"we simply violently revolt against a wealthy individual who exerts an unreasonable amount of power (if he can actually reach that amount of land control)."

Welcome to Communism.

"remember permanent laws? how bout make it that streets, town squares, forests, shit like that are owned by no one (except for the street lights and stop signs shit)."

Welcome to Communism.

"yes, there can be land patches available for buying, but in order to protect our individual rights, we will need to set permanent laws stating that no one controls this country in general."

Again, welcome to Communism my friend.

"as for the argument thing, that's when i realized that a heated debate leads nowhere, so i decided to stop getting sarcastic (psychology thing). i've been saying the same thing, just been more rude about it."

You actually havn't been saying the same thing, if what you say is true you've been exaggerating your position through sarcasm the entire time. You are much closer to my opinion than you first indicated, actually. It's rather interesting.

Let's go back to this, though:

"as for when a government reaches the inevitable point or overpower, we simply violently revolt against a wealthy individual who exerts an unreasonable amount of power (if he can actually reach that amount of land control)."

What about a minority of the population? Not one person but many operating together under the same ideology and system? They may compete against each other (like politicians do), but more or less their policies are the same and they, together, control most of the property, land, and jobs in the country.

Do we revolt against them?

Let me state, finally, that I agree that we should maximize each person's individual freedom. Noone should be told what to do unless it is absolutely necessary. Right now, however, I am most worried about the fact that we can't even get down to providing those freedoms because our government, society, and economy is run by the wealthy.

Once we are equal noone can control us; once we are equal we can be free. And, as you have stated, once we have spaces that noone owns (which means everyone owns it equally), only then can we be safe in our freedom.

Now this is a post! It's about time you got abit serious about this debate.

For one thing; you can hold the philosophical viewpoint that noone should be allowed to tell anyone what to do (within reason, as you have laid forth with cases of murder). That, of course, is merely a subjective viewpoint and is not actually backed up with anything beyond mere preference.

"nope, i believe no one should have authority over our private lives... don't get how that's authoritarian somehow... seems more libertarian."

Here is the problem; the nature of the world can be quite contradictory. You correctly pointed out that democracy can devolve into its exact opposite, despotism (or fascism, or totalitarian communism). My point, however, is that your pure libertarianism devolves into rule by corporate powers.

When you focus only on government control and keeping governments out of our lives you neglect the control that corporations, industry, and business can have as well.

In a pure libertarian system all land can, theoretically, be controlled by a single person or entity. Over time this person or company can slowly buy up every piece of property in the United States or earth. What would happen, then? If someone owns the land you live on don't they get to tell you what to do? If someone owns all the land on Earth wouldn't they make the rules?

If people have complete control over property they own and noone can do anything about it anyone who lives or works on the property must do what they say, no ifs, ands, or buts.

A company can prohibit smoking on its property, can't it? Can't a company say it is a drug free place of work? Can't apartment complexes stipulate that no alcohol is allowed on premises? If people don't like it they can live or work somewhere else.

If, say, this company that controls all land on earth didn't like homosexuality and said that it cannot be practiced on its private property, what would homosexuals do? What if this only employer on earth said no blacks or women, Chinese, or Frenchmen can work? What are these people to do?

You laugh, of course, you'd say it is merely hypothetical and that it is impossible for one company to own all land on Earth. Even with a pure libertarian system in place that might be true. However, you don't need one entity to have such problems, a small group of major employers and land-owners could own most of the land and provide most of the jobs.

If this small group of extremely wealthy and powerful people share similar views then what would minority groups or individuals with habits, beliefs, and tendencies adverse to this group's ideology do? What if 90% of the jobs in a country or the world were controlled by men who didn't believe women should be employed? What are the women of the country to do? Move to a country where that isn't the case? What if most other countries are the same way?

Maybe they could start their own business? How? If most of the money, land, jobs, factories, everything is owned by a small group of people hostile to them how are they going to get started?

The sad fact is that this happens all the time; in the United States whole towns, called "factory towns", were run by a single company.

Today, over 80% of the wealth in this country is controlled by the top 20%, 60% by the top ten.

