coke_politics
kx21
* a_point_in_time *

A Fairy_tale arond_and_across a_wrong_war_in_21k....
040721
...
. "around_and_across" 040721
...
kx21 In the space of Coke_politics and sphere of pepsi_folklore:-

Saddam_Hussien = ?,

given a_'love_triangle'_in_the_21st_century

and Blair (War_Promoter)'s
Coke_politics_meets_pepsi_folklore from
Bush (War_president)...

Tell one that...
And_I_will_tell_you_how_wonder_you_are...

Copyright 2004 (less Coke_politics kx21.com
040722
...
To be exact Saddam_Hussein = ? 040722
...
unhinged any foreign relations with south american countries

war on drugs HA

the disturbing thing is that the vast majority of the american public believes that we are fighting a war on drugs to win it and that our media is not biased or controlled in any way
040722
...
Strideo the war on drugs is indeed useless
...
040722
...
birdmad The war on drugs like th so-caled war on terror it is based on a useless "Zero-sum" approach that predicates its sucess that the existing problem can be wholly stamped out by attrition without ever considering causative influences.

Can you think of a biger waste of time and taxpayer funds than the ONDCP?

billions of dollars in revenue spent on ads that have, in my opinion done more to PROMOTE drug use and whose core messaeg is best summed up by Mr. Mackay on South Park

"Drugs are bad, Mmmkay."

The allure of the forbidden should never be taken as lightly as it has been by the people who have been responsible for this country's drug control agencies.

It's the same lesson that any number of dumbasses failed to learn from the Prohibition Era.
040722
...
Strideo "The war on drugs like th so-caled war on terror it is based on a useless "Zero-sum" approach that predicates its sucess that the existing problem can be wholly stamped out by attrition without ever considering causative influences."

the war on drugs is ineffective because it does not focus its efforts where they will be most effective: treating and educating the drug abusor

you can't, by the way, solve terrorism by treating the terror victims, sorry.

the war on drugs creats an inflated value on the drugs because they are now illegal, which introduces a criminal element to a medical problem: addiction

terrorist simply are criminals and murderers. by giving in to them sovereign nations simply display that their tactics can work and it gauranties further violence in the future.
...
040722
...
sixstop And 'treating' the terrorists is synonymous with capitulation.

Not an option.
040722
...
unhinged capitulation does not have to be the only 'treatment' of the terrorists. most people don't seem to be liking the other treatment very well though. it also allows people to perpetuate the image of america as the tyrant bully strong arm of democracy. i find myself treading on a thin line philosophically these days and what i find myself adopting more than anything else is 'do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else'

the 'as long as it doesn't....' part seems to be the part that causes the problems.

and honestly, the best way to lower taxes for EVERYONE is to legalize drugs and then tax them. maybe that's a little extreme for drugs like coke and heroin but if we did that with weed, being no more harmful phsyically or mentally than cigarettes or alcohol, the tax problem could be solved.
040722
...
daxle girls first
it's that simple
040722
...
birdmad The problem with the current rhetoric is the underlying fascism of it.

we are being coached to accept a condition of perpetual warfare.

The combination of our energy policy and the force we exert to maintain it as it is should be the first point of examination. The willingness of our (U.S.) government to maintain relationships with dictatorships and other represive regimes so long as they remain lucrative on one hand while talking about "Freedom and Deomocracy" on the other hand isn't swallowed as easily by people who don't have Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Brit Hume or Wolf Blitzer spoonfeding them the latest soup of spin and catchphrases.

The notion that the only alternative is "capitualtion" is itself a spin in that it demands black/white, yes/no acceptance even though short of a campaign of all-out genocide, the "war on terror" is, like the "war on drugs" unwinnable because like every fallen drug dealer who can be replaced by another ruthless, ambitious opportunist ever fallen terrorist can be replaced by another "inspired" deranged zealot.

One falls another rises to take their place and today's "collaterl damage" becomes tomorrow's ticking timebomb.

The other key failure of the US Government's policy toward terrorism is its almost complete disregard of potential domestic terrorists which was most glaringly evident last April when Texas authorities arrested a group of whackos in the Tyler/Noonday area with a large arsenal of weapons including pipe-bombs, firearms, conventional explosive "briefcase" devices, and enough cyanide and other assorted chemicals to kill "enough people to fill a large chain bookstore or s small-town convention center" [CNN, january 30, 2004]
'
They were caught by accident when a package of afke ID's showed up at the wrong address in New Jersy with a note enclosed "we would hate for these to fall into the wrong hands" (KLTV 7 Tyler Texas) the recipient notified law enforcement and the ball started rolling from there [ CBS 11, Dallas Ft. Worth, November, 2003 http://cbs11tv.com/investigations/local_story_330180036.html]

If William Krar had an Arabic name and had been caught with all the shit they found in Krar's storage unit, you can bet your ass there would have been press conferences and expansive coverage of the issue.

Getting back to my original point, looking for a policy that doesn't actually manage to create more enemies while resolving our problems with the enemies we already have is hardly capitulation bit it's also about a million fucking miles away from what is currently happening.
040722
...
Strideo how do we resolve our problems with the enemies we have?
...
040722
...
unhinged one side comment: we had less enemies when we fostered isolationist foreign policies.

our government only cares about capitalism, not freedom and democracy. it's not just the republicans either cause most democrats are republicans disguised as liberals cause they are leftist about one key issue. america gets more greedy and as more of the world's wealth is concentrated in our small percentage of the world population, more people will hate us because they see us as the reason that they are unhappy and miserable. not everyone in the world wants to live in a democracy believe it or not. people just want to be safe and people are raised and indoctrinated into other ways of being safe. as long as people are not dying, there is no reason for america 'to make the world safe for democracy' and goddamnit we are not the only democratic nation in the world. yeah, i know the good old arguement that we are the strongest, therefore we have to police the world but i find that to be a bullshit answer for a bunch of rich idiots who believe their way is the only right way (much like the people who bombed us on 9-11) to go around pushing their way on everyone.

now it's hard to talk middle road with someone who doesn't have one either, but this problem was created decades ago by greed. as people like to say, there is a growing global community and we have to start acting like it and stop acting like it's the cold war and hoarding everything we can in our basements for the day that someone blows up the world. (although that day probably has a better chance of coming now than it ever did 50 years ago) i guess i sound like a tree/people-hugging hippie but there are many right ways in the world. and no one in any government wants to admit that there are several right ways of doing things. blah. useless arguement. and the exact thing that makes me want to crawl in a hole and never come out.
040722
...
birdmad i don't have a cut-and-dried answer for that, but i can at least say that while there would unavoidably be some killing involved, i also recognize that it's a pretty retarded idea to think that indiscriminate bombing is going to win me any new friends.

