Look at Canada, a terrible place of unhappy people.
Interesting discussion for sure, but the generalizations are getting a little wild for me.
"Common Good"? Hogwash.
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
Look at Canada, a terrible place of unhappy people.
Interesting discussion for sure, but the generalizations are getting a little wild for me.
Omar B
Senior Master
What about Canada? point out a specific man. Can't have a conversation without macing points. What about shoes?
It's not my standard. I point out that societies function because there is a functioning balance between producers, employers, employees and consumers.
Economies collapse for all sorts of reasons. One of them is when there is no credit. Another is when there is no money. It doesn't really matter what brings that about.
I believe I said that. A functioning society can tolerate a certain number of 'parasites' as you put it. Too many, and you get the outcome you described above. If societies fail to protect those at the bottom-most rung, the society is disrupted as well. There is an area where a certain balance is reached. We all benefit with minimum disruption. We fail with excesses to either side.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Canada is Communist?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #25
No, the US is heading that way though. What with all our "Great guy that Mao" stuff....but I digress.
Yes, the government is over it's limits. When your employees over step their bounds and start running their own side projects on your dime, you smack em and bring them back in line, or fire their asses. Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc, are OUR employees. They work FOR us, or are supposed to. Time to force them back in line.
It's hard. We have several generations who bought into the "government will care for you" crap. Can't end Social Security, too many old folks depend on it. Can't end welfare, too many children might starve. Can't end Medicaid, too many over priced drugs we're told we need. Etc.
People need to understand that the Government isn't supposed to take care of you.
It's not supposed to make sure you get cheap drugs. Drugs aren't a right any more than a Ferrari is.
It's not supposed to be your retirement fund. That is what savings, budgeting and planning is for.
It's not supposed to make sure that every business has a wheel chair ramp, accessible toilets, and a braille menu. It's not supposed to force anyone to serve anything to anyone. Mind you, a smart business will cater to and be accessible by those and reap the rewards, while the one that limits themselves will face public scorn and economic harm. But that's free market, not forced compliance.
Government needs to be forced to live within it's means, make drastic cuts when it can't afford it's wants, just like we do.
It's time to put the genie back in the bottle, and it's time for people to take responsibility for their lives and not just sit on their *** and wait for some anti-prosperity politician (re Dem or Rep) to steal more of their hard earned labors to dole out to those lay about do nothings who sit on their *** all day drinking beer and playing WOW.
Yes, the government is over it's limits. When your employees over step their bounds and start running their own side projects on your dime, you smack em and bring them back in line, or fire their asses. Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc, are OUR employees. They work FOR us, or are supposed to. Time to force them back in line.
It's hard. We have several generations who bought into the "government will care for you" crap. Can't end Social Security, too many old folks depend on it. Can't end welfare, too many children might starve. Can't end Medicaid, too many over priced drugs we're told we need. Etc.
People need to understand that the Government isn't supposed to take care of you.
It's not supposed to make sure you get cheap drugs. Drugs aren't a right any more than a Ferrari is.
It's not supposed to be your retirement fund. That is what savings, budgeting and planning is for.
It's not supposed to make sure that every business has a wheel chair ramp, accessible toilets, and a braille menu. It's not supposed to force anyone to serve anything to anyone. Mind you, a smart business will cater to and be accessible by those and reap the rewards, while the one that limits themselves will face public scorn and economic harm. But that's free market, not forced compliance.
Government needs to be forced to live within it's means, make drastic cuts when it can't afford it's wants, just like we do.
It's time to put the genie back in the bottle, and it's time for people to take responsibility for their lives and not just sit on their *** and wait for some anti-prosperity politician (re Dem or Rep) to steal more of their hard earned labors to dole out to those lay about do nothings who sit on their *** all day drinking beer and playing WOW.
How do you propose to bring the government to heel?
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
The first and most obvious step would be to stop voting the same arses in over and over!!! You know, like the ones that didn't respond to you in regards to the widow.
Educate people every chance you get.
Be proactive and involved...
And of course...there's the final option...dun-dun-dunnnnnn. :snipe2:
In a thread about 'common good', someone wants to point to communism as an example of how severe and destructive the principles can be. Cuba? Russia?
It's a silly assertion. Canada is an example of preserving the good that a sense of community can do while balancing individual freedoms and rights. It's not so black and white.
As for Canada being 'communist', there's a healthy number of Americans that believe so.
It's a silly assertion. Canada is an example of preserving the good that a sense of community can do while balancing individual freedoms and rights. It's not so black and white.
As for Canada being 'communist', there's a healthy number of Americans that believe so.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Really? I always thought you were a good natured and very clean people, but not Communist.
Omar B
Senior Master
Economies don't collapse for all sorts of reasons. There are two, non producers turning predator on their fellow man, and dishonest business practices. If you wish to protect and support the "bottom most rung" then go ahead, I don't think it's the government's place to dispense with my hard earned money to those who have not earned it but feel they are entitled to it. Government has by far overstepped it's duties (Army, Police, Courts, maintaining and building infrastructure). Nowhere in there it says that it has the right to also take a larger chunk to feed those in need. You know who needs the money I earn, me!
I wish I could opt out of the taxes I don't agree with but I'm forced.
I think we could debate that. History is replete with various examples of economies collapsing, the reasons appear to me to be varied.
I do not think you will find that I said I wanted to give my own hard-earned money to anyone. Please read my statements carefully. Nor do I feel any particular moral compulsion to protect or support those on the bottom of the economic strata.
I am greedy and selfish, which is as it should be. I just recognize that being a member of society, I cannot prosper in a society that collapses.
