The Political Discussion Thread

[Col.Foley]

MG I never said Doctors should work for free I like them being payed from my taxes (at least when I start working). To be honest I don't think there is enough charities to provide for needs of all the people. Do you realise how much medical equitment costs, if they had to rely on charity for it all the money would run out fast. I would be more than willing to have a constructive debate about how far the welfare state should go in helping people but you seem to have the view that it all should be stripped away compleatly which to me is just mad.

If there is not enough charities to provide for the needs of 'all' the people then there can never be enough Government.

[lordofseas]

They put the polite in politics?

The only polite people in Canada are people from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Hehehe. Stereotypes make me giggle.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

Canadian elections! Woob woob!

yep, exciting stuff

Here's hoping Harper gets tossed out on his ear this time

[SF_and_Coffee]

yep, exciting stuff

Here's hoping Harper gets tossed out on his ear this time

I'll drink to that. *raises a pint of Arkell Best Bitter*

[Spimman]

if we look at it in terms of having soldiers actually on the ground to physically defend the country. I'm sure the US has a few, but isn't the bulk of the US military OFF US soil? If an attack happened on US soil, the US is certainly facing a smaller group at home that can act. And yes, the military protects the interests of the US govt, not the US population.

No

This statement really didn't come from any basis in fact.

• The US has roughly 1.45 million on active duty
• Roughly 1.14 million are stationed within US Borders (including territories and afloat nearby)
• Some of the largest overseas operations are (71K Afgan, 52K Germany, 35K Japan, 28K S. Korea, 50K Iraq, 9K UK, 9K Italy and various smaller)
• Our vastly superior weapons and equipment technology and quantities keep us plenety safe at home

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

If there is not enough charities to provide for the needs of 'all' the people then there can never be enough Government.

Well it can help more people as according to here in the amount of we spent on welfare in 2009 was close to £300 billion whereas according to here we gave about £170 billion to charity as a whole.

[jmoz]

Well it can help more people as according to here in the amount of we spent on welfare in 2009 was close to £300 billion whereas according to here we gave about £170 billion to charity as a whole.

Don't know if you know who Amartya Sen is. He's this economist with a nobel prize all world-reknown and stuff.

He wrote an article where he studied some famines. And he essentially says, the reason for most of these famines is not due to shortages for the most part, but the distribution of purchasing power. He says that the people that suffer during a famine is mostly due to their limited purchasing power and not usually due to a shortage. In fact, he gives some evidence of several famines where they was an average amount of food available or the same amount of food available as the previous year, or in one case, there was in fact a surplus. But there was still a famine. How'd that happen? It was due the limited purchasing power. And he looked into how that happened. And it came down to this. A elite few decided that there should be a greater respect for property rights over people's right to not go hungry. How civilized is civilization if we abide by that kind of mindset?

[EvilSpaceAlien]

So, with the Canadian elections coming up, I have a question for the Canadian members of the board: What party are you supporting?

I'm not Canadian myself but judging from my limited knowledge of Canadian politics and my own political position, I'd probably be a supporter of the New Democratic Party.

[SF_and_Coffee]

Don't know if you know who Amartya Sen is. He's this economist with a nobel prize all world-reknown and stuff.

He wrote an article where he studied some famines. And he essentially says, the reason for most of these famines is not due to shortages for the most part, but the distribution of purchasing power. He says that the people that suffer during a famine is mostly due to their limited purchasing power and not usually due to a shortage. In fact, he gives some evidence of several famines where they was an average amount of food available or the same amount of food available as the previous year, or in one case, there was in fact a surplus. But there was still a famine. How'd that happen? It was due the limited purchasing power. And he looked into how that happened. And it came down to this. A elite few decided that there should be a greater respect for property rights over people's right to not go hungry. How civilized is civilization if we abide by that kind of mindset?

I would green you for that if I could do it right now.

I'm not Canadian myself but judging from my limited knowledge of Canadian politics and my own political position, I'd probably be a supporter of the New Democratic Party.

Same here. A few years ago, I was seriously looking into emigrating to Canada for a variety of reasons (would still do it if I got the chance), and I figured out where I'd fit in on all kinds of levels. I'm definitely an NDP type.

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

It sounds like the these NDPs are like the our Liberal Democrats full of ideals because they know they won't win and then when there is a coalition everyones in uproar when they can't get every policy in.

[Col.Foley]

Well it can help more people as according to here in the amount of we spent on welfare in 2009 was close to £300 billion whereas according to here we gave about £170 billion to charity as a whole.

With all due respect: Thats Great Britain. Not here. A country, need I remind you, that has several Government programs that 'takes care of the poor.' Why would someone give to charity when there is no need?

But the point is not to take care of people, the point is not to provide for people. The point is to get people on their feet enough so that they can then provide for themselves. Government has forgotten this primary responsibility and their primary responsibility, all of its primary responsibilities, because there is never enough money or enough resources to provide for everyone on the planet. Unless you inflate the currency and destroy people's lives so that everyone can be equal in their poverty...except for the power elite of course.

The point of charity is not to provide for people, its to give them temporary help in order to give them enough safety until they can get on their own two feet. Until they can learn to fish. Its not supposed to be permanent. Its supposed to just do the best we can, by encouraging man to help there fellow man but not force it on them.

Don't know if you know who Amartya Sen is. He's this economist with a nobel prize all world-reknown and stuff.

