While I am devoutly liberal, I have to say that the answer to this is "no, not at all".
I will concede that most entrepreneurs become very greedy when successful and start making poor ethical decisions, but, the word just means "one who employs productive labor".
How then, would I be greedy, if I invested what little money I had into creating a shop that makes signs for people, if making signs was something that I really enjoyed doing, and I hired several others who were also good at making signs, and I pay everyone a fair amount, including profit sharing, and we all work to expand our business?
Operating a business can be done in a non-greedy way and still be very profitable. If I make too much money, maybe I donate it or specifically use it to hire a new worker, or buy more machines to make better products with?
I know that most people don't do this, but there are some.
Numbers 5:11-5:31 describes a method of abortion used by priests in the Old World.
In the book, it is condoned by the word of God, that if a man is overcome with jealousy, even with no evidence whatsoever, and believes that his wife has slept with another man, that the priest should give her "bitter water" that causes miscarriage.
This is the end of the Christian anti-abortion argument, because also, it is spoken in the SAME BIBLE that you support, that if a man and woman fight, and a miscarriage is caused, then the husband of the woman may charge a fee to the other person for the miscarriage. The punishment IS NOT the same as the one for MURDER.
So there ya go, two separate parts of the bible saying "abortion is not murder" and "abortion is okay"... So think about that before you go out and hold up signs.
Of course. It's a movement that affected millions of Americans and still has motion in the current age. There are tons of movies and other media created relating to this information, and it should be shown, at least in part, to people who are learning about modern history.
Should it be over-emphasized? No.
You are trying to form a linkage between Nationalism and some kind of "good" defense of one's country.
If your country is evil, and it is being conquered by good, ought you defend it?
The Nationalists amongst you would say yes, and take up arms against good men and women. The good people amongst you would say no.
If your country is good, all good people will raise up and fight for it, regardless of how blindly nationalistic they are.
Nationalism is simply blind support of your country no matter what the circumstance... and blind obedience and support is inhuman, foolish, and will ultimately lend you to being controlled by a person with a powerful will... since you have none if you are indeed a Nationalist.
The State should have real control and solid power, but the people should be able to replace it at will. This is the logical position to allow for central management of resources and crisis, but to keep the ability to strip that power of management out of the hands of those who would abuse it. Nationalists fight to keep the power in the wrong hands JUST AS HARD as they fight to keep it in the right hands. Others only fight for the correct side.
No, Nationalism, and any sense of pride for where you come from is a foolish, emotional condition.
You should be logical in your decision to support or dissent against your country. If your country makes an evil or bad decision, you should vote against it, and if it is wicked enough, revolt.
Nationalism causes people to view anything different from their country's way of doing things as a bad thing... for instance, since the USA hasn't had public health care, and other countries do, the "nationalists" are automatically against change, even when it is logical.
Here's a quick tip:
Your country isn't the best one on the Earth, and neither is mine. There isn't a best country, because for every country you can claim is best, I can devise a meaningful measure by which it isn't.
Are there some countries worse than others in almost every way? Sure. Not everything is equal... but it's more important to be logical and compassionate (which are not mutually exclusive) than it is to be Nationalistic.
Your country won't even be remotely the same place in 50 years, anyway, so, honestly, you're just cheering for something temporary. In 50 years, you'll be sitting around saying "man, this place sure went to hell in a handbasket" like countless old men do every day and always have throughout the ages... because they used to be little Nationalistic fools.
Progressives don't become that same old man. They grow old and smile at the winds of change and what the future will bring as people become more intelligent, educated, and socially aware.
Though I forgive the ignorance of my past countrymen, the correct answer is no.
The majority of the casualties were obviously civilian. This would never have flown in the modern age. People have realized that it is wrong to take such actions.
Finally, by any given justification that you can make, the enemies of the United States (of that time or current), can justify dropping a nuke on an American city... and if that rests well with you, maybe you deserve to watch your family, friends, and children evaporate in nuclear fire or slowly die of radiation.
This, because people forget that police officers and judges and other people in the system who would have access to this kind of information are also human beings just doing a job.
