|
|
Post by [GG]Buxford on Oct 17, 2008 12:46:03 GMT -5
LMAO.
Flip never did look very indian to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Lord von Döbeln on Oct 18, 2008 19:01:04 GMT -5
One third of Swedes would live below the poverty line if we lived in the US?!?!?!? PLEEEEASE enlighten me to where you found this info and by what means this was calculated.    ;D True our GNP per capita is lower than yours, but that MAY e.g. have something to do with that we don't spend X trillions of dollars on war and weapons every year? Per chance? If we measure quality of life not in GNP but e.g. Infant mortality rates they were 6.4 deaths per live births in the US for 2007 while in Sweden it was 2.8 (among the lowest in the world ). Life expectancy in the US was 78 years compared to 80.6 in Sweden. We have no schools in this country with metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances. Politicians can actually make a career here without being a die-hard christian which seems very hard in the US which is strange considering one of the founding blocks of your country is freedom of religion. We even have MUSLIMS in the parliament!!!! OMG terrorists in POWER!!! I'm NOT trying to turn this into a competition about who lives in the "best country" since that is a moot point by any standard (my wife lives in Colombia, one of the most dangerous countries in the world and she badly wants to leave, but it's STILL the best country in the world for her  ). I'm just trying put forward the idea, introduce the notion, wave a small thought that beyond your county, state or country borders there MAYBE, just MAYBE, are other valid opinons, ways, systems, policies that actually function well, as well as or perhaps even better than the American ones or the ones you propose, and MAYBE just MAYBE everything in and from the US is NOT automatically "THE BEST" just because it's American. A note - I don't feel paying my (very high by most other countries' standards) taxes is "charity at gun point" - the point is rather that it's not CHARITY AT ALL! IMO it's my duty as a citizen (and I want to make clear that we the citizens of this country are the ones who have wanted this system as shown in how we have voted - it is NOT something thrust upon us form "the ruling classes") of this country to do my bit to help those in this country who are worse off than me, and that duty is not optional. That it's not optional however is NOT because it is forced on me at gun point but because I choose it to be my duty. A government that is heavily dependant on voluntary charity is IMHO not a particularly successful government since it can't take care of it's own citizens. But if you feel the incentive to being able to make a tax deduction every time you "do good" (if you actually choose to do so this year) is necessary then fine by me. I'd say that a majority of the Swedish population are quite satisfied with our "communist" system, moreso than Americans seem to be about theirs considering how much some complain about it , so I guess my point just is that the question of which one functions best may perhaps be debated... ;D [GG]LvD |
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Buxford on Oct 18, 2008 23:23:35 GMT -5
One third of Swedes would live below the poverty line if we lived in the US?!?!?!? PLEEEEASE enlighten me to where you found this info and by what means this was calculated. I can find more sources, but in general I think you misunderstand my argument, which I'll get to below. What does military expenditure by the government (a public figure) have to do with GDP per capita (a private figure)? Not denying this, but, respectfully, what does this have to do with my argument that liberty and free markets are better than socialism and centralized planning? I told you that America's health care and public schools aren't at all free market systems. And, with respect, there are external factors that effect deaths per birth and life expectancy; we can't blame these ONLY on the health care system (which, as I said, isn't anything close to being a free market system). For instance, Americans are among the fattest and most unhealthy people on earth; might this have an effect on life expectancy? Sorry, I had a pretty standard public education, and I never went to a school with metal detectors and armed guards. Plus, I don't see what this has to do with my points above. Again, what this have to do with what I said? I hate the American Congress; they're nothing but a bunch of corrupt, lazy, tyrannical bastards that leech off of the American people. Like Dab said, I support doing away with the current Congress, and at the very least sending 95% of Congressmen to prison. And (thankfully) we do still have freedom of religion in this country, and, seeing as until quite recently Sweden had a state sanctioned, official church, I don't think you should be chiding Americans for our supposed lack of separation of church and state. Oh, and there is a Muslim member of Congress. I never tried to make this a "best country" competition, nor did I ever say that America is the best country. I just said that Sweden's economy is much more socialistic than the American economy, and therefore Americans have a higher standard of living (which is a fact). It's not because Americans are "better" than Swedes, or that our country is "better" than Sweden. It's only because the American government doesn't (as of now, at least) interfere economically in the lives of Americans as much as the Swedish government does in the live of Swedes. I'm open for discussion, but as of yet I fail to see an economic system that creates more prosperity than free market capitalism; socialism, democratic socialism, mixed economies, communism, whatever you want to call it (it's all the same thing: government interference) just doesn't work, as I've