http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm


"As the United States government becomes more belligerent in using its power in the world, many people are longing for a 'second superpower' that can keep the U.S. in check," writes James F. Moore, of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, in an article that he posted online. The newly energized Left is just such a force, he argues. . . .

Note that Moore speaks of confronting not imperialism or corporate capitalism or human-rights abusers, but the United States. This is significant. . . .

But the Left will pay a crippling price. If its new rallying cry is going to be "Contain America first!" the Left had better pack its bags for a long, long stay in the political wilderness, at least in America; and if it is going to make excuses for Saddam as it once made excuses for Stalin, it can kiss its moral relevance goodbye. One only wonders whether the Left still has time to back away from the cliff.



And then they have the nerve to bitch when we call them unpatriotic... :rolleyes:

Don't nuke me with offense and statements to how stupid I am if I'm wrong here, but it sounds to me like your thinking short term.

America is too powerful. It's not right when one power is that much more advanced than others. If nothing is done to make sure that that power is subdued and restricted, who knows what sort of future we will have. And I'm talking about potentially hundreds of years into the future.

Saddam's screwed already. I don't see him comming back to power anytime soon. Ok, the American Government has done their job, which was (apparently) to liberate the people of Iraq. Good, Saddam is gone. Now America need to mellow down. They can't go around defying international law like this again.

America is too powerful and that much power is more likely to be used for the betterment of a minority than for the good of all. I'd be stupid to say that America will just release it's hold on the world, so, perhaps Mr Moore is rigth. Perhaps a second superpower is needed. But then I don't know what the implications of the world a second superpower would have. Who's to say that power wouldn't just cause more conflict?

It's not right when one power is that much more advanced than others. Perhaps. Competition is always a good thing. Unfortunately, after the U.S.S.R collapsed, no one could compete with the United States. China is coming up though. Europe is officially "interested" in competing but they keep applying Marxist principles to their economies and it is going the way of the U.S.S.R right now. Africa is a shit place. South America is also quite shitty. Australia is OK I guess, but very small and insignificant. Asia [excluding China and Japan] are also kinda small and insignificant. At least China is seemingly waking up.

Originally posted by Jerrek
Competition is always a good thing.

How?

Higher quality and better products for lower prices. Did you fail grade 5? I mean, how can you not know the very fundamentals of economics?

Originally posted by Jerrek
Higher quality and better products for lower prices. Did you fail grade 5? I mean, how can you not know the very fundamentals of economics?

Tell me what is wrong with not knowing the fundamentals of economics?
And please don't question my intelligence, you don't even know me.

It's not right when one power is that much more advanced than others.

Why not?

At least China is seemingly waking up.

Am I the only one who's a little concerned about a fascist (quasi-fascist, okay) state gaining a role as a superpower?

Tell me what is wrong with not knowing the fundamentals of economics?

Because economics and international relations are inseperable.

Why is the Left suddenly unable to support or celebrate the downfall of a fascist tyrant? Because, just as neocons regard projecting American power as essential for making the world safer, neoleftists regard containing American power as essential for making the world safer. If containing America means tolerating or even supporting tyranny or terror in particular places -- well, that is a price that must sometimes be paid.

Thank God the American right hasn't ever paid that price. The reason "leftists" don't celebrate Saddam's ousting, is that, although they like the ends, they don't think they justify the means by which he was removed. That is: a unilateralist, preemptive military attack, justified by deception of the American public and disdain for world opinion and UN.

The Left's idealism and anti-Americanism blinded it to the realities of Soviet Communism and put it on the wrong side of the Cold War

To suggest that the left supported soviet communism is stretching things a bit. To equate those in the left who did support the soviets with those who oppose american aggression today is also rather absurd. Those who oppose it are not so extreme; many are centrist in their political leanings, they have significant numbers in America's general population and are the large majority in the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Xev
Why not?

Because it's unfair and poses as the perfect tool for exploitation and general nastiness.

Am I the only one who's a little concerned about a fascist (quasi-fascist, okay) state gaining a role as a superpower?

And your not concerned about America as a superpower? America, which has been seen time and time again to use it's 'superpowerness' to trample over others regardless of the impact on them to get their way? A perfect example, of course, being the INVASION of Iraq in direct disobedience of the UN.

Because economics and international relations are inseperable.

perhaps that's something that should change. Shouldn't international relations be based on things other than economical gain?

Because it's unfair and poses as the perfect tool for exploitation and general nastiness. Unfair because there is no free handouts? Unfair because you actually have to work? Unfair because someone else could come up with a better and cheaper way of doing what you're doing and you would then have to improve? Or unfair because it allows hard workers to get really rich and lazy slobs to get really poor (in general)?

Was your welfare check late?

And your not concerned about America as a superpower? Not really. The United States actually behaves quite nicely.

America, which has been seen time and time again to use it's 'superpowerness' to trample over others regardless of the impact on them to get their way? A perfect example, of course, being the INVASION of Iraq in direct disobedience of the UN. There you go again with your Saddam supporting crap. What would you have otherwise? Follow a path that would help Saddam such as asking for more U.N. resolutions for the next 43 decades while millions more Iraqi children die? Is that what you want? :rolleyes:

Dudeyhead:
Because it's unfair and poses as the perfect tool for exploitation and general nastiness.

Things were a lot better when the Soviets were crushing the Hungarian and Czech uprisings, yes?

And your not concerned about America as a superpower?

Not really, America is a rather prosperous democracy. I worry about the implications of our "war on drugs" and some other issues, but I'd on the whole prefer America to America and China.

Anyways, "America is bad" isn't the issue. China IS a backwords, quasi-fascist country - can you call this a good thing?

perhaps that's something that should change.

Perhaps, but its not going to.

Shouldn't international relations be based on things other than economical gain?

I'm not Karl Marx, I never said they were based purely on economics, only that economic relations are a large part of international relations.

As for how things "should be", well....ignoring how they are won't change a damn thing.

Originally posted by Jerrek
Unfair because there is no free handouts? Unfair because you actually have to work? Unfair because someone else could come up with a better and cheaper way of doing what you're doing and you would then have to improve? Or unfair because it allows hard workers to get really rich and lazy slobs to get really poor (in general)?

Was your welfare check late?

I don't usually get pissed at people like this but you've just gone too far. I told you before, You dont have a clue of who I am. You don't know where I've come from, you don't know what I've been through, you don't know shit about me! You don't even know what I look like, what my name is, how old I am, what I sound like! And still, you make assumtions about my financial position? You think I oppose the American Government as a superpower because I'm in a bad state?! You're just showing me how shallow your depth of thought is. You're just showing me that you can only percieve motives based on self-gain. You know what? Maybe this never occured to you, y'know, all that time thinking about how you were going to make your life better, being selfish in general: MAYBE SOME PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THINGS OTHER THAN THEMSELVES!

You're blind Jerrek. You claim that I am lazy, a slob. You claim that people like me don't deserve the 'good life' that those that worked hard to earn it have. Well, did you ever think that those 'lazy slobs' never had the chance to do what you and your oh-so-elite-and-all-knowing type did?

Classes exist, we all know that. And money seems to be the driving force behind absolutely everything on earth these days. If I were born into a poor family, chances are I wouldn't have the slightest chance of a good education. Without education, how do you propose I get into a position where I can get into a comfortable life? Working hard or not? And you enrage me by claiming that all the poor people who are on welfare don't work hard! How do you that?! Do you monitor the life of every poor person around the world?

You have a problem Jerrek. You are selfish, you have no compassion, you see only that which is infront of you and even that, you cannot comprehend. Again, I'm going to say I pity you, but now I don't like you all that much either.

Originally posted by Jerrek
Not really. The United States actually behaves quite nicely.

That's the biggest load of bullshit I'be heard in days Jerrek.

There you go again with your Saddam supporting crap. What would you have otherwise? Follow a path that would help Saddam such as asking for more U.N. resolutions for the next 43 decades while millions more Iraqi children die? Is that what you want? :rolleyes:

Jerrek, don't be a narrow-minded fool, even if Saddam never said anything, my views would be the same. I don't know, maybe you set all your views based on what politicians say, I do not. So stop saying that I do.

