Issues need to be brought up

[thirdeyeblindislit]

There are many problems that the United States are facing now and I just wanted to know what issue you feel congress should address now. I think that infrastructure is a major thing congress should examine. We've seen many problems in the past couple of months with problems in infrastructure such as the Minnisota bridge collapsing. But that's just one issue out of many I think they should take a look at including Global Warming and Health Care.

[John Paul Harrison]

congress is ignoring these issues?

[WhoDidTheElf]

Last time I checked Hillary was running on a national Health Care platform.

[Iskandar]

So she's not all bad.

[Kage]

This is what's known as a terrible thread.

[Scuba_Steve]

we should report it to congress

[MattSharpIsCool]

No because they will ignore it, obviously.

[Reaganista]

We've seen many problems in the past couple of months with problems in infrastructure such as the Minnisota bridge collapsing
many?
really

[ringworm]

privatisation of gvnt operations should be near the top of the list to stop

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Wouldn't all that maintenence/infrastructure stuff be a State problem for you guys?

Not having socialised health care is phenominally retarded, seriously Americans, get with it.

And global warming doesn't exist.

[ringworm]

Wouldn't all that maintenence/infrastructure stuff be a State problem for you guys?
yeah, from what I've read, most DOT have been broke (monetary AND systematically) for years now and have zero funds, but for some reason, NEW Hwys are being built at an alarming rate. I speak regionally on this since my state seems to always be near the top of the list for mileage of roadways. But I dont think repairs should be as important as fixing the horrible ways funds are used in the first place.

Not having socialised health care is phenominally retarded, seriously Americans, get with it.
it seems that no one has a good plan.
You either get great service for some or bad for all.
Socialized health care needs to be at the bottom of the "to do" list, at least for us with all we have going on.


Campaign reform should be a priority as well.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I really don't know about "bottom of the to-do list". I mean basically every other first-world country on earth has been doing it for at least the last 25 years, if not longer. Can't you borrow one of our systems?

[Iskandar]

Germany's health care is supposed to be amazing or something.

[ringworm]

I really don't know about "bottom of the to-do list". I mean basically every other first-world country on earth has been doing it for at least the last 25 years, if not longer. Can't you borrow one of our systems?
what, all 3 of them?

and the flaws can be argued easily

dont think i am advocating to keep what we have though, lets just concentrate on a few other issues first

[Iskandar]

What do you mean, all three?

[italic zero]

canada britain and australia

[Iskandar]

canada britain and australiaThese are the only three countries with public healthcare?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/WORLDHEALTH2.png

[ringworm]

What do you mean, all three?
eh, i was just poking at how lg a figure he represented, when actually, very few in relation to a global standpoint actually have them, i didnt even check to see if 3 was accurate, so dont take it very seriously

even the one that do have NHC, have very different approaches that come with varying flaws in relation to our system, if you really stood back, they all need reform, ours just seems to get all the focus

[italic zero]

no they're the only other first world countries

[Iskandar]

no they're the only other first world countries... no?

i posted a map

virtually all of europe including russia, australia/new zealand, some of south america and several nations in asia

and others who are attempting to institute healthcare

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Australia's is fine and dandy, despite much press bit'ching. I think you've gotta realise that the system will never be perfect, but having one beats not having one.

On a side note, nothing pis'ses me off more than the conservative retards who's main case against public health care is that "people will cheat the system". How in the name of god do you cheat a hospital?

[ringworm]

edit: to Dropper: but at what costs to the people, what quality of care can be expected etc.

many articles have been posted about waiting lists and other problems etc, so I just think people who are very young and dont have the hassle of paying premiums arent the best people to say, "hey america, get with it already"?

we need to do something, but who wants what Canada has, who wants what the UK has, I've seen too much to want to adopt your policy, but, that doesnt mean I dont want some form later.

On a side note, nothing pis'ses me off more than the conservative retards who's main case against public health care is that "people will cheat the system". How in the name of god do you cheat a hospital?
i have NEVER heard that excuse or would ever use it




but to avoid too much arguing over NHC, all i meant was there are a few more issues we need to resolve in the US before we tackle this one, i never meant i opposed it

[WhoDidTheElf]

On a side note, nothing pis'ses me off more than the conservative retards who's main case against public health care is that "people will cheat the system". How in the name of god do you cheat a hospital?

I think it's more in the direction, "you don't pay taxes, yet you use our national health care." I think that's the jist of it. And that happens anyways...

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I don't generally mind paying a bit more tax for the bottom one percent, it keeps them out of my hair for a while. I mean until we can exterminate them.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Well the don't pay tax part is most of the time people who are hear illegally...And **** man, the govs already taking 15% of my money, and I'm in the lowest tax bracket, I don't even want to know what it would be like with NH.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Yeah valid point, your govt. can't spend money for sh'it. I can't understand the massive levels of fail imbeded in your system.

I mean buying fighter planes for a start (mind you, Australia made this mistake too). Of course the newest, nastiest fighter planes are totally essential for the survival of the West as we know it! Freedom hating terrorists might suddenly develop comprable technology, and then who'll be laughing?

[BridgeToSolace]

The Clinton's health care plan in the 90's (managed competition) was pretty cool. Too bad special interest groups and Gingrich shot it down real quick. It's odd that people seem to think that it's either unregulated health care, or a single payer system.

The problem is that health care is a very complex issue, and people are either too stupid to understand/support it, or don't trust the government enough to do anything complex. (besides war and stuff)

The AMA (the biggest threat against health care) may actually start supporting some sort of other plan. Why? Because we do have a health care system in place: anyone needing emergency care gets it.

But who ends up paying for the 42 million people who can't get the insurance to pay for it? Well, either the hospitals have to start charging more to their other patients, or they don't get paid at all. And hospitals are seriously suffering in a lot of places. Once more hospitals feel more of the blow, we'll see a better health care system.

[Danish]

Workers' rights have been ignored for too long. The Employee Free Choice Act was killed in the Senate. Democratic candidates should promise to enact it and help get it passed.

[WhoDidTheElf]

This still the walmart deal?

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Global Warming and Health Care.

These two definitely. From all I've read the USA's healthcare provision is shoddy to say the least. The environment generally. Increased regulation to allow freedom of speech whilst preventing slander and propagation of incorrect or misleading information, i.e. fairness and accuracy in reporting. A state-initiated (but ultimately independent) broadcaster available to all citizens which is impartial, promotes/enhances culture and cultural innovation, provides public service broadcasting which isn't lame, so counter all these biased 'news' channels such as Fox. A ban on teaching creationism as a valid scientific theory in schools. Reducing the influence of large corporations on the government (congress/senate/president/cronies/aides/etc) and its policies, although for obvious reasons it is unlikely congress will do anything about this. A better planning system (for towns and buildings etc) to encorporate infrastructural needs and socioeconomic and environmental impacts into the system to allow for more sustainable development. Reducing the military budget, or at least not allowing it to increase any more than it is already. Changes to the immigration service so that it is not so harsh on foreign visitors from countries that allow US citizens access without a visa (but whose citizens need a visa and to stand in a pointlesslhy long queue and be subject to petty rules and the whim of overwieght illiterate customs officials whose sole entertainment seems to be making people from Europe wait for a needlessly long time.)

The Clinton's health care plan in the 90's (managed competition) was pretty cool. Too bad special interest groups and Gingrich shot it down real quick. It's odd that people seem to think that it's either unregulated health care, or a single payer system.
The problem is that health care is a very complex issue, and people are either too stupid to understand/support it, or don't trust the government enough to do anything complex. (besides war and stuff)

This is true, IMO. I had an insightful discussion with some religious-type libertarians on the internet, and apart from their lack of knowledge about what we were discussing and tendency to fall back on the same generalised arguments no matter what point I made, they kept saying "No, that's socialist, and socialism is really bad leads to a lack of freedom", and I tried to explain to them that there is something in between anarcho-capitalism and a total state monopoly but they weren't having any of it :/

[Danish]

This still the walmart deal?

Not specifically, but they are the largest private employer in North America AND they treat their workers with total disregard. Automatic card checkoff would change that.

I think another major issue is the makeup of the Supreme Court. That's going to be the biggest legacy of Bush, especially if another Republican gets elected and appoints someone.

[VomitStainedCretin]

I don't generally mind paying a bit more tax for the bottom one percent, it keeps them out of my hair for a while. I mean until we can exterminate them.Hard working families should not, IMO, pay to sustain the health of parasites who have and will never contribute anything positive to society.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Hard working families should not, IMO, pay to sustain the health of parasites who have and will never contribute anything positive to society.

What about hard working families who earn lots of money paying to help those who also work hard or cannot work, e.g. through injury etc, but happen to earn less money for working hard??

In a capitalist society the amount you earn is not related to how hard you work; it is more a case of what you do than how much you do. Sure, there are people who are benefit parasites, to use your term, but there are lots who are not rich who aren't, and there are rich people who do **** all work and get paid loads for it.

There are a lot of people who don't seem to understand that working hard all day will not get everyone rich. God, or whatever someone may believe in, may reward hard work in heaven, but trust me it doesn't always happen in this world.



