Let's go through this point by point:
"While it may be true there are no physical sacrifices, there are numerous psychological and financial sacrifices that a man makes."
All of those sacrifices are carried by women, plus the danger and pain of child-birth. In most cases where only one parent is raising the child it is usually the woman, not the man.
"Having a child isn't easy for anyone. Not for the woman or the man. Then there's the adjustment of having a kid, and let's not forget the fact that the man may have mental problems (like bi-polar) which might make him unable to properly raise a kid.
Then there's the financial. If a woman has a child and the man leaves her, she can get child support from that man. What if the man is supporting his wife and can barely make it as it is. Having a kid will only amplify that and cause him to possibly work 80 hour weeks for years."
There is a huge amount of B.S. in that, especially the last sentence. Child support is proportional to the man's income; if a man makes minimum wage that will be factored into the child support payments affixed by the judge. The whole "80 hour weeks for years" thing is something wholly made up by you, I have no idea why you decided to make stuff up but I would suggest making it a little less obvious next time.
In fact, it is usually women who have to work extra hours on top of taking care of the kids because of father who skip out on their parental responsibilities.
Anyways, this whole argument seems to lean towards the man not wanting the child but the woman wanting it. Are you telling me you think men should be able to force women to have abortions?
No matter how unstable the man is; I don't think he should be able to force a woman to have an abortion simply because he implanted his sperm in her. He will have to pay child support if she decides to keep it; it was his choice to have sex with a woman unprotected.
However, men frequently dodge child support successfully (my own biological father did just that. He owes child support to my mother, the mother of my half-brother and who knows who else. He hasn't paid a cent in a decade).
"Of course there are other things as well. for instance, if the man is of faith, he may not want his future child to die. because the baby was made 50% from the man, shouldn't he at least have a say in what happens?"
Let's see, so because this "religious man" impregnated a woman who doesn't share his values this "religious man" gets to decide for the woman whether the child is to be born or not? Let's not even get started the irony of this occurring between two people not even married; but if they are married (which seems rather unlikely if they both share radically different religious views) it still doesn't give the man the right to take control over the woman's body.
The man has no say, he shouldn't have a say, and if his values are so different from the woman or girl he got pregnant he should look for another one.
What you and those on your side don't seem to recognize is that you cannot have two people having an equal say in a particular matter to begin with. There are only two outcomes in any decision-making process two people engage in: a total consensus or an equal split. A vote of 0 to 2 or 1 to 1.
What you want is two people having an equal vote but, if there is dissent, the man gets to be the tie-breaker. Essentially, this gives the man the say and the woman no say at all.
I don't understand why you don't see this; it is only one or the other, or the courts which get to decide. But in any case in which your policy gets implemented the woman is the one who gets her voice silences and her body taken away from her.
It's ridiculous, it really is.
That .13% is 31,000 women a YEAR. Over the course of ten years that is 310,000 women (larger than many cities in this country).
I guess if 31,000 women a year aren't important to you, that's your problem. The fact that 31,000 women a year die from pregnancy and a total of 0 men do also doesn't seem to matter to you. Oh well, no big deal, those women shouldn't have had sex if they didn't want their lives to be decided by men.
"i think, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnate... she should probably not have sex. especially with a dude who may not want her offing his spawn."
I don't see how this gives a man the right to decide her fate and essentially control her uterus. You could just as easily say that if the dude didn't want to have his fetus aborted he shouldn't have gotten a woman pregnant who didn't want children.
The only thing that tips the scales is the fact that 0.0% of men are at risk from birth and go through none of the inherent pain while .13% of women could die, all of them have to go through the massive pain of child birth, and all women have their health impacted in some way due to it.
You may be pro-abortion, but you are decidedly anti-woman.
There are some major problems with that line of thinking:
First of all, that whole situation would be unconstitutional. You would have to amend the constitution to give the power of denying abortions to the courts.
Secondly, you are now advocating the ability of both the man and the legal system to have power over a woman's body and her very life. That, in itself, is disturbing. Courts make mistakes all of the time; in this case there isn't even a crime being committed, why put a woman's life in hands other than her own?
Lastly, health complications can arise without notice, without warning, without foreknowledge. Birth is always risky, there are always mild impacts on women's health, but anything could happen that would endanger the woman's long-term health, well-being, and life. Complications could arise weeks before the birth, what then? Would you have this woman, while in the throws of late pregnancy and all of its problems, get her lawyer to petition to court for the ability to abort? What if it is too late to protect her? How long would it take for the court to decide?
But besides that, again, you've decided that the people who get to decide whether the woman's life is worth being put at risk is not the woman herself but her husband and male-dominated courts. That's rather oppressive, rather disturbing, and unbelievably simplistic and cold.
Could you explain what is wrong with a man being a militant feminist? I mean, I know that women being as powerful and violent as men would be the most terrible thing in the world. I know that women being equal would result in the forced emasculation of all men on earth, but honestly, what's wrong with me being for that?
I don't know why I "need a hug" when talking about other people standing up for their rights and against abuse. Your cliche'd response is rather underwhelming, your humor is dated by about twenty years.
I guess I could be equally cliche' and point out that you are nearly thirty and single; explaining your immature position (and your immaturity) as a result of your inability to land a female companion. That, of course, would be sinking to your level.
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I don't know what the joke is supposed to be here.
Am I supposed to be a woman angry at men who abused me?
A man who is angry at women who abused him?
A gay man angry at straight men abusing him so he encourages women to emasculate them for his own sick amusement? (I mean, this one is at least close to the truth, but I don't know if this was your intended meaning).
If you are going to crack jokes could you at least make a good one, one that makes a small amount of sense? I think that's a rather small request, really.
There are only two "says" possible: Either the man can voice his opinion and the women "has" to consider it, but the choice is ultimately up to her or the man has the final say and can veto the woman's choice to have an abortion.
Your choices, then, are two: The men has no real say or the man has control over a woman's uterus once she has been impregnated.
"There is so much testing available to ascertain whether or not the child will be born healthy it's truly amazing."
Be that as it may, what do you propose if the child should be discovered to have mental retardation, Cerebral Paulsey, Down Syndrome or a number of other debilitating diseases. What if the father still wants the child but the mother doesn't? Is there going to be a point system, who gets to make the final decision , a judge? One of the parents?
As for the danger to the mother; it isn't always known until the complications arise during the pregnancy that the mother's life is in danger. Sometimes it is too late to make the decision. sometimes death occurs after the birth has already taken place.
As of 2007 (I found some more statistics) one in every 4800 women in the United States die of complications resulting from pregnancy. That's over 31,000 women a year in the United States.
All you can offer pregnant women is a bland and optimistic view that everything is gonna be okay, things are so nice and easy, they aren't in much danger..etc..etc. You also have extremely vague ideas about who gets to decide things; you talk about the man "making a case", involving courts, having it "resolved between the two parties". Do you not realize you need to actually have a law in place for courts to decide on?
Unless the parents actually create some kind of contract where the woman must have the consent of the man or state law dictates that the man must also consent to the abortion there would be nothing for the courts to decide, it is her choice.
Do you have anything beyond vague ideas of what should happen and excuses about how "complicated" the issue is? Your whole "solution" is both redundant and provenly impossible to implement fully. It is basically the old child-support system plus the ability of the father to choose whether or not the child can be aborted. In other words, a flawed system plus further control of the woman to the man with an increased risk and responsibility to the woman.
It is even less fair than what we have now with our growing number of single women and their dead-beat child's fathers. I don't see how you can so glowingly advocate what would be a massive chain being wrapped around a woman's uterus, with a lock whose key is firmly held by a man.
And will you go to jail for manslaughter if the pregnancy results in her death? What if there are health complications, are you responsible for that, will you be forced to pay-out?
Sweetheart, men, by law, must either raise the child with the mother or pay child support. The courts are too tied up to deal with this already existing legal obligation. Men constantly skip out on their duties; leave town, refuse to pay child support, and, sometimes, earn too little for it to even matter.
"My take on it is that the man should have a say and not be cut out of the loop simply because it's her body! It was also her body and her choice to take the risk of pregnancy."
Really now? Even if both consented to sex, the condom did not break or the birth control didn't work, how do you justify allowing the man to have control over the woman's body? Why does the man, who is under no risk from pregnancy and its many and possibly deadly complications, have equal say with regards to the birth?
Men do not go through any of the suffering and pain of child-birth, none of the danger, why are they allowed absolute power over the woman's body? In the end, the man has the power; if they both agree to abort or give birth it is fine, but if the woman does not want the child but the man does the man is the one who gets to make the decision.
Are you bloody kidding me? There is extreme pain, physical and mortal danger, and the ability (and likely-hood) of the man simply dropping his responsibilities and leaving the mother to raise the child.
Even if the man was serious about rearing the child; he is not going to go through the pain and danger of child-birth. The rate (2004) of "Maternal Mortality" (Death by pregnancy) is 13 out of 100,000 thousand. It isn't likely, but it is certainly a problem.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.
Even if the pregnancy didn't result in death there are a number of common and likely health impacts that range from near-term, long-term, and permanent damage.
Men, however, have a 0% chance of dieing as a direct result of pregnancy, there are no health risks, no physical sacrifices, nothing.
Men do not have a say; men do not get to control how women use their bodies; especially when the woman's life is at stake. Unless men are under the same risks the fact that they blissfully ejaculated into a woman does not entitle them to control over her uterus, her health, and in some cases her life.
"You're moving the goal post. You were asking why they hadn't had a productivity boom since the reforms, when they have."
Excuse me? I asked why their living standards hadn't risen above the Soviet levels; nor why they havn't risen as quickly and as sharply as the Soviet Union managed to do. It is strange that the Capitalist system hasn't been able to overcome most Soviet living standards even though the problems it has faced are minuscule in comparison with the Soviet dilemmas.
Increases in productivity do not translate directly into increases in living standards.
First off; you are taking the context of the data from Schroeder and Edwards paper and hurling it about randomly.
This statement is rather telling:
"It's pretty sad when a Soviet success is getting a few kids to grow fully."
First off; this is an indirect measurement of well-being; fully grown humans means well-fed, and well taken care of humans. It isn't as if Soviet technicians managed to tweak children into developing higher.
Secondly; you seem to not have read the paper properly, as you are taking some of what was written wildly out of context. Did you bother reading the conclusion section? Do you know how to read a scientific paper? Even though the conclusion technically agreed with you in principle, it undermines you (well, and itself, actually).
From the conclusion:
"Four different measures of population health show a
consistent and large improvement between approximately 1940 and 1969: child height, birth
weight, adult height and infant mortality all improved significantly during this period. These
four biological measures of the standard of living also corroborate the evidence of some
deterioration in living conditions beginning around 1970, when infant and adult mortality was
rising and child height and birth weight stopped increasing and in some regions began to decline.
The significant improvements in population well-being before 1970 may in part be
related to the expansion of the national health care system, public education, and improved
caloric and protein supply during this period. Moreover, these improvements occurred during a
period of rapid industrialization, indicating that the Soviet Union managed to avoid the decline in
adult stature that occurred in some other countries during their industrialization phases."
The paper gave as an example of one viewpoint the idea that child growth was in parity with the U.S. in some regions but its conclusion indicated the discrepancy was small and that child height merely stagnated (and in a few cases dropped) across the regions of the Soviet Union.
In other words: the Soviet system until 1969 nearly matched the U.S. (in a couple cases it matched it, and for certain periods of time). It also took the historically unprecedented path of increasing height during a period of industrialization. It, also, achieved this from a horribly backwards position and through major calamities.
For all its faults, and I admit there are plenty, it certainly wasn't as horrible as you hysterical partisans like to make it out to be. I can criticize the Soviet Union just as much as I can praise it, but I won't stand for hypocrisy, scapegoating, and exaggeration.
For one, there are some massive differences between the European Union and NAFTA:
1. The EU is a transnational government whose policies are enforced onto its constituent Republics.
2. The EU allows almost free mobilization of the populations within it. Immigration and Emigration are allowed freely.
3. NAFTA is a simple free-trade agreement; one policy. The EU is a government that produces policies.
4. The EU has a single currency; NAFTA does not unify currencies.
5. The EU acts as a socializing agency, it uses government money to fund programs, give grants, and aid economic development; NAFTA simply allows Capitalists free reign to invest and industrialize.
NAFTA is going to collapse; the benefits it promised have not been realized and a wave of sympathy and guilt has been spreading among the middle classes. It is no longer okay for American companies to ship jobs away from adult working-class Americans to Caribbean and Mexican children; from union industries to places where workers are abused, silenced, paid pennies on the dollar, and murdered so our shoes can cost a few dollars less (Or, in the case of designer goods, the same high price anyways).
Secondly; NAFTA, if it survives, will never be able to bring about the mobility the European Union has provided. The United States is obsessed with security, protecting its culture, and has an acute distrust, dislike, even hatred of Mexicans. Few Americans want an open border with Mexico; no Democrat has suggested it and most liberals would rather see a relaxation of security, not a free-for-all.
There will never be a single currency for the United States, Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean. None of the members would benefit; the dollar is too weak, the peso is worthless, and the Canadians are already fed up with the results of the current Free Trade zone's failures to benefit their citizens in any appreciable way.
"A reccent study done by the World Bank on the topic has found that from 1999-2007 income per capita has raised more than 50%, while lifting 50 million people out of poverty."
That is not in context, it does not compare with what the poverty rates were prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. You are, in fact, telling me that 50 million people were raised out of poverty but not how many people were put into poverty after the collapse. From the data that I provided, it looks as though poverty has dropped but not far enough to have increased living standards above the Soviet level for the average person.
In other words, you are being intellectually dishonest. Only if the poverty rate is lower than it was under the Soviet era would you have met my arguments and successfully countered them.
"From the paper, "These data paint a picture of a society far behind other developed countries in the health status of its population in the prewar period......."
The infant mortality rate was higher than the west's, that's true, but, as with the adult rate, after WWII it was at the Median, that is what the 50 percentile is; the median percentile. You, apparently, don't know what a percentile is. That paper was telling you how well the Soviets did, it talked about major developments in children's health after WWII.
You've made a very large number of claims and have not backed any of them up with direct, contextual evidence. I am still waiting for the facts to back up your confidence. Is that really all you have? Work a little harder next time.
The Soviet Union managed massive gains in health and living standards while in the midst of invasions, civil wars, major disease outbreaks, a famine, a global depression..etc, in the span of decades. Why is it this new economy hasn't managed to do the same in the same time period? It's had nearly 20 years and it still lags behind its "stagnant", socialist, "totalitarian" past.
If anything, this situation should be a breeze. The breaking up of a huge country into a slightly smaller country, and the disruption in production and services, should be a rather easy thing to deal with compared with its past problems. Whole cities and towns were demolished in WWII, millions upon millions of people died while its standard of living continued to rise. How many millions died during the economic transition? Hmmm?
""They were behind the United States and many other western nations..."
This is all I wanted to hear."
Again, they were behind by a very small amount (and Czechoslovakia and East Germany had closed the gap). I've also shown that Cuba, a Socialist nation, outdoes the United States in health care despite its size and resources. They were also behind the United States by about the same amount the United States is behind the top nations of today.
But, again, declare your hallow victory; I wouldn't want you to feel insecure.
"All additional information you can find in previous posts."
Really? You have backed up your claims at some point? That, again, is a lie. I have yet to see any information backing up your claims that the average Russian lives better than they did in the Soviet era. They eat less, they are dramatically less healthy, and their pay is actually less in real terms.
None of what you have stated has been born out by the facts, none, yet you have decided you've won. You've been shown to be extremely far away from reality; while I have been shown to be slightly incorrect.
But let's not let trivial facts get in the way of your arrogant, presumptive stance.
Go on and down-vote this as well, it's all you have left it seems. You don't have anything intellectually to stand on; you won't accept where you've been wrong.
For one, I've spent hours, days, looking up information for this debate. I don't appreciate you down-voting it just because you don't like what I am saying. If I am consistently incapable of meeting your standards for debate kindly refrain from debating with me instead of down-voting every single argument I make regardless of quality. I haven't down-voted any of yours out of respect.
