The Political Discussion Thread

[Galileo_Galilee]

That's why America is a Representative Republic and not a Democracy. We also have a saying over here, it's called "the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the minority".

[mad_gater]

collectivism also contains one glaring paradox:

"Among other grand achievements, F. A. Hayek had a remarkable career pointing out the flaws in collectivism. One of his keenest insights was that, paradoxically, any collectivist system necessarily depends on one individual (or small group) to make key social and economic decisions. In contrast, a system based on individualism takes advantage of the aggregate, or 'collective,' information of the whole society; through his actions each participant contributes his own particular, if incomplete, knowledge—information that could never be tapped by the individual at the head of a collectivist state." -- Sheldon Richman

[Goose]

No theory of government is flawless; collectivism is no exception. However, I still believe that the basic principles of collectivism are better than those of individulism.

[Galileo_Galilee]

Here's the great flaw of collectivist thought.

Societies are made of individuals, and you cannot have a society without individuals.

Amid lots of other flaws. Such as lack of rights for the individual.

[mad_gater]

No theory of government is flawless; collectivism is no exception. However, I still believe that the basic principles of collectivism are better than those of individulism.

the needs of the needy are actually better served by having many institutions for the needy to choose from for help instead of just one institution (the government) that the person who needs help has no choice but to go to

[Goose]

Here's the great flaw of collectivist thought.

Societies are made of individuals, and you cannot have a society without individuals.

Amid lots of other flaws. Such as lack of rights for the individual.

I should probably point out that I don't advocate pure collectivism; individual rights are important too.

the needs of the needy are actually better served by having many institutions for the needy to choose from for help instead of just one institution (the government) that the person who needs help has no choice but to go to

I'm not saying that the state should be the only institution, but rather that it should be the main institution. Charities and the likes are all wonderful things, but they should not hold the main responsibility for caring for the needy.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

the needs of the needy are actually better served by having many institutions for the needy to choose from for help instead of just one institution (the government) that the person who needs help has no choice but to go to

The main problem with your argument for me is I don't see taxation as stealing so I find no problem with that money being used to help people.

[Giantevilhead]

the needs of the needy are actually better served by having many institutions for the needy to choose from for help instead of just one institution (the government) that the person who needs help has no choice but to go to

No, the needy are best served by having an institution that can actually serve their needs.

Having a choice is not automatically good because not every choice is good. Often times, people choose badly like when they decide to go see a homeopath instead of a real doctor or trying to gamble to earn money instead of working to earn money. Sometimes, in order to help people, they have to be kept from making bad choices.

[Col.Foley]

I knew I should knew I should not have read this thread right now that it would only get my blood preassure up.

No theory of government is flawless; collectivism is no exception. However, I still believe that the basic principles of collectivism are better than those of individulism.

....well at least you're honest.

And I think I am going to be blunt, because I am in a very blunt mood.

Has it ever occured to you, or anyone else here advocating for collectovism, that such a society and such a group thought leads to nothing but a society that deals with people as groups. Where people like at each other as nothing but a bunch of crackers, or N******, or K****, or...IDK what else other people here are probably bigger experts of Pejoritive terms then I am. Of a society of the rich and the poor, of the wealthy and the needy, of the haves or the have nots, of the Conservatives, the Libertarians, and the Liberals. We will not because such a society will be BREAD to NOT think in any other manner. If we are all a collection of groups and sub groups then that is who we will be.

We will not be Foley, or Goose, or Abby, or Alan, or Joe, or Susan, or Ted, or Phillip, or Martin. WE will be white or black or Jewish or Arab.

And when people deal in groups we deal with the lowest denominator of people. Humanity is not perfect, we are good, evil, and complex. So if you take something that is imperfect and further put it through an imperfect lense, you get worse still out. Whiy its those money grubbing Jews that are too blame for all of our problems!

That is why any society or any civilization that has gone collectovist or has dealt in collectovist terms for even and instant they have failed, and usually threatened to take the whole world with them. Slavery, Concentration camps, genocide, mass executions, and people fighting against people because they think different, or have a little more money, a lisp, or a slightly different skin color. OR WE ACT THAT WAY SO WE ARE ASSUMED TO BE IN THAT GROUP. And not by the content of who and what we are, and what we can do.

Here's the great flaw of collectivist thought.

Societies are made of individuals, and you cannot have a society without individuals.

Amid lots of other flaws. Such as lack of rights for the individual.

Well put.

I should probably point out that I don't advocate pure collectivism; individual rights are important too.



I'm not saying that the state should be the only institution, but rather that it should be the main institution. Charities and the likes are all wonderful things, but they should not hold the main responsibility for caring for the needy.

Oh how gracious.

No, the needy are best served by having an institution that can actually serve their needs.