Guess what, that means if you want to be employed, take out a loan, find investors, buy land, live somewhere acceptable you must play by a relatively small number of people's rules. If this 20% doesn't like women guess how hard it is going to be to find investors or a business loan?

This already lopsided wealth distribution would be even worse in an unregulated libertarian economy.

In other words, without the people having control over their government, without equality in the vote, and without people having a say in their lives and over each other's lives (to a certain extent) we'd live in even less freedom than we have now.

At least now, because of a government system of some equalization, checks and balances, and freedom to vote for policies and politicians that a majority favors we can at least have some say in how our lives are lived. In your case we'd inevitably have no say; it is whatever the new kings of our society want, whatever the people who own the land want, whatever the rich people want.

I am sorry; your goals may sound noble but are nothing but a pipe dream. Until you figure out a way to keep the rich from controlling our lives I think I am going to put my lot in with government, social action, and community action.

"can you limit power from the rich without having the government get involved at all? the business men are just going to let everyone run things? they're not gonna work hard to make more money? what's stopping them? if you say the people have a say in what gets aired, they'll need a way to enforce that. that's creating a government who will enforce this control. hence, creating governmental power over the media."

Here is the thing, no matter what government is going to have to get involved in either a capitalist media system or a public media system. In one case the government is used by the wealthy to enforce what they want and in the other case it is used by the public to get what they want.

"if you say the people have a say in what gets aired, they'll need a way to enforce that. that's creating a government who will enforce this control. hence, creating governmental power over the media."

What on earth do you mean "need a way to enforce that". If the media outlet is a cooperative there would be an internal voting system. If those rules are disrespected, if a group of people storms the media outlet and tries to take over, if there is fraud involved, if there is embezzlement..etc..etc...the government, same as now, would enforce the law and the policies of the organization.

This is no different then now; when the managers of a station say something it is done because they have the institutional power to have their employees do what they are told. If the employee refuses they can be fired, if they refuse the building they can be escorted from the premises, if they resist they can be arrested (by the government). If they are arrested they are tried in a court, a government court.

In other words, the government would have about the same power as now over content, they would have the power of law and to enforce contracts, but they would have the added responsibility to fund the outlets where necessary.

At any rate, even if the government had direct control over the media; in a democracy that isn't as bad as corporations. The government is directly answerable to us, if we don't like what they are doing with the media we can fire them through elections and put people in place that we do think are using their positions properly and in our best interest.

I don't, of course, advocate for direct government control, but it's certainly better than control by the wealthy.

"Democracy in a way does limit the people's freedom."

You aren't for freedom either, you've made it abundantly clear that you want the rich to rule us.

"with a full on democracy, the people have the ability to vote in commie laws that hurt our freedoms."

And you call me authoritarian. You complain that we can't have democracy because people will vote for policies you don't personally like. How authoritarian is that?

"it's very obvious that you're more authoritarian, and i can see why, because you wish to level the playing field."

Generally speaking, Authoritarianism decreases the power of the majority in favor of the government-controlling minority. But oh well, you'd rather slander me then listen or understand the meaning of the words you're using.

"i believe the government's role is to make sure that we don't kill eachother or cheat our way through. i do understand why you want but you want, but i hold a principle that no one (no matter how many) has the right to control my life or tell me what to do."

That's very nice; I'll order a Bart Simpson bumper sticker for you in celebration of your well-thought out, non-simplistic opinion. Whatever your opinion may be, you are not entitled to make up my opinion.

Now, you know what, perhaps my point of view is authoritarian compared to yours. Although, your opinion is authoritarian compared to a true-anarchists. As far as a real spectrum of opinion goes, I am more for freedom than you are.

Ya see, I understand that freedom cannot be taken or given by the government. The only thing that can be taken or given is economic power; resources, jobs, land, real estate, money, food..etc..etc. Whoever has control over these has the power, over you, over me, over everyone.

In the Soviet Union the government had economic power; it therefor had all other power as well. In the United States, the wealthy have the most economic power, so they have the most political power.