Anyways, you have succeeded in showing that the Soviet Union was not up to the standards of most western nations. They, however, were not that far behind at even the lowest points. They are, in fact, worse-off as far as health now, but you are obviously wrong in your assumptions that Russian health now is down due to vodka.
Russia's alcoholism has been a major problem since before Soviet times. If you want to blame the current situation on alcohol I can certainly do the same for the past. If you could kindly show a sharp increase in alcoholism consistent with the sharp decrease in health then I might believe you. Otherwise you are guilty of the same rhetoric you accuse me of.
"I showed conclusively that you were mistaking growth for living standards, and that in every respect they were worse off than the west (whether you blame it on collectivism, totalitarianism, war, or all of the above)."
Well, again, you are dead-wrong. Living standards rose massively; every unbiased historian (either pro or anti-communist) will tell you that the Russians enjoyed a higher standard of living then they ever have. They were behind the United States and many other western nations, but even if you leave out the historic problems they've had due to war, their past extreme backwardness, and political upheavals the Soviets lived close, if not behind, their western counterparts.
It's the difference between living well and living very well. Especially in the Khrushchev era. Both my sources and your sources confirm, and you have admitted, fabulous gains in living standards in an extremely short time-span and during some of the worst calamities to befall any nation, much less Russia itself.
As for rhetoric, you rarely back up any of your statements with facts or figures, especially from unbiased sources. I have used way more than you (in some cases to my own detriment); so to comment as you do is silly. Don't throw stones in a glass house. Noone else may be reading these debates but it is bad form nonetheless.
Russia's GDP has risen very high, as has its poverty rate. GDP, and GDP per capita do not a healthier or more prosperous population make. Just as having the most MRIs, hospitals, or most advanced equipment on earth does not make your population more healthy.
Instead of a population that was relatively equal and had plenty to eat; free healthcare, education, housing, ammenities..etc.., that may not have been as great as the average U.S. household they still lived well. Now, there is a small number of people who live extremely well, a small number of people who live fairly well, and a huge number of people who live in abject poverty.
Here's an interesting example:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/
Scroll down below, there is a table that shows that Russians could buy 77% of the food in 1988 with their money in 2001.
Food consumption has gone down since the 1980s and all of the statistics I've seen havn't shown them going up.
I don't know what your definition of prosperity is; money sitting in the banks of the extremely wealthy while millions suffer isn't exactly prosperity, no matter how high it pushes up the GDP.
It's probably best described as a Democratic Republic; simply calling it a Republic does not confer the totality of the concept we are operating under.
Most Republics of the past, including the original United States, did not enfranchise the entire population (neither did the first Democracies). A true popular vote never existed in Rome, Revolutionary France, Apartheid South Africa, Soviet Union, early America etc...etc...
There were always groups of adults left out; whether it be women, blacks, opposing political ideologies, members of certain classes or castes, non-natural born citizens and others who didn't hold the same status and the politically privileged classes.
Today, everyone 18 and over, who are legal citizens of the United States can vote in any jurisdiction they are a member of. (The only group left out, in some states, are convicted felons). In addition to the ability to cast your vote for someone you favor to accept or reject legislation there are always statutes (at the state and local level) that allow you to establish and vote in pure Democratic referendums.
Of course, for the most part, indirect representation through elected legislatures, some judges, and the executives of the State and Federal government is the way in which our nation's laws and policies are shaped. Because of that, we are a Republic primarily, not a Democracy.
We're also shifted a little away from Democracy due to the indirect way our presidents are chosen, through the electoral college. Of course, this is the only person in the country elected in such a way (I think), and the only position that can be elected without over 50% of the vote.
Otherwise, though, the popular vote of the totally enfranchised population I think allows us to prefix our Republic with the term "Democratic", it allows us to know that we are mostly a Republic, but we have plenty of Democratic aspects.
Your senator is going to have to start some pretty unpopular initiatives if he seriously wants the looming gas crisis averted.
Your state needs to go with a carrot and stick approach to responding to the petroleum problem:
1. You need to invest heavily in mass transit. Buses, trolley's (bring 'em back; they're fun, cheap, effective, and pretty), light rail...etc..
2. In your major towns and cities you need to provide sufficient bike-lanes and legal protections to keep vehicle owners from harassing and harming your bicyclists.
3. Tax gas; raise the price further. You need to get people out of their cars slowly but surely before a major price shift hits. Instead of a slow 1-2 dollar increase in prices over a few years, leaving people plenty of time to adapt, a sudden shock could boost the price five or so dollars in weeks.
4. Get people off the highways, stop expanding highways, and reduce the ability of people to use their cars in downtown areas. Many cities in Europe are turning vehicle roads into pedestrian-only roads; making people walk, bike, or use mass transit instead. Tolls could help in this respect in addition to zoning and taxes.
5. Zone out massive parking lots in suburban areas, increase state property taxes in non-city zones, and make it more difficult for people to choose to live miles and miles from where they work, entertain themselves, and buy food. Increasing state parks should also help, completely eliminating some areas for development purposes.
6. Create tax incentives and start grant programs for upward expansion of real estate (making places taller and close together instead of wider and further apart). Start purchasing bikes for children and teens, maybe even adults.
What's interesting to me is that you are finding yourself in a rather bad position; you've found out and have admitted that the Soviet Union made impressive advancements. Not only that, you've found yourself flatly wrong on a few of your statements, main points in a couple of cases. Yet, for some odd reason, your tone has become increasingly arrogant.
Let me say that if my overstatements of Soviet capabilities were criminal your understatements would warrant a far more severe penalty than my own.
You have to admit the Soviet Union weathered problems that few other nations have had to deal with (and didn't have rich and powerful friends help them out). While the bombed-out France, West Germany, and Japan received huge amounts of money (and in the case of Japan, no longer had to worry about paying for a military) the Soviet Union had to recover from the highest amount of civilian and military war-dead in WWII.
It recovered, and its people saw more prosperity than they have had in the history of their nation (and, again, even now the life expectancy has not gone back to Soviet levels). Even though it didn't reach the highest peaks, it was still a life comparable to the United State's. In life expectancy, the difference was only about 5-10 years lower than in the U.S. (less in East Germany and Czechoslovakia). Which, oddly enough, is how far behind the United States trails the top life expectancies today.
To pretend, as you do, that the Soviets lived in abject, terrible poverty is an exaggeration far worse than mine. In my case, if I were to literally manipulate statistics to my own advantage, I would only need to fudge the numbers a little bit. You, however, need to take a sledge hammer to the facts to maintain your misconceptions.
Have I been proved wrong (or not completely correct), of course. Have you? Of course. Welcome to debate my Libertarian friend, we find out that we aren't always correct. I wouldn't be so cocky, though.
Now, let's take on that first link you posted:
The first laughable "evidence" of yours comes from a zone so far out of context that I'd wager it's origins lie in Mars. I mean really, Hammy, data from a largely rural Soviet Union still recovering from civil war compared with a largely Urban England?
Still; you've decided to take the Soviet Union from its lowest development point and compared it to a nation in a completely different situation. That isn't exactly a scientific analysis; it doesn't isolate issues that arise from the systems from those that arise from external conditions unrelated to the prevailing ideology.
I do like how you took the info from a Communist site. Clever, cheeky, but it doesn't impress me when analysis falls short. However true the statistics are (assuming they are true) they are not compared properly. (By the way, Marxists.org is a good source of historical documents, not a scientific source I respect or use in debates).
Millions of Russians died in WWI (A decade earlier), additional millions died during the civil war (a few years earlier); the nation was still recovering from those massive conflicts; a global depression that began sweeping the whole world, and the war dead of the previously mentioned didn't include the millions of people who died of Typhus (which springs up during such conflicts). We then add all of those problems the issue of a society still reconstituting itself; a society still largely rural but quickly becoming urban; we can then see why the USSR was so far behind the other great powers (in 1929, it closed the gap and ended up in the top tier, though not the top, later on).
To repeat, you took a worn-torn agrarian society in transition and compared it to an industrial society whose troubles couldn't come close to comparing. Then you use that data to conclude a nation's track record on health was horrific. The health situation in 1929 was radically different than the health situation in 1979; that you must know.
I mean, really, the malaria comparison is also quite misleading. While the U.K. didn't have malaria the United States certainly did (as it has a much higher rural population): 4,000 or so in 1929. Not a million, of course, but the U.S. didn't have the problems the Soviet did (and the U.S. was more industrial as well).
Not only that, but the statistics you mention are talking about "acute" illness, not deaths from. That is a pretty big difference. I know 4,000 people died of Malaria in the U.S., but I am having trouble finding the number of "acute cases", which will certainly be higher.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/
Additionally, I am having quite the time finding additional studies confirming what the source from Marxists.org writes; and the only source it mentions is a League of Nations piece I am unable to get ahold of. I suspect the quality of information, I again, repeat that the website is not a scientific source, no matter how much it "supports" my ideology.
Anyways, the Russia of today isn't exactly what you are making it out to be. Life expectancy hasn't been this low (in 2008) since the late 1950s.
This link not only shows you that the Soviets had higher life expectancies but also shows the difference between the Soviet life expectancy and the U.S. was small, even after the falls in the late 70s.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/
Current life expectancy according to the CIA world factbook:
65.94
https://www.cia.
Life expectancy in 1980:
67.2
Life expectancy in 1958:
65.55
Congratulations Federated, Capitalist Russia...you've surpassed the 1950s in healthcare by a fraction of a percent.
"What ever you think of socialized medicine, even those countries with it (like my country, Canada) are behind America when it comes to existant resources and equipment, the US having more MIRs per person, for example, than any other industrial nation"
I'll leave a full discussion on Socialized medicine to its own debate. However, this quote is perhaps the most hilarious thing you have ever stated. The sheer bravery you must have to say such a thing is commendable in itself. The United States could have ten billion MRIs, one hundred million doctors, and a pharmacy for every person but it still wouldn't make it (automatically) any healthier than other industrialized nations. Your favorite propaganda outlet serves you terribly in this case.
Would you kindly look up every health indicator statistic you can find? Life expectancy, infant mortality, disease rates..etc..etc. Now, come on sweetheart, how does the U.S. fair next to government controlled and/or heavily regulated universal healthcare systems of Europe, Canada, and Japan? How could you not turn red in the face for your blatant intellectual dishonesty? As I said before, even Cuba makes higher marks than the United States.
So much more to talk about; to refute, but this should do for now. Consumption, goods and services, will have to be addressed later after sufficient research is undertaken, of course.
Your main point is inconsequential to me as I am not the person you were directly debating with. I'll let him sort out your main point if he sees fit to do so. I, however, am mostly concerned with the contentions I denounced.
Alot of the poverty malarky; the idea that the average Soviet citizen was considerably poorer than the poor of the United States; derives from one of the worst contextual misinterpretations of wages I have seen. It is common for anti-Communist theoreticians to look at wages, including real wages, and see that; for example; the
average wage in the USSR is 2.00 an hour while the average wage in the USA is 10.00 (they do the same for Cuba). This, of course, ignores all of the free goods and services provided to the general population. Given to all Soviet citizens but never included in the standard of living calculations are free health-care, free post-secondary education, free psychiatric care, among other public services.
Also, the differences between a Socialist economy and a Capitalist economy with regards to what wages actually mean is never factored in. Lately, however, we have seen a rise in a new form of standard of living calculations that considers more than wages and GDP per capita.
According to the papers I so lovingly googled for you; the standard of living in the USSR averaged rather well up to the era of Khrushchev. However, taking in only the
Stalin years we see a dramatic rise in the standard of living; this includes the continued social upheaval that marked the slow end of the civil war, the famine years, and WWII.
http://64.233.167.104/
nion+comparison+standard+of+living&hl;=
http://64.233.167.104/
2007/Spring/
clnk&cd;=3≷=us&client;=firefox-a
Have a read, sweetheart; interesting stuff.
"o begin, the Soviet Union's living standards didn't begin to improve until the
"Khrushchev Thaw", essentially a liberalization reform which gave the dramatically more freedom to move and trade, and a host of other things like the uncensoring of books and integration into the international community."
According to the papers published that is outrightly false. The standard of living in
the USSR began under Stalin, increased under Stalin, and then increased even further under Khrushchev. The "liberalization" policies you mentioned were certainly helpful and necessary. Of course; the term "liberalization" is certainly misnomer if you are thinking of the current usage, meaning a drive towards Capitalism and Free Markets.
Khrushchev simply transferred economic power from the central government to regional and local governments; or from a centralized Socialist system to a slightly decentralized Socialist system. A good idea; certainly, and nothing outside the boundaries of Communist theory.
Of course, the papers talk about the stagnation in living standards after Khrushchev. Oddly enough, this stagnation was not confined to the Soviet Union but broadly felt by the United States, Britain, and most of the other developed nations. Economic downturns were affecting most of the developed world; partly because of the energy crisis but also due to a number of traditional economic problems.
Some of my information on living standards comes from offline books and atlases so I am still researching Soviet living standards online. Since you wanted this short I will just deal with one of the most glaring falsehoods you put out. I'll do Venezuela later as well; perhaps that's another debate entirely. It's irritating how easily a simple debate can turn into many debates in such a short time.
When you can no longer justify your position; name-call using "smart words" so you don't seem immature.
Apparently I didn't address the argument? I wonder how; as I specifically addressed it in a number of paragraphs. I addressed each of your points directly and thoroughly, using multiple examples and explanations to avoid confusion.
But I guess it is too much for you to back up what you're saying. Perhaps, if you're so inclined, you could point out what points I missed? It really doesn't matter, of course, it isn't as if, when faced with actual logic, you can face it with intellectual honesty. You've proven as much.
You remind me too much of a Libertarian I went to college with. He too would use ad hominem and other stolen words improperly, arrogantly. Though, he at least had the dignity to not use Wikipedia as a source.
You are right that there are women in places of power and authority, but they do not have nearly as many of those positions as their numbers in the general population.
For example; the U.S. congress:
Women hold 17% of the seats in congress. They are 51% of the population. That's an extreme discrepancy; especially given the fact that congress is one of the highest seats of power in the United States. They hold 23% of state elected positions, again an extreme discrepancy. Women used to hold two seats on the Supreme Court, there is now one. One out of nine, or 11%.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/information_by_level_of_office/ Congress_CurrentFacts.php
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/information_by_level_of_office/ Statewide-CurrentFacts.php
As for economic power; these are the number of women CEOs:
8 women are the head of a Fortune 500 company, and in all of the Fortune 500s women make up 14% of the boards of directors.
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/1292.html
In society, even the female-dominated career of teaching, men do better than women:
Women, though they have achieved administrative control, still earn 100 dollars less than men, median.
http://www.dpeaflcio.org/programs/factsheets/ fs_2007_school_administrators.htm
In medicine, women are still behind men:
33% of doctors will be women, by 2010. By what time will you make up half? 2020? 2050?
http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=4197
The following research indicates that women lag in math scores due to negative stereotypes:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2002_August/ ai_95514611
Of course, the military is still thoroughly male. They make up 15% of the armed forces.
Also, I think you misinterpreted my remarks; I didn't mean that every single woman wasn't exerting her strength to the fullest, just that on average women do not. Exceptions are always going to be around, of course. Women have made excellent strides, mostly because they have been taking what is rightfully theirs. However, they are still not powerful enough to become equal; and until 50% of them are in the military, the economic control rooms, the high government offices, they will remain second class citizens.
I mean, what other population would you not call second class which doesn't have even close to its numbers represented in government? What's funny is that in Apartheid South Africa, the oppressed African Americans had more representation in their parliament than women do in ours:
Their legislature held: 178 white, 85 black, and 45 indian legislators. Giving the blacks 28% (compared to women receiving 17% of our congressional seats). Not only that, but blacks made up 33% of their population while women make up 50% of ours! Tell me that isn't bizarre!
What's interesting is that I never actually rejected what the Heritage Foundation wrote specifically because it was the Heritage Foundation; I never said the information was invalid or anything of the kind. I did, however, place doubt on the information and noted that it came from a biased source.
You, of course, decided to twist this into an outright rejection of the information because it came from the Heritage Foundation. Of course, I rejected the information because I knew there is information contradicting its claims.