shown above (centralized planning of the means of production is impossible). Also, free markets isn't an "American" thing. There are several other places in the world that have higher standards of living and are freer economically than the US (I'm sorry to say), Ireland being a prominent example. This "duty" that you seem to want to force on to others that DON'T consider it a "duty" isn't an option, correct? They don't have the option to opt out of it. If they don't pay their tribute, they go to jail. Therefore, it's at the point of a gun, aka forced. Maybe not to you, but to those who don't consider it their duty to have their money taken away from them by force, certainly. If citizens feel they need a government, they will voluntarily donate money to one. If they feel they don't need one, they won't. There should always be an option to opt out of the system, otherwise you stroll right on into tyranny and totalitarianism. And what about those who aren't satisfied with it? Shouldn't they have the option to support monetarily those things they think the government should be involved in, and opt of the things they DON'T think the government should be involved in? If people don't have options, if they're FORCED to be a part of a system they don't support, then the system's not very democratic, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Lord von Döbeln on Oct 19, 2008 7:52:41 GMT -5
From what I can read in the first link “40 per cent of all Swedish households would rank among low-income households in the USA”. 1. Low income IMO does not equal poverty as you seem to infer. 2. Wealth in Sweden is spread fairly evenly (compared to many other nations). True few of us are extremely rich, but on the other hand few of us are extremely poor. To me that's a fair trad off. 3. About 50% of all households in Sweden are single person households (among the highest in the world I think and in many wasy perhaps an argument agaisnt the high standar of living in Sweden), naturally meaning lower income in total than a household where 2 or more people work. 4. The low income we get does not have to be spent on health insureance, college funds etc. True our income is lower but the cost of living is in many ways lower (even after paying our taxes) since most if not nearly all are free (or almost free) of charge, like day care, health care, education. 5. The point I’m trying to make is that all can’t be judged by the mighty dollar and how much of it you have. Maybe not being able to buy a fourth tv set is a decent trade off for not having to worry about my five kids college funds, the fact that I don’t have health insurance which will cover my open heart surgery so I can’t get it done? IMO it is, but again that’s my opinion - not a universal truth. The first link is to Timbro's web page. Timbro is a conservative, pro-free-market and anti-taxes "think tank"/lobbyist group. I don't dispute that Swedes may have a lower average income than Americans, but I do believe that that is in no way the only measure of how well you live. The world is by far more complex than that . The second article is authored by "the president of the Swedish pro-market organisation Captus". Since Captus (I had never heard of them before this) according to their own web page is also a rather conservative, pro-free-market and anti-taxes "think tank"/lobbyist group I have a hard time to see this as an objective statement on welfare vs "freedom" in Sweden and therefore I don't really consider what they express as "proof", but rather that they express opinions similar to your own. Proving only that freedom of speach and opinions exists even in this commie dictatorship of a country. Again I'm not claiming that our current system is perfect in any way or without flaws, just that it is an option that actually works pretty well copared to many others, and that government involvment in important parts of society doesn't automatically equal "bad". I guess I'm trying to make a point against knee-jerk reactions to buzz words like socialist, government, freedom, liberty etc. and just put forth the idea that maybe things aren't black or white, good or bad; that all concepts including "government" or "socialist" aren't by definiton bad, and all concepts including "free" or "liberty" aren't by definition good as some sort of untouchable truth. What does military expenditure by the government (a public figure) have to do with GDP per capita (a private figure)? I’m sorry I’m confused as to what you mean by “private” vs “public” figure in this case? Military expenditure is a part of the nation’s GNP, i.e. "the value of all (final) goods and services produced in a country in one year, plus income earned by its citizens abroad, minus income earned by foreigners in the country" and as such it is also a part of a nation‘s GNP per capita (which is just the GNP divided by the number of citizens making them both “public” fugures in my world), my point being that if nation X with a 100 citizens produces 1000$ of GNP from the army and 10$ on health care, education and the rest, and nation Y produces 10$ of GNP from the army and 100$ from health care education and the rest, nation X has a GNP per capita of 10.1 whereas nation Y only has a GNP per capita of 1.1, but I’d still put forth the idea that perhaps nation Y has a higher standard of living than X since it’s spending on “quality of living stuff” is ten times higher even though the GNP AND the GNP per capita is way lower than for nation X. Not denying this, but, respectfully, what does this have to do with my argument that liberty and free markets are better than socialism and centralized planning? I told you that America's health care and public schools aren't at all free market systems. I brought up these numbers as an example that things work pretty well here, since infant mortality and