Originally posted by Xev
Things were a lot better when the Soviets were crushing the Hungarian and Czech uprisings, yes?
I never said that. Don't assume that I have an unconditional hate for America. I don't. All I oppose is the way that the American Governmenttreats the rest of the world, let alone its own citizens.
Where I've written America, could just as easily say Soviet.

Not really, America is a rather prosperous democracy. I worry about the implications of our "war on drugs" and some other issues, but I'd on the whole prefer America to America and China.
America is a democracy? oh god. yes, I suppose it is, but in a twisted, refracted and mutilated way. How many Americans do you think actually know what their voting for? Winning an election doesn't come down to what you stand for, it comes down to how much money you have and how much media coverage you get. Don't say that isn't true. There is a small minority who actually understand what it is that they are voting for.

Anyways, "America is bad" isn't the issue. China IS a backwords, quasi-fascist country - can you call this a good thing?
Like I said, one superpower is as bad as another.

Perhaps, but its not going to.
That's rather depressing.

I'm not Karl Marx, I never said they were based purely on economics, only that economic relations are a large part of international relations.
ok

As for how things "should be", well....ignoring how they are won't change a damn thing.
That is true. But then how things should be can't be forgotten if things are to change.

*shakes head*

The Australians on this board are all pussy leftists, except me. And I'm an arrogant argumentative bastard. Australia is in deep, deep trouble.

Originally posted by The Marquis
*shakes head*

The Australians on this board are all pussy leftists, except me. And I'm an arrogant argumentative bastard. Australia is in deep, deep trouble.

What's wrong with being leftist? Perhaps we'll get a more sturdy answer from you as opposed to the bullshit insults we usually hear.

And why's Australia in deep trouble?

Jerrek,
There you go again. Picking on the leftests.
You really should not kick someone when they are down.

;)

Originally posted by SuperFudd
Jerrek,
There you go again. Picking on the leftests.
You really should not kick someone when they are down.

;)

you people are always citisising but you never have ANYTHING to back it up with. By saying things like this, you don't show weakness in leftist, you show weakness in yourself.

Well actually, in my case, I simply can't be bothered. Now tell me. If I was to spend several hours trying to convince you that you're completely wrong, would it make any difference?

And still, you make assumtions about my financial position? It is just that the left loves helping themselves to other people's money. *cough* Social security, medicare, welfare, etc.

Well, did you ever think that those 'lazy slobs' never had the chance to do what you and your oh-so-elite-and-all-knowing type did? There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. Which is why I said in general which you so conveniently missed. Sure, there are people with a disability that disqualifies them for work who needs some aid. I don't mind helping them. I don't mind giving to private charities to help other people out. I just hate it when the left decides to help themselves with MY and OTHER people's money to fund THEIR programs.

education, how do you propose I get into a position where I can get into a comfortable life? Like Bill Gates? College dropout. Or maybe some of AT&T's executives? Some of which just has a high school degree. Don't get me wrong, education has some merit in it, but compared to HARD WORK and DILIGENCE, a doctorate in something is really a very minor thing.

you have no compassion What, because I don't like the government? Or because I don't like other people helping themselves to other people's money they don't own? Or maybe because I donate to charities?

Jerrek, don't be a narrow-minded fool, even if Saddam never said anything, my views would be the same. I don't know, maybe you set all your views based on what politicians say, I do not. So stop saying that I do. Completely avoided answering the question. Brilliant.

I never said that But you either implied it or conveniently "ignored" or "forgot" about it.

Don't assume that I have an unconditional hate for America. I don't. You're doing an excellent job of hiding it.

How many Americans do you think actually know what their voting for? Then you are debating the education not the voting system...

Winning an election doesn't come down to what you stand for, it comes down to how much money you have and how much media coverage you get. Don't say that isn't true. To an extend that is true.

What's wrong with being leftist? Perhaps we'll get a more sturdy answer from you as opposed to the bullshit insults we usually hear. Left? The people that loves helping themselves to other people's belongings? The people that would rather kill off innocent children but save the murderer and rapist? The people that would sell out their own? Vote in favor of putting other countries to rule over us? And the radical left are responsible for millions and millions of deaths (Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, etc.)

There you go again. Picking on the leftests.
You really should not kick someone when they are down. Lol

Jerrek,
Every so often you try to make a hard fact-based point, and almost inevitably when you do so, you demonstrate the failings of the american educational system. Case in point:
Like Bill Gates? College dropout.
Bill Gates dropped out of second year of an undergraduate course and started a business. True. What you don't realise is that when he did so, he already had a trust fund valued in the millions, as the Gates family was one of the richest in America at the time. His business (in which he was a minor player from a technical standpoint, and his main function was to provide capital) made the vast majority of it's gains through means other than hard work and intelligence. DOS, for example, was bought from another programmer and adjusted to run on an IBM PC. It was a third-rate system introduced as top-of-the line while the Mac was being developed. And the multitude of unethical decisions and policies pursued by Microsoft since then have seen it at the centre of a dozen major lawsuits through the years.

Sure, there are people with a disability that disqualifies them for work who needs some aid. I don't mind helping them. I don't mind giving to private charities to help other people out. I just hate it when the left decides to help themselves with MY and OTHER people's money to fund THEIR programs.
Your money, and other people's money ... but not their own? So... you're saying that the left take taxes from 50% of the population according to how they voted and then distribute it to the other 50% of the population according to how they voted?
*raspberry*
The welfare, medicare, and other programs you refer to are there for a reason - and cutting them is the reason that in the US, one of the richest countries (though not the richest) in the world, you still have malnourished children, a high illiteracy rate and homelessness. It boils down to this - your take-home pay is not the sole determining factor in your quality of life, and it should never be.
Then you are debating the education not the voting system.
Actually, both are in question. If you get only one vote every four years to select a president, you cannot reasonably claim to have a meaningful vote on any policy issues. So, leaving aside the daft idea of selecting the leader of your country based on who has the better haircut, how can you tell which issue your vote is based on?
Left? The people that loves helping themselves to other people's belongings?Those are thieves. Not leftists. (Leftist isn't a word, by the way, and it's not even a precise description. Liberal might be a better one...)The people that would rather kill off innocent children but save the murderer and rapist?Since it was a right-winger that called for both wars on Iraq (which killed children) and the 12 years of sanctions (which killed children) and who opposed the lifting of sanctions when it became obvious that it was the innocent people that were suffering until lifting sanctions would give control of the oil fields to the US, since it is a right-wing government committing atrocities in Gaza and Jenin and Aceh and a half-dozen locations around the world - well, given all that Jerrek, I'd be damn hesitant about accusing the Left of depraved indifference to human life...The people that would sell out their own?What's that meant to mean then?Vote in favor of putting other countries to rule over us?My gosh you're xenophobic, aren't you? Who exactly ever voted to give up the soverignty of the US? (Or are you ranting about the UN once more - the same organisation whose charter specifically prohibits the UN from interfering in any nation's domestic policies? - and I should point out that you have serious problems with the UN when it follows that rule for other countries, yet would be ready to kill to prevent them from breaking that rule in relation to the US...)And the radical left are responsible for millions and millions of deaths (Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, etc.)
Lenin isn't responsible for millions of deaths. Hitler was right-wing. And while Stalin and Mao had nominally left-wing economic theories, they were distinctly authoritarian - which is normally what is referred to as right-wing.