The biggest failure of much of the planning and strategy of this "war on terror" is that most of the people in charge are still thinking along the lines of the Cold War and applying the same methodologies for assessing the strengths weaknesses and motivations of our enemies. That same rigid thinking is a key reason why the Soviets failed in Afghanistan.

Actual diplomacy instead of a mixture of posturing and inane lip-service on one hand would be an effective start, and by this i don't necessarily mean entering into any sort of direct negotiastions with threatening organizations.

Remember, the first mistake our "leadership" has been making is oversimplifying the problem and then compounding it with an oversimplistic, ham-fisted "solution" based more on ideology than any pragmatic sense.

also, for the sake of not inviting the same weakness that has brought down every other great power in history, a one-war-at-a-time-and-no-new-ones-until-you're-finished policy regarding military engasgement should be considered but wouldn't be as necessary if the leadership in place didn't go out of it's way to piss off our traditional allies and leave us burdened with a coalition of small coutries who send small delegations of questionable utility who are only playing along because we threatened to cut off their aid packages if they didn't.
040722
...
sixstop Corellating to the drug war is unrealistic for many reasons.

1: many street drugs that alot of money floats are ARE dangerous; not made-up, not fabricated and, Not only to the health of the user, either. In addition to the dangers of altered state, like alcohol or MJ, many of these drugs have health risks that you'd have to take insane quantities to equal in alcohol, or are so specific they have no peers.

2:people ARE breaking the law. the law should be upheld. Criminals should be prosecuted. That doesn't mean the law can't or won't change, but as it stands now, to get illicit drugs, there have to be several criminal acts; including
illegal importing, growing, use of controlled or regulated stuff, black market sale of regulated stuff, DUI or other stupid stuff done while in an altered state, the list goes on.

I think strideo is right in that it needs to be addressed as a medical problem when we deal with the addict, but the addict is a symptom of the other crimes committed when making/distributing drugs. its still criminal and they do need to be found and dealt with.

3. the victims of illegal drug use, abuse, and distribution include the community as well as the addict. Therefore, a better corellation to the drug war would be Dealers are terrorists, and addicts are the victims they prey on.
040722
...
sixstop As far as terrorism itself and the policies that seem to ignore domestic things. . .

I have to ask you, what do you think causes terrorism?
040722
...
unhinged addiction as a criminal act only compounds the problem. yeah, i know, i know....you are right. obtaining illegal drugs is obviously illegal a.k.a. criminal. i have barely formed thoughts on this topic so i will abstain for now.

all wars are based on drugs legal or not: oil, opium, coke. it has been pointed out that the u.s. involvement in vietnam could be directly related to the cutoff of the supply of opium to the united states. is that crazy? if you think it is.....but one thing is for sure. united states foreign policies have been directly related to the religion of greed practiced in this country. a little democratic socialism never hurt anyone unless you were a rich person hoarding your wealth seeing no reason to help your fellow man. just make sure you go to church tomorrow and put money in the collection plate to buy your way into heaven since money talks and if you don't have any you deserve to rot in hell.
040723
...
birdmad What causes terrorism?

a combination of factors related both to economics and various bits of ideology.

in this circumstance, both politicl and religious ideology. (For example, before the 1948 dissolution of Palestine and the establishment of the Israeli state, the demographics of violence were the polar opposite of what they are now...in fact, this week marked the 58th anniverary (1946) of a hotel bombing by Israeli insurgents in Jerusalem which killed 90 people)

The inane rhetoric that we were attacked by people simply because "they hate freedom" is laughable coming from politicians who, themselves are supported by a base that would prefer to live under a theocracy.

As i've pointed out several times, one of the reasons that we are the targets of such ire has been the almost unwavering willingness of our government to place business interests absolutely above all other considerations.

There's a lundry-list of times when another nation's government has attempted to exert its rights to profit from its own resources ahead of the American businesses who have held sway, the US Government has stepped in either overtly or covertly to keep its corporate sponsors happy

The Philippines, Nicaraqua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Apartheid-era South Africa, Liberia, Angola, Iran, Iraq, [Afghanistan], Pakistan, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Malaysia

Our government's penchant for supporting some repressive regimes so long as they are profitable to us does not now, nor has it ever engendered any lasting goodwill towards us and makes our government, and by extension, whether we like it or not, makes us look like hypocrites when our leaders comment about human rights abuses.

Let me ask you this:

If you lived in a country where your government kept you under its boot because it has more desire to please the foreign governments and investors that keep it in power than it does to let you live your life, wouldn't you turn your wrath not just against the leaders who betray you but also against the people pulling their puppet-strings?

think about that for a little while.
040723
...
kx21 ***
* War_on_terrorism in 21k
***

What is its "M" - Missing Dot?

"The_Missing_dot" in the Circle_of_concern around_and_across the
War_on_terrorism in 21st Century:-

* Soda_Flavor *

Show one why_not...
And_I_wil_tell_you_how_wonder_you_are...

Copyright 2004 kx21.com
040723
...
To be exact And_I_will_tell_you_how_wonder_you_are 040723
...
kx21 iLink:-

a_'love_triangle'_in_the_21st_century
040723
...
Strideo unhinged, if i may ask, are you jealous of those who are extremly wealthy?

also, i noticed you kept refering to American democracy. I still think of the United States as a constitutional republic (for now anyways). That means that the citizens elect officials to represent them in the government and make laws, but there is also a strong constitution to protect our rights. Those who created our nation did not do so to create a democracy. They recognized that democracy is mob rule. Democracy does not protect the rights of individuals because the masses will simply vote themselves a share of whatever the more successful citizens have earned. Our government was created with its checks and balances and its powerful constitution for the purpose of protecting the rights and liberties of the individual, be they rich or poor.
...
040723
...
kx21 ***
* Pepsi_folklore & Democracy
***

Democracy does not protect the rights of individual

Given 123:-

1) the_images_of_americans: The Present American values of "freedom_and_democracy";

2) the fact that

america_has_lost_its_moral_high_ground; and

3) The "M" of Pepsi_folklore:-

The_beast_in_freedom_and_Democracy is wondering around_and_across the key Leaders of United_States (e.g. Bush Administration, White_House, Pentagon, etc.)

Copyright 2004 Pepsi_folklore kx21.com
040723
...
kx21 A_Point_in_time around_and_across Pepsi_folklore:-

The_master_of_flip_flop_in_the_21st_century
040724
...
The_mission_dot Given

* UN21 - Historic_Mission *

Peace, Security & International_legitimacy around the World...

