Kharn, that was a short version? Maybe the browser crashes automatically when the amount of written text exceeds 1 gigabyte... 
Dark times are coming
- Thread starter KQX
- Start date
Old School Role-Player
First time out of the vault
Sander said:
Propaganda? No, they are considered historical artifacts. That categorizes an old Nazi uniform and medals as paraphenalia. This is the kind of attitude which perpetuates the rift between Americans and Europeans.
About the gun control laws, this is a prime example of losing freedom. The Europeans have willingly given up their rights. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but you certainly can't say that Europe is "more free" than the United States. The key to gun control is enforcing the laws, not creating new laws to enforce existing laws. "Ooh, since murder is illegal, I'm now going to make firearms illegal because a gun can be used as a tool to accomplish murder. So, since you own a gun, you are now a criminal because you *might* be able to commit a real crime with it." Sorry--find better ways to enforce the law without infringing upon others' rights. Murder is a social problem, so take away the guns from the law-abiding citizens and only criminals have guns. Hell, they're criminals, what do they care about breaking a law?
About the welfare system--that's part of a victim mentality that also seems prevalant in Europe. It's the "poor me" syndrome. Maybe it's because America truly *is* the Land of Opportunity, because you won't fail over here if you have at least a modicum of intelligence and work ethic. People having no choice but to sit on their asses? That's bullshit--plain and simple. That's just downright fucking lazy, if you asked me.
Do you honestly think that I have the money to go to college? My master's degree will cost me at least $20,000. My BS degree cost me $25,000. Do you honestly think that my parents or I have/had that kind of money laying around? Trust me, Americans aren't *that* rich. No, you find a way. There are lots of ways to get money. Unfortunately, the "victims" will never find that money because they've already given up. Welfare doesn't pay for college here in the U.S. at all. I know lots of people who "can't find a job" here in America as well. They have psychology and computer degrees but refuse to work in a factory.I met a homeless man begging for food one time on my way to work. His sign said, "Will work for food." He was standing right by the fast food place I worked at, just below the "NOW HIRING" sign. Yeah, he really wanted to work. I know a few Europeans personally who just don't want to work. Of course, they "want" to find work, but they never seem to actually try hard enough. Also, read my first post on this subject, and I had mentioned that even here in the U.S., a person *unable* to work will be cared for by the state. That's just social responsibility.
I know I won't be able to convince you otherwise, either, Sander. You were raised on a socialist European mentality and I was raised on a capitalist American mentality. And by the way, Communism and Socialism are not exactly the same thing. The Communist Economic Model is a complete redistribution of wealth, while the Socialist Economic Model is a partial redistribution of wealth. Socialism is a halfway point between communism and capitalism. Of course, to me, that's not nearly enough.
Gwydion said:
Good point, but I think the general mistrust factors into the equasion as well. I've seen Dutch people that go "Damn those politicians, they've lost my vote!" (which is really stupid, btw), which shows a general mistrust for politics in general, not just for the government...Call it a combination of all the above.
Welsh; we are in agreement, I think.
OSRP; again, I'm not discussing the gun laws. I've been there, done that and I think the final conclusion between my and Gwydion was "Gun laws work for the US, but because the mentality of most European countries is different, it won't work in those countries" (there are countries where it can work. Italy, GB, Ireland...maybe Spain)
Also, you're being a bit silly, OSRP.
You know...America also has a welfare system. I mean, duh, you guys invented the thing, why wouldn't you have it?
Also, your opinion is rather extreme. You seem to think people enjoy living of wellfare. You also seem to think that everyone is paid through college by the government here. This is all foolishness.
Welfare never gives a man proper means to exist. A common problem in Holland is that people try to make up for what they lack in welfare money by crime.
Anyone going to a University here in Holland has to work, it's pretty much a fact. Either that or your parents finance you, but there's no way you'll make it from government funding.
About that homeless man; do you think the fast food place would hire a ragged-looking, homeless fellow with no proper medical credentials and probably without any form of schooling. C'mon, OSRP, that has to be a joke.
The fact is; there aren't infinite opportunities. The idea "USA = land of opportunities" stems from the olden days, when you could own your own land and get rich simply by working hard.
What's the situation now? There's mass unemployement, there's no way someone with an addiction will get hired, high school diplomas are a must. There's no way for a bum to get a job without any outside help, so he has to give up. One of the Orderites, Azzy, is constantly looking for a job, but can he get one? No. Land of opportunities my ass.
You're living in an ancient dream-world, OSRP. Just like Europe had to face the facts in the 80's and realise that welfare needed to be limited, Roosevelt already faced facts before WW II by making the New Deal, acknowledging that welfare is necessary in a Capitalist Society. Like it or not, this is the way most people look at it. How many people really do still believe in "infinite possibilities" these days? History and reality both prove this is imply not so, and it's foolishness to chase this old dream.
The difference between SD Europe and NL America here is, like you mentioned, that Europe takes a lot more crap. We have more belief in a society, in a common good, rather than egotism. This care for society was a whole is often perceived by Americans as a doormat mentality, or a "poor me" mentality. This shows limited perception. The mentality stems simply for a feeling that all men need to do their best to improve the state of living of their fellow men, which is...well...very Christian.
You don't seem to share this view-point. Well, that's a shame, but I think most Americans dó share this view-point, especially the Democrats. And though the USA will never copy this attitude of SD Europe anymore than SD Europe will copy this attitude from the USA, both attitudes have flown into each other a lot during the last half a century.
PS: OSRP, you're not listening, I just explained the term Socialism is commonly used to describe a form of Marxism, and all forms of Marxism include the total redistribution of wealth, though Socialism thinks of this as 'far in the future' whereas Communism doesn't, you're still talking about Democratic Socialism.
PPS: Ratty, STFU
Well, in 2004 I'm planning on voting for a Libertarian presidential candidate. Unless something really convincing comes up that shows Dubya didn't lie, he's lost my vote. Call me crazy, but I don't really think that's a stupid decision. I'll probably vote for the Republican incumbants in Congress, though. I think they're doing a pretty good job.
Old School Role-Player
First time out of the vault
Hmm, this thread is *extremely* interesting. I love political and idealogical discussions like this. And just so everyone knows--these posts may get heated and intense at times, so I want you to know that I respect you guys immensely and I harbor no ill-feelings to any of you (but tell me I look European again, Kharn, and I'll kill you, haha).
Anyway, Welsh, I agree that not all of my ideas are representative of Americans, so don't mistake my views as what all Americans believe. I am very educated in American politics and ecnomic system. Gwydion, *I* am an active Libertarian, and I definitely do not have any paranoia about the government. I see many lawmakers as well-meaning but misguided. Congress unfortunately follows the "groupthink" mentality, and they have their hands tied behind their backs because of how politics are handled in the House and the Senate. I believe the Libertarian presence needs to be stronger in some states to serve as a political watchdog for the right-wing and left-wing politicians who do not necessarily have freedom in mind when they do what they feel is best for the people.
Anyway, Welsh, most Americans support property taxes? I think not. Governor Ed Rendell (elected successor of Tom Ridge) essentially won the election over Mike Fisher on his property tax elimination platform. The law has still not implemented, as the jackass can't even seem to pass a budget yet (although, in his defense, the Republican-run State House of Representatives is fighting him probably a lot harder than what they should be). It just doesn't seem right that a man works hard his entire life to buy/build a home and retire when he finally pays for everything, only to have to continually pay money every year on something he already owns. Now the man has no income. yet still has to pay all kinds of taxes because he has a nice home. God forbid if his childhood home suddenly becomes valuable property to someone else and suddenly his taxes become even higher. Oh well, he doesn't need to eat. Maybe he should have thought about that when he decided to own a home instead of a cardboard box. Don't have to pay a lot of taxes on a cardboard box.
The same thing on school taxes. Maybe Pennsylvania is a bit more progressive than New York, or maybe it's representative of the general attitude of Americans in general. I do know that it's a more common philosophy than what you give it credit for, Welsh. Case in point: Tom Ridge had strong support (which helped get him elected Governor of Pennsylvania) for his school voucher program. The idea is that people are locked into a particular school simply because of where they live. If you live in a ghetto in Philadelphia with a poor public education system, for instance, then you may as well write off your kids as failures because they will never find good teachers. I've seen this firsthand with my childhood best friend who moved from a suburban school just outside the city to the city when her parents divorced. She was one of the smartest kids in my elementary school class. I met up with her again when we both went to the same college, and she just wasn't cutting the mustard. She was an A student in the city schools, but she couldn't keep up with the material in college. Luckily, she married an engineer and moved to D.C., but it shows the inherent flaw of our public education system. There really does need to be a change, and many more Americans are now realizing this than what you may believe.
I just saw your reply Kharn, and I have to say that you are the one being a bit silly here. You only speak about Holland, but that is a small part of Europe. Holland is one of the most free countries in the world, but it is not truly representative of the rest of Europe (just like Scandanavia is much better than most of Europe as well).
Anyway, when did I ever say that America *doesn't* have a welfare system? I think you've misread my statements in some way. Many of the European countries have systems in place which give students who qualify a cheap or free postgraduate education. Have you ever seen the number of PhD's in Germany, for instance?
About the homeless man--wow, you really don't have a clue about Americans in any way. A joke? I think not. It was a fucking fast food restaraunt! What kind of qualifications do you need?!? Dude, seriously, just show up to work and you get paid. I even asked my manager what he would do if the bum outside came in and applied for a job. He said that not only would he hire him, but he'd also launder his uniforms for him. Jesus, you mean to tell me that a European wouldn't do something like that for a man? If that's the case, then you guys definitely get what you deserve.
