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?