expected life span are two common fatcors in calculting "quality of life"/affluence or whatever. BTW what proof is there that a totally “free market system with total liberty” is better at handling social services and security (by this I mean health care, education etc.) for citizens than a (semi-)regularized one? AFAIK the US system is as close as you can get anywhere in the world today to such a “free” system, but isn’t it exactly that system you are so dissatisfied with? Or do you actually mean that the rather small part the government plays in those systems in your coutry is what makes it so bad and if they just butted out everything would be peaches and dandy? If that is so, that is exactly the reason why I try to make a point that governement partaking in these things actually work well in some places. If you don’t WANT the government to be involved for ideological reasons that is one thing, but to present one system as an undeniable truth and the ONLY working system in the history of mankind, rejecting all others offhandedly is IMHO not the best way to create a functioning society. And, with respect, there are external factors that effect deaths per birth and life expectancy; we can't blame these ONLY on the health care system (which, as I said, isn't anything close to being a free market system). For instance, Americans are among the fattest and most unhealthy people on earth; might this have an effect on life expectancy? Again, my remarks about deaths per birth etc was just way to try to make the point that maybe other types of systems than the ones you propagate actually work too. And the fact that americans are among the fattest and most unhealthy people just shows to me again that dollar doesn not equal quality of life Sorry, I had a pretty standard public education, and I never went to a school with metal detectors and armed guards. Plus, I don't see what this has to do with my points above. I think you are missing MY point - I use these specific cases to highlight that things can work well even in a system that does not correlate to your political views. I’m sorry but everything is NOT automatically bad because it’s labelled “social democratic” or “government” just as not everything is automatically good because it is labelled with catch phrases like “freedom” and “liberty”. Also just because YOU didn’t go to a school with metal detectors and armed guards doesn’t mean they don’t exist in USA now does it? Again I mentioned this to make the point that perhaps the stack of dollars you have is not always the best way to measure standard of living/quality of life. Again, what this have to do with what I said? I hate the American Congress; they're nothing but a bunch of corrupt, lazy, tyrannical bastards that leech off of the American people. Like Dab said, I support doing away with the current Congress, and at the very least sending 95% of Congressmen to prison. Did you vote In the last election? Will you vote in this? If you sent them to prison who would rule? Emperor Dab? (OH – MY – GOD!!! LOL) Your way of removing the people in power is to me eerily resemblant of how most revolutions have happened in our history, be it Mao’s war agaisnt the old Nationalist regime in Chine, Pinochet’s fascistic take over of Chile, the muslim recolution in Iran that overthrew the Shah etc. In a democracy you have your right to vote, your freedom of speech, your freedom of political activities etc. Those are your tools as a citizen to make changes in your community, state or nation. Also aren’t the men and women in the congress those who just have benefitted the most form the free market system in that they are mostly well educated and rather wealthy individuals even before they enter politics and congress? And (thankfully) we do still have freedom of religion in this country, and, seeing as until quite recently Sweden had a state sanctioned, official church, I don't think you should be chiding Americans for our supposed lack of separation of church and state. Oh, and there is a Muslim member of Congress. Yes until recently we had a state church, and oddly enough we are (and have been for quite some time) one of the most secularized countries in the world. No one cares or askes about (or really thinks it’s any of our business unless we’re talking about faiths/opinions that go contrary to the Swedish constitution and laws an geberal common decency) what religion or church our politicians confess to. True - church and state have always been admirably separated in USA; on paper. Reality however IMO looks a bit different. You must admit that an openly atheist or agnostic presidential candidate in the US is still an impossibility and that the politician’s religion is as important an issue as most other things? I can’t see a muslim premier minister in Sweden either in the forseeable future, but neither is a politician here viewed as politically dead if he/she is not a devout christian (since I’m an atheist – yes I’m a spawn of Satan – I don’t want ANYONE which allows their religious beliefs influence their policy making in power. IMO mixing religion and politics is among the most dangerous things you can do, like Geroge Bush’s “mission from God - crusade” against Iraq, or Al Qaida’s Jihad against the US and the rest of the western world). Yes Sweden had a state church until recently, but religion plays and has played a minute part in the political debate for at least 60 years. The US is founded on the concept of religious freedom, but still religion (read christianity) plays a major part in the political life and discussion in the US today and in a forseeable future IMO. Again the label says very little about the content sometimes. I never tried to make this a "best country" competition, nor did I ever say that America is the best country. I didn’t say you did – I said I don’t want to make it