The Political Discussion Thread

[mad_gater]

since collectivism relies on enslavement of the people....it is the very antithesis of liberty and I will not stand for it....all I need to do is look at the 3rd world countries that countries like China and Russia have become as a result of their dalliance with collectivism to know that it does not work as an economic system.....these plain and simple facts are as plain as the nose on my face.....you can call them wrong all you want in your "defend the party line at all costs even when its errors are exposed" attitude but I and the vast majority of us know the truth

[mad_gater]

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.

George Bailey through his business practices encouraged people to work hard.....he operated more like a non-profit by helping them stand on their own 2 feet.....he still expected to be paid back for the loans his financial institution gave....the only difference was that he was more willing to work out special arrangements with borrowers if they fell on hard times than Potter was.....this was a practice that hurt George Bailey too at times in the financial area esp when the Great Depression hit....he never would've advocated using the power of government to steal....not to mention I think he made a terrible mistake in keeping his absent-minded (possibly early stage Alzheimer's) uncle as part of the staff of that building and loan....if I were in his shoes I likely would've let him go because being so absent-minded means he can no longer be trusted to assist in something so important as managing the finances of the institution

and I am not ignorant....if anything it is you who's ignorant if you think poverty can be solved overnight.....it takes time to help people out of poverty and into the workforce....and the more people there are that are poverty-stricken, the longer it's gonna take

it was no flaw in wanting to switch from government welfare to private charity.....it was the simple fact that there were so many poverty-stricken people at the time that charities would still be helping them long after Reagan's presidency passed on

so that's one side of the equation.......charities must be allowed the time to help those in need.....the other side of the equation is to slow, perhaps stop altogether, the addition of people to the poverty stricken ranks by encouraging self-reliance instead of dependence on others for basic livelihood.....that was likely another flaw....that the change was made without first balancing that equation by encouraging self-reliance

[Giantevilhead]

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

But the problem is that charities do not understand why there are unproductive people. Sure you can say that those people chose to be unproductive but that does not answer the question. You have to understand why they made the choices they've made. You have to look at people's histories and experiences. That is where you fail. You only look at the now and ignore the past. People's abilities, skills, and choices in decision making are influenced from birth. For example, children born in middle and upper class families are spoken to three times as often as children born in welfare class families. Many people simply lack the experiences necessary to effectively manage their lives.

Also, did you miss the part about half the homeless being mentally ill? Do you really consider someone who's suffering from delusions of persecution or uncontrollable mood swings to be lazy?

Your assessment of the situation is completely ethnocentric and ignores the experiences of the people you denigrate. Often times, the needy must be treated almost as if they are from a different culture. You cannot fault someone from another culture from not understanding your customs as they've never experienced them. Similarly, many of the people you think are too lazy to work may simply lack the experiences needed to be productive. The process through which they can be made productive must then mirror the way in which you integrate someone from another culture into your culture. You don't immediately saddle with a set of rules that they must follow. You have to do it slowly, over time, and introduce them to the customs of your culture one by one and ensure that they can understand each step before moving to the next. Charities lack that capability regardless of how much funding they get.

since collectivism relies on enslavement of the people....it is the very antithesis of liberty and I will not stand for it....all I need to do is look at the 3rd world countries that countries like China and Russia have become as a result of their dalliance with collectivism to know that it does not work as an economic system.....these plain and simple facts are as plain as the nose on my face.....you can call them wrong all you want in your "defend the party line at all costs even when its errors are exposed" attitude but I and the vast majority of us know the truth

You do know that China has never not been a collectivist society, don't you? China did not have a "dalliance" with collectivism, unless you consider a more than 2,000 year history to be a "dalliance."

Also, you haven't even defined what you mean by "collectivism." Words are only useful for conveying information if there is an agreed upon definition. If you don't know what my definition of "fun" is then if I tell you that I think a movie is "fun," you gain no information about the movie other than the fact that I think it's fun. Similarly, if you do not actually define what you mean by "collectivism," you convey no useful information by saying that collectivism is bad other than the fact that you think it's bad.