Originally posted by Jerrek
Europe is officially "interested" in competing but they keep applying Marxist principles to their economies and it is going the way of the U.S.S.R right now. Europe is still on the wrong way...:rolleyes:
Africa is a shit place.Nice !
Sure, there are people with a disability that disqualifies them for work who needs some aid. I don't mind helping them. I don't mind giving to private charities to help other people out. I just hate it when the left decides to help themselves with MY and OTHER people's money to fund THEIR programs.So who will you give your money for ? You want to choose who will use YOUR money, right ? Great ! For a self-made man that never have been helped...
OK, sometime there are some troubles ! Some people should not have that money. However you can't let 90% of the poor in the shit because of the other 10%.
Don't get me wrong, education has some merit in it, but compared to HARD WORK and DILIGENCE, a doctorate in something is really a very minor thing.I understand why you have to buy so much ingeneers and searchers in foreign countries if your doctorates don't need HARD WORK and DILIGENCE ;)
Left? The people that loves helping themselves to other people's belongings? The people that would rather kill off innocent children but save the murderer and rapist? The people that would sell out their own? Vote in favor of putting other countries to rule over us? I heard that they were eating children and ripping elders too !!! And what about "Right" ? Those who are with Bush, according to your definition of the left people (to follow a moron is not a great proof of intelligence), those who have lots of money, those who have wonderful jobs...
As you're already thinking about the way to respond, I will add something : I don't believe in what I just wrote ! You can't put Left and Right this way... That's much more complexe, as each one has a private background that made its own mind.
And the radical left are responsible for millions and millions of deaths (Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, etc.)Hitler was "left"... lol. More "right" than he was could not exist ! Everything for the superiors mankind (the arians) and the others should die (the jews, the morons, the insane ones...). The "left" Hitler died in 30's... before becoming a cruel dictator.

why does jerrek always equate disagreeing with him to hating america. i think his selfish elitest view is pretty unamerican

Bill Gates dropped out of second year of an undergraduate course and started a business. True. Good. We agree. He didn't require an education to make billions.

Your money, and other people's money ... but not their own? So... you're saying that the left take taxes from 50% of the population according to how they voted and then distribute it to the other 50% of the population according to how they voted?
*raspberry* Read again. I don't know how you got to that conclusion.

Those are thieves. Not leftists. (Leftist isn't a word, by the way, and it's not even a precise description. Liberal might be a better one...) So you are saying lefties are thieves? EXACTLY. They love to raise the tax and steal more and more from people. Now I know taxes are needed, but 44% income tax is stealing.

What's that meant to mean then? ICC, giving U.N. command of U.S. forces, extraditing U.S. soldiers to stand on trial in a "court" in Belgium, etc.

the same organisation whose charter specifically prohibits the UN from interfering in any nation's domestic policies? So why do they bitch about the death penalty?

Hitler was right-wing. Which is why his party was called the national socialist party. Which is why he created medicare, expanded the government, banned guns, nationalized the banks, which are all of course signs of a very right-wing government.

which is normally what is referred to as right-wing. So you're saying that Stalin and his commnunism was right-wing?

Nice ! I lived there for a long time. It is a piece of shit place. Yes I know, I'm not politically correct.

Which is why his party was called the national socialist party
actually even more
Die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
or
National Socialist German Workers' Party
but anyway it was still a right wing, because nazism is for the traditional economic traditions to remain, socialism is about destroying them. That is the main reason on which all political theorists agree
The few nacionalised banks don't mean anything - they were still working for the profit and served the one who paid best, in socialism it's a whole another thing. In nazism the competition remains even if it is one governmental factory against another
Which is why his party was called the national socialist party
as I live in Europe I can assure you that the official name of the party doesn't mean almost anything. Especially in Eastern Europe
The name is thought of before elections and what would win the most votes. Ok - in the UK they have long democratic traditions, but not in other countries. The name of the party is more symbolical. And a Fatherland Democrat party can actually be most extreme communists. Same was with Hitler - national socialism was very very popular back then. In reality the party was right wing.

Good. We agree. He didn't require an education to make billions. We only agree if you accept that the two main factors in his financial success were the millions of dollars in his trust fund and the contract with IBM - not some innate vision or brilliance. Remember, it's damn easy to make money when you have millions in the bank allready.
Read again. I don't know how you got to that conclusion.I got it from where you said that the left took other people's money - which directly states that they don't take their own money and implies that they hold hypocritical, instead of altruistic, beliefs.
So you are saying lefties are thieves?No, I'm not. As was quite obvious. And by the way - 44% income tax is lower than we pay in Ireland to a right-wing government. (We've not had a left-wing government in thirty years.)
ICC, giving U.N. command of U.S. forces, extraditing U.S. soldiers to stand on trial in a "court" in Belgium, etc.
1) The ICC does not threaten US soverignty. It did threaten to provide an international court to hear cases on international law and provide a civilised means of dealing with the Saddams and Milosoviches of this world.
2) The UN get command of all troops from all nations that act as UN peacekeepers. That's how it works. Since all nations have a voice in the UN, that's acceptable. And since the UN never gets control of troops other than those that volunteer to serve as peacekeepers (I don't know of any nation that orders its soldiers to serve in the blue berets), I can't see how it's relevant.
3) Franks cannot be extradited for various legal reasons, not least of which the fact that both nations have to agree to an extradition - one cannot simply be ordered. His arrest hasn't even been considered except by some rather scaremongering right-wing xenophobes. His case has not even been brought to court yet. And should it be proven that he has broken the Geneva convention deliberately, are you sure you want to protect his reputation, when your own code of military justice calls for his incarceration or execution?
So why do they bitch about the death penalty?The UN GA? The UN SC? Or the human rights commission? Remember, the UN is made up of several bodies, in the same way that the US government is. Complaining that the "UN bitches about the death penalty" is like complaining that the government gives out information on how to make pipe bombs. It's true, but highly misrepresentative and disingenous. (The pipe bomb details are/were given out by the US forestry department for getting rid of tree stumps, and included instructions on fabrication of explosives.)
And if you have to ask why a human rights commission would protest the death penalty, you have a large amount of reading to do, starting with the reports on the number of cases in the US where an inmate convicted and sentenced to death was found to be innocent and convicted due to a poor defence caused by his inability to hire the best lawyer, or due to a witness perjuring themselves, or due to faulty forensic evidence, or whatever.
Which is why his party was called the national socialist party. Which is why he created medicare, expanded the government, banned guns, nationalized the banks, which are all of course signs of a very right-wing government.
Incorrect. National socialism isn't socialism, any more than white supremacists are concerned with human rights, or Coca-cola contains cocaine. (Yes, I know it used to, I'm referring to the current product). He didn't create medicare, as that's a uniquely american thing (it's a trademark as I recall), and nationalizing banks is the first step in creating a centralised economy - which is left-wing economic theory, but highly right-wing in terms of human rights (left-wing authoritarian, if you want to use better terminology). And are you seriously going to sit there and argue that Hitler was left-wing?
So you're saying that Stalin and his commnunism was right-wing? I'm saying he was authoritarian.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Wether one is succesful or not in the USA is largly a matter of choices as to which course to take. "Society" has prety well marked the trail with warning and direction signs. Ignore them and you may well fall off a cliff. Follow the signs and you may not make it to the top of the heap but you will stay away from self destruction and live comfortably and hapily.:)
If your life has turned to shit, blame your self, not society. Better yet, get back on the trail if it is not too late.

Originally posted by Jerrek
Not really. The United States actually behaves quite nicely.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/

You read this and tell me the U.S. is behaving nicely...more than 100 wars in the past 100 years. -not all with troops, but with spies, assasinations, stolen elections and puppet leaders.
-kinda like the USSR used to do it- :)

What kind of opium state-of-retardation are you waking up from Jerrek? Why don't you bother to learn to read before writting shit?

P.S.
No offense, but since you are such a jerk with every one else, I guess I could do the same to you when proving you are wrong... again :rolleyes

would it be better without those wars?

I don't think the people of South Korea would agree with you

When you will be able to explain to me how mozambique, congo, Chilie, vietnam, Sierra Leone, Panama, the Balkans, Libya, Zaire, Cambodia, Guatemala and Haiti ever benefited with U.S. intervention I'll consider the South Korean fluke... which materialized for no other reason than to "fight communism", not to altruistically help others- no matter their beliefs.

P.S.
Tell me what those wars ever accomplished other than U.S. supremacy and you'll have the answer to your own question concerning their necessity.

Korea was a UN police action rather than a US war, both in name and deed (as shown by both how many other nations sent troops and equipment to Korea, and by how the US had it's ass handed to it in the inital phase of the war before the rest of the UN troops arrived).

Jerrek,
the radical left are responsible for millions and millions of deaths (Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, etc.)