I, however, want to give economic power to everyone equally, thereby giving everyone political power; freedom.

You want to live in la-la land where the government is the only institution that can have power over you. A realistic assessment, however, shows that far more power is held by your employer, by property owners, by the rich than the government.

In other words, if you want to live as free as possible your way only gives away your freedom to the rich; the Soviet way gave power to the government, but my way gives power to everyone, including you.

But, again, I am authoritarian. If I am an authoritarian you are a transvestite. I'll start calling you Sarah-Sue from now on if you'd like. Perhaps I am just realistic? No? Well, if that's the case I'll shop for a wig alongside that bumper sticker, would you like platinum blond or red-head? Curls or straight?

"the true question is, which is do you find more unfair? Authoritarian power or Corporate growth?"

That sentence doesn't even make any sense. You are, again, using flat out lies to pretend that there are only two choices. Although, you keep making up these choices as you go along. Before it was, what, government power or corporate power? Now it is "authoritarian power" or "corporate growth", what on earth is that even supposed to mean?

Am I giving power to the concept of authoritarianism? Are you saying we have the choice between despotism and Disney building a new theme park?

Could you be more ridiculous, really?

"you've gone from them having power to just being influential."

You've made an obvious and conscious decision to not understand what I am saying. Either you don't feel like reading my responses until you understand them or you feel it is better to lie, either way I am disappointed.

I have maintained from the beginning that they have the most say, not all of it. I have repeated this again and again and again and again. If you are going to have no respect for my arguments I will stop debating with you. You can disagree with my point of view all you want, but don't lie about, misrepresent, or refuse to understand what my point of view actually is.

"who will control the media?"

Everyone, the people. It would be a public service separate from but funded by the government (like the BBC or PBS). Private cooperatives are welcome to start their own media operations as well, these cooperatives would be owned and operated by the people who work in them and the population they serve.

No censorship, no control by either the government or the wealthy, only the people themselves have a say in what gets aired.

Welcome to a new world of thought, I know this can be scary to someone who has such a narrow view of what is possible.

"it seems you're more on insulting me than actually explaining thing, and that's very sad."

If you want to whine take your debate somewhere else. You don't listen to my actual arguments and I am not one to withhold my opinion of a person. If you don't like being told the truth, such as you having poor debating and critical thinking skills, you should debate someone who isn't honest or forthright.

It is a disservice to you, in my opinion, to withhold from you the really sad fact: you don't know what you are talking about and you have no intention of changing that circumstance.

"it's free when the government doesn't get involved. if you level the playing field (supposed equality) that's not equal treatment. hence, us losing our freedoms."

I find it strange you would find that it is freedom when the government doesn't get involved in...well....the government. Are you really trying to tell me that it isn't freedom if the government made regulations that gave everyone an equal chance at running the government?

On the one hand you are saying it is okay for the government to be controlled by a minority, on the other hand you say it is tyranny if the government steps in to make sure the majority of the people control the government (otherwise known as democracy).

What you are telling me is that you think democracy is tyranny, that democracy isn't freedom. You, apparently, are in favor of dictatorship by your own words and logic. How very odd.

"democracy is the people voting in every idea put fourth... we're a republic, where we vote in represenatives (democratic republic since we vote in ammendments too). so far, i still see the people voting in who they want to become elected officials. if the rich are rigging elections, that's a different story that involves breaking the law."

The Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, and many other nations which were obviously not democracies or democratic Republics allowed voting, sometimes for multiple parties. Of course, who you got to vote for was very limited (just like now). Who you knew was running was very limited.

Apparently those countries are democratic, according to you. I am sure they'd appreciate your praise.

People in the United States can vote for whoever they want; the problem is their choices are limited (especially on the national stage) to the wealthy. The media which informs them on who is running and what their opinions are is largely owned, operated, and censored by the rich.

After these people get elected they are most influenced by the rich, who they needed to get where they are.

In one case a republic's political structure is controlled by the military and/or political parties, in the other a republic's political structure is controlled by oligarchs, the rich and their organizations.