They are not all good people, and even amongst the good ones there are many of them who are prone to making errors. See the recent event of a police officer shooting a biker in the spine because he reached for his wallet.
Do you want a situation where you miss a job opportunity because the boss at the corporation had his police buddy pull your file, and found a facebook connection between you and the guy that raped his daughter, even though you don't still talk to that guy or weren't even good friends with him?
That's the kind of sideline stuff that will be enabled by this technology, and while you may think you have nothing to hide, the chip will NOT protect you against other people's stupid suspicions, ideas, and prejudices... and there are more than you could ever possibly imagine that would affect you, it's just that right now you aren't victimized by them because nobody knows everything about you.
How about being fired because your crazy liberal boss pulls a file and finds out you vote conservative?
How about the cop that lets everyone who is a conservative go but max fines every liberal he comes across?
What about when the government decides that it's illegal to be a member of the Libertarian or Communist parties, and decides to lock up everyone who is?
There are a billion bad things that could come of this, and very few good.
Finally, criminals who intended to murder someone or steal something would likely figure out a way to block the signal from their chip during the crime in progress, or remove it entirely and put it back in... this would then serve to give them an alibi... "See, my chip is working, but Wal-Mart has no record of my entering the store, thus, I am free"... it's a common technological conundrum that IT forensics teams have to deal with, the lack of a trail becomes evidence of innocence, EVEN in situations where the trail can be deleted with a keypress.
It is still cleaner and more healthy to have it done...
And also, circumcised men who are deeply upset with their parent's decision and are trying to undo it are just trying to bring attention to their penis. It's essentially a fetish. Look it up.
Yes, by definition, as per this debate, Taxation is not theft, it is Taxation. When you are stolen from, you do NOT get anything in return. There's a gulf of difference that you don't seem to be able to grasp for some reason.
As per your purse example, if they are ALLOWING me to take their purse, and I am providing a service in exchange for continued allowance, then I am NOT stealing their purse anymore.
As per your "crazy general store" owner example, all I can say is, "What?" ... do you actually read what you type on here?
If you don't want to pay taxes, DON'T EARN MONEY and DON'T OWN PROPERTY in this country. That's how you get out of it. Move to another country that doesn't charge taxes for anything (protip: there's not one). Or you could be homeless, or earn so little income that you can afford to rent a crappy house and pay for food and that's it, and you won't be paying taxes under current US law. Actually, other people's taxes will likely pay for quite a large portion of your food.
The US Government has never forced me to do anything. "Paying Taxes" is a CONDITIONAL CONTRACT between law abiding citizens and the government. When you pick up that piece of currency and put it into your pocket, you are acknowledging the powers that be... otherwise, LEAVE THE DOLLAR ALONE.
Again, tax avoidance:
1) Earn so little you pay no tax.
2) Move to another country.
3) Join a religious order and live life at a monastery or commune.
4) Become homeless.
You don't like those things? Everything else that exists here was built by a MAJORITY that agree that pitching in your share of the tax burden is expected, and reasonable. You don't think it's expected and reasonable? Don't use the roads we pay for, don't use the schools we pay for, etc.
If you do not wish to bear a child for 9 months and give birth to it and be responsible for it, then you should have every right to terminate the pregnancy.
It's a personal, ethical judgement as to whether you believe that what is inside you is a "human being" or not, or whether or not you value "potential" human beings.
This is a decision that should not be made FOR other people, but one they should get to keep.
Stop trying to take away people's freedom of choice, while simultaneously waving a flag and screaming freedom. Sometimes freedom is ugly and not what you want to see... so deal with it.
Under certain circumstances, society needs to demonstrate that the decisions and rules made by the masses do in fact have teeth, and killing a horrible, irredeemable criminal is a good way of proving that we mean business, and preventing future mishaps with that same person.
The use of the death penalty should be extremely rare and very carefully chosen...
Though I think a lot less people would willingly commit crimes if you were brutally beaten on a regular basis in prison, too, though, so, think about that one.
It is logical to distribute the cost of the burden of health care to the body public.