Fact: America *still* exists as the Land of Opportunity. A man can *still* get rich with hard work and a good idea. Tales ABOUND of self-made millionaires. Who's the richest man in the world? Bill Gates--a self-made man. He was a college dropout but had a good work ethic and a great idea (or Steve Jobs had the idea, and he stole it--depending on which camp you believe). Donald Trump made millions when he had NOTHING. Hell, the man went bankrupt twice and he's *still* rich!
Kharn, it seems to me that *you're* living in a dream world here. There are numerous ways for a bum to get a job--he just has to get one. I don't think you realize why poor people poor. I've lived on that side of society before, and I can tell you that a bum definitely does not fall under the "working poor" which you are implying. What you're thinking is that a bum can't get a "good job," which is partially true. However, good jobs don't come to people just waiting around to have them handed to them. A bum might have to take that job at a fast food place. It's not what he wanted, but it's a lot better than nothing. I don't know who this Azzy is, but I'll bet he can find one if he really wants one. I'll lay $100 down right now that he can't find a job IN HIS FIELD or else he still has unemployment compensation right now. There was a time where I couldn't find a job in my field either. I swallowed my fucking pride and took a job in a factory and repaired machinery. I did that for a year and a half! I came home smelling of grease with melted plastic burns on my arms. Why did I do this? Because there is no way in HELL that I would allow myself to fail! Roosevelt passed the New Deal because the economy was experiencing The Great Depression. Never in our history has that happened. Social welfare was okay back then, but it's unneccesary now.
Your argument only further verifies that you have the "poor me" mentality. I like how you tell me what it's like to live in America. Man, you have absolutely no clue. I sure wish I would have known you when I was repairing 16 ton machinery. I would have known that I didn't really have to work, that the American welfare system would take care of me. Jesus, why did I even fucking go to college? Maybe it's because I believe in EARNING a living and carving a niche for myself in that society and not becoming a leech on it.
Now, I don't want to start another topic here, but the Christianity argument doesn't hold. As a matter of fact, that's often the argument of arrogant closed-minded individuals who place the rest of the world in contempt. Of course, I know that you *do* hold the world in contempt. I'm sure that many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindi and Jews would take exception to know that Christianity seems to hold the monopoly on helping their fellow man. Either way, socialism doesn't "improve the state of living of their fellow man" anyway.
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and you feed him for life."
That's the best argument against socialism. you want to sit around and cry about how the world owes you something because that's the "Christian" thing to do doesn't make anything happen. Egotistical? Sorry, thinking that society owes you *anything* is egotistical. I go out and make things happen, and you discuss your ivory tower philosophies while waiting for things to happen to you. Who's the egotistical one--the guy works hard to make his life better or the guy who argues that the man needs society to care for him because the rest of the world is stupid? And I have seen you state that on *many* of your posts.
I'll give you an example of two more of my childhood friends. One friend was intelligent, but lazy. The other has less-than-average intelligence, but very hard-working. The intelligent, lazy guy skated through high school as a C student (just like the other one), but decided to go to college. He couldn't make the effort to succeed, and ended up dropping out three times (gotta give it to him for continuing to try though). His laziness meant that a lot of times, he never "felt" like going to work. He never held any job for more than a year. Now he lives with his parents and has recently recovered from his heroine addiction. He's 270 lbs and constantly depressed. The hard-working, less intelligent guy went to work as a press man at an adhesives label factory. He started right out of high school at $7/hour. He showed up to work every day, worked lots of overtime and showed a great enthusiasm to do his job well. He is married with two kids, with a third on the way, making $19/hour and owns a $120,000 house. He is never lacking for money, and may soon be promoted. What's the difference there? One has a stronger work ethic, the other does not. So don't give me any of that helpless socialist bullshit--it doesn't fly here in America, except the most liberal politicians. Even then, they give a lot of credit to hard work, too.
Maybe you should put down your bong, stop philosophizing and come to America once to see what a hard-working man can do. (Oh, don't bother replying to this--I'm just screwing around with you on this last paragraph).
Edited for spelling mistakes I noticed.
Anyway, Welsh, I agree that not all of my ideas are representative of Americans, so don't mistake my views as what all Americans believe. I am very educated in American politics and ecnomic system. Gwydion, *I* am an active Libertarian, and I definitely do not have any paranoia about the government. I see many lawmakers as well-meaning but misguided. Congress unfortunately follows the "groupthink" mentality, and they have their hands tied behind their backs because of how politics are handled in the House and the Senate. I believe the Libertarian presence needs to be stronger in some states to serve as a political watchdog for the right-wing and left-wing politicians who do not necessarily have freedom in mind when they do what they feel is best for the people.
Anyway, Welsh, most Americans support property taxes? I think not. Governor Ed Rendell (elected successor of Tom Ridge) essentially won the election over Mike Fisher on his property tax elimination platform. The law has still not implemented, as the jackass can't even seem to pass a budget yet (although, in his defense, the Republican-run State House of Representatives is fighting him probably a lot harder than what they should be). It just doesn't seem right that a man works hard his entire life to buy/build a home and retire when he finally pays for everything, only to have to continually pay money every year on something he already owns. Now the man has no income. yet still has to pay all kinds of taxes because he has a nice home. God forbid if his childhood home suddenly becomes valuable property to someone else and suddenly his taxes become even higher. Oh well, he doesn't need to eat. Maybe he should have thought about that when he decided to own a home instead of a cardboard box. Don't have to pay a lot of taxes on a cardboard box.
The same thing on school taxes. Maybe Pennsylvania is a bit more progressive than New York, or maybe it's representative of the general attitude of Americans in general. I do know that it's a more common philosophy than what you give it credit for, Welsh. Case in point: Tom Ridge had strong support (which helped get him elected Governor of Pennsylvania) for his school voucher program. The idea is that people are locked into a particular school simply because of where they live. If you live in a ghetto in Philadelphia with a poor public education system, for instance, then you may as well write off your kids as failures because they will never find good teachers. I've seen this firsthand with my childhood best friend who moved from a suburban school just outside the city to the city when her parents divorced. She was one of the smartest kids in my elementary school class. I met up with her again when we both went to the same college, and she just wasn't cutting the mustard. She was an A student in the city schools, but she couldn't keep up with the material in college. Luckily, she married an engineer and moved to D.C., but it shows the inherent flaw of our public education system. There really does need to be a change, and many more Americans are now realizing this than what you may believe.
I just saw your reply Kharn, and I have to say that you are the one being a bit silly here. You only speak about Holland, but that is a small part of Europe. Holland is one of the most free countries in the world, but it is not truly representative of the rest of Europe (just like Scandanavia is much better than most of Europe as well).
Anyway, when did I ever say that America *doesn't* have a welfare system? I think you've misread my statements in some way. Many of the European countries have systems in place which give students who qualify a cheap or free postgraduate education. Have you ever seen the number of PhD's in Germany, for instance?
About the homeless man--wow, you really don't have a clue about Americans in any way. A joke? I think not. It was a fucking fast food restaraunt! What kind of qualifications do you need?!? Dude, seriously, just show up to work and you get paid. I even asked my manager what he would do if the bum outside came in and applied for a job. He said that not only would he hire him, but he'd also launder his uniforms for him. Jesus, you mean to tell me that a European wouldn't do something like that for a man? If that's the case, then you guys definitely get what you deserve.
Fact: America *still* exists as the Land of Opportunity. A man can *still* get rich with hard work and a good idea. Tales ABOUND of self-made millionaires. Who's the richest man in the world? Bill Gates--a self-made man. He was a college dropout but had a good work ethic and a great idea (or Steve Jobs had the idea, and he stole it--depending on which camp you believe). Donald Trump made millions when he had NOTHING. Hell, the man went bankrupt twice and he's *still* rich!
Kharn, it seems to me that *you're* living in a dream world here. There are numerous ways for a bum to get a job--he just has to get one. I don't think you realize why poor people poor. I've lived on that side of society before, and I can tell you that a bum definitely does not fall under the "working poor" which you are implying. What you're thinking is that a bum can't get a "good job," which is partially true. However, good jobs don't come to people just waiting around to have them handed to them. A bum might have to take that job at a fast food place. It's not what he wanted, but it's a lot better than nothing. I don't know who this Azzy is, but I'll bet he can find one if he really wants one. I'll lay $100 down right now that he can't find a job IN HIS FIELD or else he still has unemployment compensation right now. There was a time where I couldn't find a job in my field either. I swallowed my fucking pride and took a job in a factory and repaired machinery. I did that for a year and a half! I came home smelling of grease with melted plastic burns on my arms. Why did I do this? Because there is no way in HELL that I would allow myself to fail! Roosevelt passed the New Deal because the economy was experiencing The Great Depression. Never in our history has that happened. Social welfare was okay back then, but it's unneccesary now.
Your argument only further verifies that you have the "poor me" mentality. I like how you tell me what it's like to live in America. Man, you have absolutely no clue. I sure wish I would have known you when I was repairing 16 ton machinery. I would have known that I didn't really have to work, that the American welfare system would take care of me. Jesus, why did I even fucking go to college? Maybe it's because I believe in EARNING a living and carving a niche for myself in that society and not becoming a leech on it.
Now, I don't want to start another topic here, but the Christianity argument doesn't hold. As a matter of fact, that's often the argument of arrogant closed-minded individuals who place the rest of the world in contempt. Of course, I know that you *do* hold the world in contempt. I'm sure that many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindi and Jews would take exception to know that Christianity seems to hold the monopoly on helping their fellow man. Either way, socialism doesn't "improve the state of living of their fellow man" anyway.