Oh and I thought of another issue, and I can't remember it exactly. But basically be a lot nicer to the planet and don't let the business interests of a few be used as an excuse to trample all over people and the environment and let them not have an OTT influence on an already corrupt government. Well it's corrupt in legal terms, but by common definition it would be called as such. As you can see I aspire to be yellow-bellied liberal democrat hippie communist pseudo-intellectual :p. Just to preempt any name-calling.

[VomitStainedCretin]

I have no problem with genuine workers benefitting from taxing the wealthier, what I have a problem with is when our taxes benefit those who are unemployed only due to pure laziness and survive by leeching benefits.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

I have no problem with genuine workers benefitting from taxing the wealthier, what I have a problem with is when our taxes benefit those who are unemployed only due to pure laziness and survive by leeching benefits.

fair enough. how would you distinguish between those who are lazy and like living on benefits and those who are just unemployed for other reasons? I vote we divert the public education budget to brain scanning equipment research, a far worthier cause!

What about rich people who do no work, do you think they should pay more in tax than rich people who work very hard?

I'm not being a twat, I'm asking seriously :)

[lfantwister]

fair enough. how would you distinguish between those who are lazy and like living on benefits and those who are just unemployed for other reasons? I vote we divert the public education budget to brain scanning equipment research, a far worthier cause!

What about rich people who do no work, do you think they should pay more in tax than rich people who work very hard?

the best way to solve this is to have a decent public education system so people have the ability to get those high-paying jobs if they work hard when theyre younger

[Iskandar]

the best way to solve this is to have a decent public education system so people have the ability to get those high-paying jobs if they work hard when theyre youngerI thought you were too libertarian for that.:)

[Reaganista]

fair enough. how would you distinguish between those who are lazy and like living on benefits and those who are just unemployed for other reasons?
better question, why would you

[VomitStainedCretin]

What about rich people who do no work, do you think they should pay more in tax than rich people who work very hard?Yes I'd agree to that though I'm not sure in any way how it would be implemented. Apparently a large number of the rich are also using loopholes in the law to pay very low taxes, which needs to be prevented.

Anyway, ignore my whole rant against 'social parasites'. I just think there are better ways to get such people to contribute to society than allowing them for generations to live off benefits and thus being a drain on society.

[BridgeToSolace]

I have no problem with genuine workers benefitting from taxing the wealthier, what I have a problem with is when our taxes benefit those who are unemployed only due to pure laziness and survive by leeching benefits.

Who isn't working out of pure laziness :confused:

That whole "Benefits take away the incentive to work!" is a silly idea (not that you're arguing that, it just made me think of it).

If people only worked so that they could achieve the bare minimum, people wouldn't be working.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Not specifically, but they are the largest private employer in North America AND they treat their workers with total disregard. Automatic card checkoff would change that.

I don't get why it's a business's job to provide health care for it's employees. Especially if the employee doing the work is doing no brainer work.

I think another major issue is the makeup of the Supreme Court. That's going to be the biggest legacy of Bush, especially if another Republican gets elected and appoints someone.

Meh we need more conservative judges.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

the best way to solve this is to have a decent public education system so people have the ability to get those high-paying jobs if they work hard when theyre younger

True, can't argue with that.

Although.... not everyone who works hard will get on well in life and have plenty of money, the world doesn't work like that. So I think public services, and some degree of benefits are needed.

There are number of complex ways you can discourage benefit fraud while also providing good support for those that are truly in need, such as giving benefits in the form of tax credits that peple can only claim when they are working.

What you forget is that the dole is a ****ing small amount of money and the vast majority of people would not be able to or want to live on that small an amount of money. IMO it is benefit fraud rather than people on benefits that is the problem, e.g. people claiming extra benefits etc.

I don't get why it's a business's job to provide health care for it's employees. Especially if the employee doing the work is doing no brainer work.

Well it was something to do with ensuring minimum standards of living for people in what is apparently a developed and civilised country...

Anyway, it's not like big businesses like WalMart are short of money.

[italic zero]

they sure as hell would be if they had to give all of their employees full health coverage

[Reaganista]

good

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

they sure as hell would be if they had to give all of their employees full health coverage

That's cos the US healthcare system is overly expensive and the state funding goes more towards the shareholders' wallets than increasing access of healthcare to those unable to afford it, acting as a cross-subsidy to private health companies. Just my 2 cents.

[lfantwister]

I thought you were too libertarian for that.

I guess my libertarian tendencies are only aroused once I can be quite certain that there have been moderately equal opportunities for everyone to succeed. Going to this crazy noreastern prep school full of dumb rich kids has reinforced how ridiculous it is to have such an extreme advantage because of money. if everyone were lined up with the same basic opportunities to succeed (education) then libertarianism could really kick in

Although.... not everyone who works hard will get on well in life and have plenty of money, the world doesn't work like that. So I think public services, and some degree of benefits are needed. but the world would look so much more like that if everyone had a good start in decent public education

[pedro durruti]

I don't get why it's a business's job to provide health care for it's employees. Especially if the employee doing the work is doing no brainer work.
Because if you're a wage-slave selling your labor 40 hours a week at a potentially dangerous place they are responsible for any accidents

[DBoons Ghost]

It's not your employer's responsibility to provide healthcare. They do so as a service to the employee. It's expensive even for employees. Any employee has the right to waive all healthcare from their employer and take their money into a plan of their choosing, outside the scope of what their employer provides. That freedom is often overlooked in the "healthcare issue". The problem truly lies in the minimum wage paid low income type jobs where a company like Wal-Mart is expected to provide healthcare to their part time employees.

The thing most people fail to realize is Wal-Mart carrying the cost of providing healthcare to part timers would mean they lose money on their part time employees. In no way shape or form is any employer required by any labor law I am aware of to provide free healthcare to it's employees. You guys blame Wal-Mart, but I enourage you all to seek the costs of joining a dental plan provided by Delta, Met-Life, BCBS (Blue Cross Blue Shield) or any other major provider and often, even with a contract between Wal-Mart and said provider, it's too expensive and makes no practical sense to lose money on every employee you have.

This is the government's responsiblity to regulate the providers, which they truly can't since most of the healthcare providers and the drug companies they rely on are publicly traded commodities in America's markets.

It's quite the conundrum. I am reading a lot of ignorance in regards to the healthcare issue we as a country face. I personally have never had an issue but then again I don't have any ailments.

I pay into a system that offers immediate results. Socialized healthcare would inundate the system, and you'd end up waiting 4 months for a surgery in that kind of system, where as our system benefits those who have the means, and while that's wrong by some of your standards, it isn't illegal. If anything it should inspire the youth of this country to be more then a part time stockboy at WalMart. Crude mayhaps, but realistic for sure.

[lunchforthesky]

I pay into a system that offers immediate results. Socialized healthcare would inundate the system, and you'd end up waiting 4 months for a surgery in that kind of system, where as our system benefits those who have the means, and while that's wrong by some of your standards, it isn't illegal. If anything it should inspire the youth of this country to be more then a part time stockboy at WalMart. Crude mayhaps, but realistic for sure.

Countries like France, Sweden, Denmark etc.. not only have a free health system but it is also of higher standard than America's.

[DBoons Ghost]

Countries like France, Sweden, Denmark etc.. not only have a free health system but it is also of higher standard than America's.

I have Swedish friends who don't seem to share that sentiment. They are stuck with the doctor the system provides, like him or hate him. Plus, they all whine that they have no choice but to pay into the system whether they are sick or not, and their taxes are overall higher then ever and all it seems to do is pay for their whiny poor people who refuse to work but sit in doctor's offices all day. That seems to be the general complaint.

I do not disagree that other countries do it better, but I prefer things the way they are here. I pay when I am sick, but I don't have to foot the bill for people I could care less about. Not very humane, but I am not going to lie. If I don't like my doctor, I go to another. Freedom to choose is important when your comfort level goes hand in hand with your level of health.

[lunchforthesky]

I have Swedish friends who don't seem to share that sentiment. They are stuck with the doctor the system provides, like him or hate him. Plus, they all whine that they have no choice but to pay into the system whether they are sick or not, and their taxes are overall higher then ever and all it seems to do is pay for their whiny poor people who refuse to work but sit in doctor's offices all day. That seems to be the general complaint.

Seems like the same kind of people who whine about immigrants being the cause of everyone bad. Free health care works well here and if you choose private is in an option. Sure it has flaws but i'd pick it over having to pay anyday.


I do not disagree that other countries do it better, but I prefer things the way they are here. I pay when I am sick, but I don't have to foot the bill for people I could care less about. Not very humane, but I am not going to lie. If I don't like my doctor, I go to another. Freedom to choose is important when your comfort level goes hand in hand with your level of health.

I disagree obviously. For me free health care is basic right that everyone should be entitled to, in the same way as they are entitled to a pension, unemployment benifit and a free education.

[DBoons Ghost]

I don't believe in free anything for anyone. I truly respect your opinion on it, and I would certainly (from afar) support a socialized health care system in this country, as long as I still had options to not buy into it myself. It's bad enough as a citizen I have no control over where my tax dollars go, but to pay into a system that prolongs the weak and lazy would only serve to piss me off further. I recently started a small business which luckily has been a successful venture so far, but I am forced to buy into systems I not only won't use, but can't. Unemployment being one of them. I support unemployment to a degree, but that is another system that is heavily exploited, as is the existing healthcare system, as is welfare, as is disablity, which is really why healthcare in this country will never function under a socialized system.