British_leaders_should_simply_apologise
040724
...
. kx21
* 26_days_to_Iraqi_sovereignty *

5 June, 2004, 10:25 GMT 11:25 UK

Former chief US weapons inspector David Kay:-

"British and American leaders should simply apologise and admit that they were wrong.".

"Where_have_all_the_WMD_in_Iraq_gone" 040605
040724
...
2004 - 2005 * Intelligence_Estimate *

The__world's__unhappiest_people__are__
040725
...
unhinged i am not extremely jealous of the wealthy....people who work hard deserve to have something to show for it. but, too many times wealth is a symptom of greed. most of the extremely wealthy especially in this country have stepped all over the backs of people they would not give a second glance to on the street to create their fortunes. the concentration of wealth being filtered down into an ever-shrinking population is what causes many of the social problems of this current time. i am very liberal in my political orientation and i would even go as far as to call myself socialist on many issues. the days of the rich philanthropist are gone to be replaced with the days of the hoarder. (which by the way accumulates plenty of negative karma) and i myself don't practice what i preach; basically getting mugged by a bum has caused me to keep walking when people ask me for change on the street. why is it that the less money i make the higher the apr on my credit card gets? why is it that a person with a higher percentage of the country's wealth can pay the same or even less of a percentage of income tax that i do? i'm not asking for a hand out because i'm poor. but i think that a lack of social responsibility in the world is what contributes to the creation of groups like al-queda. war is a direct result of greed.

i don't refer to this nation's politics as a democracy. the president does. 'making the world safe for democracy' is a favorite catch phrase of dubya or rather his speech writers. i know this nation is not a democracy. it goes farther from even a republic every day. a republic fueled by capitalism where the general wealth of a nation becomes more concentrated into the pockets of fewer and fewer people while american jobs are shipped overseas to put even more money directly their pockets is slowly becoming a theocracy worshipping at the altar of money. over_dramatic possibly, but *shrugs* i'm more of a socialist than a republican. the minimum standard of life for any human being should be higher than what many people are forced to live at today. the only thing that fixes that is money, which a smaller and smaller percentage of the population of the world holds in their hands every day. i'm just fortunate to live in a country where those people allow me a small fraction of it so i can have a roof over my head and food in my stomach. my face hurts today. my brain is swimming and my socialist feelings are prominent today. i'm cutting myself off.
040726
...
sixstop "too many times wealth is a symptom of greed. most of the extremely wealthy especially in this country have stepped all over the backs of people they would not give a second glance to on the street to create their fortunes."

and to what evidence do you let yourself draw this conclusion?

"why is it that a person with a higher percentage of the country's wealth can pay the same or even less of a percentage of income tax that i do?"
because even at a smaller percentage, they pay more than most people make in a year? the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay almost 96 percent of the taxes. Did you realise that the richer half of america pays almost all the taxes, period? is that right?
" i'm not asking for a hand out because i'm poor. but i think that a lack of social responsibility in the world is what contributes to the creation of groups like al-queda.
That conveniently exempts terrorists from the wrongdoing of actually blowing away women and children with suicide & pipe bombs, doesnt it? It neatly protects criminals from the blame and repsonsibility of pulling the trigger...
"war is a direct result of greed. "
I hardly believe war can be reduced to such a simplistic catch phrase. I'm sure the muslim extremists don't have greed as their sole motivator for spurning millions to slaughter white devils.
"while american jobs are shipped overseas to put even more money directly their pocket"
Disregarding the fact that the jobs arent 'american property' they're the jobs that belong to a company....You realise America imports jobs more than 4 to 1 for every one job exported? You know, instead of blaming the company for wanting to make/save money, why don't you argue to make it -easier- and cheaper for them to higher domestic workers?
"the minimum standard of life for any human being should be higher than what many people are forced to live at today. the only thing that fixes that is money, which a smaller and smaller percentage of the population of the world holds in their hands every day.i'm just fortunate to live in a country where those people allow me a small fraction "
The minimum standard of life for any human being is exactly what the individual becomes content to 'put up with' and are willing to work for. The only thing that fixes that is a better work ethic and a desire to raise their minimum standard.
Strideo was onto something with you. You do seem to have not only an envy of anyone you view as wealthy, but of anyone who makes more than you. The evidence is in the words you just typed which are pretty much a pre-requisite for economic socialism.
You believe that money is distributed, not earned. You believe people 'allow' you to have money, not that you 'make' your own money with your hard work. You believe there is a finite ammount of wealth in the world and that its unfair when someone has a bigger piece of the pie.
it is your right to hold such an opinion, but remember this: Socialism is fundamentally unsound because if violates basic civil liberties. Nobody has a right to someone else's hard work, property, or skills.
040728
...
unhinged i'm not going to have a capitalist/socialist arguement especially since i already stated that i'm pretty much a socialist. and i do realize that is an unsound theory and that it didn't work and blah blah blah but i have just as much right to have socialist beliefs as anyone does to have religious beliefs.

as far as the extremely wealthy stepping on the backs of the people underneath them to make their money have you heard of enron? or any other white-collar crime cases going through our justice system these days? obviously i am not the only one who sees this problem and feels that it is wrong. if you exercising your civil liberties infringes on someone else's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness you are just as wrong.

and damn man when i watch bitches like paris hilton, kerry's wife, and any other wealthy person wearing an outfit and accessories worth more than my ANNUAL income of course i'm going to be fucking envious. that kind of disparity is ridiculous. and it breeds hostility.

i didn't say that terrorists shouldn't have to face responsibility for their actions. i just said i can see why they would do what they do. which i know is an unpopular view to have in america today since everyone seems to be out for the tooth that they took first ever since the day it happened. and yeah, the bastards should be punished but we should also be doing something to stop the breeding of groups like that. one of the reasons why many people across the globe hate americans is because of our perceived wealth and the fact that our government runs on the platform that our way is the only right way. pick everything i say apart, use the semantics of syntax to tell me i'm jealous, whatever man.

speaking of syntax, let me switch my predicate and subject to clarify comprehension for you.

greed is a symptom/cause of war. A. AAAAAAA
not THE
don't_bother_reading_me ; my need to get in the last word and my anxiety of persuasion could make me a good debater or only give me a fucking headache.
040728
...
sixstop thats why we have nice drugs like Allieve.

"i'm not going to have a capitalist/socialist arguement especially since i already stated that i'm pretty much a socialist. and i do realize that is an unsound theory and that it didn't work and blah blah blah but i have just as much right to have socialist beliefs as anyone does to have religious beliefs. "

Never said you didn't. I just take every opportunity I can to convince you differently. :)

"as far as the extremely wealthy stepping on the backs of the people underneath them to make their money have you heard of enron? or any other white-collar crime cases going through our justice system these days? obviously i am not the only one who sees this problem and feels that it is wrong."