I said the information was demonstrably false, and it is; but while I looked up the sources of the information I decided to let the people following the debate know where you were getting the info; specifically that where you were getting it was not from an un-biased scientific agency. That was all I said; in addition to the info itself being false. (We never did complete the debate, but we can always start it back up and I can finish researching.)
You, of course, take offense to my unmasking your source of "information". It isn't a red herring, if I were to post excerpts from Noam Chomsky's books or works from explicitly leftist organizations you would question the information I provided and would say as much as I did. Lord, I could use speeches by Joseph Stalin himself as a valid source of information if what you said holds true. As if you wouldn't immediately call into question what a totalitarian dictator said. But let's not get bogged down by obvious and predictable hypocrisy.
In debates it is perfectly acceptable to call into question the validity of certain sources of information and point out obvious biases. This is done in any scientific research, policy discussions, and educational debates. It is always factored in; especially if you are working in professional circles, all data is taken with a grain of salt, even in so-called un-biased organizations.
"If you don't agree with what I wrote above, than try this on for size. You're wrong. The reasons you think that it ISN'T an ad hom. are illegitimate because of have a clear bias against the term."
This is a certain logical collapse on your part. Perhaps I am wrong if I only reference my own opinion without referral to outside sources of information, that might work with your logical twists.
However, what I am saying only extends to people who are actually citing me when looking for a definition of ad hominem. If they were to utilize me in an attack on your definition of ad hominem you could easily point out my bias as my definition serves my own purposes and is against your own.
I am not a dictionary, nor am I an expert in philosophy, linguistics, or anything relating to the professional understanding of ad hominem. I cannot be cited in a paper without the person doing the citation losing credibility. I am not a credible source.
However, in our own personal debate I am not wrong because I am biased against my own opinion because I am able to utilize outside resources such as dictionaries as well as logical and philosophical constructs not of my own doing. I, then, can reference things if you were to challenge my definition of ad hominem, I can use independent philosophical and linguistic resources and professionals.
That's the difference; I am not citing myself, I am stating an opinion. You, however, are using outside information as a resource, information you regard as legitimate and reputable. I, however, am in full rights to call into question the legitimacy and reputation of the source of information without it being deemed an "ad hominem".
Let me put it extremely simply:
Your "logic" only works if I said the following:
"Ad hominem is X because I say so".
But, of course, that would make sense. We can't have any of that, now can we?
Pointing out bias, apparently, is an ad hominem attack. As is anything that points out possible faults in information provided. I will go ahead and call up all the scientific agencies and tell them they've been committing logical fallacies without even knowing it! Someone get the bloody APA on the line, we've got a logical crisis on our hands!
Jesus "Ham and Cheese", I think you've saved the entire scientific community from certain fallacy!
It is really fun being a white liberal sometimes. Because of my color other white people think it is perfectly okay to say racist things about other groups of people in my presence. Members of my own family, friends, people in my college classes, people I overheard in restaurants when I lived in a 99.9% white community would say some horribly racist things.
I don't need any statistics (though they point towards my assumptions being correct); I get to see racism first hand, on the ground floor.
One of my grandparents pointed to a rapper on television and asked why she didn't have a bone in her nose. My step-father caught me watching "In Living Color" and called the dancers a bunch of monkeys. One of my other grandparents asked "where are all of these black people coming from" when we were eating at a local buffet. I once played "Sweet Home Alabama" at a Denny's jukebox and heard a group of boys yell at me to turn off this "niger music". (I know that doesn't make any sense, seeing as all of the members of the band are white, I believe).
God knows when the Metrolink (Saint Louis's light rail system) was being proposed in Saint Charles (a nearby suburb) people were up in arms about "those people" coming over and stealing all of our televisions and breaking into our cars.
Saint Louis, my city, is rife with racism. Needless to say; I myself harbor racist tendencies and thoughts which come directly from my background. I try my best to get rid of them, but the us vs. them mentality, the "differences" that both whites and blacks recognize between us are well-known. We "know" we aren't like one another; culturally at least.
That cultural difference is very real, of course; caused by physical segregation of the past. It's hard to communicate with people of the other races; we really don't understand one another.
Women are not equal to men; their representation in government, economic institutions, and social institutions (as leaders) are not prominent given their numerical parity with their opposite gender.
Women are underpaid, overworked, and are rarely in positions of power and authority. This, though changing, still leaves them at a disadvantage to men.
The reason for this; though, is not any biological differences (by all accounts women are actually stronger and healthier than men). The difference is accounted for in the women's perceptions of themselves, what they feel their place is, their unwillingness to engage in economic, social, or even violent conflict. This stems from social indoctrination, familial indoctrination, and their own inability to break free from these influences and knock down the structures that oppress them.
If women are going to become equal to men they are first going to have to become as ruthless, cutthroat, strong, courageous, and aggressive as men. Women are going to have to show themselves to be the strong creatures that they are; women are going to have to take their rightful place as masters of their own destiny, by any means necessary.
Women can't be victims anymore; they must train themselves to fight, they must teach their daughters to fight (not just with Karate classes but showing them to stand up for themselves in a number of ways). Every woman should know how to defend herself; legally, physically, economically, socially; they must make men know they cannot be taken advantage of.
Every culture, every nation, every class, every religion, every ethnicity, each gender; sexuality; the only way they achieved equality, dominion, freedom, and security is through their ability to defend themselves and maintain their status as free and independent beings. If women are to break free of their chains they must do so in kind.
The whole point of this debate is that people are not using the term properly. In every single instance in which I have seen the term used it has been wielded by someone who didn't understand the actual meaning of the word.
It's not directed only at you; there are lots of people on this site and others that use it improperly. You're not the worst example, trust me; I just felt it was time to lay out in debate-form what has been irritating me for years.
First of all, this is not a formal debate. Secondly, name calling is not an Ad Hominem attack; I stated, plainly, what IS.
Ad hominem's are types of arguments, name-calling, if it is not the argument or the crucial part of an argument, is not an ad hominem, it is name-calling.
There are many words and phrases people use to sound smart; to give themselves more credibility or feed their thriving ego. "Ad Hominem" (as well as the term "fallacy" and other latin philosophical and rhetorical phrases) seems to be the one most frequently used by those engaged in debate.
I have never once seen this phrase used properly; noone I have ever debated with has managed to place the term "Ad Hominem" or label something an "Ad Hominem" properly.
More often than not; Ad Hominems are used AS Ad Hominems; which is perhaps the most ridiculous usage of all due to its hemorrhage-inducing hypocrisy.
An example:
A:"The theory of evolution is incorrect."
B:"You're crazy! The theory of evolution is correct due to the research conducted by scientists A through Z; here are numerous experiments conducted and other papers written on the subject!"
A:"I'm not crazy, that's an ad hominem attack!"
B:"Ummm, what about all the information I provided?"
A:"I don't have to answer to it, it contains an ad hominem!"
Now, just because someone calls you a raging moron it doesn't mean they are using an ad hominem. Something only qualifies it as an ad hominem if the attack is the argument; or if the argument rests on the attack itself.
Name-calling or voicing negative opinions about the opposite party may be impolite or annoying; but it is not necessarily an ad hominem "fallacy".
Also; there is another gem of curious logic that I can provide a direct example of here on this site.
"Argumentum Ad Hominem
Just because I am using a source that has an official stance does not invalidate the source. In other words, instead of attacking the organization (a red herring) attack what they say. Congratulations on being logically inept."
Now; this person used a source to back up their claims that was a partisan, non-scientific organization completely biased towards their point of view explicitly. I said that their source, the Heritage Foundation, was such; indicating the likelyhood that the information presented was biased.
Is this an ad hominem attack? Of course not. Unless of course it is an ad hominem attack in this situation:
A:"The Jews are the reason the world is so bad!"
B:"What? No they are not! They contribute greatly to the world!"
A:"Well, according to the Anti-Jew League they caused the Great Depression!"
B:"Anti-Jew League? That's not a likely source of historically or factually accurate information! It is non-scientific and obviously biased against Jews!"
A:"AD HOMINEM ATTACK! You're stupid!"
I don't know why but the people that most seem to misuse the phrase are libertarians (and philosophy majors); it's a curious thing but damnably irritating.
If anyone else has ad hominem-related horror-stories, please share.
You're right, the U.S. isn't purely Capitalist and Europe isn't purely Socialist, I never said that.
However, the comparison is this: The U.S. is far more Capitalistic than Europe (especially in certain countries). It just so happens that the more Socialist Europeans are more prosperous than the more Capitalist Americans. This indicates that Socialism certainly has a positive affect on a society. It doesn't prove that pure Socialism is the best; but time and again, example after example, the more Socialist the country the better off the people are (if put into a proper context).
Anyways, the Chinese economy may be "flourishing" but the people of China are in a horrible condition. China is not Communist; it is somewhat Socialist. Just because a group calls themselves this or that does not make it so.
China didn't need to introduce Capitalism to increase its standard of living (neither did Russia, as the standard of living still hasn't come back up to Soviet levels). It may make more billionaires and increase tax revenues but it doesn't make the people as a whole any better off.
Industrialization didn't occur because of Capitalism; industrialization is what allowed a system like Capitalism to occur. There was industrial machinery in Feudal times; and Feudalism continued in Britain alongside industrial development. It wasn't until later that Capitalism was arrived at; that is; until Industrialization had developed into a great force.
Capitalism could be said to have helped industrialization along. No Communist; not even Karl Marx, denies that Capitalism played a great role in technological growth, some rises in the standard of living, and brilliant inventions. However, Communism/Socialism can do the exact same thing in a fairer way, faster, while enriching the majority of the population. It also provides a far more stable economy; which Capitalism has never been able to give.
Every Socialist economy has "always failed"? According to what standards? According to what measurements? What is "failure"?
Was the Soviet Union a failure? By all accounts, even though its economy was marginally less productive than the West's, its people enjoyed a standard of living in parity with "Capitalist" west. Not only that, but the Soviet Union had an extremely late start; industrialization had taken hold in the United States and Britain hundreds of years before the peasantry in the USSR had traded their plows for wrenches.
Is Cuba a failure? Despite economic catastrophe when all of its major trading partners disappeared, almost over night; its people's standard of living are in parity with those of the United States and countries with gargantuan economic systems.
The more Socialist Euro-nations economies develop at a slightly slower rate than the United State's, but their people are healthier happier, better educated, and enjoy greater benefits than those in the United States.
The United States' economy itself has only increased in Socialization, in government control, since the 1930s, yet its economy has developed fantastically since that time and its people have become remarkably prosperous.
Lastly; if the society was a Democratic Socialist Centralized economy it would be far more "people owned" than a Capitalist economy. The whole of the population would have a say in how the economy is run, not a handful of wealthy businessmen and landlords.
Of course; that's only if you implement a society based on centralized principles instead of a decentralized cooperative economy. The USSR, Cuba, and Maoist China, among others, used only a brand of Socialism; an extremely militaristic Centralized brand. It is, of course, good for some situations but has some extreme defects.
In most cases, the failures of Socialism in the past can be laid at the feet of those nations which buck Democracy and turn to Totalitarianism. Of course, we'd have more examples of democratic Socialism had it not been for U.S. intervention in Latin America and the USSR's policy towards events like the "Prague Spring".
Hugo Chavez, though, a Democratic Socialist, has certainly improved Venezuela's situation. The Venezuelan people's standard of living has increased significantly since his presidency began and will, hopefully, continue to do so.
Well; the interesting thing is that the Third World is actually a majority of the world's population. Most of Asia, Africa, the Middle-East, and Middle/South America are controlled by "third world" countries.
The explanations are many, but no one theory has managed to capture the whole scope of the problem, the forces which conspired to keep a majority of the world's population in poverty and underdevelopment.
I won't go into why these regions are still behind in human development; I would like to point out the reasons why they have yet to develop into first world nations.
(not in order of importance)
1. Recent historic domination by imperial powers.
2. Constant interference by the current global powers in the internal affairs of these countries.
3. Climatic conditions which render entire nations desolate wastelands or areas with constant natural disasters.
4. AIDS and other diseases which are difficult for the first world to deal with, much less the third.
5. Global economic policies which favor certain first world nations, people, and companies over others.
6. Wars between third world nations and first world nations against third world nations.
7. Inability of Secular, Democratic, Socialist, and Communist thought to penetrate many of these societies. Third world nations that developed secular governments aimed at common social prosperity have seen their nations rise to the top of the third world heap (and an eventual rise into the first world)
8. Inability of regional alliances to develop that would protect third world nations from instability, internal wars, and wars with non-local third world and first world nations.
I can explain any of these if anyone would like. I can, of course, elaborate upon request.
Personally, as much as I don't like pedophiles (and would want to have executed anyone who would lay a hand on my underage relatives), I don't believe it is Justice to execute someone who hasn't killed another human being.
As horrible as the crime is; the concept of Justice leads me to want an equal punishment for a crime; death does not seem to be the case for non-murder offenses.
A person's life is the most valuable thing on earth, including the lives of criminals; they should only be dispensed with to equalize a person's taking of another person's life.
That is my view of Justice and morality. If your understanding is different there isn't much in the way of convincing either of us, unless you are willing to change your morality.
You might as well be saying "I am right, they should know why I am right, screw them for being stupid".
That isn't debating; back up your statements with facts, quotes, references; anything. I can't just say "American scientists say that global warming is real". Without references to what American scientists, what reports..etc...then it is likely I am making it up or misrepresenting their view.
It also isn't up to the other side to research your points for you. You can't go up to someone you are debating and tell them "I am right; there are people that say I am right, go research it if you don't believe me!". That is intellectually dishonest, lazy, and not conducive to a real debate.
You cannot indirectly quote a mass of people without anything you are referencing to. You might as well say "according to Communists Capitalism will wither away in the 21st century". Describing what nations they come from hardly helps as it is likely that there is more than one point of view.
As far as I know there is no such thing as a single Dutch or German Left-Communism that monolithically stands without needing to be referenced. Is there some sort of handbook I missed out on at the meetings? Are the German-Dutch Left-Communists the only valid Communists, why?
Who are these German/Dutch Left-Communists? What are their names? What are some of their writings that back up what you are saying? You don't think such trivial things are needed in a debate?
"3. If a communist doesn't know what I'm talking about, well I quite frankly would question their 'communism'."
This sort of arrogance is common with my comrades; it is sad how many of you see fit to hold the mantle of Communist pope and excommunicate anyone who doesn't fit the mold you have envisioned for what we are, what we do, and who we read.
It may be that I have read the people you are referring to, but I do not understand the rather vague references you have put forth. You don't see fit to explain; of course, that would be beneath someone so expert in the realm of Communism-dom.
If you continue to "debate" in the following manner, constantly spouting off rhetoric without anything backing you up, I'll consider this the end of my debate with you. You can go on ranting and railing against this or that "idiot" who should "know better" all you want, you can leave me out of that.
"And two, and more importantly, socialism has nothing to do with government control. That is what we call state capitalism."
Karl Marx flatly states that the government will control a good number of things; bringing education, transportation, communication, and other services under its direct administration. He also says that it will confiscate the property of emigrants and rebels.
So, yes, you did indicate that Socialism has nothing to do with government control (you said that specifically); that is completely opposite of what Karl Marx says. I don't know if Karl Marx is following Dutch-German Left-Communism; perhaps he is not Communist enough for you either.
Why should they be executed? Shouldn't execution be reserved for those who actually kill people? It seems rather extreme.
What about rapists of other kinds? What about people who torture other people? Should we impose executions on other non-murder crimes as well?
Well, please; in depth, explain what your policy is towards pedophiles. What should be the punishments according to the crime:
Molesting a child under the age of consent (groping or touching inappropriately)?
Forcible rape of a minor?
Non-forcible rape of a minor? (Say, the minor "consents" to the sexual act; as in does not resist; may actually be in a "relationship" with the offender..etc..)
Sex with an underage person of 15-17 versus 1-14. Is there a difference if the rape isn't forcible in the 15-17 case? What if the underage person was 17 and eleven months old?
What about child pornography? If someone looks at pictures of underage children and never actually lays a hand on one, what is their punishment?