[ringworm]

Countries like France, Sweden, Denmark etc.. not only have a free health system but it is also of higher standard than America's.
lol, I have some recent Swedish nbhrs that would say the total opposite

taxes are immense, which is one reason they moved here, yes, the quality of life was nice and other things like a year off from work after childbirth and a few other things sounded years ahead of us, but then they told me how much taxes they pay in order to get it

our healthcare is top notch, i think the only thing that brings us down is the fact that not everyone has it, but the quality surpasses many

[lunchforthesky]

lol, I have some recent Swedish nbhrs that would say the total opposite

taxes are immense, which is one reason they moved here, yes, the quality of life was nice and other things like a year off from work after childbirth and a few other things sounded years ahead of us, but then they told me how much taxes they pay in order to get it

our healthcare is top notch, i think the only thing that brings us down is the fact that not everyone has it, but the quality surpasses many

Who cares about taxes when quality of life is so high. The whole point of society is to raise the quality of life for everyone who gives a damn how they ahcieve this if they do achieve it.

[griftadan]

no we have enough pork spending as it is

[Iskandar]

Spend spend spend!

[DBoons Ghost]

Who cares about taxes when quality of life is so high. The whole point of society is to raise the quality of life for everyone who gives a damn how they ahcieve this if they do achieve it.

I care about my quality of life. That's about it. I understand that my quality of life depends somewhat on those around me, but I refuse to pay moe then the guy next to me because I am successful and he is not. That's not fair, nor will it ever be. Sure the more you make the more they take, but that theory only applies when the percentage is equivliant to the amount on every dollar earned. I suppose when you're a head of household (parent, spouse and homeowner) the obvious points of this will mayhaps become clearer.

[lunchforthesky]

no we have enough pork spending as it is

less question dodging.

[lunchforthesky]

I care about my quality of life. That's about it. I understand that my quality of life depends somewhat on those around me, but I refuse to pay moe then the guy next to me because I am successful and he is not. That's not fair, nor will it ever be. Sure the more you make the more they take, but that theory only applies when the percentage is equivliant to the amount on every dollar earned.

You are successful through societies constructs and thus you owe society back and owe it to those society have not served so well a decent standard of living.

I suppose when you're a head of household (parent, spouse and homeowner) the obvious points of this will mayhaps become clearer.

There's no need to be patronising.

[lfantwister]

but I refuse to pay moe then the guy next to me because I am successful and he is not.

this would make more sense if you had both started from the same position and with the same opportunities and then you became more successful

[DBoons Ghost]

You are successful through societies constructs and thus you owe society back and owe it to those society have not served so well a decent standard of living.

That's absurd. Society did nothing for me. Quite frankly, I had to battle through "socities constructs" to get where I am. I owe that success to no one but myself. What kind of nonsensical fantasy world do you live in? Those society didn't serve so well had a choice to better themselves no matter the odds and chose poorly. Those who choose poorly fail, and those who fail die alone and miserable at no responsbilty to anyone but themselves. Make no mistake about that.



There's no need to be patronising. Yes there is. You're very intelligent but totally ignorant. I must point this out.

[DBoons Ghost]

this would make more sense if you had both started from the same position and with the same opportunities and then you became more successful

Opportunity is what you make of it. Creating opportunity for yourself is the key to thriving in an economic model such as the one we live in. If one does and the other does not, then this proves that the srong survive and the weak perish.

[Hababi]

:eek: Dboon, I thought you'd left forever.

[DBoons Ghost]

I was out of the country for a while, and when I came back I was out of town.

Basically bro I took the wife and kid and left NYC for the entire Summer. While away, I started my own business and am now back to work as a consultant to the big firms doing pretty much the same crap, but now I do it for myself.

You know you guys aint getting rid of me unless I die.

[ringworm]

Who cares about taxes when quality of life is so high. The whole point of society is to raise the quality of life for everyone who gives a damn how they ahcieve this if they do achieve it.
obviously, this ^ wasnt attractive to them (my nbhrs) either

who wants to have 3/4 of your paycheck taken so someone who dropped out of school and did nothing has a good life?
you owe society back and owe it to those society have not served so well a decent standard of living.
not a penny do i owe people who, for whatever reason, didnt acheive their goals or didnt care
this would make more sense if you had both started from the same position and with the same opportunities and then you became more successful
this is an impossible scenario

matter of fact, all 3 of those posts are bizarre

[WhoDidTheElf]

Because if you're a wage-slave selling your labor 40 hours a week at a potentially dangerous place they are responsible for any accidents

Working at McDonalds is "potentially dangerous." I don't see how some 8.0 an hour worker should be getting health care...

Well it was something to do with ensuring minimum standards of living for people in what is apparently a developed and civilised country...

Anyway, it's not like big businesses like WalMart are short of money.

To insure part time workers, it would end up costing more than it was worth to have them in the first place.

It's just silly to run a company that isn't making a profit.

[lfantwister]

Opportunity is what you make of it. Creating opportunity for yourself is the key to thriving in an economic model such as the one we live in. If one does and the other does not, then this proves that the srong survive and the weak perish.

but it's getting those opportunities to succeed in the first place that is really crucial. if everyone had access to the same educational starting point then it makes sense that some people would go on to do great things and others wouldnt. But that way it would be based entirely on their determination and persistence and not some privileged set of opportunites they were born into

[DBoons Ghost]

but it's getting those opportunities to succeed in the first place that is really crucial. if everyone had access to the same educational starting point then it makes sense that some people would go on to do great things and others wouldnt. But that way it would be based entirely on their determination and persistence and not some privileged set of opportunites they were born into

Opportunity doesn't stem from education or privilege. I know people with masters from NYU who wait tables and double shift at Starbucks. I know people who dropped out of high school that are very wealthy and successful. Success in America comes in all forms, but it takes a driven person with good instincts, and it's proven you cannot teach those instincts in some college classroom. I know very few people outside of doctors and lawyers who are working in the area they majored in. That's proof enough.

[lfantwister]

Opportunity doesn't stem from education or privilege. I know people with masters from NYU who wait tables and double shift at Starbucks. I know people who dropped out of high school that are very wealthy and successful. Success in America comes in all forms, but it takes a driven person with good instincts, and it's proven you cannot teach those instincts in some college classroom. I know very few people outside of doctors and lawyers who are working in the area they majored in. That's proof enough.

But those people are more or less anomalies. Education very often leads to or helps bring about financial success. WHich is why it's so important for everyone to have that basic opportunity to succeed

[DBoons Ghost]

You know I agree with you there. Higher education should be more of a standard rather then the privilege it has become. Maybe one day it will be more feasible. A lot of people suck it up when they don't have the money and go into debt with student loans on the premise they'll be able to pay it all back once the education lands them the succeed they always desired.

It's not unattainable for everyone, it's just not easy.

[Danish]

Opportunity is what you make of it. Creating opportunity for yourself is the key to thriving in an economic model such as the one we live in. If one does and the other does not, then this proves that the srong survive and the weak perish.

Why do you think change is impossible?

[DBoons Ghost]

Why do you think change is impossible?

I don't think it's impossible. I really don't. However, what kind of change are we talking about?

We need a better healthcare system in this country, but to what extent? The quality of healthcare in America is incredible. The quantity of those with access to this care is the problem. Who decides who pays? More penalties to the people who've succeeded to take of those who can't? Is that fair?

Why do you think people should have some moral desire to help one another when it goes against every instinct we've ever had? I understand this could lead to the same old difference of opinions, but what facts prove anything to the contrary?

[Reaganista]

That's absurd. Society did nothing for me.
owned by the fact that you can type this
let alone think it

this would make more sense if you had both started from the same position and with the same opportunities and then you became more successful
no it wouldn't it's always stupid

[pedro durruti]

Working at McDonalds is "potentially dangerous." I don't see how some 8.0 an hour worker should be getting health care...
Because they're getting eight dollars an hour

[Smokey D]

That's absurd. Society did nothing for me. Quite frankly, I had to battle through "socities constructs" to get where I am. I owe that success to no one but myself. What kind of nonsensical fantasy world do you live in? Those society didn't serve so well had a choice to better themselves no matter the odds and chose poorly. Those who choose poorly fail, and those who fail die alone and miserable at no responsbilty to anyone but themselves. Make no mistake about that.

Nah man, society gave you a job, it gave you food, it gave you education, it gave money, it gave you roads, it gave you government and pretty much everything else you have.

It may have given you hell, but it gave you a lot of other stuff too.

[pedro durruti]

Plus, I find it hard to believe that you were never helped out by a family member or friend.

[VomitStainedCretin]

People don't succeed or fail in society purely through their own doing or purely due to their surroundings but rather a combination of the two.

[Danish]

Why do you think people should have some moral desire to help one another when it goes against every instinct we've ever had? I understand this could lead to the same old difference of opinions, but what facts prove anything to the contrary?

What facts show your assertion to be true?

Man, you sound like a bitter old hardcore singer or something.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Because they're getting eight dollars an hour

Yeah and they are doing work that deserves 8 an hour.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Seems to me we need some new way of flitering the worthless. I propose DNA testing.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Seems to me we need some new way of flitering the worthless. I propose DNA testing.Social engineering ftw :lol:

[Danish]

Yeah and they are doing work that deserves 8 an hour.

How do you figure?