He wrote an article where he studied some famines. And he essentially says, the reason for most of these famines is not due to shortages for the most part, but the distribution of purchasing power. He says that the people that suffer during a famine is mostly due to their limited purchasing power and not usually due to a shortage. In fact, he gives some evidence of several famines where they was an average amount of food available or the same amount of food available as the previous year, or in one case, there was in fact a surplus. But there was still a famine. How'd that happen? It was due the limited purchasing power. And he looked into how that happened. And it came down to this. A elite few decided that there should be a greater respect for property rights over people's right to not go hungry. How civilized is civilization if we abide by that kind of mindset?

Now hold on, time out, as much as it sounds nice and is all noble and all lets look at things for a second.

I do not think anyone wants to watch anyone else to go hungry, but yet it is also part of humanity, people do go hungry from time to time. And if they do so alot and cannot find food we should help them. But the idea here seems to be that we can have one, but not the other. We can have either property rights, or a fed populace, because if we have property rights, then there will be starving people who will not be able to provide for themselves and probably die.

But yet, the country with the greatest property rights, and the greatest Freedom, has the least amount of people who are starving. And is generally the most prosperous in several ways. In so much that we suffer from over consumption.

Now you provide no back ground in your post. I do not know which country this is. This could be Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Uganda, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Mao China, we just do not know who these 'elites' are that you mention. But I can surmise that it is not the United States, nor would it be any Western European Nation, who most has great respect for property rights last time I checked..... though that right seems to be being eroded here and elsewhere. So it would seem to me, the freer the people, the more prosperous the people, and the less hungry the people.

But even if this were the case, what is the solution? Would you really remove everyone's property rights so you can 'give' people food? By Force if neccessary? What if people refuse? Would you kill them? Would you imprison them? Would you seize their property by the power of your Government?

No, there has to be a better way. And there should be a better way out there. Again the idea is these two notions are mutually exclusive. They are not. In fact the only way I can see this happening is if the 'power elite' or the Government is hoarding their wealth for their own definitions of power. Which again does not seem to happen. the better way is to encourage people, and empower people, to have money so they can give it to charity, or create jobs, which can feed more people, provide more resources, and generally advance the human condition. Through freely made transactions and relations.

[mad_gater]

With all due respect: Thats Great Britain. Not here. A country, need I remind you, that has several Government programs that 'takes care of the poor.' Why would someone give to charity when there is no need?

But the point is not to take care of people, the point is not to provide for people. The point is to get people on their feet enough so that they can then provide for themselves. Government has forgotten this primary responsibility and their primary responsibility, all of its primary responsibilities, because there is never enough money or enough resources to provide for everyone on the planet. Unless you inflate the currency and destroy people's lives so that everyone can be equal in their poverty...except for the power elite of course.

The point of charity is not to provide for people, its to give them temporary help in order to give them enough safety until they can get on their own two feet. Until they can learn to fish. Its not supposed to be permanent. Its supposed to just do the best we can, by encouraging man to help there fellow man but not force it on them.


Now hold on, time out, as much as it sounds nice and is all noble and all lets look at things for a second.

I do not think anyone wants to watch anyone else to go hungry, but yet it is also part of humanity, people do go hungry from time to time. And if they do so alot and cannot find food we should help them. But the idea here seems to be that we can have one, but not the other. We can have either property rights, or a fed populace, because if we have property rights, then there will be starving people who will not be able to provide for themselves and probably die.

But yet, the country with the greatest property rights, and the greatest Freedom, has the least amount of people who are starving. And is generally the most prosperous in several ways. In so much that we suffer from over consumption.

Now you provide no back ground in your post. I do not know which country this is. This could be Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Uganda, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Mao China, we just do not know who these 'elites' are that you mention. But I can surmise that it is not the United States, nor would it be any Western European Nation, who most has great respect for property rights last time I checked..... though that right seems to be being eroded here and elsewhere. So it would seem to me, the freer the people, the more prosperous the people, and the less hungry the people.

But even if this were the case, what is the solution? Would you really remove everyone's property rights so you can 'give' people food? By Force if neccessary? What if people refuse? Would you kill them? Would you imprison them? Would you seize their property by the power of your Government?

No, there has to be a better way. And there should be a better way out there. Again the idea is these two notions are mutually exclusive. They are not. In fact the only way I can see this happening is if the 'power elite' or the Government is hoarding their wealth for their own definitions of power. Which again does not seem to happen. the better way is to encourage people, and empower people, to have money so they can give it to charity, or create jobs, which can feed more people, provide more resources, and generally advance the human condition. Through freely made transactions and relations.

amen brutha....

[lordofseas]

So, with the Canadian elections coming up, I have a question for the Canadian members of the board: What party are you supporting?

I'm not Canadian myself but judging from my limited knowledge of Canadian politics and my own political position, I'd probably be a supporter of the New Democratic Party.

I like my Green Party.

I don't know who I'll support around here. Either NDP or Liberal, though.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

So, with the Canadian elections coming up, I have a question for the Canadian members of the board: What party are you supporting?

I'm not Canadian myself but judging from my limited knowledge of Canadian politics and my own political position, I'd probably be a supporter of the New Democratic Party.

NDP for me as well. There was a time when the Liberal party was actually, you know, liberal, but that hasn't been the case for years and there's not a hope in hell that I'd vote Conservative.

[KEK]

If people voted for policies instead of personalities, the Green Party would be a major force in the UK.