Okay. . . you've mentioned one case of fraud still under investigation as a catch phrase, then nebulously referred to an imagined large number of cases where some big evil corporation ins conspiring to take your money from you without you knowing it. thats kinda ad-hominem. . .
but more specifically is that you seem to think and feel that this is the norm; that an extremely wealthy company, by its nature alone, MUST be stepping on the backs of people...

"and damn man when i watch bitches like paris hilton, kerry's wife, and any other wealthy person wearing an outfit and accessories worth more than my ANNUAL income of course i'm going to be fucking envious. that kind of disparity is ridiculous. and it breeds hostility. "

hmm... Doesnt that speak to more of the content of your character than theirs? Maybe you should turn inward for an answer rather than outward.

"i didn't say that terrorists shouldn't have to face responsibility for their actions. i just said i can see why they would do what they do. which i know is an unpopular view to have in america today since everyone seems to be out for the tooth that they took first ever since the day it happened. "

funny how that works. you see. America is good. they are bad. They being terrorists and millitants who carry out civillian assaults with prejudice. America is so good that we actually have pause to ask ourselves "why do they hate us?" Not something you find anywhere else in the world. The trouble with this natural good tendancy of America is that it is undermining our efforts to do good in the world. Why? because MANY people in the world want us to ask all the BAD people for permission to do the good things. We can't afford to entertain questions like "How can we change ourselves so that they won't do that again?" because that absolves the BAD people from the responsibility of their actions. There is no 'i can see why' when they don't CARE if you see why. They want you dead! If you don't have the fortitude to confront that, you will suffer.

"and yeah, the bastards should be punished but we should also be doing something to stop the breeding of groups like that. one of the reasons why many people across the globe hate americans is because of our perceived wealth and the fact that our government runs on the platform that our way is the only right way. "

certainly, thats how extremists portray us. . .but you know what? We don't go to . . .Zimbabwe with troops and tell them abortion is illegal. We don't got to China with troops and tell them that they have to accept gay marriage. Even under Clinton, we send troops around to STOP fighting.
And yes, I realise, despite my criticism, that living standard disparity is usually something hand-in-hand with terror group and extremist breeding. That being said, I think its good that we, America, the good guys, are actually taking an active role in helping countries gain the ability to challenge income disparity on their own, dont you?

"pick everything i say apart, use the semantics of syntax to tell me i'm jealous, whatever man. speaking of syntax, let me switch my predicate and subject to clarify comprehension for you.
greed is a symptom/cause of war. A. AAAAAAA not THE "

it makes a difference, one word. ;p
040728
...
unhinged oh lord. i mean honestly. last things first, i did use the correct word in the first place being 'a' rather than 'the' and you freaked.

secondly, i am strongly seated in my liberal democrat/socialist beliefs.

thirdly, i make generalizations when i argue which i think i have stated in every arguement i've had here in the past two years. white-collar crime has been a reality in this country for years that is just now coming to the forefront. outsourcing of american jobs is a prime example of what i am talking about whether you believe it is right and viable or not.

i'm agreeing to disagree at this point.
040729
...
J. E. Carter 1976 DNC "Any government is bankrup that finds virtue or value in unemployment..." 040729
...
self-correcting ex president erm, "bankrupt". 040729
...
sixstop Here's some more fun.

"We must organize all labor, no matter how dirty and arduous it may be, so that every (citizen) may regard himself as part of that great army of free labor...." --Vladimir Lenin

"Liberals feel that their favored groups, have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives (and Libertarians, myself among them I might add) think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses...
You may ... think you have some "right" to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? I can't wait for you to point that one out for me in our Constitution."--Neal Boortz
040729
...
aluminum foil deflector beanie man Yeah, this whole notion of paying people for their labour is overrated, we need to start enslaving people again.

O, but for that pesky 13th amendment.

The nerve of some people, to actually expect any sort of decent compensation when we could either just put them in bondage or export their jobs to children in semi-dictatorial third world countries for $200/mo. is just unacceptble, ...i never...

(the average conservative who spends ages and ages grousing about people who don't work should honestly shut the hell up if they are also going to complain about people protesting the loss of jobs, frankly)

or we could just say "fuck it" and kill the poor on general principle.