In both cases there is no real democracy. But, again, it is okay when rich people do it, not when political groups do it.

You are the king of the double-standard, I have a mind to elect you to the position of hypocritic general should you ever decide to run for office.

Let me start off by saying your priorities are a little askew. If you value drugs, prostitution, and gambling more than democracy then I think you ought to refocus abit.

Let me say a few simple things in response to your numbers:

I never said the wealthy have 100% of the power, I said that they are the most influential. The public does have a say, but their opinion is heavily influenced by mass media controlled by the wealthy, their political choices are given by the wealthy, and almost all high offices are held by wealth individuals.

You noted this before and I agreed that there are competing interests in ideology and economic goals amongst the wealthy. The war between George Soros and Rupert Murdoch is an example.

Drugs, prostitution, and gambling are complicated issues. The history behind them is complex and the contemporary battles surrounding them are difficult to explain quickly.

"definitely not what this country was built on. it was created to make sure that no matter how insane something might seem, it should still be legal cause it involves what we do with our own property."

The nation was never built on that principle, property rights weren't even mentioned in the constitution beyond the inability of the government to house soldiers on it without payment or the seizure of it without a warrant. The nation was far less economically and socially liberal in its past; if anything is was founded on very strict principles and has gradually gotten more liberal over the years.

You have no grasp of history, you have no idea what you are talking about.

As for the stop sign example, that was just an example. You are supposed to know that it was a simple concept put forth to represent a very complex and large problem. You know exactly what the government does and the power it has, I just felt like keeping it simple and light to make it easier. You, however, decided to misunderstand it to the point of absurdity.

"not freely elected if the citizens are limited on campaign contributions, and government shouldn't censor the media. we have two major parties for this reason, because they are their own watch dogs. sites like the Daily Kos and Media Matters constantly attack any right wing statement, and shows like the O'reilly Factor constantly attack Far left media for inaccuracies."

What you are telling me is that politicians are not freely elected if the general public has an equal say in who gets elected?

Once again you have sided against democracy in favor of plutocracy, the rule by the wealthy. While this country wasn't founded on wealth I'd like to think it was founded with democratic principles in mind (even though it never lived up to them).

What's the difference between the government censoring the media and wealthy interests censoring the media? If the government is a representative one where free and fair elections are held the people actually have a say in the censorship.

I don't agree that the government should be able to censor the media, I also don't agree that the rich should be able to either.

But, again, you've decided to make up my arguments. I never said the government should censor the media, you are presenting false-choices once again. What's funny is that while you are angry at beliefs I never said I held you put forth ones that are completely ridiculous on their face.

The best part about all of this is that you are demonstrating the very problems I am talking about. The only political options you know about are the ones given to you by the wealthy. You think the choice is between either a country controlled by the wealthy or a nation controlled by a despotic government.

Your whole slew of ridiculous opinions and uninspiring rhetoric are exhibit A, you are the result of the problem I am describing.

"it kind of actually sucks that corporations don't have more power. i'm really waiting for flat tax and drugs to be legal."

I rest my case.

I think we can agree that children are the responsibility of their parents and, when that isn't sufficient, society. In the more severe crimes, drug dealing (but not use, that shouldn't be a punitive act), violence, grand theft, murder, rape..etc..etc...the children are still children. Unless they are proven to have the mental capacity and reasoning power of an adult (through tests or interviews) they should be put through the same programs, though for longer periods of time and under more strict guidance.

In petty cases where there is repetitive theft, minor violence (typical fighting between children, minor scuffles, nothing that endangers lives in any reasonable way), or otherwise a pattern of minor criminal activity the children should be put in the system for around five years, even if this puts them past adulthood.

Major crimes committed by minors should leave them in very strict schools for up to ten years. If a major crime is committed at the age of 17 the minor will remain in the program until perhaps his or her late twenties (once they are capable they should be given a community college-level education at least, moreso if they prove especially bright. Trade school if that's where the child's skills lie).

Of course, if the child's behavior drastically and consistently improves and they can be trusted to exit the program early I wouldn't have any objection. Monitoring should continue for years, of course, to make sure they don't stray from the right path.