The comparisons with Hitler and Stalin are completely out of context. As you say it yourself, these are 'radical' examples and have as little to do with modern mainstream left wing parties as a star going nova has to do with a lightbulb. So what use is it to bring these extreme examples into this discussion?

SuperFudd,
If your life has turned to shit, blame your self, not society.
There are many possiblities that can totally ruin my life, which are completely beyond my control. Being run over by a drunken driver, getting shot during a robbery in the post office, developing cancer, my life savings being destroyed by bad investment management of my bank, my house being flooded by failing pumps and drainage, a gasleak in my building and so on...

Jerrek will probably refer to these incidents as exceptions to the general rule. I on the other hand would state that in general the people who are in need of benefits did had to cope with some problems which were beyond their capacities to overcome.

The point of a left-oriented government is to make sure that these people who are put in a miserable situation, regardless of their own efforts and wishes, will be put on their feet again by government benefits. I'd say an honourable goal... and i for one am willing to pay quite an amount of tax for it.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Korea was a UN police action rather than a US war, both in name and deed (as shown by both how many other nations sent troops and equipment to Korea, and by how the US had it's ass handed to it in the inital phase of the war before the rest of the UN troops arrived).

I see :m:

Mouse,

That is what families are for.

Originally posted by SuperFudd
That is what families are for.

What are you a royalist? The value of one's family is a thing of the past. If you are without education or a penny, chances are your parents were just like you. So let the poor families help the poor and the rich families help the rich?
You most likely didn't mean what you said, so I will leave it at that.

---------------

Nota Bene:
-While the Left and the Right may have many connotations I apply them in a particualr definition:

Right: Democracy - Liberalism \\\\\ Socialism - Communism :Left.


What went wrong with the leftist governements we have encountered in the past century is very simple.

What lead to their demise is not the fact that the government acts as a regulator which seeks to eliminate extremes within the social classes.
(by implementing : social aid, free education, free healthcare, employment insurence)

What corrupted the left was the fact that the government incarnated the will of the people in a much more drastic way than that of democracies.
In a democracy, we at least have concept of 'representation' -be it true or false that Havard law graduates really represent all of us is another question- and by this representation there is an implicit notion that the people can express itself in a dialog with the State.

On the other hand, radical leftists believe that the State IS the people. Thus all that oppose the State oppose the people.
In such a system there are no implicit barriers that seperate the State from the Social (the people)... they are both one.
This opens the door to totalitarianism, although not a bad in itself, it can still lead to devastating results, since the leaders have unlimited powers and the people don't have the necessary 'handbrake' to stop any excesses.
(ex.: Leader of N. Korea bought 200 mercedes with money from the U.N. ... he has absolute power and nobody to prevent these flamboyant excesses of power)

My thought is that we are yet to see a moderate leftist governement.
It is all too clear that the USSR, China, N. Korea and many other communist countries are not respecting the same ideals they are themselves defending. At the same time they defend socialist values, they do so to an extreme that actually erradicates the very reasons why we wanted the social values in the first place:
to help the individual ! To make him perfectly equal to his fellow citizen. To create a state where all our free since all can expect the same from their society and government in the domains of housing, employment and education.

The USSR couldn't realize these ideals for it was too busy wasting all of its ressources in the Cold war up to bankruptcy. China and its neighbors have never really promoted the ideals of leftist politics, only that of dictatorship and the police state.
Cuba is the closest thing to an honest communist government we could of had... but the U.S.\world embargo sealed its economical fate from the beginning.

History has only given us radical forms of leftist government.
The closest thing to a moderate leftist country is Canada.

-Free health care - That's right: Everyone!
-Free education (ok, education a the university level costs, but its a fraction of the price that you could expect in the U.S.)

And guess what, our prime minister hasn't declared an emergency police state and we are still allowed to vote!!!! :) We don't eat from drain extensions and we have toilets that flush :D Litteracy is high and we are nowhere to be found on amnesty international's most dispicable countries list. ::cool: Yes we get taxed, but at least I don't have to get a 3rd morguage on the house to buy medical supplies.

So I guess that moderate socialism does have many bright sides to it. And I think that it is pretty naive to believe that democracy is the fail-safe plan to injustice and dictatorship.

Illustration? --->
As long as a democratic government doesn't piss off too many people at the same time, they can pretty much do anything they want because they know YOU have much more to lose than to win by putting yourself in harms way.
I mean, you have a car and house payment to make and a job to hold. You can't miss 3 days of work to protest illegal nuclear weapons testing or World famine with Greenpeace and risk getting arrested.. then fired and losing all the neat stuff you bought and your pretty wife and kids that think you are somekind of renegade for going against the system...

Now compare yourself to the Chinaman that already has nothing to lose... that government better keep him uneducated, out of touch and watched. Because the second you give him a chance.. he will fight back. (unless a century of oppression got the best of him)

All this gabble-gabble said, just wanted you to question yourself:
"To what point am I really free?"
Sure you COULD fight the system, but is the system going to accept your criticism or make it hard for you? Are you really fighting for what you believe(everyone should eat 3 times a day) or just for what you know (people are starving even in my country)?

Nutshell:

-Leftist government are not intrinsically bad just like the right isn't intrinsically good.
-Their are oppressive dictatorships and 'soft' dictatorships.
-The best way to manipulate a country, is to make it believe that it is free.
-The leftist's definition of equality is litteral and not only relevant to individualistic opportunism.
-The leftists will never consider themselves free as long as they have to fight for the basic necessities of life.

Prisme

So are we going to hear a response from Jerrek?

Later tonight when I have some time.

hey jerrek ,don´t waste your time ;)
you should rather search for some bad news about germany and france :D

but anyway it was still a right wing, because nazism is for the traditional economic traditions to remain, socialism is about destroying them. I don't know where you got that from, but that isn't what the dictionary say about socialism.

The few nacionalised banks don't mean anything What an incredible argument.

socialism it's a whole another thing. In nazism the competition remains even if it is one governmental factory against another I didn't say that naziism equates socialism, did I? Sure, there are fundamental differences, but when it comes down to basics, both are left.

Same was with Hitler - national socialism was very very popular back then. In reality the party was right wing. No no no, how about you actually prove your statement with some facts? I'm serious. Bring some facts to the table.

We've not had a left-wing government in thirty years. I think we have some issues here with definitions. The Irish government is about as liberal as they come. If you want to see what I consider moderately right, look at Republicans. They are still a bit too left for me.

It did threaten to provide an international court to hear cases on international law and provide a civilised means of dealing with the Saddams and Milosoviches of this world. And because the U.S. decided not to join it can't operate because there are no Saddams and Milosoviches left except in the United States. :rolleyes:

The UN get command of all troops from all nations that act as UN peacekeepers. That's how it works. Oh really, well, when I enlist I don't want to be under the U.N. and I support my government in that position. If the U.N. wants to have an army, create one. It is a free world.

Since all nations have a voice in the UN, that's acceptable. Except, of course, the Republic of China. They have no voice.

And should it be proven that he has broken the Geneva convention deliberately, are you sure you want to protect his reputation, when your own code of military justice calls for his incarceration or execution? That will be decided in a U.S. court of justice.

And if you have to ask why a human rights commission would protest the death penalty, you have a large amount of reading to do, starting with the reports on the number of cases in the US where an inmate convicted and sentenced to death was found to be innocent and convicted due to a poor defence caused by his inability to hire the best lawyer, or due to a witness perjuring themselves, or due to faulty forensic evidence, or whatever. You competely and utterly avoided answering the question. If they are not supposed to give a damn about domestic issues, why are they pressing the U.S. to abolish the death penalty?

National socialism isn't socialism, lmao. This is such a great quote.

He didn't create medicare, as that's a uniquely american thing (it's a trademark as I recall), You recall wrong. I don't remember the exact word, but Hitler started the whole idea. Kranken-something.

and nationalizing banks is the first step in creating a centralised economy - which is left-wing economic theory, Great, so you agree with me. Now throw in the other industries Hitler nationalized and you have yourself a very leftist government.

And are you seriously going to sit there and argue that Hitler was left-wing? Yes. Have you read Ayn Rand?