wait, i've got a_modest_proposal you might like.
040729
...
tinfoil hat guy redux of course, the $200/month thing is on the high side, usually it's about $80, except in places where people get this ridiculous notion that they should be able to subsist from their wages 040729
...
The Crapture a__modest__proposal 040729
...
stork daddy I would like to point out that the right to having your property protected begs the question what property is exactly. The ownership of land is an abstract concept and there is no right to it despite whatever the constitution ennumerates. You can't be a true libertarian and also believe in the constitution of america, because the constitution of america ennumerates federal powers and the necessary deferrences to those federal powers that existing as a country includes. I happen to think that the abstract notion of private ownership of land is a good thing when it is not taken to the extremes of total libertarian free market capitalism. Because what upholds private property is the protection of that property. This property is currently protected by the laws that we the people have all agreed on. If the private property were to suddenly be beholden to only the most rudimentary laws of force (as provided, no doubt, by the weapons and technology that those who by some means or another have large amounts of capital in their posession could no doubt obtain) then there would be no incentive for those excluded from this property to obey those laws if they were not afraid of a good fight. What I mean to say is that the current incentive to obey the US laws is that the social contract it purportedly provides includes those whose start out with less resources and gives them opportunities to contribute to society and reap the benefits of society. You remove that incentive and you remove the lass barrier the rich have against the mass revolt of the poor. And this is exactly what ideas like that embody. Why should I have to pay for public education? or public healthcare? And the answer is quite simply because the society you depend upon for your wealth, to buy your products, or do your labor, will provide for you less and less almost proportionally to the amount you invest in them. If there is no middle class to buy your products, where will you sell them? You can see this phenomenon in the exploitation of cheap labor by large companies. They set up shop in a region that has a low standard of living, and they take the extra revenue such cost cutting provides, until eventually they raise the standard of living too high and so have to pull out to keep at the level of revenue they were used to. This usually leads to a devestation of the region, which is ideal because then in ten years they can return to it. Now if you have cynical enough morals to think nothing wrong of such a process that's fine with me, but it is certainly no way to run a country. And we're seeing rise therefore, to the international company. This is a disturbing trend, as eventually the people who own and run these business have to declare home somewhere. And if they haven't taken care of that somewhere, where will their revenue come from? You are only as strong as your weakest link. I think that's a useful phrase when describing a society. Because we come again to what defines property and where the social contract is involved. By agreeing to obey the laws, and respecting the property of another, we are all saying we agree to all those laws entail, which includes the providance of public resources for us all to share. After all, is there anywher private ownership will stop? Is it plausible to partition off the sky and sell it? People already have in various ways. What about the clean breathable air, is that something that only rightfully belongs to those who can afford it within the system of currency these libertarians will use? The points made earlier about terrorism and understanding why they would be upset with us underscore a point. When you've disenfranchised and excluded someone from your system, or essentially said to them your lands and resources must join our way or perish, terrorism and other acts of force become the only currency they can negotiate with. The founders of our government realized this I think, which is why the first phrase in the constitution includes the phrase "promote the general welfare" (something they obviously thought was a wise move in terms of establishing a powerful and prosperous nation). The large difference between a democratic view and a communistic one is freedom to choose. I think anyone who has lived in america would be horrified by allocation of jobs based on your qualifications as judged by the government (something first suggested by plato mind you). However, being free to choose does not preclude all people receiving equal access to those choices. This is something which the rich in our society want to remove even more. And who would blame them? If you can get away with blatant self interest, wouldn't you? Why remove the advantages wealth and resources and establishment confers upon you and have to rely upon your own talents and drive? Would Bush really be president if his father was a turd-miner in virgina? It is undemocratic to deny equal education and equal health because you are denying the ability to make well-informed and unpressured decisions. No one would argue a pure democracy is ever possible, but certainly there are ways to make things more equitable. And though conservative talk radio show hosts would sway you with horror tales of forced wealth distribution, really all it involves is a fairer and more appropriate system of taxation and federal allocation of funds. As I said earlier though, of course these companies will for the large part act in their self-interest, since that is what usually brought them to such emminence. It is therefore the duty of the rest of society to remind them of the social contract, and that that makes them as beholden to us and their duty in upholding of our stake in it as we are to them and our duty of upholding the notion of "private property." It is worth noting, however, to any fortune 500 ceos who may be reading this (most likely on a very nice home or office computer) that what seems in your best interest in the short-term is often quite damaging in the long term. The tragedy of the commons is an illustration of this, but who needs analogy when you can see clearly that if you continue to erode the very general welfare that makes respecting notions of private property and wealth and generally including yourself in the system worthwhile, you threaten the foundations your own empire is built on. 040729
...
stork daddy oh and that what we're doing is good in other countries is a debateable point. it's especially debateable when you realize that from america's standpoint that good is rarely weighed against the death toll our military actions take on the innocent people in these countries. it may seem easy to talk about abstract notions of good (which are themselves debateable) when your family hasn't been bombed to death. 040729
...
unhinged stork daddy to my aid again; you've been bailing my ass out of holes for awhile now. thanks. *winks*

*runs and hides behind the well said and thought-out cape of stork's argument*
040729
...
Be on Notice: Sun Aug 8,12:37 PM ET

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=3&u=/afp/20040808/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_britain_justice_040808163740

Britain looking into 48 suspicious Iraqi deaths: report
040808
...
Strideo okay, i'll be quick here. (or try)

Property are the things you own.
Land ownership is not an abstract concept (try treaspassing and the police will explain it to you).
You CAN be a libertarian and beleive in the constitution because the constitution and the bill of rights tells us what the federal government can't do and does not have the power to do, if only we could get rid of a few amendments like the 17th and 16th that would restore more balance, I think. You said land ownership is okay if it isn't taken to extremes, what could be extereme about land ownership? If it belongs to you then it belongs to you.
...
040812
...
Strideo Hmmm
...
040812
...
Strideo Companies that open manufacturing facilities in underdeveloped nations are not all operating "sweat shops". Yes it has happened. Yes, to be sure it is happening now. Many of these companies provide valuable jobs however, with a good pay rate for the local standard of living despite how paltry the pay may seem to us spoiled citizens of developed nations. Another aspect of "shipping" jobs over seas: A U.S. company manufactures "widgets" in the philippines and distributes them world wide. They employ over a thousand sales and administrative personel in the U.S. and a few thousand factory workers in various places in the philippines to keep costs low and compete with their rival company based in Hong Kong whose factories are located in China. The U.S. company is already at a tax disadvantage but they have keept competetive with their prices. Then the U.S. government passes a law mandating that all widgets made by U.S. companies must be manufactured within the United States to preserve factory jobs at home. The U.S. company opens a factory in north Alabama were the pay for factory workers is considerably higher and soon the U.S. made widgets cost $30 more than the Hong Kong widgets. The U.S. company begins to lose market share, they cut back on labor, administration, and production untill they eventually go out of business. No more widget factories in Alabama, no more widget factories in the Philippines, no more widget salesmen or managers working for the U.S. company. But hey, the Hong Kong widget company will be glad to take up the market share.
...
040812
...
Strideo Why not move the corporate HQ outside the U.S.? Not a bad plan considering that the U.S. is one of the only developed nations that makes its corporations pay income tax on both domestic AND foreign income. If a U.S. company sells widgets in France it must pay the French corporate income tax for those sales AND pay U.S. corporate income tax for those French sales as well. If a Frech company sells widgets in the U.S. they only pay U.S. income tax on those sales and are NOT expected to pay French income tax on U.S. sales. Maybe if we change this tax policy we wouldn't see as many U.S. corporations become "Bermuda corporations". That would be one way to help level the playing feild without tariffs and import taxes.
...
040812
...
Strideo Clean air? As I have said, libertarians beleive in protecting the rights of the induvidual. If society is polluting the air then guess what? We have to cut down on that pollution because it violates iduvidual's rights to breath clean air. Just as you can't open a motocross track in your back yard in a subdivision because it would disturb the peace. You can't just indiscriminatly pollute the air either. I mean geeze, we're talking about libertarians here not anarchist, we want a healthy enviroment too. Libertarians are against fascist laws such as "you have to be licensed and certified by the government to be a florist" not common sense laws about air pollution (and trust me there are non-common sense laws out there too).
...
040812
...
Strideo Hmmm, again.
...
040812
...
Strideo "The large difference between a democratic view and a communistic one is freedom to choose."
Yeah, it works like this: put five guys in a room. four of them have $10 each, one of them has $100. Okay guys this is a democracy and you have the right to choose! All in favor of dividing the money equally say "aye"! Where does the guy with $100 get to choose? He needs rules to protect his rights. Now if one of these guys didn't have money to buy his lunch sould the $100 guy loan him some? Sure. Should he have to? No. If one guy shows up without lunch money again and again because he knows the $100 guy will cover for him then the answer is: No Way!
...
040812
...
Strideo What gives you the idea that the rich want prevent anyone from earning a living or even becoming rich themselves? Is being rich truely just blatant "self interest"? I think it would be fascist to limit how much wealth you can own.