What if the offender is 18 and the minor is 15? A three year difference? What if the minor is 17 and the offender is 21?
What if the offender is 54 and the minor is 12? What if it is their parent? What if it is another relative?
You really need to be more specific when you talk about the "German/Dutch left-Communists". Non-Communists have no idea who you would be referring to; I don't even know who you are referring to.
I can, of course, introduce you to Karl Marx; who was explicit in his expectation that the state would play a role in Socialism; then disband at the onset of Communism:
"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
That sounds like a pretty heavy involvement of the state during the revolution and transition.
I think sexual desires are the most difficult to control out of all the non-biologically necessary (life support) impulses humans experience. Talk to the few billion people on this planet; I doubt we'd have quite so many babies if it weren't for our difficulty in controlling our sexual instincts.
If you were put in a situation where the only way you could satisfy your sexual desires was to commit an illegal act you'd probably do it. If having sex with adult women was illegal as is looking at nude or sexual images of women you'd end up breaking the law at some point. You'd either look at illegal pornography or grope some woman on the bus; perhaps even rape one.
Does that make it right? No. Should you be punished? Yes. But the degree is what matters. I am not saying they shouldn't be punished; but I don't think they are being punished in the right way.
I am against letting them back into society; I want them to be in "prison" for the rest of their lives. However, I don't believe they should be put in our normal prison system but a campus system for the rest of their lives after serving a few years in the hard prisons.
I don't see the issue you have here; would you rather see them executed? Put in the same cage as murderers and armed robbers?
As for Cuba:
Let's compare some facts between the United States and Cuba, shall we?
Prison rate per capita:
Cuba: 3.6 per 100,000 people
United States: 5 per 100,000
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/home.php
The U.S. government may not have a dozen "political prisoners" under lock and key, but it has tortured foreign and American prisoners:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/
By the way, many of those political prisoners are paid American government agents; taking money from our government to destabilize and overthrow Cuba's government.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/
By the way, if I was receiving money from Chinese agents, or any country for that matter, with the express purpose of undermining the U.S. government I would be in jail as well.
Secondly; I suppose they don't have cell-phones and little access to the internet (though the new, Communist leader Raul Castro is lifting those restrictions), the Cuban government hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of people overseas. A nice trade-off; I would say. Then again; it's typically American to cherish material goods over human life; your laptop is much more important than the life of an Arab or other foreigner.
Of course, dissent is also perfectly allowed in Cuba; perhaps not as voraciously as in the United States, but the idea that Cuba is a repressive, tyrannical dictatorship isn't well-founded. Here's an account from people that visited the country in the 90s (things have only improved since then):
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/960411/
I might add that cell-phone and internet access isn't widespread with many of Cuba's neighbors; a comparison with them will come later though.
Here's a few other comparisons to the United States:
Literacy rate:
United States: 99%
Cuba: 99.8%
That's right, Cuba has a slightly higher literacy rate.
Life expectancy:
United States: Male:75 Female:80.4
Cuba: Male: 76.4 Female 79.9
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/
So, about the same. According to some statistics the United States is slightly higher (by a point and a half or so). Either way, Cuba, a third world Socialist state is comparable, if not slightly better than the richest nation on earth in terms of life expectancy.
Infant Mortality:
United States: 6.3 deaths per 1,000 live births
Cuba: 5.93 deaths per 1,000 live births
Again, a third world country beats the richest nation on earth in protection of its own babies.
https://www.cia.
https://www.cia.
As for their eating habits; they are eating quite well; organically even. This socialist state survived having all of its trading partners disappear; all of its oil dry up, and its food supply cut off. Could the United States see so much economic upheaval and come out ahead, the same as before? Without a global war, perhaps not.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/04/
In fact, Cuba is being seen as a leader and model for other nations; its success is being studied heavily.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/OFGU/
Take a look at other figures here at MSN Encarta:
http://encarta.msn.com/fact_631504750/
Compare Cuba with the United States and other nations. Sure; Cuba doesn't have as many televisions and internet connections as the United States; but compare Cuba with its neighbors; other third and second world countries with similar circumstances but Capitalist economies. You'll find Cuba fairs equal or better than nearly all of its neighbors in nearly even respect; it is certainly the top of the heap in terms of third world nations and it gives many first world nations a run for their money.
Again, this is coming from a Communist third world nation with minimal land, resources, friends, and military might.
Makes ya think, doesn't it?
"The health of that nation is directly correlated to the foods they eat and the way their countries infrastructure is structured. In the states, people generally walk less and eat food of poorer quality. that's because alot of people live out in the burbs."
Eating habits certainly have an impact on health, but much of those eating habits are influenced by public programs on nutritional education and information through the healthcare system, the schools, and the media outlets.
Here are some interesting statistics that might gum up your point of view:
Top healthiest nations (in order, 2006)/Obesity rate rank
Hong Kong: n/a
Japan: #28
Sweden: #21
Australia: #6
Israel: n/a
Switzerland: #27
Canada: #11
Norway: #26
New Zealand: #7
Italy: #25
UAE: n/a
Austria: #24
U.K.: #3
France: #23
Cuba: n/a
Spain: #12
Costa Rica: n/a
Belgium: #19
Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/
As you can see, most of the nations in the list of the top healthiest countries in the world are also towards the top (or even in the top ten to twenty) of the world's most obese nations.
The thing that all of them have the most in common is a universal healthcare system. (Some of them go about it in different ways, such as mandating government insurance, setting prices if private hospitals are the main source of healthcare, or forcing all hospitals to be non-profit.).
'll deal with your other arguments later, but at this time I think I've shown that your belief that diet is what has made these nations the healthiest on earth is pretty much bunk.
(and, I would like to point out to you that even though the United States isn't in the top spot for healthiest nations, evil Cuba is.)
Being put into a psychiatric prison or a minimum security prison isn't exactly luxurious. They are still being punished, and I would agree that the pedophiles should serve normal prison-time before being put into minimum security as a punishment.
However, no matter how much you care about the victims you shouldn't do anything to an offender; your response should be measured and just.
I don't believe pedophiles and psychopaths are "victims", but if their genetics and/or biology determines that they behave in such a way how can you treat them like any other sort of criminal who made a conscious decision to commit a crime?
What if there is someone who hallucinates and punches a woman in the face because he thinks she is satan come to steal his soul? Is he supposed to be treated like someone who beat up a guy because of a disagreement?
The insane cannot be held fully accountable for their actions; if they clinically cannot control themselves what are they supposed to do? What are we supposed to do?
Pedophiles are a milder form of psychosis; but according the available science they are still biologically predisposed towards committing these acts, towards feeling sexually attracted to underaged youths.
I think it is punishment enough that they will forever be kept out of society; away from their families, friends; and any hope of a return to a normal life. Well, and especially far, far away from their objects of sexual desire.
Clinical psychopaths are put into psychological institutions, not prisons. That's why we have the "insanity" plea, it means they go into psychiatric care, not standard prisons.
One of the most telling parts of the review is in the following quotations:
"Of course, as several of the superclass muckety-mucks Rothkopf talks to complain, most of the officials who are democratically selected by the masses don't really understand -- and perhaps aren't even capable of understanding -- the complex global issues that need to be negotiated. American congressmen, senators and even presidents know how to get elected by capitalizing on delusional fears of gay marriage and illegal aliens, but their constituents don't demand that they master high-level economic or scientific concepts. Chances are, the voters haven't even heard of those concepts, let alone formulated opinions on them. How can even the superclass be accountable to a public that can't (or won't) comprehend what they do?"
What is basically being said is this: The global elites remain unaccountable because the broad sweep of the population of the earth are too ignorant to understand all the complexities of a global economy and political system.
We, the stupid masses, elect stupid politicians who can't comprehend the grand plans of the corporate giants and cultural figureheads. That's why, of course, democracy must stand aside and allow the geniuses to do as they please.
There is a kernal of truth to this; we are largely ignorant of what needs to be done. Of course; we are made ignorant by those very same elites. Elites who like to keep our public schools underfunded, our television and radio filled with nonsense and propaganda, and our minds filled with a desire to buy as much as possible.
Instead of insisting that we focus heavily on properly educating people, providing public primary school opportunities, better access to relevant information, fancier libraries, free college, and a media focused on education instead of stupification they simply shrug their shoulders and say: "They are too stupid, we should rule".
Perhaps their rationale is their own downfall; to take down to mega-rich, the public figureheads, the political geniuses; to reinstall democracy as the dominant decision-making power in the world; we are going to have to education ourselves and those around us.
We are going to have to learn; knowledge, as even the most powerful people on the planet now admit, is the ultimate power.
I don't think most should be allowed to return to the community. Especially those that have been evaluated by psychologists and were found to have a compulsion, an impossible to cure "drive" to commit pedophilic acts
However, if it is the case that pedophiles are biologically inclined towards pedophilia, if they can't "help" it; they shouldn't be locked in dungeons or executed. We have the right to protect ourselves and our children, but we can't rationally seek vengeance against people who are not in complete control over their actions.
I believe we should set up minimum security prisons, campus style (look it up), which provide a community where pedophiles can continue to live, work, and learn without being put near any child. They would live the rest of their lives in an essentially gated community; continuing to contribute to society through work while never being allowed back in.
The pedophiles are locked away safely; they aren't forced to remain homeless on the outskirts of cities, they aren't allowed to roam free through the towns, and they are certainly not going without retribution.
This sort of procedure is punishment; it is justice, but it is also humane. It's the best compromise I can think of in what is a rather complicated and sensitive problem.
"People need incentives at home, work, wherever…people need to believe in something better in order to be a part of something."
Socialism promises mutual prosperity and equality; that seems to be a more popular thing to work for than the unlikely chance of becoming individually rich.
There's also a facet of humanity which capitalists tend to ignore, instead of being selfish and greedy most human beings lean towards cooperation and altruism. Every single day we cooperate with those around us without any sort of money or goods exchange. Parents care for their children without the children paying the parents, friends give to friends, people fight and die for their countrymen, their families, and their beliefs.
Religion, also, has been a prime motivator in human history. Way before Capitalism's system of rewards and punishments people acted according to their religious convictions or their tribal affiliations.
Cooperation is why we aren't just killing our neighbors to take their money and goods for ourselves (especially when we have the power to do so), cooperation is why families stick together and aid one another, cooperation is why we have a military that protects us with their lives, cooperation is why businesses work, actually. Ask anyone working for any company what is most important in getting the job done and they'll tell you "cooperation, team-work".
Our scientific discoveries are more and more a collaboration of scientists and researchers from around the world. They work together, share information, share resources, they go to the far reaches of the globe, dangerous areas, and for what? Crappy pay? A few bucks? No, they do it because of their inherent, biological altruism, their beliefs, their understanding that what they are doing benefits them and those around them.
Something should be said for selfishness, that is certainly a motivator; but more often than not what motivates people (especially in a civilized society) is a cooperative ethic.
Well, I should clarify by saying that the United States isn't Capitalist anymore, it is a Mixed-Market economy. So while we still have a huge amount of political influence and control going to economic interests (businessmen and businesses) there are protections and buffers against that power. We the people can still vote, still have a say in the way our country is governed; we still have common Democratic power to shape our nation and its policies. We can, through the vote, force companies to do something or not do something, we can take money away from businesses and put them into social projects. In a purely Capitalist society this would not be able to occur.
In a pure Capitalist society; there wouldn't be any vote-buying, any lobbying, any corruption. The government would be under direct control of, or have little to no power over the business world. Meaning, we would literally have a government (or society governed by) Mcdonalds, IBM, and Wal-Mart.
Capitalist societies produce a concentration of wealth that proves detrimental to the general population, the economy as a whole, and even the capitalists, the businessmen themselves.
Lassaize-faire Capitalism allows a small number of individuals and businesses to posess, to horde, a large proportion of the wealth and land in a nation; depriving the majority of control over their labor, their lives, and essentially leaving them under the direct control of their employers.
Capitalism, as well, tends to operate irrationally when it comes to human welfare. Happiness, health, art, education, knowledge, science, freedom, family, the environment, religion; these are unquantifiable, non-monetary benefits that tend to be thrown out of the equation due to the difficulty in extracting financial gain out of them. You can, of course, exploit all of these needs; it is extremely unlikely that the system would try to fulfill them.
Basically, the world around us would be shaped only by what is most profitable, or what a small group of people with economic power want.
If it is profitable for an industry to work its people 16 hours a day or more, as well as their children, for enough money to pay for one meal a day then so be it, that is what will happen. If it is more profitable to use a poisonous substance to preserve milk, that is what would be used.
Without regulation, without direction, and without an overriding value that places human needs and human happiness above profit and business we would see a complete deterioration of our people and our society while at the same time a wonderfully prosperous economy. Well, that is, until an economic depression occurs.
Socialist economies of the past, even the worst ones, and socialist economies currently have shown remarkable feats. In the Soviet Union we saw an agrarian kingdom turn into an industrial superpower in decades (in the west it took hundreds of years). Even though the Soviet Union wasn't as productive as the United States its people held a standard of living close to it.
In Cuba, while its Capitalist neighbors suffer through civil wars, famines, crime, corruption, poverty; the red island's standard of living is rather close the United States; the health of its people is actually higher and its literacy rate is enviable.
Europe, while slightly less productive than the United States, maintains the highest standard of living in the world. Its people are healthier, smarter, freer, enjoy paid vacations, benefits; they simply, on average, have it better than the average American.
The trade-off is clear; do you want an extremely productive society with a handful of extremely wealthy people while everyone else remains uncared for or a productive society of a more equal distribution of wealth where the average person enjoys an extremely high standard of living?
It's the difference between a society where a man could, possibly, maybe, become rich but will most likely be relatively poor. Or a society where noone can become rich but everyone is well-off.
This bizarre outcry makes me appreciate one of my previous political science professors. This prof. loved to make fun of the talk show bombasts and television talking heads. He also, constantly, made us understand the an important distinction in American politics:
There are Liberals and there are Democrats, there are Conservatives and there are Republicans.
It is easy to tell, in this situation, who the liberals are and who the Democrats are. Or, should I say, the people who real leftist values and the people who are in it to win it.
This article is perfectly understandable; a wonderfully well-done sarcastic cartoon, a cartoon obviously poking fun at conservative hyperbole. Anyone who reads the New Yorker would understand this, and the picture was aimed at New Yorker readers. The article it was representing would perfectly explain the point behind the picture as well.
So who, then, would misunderstand this? How would this picture do damage to the Obama campaign?
You'll see that the people who would look at this cartoon as somehow accurately representing Barack Obama already believe in what the cartoon is making fun of. They think Barack Obama is a radical Muslim with a militant Communist wife. This picture "validates" their view; even though it actually doesn't.
Of course, these people would believe such nonsense no matter how many or how few sarcastic cartoons there are. It wouldn't have changed their minds to have a cartoon depicting Obama as extremely patriotic and his wife a model of American values.
I've heard some nonsense in my day, but the people who are looking at this as some sort of conspiracy or propaganda effort against Barack Obama are really putting me on edge. I voted in the primary for Obama, I plan on voting for him in the coming presidential election, and I don't see any problem with this cartoon whatsoever.
I don't drink alcohol; I do, however, live minutes from the Anheuser-Busch brewery/headquarters here in Saint Louis.
To those of you thinking about changing your drinking habits, let me give you some perspective:
They are already going to eliminate jobs in a city that has already seen most of its industrial base flee; increasing our poverty and difficulties.
If you choose, now, to stop drinking their beer just because of this change of hands you will probably increase the likelyhood of even more jobs being lost due to decreased demand.
However, if those bastards move the HQ and brewery out of town (most likely to some third-world hell-hole) then I would suggest abstaining from this brand.
Busch beer not only employs quite a number of people, jobs that pay well and carry pretty good benefits; they also contribute to charities and projects around the Saint Louis area.
They developed a nature preserve out of an abandoned military base, they built Busch gardens, they sponsor sports teams....without that money; without a company that has shown at least some desire to improve the lives of the people in the area it does business we'll, again, see our misery improve.