You are bringing in a two dimensional scale. That is fine, but that isn't what we were talking about. We were on a one dimensional line. On that line, fascism and naziism and communism lies on the LEFT side of the spectrum because they support BIG governments and lots of control over the citizens.

You read this and tell me the U.S. is behaving nicely...more than 100 wars in the past 100 years. Open the police records of your local police station and tell me how many acts of violence they had in the past 100 years.

Korea was a UN police action rather than a US war, both in name and deed lmao.

The point of a left-oriented government is to make sure that these people who are put in a miserable situation, regardless of their own efforts and wishes, will be put on their feet again by government benefits. Well then, in such a society I will refuse to work and let other people work to feed me and buy me vacations. Awesome.

The value of one's family is a thing of the past. Maybe to you, but not to a lot of people.

I don't know where you got that from, but that isn't what the dictionary say about socialism.
was told so at politology courses at Latvian University

So if Nazism is for "because nazism is for the traditional economic traditions to remain," why did Hitler nationalize most industries? Why did he completely and utterly change the way the economy works? That doesn't seem very traditional to me...

he didn't nationalize small trade
and the companies were still working for the profit not because of the production numbers and workplaces - two things that are not socialism

to be socialism all free trade must be nationalized (like it was in USSR)
the government indeed did have control over the biggest companies, but it didn't intefrere in the money getting process - just the company policy
profiting was left for economists not polititians making political decisions

Originally posted by Jerrek
If you want to see what I consider moderately right, look at Republicans. They are still a bit too left for me.
Thats funny, given your assertion that the Nazis are left-wing. Republicans had well documented ties to the Nazi's prior to the US entering the second world war.

Originally posted by Jerrek
You are bringing in a two dimensional scale. That is fine, but that isn't what we were talking about. We were on a one dimensional line. On that line, fascism and naziism and communism lies on the LEFT side of the spectrum because they support BIG governments and lots of control over the citizens.

The size of the government isn't the issue. Its how the government is run and what it does. The left values democracy, human rights, and equitable distribution of wealth. The right favors capitalism, which in practice leads to plutocracy, human rights for a select few, and a high concentration of wealth among a small elite.

The whole argument that leftists want to take away people hard earned money is ridiculous. The government defines property and sets the rules regarding it. In the same way that the government says that I can't go into your house and take your stuff, it says that you must give a certain amount of money for the common good. That money is not yours anymore if the government says it isn't.
Thats the way its going to be with any government. Without a government you have anarchy, and there is no property.

OK, I have to modify my point of view (yes it can happen...). I said that Hitler was totally right-wing but it's more complicated. Jerrek is right (Arghh !) when he says that Hitler is left-wing because he supports BIG governments and lots of control over the citizens. That's a left-wing behaviour... However, he is right-wing when we follow the the other part of its behaviour : xenophobia and nationalism (the main characteristics of the extreme-right-hand side in Europe).

Firstly Jerrek, how about you make it clear whose quotes you're replying to?
Originally posted by Jerrek
No no no, how about you actually prove your statement with some facts? I'm serious. Bring some facts to the table.
*cough*
Pot, meet kettle.

I think we have some issues here with definitions. The Irish government is about as liberal as they come. If you want to see what I consider moderately right, look at Republicans. They are still a bit too left for me.
Actually, we have a problem here with your lack of knowlege. The irish government is right-wing. How do I know? Because I live here.

And because the U.S. decided not to join it can't operate because there are no Saddams and Milosoviches left except in the United States. :rolleyes:
Actually, the ICC is operational right now. It's just that the US is busily trying to undermine it instead of supporting it actively, as it should be if your government's statements on their beliefs in international security and justice were genuine.

Oh really, well, when I enlist I don't want to be under the U.N. and I support my government in that position.
Perhaps you just didn't understand. You - that is You, Jerrek - have to volunteer to serve in the UN. It's not your government's decision. However, I'm fairly sure that if you enlisted and were ordered to join the peacekeepers that you wouldn't be entitled to refuse without some serious penalties.

If the U.N. wants to have an army, create one. It is a free world.
No, it isn't, in point of fact. And the UN can't create an army, that's part of the idea of the UN. It is not a world government. (This is the fourth or fifth time I've told you this, why doesn't it sink in?)

Except, of course, the Republic of China. They have no voice.Yes they do. Ambassador Wang Yingfan, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations. Or are you talking about Taiwan? (You should be more clear really...) And the situation with Taiwan is more complicated than you'd like Jerrek, there's actually more than one factor involved. Look at it like this - Taiwan feels about China like Palestine feels about the US...

That will be decided in a U.S. court of justice.Actually, it won't be, it would be decided in a US Military court.

You competely and utterly avoided answering the question.
No I didn't, I answered it directly and succinctly. You chose however, to misrepresent the situation as follows:
If they are not supposed to give a damn about domestic issues, why are they pressing the U.S. to abolish the death penalty?See, they're not "pressing" the US. "Pressing" implies that they (and by they I mean the UN Human Rights commission) have sanctions that they can apply. Which they don't. What they have done is "call" on the US to abolish the death penalty. And they haven't just called on the US to do so, they've called on each and every nation in the world that supports the death penalty to abolish it. The question therefore, is not why should they call on the US to abolish it, but why shouldn't they?

lmao. This is such a great quote.
Yes it is. It's short, to the point, accurate and right, and it refutes your point.

You recall wrong. I don't remember the exact word, but Hitler started the whole idea. Kranken-something.
No he didn't. Why am I explaining the history of your country to you?
http://cms.hhs.gov/about/history/ssachr.asp
As to the german influence, kameralist was Bismarks idea, not Hitlers.

Great, so you agree with me.'Fraid not.

Now throw in the other industries Hitler nationalized and you have yourself a very leftist government.No you don't. You have a very Authoritarian (and nearly totalitarian) government.

You are bringing in a two dimensional scale. That is fine, but that isn't what we were talking about. We were on a one dimensional line. On that line, fascism and naziism and communism lies on the LEFT side of the spectrum because they support BIG governments and lots of control over the citizens.
You are incorrect. Left and Right refer to economic policies - from a free market and pure capitalism on the far right to a controlled market and pure communism on the far left. While leglislation and economic policy are linked, they are not tightly coupled. Government policy ranges from Liberal (where the individual's rights outweight that of the state) to Authoritarian (where the state's rights outweigh the individuals).
You, however, seem to think that your position on one axis dictates your position on the other - in fact the two are rather independent. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others were Authoritarian. From the viewpoint of your day-to-day life, the Authoritarian-Liberal axis is the more important one.

Open the police records of your local police station and tell me how many acts of violence they had in the past 100 years.
I can ask them how many cases they've had of police officers being prosecuted in open court for crimes committed. I'll get a positive number. Can't say the same for the US government.

lmao.
This is why I said "Pot, meet Kettle" up above. It's well known what happened in the Korean war. And the evidence and history supports my summary, not yours.

Well then, in such a society I will refuse to work and let other people work to feed me and buy me vacations. Awesome.
Won't work, you'll starve. Remember what was said : "people who are put in a miserable situation, regardless of their own efforts and wishes" - not people that decide that they'd rather not work.

Maybe to you, but not to a lot of people.
Methinks you're misunderstanding what he said, which was that it's not who you know, it's what you know. That is, after all, the Republican's mantra, isn't it?

Seems like my post has either shown itself to be ironclad or simply too moderate to piss off the anarchists in this thread.

Prisme,
Well you said Canada was a nice place to live - that's not an argument, it's a truism :)

But I still think you're wrong to assume that the left/right axis is anything other than economic in nature.

I would like to believe that Canada is a cool place to live is the only thing that was remembered from my post.

I would also like to add that I talked about the implicit nature of left and right forms of governement as incarnated by democracies and socialist countries we know.... which I would of expected a flamboyant and unrespectuful response by Jerrek.