The only options would be putting them in the program for an insufficient number of years or placing them in the adult criminal correction program. Either way the child is essentially doomed.

I take murder very seriously, I even believe the death penalty should remain an option for adult, competent offenders whose guilt is beyond any reasonable doubt. A murder committed by a minor on anyone, family or strangers, is a crime both the child, the parents, and the society is responsible for.

If the child is insane or otherwise mentally obstructed from living lawfully then it should be the same as mentally handicapped or disordered adults: mental institutionalization until cure.

My main emphasis here is providing the kind of environment and guidance the minors were deprived of through no fault of their own. It isn't their fault that their parents were unable to raise them properly, that their environment was hostile and corrupting, or problems residing within their genetics or brain composition.

I know some of what I am suggesting sounds extreme, but these are extreme cases we are talking about. I want us to do everything in our power to keep them out of the adult criminal justice system, that should be a last resort if anything at all.

I sort of mentioned in my account what I believed should be done about youth crime.

There need to be programs in place that will turn children away from patterns of behavior and thought that lead them into criminal acts. There need to be moralizing, skill-teaching, maturity developing institutions to help raise kids where their parents, teachers, and environment fail to do so.

Whenever there is a pattern of deviant and criminal behavior (beyond the typical play, curiosity, and mischievousness inherent in children) there needs to be state-funded centers of rehabilitation and learning.

Children should not be treated like criminals. I think the juvenile justice system is broken and provenly useless. We need to take a caring, but firm approach to child welfare and development.

I suggest state-funded independently operated boarding schools for troubled youth. Where possible, the students, teachers, parents, relatives, and administrators will all work together to work through each individual child's problems and get them on the proper track.

The students should live in individual rooms and shouldn't be permitted to congregate without strict supervision of adults. A lot of problem children gathering together would only produce more advanced delinquency.

Each room should come with basic amenities for play and education (no television unless it provides only educational programming). A book program should be developed to allow the children to receive any book they want, within reason.

A computer should be provided to each of the students to be used individually, though it should be properly regulated to keep them from accessing unsavory sites. Otherwise, they are free to roam and explore the World Wide Web.

The better they do in their studies and the better their behavior, the meeting of the goals set by the students and adults together will award them more and more amenities. They need to be shown that they will be rewarded for doing good things, to know that there is prosperity in the path of lawful activity and maturity.

Care will be taken to allow the students religious, political, artistic, and ideological freedom; they need to be able to explore themselves and various concepts and thoughts. There will be no censorship beyond what is absolutely necessary. (In other words, they can write freely about how awesome Republican politics is but they cannot write about wanting to bomb MSNBC headquarters without intervention.) They can go to political websites, religious websites, but not pornographic or websites advocating violence or criminal activity.

Guided freedom is what should be the aim of these institutions; the better behaved the student is the more freedom they will be granted. This isn't going to be one of those rigid boarding schools populated by bully principles or zealous nuns with yard sticks.

In other words; it is perfectly fine that the wealthy have the most political power because they achieved it "freely". Anyone has the ability to become wealthy and thus achieve political power, according to you.

The same can be said of political power, as long as the system is based on true democratic or republican principles (the ideas, not the parties) anyone can be freely elected by popular vote and make decisions on behalf of the public.

What is the difference then between a representative or democratic government making decisions and having the most say or wealthy businessmen and women having the most say?

Is it not true that one is elected specifically to make decisions on behalf of the people? (or the people decide directly what will occur). Why is it that when I buy a box of cornflakes I hand over control of my government to Kellogg, they sell me cereal and decide where my stop-signs go (or who has the power to decide where they go).

I think all you have in your argumentative quiver are arrows of rhetoric. None of what you are saying has anything to do with my point of view, nothing to do with my ideology.

George Soros? You are telling me that the system "evens out" because there is a rich man who is supposedly left of the spectrum balancing out the rich men on the right? The whole problem I am talking about is the domination of our political system by these rich men and women, these people who are not elected by us but to whom the government most answers to.