[Smokey D]

RIP: DNA is at most half the equation in how people turn out.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

So most people thing Smokey, but every day I see more and more predestination. I mean every second new discovery is "the gene for x" or "your mum doing y while you're a fetus means you'll be z". And now with our fancy new technology, we can do "positive eugenics".

[Reaganista]

dna by itself doesnt really mean anything

[BridgeToSolace]

Yeah and they are doing work that deserves 8 an hour.

Kinda like the average beginning teacher getting around 30k a year?

They aren't doing anything important, right?

Not all low paying jobs are as insignificant as you make them out to be.

[Unreal]

dna by itself doesnt really mean anything

it dosn't affect the way you think then, unless you have downes or something.

[Danish]

So most people thing Smokey, but every day I see more and more predestination. I mean every second new discovery is "the gene for x" or "your mum doing y while you're a fetus means you'll be z". And now with our fancy new technology, we can do "positive eugenics".

Discoveries in DNA technology make the news. Social science studies don't. You're not seeing both sides of the equation.

[Reaganista]

it dosn't affect the way you think then, unless you have downes or something.
what

[Illmatic]

"if people don't make as much money as me, it's because they didn't try hard enough"

gotta love that logic :rolleyes:

[lfantwister]

It would be (more) valid if we had a decent education system

[Illmatic]

It would be (more) valid if we had a decent education system

if our society was nothing like the way it currently is, it might be valid.

[lfantwister]

just saying education is a giant leap in the right direction. Of course there are other factors that determine success but this really needs improvement

[Illmatic]

well in this society those "other factors that determine success" include being a white guy with money

[lfantwister]

if public education was better money would be at least less relevant in determining where you go to uni and consequently what kind of job you get

[Illmatic]

you're kind of missing the point but ok.

[lunchforthesky]

That's absurd. Society did nothing for me. Quite frankly, I had to battle through "socities constructs" to get where I am. I owe that success to no one but myself. What kind of nonsensical fantasy world do you live in? Those society didn't serve so well had a choice to better themselves no matter the odds and chose poorly. Those who choose poorly fail, and those who fail die alone and miserable at no responsbilty to anyone but themselves. Make no mistake about that.

Look around, everyhting you can see is a result of society. Without it your some lonely guy living under a tree or in a cave eaten whatever it is you can catch with your bare hands or some crappy primitive tools. Without society you'd be dead. No medicine no nothing, almost everyone posting here would be dead.



Yes there is. You're very intelligent but totally ignorant. I must point this out.

I'll take that as a (backhanded) compliment.

[lfantwister]

you're kind of missing the point but ok.
i understand what you're saying, its just a step in the right direction

[BridgeToSolace]

well in this society those "other factors that determine success" include being a white guy with money

I agree. There are no successful black people.

It's more about classism than racism, me thinks.

Hell, I think a lot of racism is mislabeled classism. But oh well.

[Reaganista]

Hell, I think a lot of racism is mislabeled classism. But oh well.
no classism comes from racism

Look around, everyhting you can see is a result of society. Without it your some lonely guy living under a tree or in a cave eaten whatever it is you can catch with your bare hands or some crappy primitive tools. Without society you'd be dead. No medicine no nothing, almost everyone posting here would be dead.
without it you're a monkey

[lfantwister]

I agree. There are no successful black people.

hahahahaha

[BridgeToSolace]

no classism comes from racism


That's why I think lesser of homeless white dudes.

Because they're black.

Racism plays a part in classism (ei. "That guy's black, he must be poor, he's gunna stab me so I'm gunna walk to the other side of the street"), but classism is not from racism. By definition, race is independent of class.

[Hababi]

RIP: DNA is at most half the equation in how people turn out.

I saw a figure a few days ago, not sure of the veracity of it, stating that 80% of intellectual capacity is determined by genetic inheritance.

[Reaganista]

i saw a figure saying that figure is 100% bullshit
That's why I think lesser of homeless white dudes.

Because they're black
no
Racism plays a part in classism (ei. "That guy's black, he must be poor, he's gunna stab me so I'm gunna walk to the other side of the street"), but classism is not from racism. By definition, race is independent of class.
them being independent has nothing to do with racism causing classism

[DBoons Ghost]

What facts show your assertion to be true?

Man, you sound like a bitter old hardcore singer or something.


My assertion is based on my opinion much like all the other crap discussed here. I know what I see around me and I know reality pretty well. I would trust my working opinion rather then some students, all respect intended of course. Though, I'm curious to know how many hardcore singers you know, and how many of them to be bitter? Can I be a bitter old wannabe hardcore singer? Or maybe I can be a bitter wannabe hardcore bass player, since I can't sing well at all. I'm really not all that bitter, though I come across as such. I'm just such a harcore realist that I suppose I see no hope in sight.

You've all been discussing change and revolution since I arrived to this forum in 2001 and nothing has changed, and nothing will.

[ringworm]

"if people don't make as much money as me, it's because they didn't try hard enough"
gotta love that logic :rolleyes:
but its mostly true, you can change almost anything with good choices early in life, if those werent instilled or learned at an early age, its you or your parents to blaim, but even then, direction changes are possible, you see it every day
It would be (more) valid if we had a decent education system
just a cop out excuse for failing, maybe if more saw the importance of education instead of idolizing TV stars, worrying about having hi tech gear in school, trying to avoid being that smart kid when you're supposed to be learning, maybe the education system would work for more people.

or maybe if more parents would instill more values and pay attention to the childs development and stop relying on everyone else to develop their children, things wouldnt always get get shovled back to bad education :/


there are exceptions to all both theses posts, but you have to admit, its a start

[WhoDidTheElf]

How do you figure?

Dipping fry's in oil doesn't exactly require a HS diploma, or even a JHS one at that...

Kinda like the average beginning teacher getting around 30k a year?

They aren't doing anything important, right?

Not all low paying jobs are as insignificant as you make them out to be.

Beginning teacher...and most teachers, well most places other than the south that is, have full benifits. The mean average income of all teachers is 45k a year. Some put it up along 50-60k so...

http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/18/pf/easy_teachers/

You guys whent from 8/hr to 20-30/hr...minimum wage doesn't deserve benifits, but when your making an average of 20/30 an hour it maybe worth it, depending on the work.

[totah]

Everyone deserves benefits. A government claims to be looking out for its populace, and that includes health economic support. Too bad most governments don't do this. **** 'em though, we can do it without them.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Everyone deserves benefits. A government claims to be looking out for its populace, and that includes health economic support. Too bad most governments don't do this. **** 'em though, we can do it without them.

No it doesn't.

[totah]

Yeah it does. A democratic government's (actually all governments spout this lie, but democratic ones are by their very name supposed to back it up) purpose is to look after its people, especially since it's supposedly run "by the people for the people".

Essentially when someone supports a government (whether in one particular issue or on the whole) then she's granting them responsibility over her life.

I'll give you an example. If one votes New Labour in based on their NHS policies (which many did), one is literally giving a group of people who promised better health services the power over one's medical and psychological welfare. If or when New Labour doesn't deliver, then they have failed to look out for that voter's medical and psychological welfare. They have failed in their responsibility.

That's just an example of a singular issue, because as we know, while we may support a party/candidate's policies, when we vote we are actually voting for that party/candidate, and that includes ALL of their policies. This is, I think, why people should stop voting their personal responsibilities away and instead take responsibility over their own lives. This is easy to start but (as with everything worth doing) hard to complete.

[Illmatic]

but its mostly true, you can change almost anything with good choices early in life, if those werent instilled or learned at an early age, its you or your parents to blaim, but even then, direction changes are possible, you see it every day

if by "mostly" you mean "rarely" then you're absolutely right.

I agree. There are no successful black people.

yeah I know because there are so many minorities in positions of power. all those black congressmen, cabinet members, CEOs, and business tycoons (you know, all 6 of them).

you're delusional if you think this is anything other than a white-dominated society.

[lfantwister]

Yeah it does. A democratic government's (actually all governments spout this lie, but democratic ones are by their very name supposed to back it up) purpose is to look after its people, especially since it's supposedly run "by the people for the people".
But the best interest of the people is what splits opinions; everyone agrees that government's purpose is to serve the people. The issue is how best to.

yeah I know because there are so many minorities in positions of power. all those black congressmen, cabinet members, CEOs, and business tycoons (you know, all 6 of them).
American culture is saturated with black celebrities and people in positions of power. Latinos are the ones that should be bemoaning their social status

[totah]

But the best interest of the people is what splits opinions; everyone agrees that government's purpose is to serve the people. The issue is how best to.

But while the people can look out for their own best interests without the false legitimacy and tyranny of government, the government can't.

I say false legitimacy because authority isn't self legitimising.

[lfantwister]

But while the people can look out for their own best interests without the false legitimacy and tyranny of government, the government can't.

didn't you just say you wanted the government to look out for its citizens through programs like welfare?

[VomitStainedCretin]

American culture is saturated with black celebrities and people in positions of power. Latinos are the ones that should be bemoaning their social statusWhich will lead to the South-Western united states seceding so that Mexico can reclaim it's pre-1836 northern possessions, am I right?

[dei]

California secession would be great, but I wouldn't want it to become part of Mexico.