I agree that the economic perspective of a governement will most likely influence their actions accross the board, but I believe that political perspective is also:

-Anthopological: a precise definition of what is man
-Social: what is the nature of the structures that hold the individuals together
-Cultural: what are the vales that dictate appropriate behavior


Example concerning the vision of mankind (anthropological):

Republicanism:
They have a vision of mankind as that of Hobbes:

Man must be subdued into being good by a centralized power by the means of laws that dictate what is just.
Hobbes conceived man as intrinsically evil and this is why man needs the forcefullness of his surroundings to correct him.

Liberalism:
They have a vision of manking like that of Rousseau:

Man is intrinsically good. This is why we do not necessitate a coercive governement, for the individual will strive towards what is just by himself. In addition, it is when man is taken hostage by his surroundings that he loses his truest sense of himself: being free and excercising his own innate goodness.

on the other hand Capitalism and Socialism do have a more economical perspective:

Cap: The market must be free

Soc: The market must be controlled

but I think that both systems, by choosing opposite methods, also have implicit definitions of mankind and the way he ought to live.

ex.:
Capitalism relies on the fact that people are independant and competitive.
(which results in those that have and does that do not have)

Socialism perceives that people are more interdependant and all strive towards the same basic goals.
(which results in everyone having his equal share)


I think that if we dig deep enough, economical systems always hide a description of what man is or should be, as in politics or cultural values.

Prisme

-Always a pleasure sparks.

The dictionary definition of left and right supports my definition. The size of the goverment has NOTHING to do with it.
From the OED:
left-

In continental legislatures. The section of the members who occupy seats on the left side of the chamber(as viewed from the president's chair) a situation which is by custom assigned to those holding relatively liberal or democratic opininons. Hence applied to the more advanced of innovating section of a philosophical school, a religious sect, or the like.

right-

In continental legislative chambers, the party or parties of conservative principles

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
left-

a. The people and groups who advocate liberal, often radical measures to effect change in the established order, especially in politics, usually to achieve the equality, freedom, and well-being of the common citizens of a state. Also called left wing.
b. The opinion of those advocating such measures.
right-

a. The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called right wing.
b. The opinion of those advocating such measures.


So basically, the right wing, being conservative wants to keep things the same or go backwords, and the left wing wants to enact change. Hitler and the Nazis were clearly a reactionary movement. They wanted to restore Germany to its former glory, and do so, in part, by getting rid of what they deemed the outside corrupting influence.
Stalin could also be viewed as right wing by this definition as his actions were meant to maintain the status quo, although the status quo in this case was created by leftists, like Lenin, who wanted to and did enact change.


Communism and Capitalism are problematic for the standard right/left dichotomy as they are both, on the surface, relatively new and innovative things. However capitalism is really a new name for an old situation. Monarchys can be viewed as capitalist as their rule was essentially inherited capital. Some time in the distant past the ancestors of the king managed to seize a bunch of land and wealth and get followers to protect it. The current king inherited this wealth. Today under capitalism, although the government is allegedly a democracy, we have individuals who, like the monarchs of the past, have an ancestor who found a way to seize a great deal of wealth which has been passed down from generation to generation, along with the power it wiedls over the alledged democracy.
So it seems to me, that capitalism is clearly a right wing ideology.

OK, I have to modify my point of view (yes it can happen...). I said that Hitler was totally right-wing but it's more complicated. Jerrek is right (Arghh !) when he says that Hitler is left-wing because he supports BIG governments and lots of control over the citizens. That's a left-wing behaviour... However, he is right-wing when we follow the the other part of its behaviour : xenophobia and nationalism (the main characteristics of the extreme-right-hand side in Europe). Great. :) You don't have to agree with me, but if more people would *think* like you appear to have done we would see some light here.

Firstly Jerrek, how about you make it clear whose quotes you're replying to? Well that is a lot of work. :/

The irish government is right-wing. How do I know? Because I live here. On a relative scale, what appears to you as right appears to me as quite left. What appears to you as left appears to me as alarmingly close to communism/fascism.

It's just that the US is busily trying to undermine it instead of supporting it actively, as it should be if your government's statements on their beliefs in international security and justice were genuine. So you're saying that for an international organization to be successful it needs the full and unilateral support of the United States? Because if the U.S. does not support it, it automatically tries to undermine it and the rest of the world is then so helpless they can't stop it? OK that is brilliant.

And the UN can't create an army, that's part of the idea of the UN. It is not a world government. (This is the fourth or fifth time I've told you this, why doesn't it sink in?) It doesn't need to be a government to own an army.

Yes they do. Ambassador Wang Yingfan, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations. Or are you talking about Taiwan? (You should be more clear really...) I thought I was quite clear when I said Republic of China. Quite different from the People's Republic of China. Don't confuse the two. My apologies if I assumed you have a high level of education when you don't.

And the situation with Taiwan is more complicated than you'd like Jerrek, there's actually more than one factor involved. Look at it like this - Taiwan feels about China like Palestine feels about the US... So do you support giving Taiwan a seat or not?

Actually, it won't be, it would be decided in a US Military court. Got me there. Agreed.

"Pressing" implies that they (and by they I mean the UN Human Rights commission) have sanctions that they can apply. I'm sorry, I don't agree with you there.

The question therefore, is not why should they call on the US to abolish it, but why shouldn't they? Maybe, as you so clearly stated, that the U.N. has no business with domestic affairs.

No he didn't. Why am I explaining the history of your country to you?
http://cms.hhs.gov/about/history/ssachr.asp
As to the german influence, kameralist was Bismarks idea, not Hitlers. I'm going to get back to you on this one.

Left and Right refer to economic policies We are not going to agree here.

Liberal (where the individual's rights outweight that of the state) Which is why liberal government makes great advancements for the protection of the second Amendment which gives citizens the right to own firearms.

Won't work, you'll starve. Remember what was said : "people who are put in a miserable situation, regardless of their own efforts and wishes" - not people that decide that they'd rather not work. Thats nice. It is also quite uninforcable. Because seeing where welfare money goes to here in Toronto, well, it goes to people that are simply lazy for most part.

It (the U.N.)doesn't need to be a government to own an army.

Pointless remark. The U.N. has no army period. It only has contributed manpower by other participating members.

Because seeing where welfare money goes to here in Toronto, well, it goes to people that are simply lazy for most part.

Nice stereotype of poor people. Can you give us your stereotype for the rich now?

Something in the line of rich jews that speculate on wall street and hardly lift a finger all day and own half of manhattan? Or is your vision of rich people more favorable and pure?

Thats nice. It is also quite uninforcable. Because seeing where welfare money goes to here in Toronto, well, it goes to people that are simply lazy for most part.
Statistics please? Even if assuming that this is true, stating that something is uninforcable, because it does not work in Toronto is not really a strong argument.

I'd grant you that no welfare system is without possibilities of abuse, but neither is any judicial system or any system dealing with humans for that matter. This, however, does not necessarily imply that we are far better off without them.

Jerrek,
Well that is a lot of work.No it isn't.
On a relative scale, what appears to you as right appears to me as quite left. What appears to you as left appears to me as alarmingly close to communism/fascism.Actually, most Irish political groups are conservative, and vary only slightly left and right. However, their mean position is right-wing. Mention relative scales as much as you want, the fact is that the Irish government parties, with only one or two minor exceptions, are moderate right-wing parties.
So you're saying that for an international organization to be successful it needs the full and unilateral support of the United States?No I'm not, don't be asinine. I'm saying that the ICC is what the US has stated publicly that it wants to see for decades - and now that it's finally here, they're working hard on undermining it, which means resources must be diverted to counter that - which slows down the progress of the court.
It doesn't need to be a government to own an army.Yes it does, that's part of the definition of a government and a legitimate army.
I thought I was quite clear when I said Republic of China.Nope, you weren't. I might recognise it (as you can tell from the post :rolleyes: ), but it's by no means clear communications.
So do you support giving Taiwan a seat or not?Yes, as it happens. Problem is that this is a situation analogous to the Israel/Palestine problem.
I'm sorry, I don't agree with you there.Those are the facts. Your belief is not required to validate them.
Maybe, as you so clearly stated, that the U.N. has no business with domestic affairs.That's not what I so clearly stated. I clearly stated that the UN is prohibited from interfering in domestic affairs of member nations - the Charter doesn't impose a gag order on the UN with regard to the domestic affairs of member nations. That is why the Human Rights groups have called on the US, as opposed to pressing the US on the topic.
We are not going to agree here.We should - the two-axis system allows for a more complete picture of a government.
Which is why liberal government makes great advancements for the protection of the second Amendment which gives citizens the right to own firearms.That's why they should - but again, this depends on how liberal a government is.
Thats nice. It is also quite uninforcable. Because seeing where welfare money goes to here in Toronto, well, it goes to people that are simply lazy for most part.Technically, a law prohibiting murder is nice but unenforcable - all it can do is sanction those that break that law and get caught. That's the rub with all legal systems - they can be abused. However, the scale of welfare fraud is normally heavily over-estimated by opponents of the welfare system, usually without any proof bar anecdotal proof without a meaningful analysis.

