The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

somewhat offtopic:

Often times, people choose badly like when they decide to go see a homeopath instead of a real doctor

although the all-powerful pharmaceutical industry might differ, homeopathy has helped where "real medicine" have not, and ain't just talking out of personal experience either
(btw homeopaths are often also fully qualified MDs ie. Real Doctors who chose to specialize in that field. homeopathy is in fact officially considered a branch of medicine & covered by social security at least in most west european countries)

[mad_gater]

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 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.



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.

and why don't charities have the resources.....because government took it all...higher taxes means less money that can be donated to help these charities pick up the slack....and again government's only purpose is to govern...government's only job is to hold people to a fair and just set of laws and protect the citizenry....no where in the definition of "government" does it say that government has the authority to take what does not belong to them and give it to someone else...<Snipped by Moderator.>

[SoulReaver]

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.

yeah but Sanctity of Life does have its limits :/



btw here's another form of collectivism: patriotismâ„¢

[Galileo_Galilee]

Because people like you go to the government to enact legislation on your behalf to prevent people from being charitable.

And I will repeat that until it sinks in.

You see, that's part of American schizophrenia. Because they can't find the right people to blame, they blame the government, conveniently forgetting that they were the ones for encouraged the government to makes those laws on their behalf.

This country would be so much better off if people would just stop doing this unless it was really necessary to do so.

But stupid people believe they're above the law and must force the boundaries of the law and eventually will have to go to the government.

You see, America is a representative Republic. That means laws are made on behalf of some group of people who feel they must impose their beliefs on the entire populace.

[mad_gater]

not to mention collectivist economies always run out of resources....because whatever group they demonized into providing those resources will eventually be reduced to the same level as the needy which these government purport to help....this is the plain and simple fact of the matter of why collectivist countries always collapse....of why collectivism just plain does not work....we by our very nature yearn for freedom and so we speak out when people try to forcibly yoke us....free people naturally don't want to be yoked to anybody or anything

[Naonak]

somewhat offtopic: although the all-powerful pharmaceutical industry might differ, homeopathy has helped where "real medicine" have not

Homeopathy is pure hogwash. But as you say, off-topic.

and why don't charities have the resources.....because government took it all...higher taxes means less money that can be donated to help these charities pick up the slack...

It's pure speculation to suggest that if taxes were lower, people would donate the remainder to charity. Seems rather optimistic on your part, too.

[Giantevilhead]

and why don't charities have the resources.....because government took it all...higher taxes means less money that can be donated to help these charities pick up the slack....and again government's only purpose is to govern...government's only job is to hold people to a fair and just set of laws and protect the citizenry....no where in the definition of "government" does it say that government has the authority to take what does not belong to them and give it to someone else....<Snipped by Moderator>

Except charities don't work even when taxes are lowered.

And no where did I suggest that the government take money from people to give to others. That is not the purpose of government support for the needy. The purpose of government support for the needy is protection of the people. Lower homeless rates means lower crime, less disease, lower health care costs, and a healthier, safer, people. It is a prevention effort in the same way as building storm shelters or vaccinating children.

[Galileo_Galilee]

Uh, no. Homelessness and poverty is not a true cause of crime. There's plenty of crime among the rich and influential. The only difference that because they're so rich they have the money to hire an army of lawyers to influence the law on their behalf.

[SoulReaver]

Homeopathy is pure hogwash. But as you say, off-topic.

gosh that's some seriously powerful hogwash then, considering its track record and the Medical doctors who opt to practice it. perhaps the term should be redefined !!

but yeah as we agree upon, offtopic :/

[Giantevilhead]

Uh, no. Homelessness and poverty is not a true cause of crime. There's plenty of crime among the rich and influential. The only difference that because they're so rich they have the money to hire an army of lawyers to influence the law on their behalf.

I'm talking about the kinds of crimes the inner cities have to deal with. There aren't a lot of rich people going into inner cities to mug people or start gang wars.

[Galileo_Galilee]

I'm talking about the kinds of crimes the inner cities have to deal with. There aren't a lot of rich people going into inner cities to mug people or start gang wars.