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and you feed him for life."
That's the best argument against socialism. you want to sit around and cry about how the world owes you something because that's the "Christian" thing to do doesn't make anything happen. Egotistical? Sorry, thinking that society owes you *anything* is egotistical. I go out and make things happen, and you discuss your ivory tower philosophies while waiting for things to happen to you. Who's the egotistical one--the guy works hard to make his life better or the guy who argues that the man needs society to care for him because the rest of the world is stupid? And I have seen you state that on *many* of your posts.
I'll give you an example of two more of my childhood friends. One friend was intelligent, but lazy. The other has less-than-average intelligence, but very hard-working. The intelligent, lazy guy skated through high school as a C student (just like the other one), but decided to go to college. He couldn't make the effort to succeed, and ended up dropping out three times (gotta give it to him for continuing to try though). His laziness meant that a lot of times, he never "felt" like going to work. He never held any job for more than a year. Now he lives with his parents and has recently recovered from his heroine addiction. He's 270 lbs and constantly depressed. The hard-working, less intelligent guy went to work as a press man at an adhesives label factory. He started right out of high school at $7/hour. He showed up to work every day, worked lots of overtime and showed a great enthusiasm to do his job well. He is married with two kids, with a third on the way, making $19/hour and owns a $120,000 house. He is never lacking for money, and may soon be promoted. What's the difference there? One has a stronger work ethic, the other does not. So don't give me any of that helpless socialist bullshit--it doesn't fly here in America, except the most liberal politicians. Even then, they give a lot of credit to hard work, too.
Maybe you should put down your bong, stop philosophizing and come to America once to see what a hard-working man can do.
(Oh, don't bother replying to this--I'm just screwing around with you on this last paragraph).Edited for spelling mistakes I noticed.
Old School Role-Player
First time out of the vault
Oh, one more thing Kharn, since this was mentioned twice and I got the same question (which apparently wasn't answered with my mention of it in a previous post--but our threads can get pretty long). The homosexuality issue is another example of how Anti-American sentiment is sensationalized in the news abroad.
The Sodomy laws you are referring are almost 200 years old--they haven't been enforced for about 100 years, until the case in Texas which you are referring to. I have no idea why that idiot cop decided to arrest the gay men, and I have no idea why that idiot district attorney decided to prosecute the case. However, most Americans will tell you that Texas is almost it's own country--even a Texan will tell you that. Still, there are only three states in the entire country that had laws banning gay sex (including Texas) up to that point, and 11 states which had anti-sodomy laws (including the previous three I've just mentioned). The point is, it's an old law that has never been removed from the books, but has never been enforced before that time.
If you want, I can also tell you about very old laws that prohibit mowing your lawn on Sundays, or laws that prohibit someone from hanging men's underwear and women's underwear on a clothesline at the same time. I mean, let's not get ridiculous here.
The Sodomy laws you are referring are almost 200 years old--they haven't been enforced for about 100 years, until the case in Texas which you are referring to. I have no idea why that idiot cop decided to arrest the gay men, and I have no idea why that idiot district attorney decided to prosecute the case. However, most Americans will tell you that Texas is almost it's own country--even a Texan will tell you that. Still, there are only three states in the entire country that had laws banning gay sex (including Texas) up to that point, and 11 states which had anti-sodomy laws (including the previous three I've just mentioned). The point is, it's an old law that has never been removed from the books, but has never been enforced before that time.
If you want, I can also tell you about very old laws that prohibit mowing your lawn on Sundays, or laws that prohibit someone from hanging men's underwear and women's underwear on a clothesline at the same time. I mean, let's not get ridiculous here.
welsh
Junkmaster
Jeesus OSRP, what did you just come off the O'Reilly Factor? Try a little decaf instead of high test will ya?
Ok, Do most americans like paying property taxes? That's just stupid. No one likes to pay taxes of any kind. For example in Virginia, where I reside, we pay a property tax on automobiles. When I had by piece of crap 200sx, it was cheap. Now with the new Honda its expensive. As a political issue the property tax got cut, and state immediately went into deficit and many functions of the state (education support, highways, fireworks at 4th of July, parks, etc.) got gutted.
Without taxes the state couldn't run, so someone has got to pay or we get no state. Likewise, taxes also serve certain policy functions. For instance, tax exemptions/exclusions for mortgages or business are part of a policy to promote those economic activities. Likewise, estate taxes (which GB seems to want to get rid of) are about keeping big money out of the hands of the very rich (like the Bush family and their friends) and dispersing it to avoid class distortions, to reinvigorate investment, and to keep society functioning.
What property taxes do is that they go to local services. The more you pay in taxes the better your services, the better your schools, teh better your police protection, schools, state-supported healthcare, parks, sanitation, water quality, even judicial services. What that does for the individual is immediately two things. For non-libertarians, that usually means higher quality of life. But it also means an increase in property values , making your home as an investment a better claim. Furthermore, since property taxes are often only accessed when a house is bought or sold, chances are getting a better deal the longer you own your house.
Do we like paying taxes? No. But damn if we don't enjoy the benefits.
What Kharn has stated before (and yes we are in agreement on this one) is that the Europeans have a greater sense of communitarianism while Libertarians have a greater sense of individualism.
The problem I have with that is that while the Libertarian basically says "fuck the state, I am losing in this economic transaction since the money I give for better education gets filtered through the state, pays some fat bureaucrats, and therefore education gets only a fraction of what I invest. IN that case I would rather not get taxed and pay my own way."
I am skeptic of the state, but I am even more suspicious of Libertarianism. Individually self interest makes sense, but at the aggregate this has sub-optimal outcomes for communities. Sometimes the costs of institutions like the state are often lower than community gains. Frankly, I think the Libertarian position of weakening the state is ridiciulous, the answer is not abandonment but reform.
Consider what you have said about school vouchers. Now school vouchers were sold as a way of giving poor minorities a chance to get a better education. They are also seen as a means to confront the weakness of public schools by creating a new form of competition, invigorating schools with a desire to compete.
Bullshit. That might be the Libertarian argument, but it seems a bit short sighted.
What vouchers are is a way for folks to get a bit of money back for not using public education at the cost of public education itself.
Will minorities (poor black and hispanics mostly) get a bonus? Probably not. Why? Because you have basically given a subsidy to private schools (Oh wait, isn't that anti-Libertarian for the state to fund private activities). Who's to say that private schools will not raise tuition in accordance? Whose to say that the voucher was enough to give the minority family a chance to send their kid to school when they already can't afford private tuition.
So who gets to send their kids to private schools, well of course white folks, and in a few years, don't worry, the voucher won't make a difference since tuition will go up when you know vouchers won't follow suit. And the black, hispanic and other minorities? Oh they still get to go to public school.
And what about those public schools? Well since they aren't getting the funding they should (thank you vouchers and no property taxes) they deteriorate worse then they are. They get less good books, less good teachers, less good anything. They also get less good students since education is cumulative and the white kid in the private school is probably getting the education that the poor black kid in the private school can't afford. Take the good students out of the classroom and the entire class suffers.
But wait a minute, didn't we end segregation in Brown v. Board of Ed? Ah, well, not exactly, you see the rule is that the state can't discriminate (de jure descrimination), not that the state can't carry out a policy for non-discriminating reasons even if it has some de facto discriminatory effects. So I guess we are back to generally race based school systems (because lets face it poor whites are no better minorities, right?)
Well, so now what do we have- well we have poor minorities and whites getting shafted in declining public schools which reduces that opportunity for poor kids to make good (and you can just kiss off that "poor boy" does good by working hard idea- he ain't never getting by in college if he gets through public school). We have white kids (middle and upper class kids) still with the opportunity to do well (since colleges will only take the best and brightest, and it often takes success at a good college to do very well in US society). That means no more "land of opportunity" as social classes become more rigid do to paths leading from education.
Yes, I know, OSRP, that a poor kid who works hard can get by, Horatio Algier style. Come on, 19 bucks an hour = $38,000 a year (40 hours a week and 50 working weeks a year and with a house, wife and two kids = Fucking poor. Hope he doesn't mind his wife working) Your friend is one of the declining middle class.
Ok, net result- middle class (which is shrinking) and upper class get to have their kids go to great private schools so they can do well.
Poor and minorities get shafted into declining private schools.
But the story gets better.
You see the idea of the school voucher fits neatly in the idea of religion and schools. You see, for those of you folks who haven't had to put up with this Christian fundamentalist bullshit, for years people have been trying to get their kids to pray in schools. No big deal? Maybe not, but this is the beginning of the state doing things like providing bus services, teachers, computers, sporting gear, to schools. In the US there is this division between church and state that says that never the two should meet ideally, realistically that never happened).
But you see, thank you to conservatives on the court, the rule is not that the state can't fund parochial activities, but that it must be able to create an even playing field between secular and non-secular interests. Thus is the state gives to the private secular, it must also give to the private non-secular. Meaning that sometimes the state has no choice but to fund parochial schools if it wants to give money to private education.
Ok, so school vouchers do....???
Well you see if you look out at the world of private non-higher education, one finds an interesting fact, most private schools are parochial. WHy, well religion is tax-exempt so they can afford the building of schools where private firms are not. So if you are giving money to parents to take their kids out of secular public schools so they send them to private schools you are basically supporting religion and education.
Interestingly - Catholicism- most Catholics who send their kids to catholic schools are kind of supportive of school vouchers because its money in the pocket. Most catholics who don't send their kids to catholic schools are not. The Catholic system itself isn't too fond of this, because they already have their network of schools and are probably afraid of the protestants getting a piece of the action. Why did the catholics do so well, better economies of scale. The church is huge and had the money and the mission to set up non-profit education whereas other religions did not fair as well (Wait, was it Pat Robertson who owned a diamond mind in Mobutu's Zaire- well who said religion is nothing but PR for God and a great way to make a living).