into a competition and that was NOT why I produced those statistics – I just wanted to show that other ways of doing things work well too. I just said that Sweden's economy is much more socialistic than the American economy, and therefore Americans have a higher standard of living (which is a fact). Mm ok how is it a fact? Based on Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Gross National Product (GNP), Gross National Income (GNI), Net National Product (NNP), and Net National Income (NNI) or what evidence? On the number of gadgets you have at home? I agree there are more dollars per person in the US than in Sweden, but how is this wealth distributed among the citizens? I’m just wondering if dollars per person is a good measure of standard of living, quality of living or what have you, especially considerin gan average really says nothing about the whole picture. If 10 people have 55 bilion dollars each and the other 500.000 have one dollar each the average wealth is considerable (about 1.1 milion per person), but the vast majority is still poor. I don’t know what picture you have of Sweden or Swedes, but it would be nice to have you all as my guests here next summer say so you can see for yourselves what this “socalist slum hole” is like. I'm open for discussion, but as of yet I fail to see an economic system that creates more prosperity than free market capitalism; socialism, democratic socialism, mixed economies, communism, whatever you want to call it (it's all the same thing: government interference) just doesn't work, as I've shown above (centralized planning of the means of production is impossible). I’m sorry I don’t quite see how you have shown that. Also social democracy does not in any way imply “centralized planning of the means of production”. I don’t know how much you actually know about our political system and/or the ideologies behind them, but the difference between communist Soviet Union and Social Democratic Sweden is the difference of democracy, free elections, right to possession of private goods, money companies, freedom of speech of opinon etc etc etc. To say that they are in some way two systems with the same ideology is not just wrong but I’d say deeply insulting to most Swedes, social democrats or not. The biggest Swedish communist party (usually gets about 4-6% of the votes) has even removed the talk of communism from their name and party program since they too finally realized that that was a “less good” way to travel. The Swedish government even when it was social democratic has NEVER tried to plan the means of production. Yes it has owned companies yes, it until recently had a monopoly on health care services and education ( a monopoly the SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC government abandoned a few years back) since theideology is that a government is responsible for and should care for the basic “life support” needs (such as health care, education, NOT food, clothes, cars, tv:s like in a communist country) of it’s citizens. Also, free markets isn't an "American" thing. There are several other places in the world that have higher standards of living and are freer economically than the US (I'm sorry to say), Ireland being a prominent example. I never said that free market is an exclusivly American thing. We have a free market economy in Sweden too. And AFAIK ireland has a rather substantial public sector when it comes to things like health care, social services etc? This "duty" that you seem to want to force on to others that DON'T consider it a "duty" isn't an option, correct? They don't have the option to opt out of it. If they don't pay their tribute, they go to jail. Therefore, it's at the point of a gun, aka forced. Maybe not to you, but to those who don't consider it their duty to have their money taken away from them by force, certainly In Sweden we have general elections in which we, the people, can get rid of politicians and parties that don’t do what we want them to do. If a majority of the Swedish people didn’t want to pay taxes so that the government can take care of social services, health care, education etc. then we would vote for a party that wants to remove these things. Democracy does not mean that everyone always gets their way (sorry), but that the majority decides how things should be run. If you are part of a minority with radically differing views that can of course be a pain in the *ss. That is why you are free to join a political party or form your own party and try to convince others that what you believe is a better way of doing things. If in your opinion a democratic system and the democratic process is tantamount to forcing people at gun point, I am rather curious to think what kind of system you want. Ahh here it is.  If citizens feel they need a government, they will voluntarily donate money to one. If they feel they don't need one, they won't. There should always be an option to opt out of the system, otherwise you stroll right on into tyranny and totalitarianism. So in your opinion Sweden is on it’s way to tyranny and totalitariansm (and I guess has been considering our almost 100 year long tradition of social democracy at the helm)? Again I think about 99% of Swedes would protest that. Which by chance the rather well renowned magazine the Economist’s democracy index for 2006 also does. Sweden scores 9.98 at first place actually(not bad for a tyrannic and totalitarian state since others in that category like North Korea is a the bottom of the list with a score of 1.03) while the US scores 8.22 at 17th place. Also people who have money to voluntarily donate, usually don’t need help from the government and may so be less inclined to donating. Those that do need help usually have no money to donate. My point being that if all those with money to donate feel that this year we don’t wanna