This is all coming from a Communist, and while I don't like Busch as a capitalist enterprise; it is a lesser of two evils when squared against a gigantic multinational that doesn't contribute much, if anything, to charity and has no loyalty to any city, state, or country.
This acquisition is disgusting and scary; as a citizen of Saint Louis I am appalled that this would be allowed to occur.
For those of you interested, there is a case in Australia pertaining to under-aged nudity displayed as art. It seems that the father, even though he is defending the photograph as non-sexual, has blogged about the sexual nature of children the "latent sexuality", as he terms it.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23997882-12377,00.html
The child isn't concerned with the photograph, she was pictured at age 2 (now 11) by her mother. The picture was then displayed by the artist, her father, in a national magazine resulting in a national uproar.
The blog post has been taken down, of course, but here are some memorable quotes from the articles:
"The sensuality of children is integral to parental fondness… Centuries of jealous puritanical mores-akin to the suppression of all aspects of childhood-have discouraged the artistic exploration of the sensual delight of children and the enjoyment of their own bodies. Undoubtedly a part of this taboo was the fear of the child’s latent sexuality and its potential for exciting inappropriate and sinful desire…"
"The works challenge the taboos against the recognition of child sensuality; but they are not a form of erotica… In the process, however, they do acknowledge that the child has access rights to an erotic language… The confronting aspect of this suite is that the sensual language proceeds from the child alone."
That's all well and good, save for the fact that I clarified my position and indicated that what I said about photography can be said about the other forms of art (though to a lesser degree). Argue all you want about my stance, but to argue against a technical fault (not mentioning other major art forms specifically) is moot when I, in the second argument, clarified my position and included them. You're beating a dead horse now, I already answered your criticism.
"With all due respect, your response only shows that you expect perversion where there is a nude 14 year old body."
That is a flat-out misrepresentation. I expect misuse of underage nudity if the general policy was acceptance and legalization. I never indicated that every child that has his nudeness reproduced and distributed would find themselves perverted or abused, I just indicated that it is likely to occur in general.
In other words; and I said this repeatedly, the policy would put children at risk, not lead to problems in every single case. You are taking my well-rounded and balanced argument and hurling it into an extreme without any reference point indicating I actually believe that.
"What exactly is the risk? I'm thinking of, you know, year 1611 sorts of risks because that's obviously where my mind is at this point, year 1611, so I'm not quite sure what you mean."
You are really losing my argument, I thought I was quite clear. Let me repeat:
I used "1611" as a date in which the major art forms were sculpture and painting. What I said, very clearly, was that I ignored sculpture and painting because these are no longer the most popular and widely used media/art forms in the U.S. or world. I focused on what was going to be the biggest problem, not what is marginal in the discussion.
I was merely answering to your charge about ignoring other forms of media and focusing on photography.
"If you're going to do something like that, it would be wise to have a attorney present, and I think that follows common sense. What would happen that would get so out of control?"
That sort of naivety is striking, especially when dealing with vulnerable groups of people. Do I need to bring up the eras in which child labor was legal? Do you think they didn't have attorneys then? Do you think the children that worked in mines didn't have parents? The threat to poor children, children with ignorant or neglectful parents, homeless children, orphans is the most disconcerting.
Sure, the children of Donald Trump or a middle-class, college-educated family would be at a smaller risk for abuse and exploitation; but children whose parents are gullible (there are plenty) or ignorant or in dire financial straights are at an extremely vulnerable position.
We don't trust the economy to employ children, why would we trust them with their naked bodies?
Let me, again, clarify my argument:
While allowing children under the age of 18 to be employed not every single child will be exploited. However, there is certainly a danger of exploitation and it is certain that many will be. The cost-benefit of allowing children under the age of 18 full license to work without regulation (15-18 year olds can work but only part time and so long as their schooling does not suffer) is simply not worth it.
The same goes for art; not all children will be abused or exploited but it is likely to happen; especially in photography and video. Is it really worth it to sacrifice a portion of the underage community for the sake of art?
What is to stop an abusive parent from taking sexually explicit pictures of their children to sell to pedophiles? According to you it would be perfectly legal so long as they deemed it "art".
What is to stop a director from pressuring a young actor with nude scenes in order to generate more buzz and revenue for their movie?
"Also, when I said "I also think that good humane intent is behind any good artist's work. You know what I mean", When put in it's right context I was sort of saying that you can tell a good artist from a bad quite easily via common sense."
Your explanation makes even less sense. Are you saying we should ban bad artists from using underage nudes? Are you saying there aren't any gullible or ignorant parents that wouldn't agree to let their children be used by a bad but convincing artist?
Even if the "artist" was good; what is to keep the reproduction from falling into despicable hands? What if the artist's rent is up and all he can do to make a enough money in time is to sell little Susy's nudity to some sleazy car salesman from Reno, Nevada?
What's to keep these images of children from being disseminated all over the internet, worming their way into dens of pedophilia?
If it is legal there isn't going to be a single lawyer in the U.S. who could do anything about it. After all, it would be perfectly legal to have naked children on your computer, on your walls, under your bed.
According to you "Point is, even if it's sexual it could have meaning worth expressing." If that sentence became policy child pornography would become legal, you do realize that, don't you? So long as they are not "actually" having sex, just made to look like it, it would be perfectly legal (just like any pornographic movie).
All nudity and sexual representation of children would fall under the umbrella "art"; and unless you believe that there is an objective way to differentiate between "art" and pornography then you've provided no method of stopping child pornography from becoming legal (de facto, though not de jure).
It isn't a weird anomaly and it doesn't provide evidence that global warming isn't occurring.
This is in the same line of misconceptions that caused many people to balk when snow-falls increased in some parts of Antarctica and we've seen large snow-storms in the United States.
Heating causes increased precipitation; so while most glaciers (especially inland) are receding in all parts of the globe the mountain you are referring to, Mt. Shasta, has seen its glaciers increase in size. This, of course, is not due to any cooling in the area but an increase of precipitation due to the warming of the coastal waters nearby, which increase snow-fall.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/
So, what scientists are saying is that global warming is causing the glaciers to increase in size, this is not happening despite global warming as many would suggest.
I specifically picked on photography (and video, though I didn't mention it specifically) over sculpture and paintings for the same reason I don't mention knives and blackjacks when talking about an individual's right to keep and bear arms; we are living in 2008, not 1611.
When talking about the repercussions of allowing the public display of underage nudity the finer art forms of sculpture, painting, lithograph, wood carvings, cave paintings, and totem poles are left out due to their smaller distribution and composition of the current media economy and popular art.
I still disagree with a child being used for painting and sculpture, but I am perfectly willing to make an exception due to the lower threat associated with it and the unlikelyhood of unsavory characters using the venue for exploitative or disgusting purposes. Still, the threat is still there and most of what I said about photography can be laid against the other art forms, though to a lesser degree.
I do take exception to some of your propositions and what I perceive to be your priorities.
For one, you make this strange statement: "I also think that good humane intent is behind any good artist's work. You know what I mean?"
There are a couple of things wrong with this: legalizing the public display of underage nudity does not, without a qualifier, prevent it from being used by non-good artists. To be honest, most "artists" fall around the mediocre-bad range, not good.
Secondly, there are plenty of unsavory, malicious, or otherwise unscrupulous good artists out there. From Nazis, to rapists, to serial killers and child molesters, there are plenty of good artists with disturbed personalities and/or terrible motives.
"Point is, even if it's sexual it could have meaning worth expressing."
This, and the sentences preceding it which indicate that nude and even sexual public displays of nude children and teens have artistic value are disturbing to a certain extent. Anything has artistic value; gutting a human being and arranging his or her internal organs into a religious symbol is jam-packed with meaning. The problem is; is this meaning worth the possible (or inevitable) repercussions or abuses?
I err on the side of protecting children from abuse, not artistic fulfillment. Just as in science, war, economics; art doesn't have full license to do whatever it wants in the name of itself. No matter how pure the motives are I don't feel it is worth the risk.
Consenting adults can do whatever they wish with their body and likeness; children, however, should not be put at risk for mere artistic fulfillment. Artists can still create the likeness of a nude child without the use of an actual nude body, I don't care much about that; but I do not want children to have their naked bodies laid at the feet of art or commerce, to be used to further the careers, bank accounts, or perversions of an adult population hungry for all manner of unsavory satisfactions.
While Ireland has the full right to decide its fate as a nation it's my opinion that Europe would do well to unify as quickly and efficiently as possible. The EU states are going to be woefully unprepared to meet challenges head-on or effectively if this sort of nationalistic bickering, isolationism, paranoia, and elite power mongering continues. (I blame the EU elites: ministers, economic powers, functionaries..etc..just as much if not more than the general public in the stalling of a fully-functioning true European Union).
With global economic and environmental crisis looming, an ever aggressive Russia, a potentially aggressive China, a loose-cannon U.S. (I am a U.S. citizen), and the threat of Fundamentalist Islamic insurrection I don't think it is in the people of Ireland's best interest to keep the E.U. from becoming a potent international power in its own right.
France, Germany, Ireland, Britain, Poland..etc...etc...cannot compete economically without each other, they cannot compete militarily, and they cannot progress scientifically, environmentally, and socially without each other's help.
Without the combined efforts of all Europeans the E.U. member states are likely to fall behind the U.S., India, China, Russia, and Brazil as economic, military, social, cultural, and scientific powers. The more cogent and stream-lined the E.U. governing body becomes the more powerful and protected the individual E.U. citizen becomes.
For one thing; the underaged can take as many pictures of themselves as they like. The issue I have is with displaying them in public places, selling, and distributing them. In effect; they are giving their body over to the general public, or certain members of the public.
Children's lives are entirely up to "responsible adults"; unless you are against parenting I don't see what you mean here. Do parents not have legal rights over their children to see to their raising and welfare? Are they supposed to allow their children to pose naked for fear of being accused of wrongful imprisonment if they dare to incarcerate them in their rooms for a sentence of one weekend?
18 is not a magical age; it is an age where the average mental development and social/economic/political enfranchisement reaches an acceptably high level; a level to allow for physical independence.
I use the age of 18 as a marker because this is what society has determined to be definitive of an adult. As far as I can tell the age of "adult" is, at most, too low and should be raised higher. Mental/ social maturity is certainly not well-developed before the age of 18 and it is arguable if it is achieved (by the average human being) before the age of 21.
A major aspect of my argument IS the fact that people under the age of 18 are not independent and are not given the power (by society especially but also by nature) to handle situations that arise from having their nudity displayed to the world.
It doesn't matter to me if the age of 18 is really definitive of adulthood in an objective way; what matters is that it is determined by society that it is. This enfranchisement is one of the key aspects of my argument.
This is the same concept that bars people from selling themselves into slavery or children under a certain age from working full-time jobs in mines and factories: people are not able to give up certain rights and certain types of people are not able to enter into contracts/ take on certain responsibilities because of their physical, social, economic, or age status.
If you do not believe there should be a set age to determine adulthood do you think that people under the age of 18 should be tried as adults for any and all crimes they commit? Should a ten year old be charged with manslaughter in the first degree if they play with their grandfather's gun and accidentally kill their friend? Should 15 year olds be charged with felonies if they steal a car and take it for a joy-ride around their home-town? Should we house people under the age of 18 in the same prisons as that house 30 year olds?
I don't believe underage teens or younger should be able to consent to nude photographs. I don't believe it is overtly pornographic, to believe so would be to believe that the naked human body is purely sexual; something that I don't find to be the case.
I do think exceptions should be made for relatives of the children; I don't really care about parents taking pictures of their kids in the bathtub, my own mother did this.
Otherwise, full-frontal nudity should be banned as it is not acceptable to coerce the underage to do things they do not understand/have a full grasp of. It is a protection against abuse and of the child's right to maintain control over his or her own body without the coercion, manipulation, or beliefs of adults overriding it.
If they want to pose nude at 18, fine, let them; but until then they should be able to make up their mind without being subject to the wills, suggestions, desires, and economy of adults.
A boy or girl at 16 does not understand the consequences and does not have the power to deal with whatever may come from their exhibition. They can take pictures of themselves all they want and deal with those consequences (if posted online they should be immediately taken down, of course), but how can they deal with a photographer taking and owning the license to a picture with their fully nude body? How are they going to deal with the publicity, the fact that they may be in a book or publication?
Essentially, allowing them to pose naked for others is allowing their nudity to be bought and sold; taking it away from someone who doesn't even understand what that entails.
I find this problematic and almost inviting problems that children simply cannot and shouldn't have to deal with. Pedophilia is only a part of the danger, though it is considerable.
This is the guy who runs the world bank: Robert Zoellic, a George Bush appointee.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
This aspect lends credibility to the story, somewhat. However, if it is a propaganda piece it is sure to work on Europeans and Liberal Americans who detest Bush.
I am not yet ready to believe the current wave of criticism, especially one emanating from a report noone has been able to read (except some Guardian reporters).
The World Bank itself is suspect; it might be trying to divert attention from the fact that globilization policies are being blamed by some groups for the dramatic rise in food prices. For those of you who don't know, places like Haiti used to be self-sufficient in food until liberalization policies caused cheap imported grain to flood the market and crowd out the local agricultural base.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/
The industrialized, subsidized crops from the U.S. and E.U. can easily out-compete lo-tech, local crop producers without massive governments to support them.
There are a couple other issues:
1. Ethanol's percentage of total global crop production usage has gone up significantly in the past decade; the only problem with that is it went from tiny to small; it is not even close to being a major factor in global crop production.
2. Ethanol is mainly derived from non-staple crops: corn, soy, sugar cane. Corn and Soy, however, are used primarily as animal feed; it would follow that meat prices would rise (somewhat) from this.
The food crisis is stemming from a sudden, sharp rise in wheat and rice; foods not typically used to make ethanol.
The charge leveled, though, is that land usually used to make food is being turned over to bio-fuel use. I have seen no numbers on this and it seems unlikely that this is the major cause as, again, the amount of bio-fuel crops grown versus food stuffs is probably not even 5%, it couldn't account for the rise.
There are too many other factors that seem to make more sense with regards to the rising food prices; most notably the dramatic rise in oil prices, extreme weather (drought, floods) in the U.S. Midwest, Australia and other nations, rising demand, speculation, subsidies, and others. I find it hard to believe that beside all of these factors Bio-fuels is the major culprit.
Now, I am not actually pro-biofuels. There are a number of reasons to be against them as a major energy source; in the long-run food prices would rise considerably (I am not willing to believe, just yet, that it is possible for this effect to happen so soon). There are also additional problems with the destruction of rain forests and other natural habitats. Of course, there isn't enough land on Earth to supply our current or future fossil fuel needs with bio-fuels.
Still, I think bio-fuels can be part of the solution, along with conservation, recycling, reduction in fuel use, efficiency measures, mass transit, taxes, regulations..etc...etc..
I support this judgment, not only because I believe the founding fathers intended such policies from the get-go but also because I do believe people should have the in-alienable right to self-protection.
I believe that handguns, shotguns, and perhaps even some forms of assault weaponry are necessary in the event of government tyranny or foreign invasion. God knows, what if some terrible national or global environmental, economic, nuclear, plague, or other disaster tumbled our government to the ground.
In the case of paramilitary weaponry I would favor restrictions that place it strictly inside the home at all times (probably requiring its assembly in the home, actually. Meaning the manufacturer would need to send the parts to you and you put it together on your own).
Handguns shouldn't be restricted to the home; we should be allowed to protect ourselves on the streets (private businesses and government buildings should be free of them, of course).
Most of the hub-bub on the left (which I am a member of) seems, in part, due to the sensationalism of the late 80s and early 90s. Gun crime was the "Islamic Extremism" of that time period. A universal scare-all that frightened the pants of anyone daring enough to watch the nightly news.
The problem is, at the height of gun deaths in the United States, when the furor against guns reached a fever pitch, the problem was, at worst, smaller than the threat of soot, that's right, soot.
Lemme' give you some numbers:
Gun deaths in 1993: 39,595
Soot deaths in 1993: 50,000
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/
http://www.hpolicy.duke.edu/
Here's a list of things that killed more people than firearms in that year:
Smoking-related (includes non-smokers)
Diet/Activity patterns
Non-compliance, prescription medicines
Alcohol-related
Preventable infectious disease
Hospital deaths due to negligence
Adverse drug events in hospitals (non-negligent)
Toxic Agents
Particle Pollution (soot)
Non-automobile accidents
To recap, your hospital is way more likely to kill you than an armed robber.