I have agreed with that statement several times in this thread. Please show me where I said otherwise.
I agree with this as well. I merely note that it is difficult to spend money in a non-operating society. What is good for society - to a certain extent - is good for me as well. Too many people on the dole and society collapses. Too many people unable to work, with no money, and no social assistance, and society breaks down violently. The solution, it appears to me, is balance. That does mean that there will always be those who take unjustly from society. The goal is to keep that to a minimum, I think.
One can say that there should be no social programs at all. If a person loses their job, let them get another, or starve. And I have no problem with that morally. I'm not a bleeding heart. However, if there are no jobs, people will eventually do what they feel they must to survive. That means increased crime in the beginning, and if the situation becomes dire, revolution. It would not be the first revolution founded on starvation.
My outlook is purely pragmatic and selfish. I cannot function well in a society that does not function. It benefits me to help keep society functioning.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #32
Step 1
Public Referendum
All Elected Officials Pay and benefit increases to be voted on by the public not by the officials themselves.
Public Referendum
Limit all elected offices to -2- terms maximum.
Public Referendum
Any action as far sweeping as National Health Care and bailing out failing auto makers, investment firms or banks, to be voted on by the People.
Remove some of the power they gave themselves. Reign them in. Don't neuter them, but remind them who is boss.
Step 2
Repeal personal income tax across the board.
Institute a flat 10% Federal sales tax on all good and services OTHER than life sustaining. Meaning, raw foods, baby food, baby formula, cloth diapers, medicine, water, electric and home heating (gas, oil, etc) are -exempt- from this tax.
Step 3
Hold government accountable and run it with a controlled budget. Stop the idea of "we're shot of cash, lets add a tax". Force them to work with in their means, or start cutting back, even at the risk of their own salaries and benefits. The same terms that WE are under.
Step 4
All bills, motions, laws, etc should be read aloud in each session. Require that they go through individually, not bundled into unread super bills. Any elected official able to vote on a measure, is forbidden from doing so if they can not prove they actually read it first.
Step 5
Hold elected officials and their subordinates to the same laws, regulations and restrictions the public has. No more "for life" income for 1 term officials. No more 'elite' benefits. Etc.
There's my 5 steps. Want to put them in motion? There's 300+ million of them, they can't arrest us all.
What are the realistic chances that any of your otherwise excellent suggestions will happen?
I tend to believe the chances are near-zero for any of those you listed. Not because they're not a good idea, mind you. Given that, I propose to deal with what is as opposed to what should be.
Omar B
Senior Master
There's no such thing as a "non operating society" as you put it man. A society (
- The totality of social relationships among humans.
- A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.)
Where people live together (society) there will always be a supply and a demand so there are niches for everyone. Societies specialize, nobody does and produces everything they need that's why we have money, we specialize in our field that benefits people in one way or another and we are awarded accordingly with our pay check which we spend in other areas we see fit. As long as people live together and specialize there will always be supply and demand with many niches to be filled. I learned a lot from my mom and step dad who are economists, and one of those lessons is that economics functions just like nature where things evolve to fit in certain places.
Fair enough. A 'successful' society as opposed to a 'non operating society' then. Poor choice of words on my part.
There will always be those who cannot work, for one reason or another. From invalids to the elderly, from orphans to those mentally unwell and unlikely to get better.
I do not claim any desire to help them with tax dollars based on sympathy, but I ask if if by 'SOL' you mean that these people are to be left to die? There are private charities, but at least in my area of the country, private charities are falling short. At my local church, there are a few beds available for homeless people. They turn away people every night, and the lines have gotten longer. What would happen to them under your philosophy besides them being 'SOL'?
I agree. Those who become addicted to the dole and who have the ability to work will never succeed and will always be a drain on our economy.
I am not an economics expert, but I am aware that most economics experts disagree on just about everything.
Omar B
Senior Master
The elderly should be cared for by their investments if they were smart enough to look ahead. Or their children if they have failed to. The disabled both physically and mentally should be cared for from the pockets of their families or from private funds set up for them. I have no problem giving money to education and health care if I know where it's going and it's my choice. Philanthropy, charity and kindness does not disappear in an objectivist world, it's just that these are not forced upon you.
As for economists disagreeing, yeah, they do. But my parents and by extension I subscribe to the Ludwig Von Mises and the Austrian School when it comes to economics.
As for economists disagreeing, yeah, they do. But my parents and by extension I subscribe to the Ludwig Von Mises and the Austrian School when it comes to economics.
I have no children and have not managed to plan well enough for my retirement. What would be your fix for my problem that does not involve social security?
Omar B
Senior Master
You didn't plan for your retirement so I think you should get cracking on it. Sadly many people are like yourself and don't plan. There is a story about some small animal who played all summer and starved in the winter.
You are not answering my question. I am too old to save enough to retire on now, and I could become disabled and unable to work. I would like to hear an answer and not a platitude. What is your solution for people like me?
Everything you buy would be from a monopoly if the private sector ruled unfettered. That's expensive, but it makes great business sense.
There'd be no 40-hour work week, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc., unless implemented state-by-state--it's unclear to me how much you'd allow the states to legislate.
Natural utilities like water, electricity, etc., would be much more expensive--and it would have been worse early on, when these were new technologies.
Personally, I like having the Dept. of Agriculture inspect meat rather than having private industry set its own tolerances based on how much each death will cost them in a lawsuit vs. the cost of making the product safe (and similarly for cars, etc.).
Do you really mean to have fire departments, ambulance services, restaurant health inspectors, medical licensure, etc., all be privatized ("Everything else would do better if run by the private sector")?