[VomitStainedCretin]

California secession would be great, but I wouldn't want it to become part of Mexico.The Mexicans are breeding waves of immigrants who will swamp it over the next 25 years until they form the majority.:thumb:

[WhoDidTheElf]

Yeah it does. A democratic government's (actually all governments spout this lie, but democratic ones are by their very name supposed to back it up) purpose is to look after its people, especially since it's supposedly run "by the people for the people".

Essentially when someone supports a government (whether in one particular issue or on the whole) then she's granting them responsibility over her life.

I'll give you an example. If one votes New Labour in based on their NHS policies (which many did), one is literally giving a group of people who promised better health services the power over one's medical and psychological welfare. If or when New Labour doesn't deliver, then they have failed to look out for that voter's medical and psychological welfare. They have failed in their responsibility.

That's just an example of a singular issue, because as we know, while we may support a party/candidate's policies, when we vote we are actually voting for that party/candidate, and that includes ALL of their policies. This is, I think, why people should stop voting their personal responsibilities away and instead take responsibility over their own lives. This is easy to start but (as with everything worth doing) hard to complete.

Government is supposed to be an infrastructure to provide order with in it's own borders and protection from foreign enemies.

[Reaganista]

actually the US government is supposed to 'establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity'

[WhoDidTheElf]

You just lengthend what I said and added "promote the general welfare."

[totah]

didn't you just say you wanted the government to look out for its citizens through programs like welfare?

Well ideally yes, but no government can ever fix its population's problems and look after them better than the population itself. This is generally explained by Celine's 2nd Law*. Since no government can do this properly, it becomes inessential, a burden even (I've yet to meet one person who's never complained about her government), and should be ceased. I was pointing out the failure of government by challenging it.

Government is supposed to be an infrastructure to provide order with in it's own borders and protection from foreign enemies.

Providing order means providing working hospitals, working crime prevention, adequate education, adequate housing, preventing starvation, and anything else that comes under the social contract of democratic governments (such as protecting rights).

Government isn't an infrastructure in itself, it is supposed to administer an infrastructure that is run by the citizenry.




*All government is based on force (and historically has emerged from force, from the strong's oppression of the week) and hierarchy, and where hierarchy exists there is inequality (inequality and hierarchy are the same) and where there is inequality there is no communication, which means that those higher up in the hierarchy don't know what's really going on "downstairs". Oh yes, Celine's 2nd Law is: "Communication can only occur between equals". My boss is not my equal and it is in my interest to tell her what she wants to hear. Same goes for cops, bureaucrats, anyone who has power to punish me.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Providing order means providing working hospitals, working crime prevention, adequate education, adequate housing, preventing starvation, and anything else that comes under the social contract of democratic governments (such as protecting rights).

Government isn't an infrastructure in itself, it is supposed to administer an infrastructure that is run by the citizenry.

Providing order does not mean that. It means keeping the people inline. Not provide every social program under the sun and then some.

When you live in a country, you are giving consent to be governed by the controlling body of that country. To follow it's rules and laws, and to hopefully reap it's benifits of having a safe place to live.

And what do you mean government isn't an ifrastructure? It's like the text book definition of one.

[totah]

Providing order does not mean that. It means keeping the people inline. Not provide every social program under the sun and then some.

Keeping the people in line? Is that what democratic government is about, staying in line? Read what you post please.

When you live in a country, you are giving consent to be governed by the controlling body of that country. To follow it's rules and laws, and to hopefully reap it's benifits of having a safe place to live.

So as soon as I was born I gave my consent to the local government to control my life? Does that mean every baby born in Europe under Nazi occupation supported the Holocaust? Your logic is flawed.

And what do you mean government isn't an infrastructure? It's like the text book definition of one.

No, infrastructure is sewage, roads, electricity lines, hospitals, etc. The government is supposed to be the body that handles the running of these (which basically comes down to getting taxes to pay the wages of the workers who run the infrastructure).

[lfantwister]

No, infrastructure is sewage, roads, electricity lines, hospitals, etc. The government is supposed to be the body that handles the running of these
Well ideally yes, but no government can ever fix its population's problems and look after them better than the population itself.

do you want a functional government that has hospitals and sewage setups or should the people do it?

[Reaganista]

You just lengthend what I said and added "promote the general welfare."
actually i quoted the first line of the constitution
but you're right that promote the general welfare is one of the two important diffences
the other one being 'and our posterity'

which are two roles of the us government which your idea of what government is supposed to do did not account for in any way

[WhoDidTheElf]

actually i quoted the first line of the constitution
but you're right that promote the general welfare is one of the two important diffences
the other one being 'and our posterity'

which are two roles of the us government which your idea of what government is supposed to do did not account for in any way

I put the main idea of government, a very vague one at best. But then again "general welfare" is pretty vague too.

Keeping the people in line? Is that what democratic government is about, staying in line? Read what you post please.

Government is set up to govern people. I don't know what's so hard about this. They are there to keep order and peace in a nation.

So as soon as I was born I gave my consent to the local government to control my life? Does that mean every baby born in Europe under Nazi occupation supported the Holocaust? Your logic is flawed.

No. You give consent to be governed, not to support your government. I thought that was obvious.

No, infrastructure is sewage, roads, electricity lines, hospitals, etc. The government is supposed to be the body that handles the running of these (which basically comes down to getting taxes to pay the wages of the workers who run the infrastructure).

The power lines are run by the power company of the area. PG&E on the west coast. I'm not 100% sure on the sewage, I think they are private, but roads are run by government.

Most of these things could/are privatised, maybe with the exception of the roads. Though, those are run by state governments, not the national one, so w/e.

[totah]

do you want a functional government that has hospitals and sewage setups or should the people do it?

Second one please, with large freedom fries!

No. You give consent to be governed, not to support your government. I thought that was obvious.

Consenting to be governed is equal to supporting the government, because if you don't rebel and do what's in your power to stop your government's actions (where a democratic government is supposedly doing it in its people's name) then you're complicit, whether you agree with the actions or not. To explain inaction through fear of your life (even if it's true) doesn't change the fact that if you stood by and watched then you let it happen.

So no, I don't think that being born in a geographic location makes you consensual to being governed (let alone be aware of the concept of government). The only time a person in a democratic country gives consent to being governed is when they vote. The rest of the time they're only being imposed upon.

The power lines are run by the power company of the area. PG&E on the west coast. I'm not 100% sure on the sewage, I think they are private, but roads are run by government.

Most of these things could/are privatised, maybe with the exception of the roads. Though, those are run by state governments, not the national one, so w/e.

It may be private, but it's part of the state-capital system and the state's pro-capitalist laws are keeping it running. There's a very complex mutually beneficial relationship between the state (ie. the government and those who wield state power) and capital (ie. the corporations, bosses and those who live directly off workers' labour).

[Smokey D]

Consenting to be governed isn't the same as consenting to the government. There's a huge difference.

But historcially, anti-system parties have produced some pretty horrific results (usually because anti-system parties are either reactionary rightwing outfits or revolutionary communists who discoiunt the idea of loyal dissent).

[totah]

Consenting to be governed isn't the same as consenting to the government. There's a huge difference.

Wanna expand for me?

Here's an interesting idea: If we think of a citizen as someone who has given consent to be governed, then at what stage in her childhood does a human being become a citizen? Because clearly a baby can't give consent to be governed.

But historically, anti-system parties have produced some pretty horrific results (usually because anti-system parties are either reactionary rightwing outfits or revolutionary communists who discount the idea of loyal dissent).

Are you calling me an anti-system party? :angry:

[Smokey D]

Wanna expand for me?

Because, in a democracy, consenting to be governed means you're okay with the system but not necessarily with the policies and you would change them given the chance. Changing the regime (meaning the overarching governmental structure) is not always necessary for this.



Here's an interesting idea: If we think of a citizen as someone who has given consent to be governed, then at what stage in her childhood does a human being become a citizen? Because clearly a baby can't give consent to be governed.

This is the key problem of democratic theory, of course.

Consent is given, it is supposed, when people don't try to overthrow the system.

Though of course the tables can be turned. When does a person agree to live in anarchy or some other system?

Are you calling me an anti-system party?

Yes. You've repeatedly said you are.

But I don't know if you'd be a disaster.

[totah]

Because, in a democracy, consenting to be governed means you're okay with the system but not necessarily with the policies and you would change them given the chance. Changing the regime (meaning the overarching governmental structure) is not always necessary for this.

But the current democratic system isn't wholly about democracy. Most of the governing gets done by force and the threat of force, and it's that which I (and most people who are against it) oppose, mostly.

This is the key problem of democratic theory, of course.

Consent is given, it is supposed, when people don't try to overthrow the system.

Though of course the tables can be turned. When does a person agree to live in anarchy or some other system?

I guess we have to concede that everyone is born into something that's out of their control. So when you try to dismantle a system (or in the case of anarchy, build one) you're showing your discontent at being put upon by that system (or lack thereof).

Yes. You've repeatedly said you are.

But I don't know if you'd be a disaster.

I'm not, if by party you mean a political party with an agenda that's to be pushed onto people, whether in their minority or majority. I don't intend to push anything on anyone, ever, and anarchism can't work except out of every individual's passion to make it work.

[Smokey D]

But the current democratic system isn't wholly about democracy. Most of the governing gets done by force and the threat of force, and it's that which I (and most people who are against it) oppose, mostly.

