Results 41 to 50 of 215
Thread: Democracy
-
11-06-2012 #41
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 4,709
Re: Democracy
Hi an8150,
I will get to the rest of those points when I have a chance. But in the cyanide powder paragraph I was saying what would happen sans regulation. This is the world I deduced you prefered from some of your posts. I consider all of those things not to be the present state of affairs but the state of affairs if you had your way. In short, one part chaos, one part misery.
As for disability, it is fairly well-known that people have stereotyped views of the extent to which disability bears on an individual's other capacities. Surely an amputee should not operate manual machinery but a man who is blind can answer telephones. Private employers would not hire these individuals without some push from the government. People with HIV can work in all sorts of jobs but there was a point in time when such individuals were stigmatized to the extent they could not be hired for jobs where they posed no direct (or indirect) threat. Employers have legal defenses to the government's mandate against discrimination and do not have to hire people who cannot in fact do the job. They are just barred from irrationally stigmatizing such folks and systematically excluding them from the workforce.
A great deal of crony capitalism results from a lack of regulation. Without regulators what is to prevent anti-competitive acts such as price fixing? What is to prevent insurers from not holding enough money in their reserves? What is to prevent banks from lending more than they can afford to lend? Surely you're not going to tell me a bank would never do something so stupid or make an imprudent investment decision unless the government encouraged them to?
The problem you cite with not being able to identify the exact number saved from such policies is a problem faced in all the social sciences. You can only get empirical numbers for the policy you enact and when comparing previous numbers with more recent figures to compare policy alternatives you don't have anything like ceteris paribus. However, studies do attempt to address these problems and take a serious approach to developing a methodology to overcome them. For instance, when you force employers to provide a "reasonable accommodation" to their disabled employees, and the number of disabled people with income below the poverty line falls in a ten year period there could be causes other than the enacted policy.
But such studies attempt to account for those differences and certainly requiring employers to make some attempt not to stigmatize the disabled does bear a logical relationship to increased welfare for such people. The inability to control all extraneous factors and re-design the world in the form of a controlled experiment is hardly an excuse for ignoring the evidence we do have.
Also, you don't have to prove you are philanthropic. I am just somewhat skeptical that those demanding to opt out of a system of taxation will help address the unavoidable problems that less fortunate people in society face.
1 out of 1 members liked this post.
-
11-06-2012 #42
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 4,709
Re: Democracy
Living in any society is necessarily a take it or leave it proposition. I don't know how it is administratively possible to have anything else in an indirect democracy. If enough other people felt the way you do then I would have to live in the hellhole you envision and call utopia
Cheers. As you chaps say over there
-
11-06-2012 #43
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Posts
- 13,574
Re: Democracy
-
11-06-2012 #44
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 4,709
Re: Democracy
I know it may sound like I've been living in a cave but I don't know much about Donohue (Phil I think) except that I think he had a talk show. But I thought he presented himself extremely well there. That was nearly a perfect rebuttal to Crazypants' racist diatribe. You make a broad generalization like that and say a group of people are barbarians undeserving of dignity and you cannot expect them to not hold a grudge.
-
11-06-2012 #45
Re: Democracy
I've enjoyed reading this thread, and it's a tribute to all the contributors that the debate has been conducted not only intelligently but with a degree of constraint and courtesy that is usually sadly lacking in this place. Keep up the good work ladies and gentlemen. There is a place for civilised discourse after all.
But pleasures are like poppies spread
You seize the flow'r, the bloom is shed
-
11-06-2012 #46
Re: Democracy
We should note the stark difference between elections and, say, meaningful democracy. (And, too, the core of democracy is to bring about equality. And this happens by creating a strong and burgeoning middle class. Is this happening? I mean, wages for 99 percent of the population have been STAGNANT since 1973. Even the top 1 percent have seen a slight gain. It's really the top 0.01 percent who've seen staggering gains. I mean, this is the antithesis of democracy.
It's like the difference between nations and states. A nation is a group of people who are brought together by a common language and a common culture. And culture is not Wal-Mart, it isn't McDonald's. It's a set of values. And a state is a top-down political structure.)
50 percent of Americans will not vote. For good reason. Namely it's two rich males. Both went to the same school. Both are bought and paid for -- and serve -- the same corporations and the same oppressive system. (I mean, how will a lower-class black single mother be served by either Romney or Obama? How will her interests be served? And can she in any way participate in the decision-making process? And can she INFLUENCE public policy? And, too, does she have as much influence as, say, Lloyd Blankfein?)
I mean, yeah, it makes a slight difference who wins. Very slight. But as Chris Hedges pointed out: who do you want to take your poison from.
There will be another financial crash. It's merely a question of when. Will a president Romney prevent it? No. Obama? No. Banks are bigger. And up to their prior shenanigans.
I mean, we're led to believe that there's a stark difference between Dems and Republicans. Is there?