George Bailey through his business practices encouraged people to work hard.....he operated more like a non-profit by helping them stand on their own 2 feet.....he still expected to be paid back for the loans his financial institution gave....the only difference was that he was more willing to work out special arrangements with borrowers if they fell on hard times than Potter was.....this was a practice that hurt George Bailey too at times in the financial area esp when the Great Depression hit....he never would've advocated using the power of government to steal....not to mention I think he made a terrible mistake in keeping his absent-minded (possibly early stage Alzheimer's) uncle as part of the staff of that building and loan....if I were in his shoes I likely would've let him go because being so absent-minded means he can no longer be trusted to assist in something so important as managing the finances of the institution

and I am not ignorant....if anything it is you who's ignorant if you think poverty can be solved overnight.....it takes time to help people out of poverty and into the workforce....and the more people there are that are poverty-stricken, the longer it's gonna take

it was no flaw in wanting to switch from government welfare to private charity.....it was the simple fact that there were so many poverty-stricken people at the time that charities would still be helping them long after Reagan's presidency passed on

so that's one side of the equation.......charities must be allowed the time to help those in need.....the other side of the equation is to slow, perhaps stop altogether, the addition of people to the poverty stricken ranks by encouraging self-reliance instead of dependence on others for basic livelihood.....that was likely another flaw....that the change was made without first balancing that equation by encouraging self-reliance

You're using a work of fiction to support your point. I use empirical evidence.

Also, I never said that poverty can be solved overnight. No where did I even imply it.

Plus you're just ignoring the facts. Homelessness got worse during the Reagan era. If charities worked, homelessness would have been reduced since that time.

[mad_gater]

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


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.

and you underestimate the capacity of people to be generous

[Galileo_Galilee]

Charity at the point of a gun is not true charity.

[mad_gater]

But the problem is that charities do not understand why there are unproductive people. Sure you can say that those people chose to be unproductive but that does not answer the question. You have to understand why they made the choices they've made. You have to look at people's histories and experiences. That is where you fail. You only look at the now and ignore the past. People's abilities, skills, and choices in decision making are influenced from birth. For example, children born in middle and upper class families are spoken to three times as often as children born in welfare class families. Many people simply lack the experiences necessary to effectively manage their lives.

Also, did you miss the part about half the homeless being mentally ill? Do you really consider someone who's suffering from delusions of persecution or uncontrollable mood swings to be lazy?

Your assessment of the situation is completely ethnocentric and ignores the experiences of the people you denigrate. Often times, the needy must be treated almost as if they are from a different culture. You cannot fault someone from another culture from not understanding your customs as they've never experienced them. Similarly, many of the people you think are too lazy to work may simply lack the experiences needed to be productive. The process through which they can be made productive must then mirror the way in which you integrate someone from another culture into your culture. You don't immediately saddle with a set of rules that they must follow. You have to do it slowly, over time, and introduce them to the customs of your culture one by one and ensure that they can understand each step before moving to the next. Charities lack that capability regardless of how much funding they get.



You do know that China has never not been a collectivist society, don't you? China did not have a "dalliance" with collectivism, unless you consider a more than 2,000 year history to be a "dalliance."

Also, you haven't even defined what you mean by "collectivism." Words are only useful for conveying information if there is an agreed upon definition. If you don't know what my definition of "fun" is then if I tell you that I think a movie is "fun," you gain no information about the movie other than the fact that I think it's fun. Similarly, if you do not actually define what you mean by "collectivism," you convey no useful information by saying that collectivism is bad other than the fact that you think it's bad.



You're using a work of fiction to support your point. I use empirical evidence.

Also, I never said that poverty can be solved overnight. No where did I even imply it.