No, all government or any sort of law, rule, norm or whatever is backed by threat of force. So this is about democracy.

I guess we have to concede that everyone is born into something that's out of their control. So when you try to dismantle a system (or in the case of anarchy, build one) you're showing your discontent at being put upon by that system (or lack thereof).

Yeah, I can dig that.

I'm not, if by party you mean a political party with an agenda that's to be pushed onto people, whether in their minority or majority.

I mean party as in agent.

I don't intend to push anything on anyone, ever, and anarchism can't work except out of every individual's passion to make it work.

Don't you want to stage a coup?

[Reaganista]

I put the main idea of government, a very vague one at best. But then again "general welfare" is pretty vague too.

you put your idea of the purpose of government
which happens to run contrary to the stated purpose of the US government

[totah]

No, all government or any sort of law, rule, norm or whatever is backed by threat of force. So this is about democracy.

What about equalitarian self-government? Obviously the threat of force exists everywhere, human beings or no, but it's very possible to minimise that threat and to make life more peaceful and non-violent. But with the current system where a minority exploits and depends on a majority, the threat of force has to exist if the minority want to keep their lofty position.

I mean party as in agent.

Don't you want to stage a coup?

Coup suggests that I want to replace somebody on the throne. I want no such thing. I want everybody to rise up and take responsibility (which is the same as taking power) for their lives. I'm taking as much responsibility over my life as I can, but it's not much (though obviously I can't really say what much actually is. Suffice that it doesn't feel like much :p) and when I try to take more I get the hard end of a club. Such is government.

[Smokey D]

What about equalitarian self-government?

What about it? Any form of government imposes obligations and norms backed by force.

Obviously the threat of force exists everywhere, human beings or no, but it's very possible to minimise that threat and to make life more peaceful and non-violent.

If people were nice and resources not scarce, maybe.

But with the current system where a minority exploits and depends on a majority, the threat of force has to exist if the minority want to keep their lofty position.

But everyone depends on everyone. It's not a case of the minority exploiting the majority, because you can just look at another set of data and the groups get all mixed up.

[totah]

What about it? Any form of government imposes obligations and norms backed by force.

We already agreed on this, and I already said we can minimise the force and threat of force.

If people were nice and resources not scarce, maybe.

Depends what you mean by "nice" and by "scarce". Anarchism doesn't require people to turn the other cheek, but a basic respect for people's individualities and their freedom is essential. This doesn't mean nobody in an anarchist community will ever get insulted or get in a punch-up. But it does provide a strong and stable non-hierarchical basis to sort out those problems as a community.

But everyone depends on everyone. It's not a case of the minority exploiting the majority, because you can just look at another set of data and the groups get all mixed up.

Right now the workers depend on bosses for job security and the bosses depend on workers for their parasitic lifestyle. But if "the workers controlled the means of production" they would have no need of bosses and everyone could decide what happens in the (let's say) factory and what the wages and conditions are, and everybody would have the same interests at heart because nobody would be standing to profit more for others' work.

[Smokey D]

We already agreed on this, and I already said we can minimise the force and threat of force.

I'm just reiterating that even so-called self-government is still one of force.

Depends what you mean by "nice" and by "scarce". Anarchism doesn't require people to turn the other cheek, but a basic respect for people's individualities and their freedom is essential. This doesn't mean nobody in an anarchist community will ever get insulted or get in a punch-up. But it does provide a strong and stable non-hierarchical basis to sort out those problems as a community.


By nice I mean willing to not dick each other round and steal people's ****.

By scarce I mean that they are limited in relation to unlimited wants.

Right now the workers depend on bosses for job security and the bosses depend on workers for their parasitic lifestyle. But if "the workers controlled the means of production" they would have no need of bosses and everyone could decide what happens in the (let's say) factory and what the wages and conditions are, and everybody would have the same interests at heart because nobody would be standing to profit more for others' work.

First of all, you're assuming a universal business model, which is stupid. Secondly, you're assuming all work is equally valuable, which is wrong. Thirdly, you're assuming ownership is the only relevant form of control, and it's not (ie, there'd be people in managerial positions in anarchism that approximate owners and bosses today).

And there nothing to prevent the restoration of hegemonic forces in anarchy.

[totah]

By nice I mean willing to not dick each other round and steal people's ****.

Well that may happen, it may not, I don't know. I'm sure there wouldn't be widespread looting because that's basically shooting yourself in the foot, robbing your own community.

By scarce I mean that they are limited in relation to unlimited wants.

Well technically all resources are scarce, but in a non-capitalistic economy there wouldn't be the pointless drive to consume > create goods > exploit resources so the environment would become more stable than it is now. Incidentally, this is why capitalism is bound to collapse, revolution or no, because it has an ever-expanding search for markets (and therefore consumerism (which creates waste) and therefore goods production therefore higher and higher resource exploitation) and can never stabilise, so when the environment completely collapses, so will capitalism, because resources would become unavailable.

First of all, you're assuming a universal business model, which is stupid.

What do you mean?

Secondly, you're assuming all work is equally valuable, which is wrong.

No, I agree, telesales isn't as important as teaching or building bookshelves. However, within a particular factory, if someone's doing a job it's because it needs to be done. So you may say now that the cleaners are less important than the foreman, but come back after a week of a cleaners' strike action and tell me if it's possible to work safely with two feet of sawdust covering the factory floor and clogging up the workers' nostrils.

Thirdly, you're assuming ownership is the only relevant form of control, and it's not (ie, there'd be people in managerial positions in anarchism that approximate owners and bosses today).

Fair enough, erroneous choice of language on my part, but here's what I meant: Workers know what they need to do and they know how to do it best, while if you take a boss into the fields and ask him to pick the strawberries properly, and water the fields without killing the plants and rotate the crops at the right time so the soil doesn't degrade, he's not gonna have a clue. Therefore the workers can do everything better than the boss, including running the workplace from the point of view of management and trade, not just creating the goods. The worker-run factories in Argentina have proved this, and are still proving this. Bosses are parasites and are unnecessary to the running of the factory. Also, those factories' managerial positions are taken by committees of workers that are rotated regularly so that every worker learns how management and trade works (and therefore how it relates to the physical goods production) and nobody comes to a position where they stand to profit more than every other worker.

And there nothing to prevent the restoration of hegemonic forces in anarchy.

There is, but you don't think of it because you're thinking in Christian terms of something that has to be more powerful than the people themselves (such as the Constitution or the House of Lords). "Always challenge authority" is the most important lesson of anarchism, "and if that authority cannot justify itself, which is usually the case, then you must work to dismantle that authority." If someone in an anarchistic community starts to abuse her powers or create a hegemonic order, she will be challenged.

Interestingly, in this sense most humans are anarchistic because when someone exercises power over them, they usually challenge it (except in cases of government and police where they've been fooled into thinking that that authority is justified).

[Smokey D]

Well that may happen, it may not, I don't know. I'm sure there wouldn't be widespread looting because that's basically shooting yourself in the foot, robbing your own community.

Prisoner's dilemma.

Well technically all resources are scarce, but in a non-capitalistic economy there wouldn't be the pointless drive to consume > create goods > exploit resources so the environment would become more stable than it is now. Incidentally, this is why capitalism is bound to collapse, revolution or no, because it has an ever-expanding search for markets (and therefore consumerism (which creates waste) and therefore goods production therefore higher and higher resource exploitation) and can never stabilise, so when the environment completely collapses, so will capitalism, because resources would become unavailable.

No, resources are still scarce and there is still an incentive to produce (and consume).

But resources are recyclable. I don't know if it's inevitable capitalism will collapse, per se, but it will change.

What do you mean?

Not all businesses operate anything like a factory. It's completely nonsensical to say a law firm or a family bakery work like a steel mill.

No, I agree, telesales isn't as important as teaching or building bookshelves. However, within a particular factory, if someone's doing a job it's because it needs to be done. So you may say now that the cleaners are less important than the foreman, but come back after a week of a cleaners' strike action and tell me if it's possible to work safely with two feet of sawdust covering the factory floor and clogging up the workers' nostrils.

Yah, but the marginal product of the labour of a manager might be much higher than the marginal product of the labour of a guy who moves boxes. Wages should equal marginal product of labour.

And your example can be reversed. Imagine the entire management team (or any other bunch of higher ups) going on strike and see how efficient things would be.

Workers know what they need to do and they know how to do it best, while if you take a boss into the fields and ask him to pick the strawberries properly, and water the fields without killing the plants and rotate the crops at the right time so the soil doesn't degrade, he's not gonna have a clue.

Someone trained in horticulture probably has a much better idea about that sort of stuff than a fieldhand.

Therefore the workers can do everything better than the boss, including running the workplace from the point of view of management and trade, not just creating the goods.

There is no reason to think that people who are trained in making things more efficient would be less efficient than workers (most of whom are in competition and therefore subject to a prisoner's dilemma anyway)

The worker-run factories in Argentina have proved this, and are still proving this. Bosses are parasites and are unnecessary to the running of the factory. Also, those factories' managerial positions are taken by committees of workers that are rotated regularly so that every worker learns how management and trade works (and therefore how it relates to the physical goods production) and nobody comes to a position where they stand to profit more than every other worker.

The worker run factories are much inflated in the minds of would be rebels everywhere. They don't get nearly as good a wrap in the literature, though.