There are a million ways to justify it, but here are some simple ones:
1) By the same rationale that you do not know when you are going to be robbed and murdered...
and by which you distribute the cost of maintaining a police force:
Therefore, you do not know when you are going to become sick, ill, or be injured...
and by such you ought distribute the cost of maintaining health.
2) What does having monetary wealth have to do with deserving life and health?
Example proper: Does an unhealthy newborn baby that has no wealth in his family deserve life?
Why, I think he does, but, what if his lungs are not working so well? Should we deny him access to our machines that he may live? No. Then what, I repeat, is the sense in requiring wealth of his parents for his life to begin? There is none, and I gladly chip in my tax dollar on his behalf...
There is no real difference from the newborn to the adult...
3) Is it ethical to charge large sums of money for a solution to a life threatening disease that you have a patent for a fix to? What if when charging that amount of money, you cause people who cannot afford it to ail and die? Is your wealth and the cost of your research worth human life?
I think not.
4) Why does it matter from where a doctor receives his money? Should not the government pay him, when it is the government's taxpayers and other assets that he is keeping in good order?
5) Why should a profit margin be made available for the management of people's insurance money? Doesn't this provide a terrible position from which to take advantage of people's sickness?
6) Why should a person who is interested in his bank account be allowed to decide if my payments for 10 years should cover my sickness? Shouldn't that decision be made by someone more impartial?
How many do you need? The world has spoken, and though your greed and hatred of the poor may drive you to quickly make the wrong decision, remember that your decision on this matter does have the weight of life and death upon it, even if you don't see the old woman choke to death on her own lungs who could have lived 10 more years and imparted wisdom upon her grandchildren, she still died, partially, as a result of your participation in what you thought was a silly little argument with the liberals. Don't forget the power of your own tongue (or fingers).
Obama was handed a country in terrible economic straits and fighting two essentially unwinnable wars...
If we come out the other side of his Presidency and are still one country that speaks English, I think he did an alright job holding it together.
No, his ability to legislate appropriately is not governed by his physical desires.
Furthermore, we are not privy to the workings of his private relationships...
Also, he was a really solid president...
And finally, it's none of our business.
Quite easily, no.
Here's why:
When a criminal steals something from you, you get zero benefits from it. My garmin was recently stolen from me, do you know what I got from that? The inability to navigate. This is not a benefit.
However, when the government collects your tax money, you generally get a benefit in some form or another from it. For instance, when you are old and can no longer take good care of yourself, you might be thankful that medicare exists. When that robber decides that it's time to kill you and your family, you might suddenly think that the tax money that pays for the police sure is nice to pay.
When you drive to work in the morning, you might want to consider that the roads you drove upon were paid for by taxes, and your car is really only tolerably safe because of strict government regulations on the car industry... so, keep that in mind, too.
Taxes do a lot for you, and a lot more for big corporations. That network of interstates serves Wal-Mart to the tune of several more billion a year than it does me, so, don't even get on your flat tax bullcrap.
Now, compound all of that with the fact that the entire system of currency that you even use, and those dollars you "earn" and love so much are in fact not even "yours" to begin with. You are borrowing them for use from the government, that's why they put their own faces and monuments on them. Those dollars aren't yours, they are only representative of what you have done as perceived by others... and when the government wants you to assign some of your work-reward back to it, it has every right to demand it, since it establishes the system by which you profit.
Example:
Everyone who comes to my swimming pool and enjoys the waters and the rights to operate hotdog stands and be guarded by lifeguards must pay $3 to get in and continue enjoying said benefits. This allows me to pay my lifeguard so he can eat a hotdog every once in a while and keep my pool clean and safe. If you operate a hotdog stand on my pool grounds, I'm asking for another dollar because I have to clean up after you and let your suppliers in, as well as make a "no eating hotdogs in the pool water" rule that I have to enforce.
Since you make a lot more than the average pool denizen, you should be very happy to hand over that extra dollar.
And if you don't like it? GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY POOL (AKA, go somewhere else to do your business and work).
1) This argument is flawed to begin with, because Democracy and Capitalism can co-exist.