or can’t donate (perhaps because their mortgages go through the roof or they want to buy a new 52 inch flat screen tv that year) it is better to let poor and sick people starve than for the government to “forcibly” extract the funds needed to help them? Also if you don’t feel like contributing to hospitals and fire fighters and the army that year (or the next and the next etc) – should you still be able to benefit from these facilities? If so why? Or should the army and police force also be privatized. (Not a good idea – I have seen RoboCop and knows how it goes. Not good. ) If you decided to not pay taxes this year should you be helped by the fire department when your house catches on fire? And what about those who aren't satisfied with it? Shouldn't they have the option to support monetarily those things they think the government should be involved in, and opt of the things they DON'T think the government should be involved in? If people don't have options, if they're FORCED to be a part of a system they don't support, then the system's not very democratic, is it? But that is just the point – it IS democratic. Democracy = majority rule by means of free elections, the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives, a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them!!!! Majority rule = the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group. I’m sorry but democracy is NOT “everyone decides for themselves”, which IMHO is closer to anarchy (which is defined by Webster as “a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government”) than democracy. So to me it seems you don't actually want democracy since people will always be coerced in certain ways in a democracy, especially if your opinions are that of a minority, but rather anarchy (in it's political sense as per the Webster definition) where individual freedom rules supreme and there isn't a governmnet in sight. I’ll try to be online tonight so you can “12 pdr bombard” my commie *ss back to the stone age. S! [GG]LvD |
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Lord von Döbeln on Oct 19, 2008 8:09:40 GMT -5
Oh, Von, also just wanted to say -- I'm sorry if I offended you. Nowhere in my post did I mean to. As Flippy would say, I LAFF YOU! NP man! I'm just trying to point out that there may be another side of the coin that may be worth taking into consideration. I LAFF YOU TOO! ;D [GG]LvD |
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Buxford on Oct 19, 2008 23:07:42 GMT -5
Well, in the US 25% of households made $25,000 (PPP) or less, whereas in Sweden 40% made $25,000 (PPP) or less. The numbers seem to support my position. Free?? These things are not free; they're paid for with taxes, and they detract from the original Swedish income figures. Americans pay for health care and day care when they need it; Swedes pay for it whether they need it nor not. These income figures are the only objective way of determining economic standards of living, unfortunately. And in the end, you ARE going to pay for your kids' college, and your open heart surgery, through involuntary taxes; you can't get something for nothing. And even if you don't have any kids, or are in excellent shape and don't need the doctor, you're going to be paying for it anyway, making you poorer. Any source we use is going to have a bias and an agenda, so I don't think you should just discard these reports because they come from free market scholars and organizations. And, I'm sorry, but the United States DOES have a higher income than the Swedish, in both GDP per capita and median income (a much better figure in determining income). ...Both of which are influenced by external factors that are unrelated to the healthcare systems, as I said above. Go back and read my first response concerning the impossibility of the common ownership of the means of production, which includes nationalized health care, public schools, etc. Eh, no it's not. The US economy, though it's closer to a free market than most other countries, is not a free market system. I can't prove to you the righteousness of liberty and self ownership (as all value systems in the end are subjective, and that includes socialism), but I CAN prove to you that government interference in the economy has unintended consequences and is always detrimental to a nation's economy, and therefore the welfare of the people. Well, Americans like to eat and be lazy, so in a way they're succeeding in meeting their desires, therefore improving their "quality of life," as "quality of life" is subjective. This is why we use "standard of living," an objective economic statistic. And socialism can't work. Look at the Soviet Union. Look at the healthcare rationing in the UK, look at the decrepit state of schools in the United States. Higher taxes always mean lower economic growth, and a misallocation of resources. No, but that also doesn't mean that they're that common. Europeans, for whatever reason, view America (and Americans) in sweeping generalizations, most of which aren't true. With respect, you seem to fall for these stereotypes - dog eat dog capitalism, armed guards and metal detectors at schools, wacko christian politicians and voters, etc. It is the only objective way of measuring standard of living economically, which is why economists use GDP per capita and median income figures, which, surprise, usually correlates with quality of life. Who says people need a ruler? Uh, it's also the way the American colonists revolted against the British; not all revolutions are bad, you know. Wealthy individuals being elected to Congress has nothing to do the viability of free markets and socialism. ?? There are no official state sanctioned churches in the United States. Also, separation of church and state doesn't mean that politician shouldn't be allowed to discuss his faith - they have