Here's another fun fact: half of those gun-deaths are NOT homicide. In fact, in almost every year a little over half of all gun deaths are suicide. The rest are homicide, death by police action, or accident.
That means death by gun by murder is even further down the list of things that might kill you in a given year. If it is taken as just murders you have 18,571 deaths which will put you under AIDS and car accidents.
This pretty much indicates the danger isn't there for most people to require a blanket ban on guns; most of it is media hype and propaganda.
Also, even if half the hype were true I would have to throw my lot in with those that take freedom over safety. Liberals love to quote Benjamin Franklin on this; that sacrificing a little liberty for a little safety will secure neither. That, of course, only seems to apply to war and peace not personal gun ownership and crime.
Remember, this is coming from a die-hard, Republican hating leftist of the far-far-far order. A Communist. I really think the left needs to reconsider its stance on this issue; I don't think it makes much sense.
I think it is disingenuous to stand directly opposed to the constitution in such a way. Lots of things have changed since the amendments were drafted, most of the ideas have ended up to be rather timeless guidelines.
The basic idea of individual means of protection from both a tyrannical government and dangerous individuals is timeless and important. If anything (and I know I am going to sound like people I myself oppose) the founding fathers would want us to have more weaponry than handguns against a government they never intended to grow so large and powerful.
Oops, I made a typo; it's actually the second amendment.
Also, the way sentences are structured that isn't entirely the case. The use of commas makes it seem that the militia is supposed to be the right; meaning the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in the form of a militia.
If they were going to be clear they would have had to put an "and" in there. Without it, to anyone with an objective viewpoint, it isn't 100% clear that they meant personal firearms from that sentence alone.
"What ever freedom that you have and you give away, it will NOT be given back to you. This is how the government works, especially the one that we have now."
The Supreme Court, a part of the government, did indeed give the right back to us.
The wording is not as clear as you'd think. It is actually the third amendment and I will present it here:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
See the conflict? Does it mean we only have a right to a state militia, an independent citizen militia, and individual right to bear arms, all of the above?
The way the sentence is constructed lends it perfectly to multiple interpretations; I believe the court went with the best one but that's just me.
I don't know what you mean.
1. All legislation (including the constitution itself and the amendments therein) are interpreted by the courts (ultimately by the Supreme Court), that's their job. That means that the court can change its mind or that the composition of the court can change (new people) and then alter previous decisions.
2. Amendments can be amended and eliminated (it takes alot of time and effort and it rarely occurs).
3. We can always disagree with interpretations of amendments or amendments themselves.
Hmmm?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/
The court affirmed an individual's right to own handguns. They just gave you MORE freedom.
Yes, indeed, when are they?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24860437/
"Dunkin’ Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachael Ray after complaints that a fringed black-and-white scarf that the celebrity chef wore in the ad offers symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism."
Funny you would decry things happening in another country but didn't seem to mind this happening in our own.
No problem; I understand. (also, sorry if you havn't been able to reach me on AIM, I am not often on the program lately).
The Manifesto is one of the easier things to read of his; I would recommend it but not alone. You can't get a real picture of his basic theoretical and philosophical contributions unless you pick up Capital.
I'd recommend trying out a compilation book; there are many. I'd recommend the Portable Karl Marx and the Marx & Engels Reader:
http://www.amazon.com/
http://www.amazon.com/
They give you the bigger picture of his ideas; the Manifesto isn't meant to be all-encompassing; more of a heavily rhetorical introduction and rally-cry (for that particular moment in time).
If you want the Manifesto, which is actually a rather good work of literature in itself (even if it doesn't get across the complexity and fullness of Marx's concepts) Librivox has the manifesto for you to download in both text and audio format (they are working on Capital):
http://librivox.org/
Wage-Labor and Capital is also a good introduction to his though; sort of like the Manifesto without the rhetoric and with explanations for his beliefs:
Karl Marx
"Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society."
No other Philosopher in history had seen his followers, for better or worse, take over nearly half of the world in his name. Before the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet Union, 1991, Karl Marx's name was in every school, university, and square from Berlin to Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon). For all intents and purposes Marx's writings laid the basis (or excuse) for government policies and political parties stretching across the entire globe.
His influence reverberates today; a recent BBC online poll named him as the millenium's greatest thinker: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/461545.stm
His critiques of business, capital, capitalism, and his sociological insights still form the core of leftist belief and rhetoric (even when they try to move away from the stigma of his name). His "spectre" is still haunting not only Europe but the whole world. Even as Communism is pronounced "dead" it resurfaces in European elections, Indian regional conflicts, Nepalese revolutions, and South American political movements.
Here at home, long after the fall of the Soviet Union and China's reforms; the conservatives, the right, the libertarians still warn of a coming Socialist dictatorship; every reform and measure is seen as a resurrection of Lenin. Moreso than Jesus, the Christian right cowers before the second coming of Karl Marx.
More science on the subject; this time with regards to Wal-Mart:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/
"The authors state in the study that "by displacing the local class of entrepreneurs, the Wal-Mart chain also destroys local leadership capacity."
I know, I know, I don't have a youtube video from 1973 by a dated and fallable economic philosopher to back me up. I guess I'll just have to rely on scientific studies by independent researchers instead.
Case in point, because of the lack of foresight on the part of Chrysler Saint Louis's already shrinking manufacturing base will take another hit: they are closing a minivan plant and putting over a thousand out of work.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/30/news/
I live in Saint Louis; we don't need another factory shut-down. We are already in a panic over one of our larger employers, Busch beer, being taken over by a foreign firm. If that happens we could see it move out of the city; we've already had to wrangle with the company for the longest time, giving it tax breaks and incentives, to stay here.
I believe art should be censurable in certain contexts:
1. Government funding is discretionary and can act as a form of censure by refusing to fund or defunding projects and institutions that do not agree with the public's will. The government has a duty to, within the context of public scrutiny and approval, promote the arts that further our education and improve our culture.
For example: I believe the government is perfectly fine to, and should, refuse to fund or reduce funding to an institution (such as an art museum) that displays art of a graphic, disgusting, or arrogant nature.
Graphic meaning overly sexual given the common more's of a society.
Disgusting meaning the average tolerance for violence, gore, and the macabre.
And arrogant meaning an exclusion of common art for the sake of art crafted only by those with advanced artistic degrees, connections within the artistic hierarchy, or art otherwise removed from the common people and placed on a culturally isolated pedestal.
I also believe the government should be able to censor art conveyed through public mediums or displayed in public areas (under the guidelines mentioned above).
This includes television and radio programs as well as commercial art (advertisement).
Television, radio, public squares, streets, and art/academic institutions should fall under censurable guidelines.
On private property and through private cable and satellite I see no problem with expressing any and all forms of taboo; no matter how explicit or horrifying it may seem to the general public.
For information on dropouts, check out this:
It indicates that there are a number of causes leading to a drop-out, alot of them have to do with the local economic environment, school quality, and race.
Well, I certainly wish I could copy-paste excerpts from two websites (and post youtube videos), be absolutely dismissive, ignore argument, and then declare victory. Must be an easy life being so comfortable in your superiority.
You might want to pay attention to the following, though, unless you're too tired or bored:
1. Here are a number of abstracts from the journal of consumer research which help to counter your belief in a consumer's rational choice:
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
"This article illustrates how the compromise effect alters consumers' selection of soft drinks. Using three within-subject studies, we show that extremeness aversion and price insensitivity cause consumers to increase their consumption when the smallest drink size is dropped or when a larger drink size is added to a set."
Here are some interesting quotes:
"We demonstrate that consumers who have been recently reminded of their own impending mortality wish to purchase higher quantities of food products (and actually eat higher quantities) than do their control counterparts. This effect occurs primarily among low-self-esteem consumers."
"A combination of field and laboratory experiments reveals that the mere presence of categories, irrespective of their content, positively influences the satisfaction of choosers who are unfamiliar with the choice domain."
"We suggest that consumers assess the taste of a food or beverage by comparing the human values symbolized by the product to their human value priorities. When there is value-symbol congruency, they experience a better taste and aroma and develop a more favorable attitude and behavior intention; incongruence has the opposite effect."
"Additionally, we show that subliminally evoked retail brand names can serve as the cues that activate purchasing goals."
"Three experiments examine how power affects consumers' spending propensities. By integrating literatures suggesting that (a) powerlessness is aversive, (b) status is one basis of power, and (c) products can signal status, the authors argue that low power fosters a desire to acquire products associated with status to compensate for lacking power. Supporting this compensatory hypothesis, results show that low power increased consumers' willingness to pay for auction items and consumers' reservation prices in negotiations but only when products were status related."
So far no psychological studies showing that people are basically rational when choosing particular products or services, quite the opposite in fact. Then again, this is all just rhetoric, right?
As for myself, I regularly make decisions which harm my health, my social standing, my career, and my education; even though I know perfectly well that they are doing so. In purchasing things I will go into a store not wanting to buy anything fattening (I'm gettin' abit pudgy) but even I; someone who is completely aware of these tricks, and an avid hater of corporations, will buy something deliciously fattening from a large corporation. That's right, I even make decisions that go against my very principles.
When I go to the grocery store I am overwhelmed with desire, with hunger; and study after study confirms the same thing about most people. I dare you to go to a large supermarket with a bunch of money in hand and not spend a single dime. You'll be tempted; and you'll probably succumb (especially the longer you stay there).
Here's even more data:
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www.journals.uchicago.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/
"The influence of the adopters' group size on a consumer's decision to adopt a new product varied among individuals with different levels of needs for distinctiveness and assimilation: when need for distinctiveness was low, the higher was the need for assimilation and the larger was the perceived group size, the higher was the probability of adopting the product."
"We propose that consumers buying from low- (vs. high-) reputation sellers pay greater attention to surcharges. Thus, reputation moderates the effect of surcharges on purchase. Data from eBay show that consumers adjust bids to account for surcharges when buying from low-reputation sellers but not when buying from high-reputation sellers (study 1)."
"Prior research has shown that individuals are often susceptible to a false consensus effect, whereby they overestimate the extent to which others share their opinions."
Just because I didn't have the time or energy before to research my points properly shouldn't have given you the comfort of declaring victory. I wouldn't be so haughty next time, love.
Do you have any, any data backing up your rational consumer theory from a psychological association, a scientific body of any kind? Do you have any researchers in the field of social psychology, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, biology, neurology, anything?
1. You have rather strange ideas about advertising, ideas which aren't even held by those practicing your Capitalistic ideals. Wal-Mart and other national and international chains would probably disagree with you when you state the following:
"In fact, the only benefit Wal-mart has in advertisement is that it's on a national scale. That kind of advertisement would be useless to a local business that only really requires fliers and a newspaper spot."
This is curious; seeing as you seem to miss the fundamentals behind the business. You see, national advertising doesn't matter to local businesses when the advertiser is, say, a national mail-order catalog or internet business.
However, because Wal-Marts sell locally they are advertising locally, nationally. In other words; they are advertising to thousands of local communities at the same time, on a national scale. They are also using advertising mechanisms which are far more powerful than anything a small business can compete with.
Wal-Mart also has the advantage of the rather mobile population it serves. If you live near or in any major or moderate (even many small) population centers you are near a Wal-Mart, it is familiar to you. All of the small, local businesses in the area are unknown. Most people, of course, go to familiar places. The effect is rather obvious; people are habituated into going to Wal-Mart because of familiarity, branding, and the tendency of these and other machinations to push small businesses out of the market.
Small businesses are left with newspapers, fliers, small signs, canvassing, and (sometimes) small television spots. In the market, though, these are like taking B.B. guns to a nuclear war. The sophistication and reach of the national brands is spectacular and compounding; I can't believe this concept is lost on you.
2. There are large, gaping, fundamental holes in your consumerist logic. The following statement is rather telling in both what it implies and what it leaves out:
"As I said, ultimately the consumer decides, and they in the mass, always decide toward the company that gives the best quality and quantity for the least cost (which is usually the larger businesses). This is the nature of competition, and very basic economic theory."
Not only is it well established that logic and reason have little to do with the bulk of purchases (if it did we'd see the entire advertising industry bankrupted); you are leaving out values beyond simple price vis a vis quantity. Things cost more than their price and most people don't factor in the social, environmental, and "economic" cost of purchasing a particular good or service.
Lemme' give you some info you knock out your logical consumer theory:
http://www.smartmoney.com/theproshop/index.cfm?story=20070322
http://www.nationalbusiness.org/NBAWEB/Newsletter2005/1099.htm
It's always funny to me that you have to use biased sources from your side to back up your arguments while I can find sources from your own side to back me up.
People are not going for the best quality versus cost, some might, but quality is extremely subjective anyways. People regularly buy cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, fattening food, as I said before they'd buy poison if the price was right. (and they used to, before the FDA was a working organization..well...I mean...we still do.). We buy harmful materials, consume them, and allow them to kill us for seconds of pleasure; not entirely logical, is it?
People will buy houses without any money; they'll choose gambling over the electricity bill, they'll choose meth over food. Where is your logical consumer? I am still trying to find this most mythical of beasts.
3. What Wal-Mart did was a good thing, though they supported and continue to support the political administration that caused such a tremendous screw-up.
The government is perfectly capable of doing what Wal-Mart did, for free (it made a profit from its activities, after all). What Wal-Mart did was not a result of market forces, though, according to this study:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourHome/
RealKatrinaHeroWalMartStudySays.aspx
It was local and it had the resources to act; we could just as easily have a government entity run on a decentralized plan (such as the successful coast guard depicted in the story) than a for-profit company that still does more harm than good (they, again, helped put us in that position in the first place).
To sum up, small businesses may not be able to handle regional disasters (though they could if they coordinated under a larger entity); we have a Federal Government which is supposed to do that. Unfortunately, because of the influence of businesses like Wal-Mart we have conservative, anti-government politicians who utterly ruin our government's ability to function.
By the way, I live in the State of Missouri, a state (along with Iowa, Illinois, and others) being hit by the recent flooding of the Mississippi. The government has performed well; we havn't seen half the damage since the government-built levees were constructed after the great flood of 93'. It's a wonderful counter-example of how government (a cooperation of State, local, and Federal) can fix problems and saves lives/property.
4. "Hopefully not without suing the making for fraud."
It's hard to sue after you're dead. It's also hard to sue with a weak government and a low-paid lawyer backing you up against a billion-dollar company and its cadre of high-priced lawyers.
5. I've already established that when large-scale businesses take over a given market ingenuity slows. Ideas that small businesses had that could improve our lives would be lost when they go under.
You also can't actually believe that people are making the best possible decisions when it comes to purchasing. Only if people knew every single one of the choices available to them, were able to carefully weigh each one, and then make a decision could you even plausibly say that. We all know that that is completely impossible.
What's strange to me is that you aren't worried about the problem of corporate domination from a Libertarian perspective. Did you not notice that the result of big corporations knocking down small businesses you'll see an ever-decreasing number of entrepreneurs, small property and capital owners? Essentially, you are supporting the elimination of individual private property for corporate private property; where most land and business is owned by a few large corporations.
Besides that effect, we also have the internally destructive effect of non-productive culture. Because Wal-Mart and the like sell mostly foreign made, cheap goods they not only destroy small businesses locally but destroy domestic manufacturing nationally.
Our goods cannot compete, price-wise, with goods from slave, sweatshop, and child-labor from overseas. As a result, we see more and more factories close down, more and more people needing cheaper goods, which means more shopping at Wal-Mart, which means even less demand for domestic goods and so on and so forth.
All the while the money is being taken out of our local communities and sent to the HQs of the corporate behemoths and the piggy-banks of their CEOs.
That billion-dollar account a Wal-Mart exec has could be a few thousand dollars in thousands to millions of people's accounts spread out across the country. (again, with all of this money moving out of the community there is even less to spend on small businesses nearby).