There is, but you don't think of it because you're thinking in Christian terms of something that has to be more powerful than the people themselves (such as the Constitution or the House of Lords). "Always challenge authority" is the most important lesson of anarchism, "and if that authority cannot justify itself, which is usually the case, then you must work to dismantle that authority." If someone in an anarchistic community starts to abuse her powers or create a hegemonic order, she will be challenged.

What I'm saying is that in the absence of proper laws, social equilibrium is controlled by unrestricted hegemonic forces and consequently even more in their favour than it is now.

The vast majority of the world's most severe problems are caused by a lack of governance than over government.

[totah]

Prisoner's dilemma.

Prisoners' dilemma can only work under the assumption that everyone is 100% selfish and self-centered, which isn't the case at all.

No, resources are still scarce and there is still an incentive to produce (and consume).

In a non-capitalistic system there is no incentive to produce beyond what you need. Therefore there's a lot more free time in non-capitalistic systems.

But resources are recyclable. I don't know if it's inevitable capitalism will collapse, per se, but it will change.

Recycling isn't done by magic, it takes energy, which requires production methods of its own. Basically the thing you have to keep telling yourself when thinking in ecological terms is, "You can never do only one thing." Everything you do has a thousand consequences so the more you do the more you're likely to impact on your environment.

Not all businesses operate anything like a factory. It's completely nonsensical to say a law firm or a family bakery work like a steel mill.

No, but the vast majority of business does, and the two particular examples you used rely on "factory-like" business. How much paper, graphite, biros, computers, ink etc does a law firm use yearly? Into the hundreds of tonnes. How much wheat, gas, cocoa, eggs, nuts and seeds, baking paper etc does a family bakery use yearly? Again, hundreds of tonnes. Every business within capitalism relies for its existence on the original exploitative "mill" business model.

Yah, but the marginal product of the labour of a manager might be much higher than the marginal product of the labour of a guy who moves boxes. Wages should equal marginal product of labour.

How do you judge that? All a manager does is manage people, but they create the actual product, so who did the most work? Everything the manager does, the workers can do either themselves or completely without.

And your example can be reversed. Imagine the entire management team (or any other bunch of higher ups) going on strike and see how efficient things would be.

Things would be a lot better. The workers will be working for themselves so they'd only need to produce as much money's worth of goods as it would take to pay all their wages and (to make it interesting and realistic) to maintain the machinery. There's be no hefty salary to pay the management team who, as individuals, all earn at least triple the wages of the individual workers. If the workers decide they want a new machine, they'd only have to all put in a little bit of extra effort (say half an hour a day) each for X days until they've made enough money to buy that machine.

Someone trained in horticulture probably has a much better idea about that sort of stuff than a fieldhand.

The people trained in horticulture are, I'm sure, earning far less than the farm owner and managers, who do a lot less work. Besides, if they and the fieldhands didn't have to work to create enough profits to pay the salary of the owner and manager (haha, it just occurred to me that when they do pay into the owner's bank account they're actually paying the owner to be allowed to work and earn wages!), and if the horticulturist taught what she knew to the fieldhands, they would all know exactly what's going on with the crops and would be more efficient anyway.

There is no reason to think that people who are trained in making things more efficient would be less efficient than workers (most of whom are in competition and therefore subject to a prisoner's dilemma anyway)

Workers aren't in competition with each other (and when they think they are then that's terrible) because they all depend on their workplace for a living and on the boss's favour so they don't lose their livelihood. Workers are only in competition with each other when they have to curry favour with the boss so they don't get fired or so they get a raise/promotion. If the boss wasn't there to grant it, if a worker needed a raise she'd just have to bring it up with all the other workers and see what they think. Keep in mind that if the boss didn't exist then capitalism probably wouldn't so the workers wouldn't be in a constant drive to consume and living security would be a lot more secure as the house market wouldn't sway to the whims of yuppies (and where they thought was the coolest place to live) and developers.

The worker run factories are much inflated in the minds of would be rebels everywhere. They don't get nearly as good a wrap in the literature, though.

In what sense?

What I'm saying is that in the absence of proper laws, social equilibrium is controlled by unrestricted hegemonic forces and consequently even more in their favour than it is now.

What you call "unrestricted hegemonic forces" I call decent human beings. Yes they're unrestricted by state legislature, but that means nothing when you live in a community that you depend on and that in turn depends on you. Yes they're some of them hegemonic in that they're on an ego-trip and think they know what's best for everybody, but it's not hard or evil to take somebody down a few notches on the humility scale. And yes, they're forces because they have a will of their own and they've got responsibility over their own lives and they know what's best for themselves.

The vast majority of the world's most severe problems are caused by a lack of governance than over government.

In some cases may be. But it's possible to be self-governed.

[Babble]

In some cases may be. But it's possible to be self-governed.

to some degree sure... but if we could measure self-governance ability im sure we'd see it's a bell curve and at the extreme top we have leaders and politicians and at the extreme bottom we have criminals and other ruffians..

if we effectively neuter the top 10% we empower the bottom 10%

sorry thats all i got i dunno what this thread is even about

[totah]

to some degree sure... but if we could measure self-governance ability im sure we'd see it's a bell curve and at the extreme top we have leaders and politicians and at the extreme bottom we have criminals and other ruffians..

if we effectively neuter the top 10% we empower the bottom 10%

sorry thats all i got i dunno what this thread is even about

No because human beings are infinitely changeable and are not born into inescapable castes ranging from criminals to politicians. Anyway your biggest flaw here is that politicians are the biggest crooks, as are bosses etc. White collar crime is much bigger than petty theft. Also politicians and bosses instigate the biggest murders, murders on the scale than even the Manson family wouldn't be able to compete with. So we don't neuter anything, we incorporate everyone into a directly democratic assembly where everyone gets the chance to ask questions, give answers, discuss, comment and if people don't agree by the end then they can vote.

[Babble]

and thus such an idea is not measurable. however it should be clear that "everyone governs themselves" (including groups etc) will not function without some common oversight because there will be more and less powerful and malicious people/groups.

what good do votes do? democracy can run afoul just as quickly as a single leader.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Man, reading your posts made we want to go back to 2003 and kick the living shi't out of myself. Lord God on high I was a fuc'king moron.

People are not infinitaly changable. Positive change only occurs when it is imposed on people externally, otherwise the only change is people consistently getting worse.

[totah]

and thus such an idea is not measurable. however it should be clear that "everyone governs themselves" (including groups etc) will not function without some common oversight because there will be more and less powerful and malicious people/groups.

What do you mean "not measurable"?

Groups might be malicious, but it's better for everyone if they cooperate than if they don't. Oh yes, this is another reason why Prisoner's Dilemma doesn't work in this case, because it requires an external threatening force that can grant deference and favour, like a cop. Outside of humanity the only force that controls us is nature and that is most definitely unquestionable and unmerciful.

what good do votes do? democracy can run afoul just as quickly as a single leader.

How can a community run afoul of itself?

People are not infinitaly changable. Positive change only occurs when it is imposed on people externally, otherwise the only change is people consistently getting worse.

I disagree. What makes you think that? I think people can change for the worse just as they can change for the better.

I don't think that there's the essential good person and the essential bad person, only human beings sometimes doing things with malicious intent and sometimes doing things with kindly intent. Of course we can't judge someone by the consequences of their actions because every action, whether the intent is bad or good, has both bad and good consequences, so we can only judge people by their intention. Which explains why the end never justifies the means.

[Babble]

How can a community run afoul of itself?


oh I dunno black lynchings would be a good example. Democracy isn't flawless.

[Smokey D]

Prisoners' dilemma can only work under the assumption that everyone is 100% selfish and self-centered, which isn't the case at all.

Nah, a prisoner's dilemma can occur when just one person is even remotely selfish.

In a non-capitalistic system there is no incentive to produce beyond what you need. Therefore there's a lot more free time in non-capitalistic systems.

If you didn't produce more than you needed, a good chunk of the population would starve.


Recycling isn't done by magic, it takes energy, which requires production methods of its own. Basically the thing you have to keep telling yourself when thinking in ecological terms is, "You can never do only one thing." Everything you do has a thousand consequences so the more you do the more you're likely to impact on your environment.

Fusion baby.

No, but the vast majority of business does

I dunno if that's true.

and the two particular examples you used rely on "factory-like" business. How much paper, graphite, biros, computers, ink etc does a law firm use yearly? Into the hundreds of tonnes. How much wheat, gas, cocoa, eggs, nuts and seeds, baking paper etc does a family bakery use yearly? Again, hundreds of tonnes. Every business within capitalism relies for its existence on the original exploitative "mill" business model.

But that's irrelevant.

How do you judge that? All a manager does is manage people, but they create the actual product, so who did the most work? Everything the manager does, the workers can do either themselves or completely without.

Not really, otherwise businesses would get rid of managers.

Things would be a lot better. The workers will be working for themselves so they'd only need to produce as much money's worth of goods as it would take to pay all their wages and (to make it interesting and realistic) to maintain the machinery. There's be no hefty salary to pay the management team who, as individuals, all earn at least triple the wages of the individual workers. If the workers decide they want a new machine, they'd only have to all put in a little bit of extra effort (say half an hour a day) each for X days until they've made enough money to buy that machine.