Plus you're just ignoring the facts. Homelessness got worse during the Reagan era. If charities worked, homelessness would have been reduced since that time.

charities must work in concert with the concept of self-reliance......and it's quite laughable to assert that birth dictates our behavior......our behavior is not the result of genetics but purely by the choices we make

and you're the one who used "It's a wonderful life" to support your opinion first...I merely used the same to refute it

and right.....homelessness increased....but not because of any flaw in the practice of institutions designed to help the needy but because the other side of the equation wasn't addressed.....encourage self-reliance....and charity could address that too.....by providing a free/low-cost education to those in need so that they have the chance to use it to stand on their own....many institutions tend towards specialization of the various aspects of charity.....food pantries for example are designed only to provide food for the needy, not educate them or provide clothing for them or provide health care....so another thing to address is lack of coordination and communication between the different non-profits....though out of all of them I think Catholic Charities has the most comprehensive amount of services available....but even they don't address every need.....they probably do a lot of referring to the people who can help

when something is not working at all or not working as it should then what you do is fix it.....not toss it out.....that is what a free society is obliged to do....rejoice in its achievements....achievements which have no meaning in collectivist Marxist-style economies....and work together to address its shortcomings and find solutions to those shortcomings

so instead of increasing reliance on government welfare perhaps it would be more prudent to address the shortcomings of private-sector non-profit institutions.....fix what's broken....don't just toss what's broken out

[Giantevilhead]

charities must work in concert with the concept of self-reliance......and it's quite laughable to assert that birth dictates our behavior......our behavior is not the result of genetics but purely by the choices we make

If you had actually understood my point, you'd realize that I'm against the idea that genetics dictates our behavior.

Did you miss the part where I talked about how children born in middle and upper class families are spoken to three times as often as children born in welfare class families? Does that sound like it has something to do with genetics? Do you think that a child's genes affects how often they are spoken to? No, that is a function of the environment. People may be born with different genes but they are also born in different environments and it is that interaction between biology and environment that heavily influences their behavior.

As for behavior being the result of choice, that doesn't actually mean anything. You still have to understand why people make the choices they make. Why do some people gamble? Why are some people able to quit gambling while others cannot? Why are there some people who don't gamble at all?

One can only make a meaningful choice when one has been put in a position where that choice is available to them and if they possess the ability to carry it out. The child born in an environment where he or she is spoken to less often develops a smaller and more limited vocabulary, which in turn limits the choices that are available to them. It's harder for them to make friends, get along with teachers, get good grades, etc. A child cannot become a doctor or a scientist or an engineer, if he or she has never heard of such professions, has no opportunities to learn the skills needed, lack the basic education needed, or is under the constant pressure of simply trying to survive.

and you're the one who used "It's a wonderful life" to support your opinion first...I merely used the same to refute it

Except I used it as an example of a collectivist philosophy that people liked. You actually used an incident in the movie to support your point. And you were using works of fiction to support your point before I brought up It's a Wonderful Life.

and right.....homelessness increased....but not because of any flaw in the practice of institutions designed to help the needy but because the other side of the equation wasn't addressed.....encourage self-reliance....and charity could address that too.....by providing a free/low-cost education to those in need so that they have the chance to use it to stand on their own....many institutions tend towards specialization of the various aspects of charity.....food pantries for example are designed only to provide food for the needy, not educate them or provide clothing for them or provide health care....so another thing to address is lack of coordination and communication between the different non-profits....though out of all of them I think Catholic Charities has the most comprehensive amount of services available....but even they don't address every need.....they probably do a lot of referring to the people who can help

Again, did you miss the point about mental illness? Those institutions were for the mentally ill. As I mentioned before, 400,000 mentally ill people who would have been in institutions are instead homeless or in jail.

when something is not working at all or not working as it should then what you do is fix it.....not toss it out.....that is what a free society is obliged to do....rejoice in its achievements....achievements which have no meaning in collectivist Marxist-style economies....and work together to address its shortcomings and find solutions to those shortcomings

so instead of increasing reliance on government welfare perhaps it would be more prudent to address the shortcomings of private-sector non-profit institutions.....fix what's broken....don't just toss what's broken out

I never suggested increasing reliance on government welfare. I only support welfare for people who are unable to be productive like people with serious mental or physical illness and handicaps.