Pointless remark. The U.N. has no army period. It only has contributed manpower by other participating members.But we were not discussing what it had, buckwheat. We were discussing why it shouldn't create an army for itself.

Something in the line of rich jews that speculate on wall street and hardly lift a finger all day and own half of manhattan? Or is your vision of rich people more favorable and pure? Are you anti-Jewish? Do you hate Jews?

Statistics please? Even if assuming that this is true, stating that something is uninforcable, because it does not work in Toronto is not really a strong argument.

I'd grant you that no welfare system is without possibilities of abuse, but neither is any judicial system or any system dealing with humans for that matter. This, however, does not necessarily imply that we are far better off without them A year or so ago a reporter for the Toronto Star went "undercover" and became a "homeless" person. He made a few interesting observations. First, after getting to know the other people, he found out exactly where and when to be for free food (usually from churches) and for free lodging. People would come around to offer them jobs, such as handing out flyers, for minimum wage. Guess what? They refused because they could make more money sitting on the corner of a street begging.

I do admit that there are cases where welfare is needed, but this lavish welfare system that we have with paid vacations for the homeless (yes, that was in the newspaper to) is ridiculous. Cut the taxes and offer incentives to the people to donate to private charities. I see no reason for the government to be doing what it is doing. Government doesn't solve problems, it subsidizes them.

I'm saying that the ICC is what the US has stated publicly that it wants to see for decades Citations please? Or a bit of history?

- and now that it's finally here, they're working hard on undermining it, which means resources must be diverted to counter that - which slows down the progress of the court. The ICC doesn't exactly have a good track record.

Nope, you weren't. I might recognise it (as you can tell from the post ), but it's by no means clear communications. Then you might want to practice your reading skills, because I very clearly stated Republic of China.

Those are the facts. Your belief is not required to validate them. Well, those "facts" you presented may be "facts" to you, but we won't be able to convince each other otherwise. Moot point.

That is why the Human Rights groups have called on the US, as opposed to pressing the US on the topic. It seems that to you anything short of sanctions and threatening to assassinate the president is "called," and not "pressed." I look at it differently though.

Jerrek :Are you anti-Jewish? Do you hate Jews?

I just love it when people that pretend to be intelligent hide behind social taboos in order to avoid answering a question.

(Answer :I don't seem to hate them as much as you hate poor people... does that make you an ethnic cleanser Jerrek?)--- sorry, stooped to your level of rhetoric.

So now explain to me how you came to the conclusion that I hate poor people. Is it because I don't want the *government* to take my money and give it to people that refuse to work?

They refused because they could make more money sitting on the corner of a street begging. Proving the need for improvement of the system, not it's abandonment.
Citations please? Or a bit of history?
Excuse my moment of mirth - but are you, Jerrek, actually trying to criticise an argument because of a lack of citations? :)
Very well, try some history :
Neuremberg. The UN. The Geneva Conventions. All instances where the US signed up and ratified, or acted, to promote the idea of justice on an international level.
The ICC doesn't exactly have a good track record.
In point of fact, the ICC has encountered so much US opposition, that it has only finally started operating in the last few weeks. So technically, it has a clean slate, not a bad track record.
Then you might want to practice your reading skills, because I very clearly stated Republic of China.You've in the past managed to very clearly state things with pretty serious grammatical and spelling errors too. So far, I've managed to understand your posts - but not without a margin of error that I have to suspect is deliberately created.
Well, those "facts" you presented may be "facts" to you, but we won't be able to convince each other otherwise. Moot point.Not a moot point. The facts are a matter of public record, and to found a discussion in ignorance or denial of them is a waste of time.
It seems that to you anything short of sanctions and threatening to assassinate the president is "called," and not "pressed." I look at it differently though.Anything short of sanctions is "called on" - by definition.

Jerrek,

People would come around to offer them jobs, such as handing out flyers, for minimum wage. Guess what? They refused because they could make more money sitting on the corner of a street begging.
With the same success, i can refer to a rather successfull reintegration program providing jobs for homeless people in Rotterdam. The failure (or success) of one program is not a solid case against (or in favor of) a broader concept.


I do admit that there are cases where welfare is needed, but this lavish welfare system that we have with paid vacations for the homeless (yes, that was in the newspaper to) is ridiculous.
Define vacations. A trip to the nearest farm or a luxury cruise? However, i agree that this money could have been better spent on e.g. educational programs or rehab centers.

Cut the taxes and offer incentives to the people to donate to private charities.
Basically, you are taking the responsibility for ensuring basic welfare away from the government and you put it on the shoulders of the busy but wealthy citizen to arrange and fund charities. My point is: let the wealthy do what they are good in - accumulating wealth. Take a bit away from that, yet certainly not that much that would kill every incentive to work, to give the government the means of this dreary, complex but necessary task of keeping people alive.

Government doesn't solve problems, it subsidizes them.
You'd be in a favor of a country without a government?

Not quite. Government is a necesssary evil. I believe in a very, very minimal government.

Take a bit away from that And what do you define as a bit? 50%? 40%? Because I classify a bit as like 10%.

Define vacations. In Vancouver, it included a cruise to the nearest island + paid accomodations.

Basically, you are taking the responsibility for ensuring basic welfare away from the government and you put it on the shoulders of the busy but wealthy citizen to arrange and fund charities. You're almost there, but not quite. The wealthy don't run everything as you make it out to be. There are lots of good charitable groups that can do a better group than the government.

Not quite. Government is a necesssary evil. I believe in a very, very minimal government.There are better alternatives. Take the swiss system, for example. Their society shows that there are significant benefits to a well-run government.
And what do you define as a bit? 50%? 40%? Because I classify a bit as like 10%.Try 20% to 40%, which is the mean range for most civilised countries.
In Vancouver, it included a cruise to the nearest island + paid accomodations.And you cannot see the value in morale for someone who's trying to get their life back together? (That is, after all, the function of such a program).
You're almost there, but not quite. The wealthy don't run everything as you make it out to be. There are lots of good charitable groups that can do a better group than the government.Actually, he's correct - you're taking what should be the responsibility of the state and putting it into the hands of private individuals. There are several reasons for that to be a bad idea.

There are better alternatives. Take the swiss system, for example. Their society shows that there are significant benefits to a well-run government. Like what? Of course, if we go with the Swiss system, every family will be owning several guns.

Try 20% to 40%, which is the mean range for most civilised countries. That is nearly half. If I go to my mom and tell her I'm going to take a bit of the cake and then proceeds to take 40% of it, do you think she will agree?

And you cannot see the value in morale for someone who's trying to get their life back together? (That is, after all, the function of such a program). Absolutely NOT. You can feed several hundred other people and single moms with children. Should they starve so that the other can go on paid vacations?

There are several reasons for that to be a bad idea.None of which you are listing.

Jerrek,
Like what?Hmmm. I don't know what would be the best feature - actual effective control of your government (something that no other country in the world has bar Sealand, which is so small everyone is in the government); one of the best standards of living of any country in the world; neutrality that cannot be overridden at the whim of a one-term leader; the ability to control every aspect of your life in a democratic fashion; or just the great scenery and chocolate :)

Of course, if we go with the Swiss system, every family will be owning several guns.Indeed, a fact I would have no problem with whatsoever. In point of fact, the average swiss household doesn't just have a gun stored, it has a fully automatic assault rifle (like a G36 or a Sig-552) or a machine pistol stored. And yet they have a lower per capita level of gun crime than any state in the US. The difference is that you cannot go and just buy a gun - everyone that has one has been trained in it's use.