"Why remove the advantages wealth and resources and establishment confers upon you and have to rely upon your own talents and drive?"
Not every one who is rich had these advantages. More people than you realize have become rich by relying upon their own talents and drive and there have been plenty of "trust fund" kids who have grown up to blow their fortunes because they lacked the common sense to manage it wisely.Why do you assume that you have to BE rich to become rich?

In Bush's case I don't think he would be the president if he were the son of a miner. The son of a miner could become president though. So what?
...
040812
...
Strideo "It is undemocratic to deny equal education and equal health because you are denying the ability to make well-informed and unpressured decisions."
No, it isn't. It is tyrannical to deny equal education and health care, but you are confused. Just because you don't PROVIDE something does not automatically mean you have DENIED something. Did you mean to say it is undemocratic not to PROVIDE equal education and equal healthcare?
And by providing EQUAL education and healthcare do you mean that no one is allowed to privatley seek superior health and education with their own resources?
Why should you have a "right" to healthcare anyways? I don't think that is in the constitution. You do have the freedom to pursue good healthcare and education though because the government is not allowed to deny them to you.
...
040812
...
Strideo another paragraph missing here
...
040812
...
Strideo or two!
...
040812
...
Strideo The real problem is that too many are eager to nurture a culture of failure in which people play their roles as victims of society rather than trying to rise above any challenges they may encounter. The sort of culture we should foster is one where people can actually take responsiblity for their actions and decisions and work toward earning success. I'm not saying that there are no victims of circumstance. There are, and there should be some support for them, but under the culture of failure too many people claim that they are victims of circumstance by default.

I don't think that protecting people's right to keep their property is going to put us in any danger of breaking the great "social contract" and incite a massive revolt. Besides, the social contract goes both ways. If you put too much of the tax burden on the rich they will simply shelter more of their resources or flee to places that will be more accommodating to them.
...
040812
...
Strideo damn it. I feel ripped off now. I had to break up this blather into bits because there were four paragraphs it wouldn't let me submit. now I have to find out why. I'll submit them later if I can though they won't be in the proper order.
...
040812
...
Strideo darn it. and they were the really spicy stuff too!
...
040812
...
An "amazing" newslink The Dollars_and_Cents of

Muqtada_al_Sadr...
040812
...
To be "exact" Moqtada_al_Sadr 040812
...
Strideo oh well, if anyone actually wants to read the whole thing including the missing paragraphs go here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/strideo/4907.html#cutid1