Of course the state is not supposed to get between the battle of the religions, right.
ANd who supports this- the Republicans- why because they have been supportive of prayer in school, religious education and basically, lets be honest, they ain't much for affirmative action. And didn't McCain lose his bid to be president because he criticisized the Christian Right's involvement in politics (and thus the Christian Right supported Bush, hmmmm...) That's the whole conservative swing which makes Republicans so popular among white southern voters, distrusted by minorities and progressives.
Of course the Libertarians might say that school vouchers are a good thing.
Of course, desegregation is a good thing. And so is the chance of a kid to get a good fair education and make something from himself.
Rats, but you need a state for that. Why, the state is the provider of public goods and in a democracy, is the servant of the people. Not the individual, but the people as a community. That's what voting is about.
Maybe the libertarians didn't think that far. But maybe they are being played by the Republicans.
That said, what about those crappy public schools. You're right, they suck.
Schools are often built around declining infrastructure, teachers are under paid so you don't have much in the way of incentives to get the best and brightest, furthermore, due to unfunded mandates they have to eat certain costs. For example, one of the most significant costs is built around the idea that the schools must provide equal access to children with disabilities. Ideally the feds were supposed to pay for it (but Bush bankrupted the states) but they never came through even though the schools were stuck with the law and have to make access available or face litigation. It's a well meant law, its goals are moral, but it's too damn expensive.
But that's public education- private schools could tell the kid with "special needs" to fuck off.
What's the answer- reform. Reinvestment in education, better teachers, new infrastructure, better training, higher standards, more competition within the school. Libertarians would say, oh it fails, lets forget it. No, the answer is not abandonment but revitalization and restoration. But what's to stop if from collapsing? Responsible citizenship.
But what about Old Grandpa Gump who never had kids or had kids and they grew up. Should he pay for taxes? Well Gramps, you are part of a society, and the society survives on the strength of its economy and the economy prospers with talented labor- which means bite the bullet you old fuck and pay for education because you benefit from it too.
But I want to send my kid to private school? Cool, you pay for it. I don't want to pay for your fucking voucher out of my tax dollars.
The Libertarian belief on the right of the individual to be free of taxes, to reduce the role of the state, is a bit blind. It's blind to the fact that state's make economies work better. Not all states, but good states do. The way to get a good state is by oversight and action, not abandonment.
The Libertarians may also be blind to their own manipulation. They are but one voice among many, and certain folks would manipulate your ideals for their purposes.
OSRP- I don't believe that you really want segregated schools, or a class based education system where no poor person can get ahead, do you?
Yes, well Libertarians might say, keep that state out of social welfare, keep it out of the economy. Its rent seeking!
Ok, one more, lets say the state was kept to its basic function of defense against foreign enemies and protection of internal peace (although I know Gwydelion doesn't believe that the police should protect the individual tax payer, but his willingness to accept poor police protection should not be perceived as a national belief) and lets keep it out of economic regulation and social benefits.
So we get defense- The US has to fight a war in Iraq to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction against the US (despite the fact that the Iraq's have no military vehicles to launch an attack and where are those weapons???) shooting up the deficit by investing heavy in military corporations, thereby increasing their stocks.
Well OSRP, you're an aspiring business MBA, tell me, did you invest Cheney stock? Probably not Carlyle Group (That private company where bin Ladens, Bushes and Bakers meet- see http://www.economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1875084 if you doubt me) - oh Ratty, this you'll love.
Because if you didn't, you made a mistake. Tell me that by investing heavy in defense we didn't have an economic effect that benefitted certain industries (when perhaps that money might have gone to other industries- oh, like pharmaceuticals, information technologies, etc). Maybe it could have invested a bit in education and this voucher nonsense wouldn't be such a problem.
Fact- the state is part of the economic equation of the US. The problem is not abandoning your control over the state, but make the state work for you (not as a bunch of greedy little individuals but as a vibrant community). By endorsing individualism, be careful that you neglect the responsibility of the state to the people of the US.
Old School Role-Player said:
Ok, Do most americans like paying property taxes? That's just stupid. No one likes to pay taxes of any kind. For example in Virginia, where I reside, we pay a property tax on automobiles. When I had by piece of crap 200sx, it was cheap. Now with the new Honda its expensive. As a political issue the property tax got cut, and state immediately went into deficit and many functions of the state (education support, highways, fireworks at 4th of July, parks, etc.) got gutted.
Without taxes the state couldn't run, so someone has got to pay or we get no state. Likewise, taxes also serve certain policy functions. For instance, tax exemptions/exclusions for mortgages or business are part of a policy to promote those economic activities. Likewise, estate taxes (which GB seems to want to get rid of) are about keeping big money out of the hands of the very rich (like the Bush family and their friends) and dispersing it to avoid class distortions, to reinvigorate investment, and to keep society functioning.
What property taxes do is that they go to local services. The more you pay in taxes the better your services, the better your schools, teh better your police protection, schools, state-supported healthcare, parks, sanitation, water quality, even judicial services. What that does for the individual is immediately two things. For non-libertarians, that usually means higher quality of life. But it also means an increase in property values , making your home as an investment a better claim. Furthermore, since property taxes are often only accessed when a house is bought or sold, chances are getting a better deal the longer you own your house.
Do we like paying taxes? No. But damn if we don't enjoy the benefits.
What Kharn has stated before (and yes we are in agreement on this one) is that the Europeans have a greater sense of communitarianism while Libertarians have a greater sense of individualism.
The problem I have with that is that while the Libertarian basically says "fuck the state, I am losing in this economic transaction since the money I give for better education gets filtered through the state, pays some fat bureaucrats, and therefore education gets only a fraction of what I invest. IN that case I would rather not get taxed and pay my own way."
I am skeptic of the state, but I am even more suspicious of Libertarianism. Individually self interest makes sense, but at the aggregate this has sub-optimal outcomes for communities. Sometimes the costs of institutions like the state are often lower than community gains. Frankly, I think the Libertarian position of weakening the state is ridiciulous, the answer is not abandonment but reform.
Consider what you have said about school vouchers. Now school vouchers were sold as a way of giving poor minorities a chance to get a better education. They are also seen as a means to confront the weakness of public schools by creating a new form of competition, invigorating schools with a desire to compete.
Bullshit. That might be the Libertarian argument, but it seems a bit short sighted.
What vouchers are is a way for folks to get a bit of money back for not using public education at the cost of public education itself.
Will minorities (poor black and hispanics mostly) get a bonus? Probably not. Why? Because you have basically given a subsidy to private schools (Oh wait, isn't that anti-Libertarian for the state to fund private activities). Who's to say that private schools will not raise tuition in accordance? Whose to say that the voucher was enough to give the minority family a chance to send their kid to school when they already can't afford private tuition.
So who gets to send their kids to private schools, well of course white folks, and in a few years, don't worry, the voucher won't make a difference since tuition will go up when you know vouchers won't follow suit. And the black, hispanic and other minorities? Oh they still get to go to public school.
And what about those public schools? Well since they aren't getting the funding they should (thank you vouchers and no property taxes) they deteriorate worse then they are. They get less good books, less good teachers, less good anything. They also get less good students since education is cumulative and the white kid in the private school is probably getting the education that the poor black kid in the private school can't afford. Take the good students out of the classroom and the entire class suffers.
But wait a minute, didn't we end segregation in Brown v. Board of Ed? Ah, well, not exactly, you see the rule is that the state can't discriminate (de jure descrimination), not that the state can't carry out a policy for non-discriminating reasons even if it has some de facto discriminatory effects. So I guess we are back to generally race based school systems (because lets face it poor whites are no better minorities, right?)
Well, so now what do we have- well we have poor minorities and whites getting shafted in declining public schools which reduces that opportunity for poor kids to make good (and you can just kiss off that "poor boy" does good by working hard idea- he ain't never getting by in college if he gets through public school). We have white kids (middle and upper class kids) still with the opportunity to do well (since colleges will only take the best and brightest, and it often takes success at a good college to do very well in US society). That means no more "land of opportunity" as social classes become more rigid do to paths leading from education.
Yes, I know, OSRP, that a poor kid who works hard can get by, Horatio Algier style. Come on, 19 bucks an hour = $38,000 a year (40 hours a week and 50 working weeks a year and with a house, wife and two kids = Fucking poor. Hope he doesn't mind his wife working) Your friend is one of the declining middle class.
Ok, net result- middle class (which is shrinking) and upper class get to have their kids go to great private schools so they can do well.
Poor and minorities get shafted into declining private schools.
But the story gets better.
You see the idea of the school voucher fits neatly in the idea of religion and schools. You see, for those of you folks who haven't had to put up with this Christian fundamentalist bullshit, for years people have been trying to get their kids to pray in schools. No big deal? Maybe not, but this is the beginning of the state doing things like providing bus services, teachers, computers, sporting gear, to schools. In the US there is this division between church and state that says that never the two should meet ideally, realistically that never happened).
But you see, thank you to conservatives on the court, the rule is not that the state can't fund parochial activities, but that it must be able to create an even playing field between secular and non-secular interests. Thus is the state gives to the private secular, it must also give to the private non-secular. Meaning that sometimes the state has no choice but to fund parochial schools if it wants to give money to private education.
Ok, so school vouchers do....???