In this case, it isn't really poverty, but crime caused by gang bangers. They are different things.

[Giantevilhead]

In this case, it isn't really poverty, but crime caused by gang bangers. They are different things.

Not all muggings are not caused by gangs. Not all thefts and robberies are committed by gangs. Also, gangs are a byproduct of poverty. People living in poverty often join gangs out of necessity in much the same way that people in prisons join gangs to avoid violence and (forced) rape.

Plus, crime is not the only byproduct of poverty. As I mentioned before, diseases and rising medical costs are a problem too. The homeless tend to be carriers for many diseases, tuberculosis is probably one of the most common, and they move around a lot so that disease gets to spread. If I remember correctly, there was a study done by UCLA a couple years ago that found that something like half of all TB cases can be traced back to the homeless. Imagine what would happen if there was an epidemic. The homeless would be the first to get sick. They would be difficult to quarantine. They live in heavily populated cities and they move around a lot. As for medical costs, the problem is obvious. The poor can't pay for their emergency visits so everyone else gets left with the bill. I'm sure you've heard of that homeless guy in Texas or where ever who racked up millions in medical expenses.

[mad_gater]

You've given no empirical evidence at all. All you've done is misinterpret my argument and ignore my salient points.

Your "evidence" is nothing but hearsay and completely wrong. Your claim about charities being able to pick up the slack if taxes are lowered is patently false. The homeless problem became as bad as it is today during the Reagan era.

and collectivism is a shining beacon in the night....where everyone is equal in poverty....*snort*

capitalism is not perfect but it's the only system that provides an incentive to work hard and make something of yourself...perhaps the problem was that they tried to make the changeover from government slavery to private charities too quickly...such a change would have to happen gradually lest these charitable institutions become immediately overwhelmed...still doesn't change the common sense fact though that people do best when they are allowed the freedom to manage their own monetary affairs, not when some faceless bureaucrat says "hey....give this money to them...or else"

[mad_gater]

capitalism actually produces wealth.....collectivism only redistributes it....ever-increasing taxes on those that have been successful leaves them with less and less until finally they have nothing and are in the same position as the needy that the system is supposed to help.....when that happens the resources that the collectivist system relies on dry up and then the system collapses...simple economic facts....this is why collectivism is an abject failure as a valid economic system.....relies too heavily on Keynesian economics...a fallacious economic theory that essentially states that deficit spending is good for the economy....which makes no sense at all....how can spending money you don't have be anything but a supremely bad idea? higher taxes leads to less money spent on goods and services.....which leads to less demand and therefore to a decrease in production....it is because of this that collectivist economies grind to a screeching halt

yeah....because us humans are not perfect our capitalist economy has its ups and its downs....but it is self-correcting....whereas collectivism only exacerbates the problem in the long run

the appropriate response to charities not picking up the slack is not enslavement of one class to another but to really just light a fire under the arses of these deadbeat non-profits

[Giantevilhead]

and collectivism is a shining beacon in the night....where everyone is equal in poverty....*snort*

capitalism is not perfect but it's the only system that provides an incentive to work hard and make something of yourself...perhaps the problem was that they tried to make the changeover from government slavery to private charities too quickly...such a change would have to happen gradually lest these charitable institutions become immediately overwhelmed...still doesn't change the common sense fact though that people do best when they are allowed the freedom to manage their own monetary affairs, not when some faceless bureaucrat says "hey....give this money to them...or else"

Again you demonstrate your ignorance. Deinstitutionalization took place over a period of decades. It began in the 60's, or the late 50's by some people's estimation. Reagan ramped up the process even though there was already plenty of evidence to show that it wasn't working.

And where exactly did I suggest that every aspect of human society should be completely collectivist? Different aspects of human society have different degrees of interdependence. Everyone accepts collectivism in the military. People also accept certain degrees of collectivism among families and friends. Corporatism is a form of collectivism. The whole idea of the all American small town in the heartland of the country heralded by conservatives is a collectivist idea. It's a Wonderful Life espouses collectivist philosophy.