You're denying the value of specialisation, which has been proven by more than 200 years of economic theory and practise.

The people trained in horticulture are, I'm sure, earning far less than the farm owner and managers, who do a lot less work. Besides, if they and the fieldhands didn't have to work to create enough profits to pay the salary of the owner and manager (haha, it just occurred to me that when they do pay into the owner's bank account they're actually paying the owner to be allowed to work and earn wages!), and if the horticulturist taught what she knew to the fieldhands, they would all know exactly what's going on with the crops and would be more efficient anyway.

First of all, why should the farmer (who raised his cow personally) provide his capital (his cow) to workers without any reward?

Secondly, the salary received by the owner doesn't need to be as large as it is for capitalism to work.

Workers aren't in competition with each other (and when they think they are then that's terrible)

They can be.

because they all depend on their workplace for a living and on the boss's favour so they don't lose their livelihood.

Efficiency wages > your argument.

Workers are only in competition with each other when they have to curry favour with the boss so they don't get fired or so they get a raise/promotion. If the boss wasn't there to grant it, if a worker needed a raise she'd just have to bring it up with all the other workers and see what they think. Keep in mind that if the boss didn't exist then capitalism probably wouldn't so the workers wouldn't be in a constant drive to consume and living security would be a lot more secure as the house market wouldn't sway to the whims of yuppies (and where they thought was the coolest place to live) and developers.

Okay, but why should any one worker listen to another worker's claim to a share of the loot?

In what sense?

They aren't nearly as efficient as they're made out to be. And they still have management, which was my original point.

What you call "unrestricted hegemonic forces" I call decent human beings. Yes they're unrestricted by state legislature, but that means nothing when you live in a community that you depend on and that in turn depends on you. Yes they're some of them hegemonic in that they're on an ego-trip and think they know what's best for everybody, but it's not hard or evil to take somebody down a few notches on the humility scale. And yes, they're forces because they have a will of their own and they've got responsibility over their own lives and they know what's best for themselves.

You only need one person to start misbehaving to subvert the system. You can't predicate your existence on community action when history reveals the tendency to be apathy.

In some cases may be. But it's possible to be self-governed.

Until you have people fighting over who governs what.

[totah]

Nah, a prisoner's dilemma can occur when just one person is even remotely selfish.

I don't think it can.

If you didn't produce more than you needed, a good chunk of the population would starve.

Do you have any idea of the amount of consumer goods that get thrown away without use and the amount of grain that goes to rot in silos simply because nobody can afford it?

Fusion baby.

Nuclear fusion doesn't exist yet, and building a future plan on the basis of technology that doesn't exist is like going sailing now on a raft you're gonna build later.

I dunno if that's true.

All capitalist business relies on this. Even a law firm does. Perhaps not so much within its own framework (though the secretaries are no doubt exploited, as are the cleaners and archivers), but they do.

But that's irrelevant.

No it's not, not at all. The vast majority of business (ie. the largest employing industries) operates on the model I outlined. Maybe middle-class business (such as your examples) don't operate with it directly, but they indubitably rely on it for their current existence. And this is relevant because this is how our whole capitalist world runs, and I'm arguing against capitalism as a whole, not merely a little bit of it. You have to recognise that without the massive worker exploitation happening in mines and fields and factories makes it possible. For example, a shoe store may not run on such an exploitative model, but all the shoes that were created are made by highly exploited "mill" workers, and the cotton, plastic and polyester for these shoes is picked and processed by even more "mill" workers in even more fields and factories, respectively. The shoe shop and how it's run isn't only for efficiency, it's an advertising model in itself to give you the impression that the whole world runs along the same lines of nicey-nice employers.

Not really, otherwise businesses would get rid of managers.

No because the managers and bosses (I was using the words synonymously, sorry if it caused confusion) are the ones who stand to profit the most, and not only do they have control of their businesses, they also cast the illusion that their control is necessary.

You're denying the value of specialisation, which has been proven by more than 200 years of economic theory and practise.

No I'm not, I'm saying that with mutual cooperation and free education (ie. the workers practising solidarity and educating each other in knowledge and techniques that aren't widespread) everyone could be specialists. If all the separates me from my fellow worker who earns time and a half because she knows a bit more than me, it's logical for her to teach me and the other workers and we can all work a little bit less for however much we decide to give ourselves. Put simply we can all be specialists.

First of all, why should the farmer (who raised his cow personally) provide his capital (his cow) to workers without any reward?

Because that's rarely the case. Because the cows are reared, milked and butchered by workers and the people who technically own the cows rarely set one foot in the industrial farms, let alone do any of the hard, dirty sweaty work. Because if you should work for your reward then the idea that factory-owners should make more money for doing less work than the people gutting cows on the slaughterhouse floor is contrary.

Secondly, the salary received by the owner doesn't need to be as large as it is for capitalism to work.

No, but the fact is that it is as large as it is, and it's that large for a reason, and if we were to try to reform capitalism and make the bosses' pay more equal to the workers' pay (to be more precise, to make their pay more equal to the value of their work) then we'd find the pay gap (and therefore the wealth gap) slowly increasing over time again, as it is now. And the reason we would see this happen is simple: The bosses have more power than the workers and become corrupted by their power.

They can be.

Oh of course, no doubt about that, and to work in an atmosphere where the workers are in competition with each other is horrible. Just work in an office or a telesales centre for a few months. It's horrible because every worker is in the same situation where she has to keep her job or become homeless and starve (that's the threat at least), while she would have a lot more job security (infinitely more by comparison) if she, along with her fellow workers, had direct control over her workplace and its conditions.

Efficiency wages > your argument.

Explain please?

Okay, but why should any one worker listen to another worker's claim to a share of the loot?

I understand the question but I don't understand the relevance. But it doesn't matter too much (though I'd like an explanation of it anyways), because when human beings are part of the same community (whether that's a habitat community or a workplace community) they, being social creatures, listen to each other and put stock in what their peers have to say. Of course this isn't the case with every individual, but it is with most.

They aren't nearly as efficient as they're made out to be. And they still have management, which was my original point.

Management does not equate to bosses and ownership. They have rotating managing committees that are completely open and horizontal. They work along lines of democracy while bosses work along the lines of dictatorship.

You only need one person to start misbehaving to subvert the system. You can't predicate your existence on community action when history reveals the tendency to be apathy.

No it doesn't. When a community has come under threat, in almost every historical example, it has acted to defend itself. In an egalitarian community, it stands to reason that it would defend itself against any emerging forms of authoritarian power. One person cannot subvert this system herself. She would have to build a hierarchy beneath her, and this would require many more willing people. Once someone's "tasted" freedom from tyranny and hierarchy, it's very hard to go back. For historical evidence, see the Catalonian (and other anarchist regions) population's very hard and painful adjustment to life under Franco. For anecdotal evidence, see my and other anarchists' difficulties in "keeping still" when we have hierarchy inflicted upon us.

Until you have people fighting over who governs what.

Then you misunderstand the meaning of self-government. Self-government is when a community governs itself, not when a group of people (or one person) govern a community larger than themselves. That would simply be government.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Nuclear fusion doesn't exist yet, and building a future plan on the basis of technology that doesn't exist is like going sailing now on a raft you're gonna build later.

Uh yeah it does, we just can't use it pratically yet.

[totah]

Uh yeah it does, we just can't use it pratically yet.

Yeah? What does that mean?

And I'm sure that it has unpredictable consequences. Everything does.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Yeah? What does that mean?

And I'm sure that it has unpredictable consequences. Everything does.

no, it's safe, and reliable, it just consumes more energy than it produces, but scientiest know why, and are working on it.

[totah]

Well, we'll see. But it's good practice to not count your hens by the number of eggs you have.

[WhoDidTheElf]

The tech. is there, we just haven't caught up to it yet.

[totah]

So it's not. We know in theory how to teleport people in a straight line over great distances, we just haven't caught up to breaking them up into light particles and then putting them back together again the right way. That's the only tricky part.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Uh no, there are fusion reactors in Europe, it just takes more power to create power than it puts out right now.

[totah]

Ok. I won't argue this anyway, it would risk derailing this highly enjoyable argument.

I will say though, and I'm sure you agree, that when doing anything in this universe, you can never do just one thing. Everything you do causes an event which then causes more events which in turn cause more events. Fusion power may be more efficient than fission (is it cleaner? does it not rely on nuclear materials still? it doesn't really matter actually) but it will still have consequences as everything else we do.

[WhoDidTheElf]

yeah but consequences aren't always neg you know

Edit: should have just put this in here ages ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Safety_and_environmental_issues

[Iskandar]

So it's not. We know in theory how to teleport people in a straight line over great distances, we just haven't caught up to breaking them up into light particles and then putting them back together again the right way. That's the only tricky part.Hey, I don't know about you but I have no difficulty teleporting.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Well light speed isn't technically teleporting :P

[Iskandar]

Well light speed isn't technically teleporting :PWithout precise calculations we could bounce too close to a supernova, or fly right through a star, and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

[WhoDidTheElf]

idk man, that'd be pretty intense.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Without precise calculations we could bounce too close to a supernova, or fly right through a star, and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?Which is why you need Space Guild mutants doped up on melange to navigate.

[Iskandar]

Which is why you need Space Guild mutants doped up on melange to navigate.Chewbacca's the navigator on board the Millennium Falcon.