Well you see if you look out at the world of private non-higher education, one finds an interesting fact, most private schools are parochial. WHy, well religion is tax-exempt so they can afford the building of schools where private firms are not. So if you are giving money to parents to take their kids out of secular public schools so they send them to private schools you are basically supporting religion and education.
Interestingly - Catholicism- most Catholics who send their kids to catholic schools are kind of supportive of school vouchers because its money in the pocket. Most catholics who don't send their kids to catholic schools are not. The Catholic system itself isn't too fond of this, because they already have their network of schools and are probably afraid of the protestants getting a piece of the action. Why did the catholics do so well, better economies of scale. The church is huge and had the money and the mission to set up non-profit education whereas other religions did not fair as well (Wait, was it Pat Robertson who owned a diamond mind in Mobutu's Zaire- well who said religion is nothing but PR for God and a great way to make a living).
Of course the state is not supposed to get between the battle of the religions, right.
ANd who supports this- the Republicans- why because they have been supportive of prayer in school, religious education and basically, lets be honest, they ain't much for affirmative action. And didn't McCain lose his bid to be president because he criticisized the Christian Right's involvement in politics (and thus the Christian Right supported Bush, hmmmm...) That's the whole conservative swing which makes Republicans so popular among white southern voters, distrusted by minorities and progressives.
Of course the Libertarians might say that school vouchers are a good thing.
Of course, desegregation is a good thing. And so is the chance of a kid to get a good fair education and make something from himself.
Rats, but you need a state for that. Why, the state is the provider of public goods and in a democracy, is the servant of the people. Not the individual, but the people as a community. That's what voting is about.
Maybe the libertarians didn't think that far. But maybe they are being played by the Republicans.
That said, what about those crappy public schools. You're right, they suck.
Schools are often built around declining infrastructure, teachers are under paid so you don't have much in the way of incentives to get the best and brightest, furthermore, due to unfunded mandates they have to eat certain costs. For example, one of the most significant costs is built around the idea that the schools must provide equal access to children with disabilities. Ideally the feds were supposed to pay for it (but Bush bankrupted the states) but they never came through even though the schools were stuck with the law and have to make access available or face litigation. It's a well meant law, its goals are moral, but it's too damn expensive.
But that's public education- private schools could tell the kid with "special needs" to fuck off.
What's the answer- reform. Reinvestment in education, better teachers, new infrastructure, better training, higher standards, more competition within the school. Libertarians would say, oh it fails, lets forget it. No, the answer is not abandonment but revitalization and restoration. But what's to stop if from collapsing? Responsible citizenship.
But what about Old Grandpa Gump who never had kids or had kids and they grew up. Should he pay for taxes? Well Gramps, you are part of a society, and the society survives on the strength of its economy and the economy prospers with talented labor- which means bite the bullet you old fuck and pay for education because you benefit from it too.
But I want to send my kid to private school? Cool, you pay for it. I don't want to pay for your fucking voucher out of my tax dollars.
The Libertarian belief on the right of the individual to be free of taxes, to reduce the role of the state, is a bit blind. It's blind to the fact that state's make economies work better. Not all states, but good states do. The way to get a good state is by oversight and action, not abandonment.
The Libertarians may also be blind to their own manipulation. They are but one voice among many, and certain folks would manipulate your ideals for their purposes.
OSRP- I don't believe that you really want segregated schools, or a class based education system where no poor person can get ahead, do you?
Yes, well Libertarians might say, keep that state out of social welfare, keep it out of the economy. Its rent seeking!
Ok, one more, lets say the state was kept to its basic function of defense against foreign enemies and protection of internal peace (although I know Gwydelion doesn't believe that the police should protect the individual tax payer, but his willingness to accept poor police protection should not be perceived as a national belief) and lets keep it out of economic regulation and social benefits.
So we get defense- The US has to fight a war in Iraq to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction against the US (despite the fact that the Iraq's have no military vehicles to launch an attack and where are those weapons???) shooting up the deficit by investing heavy in military corporations, thereby increasing their stocks.
Well OSRP, you're an aspiring business MBA, tell me, did you invest Cheney stock? Probably not Carlyle Group (That private company where bin Ladens, Bushes and Bakers meet- see http://www.economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1875084 if you doubt me) - oh Ratty, this you'll love.
Because if you didn't, you made a mistake. Tell me that by investing heavy in defense we didn't have an economic effect that benefitted certain industries (when perhaps that money might have gone to other industries- oh, like pharmaceuticals, information technologies, etc). Maybe it could have invested a bit in education and this voucher nonsense wouldn't be such a problem.
Fact- the state is part of the economic equation of the US. The problem is not abandoning your control over the state, but make the state work for you (not as a bunch of greedy little individuals but as a vibrant community). By endorsing individualism, be careful that you neglect the responsibility of the state to the people of the US.
It's not like it's a matter of opinion, it's a matter of legal fact. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1856 in South vs Maryland that there is no right to police protection. Lower courts have upheld that to this very day. In fact, in Riss vs City of New York one of the judges remarked that she was victimized not only because she relied on police to protect her, but because she also adhered to New York laws which prevented her from having weapons with which to defend herself.
Whether or not most Americans believe they need to defend themselves, the state says so. I don't understand why you continue to ignore that significant fact.
welsh
Junkmaster
What the court is saying in that case is that the victim does not have the right to sue the state because she's been hurt in a crime and the cops failed in their responsibility to prevent a crime from happening. If the police were responsible for restitution, then they could be sued for every time a person is a victim of crime.
That would virtually be impossible to administer and is part of the reason the Court has been very reluctant to expand the notion of rights.
Interestingly this is also why the US didn't sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the Declaration it says that every person should be entitled to such rights as a job, a home, etc. But in the US to give that effect of law would basically force the court to make an impossible qualitative measure. How much home are you entitled too (a cardboard hut or a mansion), what kind of job (one of your choice or one that can barely feed you). The existence of a right in law gives a party the right to sue on that right and an obligation of the state to provide it. To say that you have a legal right to police protection at all times would place the court too far in the hands of executivie authority (policing powers) in which it would be making legislative and executive decisions needed to make that right work.
That said, the notion of the state is a organization with fairly fixed territories that is reponsible for defense against foreign aggressors and maintainance of domestic peace. It is therefore every modern state's mandate to provide for the common defense as well as to insure domestic tranquility.
In otherwords, the state is supposed to provide you police protection. THe state does not say you need to protect yourself, only that you have right to when faced in a situation were self defense is deemed appropriate by law.
The way that one is supposed to get that, in the US, is through the democratic process by which you demand more police protection from the state until it reaches a level that the electorate is happy with.
If you don't like the level of police protection you get to vote and call up your Congressman or your governor or your mayor. It is the state's responsibility to provide you with that protection, it is your right to campaign, to poll and demand that the state lives up to that responsibility for which you pay taxes.
Alternatively, you can buy a guy, sit in your house and pray to God that someone doesn't break in one day and try to kill you.
Given a choice between living in a world of:
(A) highly armed people who live each day worried that someone is going to kill them and therefore they need to privatize the use of deadly force in order to assure their individual protection,
or
(B) a world in which most people can live their lives happily without ever having to bring a death dealing device into their own home (where their kids can't get to it or their spouse won't use it against them) and can live in a society which is peaceful (or you won't get shot by some asshole who is exercising their constitutional right to own guns in a violent way) with the sense that police presence is sufficient to deter crime.
I prefer option B thank you.
Of course, if you don't want to pay property taxes and thus have a good police force, or you feel that police protection is generally a waste of your individual dollars and you can get more protection by owning your own handgun, then I guess option A is your choice.
It's no wonder the Europeans think we're nuts.
That would virtually be impossible to administer and is part of the reason the Court has been very reluctant to expand the notion of rights.
Interestingly this is also why the US didn't sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the Declaration it says that every person should be entitled to such rights as a job, a home, etc. But in the US to give that effect of law would basically force the court to make an impossible qualitative measure. How much home are you entitled too (a cardboard hut or a mansion), what kind of job (one of your choice or one that can barely feed you). The existence of a right in law gives a party the right to sue on that right and an obligation of the state to provide it. To say that you have a legal right to police protection at all times would place the court too far in the hands of executivie authority (policing powers) in which it would be making legislative and executive decisions needed to make that right work.
That said, the notion of the state is a organization with fairly fixed territories that is reponsible for defense against foreign aggressors and maintainance of domestic peace. It is therefore every modern state's mandate to provide for the common defense as well as to insure domestic tranquility.
In otherwords, the state is supposed to provide you police protection. THe state does not say you need to protect yourself, only that you have right to when faced in a situation were self defense is deemed appropriate by law.
The way that one is supposed to get that, in the US, is through the democratic process by which you demand more police protection from the state until it reaches a level that the electorate is happy with.
If you don't like the level of police protection you get to vote and call up your Congressman or your governor or your mayor. It is the state's responsibility to provide you with that protection, it is your right to campaign, to poll and demand that the state lives up to that responsibility for which you pay taxes.
Alternatively, you can buy a guy, sit in your house and pray to God that someone doesn't break in one day and try to kill you.
Given a choice between living in a world of:
(A) highly armed people who live each day worried that someone is going to kill them and therefore they need to privatize the use of deadly force in order to assure their individual protection,
or
(B) a world in which most people can live their lives happily without ever having to bring a death dealing device into their own home (where their kids can't get to it or their spouse won't use it against them) and can live in a society which is peaceful (or you won't get shot by some asshole who is exercising their constitutional right to own guns in a violent way) with the sense that police presence is sufficient to deter crime.
I prefer option B thank you.