...
040812
...
stork daddy in a democracy, the concept is that people have equal footing from which to vote. they of course retain interests which they vote for, but if they are under such strain that they are compelled to vote one way or another, then democracy is not truly being accomplished. our constitution establishes a democracy, and so it can be reasonably assumed establishes the necessary tools for assuring the citizenry a place from which to make such informed votes. there is nothing in the constitution establishing public schooling either. i don't think education is something that should go to the highest bidder. i'm not saying they should be denied the right to pay for better education, but if they live in the united states they shouldn't be able to opt out of the responsibility to preserving the welfare of the entire country. this is what the social contract means. of course ten wolves will vote to eat the sheep, so the sheep needs rights, but the ten wolves need reasons to respect these rights. land ownership is an abstract concept by the way. land isn't. force isn't. but ownership is a abstract concept we define using those concrete terms. as to your one of your other points (i'll respond to the rest more fully later as i'm late for class) no one would argue that reducing the costs of human labor helps a company compete in the world market. that's not the question, the question is whether or not economic success should be made the bottom line. these companies (and i made this point clearly) can only stay in these developing countries giving them the wonderful gifts of investment you mentioned as long as it remains profitable. once the standard of living increases too much (because of their investments ironically) they have to pull out and find a more depleted region, usually leaving the previous region to fall back below the poverty line. there are plenty of ways to cut costs and create fairness in the market (tariffs, trade agreements etc.) that don't involve cutting the cost of human labor. i never claimed that all rich people were talentless or undeserving of whatever happiness they posesss, i simply claimed that the system as it is has some inherant blocks to the eagalitarian pipedream our government likes to use to justify the position of the poor. a lot of this has to do with the quality of education received by the lowest income families in our society. your thoughts on the social contract were interesting, except for the majority of people are poor in the world, and therefore make up a much larger portion of the resources used by the rich than vice versa. and in an government where the people in a democracy have agreed that public education is essential, to not strive to achieve equal standards of education is to deny that education. that is, it is to deny the education that a need was voiced for by the people who compose the democracy. the need for it to be provided has already been voiced. and if you want to debate the technical language in the statutes establishing education i'd be happy to do so. so to continue to let public education fall beneath the minimum standard required is not to fail to provide, it is to deny. there is no right in the constitution allowing anyone to shirk their responsibility to pay the taxes the government levies on them. they've had their representation, the voice of the people stands. and if they don't respect that, they are more than libertarians, they are anarchists. individual rights of freedom only exist because of the government's protection of them. the government is a union of people, and so sometimes an individual has to sacrifice freedoms he would have in no form of government to be able to interact with those who have joined a union. he has to interact in the agreed upon manner. certain individual rights are seen as essential in our constitution. but it is far from a libertarian charter. the allowance of state and federal laws to develop as they will so long as they do not contradict the essential rights of the constitution show that there is no contradiction between federal health care and education and the constitution. it can be a good idea and still not ennumerated in the constitution. the 9th amendment clearly states that the rights ennumerated pose no limit on rights not yet ennumerated that the people retain. the people. this is a harkening to the social contract. no one is trying to steal the man's 100 dollars except in how it relates to the basic agreements of inclusion in our society (which protects individual rights, but certainly not the shirking of civic responsibility). 040812
...
stork daddy in a democracy, the concept is that people have equal footing from which to vote. they of course retain interests which they vote for, but if they are under such strain that they are compelled to vote one way or another, then democracy is not truly being accomplished. our constitution establishes a democracy, and so it can be reasonably assumed establishes the necessary tools for assuring the citizenry a place from which to make such informed votes. there is nothing in the constitution establishing public schooling either. i don't think education is something that should go to the highest bidder. i'm not saying they should be denied the right to pay for better education, but if they live in the united states they shouldn't be able to opt out of the responsibility to preserving the welfare of the entire country. this is what the social contract means. of course ten wolves will vote to eat the sheep, so the sheep needs rights, but the ten wolves need reasons to respect these rights. land ownership is an abstract concept by the way. land isn't. force isn't. but ownership is a abstract concept we define using those concrete terms. as to your one of your other points (i'll respond to the rest more fully later as i'm late for class) no one would argue that reducing the costs of human labor helps a company compete in the world market. that's not the question, the question is whether or not economic success should be made the bottom line. these companies (and i made this point clearly) can only stay in these developing countries giving them the wonderful gifts of investment you mentioned as long as it remains profitable. once the standard of living increases too much (because of their investments ironically) they have to pull out and find a more depleted region, usually leaving the previous region to fall back below the poverty line. there are plenty of ways to cut costs and create fairness in the market (tariffs, trade agreements etc.) that don't involve cutting the cost of human labor. i never claimed that all rich people were talentless or undeserving of whatever happiness they posesss, i simply claimed that the system as it is has some inherant blocks to the eagalitarian pipedream our government likes to use to justify the position of the poor. a lot of this has to do with the quality of education received by the lowest income families in our society. your thoughts on the social contract were interesting, except for the majority of people are poor in the world, and therefore make up a much larger portion of the resources used by the rich than vice versa. and in an government where the people in a democracy have agreed that public education is essential, to not strive to achieve equal standards of education is to deny that education. that is, it is to deny the education that a need was voiced for by the people who compose the democracy. the need for it to be provided has already been voiced. and if you want to debate the technical language in the statutes establishing education i'd be happy to do so. so to continue to let public education fall beneath the minimum standard required is not to fail to provide, it is to deny. there is no right in the constitution allowing anyone to shirk their responsibility to pay the taxes the government levies on them. they've had their representation, the voice of the people stands. and if they don't respect that, they are more than libertarians, they are anarchists. individual rights of freedom only exist because of the government's protection of them. the government is a union of people, and so sometimes an individual has to sacrifice freedoms he would have in no form of government to be able to interact with those who have joined a union. he has to interact in the agreed upon manner. certain individual rights are seen as essential in our constitution. but it is far from a libertarian charter. the allowance of state and federal laws to develop as they will so long as they do not contradict the essential rights of the constitution show that there is no contradiction between federal health care and education and the constitution. it can be a good idea and still not ennumerated in the constitution. the 9th amendment clearly states that the rights ennumerated pose no limit on rights not yet ennumerated that the people retain. the people. this is a harkening to the social contract. no one is trying to steal the man's 100 dollars except in how it relates to the basic agreements of inclusion in our society (which protects individual rights, but certainly not the shirking of civic responsibility). 040812
...
stork daddy a federal government is there to provide services. now individuals may be divided on what services should be provided, but that is why we have representatives to legislate for us, as well as a constitution to guide us. i have argued that the wise decisions involved providing better public education even at the cost of those who can opt out of it. you have argued differently. i remain of the opinion that the public's interest as a whole in a democracy is almost always more important than the concern of a single individual so long as it does not infringe upon agreed upon beforehand essential rights. our government should inspect our meat, should provide education of a certain minimum standard. if places like hospitals were allowed to operate under constraints only formed by economic considerations, they would have considerable leverage over any individual (being a necessary service often). however by conglomorating their interests into a group of laws defining public policy, the weak individuals are allowed to assert their collective bargaining power. this is as it should be. your statement on what welfare is was pretty laughable. not having your trash cans fucked with is far from faring well, which is the etymology of the word. an alternative definition defined it as prosperity. these definitions would've been pretty familiar to the writers of the constitution as it is an old word. as to me thinking the poor in america ready for revolution, i wasn't perhaps limiting my appraisal of the tension between the poor and the rich to america, though i certainly focused on the social contract unique to america. my thoughts on the poor in the rest of the world are that they are perhaps even more discontented and undeserving of their lot. but this is regardless. i do not mean to say that there is to be any bloody revolution. the social contract has been all but forgotten in everything but sociology classes it seems, and this is a shame. i agree with you that most companies can't get away with gross acts of manipulation, unless the law assists them. this is largely due to the fact that they have a larger say in a lot of public policy due to the size of their voice (read campaign contributions). I would argue that this is not in the spirit of the democracy established at our country's founding, and that the key to redistributing the power is education reform. we shouldn't forget no matter the topic though, that the individual rights you touted only exist because the majority approves of them. They approve even of the individual rights of a minority generally even when in specific cases it doesn't serve the majority to enforce their own approved rule. Those are the implications of the constitution anyways, whose writers perhaps recognized the possible reciprocity of being the minority in your expression of a right. The constitution, however, in no way should be interpreted to support libertarian leanings beyond its basic bill of rights. The majority approves of these rights even when expressed in an unpopular way. Again there are limitations to these rights though (such as when it endangers the safety of the nation or otherwise seriously imperils the public welfare) We should be reminded in those limitations, who the rights and laws are there to serve. 040812
...
stork daddy sorry for the hurried and unorganized nature of my rebuttals but i've been studying up the yin yang and i tend to reply on blather as soon as i'm done reading. the reasoning behind them is still sound enough to respond to anything you said though, so feel free to reply. 040812
...
Sixstop your nebulous dialogue and chaotic meanderings really reveal the weakness of core concept.

Keep it simple, stupid, as the saying goes. if you require a huge volume of text to explain your conceptualisation of something, then its not a very sound to begin with.

However I will point out a significant error in your thinking and reasoning.

"individual rights of freedom only exist because of the government's protection of them"

this, simply put, is wrong.

The rights exist because they exist. They are not created or given to us by a government. If a government oppressed doesn't mean the rights of freedom don't exist.

Starting with the Declaration of Independance, America realises that the truth of this is 'self-evident' and that individuals are endowed by their Creator with these rights. It further explains that while men form government to secure these rights, it re-doubles the point that said government gets -its- powers from the 'consent of the governed.' And in totality of my point, it finally concludes::

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

we continue to the preamble of the Constitution which states "we the people" are who form the constitution of the government to better reach our goals.

we continue to the bill of rights, all of which are laws limiting the power of the government.

And finally, the 10th ammendment.

"ammendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

This is the core belief of the Libertarian.

your statement " the 9th amendment clearly states that the rights ennumerated pose no limit on rights not yet ennumerated that the people retain. the people. " is inaccurate. The 9th ammendment states that the counting off of the ammendments shall not be used in and of themselves to infringe upon an individual. The 10th ammendment is actually the one that clearly states anything not stated is assumed to be a right of the state or the people.

moreover...

"this is a harkening to the social contract. no one is trying to steal the man's 100 dollars except in how it relates to the basic agreements of inclusion in our society (which protects individual rights, but certainly not the shirking of civic responsibility). "

unfortunately, there is much more evidence that money is being forcefully taken away from the individual by mob rule and politicians get elected this way; rather than evidence of an individual or a companies attempts to exempt themselves completely.

So I put to you one simple question.

I am a person who pays taxes and works about 6 months of the year for the US government to pay my taxes.