That is nearly half.What was it that you said, "I've almost got a BA in mathematics"??? It's more accurate to say it's almost a third, since I said from 20% to 40%. Mean = 30%, just shy of a third. It's a small point, I know, but details are what make the difference.

If I go to my mom and tell her I'm going to take a bit of the cake and then proceeds to take 40% of it, do you think she will agree?40% of something is a bit of that something. Hell, 90% of that something is still a bit of it - just a bigger bit. And to give your analogy some accuracy, it's more like you saying "Mom, I'm taking a third of this cake, but in return, I'm doing the chores, arranging for the gas and electricity and burgular alarm and I'll show you how to use the VCR I've brought home." (The taxes you pay are used for police, education, healthcare, social security, road building and maintainance, research and development that companies could not afford to pursue due to their lack of direct profitability (and Japan is a good example of why that research cannot be done privately), and other services that are needed for a humane society, and which no company could make a profit from. That's basic civics Jerrek.

Absolutely NOT. You can feed several hundred other people and single moms with children. Should they starve so that the other can go on paid vacations?Of course not, don't be asinine. Funding has priorities - but if basic needs are met, the next step is to take action to eliminate the problem by actually getting people back to useful work. Morale is important to that process.

None of which you are listing.*sigh* I would have thought a few seconds of thought would have given you a shortlist. Here you go:
- Social problems like unemployment are problems for all of society - and therefore all of society should share the burden. That's most effectively done through taxation, which avoids the cycles of what's "fashionable" to donate to - or just plain greed.
- A state-run body is under the control of all the citizens of the state (though in a representative democracy that's a rather indirect control). Therefore, abuses in the system can be eliminated. In a private system, abuses (for example, discrimination on a racial basis) could not be reasonably leglislated against. ("You want to arrest me if I don't help *everyone*? Fine, I quit")
- The existance of state support does not preclude the existance of private charities as a supplemental mechanism.
- The state benefits from productive members of society, and therefore has a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that those members unable, for reasons that are not in their control, to secure employment, have a support mechanism in place so they can regain employment as rapidly as possible.
- When you're down and out, it's damn hard to get back on your feet without help. So if there's no help, why not break the law - what have you to lose? Get arrested, get jailed, get fed and housed (possibly a better situation than you were in). That's how desperate it is. When you live in a state, follow it's laws despite the cost to yourself, pay taxes, and generally act as a citizen - there's an implied contract with the state. You're not entitled to a free living - but you are due a measure of care from that state. That's the difference between a civilised country and an uncivilised one.

actual effective control of your government Um yeah. Our government isn't accountable enough to the people. :/ You won't hear me argue there.

neutrality that cannot be overridden at the whim of a one-term leaderIf we become neutral, the rest of the world would scream "isolationists!!!!!!"

the ability to control every aspect of your life in a democratic fashionWell I'm not interested in that. We're a republic for a good reason, not a democracy.

And yet they have a lower per capita level of gun crime than any state in the US. Even Alaska and Hawaii?

Don't forget, Switzerland is also fairly homogeneous.

What was it that you said, "I've almost got a BA in mathematics"??? It's more accurate to say it's almost a third, since I said from 20% to 40%. Mean = 30%, just shy of a third. It's a small point, I know, but details are what make the difference. The fact is, I don't want the government to take $3 of $10 that I earn. Hell, even $2 makes me cranky. They have no right to YOUR money.

That's basic civics Jerrek.They don't need to take 40% to do that. A lot of the stuff you're mentioning comes from OTHER taxes, not income tax. Gas tax goes to road building and maintenance. Healthcare can be done cheaper if privatized.

Social problems like unemployment are problems for all of society - and therefore all of society should share the burden. That's most effectively done through taxation, which avoids the cycles of what's "fashionable" to donate to - or just plain greed.What about those people that just *don't* want to work? And why is it that Europe, with its lavish social benefits, always has an unemployment rate considerably higher than that of the United States? Could it be that people simply are not that pressed to find work because they can leech of the government?

A state-run body is under the control of all the citizens of the state I don't see why this is an advantage.

Therefore, abuses in the system can be eliminated So by having a government run organization there will be no abuses? What?

for example, discrimination on a racial basis If that is the wish of the organization, it is their right. This is a free country with the freedom to association with whomever you want to. If I want to create a charity to specifically help black children get an education, that is MY RIGHT.

that those members unable, for reasons that are not in their control, to secure employment At the state has by far NOT the ability to effectively enforce that. A *lot* of people are simply leeching of the government money that should have gone elsewhere and could have helped someone else.


So how about letting people pay a base tax, and then give them an option to pay an extra 5% or 10% in income tax specifically aimed at welfare? Or if you don't like that, tell individuals that they either pay that 10% to the government, or specific charitable organizations (that is if you believe that people will not help other people voluntarily).

If we become neutral, the rest of the world would scream "isolationists!!!!!!"After the last few months? I seriously doubt it. Besides which, the US is too reliant on foreign trade to take an isolationist stance (which is different to a neutral stance).

Well I'm not interested in that. We're a republic for a good reason, not a democracy.So the ability to, for example, have a say in what your income tax can be as a maximum, just doesn't interest you?

Even Alaska and Hawaii?Yes, with a margin to spare.

Don't forget, Switzerland is also fairly homogeneous.That's not the determining factor though. And when you say homogenous, you are ignoring the fact that they sit on the borders of several larger countries with diverse cultures. Homogenous isn't the correct word.

The fact is, I don't want the government to take $3 of $10 that I earn. Hell, even $2 makes me cranky. They have no right to YOUR money.If that was true, you'd have no right to use the state's infrastructure, because you'd be stealing from US to use it. No roads, no rail, no electricity, nothing that comes from government research (computers, non-stick frying pans, surgical glue, aircraft, etc., etc.).

They don't need to take 40% to do that. A lot of the stuff you're mentioning comes from OTHER taxes, not income tax. Gas tax goes to road building and
maintenance. Healthcare can be done cheaper if privatized.Not with the same quality of life. And they don't need to take 40% from everyone, nor do those in the higher brackets just hand over 40% of everything. And recall, that 40% is the total tax we would pay - we don't pay some of the taxes you do, they're rolled into that 40%.

What about those people that just *don't* want to work?
Yup, that's a problem. But you'll find that those people are actually merely a well-publicised minority. Most of us find independence too attractive.

And why is it that Europe, with its lavish social benefits, always has an unemployment rate considerably higher than that of the United States? Could it be that people simply are not that pressed to find work because they can leech of the government?Actually, our unemployment is more comparable than you think, except in some countries in europe that have suffered serious economic collapse with the fall of the USSR. Germany's economic problems, for example, were a direct result of reunification. Smaller ex-USSR states are even more direly affected.
As to the figures on unemployment the US uses...
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/business/5962629.htm

I don't see why this is an advantage.It was listed at the end of the sentence. It may be your right to help a specific ethnic group, but such a patchwork system will let people slip through the gaps. That's why it's better to have a state system to catch everyone, not just the popular or fashionable.

At the state has by far NOT the ability to effectively enforce that. A *lot* of people are simply leeching of the government money that should have gone
elsewhere and could have helped someone else.If you can prove that with actual figures ("I know this guy..." stories are not acceptable), you can probably get the system changed for the better.

So how about letting people pay a base tax, and then give them an option to pay an extra 5% or 10% in income tax specifically aimed at welfare?
You answered that one yourself. ("Hell, even $2 makes me cranky.")
For some programs, that might make sense - except that those programs it might make sense for are those that should be private sector ones.

Or if you don't like that, tell individuals that they either pay that 10% to the government, or specific charitable organizationsThat would be a nightmare to implement without a totalitarian goverment monitoring your financial affairs.

(that is if you believe that people will not help other people voluntarily).I think we will one day evolve to a communist type of government Jerrek, but sadly it's a few centuries off at least...