Of course, if you don't want to pay property taxes and thus have a good police force, or you feel that police protection is generally a waste of your individual dollars and you can get more protection by owning your own handgun, then I guess option A is your choice.
It's no wonder the Europeans think we're nuts.
You're way off, welsh. The police help to ensure domestic tranquility by catching people that break the law, not by acting as state-employed bodyguards-for-hire. Although the court recognized the immense cost in that, it also acknowledged that it simply wasn't their role.
Even if the function of police changed overnight, and we began pouring more of our income into the convoluted bureaucracy of the state, cops still wouldn't be there to prevent crimes from happening. When a husband decides he wants to beat his wife to death, a cop isn't going to be there to stop it in time, even if the woman makes it to a phone before she dies. If someone jumps you, grabs your wallet and hauls ass, a cop won't get there in time to do anything but take your statement. They can't protect us. It isn't possible for them to protect us from criminals. Whether or not you think guns are necessary, at some point we may have to defend ourselves.
This is the real world. This is the world where people get tortured to death while on the phone with 911 operators. This is the world where criminals act quickly leave the scene faster. If we had 10 minute response times nationwide, which seems almost impossible given current situations in many areas, it still simply could not happen.
Even if the function of police changed overnight, and we began pouring more of our income into the convoluted bureaucracy of the state, cops still wouldn't be there to prevent crimes from happening. When a husband decides he wants to beat his wife to death, a cop isn't going to be there to stop it in time, even if the woman makes it to a phone before she dies. If someone jumps you, grabs your wallet and hauls ass, a cop won't get there in time to do anything but take your statement. They can't protect us. It isn't possible for them to protect us from criminals. Whether or not you think guns are necessary, at some point we may have to defend ourselves.
This is the real world. This is the world where people get tortured to death while on the phone with 911 operators. This is the world where criminals act quickly leave the scene faster. If we had 10 minute response times nationwide, which seems almost impossible given current situations in many areas, it still simply could not happen.
OSRP, are you absolutely not listening to what has been said???
First of all, you said "anything "promoting" the Nazi party", and that DOES qualify as propaganda:
information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.
It is relatively obvious to me what you said, READ what I say the next time, okay???
Second, do you honestly believe that if you walked into a fast-food restaurant where a bunch of schoolkids are working, and you're looking like someone who just crawled out of the toilet(so to speak), and asked for a job, you would actually get HIRED??? YOu're ignorant......
You're not listening to what people have said, it IS POSSIBLe and IT DOES HAPPEN that people can't get a job, that is no joke, and that is no bullshit. It's a FACT.
You're also making it sound as if NOT having the freedom to own a gun, is a bad thing. It's again, a point of view, but PLEASE don't make it sound as if we are ignorant asses who know nothing and don't try hard enough to stop murders. Read welsjh's post about it.
ANother thing about getting hired: If you were the man in charge of some ranomd establishment, and you needed people to work for you, would you rather hire the bum off the street who looks like shit, or the guy who just walked in looking neat??? Answer "the bum" and I'll declare you crazy, or very social. And looking at your posts, I'm sincerely doubting it'd be social....
Things like that don't exclusively happen in the USA, andthe USA is not the Land of opportunity, it's got equal opportunities as almost any other "Western" country.
Gah, I actually posted here again.....*sigh*
First of all, you said "anything "promoting" the Nazi party", and that DOES qualify as propaganda:
information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.
It is relatively obvious to me what you said, READ what I say the next time, okay???
Second, do you honestly believe that if you walked into a fast-food restaurant where a bunch of schoolkids are working, and you're looking like someone who just crawled out of the toilet(so to speak), and asked for a job, you would actually get HIRED??? YOu're ignorant......
You're not listening to what people have said, it IS POSSIBLe and IT DOES HAPPEN that people can't get a job, that is no joke, and that is no bullshit. It's a FACT.
Actually, I wasn't. I was raised(and am still being raised) in a relatively right-wing environment, who aren't such a big fan of welfare and such. However, since I can still THINK for myself, I don't support that view, but support a more socialist view of things. I'm not thinking the way I'm thinking because I've been raised that way, I'm thinking like this because I'm pretty educated, and try to make up my OWN mind about things.
You're also making it sound as if NOT having the freedom to own a gun, is a bad thing. It's again, a point of view, but PLEASE don't make it sound as if we are ignorant asses who know nothing and don't try hard enough to stop murders. Read welsjh's post about it.
ANother thing about getting hired: If you were the man in charge of some ranomd establishment, and you needed people to work for you, would you rather hire the bum off the street who looks like shit, or the guy who just walked in looking neat??? Answer "the bum" and I'll declare you crazy, or very social. And looking at your posts, I'm sincerely doubting it'd be social....
The first Dutch story that comes to mind: Ben Woldring, some kid who became a millionair at the age of 15( I think), by making a site with information about phone companies, he's now a 17-year old multi-millionaire.
Things like that don't exclusively happen in the USA, andthe USA is not the Land of opportunity, it's got equal opportunities as almost any other "Western" country.
Gah, I actually posted here again.....*sigh*
Sander said:
This is a point I wanted to make, besides saying I'm in agreement with welsh again...Especially now, when we're in a recession, we have a free pick of who to hire and who to fire. The bosses at even the most menial job-industries (store-clerks like me, for instance) can chose to hire people with higher High School diplomas (HAVO, VWO), why in God's name would they hire someone with a lower diploma (VMBO), or a bum?
You don't see the obvious problem, OSRP; there are NOT enough jobs to go around, this is a harsh truth of any recession, and this is exactly the reason Roosevelt made the New Deal.
Also: sorry, but your boss is a moron. Like Sander said, everyone knows it's simlpy not smart to hire bums. If the homeless person takes good care of himself it's ok, and there are lots of homeless people that do this, but homeless people that manage to do this without any outside help are truly rare.
And I'd like to state for the record I'm not a christian, nor do I share the "Christians should be boss" mentality, the "Christian" remark was added as an afterthought without any meaning, because I didn't want to use the word "social" AGAIN.
Don't underestimate this, Holland, like the Scandinavian, may be a bit exceptional, but a lot of things in Holland stretch out over to other countries, as well, like Denmark, Germany, Austria...Each of my examples basically is the same for other countries, though obviously not for every EU country.
Don't you Americans have scholarships?
Even so, most students have to work. My brother had some financial trouble with his study a few months back, he had to borrow money from our parents, my oldest brother and even me. He's got a job now after a long and hard search. If a student with a High School diploma from a gymnasium (highest form of High School here) and who has even passed with flying colours (every grade of his was above an 8 (which you call a B)) has this much trouble finding a job right now, I can understand why we have so many unemployed people at the moment. Though still less than the US
Irony, of course, has it that it's a confirmed fact that Bill Gates lied and stole from basically everyone.
An old truth is that people don't get rich by working hard, people get rich by cheating. Just look at it; does a Russian coal mine worker get rich? Does a Dutch street sweeper get rich? Does an American cop get rich? But on the other hand, the guy that commited mass-fraud at Ahold got rich, Gates got rich, etc. etc.
And OSRP, if you read through welsh's post, you'll see why the idea of a non-welfare driven state is a pipe-dream. The whole thing has been discounted over half a century ago by EVERYONE.
The thing you don't seem to understand is that there is such a thing as society in the human race. You shout stuff like "think society owes you anything..." etc. Do you have any idea how stupid that is? You pay taxes all your life, these taxes are for the common good -> society damn well owes you!
That's the way it works, you give to society by offering your labour, society gives back by offering a lot of things, and this is important; society offers schooling, hospitals, etc. etc. But that's just what the eye sees, the actual fact is that society offers everything, without society there is no economy, no free market, no factories, no nothing.
Humanity in it's current form needs a society, and the society can't work without a government which taxes people to keep things running smootly (again, read welsh's post). The moment you cut back on welfare far enough, you fall into anarchy, and this has been proven to pretty much not work.
Read welsh's post, dammit, he says it all much better than me.
welsh
Junkmaster
This is just a response to Gwydion-
I agree with you, at some level the cops just won't be there to protect a person when that person needs it. There is no way that the cops will be there when the husband comes home, finds his wife cheating with his friend, and then shoots both of them and perhaps himself. I agree with you, that to have such a world would either be utopian or a very oppressive "police" state.
That said, you are neglecting the deterrent effect that the police are suppose to perform. One reason why uniformed cops are more popular than plain clothes is because uniforms show a presence. If you put enough cops on the subway of New York, a mugger will think twice before taking on a victim. He will be looking over his shoulder. Are we crime free, no, but the probability of crime is reduced. That's why police cars are supposed to patrol neighborhoods, why foot cops are supposed to walk a beat. Why we have sirens and uniforms. The presence of police security is supposed to deter criminals.
Thus we should see a reduction in the amount of street crime in New York and in airports after Sept 11 when there are cops on virtually every street corner. But of course we can't afford that.
Now if also consider that the incidences of crime are more frequent in poor areas than rich areas. This is actually counter-intuitive. Richer neighborhoods should attract more crime, since you get more money by stealing from a rich person than a poor one. In fact, its the opposite. Poor neighborhoods are more prone to crime than wealthy neighborhoods.
Why? One answer is property taxes but more directly, more cops. More cops patrolling a neighborhood reduces the likelihood of a criminal event. Where you have rich neighborhoods, you have more money to spend on local law enforcement, you have better police protection. The deterrent value of police (the police presence) is stronger keeping more crime away. More cops on the beat, more quicker response times, more patrols. In poorer neighborhoods, were they cannot pay for police protection, you have higher rates of crime but you also see fewer beat cops, fewer patrols, etc.