freedom of speech too, after all. Um, I agree. Freedom of religion and religion in politics are two different things entirely. America does indeed have freedom of religion - you don't see Muslims being carted off to gas chambers because they practice Islam, contrary to what the Euro media portrays . And yes, religion is a part of mainstream politics, but I'm not convinced that this is necessarily a bad thing. As I've stated before, standard of living and quality of life are two different things entirely - the hermit who lives in a shack in the woods may be as happy as can be to live that way, and the rich corporate business man may be a manic depressive, but their standards of living are undebatable. Also, the median American income is higher than the Swedish median income, so this isn't the case of all the wealth being in the hands of just a few people. American wealth distribution figures aren't that much different from other western Euro countries, it's just that the American people themselves are wealthier. Quoting myself: "In the US 25% of households made $25,000 (PPP) or less, whereas in Sweden 40% made $25,000 (PPP) or less. The numbers seem to support my position." I never really claimed that Sweden was a slum hole, but let's reverse this shall we? I don’t know what picture you have of the United States or Americans, but it would be nice to have you all as my guests here next summer say so you can see for yourselves what this “capitalist dog eat dog jungle” is like. Yes, indeed it does. Your tax rate is 50%, therefore you're half way to having your economy completely in the hands of the government - centralized planning of the means of production. I'm not quite sure whether you completely understand what I mean by that. My argument wasn't that they're the same "political" systems, but that they're the same ECONOMIC systems. The Soviet government completely controlled the Russian economy; you guys are half way to having your economy being controlled by the state. Again, I don't think you quite understand my point - centralized planing (meaning government control of something, in any form) of the means of production is impossible, as there is no way for them to allocate resources rationally (meaning, allocate resources to the wants and needs of consumers) because there IS NOT PRICE SYSTEM. No, you don't - half of your economic resources is taken by the state; that's not a free market. Which is why I don't support democracy. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." - Benjamin Franklin Not just Sweden, but most of the western world. The fact that Swedes, whether they like it or not, have half their income taken by the state is a form of tyranny in and of itself. The United States was for the longest time the "poster boy" of democracy, but look at us now. This notion that "it can't happen to us" is very sheepish. Um, evidence and human experience doesn't support this assertion. There is a massive welfare state in the United States (contrary to popular belief), yet Americans still donate hundreds of billions to private charities such as Red Cross, churches, Habitat for Humanity (those evil Christians again). Simply, no. If you don't pay the taxes that goes to the fire debt, they don't have to serve you. But that doesn't mean that these people can't use private fire debts or volunteer fire debts. Police, yes, army, not quite. I'm not an anarchist, after all. I should've been more specific. When I said democratic, I meant "rule of the people," not necessarily just majority rule. Americans usually hold the two synonymous with each other. (though we shouldn't) Again, I should've been more specific. I don't support pure democracy. I'm sorry I missed you guys, did y'all have any good games today? I had a wedding to play for today, and I was hoping more of y'all could've made it yesterday. Oh well, maybe next weekend. |
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Buxford on Oct 19, 2008 23:08:20 GMT -5
UGH, SO LONG, that took me like 30 minutes to type, lol. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by [GG]SirDabrowski on Oct 20, 2008 1:25:48 GMT -5
My volunteer Fire Department (There isn't a "b" in "Department", guys) is a subscription-based department. We gather the money needed to operate by sending a $30 subscription out to the residences and businesses of our assigned district. We are, in essence, contracted by the government to be responsible for a certain area. We ask the locals to pay a $30 to cover our yearly costs -- they have a choice to do this. Around 80% of our area's residences pay their subscriptions.
They also have a choice to dial 911. If they dial 911 and have not paid the subscription, they will be charged upwards of $500-$10,000.
The government in the United States is not required to provide you with a Fire Department. Nor is it required to provide you with Emergency Medical Services -- most EMS and Fire Departments are either privately ran, or run by a staff of volunteers loosely associated with a local government body. In my county, if you call the ambulance, it costs you/your insurance $300 to be transported to the hospital.
I prefer this. It keeps people from abusing ambulance services with bullshite, "I have chest and back pain. I need some medicine, now" excuses to take a ride in an ambulance thinking they'll get a jump-ahead in the waiting line at the Emergency Room.
The above happens a lot. A lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Remi on Oct 20, 2008 2:25:42 GMT -5
Quite a disscussion we have here. I'd love to join it but i might be out of my league here with you master debaters... ;D
Anyways, hopefully with a new president the US can refocus on our own countrys internal path. In that respect obama is perhaps the better choice. Simply because he does not carry the reputation of President Bush's party.