But oh, they are ruining our economy, sending millions of people into poverty, supporting and expanding child-labor, and putting into power corrupt and inept politicians with their campaign contributions but at least they helped some people (for a profit) during hurricane Katrina.
6. Well I am glad you admit the market shouldn't decide everything.
7. "Since that time government has only grown bigger and bigger, with devastating effects."
It seems that the larger the government grows the larger our economy. At the very least the massive growth in our government's size since WWII hasn't stopped phenomenal economic development in the United States and Western Europe. But let's not get muddied with facts.
First off; your explanation for the great Depression is nauseatingly simplistic and baffling inept. "There was a run on the bank and the Fed didn't print money to save the economy...somehow".
Really, that simple? There was a massive, random run on the bank due to what? Just A BANK? Have you been paying attention in your history classes sweetheart?
For one thing; the people that told the Fed to act so ridiculously were the people in charge of the economy, the capitalists. They didn't want government intervention in their affairs; they are the ones that told the Fed not to act. (but, again, it's 100% the government's fault..and not just the administration, the entire concept of government caused the Great Depression).
Secondly, the run on the banks came from the panic, which followed on the heels of the Stock Market crash.
Here's the thing, I've been reading up on where you got the monetarist explanation for the Great Depression. In fact; I am going to start a Great Depression thread on its own because this is a rather fascinating topic of discussion.
I suppose we'll have to duke it out over here (once I've had the bloody time to research other parts of this debate):
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
8. For one, the fact remains that there is a creative stifling effect in large companies; I didn't say that it was impossible to overcome; but it is a major problem. That was my whole bloody point. I also didn't say large companies don't innovate, they just innovate at a much slower rate than smaller companies...but no matter to you. You can just make up my arguments as you go along.
The article, in its first three paragraphs, states exactly this. It indicates that such stifling tendencies are possible to overcome, but it recognizes the problem I identified (while you pretend it doesn't exist.)
The rest of this is going to have to be completed later or in other debates. I don't have the time to finish at this point. It's midnight already and I need to work in the morning. Didn't want to leave you hanging though; it'd be cruel to withhold fresh meat from a starving dog.
I'll ask them; then I will ask the Iraqi people.
Couple of things: I suppose you've polled our servicemen and women?
Also, no matter their opinion of the worth of their actions; the Iraq war can be considered a failure on a number of levels, especially those set by the people who started the war in the first place.
Please tell me, though, where have we succeeded? What have we accomplished in Iraq? Was the cost worth it?
Sure, you can say you managed to open up a jar of pickles as an accomplishment; I, however, would view that as a failure if it took thousands of people to help you, hundreds of whom died in the process.
It's funny to me that you would use the soldiers as a shield for your position instead of coming up with an actual argument. You never even stated how this was a victory; you simply spun the debate around to "was it a waste of time", "ask the troops then".
I can list the failures, if you'd like, then you can try to list the accomplishments:
1. We have only aggravated the terrorists, not put a stop to their actions. Since the Iraq war we've have increases in terrorist activity, both of our allies were attacked and we lost one ally in the process.
2. What was supposed to be a cake-walk with little to no insurgency has devolved into a civil war.
3. 600,000 to 1,000,000 or so Iraqi civilians have died, for what? They are still not free, their nation has collapsed into civil war, and terrorists roam their streets indiscriminately killing their citizens (they didn't before); not only that, but trained militias are ethnically and religiously cleansing entire neighborhoods.
4. For what? None of what the U.S. government told us turned out to be true. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's capability to wage war was limited to his immediate neighbors, and he was never found to have harbored any terrorists.
All we've managed to do is occupy a country; that's all that I can see. Even the oil benefits promised to us have turned out to be a great cost to the United States, how many billions are we pumping into this country only to see our oil revenues destroyed by a couple of guys in tattered robes with an explosive device costing them 10$?
5. Diplomatically speaking, we have never seen the U.S. more unpopular. South Korea, our protectorate and ally, has been growing more and more angry with our actions. Almost all of the nations of Europe (except those Eastern European ones that allowed us to illegally house and torture suspected terrorists) detest the United States, including our increasingly queasy ally: the U.K.
I am going to have to do a large amount of research to disprove your string of demonstrably false assumptions. Expect a lengthy reply in due time.
By the way, for anyone reading this, Hamandcheese's "source", the heritage foundation, states the following:
"Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
Not exactly a scientific, un-biased organization to say the least.
1. First of all; while small businesses have the ability to survive outside of the market that big corporations are dominating that hardly has anything to do with my point. That's like saying that Wal-Mart doesn't harm small business because small businesses in Indonesia aren't failing because of it.
Secondly, consumer choice is highly influenced by the information we receive. Large corporations are able to dominate the commercial airwaves and get their products and services known by a larger number of people, producing familiarity and preference.
It never matters whether or not a given product or service is superior; a small business could be outdoing Wal-Mart in price (and, in my experience, Wal-Mart's prices aren't lower, at least for what I used to buy there), it doesn't matter though, as Wal-Mart is "known" for low prices, just like Uncle Bill's Snake Oil is "known" for curing baldness, scurvy, and depression.
Big businesses have other advantages that small businesses (in their industry) cannot compete with.
When certain markets or regions take an economic downturn; say the state of Missouri sees a major economic slump and consumer demand plunges. Wal-Mart and other major stores can continue to operate off of the profits from other areas of the country. Small businesses, however, don't have the luxury of a vast supply of income from a variety of regions and sources.
Also, big corporations can go into a developing area; drop their prices way below the competition (taking a loss) and use the profits from other areas of the country (or world) to wait for the other businesses to go under, close, and then put their prices back up to normal.
"The people controlling the market are the consumers. Ultimately you are the ones, collectively, who put out of business the uncompetitive."
People will buy discount poison drops if they said "quality pain killer" on it. Just because people are making bad choices doesn't mean it legitimizes the choice. That's like saying "Wal-Mart doesn't hurt anyone because everyone likes it". It's a bogus argument.
Additionally, we're invested with not only economic power (through the dollar) but political power. Just because people are willing to buy cheap goods made from children in sweatshops doesn't mean that choice is legitimate and shouldn't be taken away.
People don't have the economic right to preference slavery over freemen factory goods. Are you saying we should legalize slavery and let the market decide?
2. For one thing; you are ignoring the huge amount of government redistribution programs that have been in operation for almost a hundred years. Pretending that business alone rose the standard of living for the average person is the worst sort of tunnel vision.
First of all, before the New Deal there was an economic catastrophe or depression every five to ten years (nationally, there were far more on a local level), since the New Deal there has never been a single depression in this country, hardly a recession either. Keynesian, socialist, economics has done wonders for our economy and our standard of living.
Trickle down economics has been shown, time and again, to be a worthless sham.
The most recent example is the phenomenal increase in individual productivity in this country. A productivity increase that has not been matched by wage increases. In fact, poverty has been increasing in recent years, food stamp applications have been on the rise, and unemployment is rising as well.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/
nD9yJIDaBrnnGoDZYhxAfVf7Sbg_
How can this be? How can wages be going down by .3 per cent (that's not even factoring in our ever rising inflation) while our productivity, as individuals, has increased 8.4 per cent? Why isn't the market giving back?
The only reason we have the standard of living we enjoy today is due to government redistribution programs, market restrictions, regulation, and control over the money supply.
Of course, we wouldn't have anything to redistribute if it weren't for business, that's true. But they wouldn't have a business if it weren't for the workers and the consumers; it's also a sure thing that we can operate perfectly well without big corporations.
Here are some links backing up my claims on innovative stagnation in larger companies:
From Forbes: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
Portfolio:
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/
Not exactly anti-business organizations, yet they both talk about how large corporations tend to stagnate when it comes to innovation.
3. Your statements are terribly intellectually dishonest. This, again, must be a factor of your endemic tunnel-vision.
First of all, a small government would give even greater power to corporations; without a strong government most decisions would be left up, directly, to those with the most economic power; not indirectly through bribes, lobbying, and campaign funding.
Tell me, how on earth is a politician supposed to get elected without campaign contributions? How on earth are they supposed to get elected without the assistance of mass media? Without support from big business and the media another candidate would simply get in who is.
In other words, there are plenty of honest politicians or people who want to be honest politicians. The problem is that the system rewards the dishonest.
We cannot have a Democracy with a small government, we would end up in a true Plutocracy; a society government exclusively by the rich. We cannot have a functioning democracy in a system of extreme wealth stratification either. Without the backing of the economic elites no national politician stands a chance of getting elected (state and local have a slightly better chance, on down to the lowest rungs of the political ladder).
I also wonder why you only see fit to blame politicians and never corporations. Are corporations small children who are just swept up in political corruption by accident? They know exactly what they are doing, they are doing it for their bottom line, and to blame politicians only is to, again, be intellectual dishonest.
Big corporations will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want; same as anyone else. The problem, though, is that you seem to think the best way to deal with this is to give all of the power to them and make sure there is no other entity overseeing their activities.
No matter what political system, big government, small government, monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship...the people who hold economic power hold political power. It's beguiling that you don't seem to recognize this.
People cannot make good, logical decisions when their information is controlled by either political or economic entities with a vested interest in their deception. Again, you find that it's fine for businesses to control what we know, not government. I don't see how that is better.
Well, I use a scale from true Capitalist to True Socialist; and up until the New Deal I supposed that we were more Capitalist than Socialist (though we had already developed plenty of restrictions and distribution methods by then), the New Deal, I believe, pushed us over into the "more Socialist than Capitalist" side of the scale.
An alternative to Capitalism is already being practiced by every single developed, western nation. We no longer live in a Capitalist society; perhaps moreso than Canada, Europe, and Japan, but our economy is thoroughly socialistic these days. We do not live in a free market, we havn't since the New Deal, and it has done us mostly good.
Our standard of living has risen dramatically since the introduction of welfare, stock market controls, regulation, pollution controls, social security..etc..etc..
Capitalism does not model people well at all; it models some people well, but the vast majority of people can be both greedy and generous; good and evil, selfish and selfless.
Do you really think the men and women in our armed forces are in that job for the pay? Do you really think teachers chose that career path for the riches? What of the numerous polls and surveys that indicate people would take a pay cut in order to spend more time with friends and family.
Capitalism appeals to a very small aspect of our humanity, we care about a number of other things above and over money and wealth.
I believe an alternative can be found that both allows for a market-driven economy which rewards productive and innovative behavior while also protecting individuals and keeping wealth concentration from getting out of hand.
A truly worker-run economy, an economy of small businesses, family businesses and farms, non-profits, and cooperatives can completely replace our current system (and probably improve it). With wealth spread out and economy power in the hands of many instead of few we'd probably see a higher degree of innovation and a much better government.
If you hadn't noticed, innovation in most industries and services tends to occur at its highest rate in the developing stages, when there are a large number of competing entities. Because of the pressure to survive and the larger number of people who have a direct say in how things are run we see a plurality of ways and ideas to tackle various problems.
Stagnation tends to occur when a handful of enterprises manage to eat up the market.
Big corporations are machines of economic centralization and economic stratification. They tend to suck up huge amounts of wealth and capital and deliver it to a rather small number of people.
This sort of concentration of wealth has several consequences:
1. First and foremost, large corporations have the ability to dominate local markets. Shoving out smaller businesses and keeping new ones from developing.
2. Wealth becomes stratified and concentrated in the greater population. This has ramifications for the economy as a whole; it can produce recessions due to a large number of people who have little to no real wage growth and an increasing amount of capital that cannot be spent on investments due to the fact that demand is not increasing. Economic stagnation tends to occur because of this process.
Another problem comes with innovation; big corporations are essentially economic bureaucracies. A small number of people make the decisions and approve the ideas while the vast majority of people have little to no say in how things are run and what products and services are produced (and how).
3. Money is power, the large the corporation and the more our economy is dominated by large corporations the more political power corporations have. Because of the wealth concentration effects of corporations we see a complete shift of power away from lower and middle-class people and towards the rich who own the corporations as well as the corporations themselves. (The CEO of Mcdonalds and the Mcdonalds corporation can, independently, give to a particular political party or candidate).
If you believe in democracy you should be fairly worried about this trend.
Also, the domination of a few media conglomerates; the control of all of our major sources of information and communication, is also worrisome in a democracy. It guarantees that certain viewpoints will never be expressed (or be expressed sparingly) and others will be pushed extensively.
Fox News is not the only guilty party, all of the major media outlets censor the information being given to us.
If the war was handled competently we'd probably have had plenty of benefits. Even though the war itself was wrong, unjust, and ended up a total failure; should we have had the man, materials, and intelligent leadership necessary for success we would probably have seen the following benefits.
1. Cheaper energy supplies due to a new, oil-rich ally. We also had deals with the Saudis that they would provide us with cheaper oil if we took out their enemy, Iraq. This, coupled with our military bargaining power over other OPEC states and a pipeline running from Israel to Iraq (and, if Iran really was going to be next on the list: a pipeline stretching from Israel all the way to Pakistan) would have had our energy costs down even more than they already are. (most people don't seem to realize that the United State's oil is cheaper than most other places on Earth, despite being a leading hog and thousands of miles away from the major sources of oil).
2. The idea that fighting terrorists over there rather than here may have some merit, but not much. We would see a diversion of attention away from the U.S. mainland and towards the main front of the conflict, the Middle East.
Still, it would provide a wonderful training ground for terrorists and this would probably do more harm than good in the long run.
3. If you are a Republican you would be in a rather good place if your party was responsible for winning a war and delivering prestige to a country that seems to be losing its global esteem. For politicians, victorious wars and established puppet states/colonies are trophies to be used to impress the population. If the Iraq war would have gone well Republicans would have increased their power in congress rather than lost it and Democrats would have little hope of winning the 2008 presidential election.
4. The U.S. citizenry has a habit of turning on itself whenever there isn't an external enemy to fight. Both Democrats and Republicans have alot to lose if public scrutiny falls on them instead of foreign, scary enemies.
Social issues, which lead to social action, which lead to socialism tend to spring up whenever there isn't a war going on. Republicans tend to lose, big time, on domestic issues; especially when the economy isn't doing well. A war helps distract people from the problems around them and keeps them from demanding government action on issues of poverty, healthcare, social justice, inequality..etc.
It's always funny to me when Republicans and conservatives think that the U.N. and its resolutions are illegal encroachments on national sovereignty except when it deals with countries other than the U.S.
If we violated U.N. resolutions would you say it would be alright for France, Russia, and China to invade us?
What about Guantanamo Bay and our secret detention facilities overseas? According to the U.N. Committee Against Torture we are violating U.N. anti-torture resolutions.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/19/
It also seems that our friend Israel is not only violating U.N. resolutions but has violated way more than Iraq ever did:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/
I'm not even against Israel. But you have to wonder what your point is when you decry Iraq's refusal to comply with a world government body most Republicans have no respect for anyways.
As for what should have been done; the Barack Obama excerpt given by another contributer to this debate is about as good a program as I can think of. Iraq was well contained and people like Saddam don't last forever.
I'm gay, I'm in a nearly two year relationship; and god knows my eyes wander. The thing is though, Marital monogamy can only work if the two people actually love each other. You've got to actually be dedicated to your partner; know that they are who you want to be with for the rest of your life; and know that they are just as dedicated to you as you are to them.
I am not surprised by the failure rate of marriages and the high numbers of people found cheating. People are rather isolated, selfish, emotionally closed-off, dishonest, and irrational.
It's bizarre to me, but people often get married for all the wrong reasons; financial security, a child in need of raising, wanting to provide a mother or father "figure" (because children go insane if they have only one parent). People will go into relationships lying to each other, pretending they are someone they are not, and then acting surprised when things don't work out.
I myself have made the mistake of going into a relationship hoping to change the other person; trying desperately to "make things work". That isn't how relationships are supposed to work out.
If people were more honest with each other and themselves we'd probably see a higher success rate. Otherwise, we could always copy off of "freer" cultures and embrace a loose monogamy where some sexual indiscretion is acceptable to both parties.
Christian Bale from Equilibrium, Batman Begins, and American Psycho.