I will agree, that at some level we always have to take the chance of crime. But mere gun ownership will not save you either. In the hypothetical above, either spouse who catches the other cheating might go into the living room, take out the 12 gauge and slaughter the adulterers and then him/ herself. There is also the problem in which gun ownership can be used against you should the criminal gain possession of the weapon.
Perfect protection? No. But then the level of police protection we can live with is, in a sense, and economic choice. We should decide how many cops we want, what kind of police protection we should be afforded. We do this by voting and deciding how much taxes we are willing to spend, as well as how we feel the current executive (be it a president or mayor) is doing in providing us protection. We should also have a police force in which the cops aren't usually found parked side to side bullshitting with each other or in the coffee shop sucking down a latte and boston cream.
But the level of police protection and the effectiveness of police protection depends on someone to oversee, in otherwords, an active population that is willing to promote their rights, in a sense by demanding the state live up to the social contract which we pay for in taxes.
I am adding this as an edit-
There is another element that goes to this, that I think is worth considering. When I was studying in Salzburg, Austria, about 10 years ago, I remember going home with some drunk American friends after a late night at the Augesteila (forgive the spelling) beer garden (a most excellent place to visit on your trip to Salzburg). Anyway, we saw this Austrian punk (mohawk cut, green spiked hair) waiting for a light to change to let him walk across the street. But there were no cars, not for miles. Still this punk, a self declared anti-social non-comformist, was reluctant to cross the road.
Why? Well part of it could be that the Austrians take their law very seriously. You break the law, even a minor law, and the punishments are sever. But part of this could be a social feeling that laws should be abided by. Now a person who breaks the law is actually expressing social contempt for a system of rules that should restrain his freedom to act. Perhaps then, the way to a more peaceful society is through greater communitarianism.
I will also add that I have never owned a gun, nor have I felt the need to have one, and except for a short period when I was working in some very bad neighborhoods in Brooklyn, did I wish I had one. In hindsight, I am glad that I didn't have a weapon even during that time. I like the fact that I generally don't feel the need to own a gun to defend myself and therefore don't have to have a deadly weapon in my home. I have freinds who have been mugged, I have been personally accosted, but most of the people I have known have not felt a gun was necessary. It's a good feeling not having to be afraid or feeling the need to have a weapon.
I agree with you, at some level the cops just won't be there to protect a person when that person needs it. There is no way that the cops will be there when the husband comes home, finds his wife cheating with his friend, and then shoots both of them and perhaps himself. I agree with you, that to have such a world would either be utopian or a very oppressive "police" state.
That said, you are neglecting the deterrent effect that the police are suppose to perform. One reason why uniformed cops are more popular than plain clothes is because uniforms show a presence. If you put enough cops on the subway of New York, a mugger will think twice before taking on a victim. He will be looking over his shoulder. Are we crime free, no, but the probability of crime is reduced. That's why police cars are supposed to patrol neighborhoods, why foot cops are supposed to walk a beat. Why we have sirens and uniforms. The presence of police security is supposed to deter criminals.
Thus we should see a reduction in the amount of street crime in New York and in airports after Sept 11 when there are cops on virtually every street corner. But of course we can't afford that.
Now if also consider that the incidences of crime are more frequent in poor areas than rich areas. This is actually counter-intuitive. Richer neighborhoods should attract more crime, since you get more money by stealing from a rich person than a poor one. In fact, its the opposite. Poor neighborhoods are more prone to crime than wealthy neighborhoods.
Why? One answer is property taxes but more directly, more cops. More cops patrolling a neighborhood reduces the likelihood of a criminal event. Where you have rich neighborhoods, you have more money to spend on local law enforcement, you have better police protection. The deterrent value of police (the police presence) is stronger keeping more crime away. More cops on the beat, more quicker response times, more patrols. In poorer neighborhoods, were they cannot pay for police protection, you have higher rates of crime but you also see fewer beat cops, fewer patrols, etc.
I will agree, that at some level we always have to take the chance of crime. But mere gun ownership will not save you either. In the hypothetical above, either spouse who catches the other cheating might go into the living room, take out the 12 gauge and slaughter the adulterers and then him/ herself. There is also the problem in which gun ownership can be used against you should the criminal gain possession of the weapon.
Perfect protection? No. But then the level of police protection we can live with is, in a sense, and economic choice. We should decide how many cops we want, what kind of police protection we should be afforded. We do this by voting and deciding how much taxes we are willing to spend, as well as how we feel the current executive (be it a president or mayor) is doing in providing us protection. We should also have a police force in which the cops aren't usually found parked side to side bullshitting with each other or in the coffee shop sucking down a latte and boston cream.
But the level of police protection and the effectiveness of police protection depends on someone to oversee, in otherwords, an active population that is willing to promote their rights, in a sense by demanding the state live up to the social contract which we pay for in taxes.
I am adding this as an edit-
There is another element that goes to this, that I think is worth considering. When I was studying in Salzburg, Austria, about 10 years ago, I remember going home with some drunk American friends after a late night at the Augesteila (forgive the spelling) beer garden (a most excellent place to visit on your trip to Salzburg). Anyway, we saw this Austrian punk (mohawk cut, green spiked hair) waiting for a light to change to let him walk across the street. But there were no cars, not for miles. Still this punk, a self declared anti-social non-comformist, was reluctant to cross the road.
Why? Well part of it could be that the Austrians take their law very seriously. You break the law, even a minor law, and the punishments are sever. But part of this could be a social feeling that laws should be abided by. Now a person who breaks the law is actually expressing social contempt for a system of rules that should restrain his freedom to act. Perhaps then, the way to a more peaceful society is through greater communitarianism.
I will also add that I have never owned a gun, nor have I felt the need to have one, and except for a short period when I was working in some very bad neighborhoods in Brooklyn, did I wish I had one. In hindsight, I am glad that I didn't have a weapon even during that time. I like the fact that I generally don't feel the need to own a gun to defend myself and therefore don't have to have a deadly weapon in my home. I have freinds who have been mugged, I have been personally accosted, but most of the people I have known have not felt a gun was necessary. It's a good feeling not having to be afraid or feeling the need to have a weapon.
So you acknowledge that the cops are unable to provide individual protection, and you acknowledge that people will have to defend themselves from time to time. Why then, is defending yourself with a gun "taking the law into your own hands" as you have indicated previously?
welsh
Junkmaster
I think that the gun control v non-gun control position had been discussed earlier and seems to get us off topic. My position is supportive of significant restrictions on the ownership of weapons and heavy penalties for the misuse of weapons, not that guns should be totally outlawed in the US. But this is a discussion that we have pm'd each other about before.
Old School Role-Player
First time out of the vault
Hmm, well Welsh, it's good to see that your anti-Libertarian hatred can taint your argument. Funny how until I revealed my support for the Libertarian Party, you argued the points. Now, you're suddenly spewing out anti-Libertarian rhetoric. The only thing I can say is that you really need to read up on what Libertarian Ideals are, and not what some neo-anarchist tells you. You see, there are many anarchists who join the Libertarian Party, but Libertarians are *not* an anarchist movement like you seem to claim. A typical Libertarian supports the *limitation* of government, and not the abandonment, as you claim. I recommend you check out this website to learn a little bit more about Libertarianism, and then you can argue with me about it.:
http://www.theadvocates.org/
Take The World's Smallest Political Quiz and tell me what you think. Don't worry--it's not biased in any way. Kharn will score pretty close to Centrist or Authoritarian, and Welsh, you'll score deeply on the Liberal side. I just think it's an interesting way to quantify the level of each person's views. Shit, I don't even score 100% of the Libertarian area myself at the top center of the chart (not many people do).
Anyway, again, you don't seem to understand. I'm not concerned about the validity of school vouchers and the virtues you are espousing. I am simply telling you that politicians have been elected on platforms that you claim Americans don't truly want. I really could give a shit less what your views are on school vouchers are (sorry, that sounds a lot more hostile than what I mean it to be). I am simply stating that you are not speaking for all or even a majority of Americans when you post your views here and claim to represent the majority. And just for the record, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, former mayor of Philadelphia and a Liberal Democrat at that, wants the elimination of property taxes. Your hatred of Libertarians caused you to make many assumptions on that argument. Rendell's plan is to replace property taxes and have it covered by income taxes, which is more fair than property taxes. At least a 75 year old man doesn't have to sell his home just to pay his taxes when he no longer has an income.
And I do want to bring this up because--well--I just want to retort to your assessment on the Inheritance Tax. Myth #1: Rich people stay rich because they are "old money" and an inheritance tax takes that money away from them. In fact, an inheritance tax only hurts the middle class, as taking even a moderate portion does not suddenly make them unable to make use of their money. Myth #2: People with "old money" are rich simply because their parents are rich. Sorry pal, but they have to learn how to run and maintain a business just like anybody else with money. Just because they start with a lot of money doesn't suddenly mean that they live on Easy Street for the rest of their lives and the business takes care of itself. All that means is that those people don't have to start from scratch--they still have to have good business sense. There are plenty of historical examples of people who have squandered away family fortunes because they didn't know what they were doing. Myth #3: Inheritance taxes only hurt the rich. Sorry again, but this is a blatant example of your short-sighted hatred of rich people.