I suppose i should add something to the disscussion though. How about this. The US has already taken steps, almost progressively with each president since FDR, towards a more government dependant society. Why should we stop now? So long as our representatives uphold the ideals of our declaration of independence and pay close attention to our constitution we should be alright.
|
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Lord von Döbeln on Oct 20, 2008 4:25:22 GMT -5
OK one last note then - I must admit it's stupid of me who actually lives in Sweden to try to put forth the notion that things actually work decently well here - after all WTF do I know, I only have first hand experience. And the Swedish population keep voting for parties that uphold this system - man weesa stoopid weesa dumb-dumb Sweedes!!! In the American revolution you overthrew a foreing power, not your own ELECTED government - IMHO there is a bit of a difference there. And again, just because you say over and over that "socialism can't work" even though I have tried to show that it actually CAN and DOES work rather decently in my country (very much depending on what kind of socialism is used) it is obviously impossible for it to work. Bux says so. There's just no arguing with that kind of logic. I only have first hand experience so WTF do I know. I'm not claiming we have found the "one true way" in any way (that seems to be your job Bux). If Americans by democratic means (which IMHO is the only political system we've managed to come up with that actually works decently - again MY OPINION) decide, as they have in the past, that they want health care, fire fighting, schools or whatever to be run by private inteterests on a free market then fine by me! As long as it works and you're happy with it - fine, even if it's not the way I want it to function in my country (since IMO private companies always have ONE agenda at the core which is to make money which, again IMO, sadly too often leads to prioritizing profits and pleasing the share holders (which is their only real obligation) over anything else including patients well being etc). I'm just trying to make the point that there may be viable alternatives to your opinions, but I guess there isn't since yo seem to present "truths" and "facts" - not opinions. Since our way of doing things is labeled "social democratic" it obviously can't work (since it is labelled social democratic), so I guess the last 75 years we've been in a sort of time warp/fold in the universe/space-time-pocket type of thingy, and now that Bux has declared the absolute truth that anything "socialistic" is predetermined to fail I guess our society will just be erased or explode or something... It'll be fun to watch I'm sure. I never said that the current USA is a dog-eat-dog world, I said that with Dab at the helm as emeperor and with the system he suggested it would be IMO. I laff ya Dab but I don't want you to be my dictator!!! I have never claimed that school etc doesn't cost us money - of course we pay for them via our taxes, but if we talk about disposable income we have less after taxes of course, but then all these services have been paid for already, and since all pay for them equitably even those that normally wouldn't have the money for health care, university or whatever can actually get the benefit of those services without selling their house, kids or kidney, which to me is worth paying my 50% tax. Solidarity is sometimes a much more important word/concept than freedom at all costs all the time IMHO. So strangely enough I'm pretty satisfied with our non-functioning and can-never-work-since-it's-labelled-socialistic, hell-bent for totalitariansim and tyranny welfare state that just doesn't work 'cause Dab says so and is enjoyed and cherished by most of 9 million Swedes that are just too dumb to understand that it doesn't work at all. Man you all must be laughing SO hard at us numbnuts!!! But again WTF do I know - I only live here and I only have opinions to present - not axiomatic, indisputable truths and facts. [GG]LvD |
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Buxford on Oct 20, 2008 13:13:59 GMT -5
OK one last note then - I must admit it's stupid of me who actually lives in Sweden to try to put forth the notion that things actually work decently well here - after all WTF do I know, I only have first hand experience. And the Swedish population keep voting for parties that uphold this system - man weesa stoopid weesa dumb-dumb Sweedes!!! Well, if most of you want to give your money to the government, fine by me; my question is, though, what of the minority? Do they not have a choice? Well, true. But this presupposes that democratic governments actually represent the will of people. We haven't gone into specifics, except for the "centralized planning is impossible" argument (which I still think you don't understand). Private companies' first objective is indeed to make profits; but this is human nature (which socialists in ages past have claimed to be able to change) and the primary reason why the free market works so well. In order to survive, these private companies must PLEASE CONSUMERS. If they don't, they go out of business. If people don't like a certain company, they'll stop giving that company their money. Consumer needs are satisfied, and competition (and the profit motive) drives companies to be innovative and cater to consumer demands. Simple as that. In a free market, people allow billionaires to exist by voluntarily giving them their money. There is no exploitation in this process, the evil rich men don't steal the scraps of the underclass. Oh, and state agencies lack ALL of these incentives, one of the primary reasons why state programs fail. IT. WAS. A. JOKE/SATIRE/SARCASM. I've already told you that evidence and human experience doesn't support the notion that all the poor would go hungry and die if there wasn't a state welfare apparatus. And economically, The law (THE LAW, mind you) of supply and demand dictates that when you decrease the cost of something, you increase the demand. For instance, if the cost of bread at the supper market was suddenly made free, it would disappear off the shelves within minutes. This law applies to anything and everything in an economy, but it also applies to everything the state does: let's use the example of nationalized healthcare - nationalized health care is made "free" in a country in an effort to make sure everyone has it; "free" healthcare results in a skyrocket in demand; the increased demand results in shortages, higher costs, and rationing, plus the natural inefficiency of government bureaucracy (for reasons stated above) compounds these costs. Want proof? They ration healthcare in Britain and Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Buxford on Oct 20, 2008 13:23:16 GMT -5
And Dab, I think fire dept (I guess cause dept and dept are pronounced the same) in my head but type out "debt," for some reason. I know, I'm mentally retarded.