1. To make things clear; I started with a philosophy and I found gods. If my philosophy ever changes my concept of religion will also change. My morality is hardly influenced by my gods, as I accept the existence of evil gods as well as good. If I wanted to be evil I would choose wicked deities, if I wanted to be good I'd choose holy ones, if I didn't want to be bothered with such things I'd choose neutral gods.
My gods are chosen because they are in line with my "force", who I am. With their help and guidance I believe I can accomplish much more; I also wish to show my appreciation for the forces which control my life and my destiny, out of respect I suppose (also as a reminder to myself of who I am and what I am about).
2. If you seriously believed that an invisible lizard in your garden created the universe a series of logical questions could easily affirm or discredit your belief. "How", "When", "Why" can all be used to back absurdities into a corner and negate them out of existence.
It's easiest to do with absolutist religions, ones that are more style than substance. Monotheistic religions such as Christianity are easy to knock down due to the ease in which their beliefs can be questioned and successfully discredited with logic and facts.
Boiled down, though, your lizard and teapot or any other made-up gods or creatures will usually end up representing what past and present worshiped gods represent(ed). It's all rather futile, really.
3. I'm going to copy and paste this one due to how funny it is to me:
"Hmm, I love it when people misunderstand probability. The argument here also revolves around infinity, and how your god lies within the realms of an infinite number of possible gods. Therefore, the probability is that you are completely and utterly wrong. Whilst it is a non-zero that you are right, don't bring probability into it, as probability states that you are almost certainly wrong."
You may have destroyed someone who believed in a single god. I, however, believe in all gods. That is, I believe in all possible gods. Therefor, the probability that my own personal religion (a religion of technically infinite gods) is 1. Probability-wise, my religion of utter inclusiveness is surely correct simply because it is so open and inclusive (according to your understanding of probability I might add). Only religions and gods that deny the existence of others (a logical contradiction or a statement of negation against what cannot be disproven) are denied by me.
4. My own personal belief in the creation of the universe follows the quantum cosmological model: nothing is unstable and therefor created bubbles of something.
I am going to admit a grave mistake when I stated, as an example of something that cannot be disproven, a religion who claims a god created the universe. I should correct that and say they cannot be disproven with facts (yet), only logic and questions. Most of the popular religions on earth can easily be chopped down (in part) through simple argument.
5. That in itself is contradictory.
6. You are conflating me with other forms of religion. Just because I accept other religions as equally valid (unless they can be defeated by logic and reason, through their own inherent contradictions) doesn't mean I actually stand certain of their beliefs or my own.
I am perfectly willing to change my beliefs and understandings given scientific, philosophical, and logical discoveries and advancements. My statement of belief in gods is not a statement of "I will always believe this", you are mixing me in with blind adherents of faith.
All that I believe in I believe in up to a point and always with the understanding that it can and will probably change with time, insight, and argument.
As for my "wishy-washy"-ness; that's a matter of opinion. I am always open to clarify my beliefs and positions you need only ask me to.
While you say that you accept that you are probably wrong; only one of us dismissed the other person's beliefs. Not only that, but it what was dismissed wasn't actually held by that person as true. I never said "god did it" with regards to the creation of the universe. Also, my conception of god is, as you have noted, not a strict and easily bordered concept.
Defeating other people's beliefs won't defeat mine; and until you find a point of contention I don't see the problem. All that seems to be at issue here is that your taste, your personal preferences deviate from mine. You seem, though, to not like my defense of my deviation from what you find to be personally agreeable.
People cannot sell themselves into slavery, people cannot give other people permission to murder them, people cannot give up their inalienable constitutional rights to due process...etc..etc. People don't have the right to take away their rights and freedoms; if someone is mutilating their body, attempting suicide, or engaging in obviously harmful activities our laws clearly indicate we have the right to detain and provide psychological treatment to them.
Noone left me in charge, I have an opinion. We are all imposing our beliefs about what is best for ourselves and each other when engaging in democratic activity so I don't see the problem with my objections to and sanctions of narcotics.
The difference between escaping through activity and escaping through chemical alteration is the difference between exercise and steroid injections. It is the difference between increasing your height through a proper diet while still in your development stages and breaking your legs and resetting them repeatedly.
Not only is the activity unnecessary, a cop-out, and usually not even a remedy for a real malady, but it is an extreme approach and ultimately detrimental to the person's body, mind, and their professional life.
What I am saying is that in the case of drugs people are willfully giving up their freedoms; I would like to have it given back. Besides, if they are already giving up their freedom and humanity for a little pleasure, why on earth should they have the rights in the first place? Would you give a teenager a car if they decided to wreck it, on purpose, every time just to experience the thrill?
People shouldn't be allowed to choose to be slaves just as much as people aren't allowed to be slave-owners. I find it frightening that people seem to actively look to be controlled, by addiction or dictators, and I don't want such behavior to go unchecked.
Video games are an absence of the use of freedom, chemical alterations remove them or block them. Chemicals destroy personality and individuality, pass-times merely divert them and slow their growth or actualization.
Again, Marijuana isn't a big deal in this respect; but legalizing it certainly doesn't help. It does dull the senses, it does have long-term psychological and intellectual effects, and it is possibly as if not more carcinogenic than Tobacco and just as addictive (not yet completely substantiated so I could be wrong).
Some basic facts on it can be found here; a rather well-rounded survey of Marijuana and its effects:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/
From the site:
"Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction; that is, compulsive drug seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities. Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit."
"A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia."
Now, that, again, is not known to be 100% true. Marijuana research is still in its developing stages (probably due to its illegality) and so not enough is known to say anything with certainty.
I'd like to see more studies to make sure that it is as benign as many people like to think it is. If it turns out to be then I have even less of a problem with it. The hard drugs, however, should always be illegal in my eyes.
The reason I don't like marijuana, alcohol, hard drugs, and certain kinds of prescription medications is rather simple: I don't think people should sacrifice who they are, in some cases their free will or their humanity.
When someone gives up their free will by becoming a slave to a hard drug or prescription mood and personality altering chemicals it is time for society to step in and give them back control.
Marijuana may be a petty offender, much less of an offender than alcohol, tobacco, meth, cocaine..etc.., but it is still a means of giving up who you are or keeping yourself in a state of non-growth.
We, as human beings, have a duty to ourselves to grow, change, improve, but always in the context of who we are. Drugs are a way to retard this development, deny who we are, and cope with a world that rejects us. It is an escape; an escape which noone deserves.
I don't mind people escaping in other ways: video games, reading, television, camping..etc, at least they are still thinking, at least their self is still intact and operating.
When people do drugs they stop being people and start being Mr. or Ms. X+meth, or X+Marijuana, or X+alcohol. It isn't helpful; it's downright harmful in the long-run.
Governments and societies are meant to protect us; usually from dangers outside. This danger, this threat is unique in its internal, self-inflicted nature.
Again, Marijuana is only a petty offender in this case; which is why I am not adamant about its status as an illegal narcotic. There are far worse legal drugs which I am much more concerned with.
Does that help in explaining my objection to its use? I am still forming my opinion on this one so I know my logic is abit choppy and in some cases exaggerated.
I think he's talking about their cutting off energy supplies to the country (blaming random terrorism or some such nonsense for the disruption) and other bullying. They've been using energy as a weapon recently, Georgia and Ukraine have essentially had their gas cut off in the dead of winter by their energy company: Federated Russia inc.
I am still in the dark as to why we have them there, honestly. The Soviet Union is gone, Russia is barely able to control its own territory, and the European Union has plenty of military capability of its own.
Even if there is still a threat from Russia, "Islamic Fundamentalists", Aliens, The United States, or other aggressive entities I am fairly certain they can be combated just as effectively with far fewer American military bases.
The combined European GDP is about the same as the U.S.'s, perhaps more; it has the money to raise the same military force as the United States (if not the political will).
We don't need to be paying for European defense anymore; the threat isn't as great nor is it shared by both Europe and the United states to the same effect.
Islamic terrorism is hardly a military problem; most of it is espionage and police work. Russia's GDP is far smaller than the EU's; its military is out of date; a sagging, hulking, brittle shell. The Europeans are more than a match for them should trouble arise; though without the U.S. with them their political clout is diminished (somewhat).
Though, who knows, perhaps without the fatherly protection of the US the Europeans may grow a back-bone and seek to solve their own problems for a change. Though, let's hope they don't do it in the traditional European way (dragging each other and the world into massive wars).
I believe the United States is an imperialist power, but probably one of the least terrible and crushing forms that has come into existence.
Unlike most other empires; we tend to not use our military muscle to enforce our will. That may sound strange given our current situation, but given our massive capability and the territory we seek to control we have usually done the controlling through mostly indirect means.
Earlier empires would take on a hostile territory or revolting province by invading, raping and murdering as many people as they could catch, burning the village or town down, and salting the lands. (We'll use Carthage as a wonderful example of such forms of imperialism).
I'd like you to take note what the Huns did to Eastern Europe when they marched across the continent. The Romans had quite the time dealing with entire regions evacuating into their territory.
The United States, though, ended its genocidal tendencies after the Native Americans were gone and present-day America was founded. If anything, we were far more imperialistic in the past than now; and far more violent and destructive.
Nowadays, we are content to bully, spy, propagandize, economically blackmail, and coup our way towards empire. Our list of nations we've directly attacked (after WWII) are small: Iraq(2), Afghanistan, North Korea, North Vietnam, and Serbia.
With regards to Israel (which always seems to come up whenever U.S. imperialism is discussed), the matter is much more complicated than either side is willing to admit. At any rate; it is an indirect form of imperialism at the most.
We do, of course, have indirect control over many nations in Central and South America (but that grip seems to be slipping more and more). Africa is somewhat under our control; and we've engaged in some rather underhanded dealings with regards to Somalia when we helped their neighbors overthrow their popular government.
Asia is somewhat in our control as well, but that is slipping as regional powers such as China grow in importance and as Japan and South Korea become more and more fed up with U.S. presence.
We maintain military bases around the world, from Europe to Asia. But in Europe they seem to be mostly for show; a political bargaining chip at the most when dealing with Russia.
The Middle East is a strange place, our bases there seem to do two things:
1. Make our oil cheaper than the Europe's.
2. Destabilize the region more and more.
Our control over the Middle East slips by the hour, if not the minute; we certainly have far less control over that region than past empires (from the British to the Ottomans).
For the most part, our empire is built to do two things:
1. Make us look big and scary so we can feel good about ourselves (and to help as a bogey-man at negotiating tables)
2. Open up trading opportunities and continue the market for arms sales and military personelle.
I am religious, I believe in gods; but I also find the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be a rather hilarious addition to the Universal Pantheon of gods.
He is as real as any god; in the way that all gods are representations of forces and/or concepts. They are culturally determined faces on fundamental and universal qualities of man and nature.
If you listed the features and powers of FSM and compared him with other gods held be past or present "serious" religions you'd probably find a god that does the exact same things he does; only they look much different.
The ancient polytheists realized this; that's why whenever Greeks would invade a territory they simply merged their beliefs with the locals. (Oddly enough, the Catholics continued this tradition in the form of saints and the Virgin Mary.)
Are you saying that Democratic and Republican nations are not able to be imperialistic powers? Depending on your definition of what is a "Democracy" or "Republic" it is surely accurate to call the Constitutional Monarchy of the UK up until the end of WW2 an imperialist power, as well as Republican Rome, and Democratic Athens.
Democracies are perfectly capable of being imperialistic; alert citizenry or not.
I think you are a little confused in your history. You see, the people that created the Palestinian state were, in fact, the Jews. Palestine has never been its own country, there is no period in history in which the lands now called "Palestine" were under local, or national rule.
The land that Israel and Palestine now sit on has been under the control of a number of empires, the most recent being the British. The British, under the guidance of the U.N., granted Jews control over portions of Palestine and the Arabs were granted another portion.
Unfortunately, the Palestinians didn't like this idea and, with the collusion of Israel's neighbors, attempted to invade and take over what Israel was given.
Israel, in its defense, won, pushed back, and took back over the Palestinian territories. (By the way, the Palestinian territories were never going to be independent if the Arabs won; Jordan and Egypt planned to incorporate the territory into their countries).
Israel, due to international pressure, internal political changes, and a desperate need to stop the frequent terrorist attacks on its civilians has had a policy of non-negotiation with terrorists and out-and-out war on them and their supporters while also working to give the Palestinians a nation.
In other words, they started the conflict and Israel has actually been rather kind in its actions. The Palestinians have more of a state than they have ever had in their history. They continue to support terrorism, and it isn't their right to do so.
I plainly stated my beliefs, the one who sweepingly used the "polytheistic" label was you. If you need further clarification please tell me what you'd like me to elaborate on.
"On a side note, it grates me how the religious always try to find a way of pushing the emphisis of proof onto the non-believer, when infact you should be bringing some facts with you to the table in order to back up your argument."
It grates me when people say "no you are wrong, show some facts!" to very large and complicated statements. You never pointed out a point of contention; I don't understand what you find silly or what you need specific proof of.
Additionally, the argument heading was "What is your concept of god", which I answered directly with my concept. I am fully capable and willing to back it up, I just wish to know what parts of my statements you disagree with and why.
My philosophical epistimology follows along the lines of "something is true until proven untrue"; coupled with the concept of "probability" or the "likelyhood" of something being true.
Oddly enough, I have an answer for your question "why is your religion right and all others are wrong?" The answer is, my religion isn't the only correct one. All religions (and ideas) are correct until proven incorrect; either through facts or inherent logical contradictions.
A religion that posits "my god created the universe" can't really be disproven; so it is technically true within a measure of probability.
A religion, however, that says "my god is all good but he kills people when they look too hard at rabbits" is a logical contradiction and the religion is, in part, false.
"Bring one bit of factual evidence to the table to back up your religious beliefs, and then I'll think about changing my tact from bland dismissal to debate. Until that happens, I'll continue to blandly dismiss any and all religion for the nonsense it clearly is. So, if you can, please provide me with one fact about your religion?"
You are on shakier ground than you believe. You do realize that the very fundamentals of the universe have not been proven with facts, they are theories with a high likelyhood of probability (until they are disproven).
You can harp all you want, but the very existence of the universe makes absolutely no sense. At some point something, matter, had to pop into existence from nothing. This completely turns the laws of matter and energy on its head; matter and energy cannot be created nor destroy? But if they cannot be created...how on earth did they come to exist?
Anyways, name what you think is incorrect and I will back it up with logic. Otherwise you are just following preconceived notions and general prejudices.
It's like telling someone that what they are doing is evil without pointing out what exactly about what they are doing is transgressing against the principles of good (or not even enunciating what those principles are).
Yes, there are ways. It all depends on the god, really; but there are a number of divination techniques, spiritual journeys, and "special connections" you could potentially use.
It all comes down to your personality and which god or gods you choose to worship.
Personally, I like to use Tarot to ask them questions; I am more familiar with it and it is quite fun to experiment with.
They'll usually answer your questions, and facilitate explorations into the future. Tarot doesn't actually work without them, you need outside help or else it'd probably be mindless gibberish.
I am sure they'll "communicate" with you in other, more direct ways. If you choose a good god and do wrong; they'll probably send a message or two your way (in the form of bad luck. All I can say is that when I say something bad about someone out loud I seem to immediately trip, stumble, fall, run into something, or get hit by something; nothing official but it is something I think about). If you choose a god of education and you are slacking in your studies, expect some "hints" that you aren't following along with your obligations; bad grades, technical difficulties, usually amiable teachers no longer cutting you slack...etc...etc...
If and when they communicate with you depends on which god you are trying to talk to and whether or not you have done what is expected of you. A god of strength and war won't piddle around with cowardly weaklings to say the least.
I know it sounds hokey, but I really am able to back up my beliefs with logic. I don't mind people not agreeing with my religious faith; not at all, but I don't believe I am baseless in my beliefs.
I formed my belief structure using various beliefs, philosophies, and religions as well as my own understanding of things. I didn't realize my beliefs were terribly outlandish (especially so outlandish as to get "voted down". I found that to be a rather odd thing).
Everyone is entitled to an opinion I suppose. I would enjoy a debate rather than bland dismissal, though.
Would you like to point out what is insane about my belief structure, specifically, and find some logical or factual fault with it?