Having a choice is not automatically good because not every choice is good. Often times, people choose badly like when they decide to go see a homeopath instead of a real doctor or trying to gamble to earn money instead of working to earn money. Sometimes, in order to help people, they have to be kept from making bad choices.

Who are you to decide that? Who is anyone?

You see people have the right to chose poorly. That is first of all.

Second of all I thought we were supposed to be against monopolies? I thought that if we had one choice dictating our options that was supposed to drive up prices and lead to nothing but greedy multinationals? Oh I get it...its the Government...nothing to see here...move along.

[mad_gater]

No, the needy are best served by having an institution that can actually serve their needs.

Having a choice is not automatically good because not every choice is good. Often times, people choose badly like when they decide to go see a homeopath instead of a real doctor or trying to gamble to earn money instead of working to earn money. Sometimes, in order to help people, they have to be kept from making bad choices.

helping the needy is the natural goal of charitable institutions...it is not the natural goal of government...the natural goal of government is, as its name implies, to govern

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/govern - not one of those definitions of the verb "govern" is "rob peter to pay paul to provide a false illusion of charity"

[mad_gater]

having a choice is good....if I don't like what a business is doing or how it provides its goods or services I simply find another to do business with....same with non-profits...if I'm in need and one non-profit doesn't have the services I'm looking for or don't like how those services are being provided I'll go look for the one that does...by contrast if the government is controlling everything that used to be in the hands of individual non-profits......then I as a needy person have absolutely no choice whatsoever.....because where would I go if the government doesn't provide the service I'm looking for or how it provides it?

[Col.Foley]

having a choice is good....if I don't like what a business is doing or how it provides its goods or services I simply find another to do business with....same with non-profits...if I'm in need and one non-profit doesn't have the services I'm looking for or don't like how those services are being provided I'll go look for the one that does...by contrast if the government is controlling everything that used to be in the hands of individual non-profits......then I as a needy person have absolutely no choice whatsoever.....because where would I go if the government doesn't provide the service I'm looking for or how it provides it?

You know my post can be summed up in the gramatically correct and insightful words of Ayn Rand....

[Giantevilhead]

Who are you to decide that? Who is anyone?

You see people have the right to chose poorly. That is first of all.

Second of all I thought we were supposed to be against monopolies? I thought that if we had one choice dictating our options that was supposed to drive up prices and lead to nothing but greedy multinationals? Oh I get it...its the Government...nothing to see here...move along.

People do have the right to choose poorly, up to a point.

If they commit a crime or become addicted to a drug or wastes away their fortunes gambling, then their ability to choose is taken away from them.

A criminal should not have a choice between a rehabilitation program that has a 50% recidivism rate and a program that has a 10% recidivism rate. An alcoholic should not have a choice between a detox program that has a 50% chance of getting them to quit and a program that has a 90% chance of getting them to quit. A homeless person should not have a choice between a program that has a 50% chance of getting them a job and keeping them off the streets and a program that has a 90% chance of getting them a job and keeping them off the streets.

helping the needy is the natural goal of charitable institutions...it is not the natural goal of government...the natural goal of government is, as its name implies, to govern

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/govern - not one of those definitions of the verb "govern" is "rob peter to pay paul to provide a false illusion of charity"

There's no such thing as a "natural goal" of anything. The goal of any institution is whatever we make of it.

having a choice is good....if I don't like what a business is doing or how it provides its goods or services I simply find another to do business with....same with non-profits...if I'm in need and one non-profit doesn't have the services I'm looking for or don't like how those services are being provided I'll go look for the one that does...by contrast if the government is controlling everything that used to be in the hands of individual non-profits......then I as a needy person have absolutely no choice whatsoever.....because where would I go if the government doesn't provide the service I'm looking for or how it provides it?

Except charity is not like a business. I pay for the services of a business. Someone else pays for the services of a charity.

You also assume that the person going to the charity knows what services they need. However, chances are that the reason why the person needs to go to a charity is precisely because he or she made many bad decisions in their life. Think about it, people don't go to the doctor because they know why they're sick. They go to the doctor because they don't know why they're sick. If a person goes to the doctor with a list of symptoms. The doctor tells him that it's because he's overweight and that he needs to lose 50 pounds or he'll have a heart attack. Then person says, "no, that's not what's wrong with me," and goes to different doctors until he finds a doctor that tells him what he wants to hear, wouldn't you think that person was a dumbass? And what if you had to pay for all his doctor visits? Chances are, if that person does make all those crappy mistakes, you will eventually have to pay for his medical bills when he has a heart attack, can't pay for the surgery himself, and ends up raising medical costs for everyone.

You know my post can be summed up in the gramatically correct and insightful words of Ayn Rand....

Too bad Ayn Rand's philosophy is as outdated and wrong as Descartes' dualism.

[mad_gater]

People do have the right to choose poorly, up to a point.