EDIT: I DID IT AGAIN!
|
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Buxford on Oct 20, 2008 13:29:27 GMT -5
Honestly, I think increased government dependence goes against what the founders of this country originally envisioned; big government = less liberty. Plus, increased government involvement in the economy and our lives is itself unconstitutional. Originally, there were only 3 (!!!!) state departments on the federal level: Defense, Treasury, and State. Its hard to believe.
OH, you'll NEVER out class this masterdebator... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Remi on Oct 20, 2008 15:41:05 GMT -5
I do not know for sure but somehow i have a hard time believing Von's government grants him less freedom or rights then ours. Save maybe our right to bear arms.
I would agree with you that meddling in the market is against the spirit of the original writers of our constiution. However if there is a part in our consitution that prohibits the federal government involvment in the market, please point that part out to the rest of us. I don't believe you will find it and that fact i believe is no mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by [GG]Buxford on Oct 20, 2008 21:34:30 GMT -5
Well, civil liberties wise, The United States doesn't have much of an advantage over Europe. In fact, we're probably now at a disadvantage; we've got the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs. But economically, Europeans as a whole are very oppressed by their governments, with most countries in Europe being taxed 40-60% of their income, while the US is taxed 30%. On a side note, isn't it kind of ironic that a country that rebelled over minuscule tea and stamp taxes now pays a third of their income to the government?
The original Constitution placed strict limits on the powers of Congress; the founders even went so far as to list all of what the Congress was supposed to do and wasn't supposed to do in Article I, Sec. 8 and Sec. 9; In Article I, Sec 9., the founders wrote this:
"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Meaning no direct taxes, and most certainly no income tax (our Founders had just rebelled over tea and stamp taxes; you honestly think they would've allowed provisions for an income tax?). In fact, the only way for the Federal government to make money from the period of the founding until the Civil War was through tariffs and the selling off of government land. It wasn't until the passage of the Wilson-Gorman tariff in 1894 that Americans were permanently taxed of their income. This act, along with the 16th Amendment (itself very unconstitutional), are, in short, disgraceful.
And concerning the limits of government in our lives and in the economy, I can't say it any better than the Founders themselves. As the "Father of the Constitution" James Madison stated :
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
Thomas Jefferson echoes Madison's sentiments:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
I can give a whole host of examples of how the government has violated the Constitution. In short, it is my view that the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights are now defunct, along with most of the sections in the Constitution itself. Our government no longer pays attention to the Constitution, much less adhere to the obvious restraints on power placed on them.
I can give more specific examples, but I'm too lazy. ;D
|
|
![[GG]Buxford Avatar](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/Buxford/robert-e-lee.jpg)
![[GG]Lord von Döbeln Avatar](http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1846/vondbelnavatar6gs.jpg){kind=avatar}
;D True our GNP per capita is lower than yours, but that MAY e.g. have something to do with that we don't spend X trillions of dollars on war and weapons every year? Per chance? If we measure quality of life not in GNP but e.g. Infant mortality rates they were 6.4 deaths per live births in the US for 2007 while in Sweden it was 2.8 (among the lowest in the world ). Life expectancy in the US was 78 years compared to 80.6 in Sweden. We have no schools in this country with metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances. Politicians can actually make a career here without being a die-hard christian which seems very hard in the US which is strange considering one of the founding blocks of your country is freedom of religion. We even have MUSLIMS in the parliament!!!! OMG terrorists in POWER!!! 
). I'm just trying put forward the idea, introduce the notion, wave a small thought that beyond your county, state or country borders there MAYBE, just MAYBE, are other valid opinons, ways, systems, policies that actually function well, as well as or perhaps even better than the American ones or the ones you propose, and MAYBE just MAYBE everything in and from the US is NOT automatically "THE BEST" just because it's American.
![[GG]SirDabrowski Avatar](http://www.bwbs.de/UserFiles/Image/1913-1920/Pilsudski.jpg)
![[GG]Remi Avatar](http://storage.proboards.com/forum/images/defaultavatar.png){kind=avatar}
.jpg)