Two opposing groups of minorities do not a real political spectrum make. We are still being run by two groups that are not representative of even a fraction of the U.S. population. Two groups that, in total, amount to 1% of the citizenry have the most say in who gets to run for office, who has the money to run, who gets their voices heard, and who gets "fringe benefits" for running and winning.

At least apartheid South African blacks had some representation in parliament during the 80s, how many poor or middle-class representatives, senators, and presidents have we had? How many got there without being supported by the wealthy, ultra-wealthy, or major corporations?

"although, i can tell already you're for a one party system."

Just because I am a leftist against the domination of our society by the wealthy does not mean I advocate for a one-party totalitarian state.

Your assumptions that our choices are: Control by the rich or control by a one-party dictatorship are patently false.

We can have a freely elected multi-party democracy which decides things on the public's behalf, one that isn't beholden to corporate and wealthy interests. We can have an economy controlled by the people for the people, not by the government and for the government or by the rich and for the rich.

You really need to open your mind to the wide spectrum of political beliefs and concepts out there. Try doing a little reading, venture further than wherever it is you are getting your information now, try actually debating people and listening to their opinions instead of blasting inane rhetoric at them.

None of this has anything to do with what I've said or what my arguments are. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I think you need to catch up on our political system. Are you actually pretending that corporations, big money interests, and powerful (and wealthy) capitalists do not exert a huge amount of influence over our government?

Through campaign contributions, control over mass media outlets (television, radio, national and local newspapers, major websites), lobbying upon lobbying, gifts..etc..etc..the corporations, the business powers have the most say over how our government is run.

So, it's her fault for getting pregnant which makes her give up the right to her own body. She could prevent her death or health problems, of course, but she should have thought about that before she let a man have sex with her.

I see, I see. Women give their rights up at conception; just because the man is under no risk for going through the same act he gets to make the decision over her life. Because, you know, it's her fault for letting him take control over her uterus.

I completely understand now! Women don't have a choice after they get pregnant; they give up their rights! You have certainly opened by eyes.

You are not really explaining, of course, why the woman has to make all...and I mean ALL of the sacrifices of pregnancy. Seems sort of a raw deal, ya know, they both get a few minutes or hours of pleasure and then the woman goes through months of pain and sickness, then a day or so of intense pain, possible health complications, and even death.

But it's fair...as you have pointed out, because they both made the choice.

First of all, you are going down the path of utter ridiculousness. You started with wanting men to have a say and now you've gone to "abortion is murder", and you are pro-abortion? So is this really about opening up another avenue to keep abortions from occurring? Is this really about the father's right to choose? Or are you just grasping at anything to justify your point of view?

I'm not getting into whether or not abortion is murder, that's for another debate entirely. We are talking about a man's say in the matter. If you think he should have a say because abortion is murder we are dealing with a much larger issue than his say.

At any rate, it is not his child; it is the possibility of having a child with this fetus or zygote that they both conceived.

You are right, women are more likely to die from a number of different things. Of course, just because heart disease kills more women than car accidents it doesn't give men the right to force women to drive a car when men have no chance of dieing in a car accident.

Sure, women aren't likely to die from birth, but it is impossible for men. You, of course, ignore the fact that all births are hazardous (though not life-threatening), all involve long periods of pain, discomfort, sickness, and physical and direct mental problems (post-partem depression).

The whole point is that men go through none of the pain of birth but all of the pleasure. He may want to protect the possibility of a zygote he fertilized becoming his child but he doesn't have a say due to the fact that he makes no physical sacrifice, is under no danger, and shares in none of the pain.

I am not anti-father, I am anti fathers who feel their sperm are invading armies which, when planted in zygotes, expand their territory into the woman's body.

I put fathers under no danger or control by other people, you feel it is perfectly alright to force women to go through a painful and possibly permanently harmful process, you feel it is perfectly alright to take control over their body because...well...you change your story constantly. Now abortion is murder and the father is trying to save his poor, defenseless son from an evil mother? I am really not getting your point anymore.

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.com/articles/80743.php

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.