese efforts at expansion (ie. invasion of China, etc...) in order to feed their growing needs for raw materials and manpower.

Hitler's rise to power and his war machine was fueled by major German (and non-German) corporations.

Nearly every war in history can be traced back to some economic factor and the support of wealthy manufacturers, traders, bankers, etc...

[Varenne Rodin]

Whether you're interested or not, you're paying. It's called taxes. Or do you believe in "free" transportation as well?

No. I know we pay taxes for road maintenance. I've driven the toll roads in Florida, though. It's a situation that cripples the unemployed and keeps them from going out and actively seeking employment. The buses don't travel the toll roads. Private ownership means eventually large amounts of people won't be allowed to travel due to lack of income. Paying $2-$10 per trip out of the house sucks pretty hard. Gas prices are ridiculous. Is there much freedom in paying to leave your home? Will we have to pay to use private sidewalks?

Are you interested in doing away with public transportation too? Just curious. Taxis and shuttles cost a fortune if used regularly. I get that we pay taxes. You don't seem to get how much more we would have to pay without a structured government.

[stlukesguild]

Sure there was involvement, but will you actually attempt to throw the blame for the holocaust and the gulags at corporations? This is ridiculous.

OK... we cannot lay the blame for the Holocaust solely upon the corporations... but was Hitler able to take control of the nation without the support of the corporations? Perhaps the corporations were against the German and Japanese efforts at expansion? Perhaps Halibuton was against US involvement in the Middle-East. And perhaps Santa Claus will be coming down my chimney a month from now.

[cafolini]

I'm sorry, stlukes, but your logic doesn't work. I don't even know what they purpose is of throwing blame for war and political murders. Do you have a point?

Let me get this strait, my "logic" doesn't work (or simply goes over your head?) because it is contrary to your Candyland fantasies of the benevolent corporations who would never have the least thing to do with the horrors and wars of the 20th century.

Zaibatsu (財閥?, literally financial clique) is a Japanese term referring to industrial and financial business conglomerates in the Empire of Japan, whose influence and size allowed for control over significant parts of the Japanese economy from the Meiji period until the end of World War II.

These companies were directly involved in Japanese efforts at expansion (ie. invasion of China, etc...) in order to feed their growing needs for raw materials and manpower.

Hitler's rise to power and his war machine was fueled by major German (and non-German) corporations.

Nearly every war in history can be traced back to some economic factor and the support of wealthy manufacturers, traders, bankers, etc...

There you are correct. By 1933, the Reich had eliminated practically all unemployment. How else? The Vatican was the main ivestor. But there were hundreds, mostly Catholic and associated with the New Rome of Mussolini.

[Varenne Rodin]

If given free rein, the magnates will take it all from Texas and Alaska. All the Arabs and Venezuela will fall to misery because they haven't gotten anything else worth much.
We would have to put them to sleep to guard against them blaming us and temper tantrums of all kinds leading to serious terrorism. It would be the first time in history Allah will visit us in person.

I agree with part of what you're saying, but they would also drill off the coasts of California and Florida, dragging property values down and wrecking the environment. They have already made numerous attempts to do so. So far they have been denied, by the government.

[Ragnar Freund]

I'm sorry, stlukes, but your logic doesn't work. I don't even know what they purpose is of throwing blame for war and political murders. Do you have a point?

Let me get this strait, my "logic" doesn't work (or simply goes over your head?) because it is contrary to your Candyland fantasies of the benevolent corporations who would never have the least thing to do with the horrors and wars of the 20th century.

Zaibatsu (財閥?, literally financial clique) is a Japanese term referring to industrial and financial business conglomerates in the Empire of Japan, whose influence and size allowed for control over significant parts of the Japanese economy from the Meiji period until the end of World War II.

These companies were directly involved in Japanese efforts at expansion (ie. invasion of China, etc...) in order to feed their growing needs for raw materials and manpower.

Hitler's rise to power and his war machine was fueled by major German (and non-German) corporations.

Nearly every war in history can be traced back to some economic factor and the support of wealthy manufacturers, traders, bankers, etc...

You have a nucleus of reasoning there, but then you go overboard. Let's make this simple: If I give you $1,000 and ask you to murder someone, and you do, who's to blame for that murder? Both of us, perhaps, but aren't you far more guilty than I am?

Who were the evil corporations behind Pol Pot? Behind Stalin? Behind the genocide of the Armenians? Behind Hitler's gas chambers? What corporation benefited from the gassing of millions of civilians? A gas company?

The idea that libertarians think that corporations are benevolent is only expressed by those who don't understand a thing about libertarianism. Libertarians are among the most vocal critics of the military-industrial complex.