Many people in my community 'qualify' for enough 'tax credits' that they get a 'tax rebate.' This is a fancy word for 'handout' or 'income redistribution.' My money is taken from me by force and given to another party.

I believe this is wrong, and I oppose any thinking that this is right.

Why is it greedy to want to keep more of the money you actually work to earn? And its not greedy to want to take money from people you didn't earn?

And my final question to you. An please, try to explain your answers to these as breifly and simply as possible.

Why should a company pay more taxes than an individual? Scale doesn't matter either. If I am my own company, why should I pay more in taxes than my neighbor who makes the same ammount of money, but works for someone else?
040812
...
A "point" * Live_vote * 040812
...
13 May 2004 iMay192004 * The M & Heart of Iraqis *

The Washington Post says, quoting a Poll conducted for the authority:-

Thu May 13, 3:46 AM ET

"Eighty percent of Iraqis 'Mistrust' the coalition authority

and

82 percent disapprove of US and allied forces in their country."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040513/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_poll_040513074615&e=2 040519
040812
...
stork daddy i'll try to keep this simple so you'll understand this time. also, a note about rhetoric: arguments can stand or fall on their own, if you need to make a rebuttal make a rebuttal, but calling something weak, especially based on its length is an attack that has nothing to do with logic. if it's so weak, why does your rebuttal not directly address some of the issues I raised?

so some clear and simple points. rights are an abstract concept. to believe they actually exist without our agreeing on them is to believe in a Creator who bestowed them which is a lot of conjecture to run a government on. In past societies it wasn't that inherent rights were violated, it was that they weren't conceived of, and so of course not recognized.

secondly, my lumping together of the 9th and 10th amendment bears no real contradiction to my larger argument. to say the 10th amendment is the core belief of libertarians is a pretty dangerous statement considering that the rights retained were never given to "individual people" but to "the people." The same people, it can be reasonably assumed, mentioned in the phrase, "we the people." Therefore, the truth of the matter is that those rights not distinctly ennumerated are left to the public to decide, not given up to be chosen and denied however any individual sees fit.

i don't think i need to mention the outstanding examples of companies trying to exempt themselves from taxes and other financial obligations as there are plenty of tax shelters both legal and illegal that have surfaced time and again in the news. as to your argument that the government is the corrupting agent, i would agree that government unchecked is no better than the worst of corporations. This doesn't mean limit government, it means reform government through democracy. but don't deny the very real and beneficial role our government can and should play.

and yes your money is taken from you and given to others, just as others money is taken from them and given to you. this is a recognition of the interdependance of our society, and of the debt you owe to the union and those that compose it. a company should pay more taxes because it often owes a greater debt in that to make more money it tends to use more of the country's resources and citizens and so owes the society it draws from even more. i'm not arguing that there should be no private property. just that it has to have limits and those limits are defined by the public interest. and since we all make up the public, nobody should be able to opt out of our responsibility to it. i hope that was clear enough for you. i of course had to remove some of the complexities which make argumentation interesting, but i guess it was worth it to refute what you had to say.
040812
...
stork daddy i'm not saying multinational would equal lasseiz faire mind you, but there was a time when leaders of industry were statesmen. the plight of you number one market is the plight of your company. 040812
...
daxle aren't any of you aware that the sun is going to burn out some day? 040813
...
kx21 * Water_droplet - Sun / Stars *

Time and Causality of Sun / Stars:-

"Death" of the Old Sun / Stars and

"Birth" of new Sun / Stars

Hopefully, New Sun or Star is "Better" than Old Sun / Star(s), given
the_NO_evil_Rule...
040813
...
stork daddy yes daxle. that's what explains my rush. i only have billions of years left. 040813
...
Strideo Hmmm, so your idea of social justice is majority rule? As long as the masses aprove of whatever actions the government is performing for them? So if you lived in a madly theocratic society where you could be jailed for disrespecting religious laws that would be okay so long as the social contract is kept? Would you still reject the libertarian principals of induvidual rights and freedom?

On the use of the word "welfare" in the first line of the constitution: my statement was not on what the word was but how it is used in the constitution. I did say that welfare is not used to connote charity in the first line of the constitution. I know that welfare means well-being or prosperity. So, again, the line in the constitution says that the constitution was being formed to "promote" the general welfare. Not to guarantee it, not to "give" prosperity to the people, but to promote it through the laws set forth on the constitution. So once again, that line does not mean "lets give away resources to promote welfare" it means "lets follow these laws to promote welfare".
...
040818
...
Strideo I'd also like to ask if you think people have any responsibility for thier OWN welfare.

I'd take Benjamin Franklin over Karl Marx any day.
...
040818
...
stork daddy i would say providing equivalent education is promoting the general welfare without guaranteeing it.

you also didn't look at the qualification i made - that the constitution establishes basic rights which apply to all individuals minority or majority (that the majority agrees to by accepting this form of government) but that beyond that there are decisions of policy and additional rights which are left to the decisions of the people and are only subject to the broad policies outlined in the constitution but not explicitly stated. I contend that nothing in the constitution limits the necessity of certain social responsibilities. The policy of individual liberty is one notion obviously established throughout the consitution, but the notion of social general welfare and responsibility is another (besides being implicit in any doctrine of social rules). When I said the majority rules, perhaps I was being a bit cynical, but a society has to have power to even enforce whatever it believes its rights are. If there was some mad theocratic society, or if the majority people throughout history had had those leanings, sadly the few who believed in individual rights would probably have no power or say. Their ideas would still be the same, but they would not be enforced as the power in any given society cannot help but lie in some degree in its majority. No society could run for very long in which the majority of its citizens rejected the very basis on which it was founded. I believe the reason democracy and personal liberties seems so intuitive is because we all have some inborn desires to have certain freedoms, including freedom from total responsibility for those outside of our welfare. This is why Benjamin Franklin and others argued the "natural" existence of such rights. Of course no rights exist but by the sovereign power that enforces them. I do believe in personal responsibility and liberty (though i'm not sure about free will at times) but I also believe that does not preclude responsibility to the larger society that we gain power from. Technically, after all, the welfare of those in our country does not fall outside of our own welfare. This hiearchy is represented in basic notions of law which run our government. We are responsible to and for ourselves, then to the humans who compose our society, then to humanity at large and whatever moral standards you posess. I also never argued Marxist doctrine so much as I argued that libertarians have misinterpreted the doctrines of our own founders. There is a difference between a democracy with socialist tendencies and a Marxist State. No one would confuse Sweden and China.
040818
...
a "point" Coke_politics_21 041001
...
unhinged (i gave up on democracy; there are too many stupid people for it to ever work) 140915
what's it to you?
who go
blather
from