Both support harmful free trade agreements. Harmful to the general population and the overall environment. But great for the top tier of the populace. (I mean, Obama and Romney pretty much agree on foreign policy, too. Romney, however, might be more willing to attack Iran.) Both support policies that are creating further inequality. Both serve destructive oil companies. They won't do anything about global warming. Nor can they. They serve their masters. Who can't care about global warming. And that's very rational from a business perspective. Remember corporations, ultimately, can't care about the planet. Corporations are designed to grow and grow and grow and grow. What will that, ultimately, do to the natural world. I mean, think 7 generations into the future. What impact will very rational corporate interest have on them?
And, too, I think the plundering of the world is really an attack on our spirit as human beings.
Anyway, at the heart of the global warming problem is consumption. We all need to look in the mirror. We all need to take personal responsibility.
But Americans, who consume a quarter of the world's energy resources, won't stop....
I mean, oil companies do create pollution. What's the consequence of that? Cancer. 1,000 Americans die every single day from cancer. But, again, oil companies can't think about that. Industry can't think about that. They think: quarterly profits. Not cancer rates.
I mean, we should all guffaw... when we say: this is a democracy. (Yes! We've, again, elections. We have a great deal of freedom. We've a lot of stuff. We can consume. We can consume a lot of corporate junk.
I think they want us to equate consumption with freedom, with democracy. I mean, Milton Friedman pointed out: if you can create a free market, well, you've freedom. Ya know, you've the "democratic" freedom to choose -- in a democratic fashion -- between Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Thereya go: there's your democracy.)
Again, the policies of both parties, of both candidates are pretty much the same. Because both parties simply serve the super-rich. Republicans, if they are even a political
party anymore, simply serve a very tiny sliver of the populace. And Dems, especially under Obama, are rapidly moving in that direction.
Inequality is getting worse. And as Paul Krugman pointed out: Wall Street does better under Democrats than Republicans.
A President Romney will simply cut taxes for the super-rich. The deficit will explode. But who cares. It ain't his money.
Anyway, the notion of a profound democracy is a joke.
I think, really, it has lost all meaning.
Yep!, the word "democracy" has pretty much been rendered meaningless.
-
11-06-2012 #47
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Posts
- 7,916
Re: Democracy
Final choice in a few hours...
-
11-06-2012 #48
Re: Democracy
All I can add, from this side of the pond, is "Don't fuck it up, America."
1 out of 1 members liked this post.Avatar is not representative of the available product - contents may differ
-
11-06-2012 #49
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Posts
- 236
Re: Democracy
Stavros, "If you watch this clip from Donahue you may for once admit that Ms Rand does not show much respect for human life when she chooses not to, an extreme form of individualism which is also, as Donahue points out, not very objective from the apostle of objectivism."
I've watched the clip, Stavros. I see nothing in it which demonstrates or implies lack of respect for human life, although Rand is certainly not respectful towards middle eastern arabs. In fact she is disdainful of their societies.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what the last three sub clauses of your comment mean. FWIW I had the sense that the youtube clip had been edited. I've heard of this Donoghue bloke, but never seen him in action. If his conduct in this clip is normal for him, then it follows a pattern familiar to the persecuted minority of libertarians: a witchfinder-general tone of voice, sentences constructed to hector an interlocutor rather than elicit information and comprehension and an indifference either to rational trains of thought or constructive debate. Or maybe the editing of the clip did him a disservice.
I'm happy to disagree with Rand as and when I choose, btw. Honest.
-
11-06-2012 #50
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Posts
- 236
Re: Democracy
broncofan,"Living in any society is necessarily a take it or leave it proposition. I don't know how it is administratively possible to have anything else in an indirect democracy. If enough other people felt the way you do then I would have to live in the hellhole you envision and call utopia"
I thought you said I couldn't opt out? If it's a take it or leave it proposition, how do I leave it? where do I go? Serious question. As it happens, I agree that there's no leaving it (I've just remembered that the title of this thread is "Democracy"). From the point of view of people like me, the social democratic hell created by people like you is one I just have to put up with. Which rather gives the lie to the suggestion that all our ills are caused by evil free market capitalists because, as you go on to imply, you don't have to live in my hellhole. Although I have no idea how you know it would be a hellhole, since you've never experienced it. Nor have I. Why don't we give it a try, see what happens?
Similar Threads
-
Michael Moore on Democracy Now...
By Ben in forum General DiscussionReplies: 1Last Post: 09-25-2009, 02:57 AM -
What's the difference between a democracy and a republic?
By Jasadin in forum Politics and ReligionReplies: 42Last Post: 01-22-2008, 02:51 AM -
western democracy vs. middle eastern democracy
By qeuqheeg222 in forum Politics and ReligionReplies: 1Last Post: 09-17-2007, 09:09 AM -
Socialist-Democracy in action. Lose the democracy!
By guyone in forum Politics and ReligionReplies: 23Last Post: 02-24-2007, 02:52 AM -
Subverting Democracy With the Big Lie
By chefmike in forum Politics and ReligionReplies: 3Last Post: 09-14-2006, 06:39 AM