2) Democracy... every citizen gets a vote, to select a representative that he or she believes will govern on his behalf.
3) Capitalism is just the concept that private citizens can own and exchange property however they see fit.
That being said, let's assume we're trying to decide which is MORE important, rather than which should be the law of the land.
That being decided, it's Democracy.
All you have to do is answer this question:
Would you rather your fate be decided by someone who was born owning all the land around you (who could in fact be very greedy and evil), or would you rather decide for yourself which person decides your fate (who if is evil, the mistake was yours for choosing him)?
In one instance, you have a say, in another instance, you are put upon by prior generations.
Democracy wins, hands down. You don't think this is accurate? Capitalism is the system by which Paris Hilton exists with more money than you'll ever see, and simultaneously has zero skills and a horrible personality.
It is more hygienic, without a doubt, and is a decision I believe should be made for every child. Should they be given a say in it? No, because by the time they reach a maturity level to decide appropriately, they are already too old to be cut.
This has always been a fairly hilarious argument, simply because most people adamantly support whichever penis type they have. Anti-circumcision is a position that is made out of a blissful ignorance, "oh no, don't hurt the child" when in fact the amount of cleaning and health issues that arise from NOT doing so are far, far worse than the 30 minutes of pain circumcision causes.
No... unless there is a global conflict of utmost importance, serving in the military is detrimental to your country.
I mean no disrespect to current service personnel, but, at the current time, the war on terror is not being handled correctly, nor is it of a level of importance that justifies 50 cents of every tax dollar. We need schools and parks over here, not sandbags and bombs over there.
Military service during a conflict like World War I or World War II, in which our allies are being invaded is manly, strong, and admirable... a powerful call to duty to put down a foe who has chosen to disregard international wishes... trying to fight localized religious zealots and a tiny group of international terrorists is not the calling of a multi-trillion dollar military force...
So, in short, my answer is that service in the military CAN be a rite of passage, when it is a necessity... a rite of passage in current times would be graduating college, getting a career, buying a house, getting married, or having a child. It's the age of science and society, not the age of war.
Unless you want to remain a tribal warrior culture, anyway.
I believe that it's okay to either donate or receive money for it. It's yours. If anything is yours, your blood and organs are, and if you don't wish to part with them for free, but you'd still like to help someone, that's your choice.
However, in some situations, it is ethically wrong to require money for your blood or organs. For instance, you are going to die in 20 seconds no matter what, requiring money to be donated to your kids to save the person beside you who needs your kidneys might just cause 2 lives to end instead of just the one.
So, in short, yes, get money for your blood and organs if you want it and doing so does not cause death, and only in a scenario in which limitations on the profitability of this trade are strictly and morally governed. It should serve as a solid motivator to increase blood and organ stocks, not as a rally cry for cut throat merchants.
No, they should not. Instead, airlines and other industries should have a little class. In cases where the number of seats being sold is business-profitability threatening, then, perhaps an argument could be made, but even still, I believe that when a ticket is being sold to someone who is over the size limit for one seat, it should go something like this:
1) Do you require more than one seat due to body size or other rationale? (Warning, answering incorrectly may result in your being forced onto a different flight to the same destination) ... example seats should be made available out front, similar to how amusement park rides often do.
2) Would you like to purchase a second ticket to guarantee your departure on this flight, or wait for the next flight to this destination with an empty seat available? (Answering yes may delay your flight departure time by up to 24 hours).
This way, you don't simply mandate from on high a very rude policy, you instead offer the person in question a way to fly at the same price as everyone else, but the inconvenience of waiting extra time is shoved onto them instead of them shoving parts of themselves into other paying customer's seats.
This is a solid compromise with easily solvable logistics. One must remember that this wouldn't be an issue if it hadn't been for the greed of trying to cram so many people onto the planes to begin with. I don't want to hear any arguments about failing airline industry, either, that's gross mis-management to cut your CEOs and other top execs 20 mil+ benefits each year for 30 years and then suddenly wonder where all the cash went. You invested it in some guy's mansion/boats/personal jets instead of back in your business where it belonged.