It is far more effective to implement workfare for the needy who are able mind and bodied. Unfortunately, that is also something where charities have limited capabilities and effectiveness as it may require a long term commitment to ensure that those helped are able to remain productive and do not fall under the influences that once made them unproductive.

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

I believe that disabled and deserve the equipment they need to have a good quality of life at no upfront cost, why should they have to beg for charity for something as basic as a wheelchair. Now clearly in the US if you have health insurance you will not have to pay your self but what if you can't afford insurance?

I cannot speak for other countries publc healthcare but I can for the UK. How it works here is everone who needs an powerd wheelchair will receive one starting at around the cost of £5000, that is alot of money for some people not to mention the running costs. I don't believe that disabled people should have to ask a charity for something which I think everyone will agree they deserve.

Who here would be opposed to giving a percentage of their salary to help the sick and disabled?

[Goose]

I believe that disabled and deserve the equipment they need to have a good quality of life at no upfront cost, why should they have to beg for charity for something as basic as a wheelchair. Now clearly in the US if you have health insurance you will not have to pay your self but what if you can't afford insurance?

I cannot speak for other countries publc healthcare but I can for the UK. How it works here is everone who needs an powerd wheelchair will receive one starting at around the cost of £5000, that is alot of money for some people not to mention the running costs. I don't believe that disabled people should have to ask a charity for something which I think everyone will agree they deserve.

Who here would be opposed to giving a percentage of their salary to help the sick and disabled?

Well said!

[Galileo_Galilee]

Who here would be opposed to giving a percentage of their salary to help the sick and disabled?

Charity at the point of a gun is not true charity. For it to be true people must be given a choice.

And an incentive.

People just don't do anything without incentive, and pointing a gun does not encourage charity.

[Goose]

Charity at the point of a gun is not true charity. For it to be true people must be given a choice.

And an incentive.

People just don't do anything without incentive, and pointing a gun does not encourage charity.

The government, and the welfare state, isn't a charity though.

[Giantevilhead]

Charity at the point of a gun is not true charity. For it to be true people must be given a choice.

And an incentive.

People just don't do anything without incentive, and pointing a gun does not encourage charity.

But we're already paying charity at the point of a gun in the form of prisons. Either you're forced to pay money to keep people in prison or you're forced to pay money to keep people from going to prison. It's the same thing with disaster, disease, and war. Either you're forced to pay money to prevent or minimize disasters or you lose everything when a disaster occurs. Either you're forced to pay money to get people vaccinated or screened for diseases, or you deal with an epidemic. Either you're forced to pay for a military to protect the country, or you face potential invasion by hostile forces.

Prisons are the new asylums. Somewhere around 10% to 20% of inmates are mentally ill. These are people who are unable to effectively function in society without some kind of help. Either you pay to have some kind of institution deal with their illness or they suffer a manic episode or a serious delusion, harms someone, ends up in jail, and you pay for their stay in prison, where they'll only get worse, prolonging their stay.

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

Charity at the point of a gun is not true charity. For it to be true people must be given a choice.

And an incentive.

People just don't do anything without incentive, and pointing a gun does not encourage charity.

You have tax system to build roads, schools and prisons why not for healthcare?

I never said it was charity.

The government, and the welfare state, isn't a charity though.

Yep.

[s09119]

Anyone else see a gay rights activist throw glitter all over Newt Gingrich at a book signing? God that was hysterical... mostly because, I mean, it's an adulterer telling people about the sanctity of marriage

[lordofseas]

Anyone else see a gay rights activist throw glitter all over Newt Gingrich at a book signing? God that was hysterical... mostly because, I mean, it's an adulterer telling people about the sanctity of marriage

*flies to Youtube*