If they commit a crime or become addicted to a drug or wastes away their fortunes gambling, then their ability to choose is taken away from them.

A criminal should not have a choice between a rehabilitation program that has a 50% recidivism rate and a program that has a 10% recidivism rate. An alcoholic should not have a choice between a detox program that has a 50% chance of getting them to quit and a program that has a 90% chance of getting them to quit. A homeless person should not have a choice between a program that has a 50% chance of getting them a job and keeping them off the streets and a program that has a 90% chance of getting them a job and keeping them off the streets.



There's no such thing as a "natural goal" of anything. The goal of any institution is whatever we make of it.



Except charity is not like a business. I pay for the services of a business. Someone else pays for the services of a charity.

You also assume that the person going to the charity knows what services they need. However, chances are that the reason why the person needs to go to a charity is precisely because he or she made many bad decisions in their life. Think about it, people don't go to the doctor because they know why they're sick. They go to the doctor because they don't know why they're sick. If a person goes to the doctor with a list of symptoms. The doctor tells him that it's because he's overweight and that he needs to lose 50 pounds or he'll have a heart attack. Then person says, "no, that's not what's wrong with me," and goes to different doctors until he finds a doctor that tells him what he wants to hear, wouldn't you think that person was a dumbass? And what if you had to pay for all his doctor visits? Chances are, if that person does make all those crappy mistakes, you will eventually have to pay for his medical bills when he has a heart attack, can't pay for the surgery himself, and ends up raising medical costs for everyone.



Too bad Ayn Rand's philosophy is as outdated and wrong as Descartes' dualism.

yes it is like a business....charities are in business and their business is to help the needy.....to modify what Jacob Marley said "Mankind is their business".....and for these institutions the money is freely given....just as we freely give our money in exchange for goods and services for ourselves....so we are still exchanging money for goods and services....and the service we are paying for? helping the needy.....with government it's forcibly taken....there's a big difference between the 2 which you're still not getting....charities use a lawful source of money for this...government does not...John Locke said that the people cannot delegate to government that which is unlawful for ourselves to do....and it is unlawful for us to take that which does not belong to us....but we've delegated that power to government instead

and yes there is a natural state of something.....governing is government's natural state....it is not what we make of it....otherwise why have a dictionary that defines words such as charity and government? that is quite possibly the dumbest argument I ever heard of....government's only responsibility is to govern, not to yoke citizenry to a collective

if you're such a big fan of forcibly yoking individuals to a collective...might I suggest seeking out the Borg Collective as a home?

[Giantevilhead]

yes it is like a business....charities are in business and their business is to help the needy.....to modify what Jacob Marley said "Mankind is their business".....and for these institutions the money is freely given....just as we freely give our money in exchange for goods and services for ourselves....so we are still exchanging money for goods and services....and the service we are paying for? helping the needy.....with government it's forcibly taken....there's a big difference between the 2 which you're still not getting....charities use a lawful source of money for this...government does not...John Locke said that the people cannot delegate to government that which is unlawful for ourselves to do....and it is unlawful for us to take that which does not belong to us....but we've delegated that power to government instead

And what you have no understanding of is what the needy really need. As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, at least half of homeless people suffer from some form of mental illness while between 20% to 25% suffer from serious persistent mental illnesses that require a lot of care. Charities lack the resources necessary to take care of them. That is the reason why homeless population skyrocketed with the closing of government run mental care institutions.

You may think that charities work but that's just wrong. I'm sure that Catholic charities do some good work but they are not effective in helping the truly needy. There's more than enough evidence to show that charities are not enough. It's been 40 years since the beginning of deinstitutionalization and charities have failed to pick up the slack left by the government. There are at least 400,000 mentally ill people who are now either homeless or in jail, who would have been in government run mental care facilities had they not shut down.

and yes there is a natural state of something.....governing is government's natural state....it is not what we make of it....otherwise why have a dictionary that defines words such as charity and government? that is quite possibly the dumbest argument I ever heard of....government's only responsibility is to govern, not to yoke citizenry to a collective

And you do know that the definitions we give to words are arbitrary don't you? The government has no "natural state" just as the color blue is not "naturally" between the wavelengths of 490nm to 450nm. That's just the definition we decided to give it so that the concept can be useful in transferring information. You commit the fallacy of reification when you treat the word like it's a real thing, rather than a description of real things. You can no more prove that government has a "natural" state than you can prove that blue is really between the wave lengths of 490nm to 450nm or 488nm to 448nm or 493.321346546nm and 444.654654654nm.

if you're such a big fan of forcibly yoking individuals to a collective...might I suggest seeking out the Borg Collective as a home?

What you fail to understand is that many of these people are already yoked to a collective, a collective of homelessness, of incarceration, of addiction, of the ignored, and of the forgotten.