Think about it this way: Say, for instance, your mother dies, and wills her house to you. The house has been something that your grandfather built with his bare hands back at the turn of the century. It's a very nice house, worth $200,000. Now, you're a typical middle-class guy making a typical middle-class income (say $35,000--which despite what you think is a decent living--especially if your wife works). However, with your middle-class income, as is typical, you have to live on a budget and you can't afford a new BMW every week or you have to make a choice between a new computer or your kid getting braces (hey, nobody said life was easy). You eagerly move out of your apartment with your family and return to your childhood home, thankful that you can honor your mother's wishes and keep the memories of your family alive in this house. Unfortunately, Mr. Tax Collector comes knocking on the door, and hands you a bill for a $20,000 inheritance tax (and 10% is a very low estimate). Oops, I guess you have to take out a loan. Shit, but you had your budget balanced exactly--you can't afford an extra loan payment. Well, maybe you could ask your boss for a raise. Oops, the economy's in the shitter right now, and he can't afford to help you out. I know, I know, you think that businesses turn out huge profits, so they can afford to give you a bonus to help pay off your newly-incurred $20,000 debt, but they can't (unless you work for a pharmaceutical company--and that's only if they want to take away from their R&D budgets). Hmm, looks tough. Well, maybe you can hit the lottery? Nope, no such luck. I guess the only thing you can do is sell the house to pay the inheritance tax. Well, you can still get a $170,000 house and still have $10,000 to pay all the settling and closing costs. That's a good house, right? Sure, the memories are gone from your family, but you still got a $170,000 house out of it right? Yeah, that's fair--your family worked very hard to keep an heirloom and Uncle Sam came over and dipped his grubby little paws into the pot so that he can get his share.
Funny how when someone in a business skims off the top like that it's called 'embezzlement', but when the government does it, it's called a 'tax'. Hmm. I guess everybody needs to get their share.
A flat income tax works fine and it forces the government to live within it's budget (by making tough-choice cuts). Instead of focusing all your efforts into punishing people who are successful, maybe you should just put some of that effort to becoming successful yourself. If you say that it can't be done, then you just haven't worked hard enough at it (research and education can go a long way, my friend).
http://www.theadvocates.org/
Take The World's Smallest Political Quiz and tell me what you think. Don't worry--it's not biased in any way. Kharn will score pretty close to Centrist or Authoritarian, and Welsh, you'll score deeply on the Liberal side. I just think it's an interesting way to quantify the level of each person's views. Shit, I don't even score 100% of the Libertarian area myself at the top center of the chart (not many people do).
Anyway, again, you don't seem to understand. I'm not concerned about the validity of school vouchers and the virtues you are espousing. I am simply telling you that politicians have been elected on platforms that you claim Americans don't truly want. I really could give a shit less what your views are on school vouchers are (sorry, that sounds a lot more hostile than what I mean it to be). I am simply stating that you are not speaking for all or even a majority of Americans when you post your views here and claim to represent the majority. And just for the record, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, former mayor of Philadelphia and a Liberal Democrat at that, wants the elimination of property taxes. Your hatred of Libertarians caused you to make many assumptions on that argument. Rendell's plan is to replace property taxes and have it covered by income taxes, which is more fair than property taxes. At least a 75 year old man doesn't have to sell his home just to pay his taxes when he no longer has an income.
And I do want to bring this up because--well--I just want to retort to your assessment on the Inheritance Tax. Myth #1: Rich people stay rich because they are "old money" and an inheritance tax takes that money away from them. In fact, an inheritance tax only hurts the middle class, as taking even a moderate portion does not suddenly make them unable to make use of their money. Myth #2: People with "old money" are rich simply because their parents are rich. Sorry pal, but they have to learn how to run and maintain a business just like anybody else with money. Just because they start with a lot of money doesn't suddenly mean that they live on Easy Street for the rest of their lives and the business takes care of itself. All that means is that those people don't have to start from scratch--they still have to have good business sense. There are plenty of historical examples of people who have squandered away family fortunes because they didn't know what they were doing. Myth #3: Inheritance taxes only hurt the rich. Sorry again, but this is a blatant example of your short-sighted hatred of rich people.
Think about it this way: Say, for instance, your mother dies, and wills her house to you. The house has been something that your grandfather built with his bare hands back at the turn of the century. It's a very nice house, worth $200,000. Now, you're a typical middle-class guy making a typical middle-class income (say $35,000--which despite what you think is a decent living--especially if your wife works). However, with your middle-class income, as is typical, you have to live on a budget and you can't afford a new BMW every week or you have to make a choice between a new computer or your kid getting braces (hey, nobody said life was easy). You eagerly move out of your apartment with your family and return to your childhood home, thankful that you can honor your mother's wishes and keep the memories of your family alive in this house. Unfortunately, Mr. Tax Collector comes knocking on the door, and hands you a bill for a $20,000 inheritance tax (and 10% is a very low estimate). Oops, I guess you have to take out a loan. Shit, but you had your budget balanced exactly--you can't afford an extra loan payment. Well, maybe you could ask your boss for a raise. Oops, the economy's in the shitter right now, and he can't afford to help you out. I know, I know, you think that businesses turn out huge profits, so they can afford to give you a bonus to help pay off your newly-incurred $20,000 debt, but they can't (unless you work for a pharmaceutical company--and that's only if they want to take away from their R&D budgets). Hmm, looks tough. Well, maybe you can hit the lottery? Nope, no such luck. I guess the only thing you can do is sell the house to pay the inheritance tax. Well, you can still get a $170,000 house and still have $10,000 to pay all the settling and closing costs. That's a good house, right? Sure, the memories are gone from your family, but you still got a $170,000 house out of it right? Yeah, that's fair--your family worked very hard to keep an heirloom and Uncle Sam came over and dipped his grubby little paws into the pot so that he can get his share.
Funny how when someone in a business skims off the top like that it's called 'embezzlement', but when the government does it, it's called a 'tax'. Hmm. I guess everybody needs to get their share.
A flat income tax works fine and it forces the government to live within it's budget (by making tough-choice cuts). Instead of focusing all your efforts into punishing people who are successful, maybe you should just put some of that effort to becoming successful yourself. If you say that it can't be done, then you just haven't worked hard enough at it (research and education can go a long way, my friend).
Old School Role-Player
First time out of the vault
Sander said:
Alright, again, I'm sick of repeating myself Sander, but a HISTORICAL ARTIFACT IS HISTORY. Jesus! How hard is it to understand that? Why don't you just close down the Louvre while you're at it because you find a historical painting to be politically offensive? If someone wants to buy an old Nazi uniform, do you honestly think they're going to put it on and start goosestepping and build up a Fourth Reich? No, they purchase these things and put them in their private libraries. Either way, this is just downright stupid--I made an off-hand correction on use of a English word. I meant no offense, almighty Sander. It's just that my native language is pretty familiar to me and I initially thought that you were misusing a word, and not spreading your own political propaganda (sorry--did I use that word right?).
Umm, Sander, you need to get some of these posts straight--I know that there are a lot of them and they are long--but I've only *mentioned* gun control issues in passing, and have neither defended nor attacked the right to bear arms. I stated once *why* Americans believe in that right. Now, if you take that as a personal insult, well then I can't be held responsible for that, can I? The gun control issue isn't one that I'd really care to discuss as this point, as we're *very* off topic here anyway.
Now, about hiring the bum, I'll just have to narrow this down between two conclusions:
1) You are a complete idiot.
or
2) Europeans are just downright assholes who judge a man based solely on his appearance and don't want to give a hand to his fellow man unless it's mandated by Socialist law
I'm voting for number 2 myself, but maybe you can prove me wrong Sander.
I'm sorry that Americans are stupid. It's a crying shame that Americans aren't as high-and-mighty as the Dutch. It's a shame that this "fact" as you claim isn't so rare here, but it's completely unheard of in Holland. The fact of the matter here is that in America, we're just *that* stupid that we'd actually give a man a chance to stand on his own two feet. God forbid, that's why America is a nobody second-world nation and the Dutch are a Superpower.
Give me a fucking break! Next time I see a bum, instead of taking him into a diner and buying him a hot meal like I thought I should, maybe I should just kick him in the face? And if anybody says anything, maybe I should just reply, "Well, that's what the Dutch would do--and we all know they're *so* much better than we stupid Americans are." I'm sure the cop would be laughing the whole time as he takes me to jail.
Anyway, I think I figured it out. Your society is a bunch of assholes who would just as soon spit on a poor man as give him a chance to stand up on his own two feet and make something of his life. I can see why you look upon me with derision because I don't believe that. To tell you the truth, I was shocked and appalled when I saw how you so vehemently defended not giving a bum a job. I guess I'm just naive, because I always thought that people who had that mentality were considered assholes all around the world. Now I see that you have claimed that your entire society thinks and acts like that. I'm not saying that you guys are like that, necessarily, but your claims that your society (or all society, as you seem to speak for the world over) views a bum as a worthless man and therefore needs government interference to give him a fighting chance horrifies me at the state of the world.
I guess this whole argument simply supports El_Prez's statement that America is and always will be better. So long as the rest of the world behaves as the way you claim your society acts, I don't have any reason believe otherwise.
How many Americans on this board wouldn't give a man a minimum wage job if he came inside from standing at his begging spot and asked for an application?
Conversely, how many Europeans wouldn't?
Old School Role-Player said:
According to your answers, your political philosophy is left-liberal.
Left-Liberal
Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.
Your Personal Self-Government Score is 80%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 20%.
That test is a joke, you can't gave a quiz that small and decide someone's political preferences from it.
Old School Role-Player
First time out of the vault
Funny Kharn, I could have told you that you were a Liberal without having you take that quiz. It was pretty obvious to me that you were a Liberal (just like I mentioned prior to your taking the test). Of course it's not a comprehensive psychological evaluation. That's like saying a Meyers-Briggs Personality Test can completely figure out your personality. There are millions of arguments against every standardized test in the world, it doesn't mean that it doesn't hold any merit simply because you disagree with it or any of them.